Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/25/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall April 25, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Short-term Space and Facilities Needs City Manager Jim Johnson introduced the item. He reminded the council of its previous work session on the topic and said it was clear the council wanted more information about the City's space plans and more frequent check-ins for council direction. The staff's shod-term recommendations, contained on page 229 of the meeting packet, reflected that interest. Mr. Johnson said staff was recommending the council not take action on proposed motion 1, related to the move of police vehicles, because not all the details had been worked out. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Johnson that the Downtown Facility Reserve was not specific to the downtown. She said that the proposal for moving staff out of the basement of City Hall seemed to be a long-term, not shod-term solution, which seemed inconsistent. Regarding the lease for the South Park Building, she asked if the City would save money by moving the archives into the basement. Mr. Johnson indicated that was what was planned, and some money would be saved. Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Regarding Ms. Bettman's concerns about the shod-term nature of the strategy to move staff out of the basement, Mr. Johnson reminded the council of its work on the proposed police facility the previous year, and said there were a number of functions that were not planned for that building. He cited the Explosives Disposals Unit as an example. Staff anticipated they would be located in a permanent facility outside of downtown and contemplated other functions for that facility. He said that the strategy was intended to take care of a shod-term need, but he concurred it was a long-term solution. Ms. Bettman asked how long it would take to get staff out of the basement. Mr. Johnson estimated between 18 months and two years. Mr. Kelly appreciated the additional information provided by staff. He asked for clarification about the potential of a fire station on the Chiquita site. Mr. Johnson said there were pros and cons to MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 1 Work Session the site, and the staff would identify those for the council in the future. Mr. Kelly wanted the issue to be analyzed on the basis of its overall financial impact. Mr. Kelly wanted staff out of the basement of City Hall as soon as possible. However, he did not want to continue to expand City sites out further into the community. That included the Roosevelt site. Rather than having the master plan address the area outside the Roosevelt yards, he suggested the City consider what redevelopment possibilities existed for property currently owned by the City. He thought the one-stow office buildings on the site could be replaced with multi-stow offices. Mr. Johnson referred the council to the map on page 237, which illustrated the land assembly that had occurred to take care of the department's needs over the next 50 years. He believed the best place to expand the department was at that site. Mr. Johnson said that staff was suggesting through the master planning process the possibility of putting two uses on the site, Police and Public Works. Mayor Torrey noted a constituent had raised the Chiquita site as a possible location for the fire station. Mayor Torrey left the meeting. Ms. Taylor assumed the chair. Ms. Taylor asked why it cost so much to move the parking across the street. Mr. Johnson said that the space needed to be secured with a fence, and staff was not proposing a cyclone fence but a three- to four-foot brick fence topped by ironwork. Cameras would be installed for security purposes. Mr. Farr did not object to expanding the Roosevelt yards; he did not think it was "decompacting" to expand there given their location in the center of the city. He said there was housing in the area that would be displaced, and asked what happened to those who were displaced. Mr. Johnson clarified that the City had only acquired property when it became vacant. He concurred that it did take lower cost rental units off the market, but nobody was displaced. Mr. Farr was concerned about the loss of Iow-income housing stock from the housing inventory. Glen Svendsen of the Public Works Department reported that if the houses could be salvaged, they were moved to other locations in the community. Mr. Farr endorsed that approach, noting that the houses would be improved when moved. Mr. Johnson said that it was a council policy decision about whether the City would continue to acquire property in that location; the property assembly had occurred over time because the department had been focused on the future and the need for expansion. He anticipated the department would be there "forever." Mr. Farr indicated he supported the continued acquisition of property adjacent to the yards. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Farr's concerns about the loss of Iow-income housing in relatively stable neighborhoods. He was also concerned about what he termed City "space creep." He wanted to know how many vehicles were associated with the services to be moved to the Roosevelt yards and if specialized parking was needed for the police cars used there. Mr. Johnson said that the parking would be secured, but not specialized. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Meisner wanted to look at other options for the laboratory. He concurred with Mr. Kelly regarding redevelopment at Roosevelt and the need to use the property more efficiently. He suggested there might be some space at 2nd and Chambers for the property office. Mr. Rayor noted that he briefly toured the Public Works Maintenance facility and the adjacent neighborhoods the previous day. He said the location was great and centrally sited. It was his perception the facility was crowded. Mr. Rayor supported the continued acquisition of property but thought an active strategy was needed to address the housing nearby. He was unsure the timing was right to co-locate police functions at the site. Mr. Rayor suggested the City consider using empty warehouses to house the police functions to be moved from the basement. He supported a study and noted he had shared some ideas with staff the previous day via e-mail. Ms. Nathanson liked the idea of the site at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street because of its central location and potential for service collocation. She said that while she only wanted to see collocation in situations that benefitted the City of Eugene, she could envision a scenario through which Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) could be persuaded to move some of its operations to a joint development site to free up its valuable river front property. She observed that public investment was often followed by private development, such as happened at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street. When an area was ripe for redevelopment, such as in the case of a "brownfield" redevelopment, often a public agency needed to help, or develop the site itself. She considered much of central Eugene industrial area ripe for redevelopment. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the potential of expansion at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Streetmight result in some degree of gentrification but could also improve safety conditions in the area by improving its appearance. She said that for each site, the question to whether the City was helping or hurting the community would be different. She wanted to study the staff proposals more with an eye toward implementing them. Mr. Pap~ endorsed Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the EWEB property. He favored purchasing additional properties at the 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street area and expanding at the site. He appreciated the comments of Mr. Meisner and Mr. Fart regarding the loss of Iow- income housing, but suggested that to maintain Iow-cost housing in the area the council might consider buying and aggregating sites along Garfield Street and Roosevelt Boulevard. He appreciated the recommendation that the City put excess properties up for sale, and suggested that the entire list of surplus City properties be reexamined and a policy developed for disposing of all of them. Mr. Pap~ said that the council needed to be cognizant it was spending public money. Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Pap~ regarding the need to examine all City-owned surplus property. He said that EWEB also had properties throughout the community and suggested that those properties be examined as well and a dialogue entered into with EWEB on the sharing of resources. The same people that EWEB served were also served by the City, and the council should be looking out for the good of both entities. Ms. Bettman thought the motion related to the proposed master plan was a long-term strategy, out of context with the rest of the strategies it was to consider later. She thought there was a potential the City could invest in a site closer to downtown for some of the uses not suitable in downtown and some of the services provided in leased space now. She thought it should be a City objective to keep uses near or in downtown, for the purpose of providing access to the public and having them close together for easier administration. If the money was taken out of the Facilities Fund and dedicated to a new development, it would not be available for other uses. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Johnson said that the laboratory, evidence, and special operations functions have no need for public access because they were not visited by the public. Ms. Bettman asked about Eugene Police Department staff, suggesting that they were going to be driving out to the facility from City Hall. Mr. Johnson clarified that would be their reporting place of work. He acknowledged evidence would have to be delivered to the facility. However, providing a space in a new downtown facility would be very expensive, as opposed to a less expensive, Iow-cost utility building at the Roosevelt facility. Ms. Bettman persisted, reiterating that she wanted to look at the recommendation in the context of the big picture: what were the efficiencies, what could be gained, and could the City separate some of those uses but combine others. Once the money was spent on the Roosevelt facility, the City did not have it to create more space so it could consolidate services, and she was trying to avoid the expenditure. Mr. Johnson said that staff was trying to give the council the data to make the comparison Ms. Bettman sought. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the master plan was a long- term plan so land could be acquired as it came up for sale. Mr. Rayor wanted to ensure that support for the master plan was not support for condemnation. Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Rayor was talking about a plan that was not yet developed. If the programming and space needs indicated a building of a certain size was needed and more land required, and the sellers were not willing, the council would have to make a choice about condemnation. Mr. Rayor said it was clear more space was needed at the Roosevelt site. He questioned whether the nature of the facility lent itself to multi-story development, suggesting that in a public works setting requiring lots of vehicles and pavement it might be unrealistic. He said he wanted to think more about that. He also did not want to disturb the existing neighborhood. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the adjacent neighborhood was zoned industrial. Mr. Rayor acknowledged that but noted it was true of other Iow-income residential neighborhoods as well. Mr. Svendsen said staff was thinking of approaching the master plan by combining long- and short-term views. In the short-term, there were options to address the property as currently configured; that could include a minimalist acquisition strategy. He thought the master plan would have elements that addressed some of the concerns about the adjacent neighborhood expressed by councilors. Ms. Nathanson said that there were certain uses that the council wanted downtown and other uses more appropriately located elsewhere. She said that given the fact the 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street site was the geographic center of the city, there was a certain efficiency to its use. She thought that explosives disposal or equipment storage were land-intensive uses without a lot of public traffic and did not need to be downtown to support either compact urban growth or the public transportation system. Ms. Nathanson wanted to locate uses with public traffic in downtown. Mr. Meisner was comfortable with the first motion recommended for consideration and hoped the staff would look carefully at the programming to determine whether the staff needed to be moved along with the vehicles. He said that the Public Works yards also contained office operations, and he hoped the City could integrate some of those functions with leased space now used by the Public Works staff in downtown. He reiterated his concerns about sprawling into the adjacent MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 4 Work Session neighborhood as he feared it would lead to the City having to develop Iow-income housing at great expense. Ms. Bettman reiterated her concern that using the available funding would mean it was not available to fund strategies the council may come up with for relocating existing leased office space into existing infrastructure, because a lot of that existing infrastructure would need to be redeveloped. Funding a master plan precluded those options. She was not saying a master plan was not a good idea, but suggested the council might want to scale it down when it identified the needs and opportunities in existing infrastructure downtown. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to develop programming, space needs, and site requirements for consolidating PCU, FEU, and Special Operations, including potential co-location with other law enforcement agencies. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by adding the sentence, "To direct the City Manager to recommend a range of options for consolidating presently leased space and relocating services housed in the basement at City Hall, utilizing existing City-owned property." Mr. Johnson pointed out that other than the archives and the Public Works space at the Eugene Hotel, the City would not be leasing any space downtown after the uses in leased space were moved to the fourth floor of the library. He thought the discussion would be appropriate when the council discussed consolidation of City offices downtown. Ms. Bettman wanted to have the discussion sooner, because she thought the City might be able to consolidate the uses to be moved to 1820 Roosevelt Boulevard with other City offices. Mr. Johnson said staff could examine the possibility, but he was not optimistic there was much opportunity given the size of the facilities in question, etc. Mr. Kelly restated the motion as being direction to staff to do both the work called for in the original motion as well as overall City office space planning so the processes informed each other. Ms. Bettman concurred. She said the process would inform the council as well. Mr. Johnson said he did not see any utility to moving people out of downtown to 1820 Roosevelt Boulevard. If the council was thinking of retaining the staff downtown, it would be possible, but more expensive. Ms. Nathanson said that the points being made by councilors about leased space and spread-out City offices have been made repeatedly over the past four years. She thought the staff had heard those points and was now responding. The points were not new and were the reason for the staff recommendation. Ms. Nathanson intended to vote against the amendment because the motion was about something simple, and the amendment turned it into something more complex and called for something that would happen anyway. She thought there were limited appropriate solutions for the services involved. Mr. Fart said the council should spend more time listening to staff and less time detailing how it wanted space planning to happen. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 5 Work Session The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Rayor voting no; because of the tie vote, the motion failed. Mr. Meisner raised a concern that the position of the word "consolidating" in the motion precluded the option of collocating. He feared that, grammatically, the placement of "consolidating" "controls." He asked if services must be consolidated. Mr. Johnson said no. Mr. Kelly suggested a friendly amendment, accepted by Ms. Nathanson, to change the word "consolidating" to "relocating." The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a master plan for future use of the property adjacent to the Roosevelt Yards by the Police and Public Works Departments and a financial plan for implementation. Mr. Kelly believed the use of the phrase "property adjacent" implied the City would not study the existing yard. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion by deleting "adjacent to" and replace it with "in," by adding "area" after "yards," and with the addition of a sentence reading "The master plan will consider redevelopment options for more efficient land use." The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Rayor suggested as a friendly amendment that master plan be modified by "long-term." He said that would provide more information about the housing. Mr. Johnson indicated that the likely planning horizon would be 20 years; he pointed out that the motion was more related to implementation of the master plan than the plan itself. Ms. Nathanson said she would accept Mr. Rayor's amendment as a friendly amendment but questioned its need, given the remarks of the Mr. Johnson. The amended motion read: Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a long-term master plan for future use of the property in the Roosevelt Yards area by the Police and Public Works Departments and a financial plan for implementation. The master plan will consider redevelopment options for more efficient land use. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to dedicate the proceeds from the sale of four surplus properties to the Facility Replacement Reserve Fund. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Johnson indicated that staff was still working to determine if the Lincoln property could be added to the list of surplus City properties. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 about his suggestion that staff develop a full list of City properties, Mr. Johnson said the effort would be minimal because outside of parks properties, the City did not own a lot of property. Mr. Johnson emphasized a remark previously made by Mr. Meisner regarding the pressure that councilors would feel from nonprofit agencies for the donation of surplus property. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to identify and recommend an appropriate downtown site to purchase for Fire Station #1. The City Manager will return to the council with the final site selection prior to purchase. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B.Work Session: Implementation of Ordinance 20224 Concerning Land Use Regulations; Repealing Sections 2.027, 7.595, 7.600, 7.605, 7.610, And 9.015 Through 9.1195 of The Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.0010 Through 9.9710 to That Code; Repealing Ordinance Nos. 18081, 18974, 19402, 19778, 19975, 19470, 19329, 19401, And 19979; Repealing Resolution Nos. 3105 And 3120; Affirming Site-specific Historic Ordinances; And Providing an Effective Date And Implementation of Ordinance No. 20225 Concerning Tree Removal And Replacement; Amending Sections 6.300, 6.305, 6.320, 6.325; 6.330, and 6.990 of The Eugene Code, 1971; Amending And Renumbering Section 6.310 of That Code to 6.315; Adding New Sections 6.302, 6.304, 6.310 and 6.335 to That Code; And Providing an Effective Date Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule a public hearing on an ordinance amending the effective date for the Land Use Code Update (LUCU), with an new effective date of September 1, 2001. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the potential for public confusion about the implementation date but thought there would be public and staff confusion if the implementation date were uncertain. He said that staff was telling the council that if the Land Use Board of Appeals remanded the code for an appeal, that would require a specific response that staff was comfortable it could deal with. For the sake of clarity, he wanted to move forward with a date certain for implementation. At the request of Mr. Pap~, City Attorney Glenn Klein reviewed the status of court action and State legislation related to Ballot Measure 7. Ms. Bettman said that an effective date of September 1 would mean an entire building season would occur before the code took effect. The community would have to live with that development. She wanted an earlier implementation date to capture the impact of that development. She expressed surprise that the effective date recommended by the City Attorney was based on budget and staffing issues, as she did not realize that was the purview of legal counsel. It seemed to her that it should be a council decision as the City was going through the budget process now. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion for an earlier effective date of July 1, 2001. Mr. Johnson pointed out the City would have not budget authority for the new employees called for until July 1, and the staff would not be trained to implement the new code, so the September 1 date was chosen as most practical. Mr. Kelly said there were other issues related to the effective date, such as the need for public and developer education about the new code. He asked the manager what drove the time line, and if the staffing need could be addressed by a contingency request to move up the hiring of new employees. Mr. Johnson responded that staff could make a Continency Fund budget request because it had the information about the dollars required. If that occurred now, it might be possible to implement the code before September. Regarding public education, Ms. Childs said that staff would need two to three months to get the word out, but that could occur before September 1 if the staffing and budget issues were addressed. Mr. Kelly suggested as a friendly amendment modifying the date to August 1. Ms. Bettman indicated acceptance of the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly noted that, with regard to Measure 7, he was persuaded by the attorney's statement in the memorandum included in the packet entitled LUCU/Dual Code Option/Revised Effective Date that staff could bring back options for lessening the Measure 7 risk at the time of implementation. Ms. Nathanson noted that the difference in time between the initial and amended motion was only one month; she pointed out the construction season in Eugene was becoming more of a year- round thing. Most of the projects for the upcoming summer would have already been approved and permitted. She did not think the amendment would change much with regard to the upcoming construction season, but she concurred with the overall objective of catching as much development as possible with the new code. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Childs did not think accelerating the effective date would negatively affect the public education effort or the hiring process. The education component would be overseen by existing staff. Ms. Bettman said that once people knew the new code would be in place, they would begin to plan for it. She said the sooner the code was in place, the better. Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion because he wanted to implement the code as soon as possible, but found it ironic that the council was discussing a delay of a month when it had delayed adoption of the new code for years. The amended motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 8 Work Session James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 2001 Page 9 Work Session