Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/17/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall January 17, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Rayor. In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Taylor called the work session of the City Council to order. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A.Approval of Minutes Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to approve the minutes of the November 27, 2000, City Council Meeting; November 29, 2000, Joint Work Session; November 29, 2000, Joint Public Hearing; November 30, 2000, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews; December 11, 2000, City Council Work Session; December 11, 2000, City Council Meeting; and December 13, 2000, City Council Work Session. Ms. Bettman asked that the minutes of the public hearing on November 29, 2000, be pulled for further changes. Ms. Nathanson asked that the work session minutes of November 29, 2000, be pulled for further changes. Mr. Kelly requested the following changes: 1) Revise paragraph 3 on page 6 of the November 2 to read (italicized text added, struck text deleted): "Regarding Ballot Measure 7, he commented that the voters may have expected to limit excessive government action but and did not expect to get rid of land use protections." 2) Revise the last paragraph on page 14 of the December 11 council meeting as follows: "He commented that he disagreed with some of the positions..." 3) Revise paragraph 5 on page 3 of the December 13 work session by changing "Bailey Hill Road" to "Beltline." Ms. Nathanson referred to paragraph 1 on page 6 of the November 27 council meeting minute and asked that the following change be made: "She regretted that there was a failure to recognize that there was,~;o~,~,, ~ ...... ,w,,' ~ ...... v~,~,v,"*,,~,,";*,,,,,:, opportunity as well as risk in all property ownership, and that many owners benefit from government actions that result in greater value or return for the property." MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nathanson noted typographical errors on pages 9 and 12 of the December 11 minutes. Ms. Nathanson referred to paragraph 4 on page 21 of the December 11 council meeting minutes and asked that the following change be made: "She expressed her pleasure with some aspects of the ballot results, like the wide geographical range of members as well as diversity in age. She raised a concern that there was only one female was a nominee, and she also raised a concern that one of the nominees lived outside the city limits." Referring to paragraph 4 on page 3, Ms. Nathanson requested the following revision: "Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the discussion was not only about intracity 'm~erd4~ travel but about ~'-*~'-"~*,, traffic off local streets." intercity,,~'-*~'-"~*,,,,, ~v,,¢ travel as well...The parkway could take intercity ......... ¢ Ms. Bettman referred to paragraph 3 on page 6 of the November 27 minutes and asked that the following change be made: "Councilor Bettman reiterated Councilor Rayor's statement that Ballot Measure 7 was a disaster but expressed a hope that the City could explore local strategies for mitigating the impact,,~+o v,,~,~'~'"+ ....... ,,w,~'4 ~-~' mitigated ,v~,,~.~'-"'-" .... Ms. Bettman asked that fourth sentence in paragraph 1 on page 19 of the December 11 council meeting be deleted. Ms. Bettman asked that paragraph 2 on page 22 of the December 11 work session be modified as follows: "...under-represented in the applicant pool, and therefore would be under-represented on the committee..." Mr. Meisner said he would not support the motion because the council was not following the agreed-upon process for clarifications and corrections. Corrections were supposed to be sent to the minutes recording staff for verification. He said that the minutes were not intended to reflect what councilors meant to say, but what was actually said; if there was a scrivener's error or a mischaracterization, that should be checked. Mr. Meisner suggested that councilors offer clarifications of their intent rather than correct the record. He reiterated that the process was not being followed. Mr. Farr concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks but indicated he would support the motion. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council discuss the issue at its upcoming process session. Ms. Nathanson thanked Mr. Meisner for raising the subject. She indicated she had followed the agreed-upon process. She suggested that there were different ways to interpret the phrase "what I meant was." In some cases, a councilor may not have said something quite the way he or she intended. Because the minutes were not a verbatim transcript but a summary of councilor's comments, in other cases sometimes a statement was well-reflected because of how much it was condensed. Mr. Meisner concurred, saying he merely wanted to see such corrections verified with the minutes recording staff. Ms. Taylor noted her concurrence with the remarks of other councilors. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Meisner voting no and Mr. Pap8 not having arrived at the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 2 Work Session B.Work Session: Parking Issues Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer introduced the topic, reminding the council of its May 2000 work session on parking. The council had agreed to a broader discussion of parking issues following the completion of the downtown visioning project. Two work sessions on the topic were scheduled, this evening's session and one of which would occur following the council's work sessions on the downtown visioning report. George Jessie, the City's Parking Administrator, presented information on parking revenues, revenue trends, meter collection rates, long-term parking rates, and proposed capital projects associated with the parking program. Ms. Nathanson asked about the consequences of increasing parking rates and the potential for the increases to spur drivers to park in the residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. She asked if the City collected data regarding the impact on raising rates on the use of alternate modes. Mr. Jessie said there had not been a lot of complaints from the residential neighborhoods following rate increases. He was not aware of any data collection such as that mentioned by Ms. Nathanson. Ms. Nathanson suggested that raising rates was an action that could have unrelated multiple objectives, such as encouraging ride sharing and alternate modes use for downtown employees, while raising enough money to maintain parking facilities and increase the reserves. Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Jessie that fines and forfeits were not net of the Municipal Court's costs. Mr. Meisner said he was concerned that the City maintained a parking program downtown without addressing parking issues outside downtown. He questioned why the private sector would bother to build parking facilities when the City already provided parking. There was no incentive for private construction. He called for limitations or regulations on surface parking outside of downtown. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner regarding the subject of private parking construction. He said that a developer shared with him that the private sector could build parking if the City instituted some mechanisms to help. He noted that during the downtown visioning discussions, the subject of a local improvement district downtown to finance such facilities was mentioned. Because of the current discrepancy between the cost to build and market rates, it had been suggested that the City seed a revolving loan fund to help in structure development. Ms. Bettman said that before the City made a further investment in downtown, it needed to address the subject of surface parking outside downtown. As long as the City continued to facilitate unlimited free parking everywhere but downtown, revitalizing downtown would be a challenge. She called for exploration of the concept of a parking tax on lots outside downtown. Ms. Bettman said that the revenue stream from such a tax could help the City realize the vision in the Greater Downtown Visioning report, and was a way to "level the playing field" for downtown. She wanted to know if other communities were considering a parking tax and how those with them implemented them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 3 Work Session C.Work Session: Endangered Species Act/Salmon Team Work Program Senior Planner Neil Bj0rklund of the Planning and Development Department joined the council for the item. He reported that none of the ordinances recently passed by the council amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan had been appealed. Mr. Bj0rklund provided some context for the agenda item by noting that the protection rules issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the upper Willamette spring chinook went into effect on January 8. There had been no lawsuits filed yet, and the courts were often the avenue the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enforced and defined. Mr. Bj0rklund called attention to Attachment B, an overview of the ESA/Salmon Team Work Program, and reviewed the status of the work program items. Mr. Bj0rklund reminded the council of the resolution regarding the City's response to the ESA listing of the spring chinook, it passed in April, and included in the meeting packet as Attachment C. Mr. Bj0rklund said that staff would be seeking a supplemental budget request to underwrite an assessment of the City's regulations, administrative rules, and adopted policies. The assessment would identify those regulations through which the City requires some external party to do something that could harm salmon. That was a liability under the ESA and the City could be sued. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the assessment would also identify any areas under the City's regulatory authority it was not regulating where an activity could occur that could harm salmon. He said that the work would be done by a consultant because of staff resources issues, the need for expertise not found on staff, and the need for speed. Mr. Bj0rklund noted the proposed funding split and recommended allocations. Mr. Meisner expressed disappointment that the council resolution, which referred to the fact the activities of citizens and City government will affect the future of the salmon, was not reflected in the work program. He maintained that there was no community involvement or education called for. He said that the work program assumed the sole City response was regulatory but there was a need for a strong educational component. Mr. Bj0rklund pointed to item 4 in the work program, Public Information, "Includes developing and implementing City public information program on ESA, salmon, and the City's response, coordinating with the Metro ESA Coordinating Team (MECT) effort, and developing and maintaining web site." Mr. Meisner responded that the item referred to information rather than education. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the detailed work program included public forums, working with MECT on public service announcements, newspaper advertisements, etc. Mr. Meisner called for more focus on an aggressive educational program for all citizens. Mr. Bj0rklund assured Mr. Meisner that the program envisioned a multi-faceted approach, which included a focus on curriculum. Mr. Meisner said it did not "bode well" that education and outreach was "slighted" even in the description of the work program. City Manager Jim Johnson said that staff would return with more details about what was planned, and if other councilors agreed, it was clear direction for staff to "beef up" the public education. Ms. Nathanson asked what likelihood there was that the community's effort would influence what happened at the State and federal level. She was concerned about the expenditure and the timing of the effort, and asked if it could make Eugene a target if its approach was considered too MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 4 Work Session comprehensive by some. Mr. Bj~rklund said that the community's cooperative approach, as reflected by the MECT, were being discussed by the regulatory agencies as a good approach. He said that the courts would be the factor that would most likely make the regulatory climate change direction. He did not think the State or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would change direction. Mr. Bj~rklund said that the community was not the fastest moving community, staff was also watching what other cities were doing to see what works. He believed that the community's past work in addressing wetlands and stormwater issues had put it a long way down the road toward compliance with the NMFS rules. Mr. Johnson reminded the council that its goals were no further degradation of salmon habitat and that habitat restoration occurred; staff believed that approach was more than the minimum, and consistent with the sentiment of a majority of citizens and the council. He added that the City would always be a target if someone was interested in filing a lawsuit simply because it was the municipality. If the City did more than the minimum required, the City's counsel would have more ability to fight a lawsuit were one filed. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the issue differed from the telecommunications issue in that the City was acting to protect itself from liability. Ms. Nathanson suggested that while the City might not be a legal target, it could be a political target. Mr. Klein pointed out that Eugene was no different than other communities trying to determine how to respond to the listing. Mr. Bj~rklund noted that a survey conducted by the Willamette Urban Watershed Network indicated that the 30 cities responding were undertaking the same types of activities as Eugene- Springfield. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about why there were two separate assessments proposed, Mr. Bj~rklund clarified that the earlier assessment examined internal City operations, not regulations. James ©llerenshaw of the Public Works Department indicated that the earlier assessment was slightly behind schedule and should be available in approximately one month. Mr. Kelly said while he shared Mr. Meisner's belief in the importance of community education, he understood the need to take action because of the liability issue. For that reason, he expressed dismay by the slip in the schedule, particularly since the subject was a work plan item associated with the City Council's goals and the initial target was August 2000. The time line target was now August 2001. Mr. Bj~rklund explained that the project time line was closely tied to the federal time line for issuance of the protection rules. Those rules were not signed until June 2000. Mr. Kelly questioned why the council was told in May 2000 the work would be done by August. He suggested that the progress report on the goals document be more thoroughly vetted before the council received it. Ms. Bettman asked about the local availability of consultants to do the work proposed, and how many such firms there were. She asked if the money being requested in the supplemental budget was allocated to other uses now. Given that the assessment proposed was an office-based study, she questioned how the consultant would know whether there were regulations having an unanticipated effect that might create a liability, or if there were regulations not being consistently enforced. Since it appeared to her that much of the consultant's work was based on input from staff and legal counsel, Ms. Bettman questioned why a consultant was needed. Mr. Bj~rklund reiterated that the expertise to do the work was not available on staff. Eugene has no dedicated ESA staff. He said that the issue involved was heavily science-based, and NMFS is a very MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 5 Work Session science-based agency and often wanted to see peer science reviews of reports and findings. He said that there was no in-house scientist on staff with the needed credentials in fisheries biology to satisfy NMFS. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the potential something could be missed, Mr. Bj0rklund said that staff would do the final review of the consultant's report as the City would be responsible for the final product. Regarding the inclusion of City enforcement practices in the study, Mr. Bj0rklund indicated that would be done in-house following the conclusion of the consultant's work. Regarding the availability of local firms, Mr. BjOrklund estimated that there were five to eight firms in the Northwest with the expertise to do the work involved. Mr. Johnson doubted that there were local firms with the expertise to do the work needed. Ms. Bettman asked how much of the budget proposed was going to the consultant. Mr. BjOrklund indicated the entire $60,000 proposed was for consulting services. Mr. Pap8 shared Mr. Kelly's concern that the study of internal practices was not completed. He wanted the City to lead by example in its operations and practices. Mr. Johnson noted that the initial report indicated that the City's internal practices looked good, and any needed changes should not be difficult to implement. Mr. Ollerenshaw added that the review graded City activities in terms of overall environmental and ESA impact, and he anticipated that staff would examine the top 15 activities in both categories and establish work teams to examine those activities for changes that would reduce those impacts. Mr. Pap8 asked if that process could include a public benefit and education component. Mr. Ollerenshaw said yes, suggesting that the report could be an educational tool for the public. Mr. Pap8 asked if the restoration activities associated with the West Eugene Wetlands Plan helped the City to comply with the listing. Mr. BjOrklund said that those activities had beneficial downstream impacts in terms of water quality. He noted that the Delta Ponds restoration project would probably have the greatest potential for habitat restoration inside Eugene's jurisdiction. Much of that work would be funded by federal grants. Mr. Farr observed that the ESA listing was another example of a federal action that cost Eugene taxpayers money. He said it appeared the City's hands were tied. However, he thought the work program an appropriate and practical response to the listing and commended Mr. BjOrklund and other involved staff. He said that once again, Eugene was leading the way. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that public education was very important. He encouraged education aimed at K through 12 children, noting that parents often get information from the schools through their children. He said the Eugene should maximize the information that citizens received in a way that heightened its importance. He wanted to let citizens know what the effort to protect the salmon would cost. Mr. Meisner remained concern about the topic of public outreach. He said it was not enough to make a consultant's report available at the end of the assessment. He said that no approach would achieve the goal of restoration if the public was not brought along. He wanted to hear more about an interactive education and outreach component and could not support the work program as it currently was drafted. Responding to Ms. Bettman's question about what the funds proposed for the work program were currently allocated to, Mr. Johnson indicated the funds for the consultant were from contingency. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Nathanson indicated she would modify the prepared motion to reflect Mr. Meisner's concerns. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare a supplemental budget request for consulting services to conduct a review of City regulations, administrative rules, and policies for compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Council Resolution No. 4615, and to send a detailed report to the council explaining the public involvement, education, and outreach program. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. D.Work Session: TransPlan Project Manager Tom Schwetz of Lane Council of Governments and Planning Director Jan Childs joined the council for the item. Ms. Childs reported that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) had accepted the recommendations of the two subcommittees formed to address the remaining unresolved issues surrounding TransPlan. Those included the alternative performance measures and eight specific issues not resolved during the joint adopting officials discussion. Resolution on six of the eight items were reached at the subcommittee level. The alternative performance measures and resolution of the six issues were unanimously adopted by the MPC and forwarded to the adopting officials. Ms. Childs said that the MPC dissolved the Subcommittee on Unresolved Issues and forwarded the remaining two resolved issues to the full MPC for resolution. The two remaining outstanding issues were the proposed finance policy and the Willamette River Crossing Study. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to approve the MPC recommendation on alternative performance measures. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the change in the percentage of total employment in nodes in 2015, Ms. Childs said that the initial goal of 55 percent had been based on a significant portion of industrial employment in nodes. Based on the discussion of the adopting officials, staff felt that percentage was probably not realistic, and those nodes that were shown as predominantly industrial would probably not be selected as the nodes the council choose to move forward with. Mr. Kelly asked if that meant the model must be rerun, and there would be fewer vehicle miles traveled than was previously assumed. Ms. Childs said the model was being rerun. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to state that the Eugene City Council will need evidence that the final TransPlan draft has components that will enable the alternate measures targets to be achieved before it will adopt TransPlan. Mr. Kelly explained that he wanted to respond to public comment about delay in implementing the measures and move forward with the measures in the spirit of compromise. Before he could adopt TransPlan, he needed to be sure it would get the community what it wanted. Mr. Meisner said he would support the amendment with some reluctance. One of the clear goals of the subcommittee was developing a set of measures that actually measured something, and could serve as tools for what needed to be "tweaked" during each triennial review. He said that was not limited to the measures, but extended to the benchmarks as well. He did not want to MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 7 Work Session constrain the community in achieving more than the benchmarks set out. Mr. Kelly said it was not his intent to constrain the community but to indicate that if the targets could not be achieved, why bother to go forward? Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Schwetz said that he did not think the Department of Land Conservation and Development would object to the amendment. The department was supportive of the alternative measures. Ms. Nathanson asked about the intent of the amendment and how the other adopting jurisdictions would interpret the amendment. She thought it a statement intended to send a political message to the other jurisdictions, and suggested the same message could be delivered in a letter from the mayor or council president. Mr. Meisner said the subcommittee had discussed the measures and numbers associated with the measures a great deal and had adjusted some upwards out of concern they would be reached too soon. At the same time, the subcommittee discussed how to establish numbers that were realistic goals. He did not think the subcommittee would be uncomfortable with having those numbers remodeled before adoption, which was all the motion called for. He did not think it would send a negative message to the other jurisdictions. Mr. Kelly said that it was his intent through the motion to ensure the numbers "held together." Ms. Childs said that the Department of Land Conservation and Development would require evidence before it acknowledged TransPlan as being compliant with the transportation planning rule that the document had the components included in the measures. She suggested that the phrase "will request evidence" might be more appropriate than "will need evidence." With Ms. Bettman's agreement, Mr. Kelly incorporated Ms. Childs' suggestion into the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Childs said that staff would know if the numbers worked before it brought TransPlan back for adoption. She thought the model would indicate the targets could be achieved. Mr. Fart said that in speaking with the City's partners in TransPlan, he had already heard of a level of distrust toward actions the council had taken in isolation. He said that he would vote for the motion but thought the council should "tread carefully" from this point forward or risk losing the cooperation of its intergovernmental partners. The amendment to the motion passed, 7:0. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the target of 1,000 of acres of zoned nodal development by 2005. She thought it would create an incentive to rezone a lot of property to nodal. She said that some of the strategies for nodal development could be implemented and some could not because there was no money available. She thought the target could be removed completely, or it could be changed to "acres of zoned nodal development with funding allocated for implementation." Ms. Childs said that the number could be removed but the community was required to implement nodal development within three years after the adoption of TransPlan; it seemed appropriate to take credit for that through an alternative measure. She said it was also important to remember that the way the target will be measured was through the application of the designation and MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 8 Work Session overlay zoning to the acreage; that did not mean that the City would have the full concept plan completed but will have tools in place to help it meet the transportation planning rule requirements for nodal development. She said that she thought the Department of Land Conservation and Development would object to its removal. Ms. Bettman suggested that the measure be rephrased as "acres of designated nodal development" so the City was not rezoning property as nodal without the money to implement the concept and provide the amenities that would make the more intensive nodal areas livable. Ms. Childs pointed out that the measure did not require the City to change the base zone on a property, only apply the overlay zone. She said she would not recommend removal of the word "zoned." Ms. Nathanson expressed disappointment that the measure she suggested related to the percentage of households with access to ten-minute transit service was dropped, and asked the reason why. Mr. Meisner said that the issue for the subcommittee was travel to and from; the subcommittee members agreed that it did not help to have access to ten-minute transit service unless the bus got one where one needed to be and back. For that reason, the subcommittee decided the measure was inadequate and agreed to "percent transit mode share on congested corridors." He added that Lane Transit District could not guarantee transit service with that frequency of service that got people where they wanted to be and back. Ms. Childs noted that while the measure was not being forwarded in the measures that were designed to be an alternative to the VMT (vehicle miles traveled) target, it was a performance measure included in TransPlan that would be tracked. Ms. Nathanson continued to be disappointed that the measure was dropped from the alternative performance measures. She did not find the substitute adequate. If one was living in a neighborhood that was not on a congested corridor and tried to reach work or shopping, it did not help. She said she had to walk three-quarters of a mile to reach bus service that was provided at 30-minute intervals. There were thousands of people living beyond her. She lives three-quarters of a mile from West 18th Avenue, a very congested quarter. She thought that three-quarters of a mile was too far away for bus service. Ms. Nathanson was disappointed that the committee and staff had not tried harder to develop a measure based on her concerns. She thought the community needed to find a way to provide better and more frequent service so the bus was a viable option. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said that transit use comes from transit convenience. The measure she proposed was an attempt to get at transit convenience. He had a similar situation; his neighborhood was served by a bus that ran seven times daily on weekdays only. Responding to Ms. Bettman's concerns regarding the acres of zoned nodal development, Mr. Kelly said that he was persuaded to the contrary because when the nodal overlay was applied it was accompanied by restrictions on incompatible uses and design standards. Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment that neither subcommittee addressed the concerns outlined in the letter from Commissioner Peter Sorenson, which was not merely the voice of one person but the position of the majority of the Eugene council. One of the items raised by Mr. Sorenson was funding and implementation of nodal development. Ms. Childs said that the MPC would review those items. Ms. Bettman emphasized the importance of funding for implementation of nodal development. Ms. Taylor shared Ms. Bettman's concerns. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 9 Work Session The main motion passed, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 10 Work Session