Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MInutes - 05/14/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall May 14, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Meisner had no items. Ms. Bettman had no items. Ms. Taylor had no items. Mr. Kelly asked that City Manager Jim Johnson and City Attorney Glenn Klein ensure that legislation related to the implementation of Ballot Measure 7 was reviewed by the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Mr. Fart said a group of students from Quebec had recently visited the Bethel School District, and each student said the most enjoyable time they spent was the time they spent with the mayor. They left Eugene with the highest regard for City government. He thanked Mayor Torrey. Ms. Nathanson said she would be attending the Federal Communication Commission Local and State Government Advisory Committee later in the week, and asked City Manager Jim Johnson to identify the appropriate staff in the Eugene Police Department to contact about 9-1-1 and radio frequency issues. Ms. Nathanson raised a concern she had previously expressed about building codes that seemed to work against attractive infill design and reuse. She requested an update on legislative action intended to improve building codes while protecting public safety and achieving flexibility so the community could build smarter as it did infill and redevelopment. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Ms. Nathanson reported she sent letters to the developers of the proposed new Home Depot and Wal-Mart stores requesting they consider better designs for those large-scale commercial developments. She hoped to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 1 Work Session make the case that good design was a good investment for both business and the community. She noted concerns expressed by some residents about the nonlocal, large-scale nature of the proposed developments, but pointed out the developments were legal and were locating on land zoned for that purpose. City Manager Johnson had no items. Mayor Torrey reported that the west Eugene transportation design charette was tentatively scheduled for May 18, 19, and 20. Mr. Pap~ had no items. B. Action: Consideration of Council Contingency Account Fund Request Mr. Kelly spoke on behalf of the contingency request, saying the request fit with the council's goals and sustainability resolution, and noted that the organization requesting the money, the Institute for Sustainable Ethics and Economics, was also seeking funds from other agencies: the Eugene Water & Electric Board had made a contribution. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to authorize the expenditure of $5,000 to assist in the support of a conference to make possible consensus planning among people with diverse interests with the objective of the conference being to create a sustainable future for the Southern Willamette Valley that integrates community, ecology, and economy. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly said the conference budget was $15,000. Mr. Meisner supported the concept. He noted another similar request the council granted for a similar symposium. He preferred not to fund such a large amount, but would support the amount if no one offered an amendment. Ms. Taylor supported the motion, saying that the City should participate through its funding. She asked if any council member was going to attend the event. Mr. Kelly said that no councilor had yet volunteered. Mr. Farr, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the amount to $3,500. Mr. Kelly said he would oppose the amendment because while the request had been made several weeks ago, the event was this weekend, giving the organizers little time to find more funding. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mayor Torrey noted concerns expressed by the rural communities in the context of the Region 2050 project, particularly in regard to the retention of small local schools. He hoped that someone who could speak to those concerns was present at the event. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 2 Work Session The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C.Action: A Resolution Approving the Bus Rapid Transit Pilot Project, Eugene Downtown- East and University of Oregon/Franklin Boulevard Kurt Yeiter of the Planning and Development Department introduced the item, noting the relationship of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to the implementation of TransPlan. He said the Planning Commission had held a series of meetings and a public forum on BRT and had recommended conditional approval of the project to the council. Mr. Yeiter reminded the council it directed staff to return with a resolution and several changes to the project description. Those changes were attached to a resolution approving the project, included in the meeting packet. Meanwhile, Lane Transit District (LTD) and City staff had begun work on the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), and intended to maintain a close association in the project. Mr. Yeiter reported that the Springfield City Council, Lane Transit District Board, and Lane Board of County Commissioners would also be considering the pilot project this week. Pat Hocken of the LTD Board of Directors characterized the project as a partnership between LTD and the local governments. She noted the resolution reached by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) on the policy language in TransPlan related to BRT, and said TransPlan was close to adoption. BRT was key to that plan. She asked the council to approve BRT with the understanding that the IGA would lay out the respective roles of the two agencies. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve Resolution 4670, a resolution approving the Bus Rapid Transit pilot project, Eugene-downtown east and University of Oregon/Franklin Boulevard segments subject to certain conditions. Mr. Meisner wanted to support BRT but was concerned about the fact the pilot project had turned into an independent, separate project rather than a first phase of a larger project. He hoped it could work independently, but feared it would not. Mr. Meisner was not sure how the local jurisdictions could persuade the federal government to give LTD more money if the system did not produce an increase in ridership. He acknowledged LTD was committed to further planning, but was concerned that LTD was putting all its "eggs in one basket." Ms. Taylor remained skeptical of the value of BRT. She did not think it was the best way to increase ridership, thinking shuttle buses would do more. She was concerned about the cost of the system. She was concerned about space for system expansion, and wanted to know the latest about the trees along Franklin Boulevard that would be affected and whose removal could require a charter vote. Mark Synder, Urban Forester, reported that he thought it too early to have a complete understanding of the impacts on all the trees. He said LTD was willing to learn about tree protection and had spent a considerable amount of time learning about realistic tree protection. Mr. Synder noted that the City Attorney had determined the removal of the two trees at the two stations did not require a vote because the street would not be widened. He said that his initial assessment was that 52 trees would have to be removed; he had adjusted that down to 19 trees. Mr. Synder said that he had reviewed the agency's methodology and thought it accurate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked how trees would be affected by future phases. Mr. Synder said the design did not include plans to remove future trees. He would work with LTD to ensure that construction techniques would be used that would minimize effects to the trees. Ms. Bettman believed if the project was not done well it would threaten transit funding in the future. She said the amendments she would propose would give the City authority to influence the elements of the project about which the community had expressed the most concern. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by deleting Finding F(3), 'q-he placement of BRT guideways in the median portion of street rights-of-way which have existing commercial development along the perimeter,' and renumbering the remaining findings. Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting. Mr. Meisner asked the intent of the amendment. Ms. Bettman thought limiting the guideways to the median was very restrictive and would eliminate discretion in implementation of the project. Mr. Meisner asked if the amendment would bar development in the Franklin Boulevard corridor in the median. Ms. Bettman said no. She pointed out that some of the text in the resolution was specific to the pilot but the rest applied to the entire project. Mr. Meisner expressed concern that deleting the finding would mean the only way that guideways could be installed was to widen the street, as expressed in Finding F(4). Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Hocken indicated LTD staff had reviewed the amendments to be proposed at the meeting and had some concerns about some of them. Mr. Meisner said he would oppose the motion because of the retention of F(4); the amendment would have the effect of making street widening a "mandatory choice." Mr. Kelly thought Mr. Meisner's point was well-taken. He agreed that the design choices should not be overly constrained. He suggested Ms. Bettman withdraw the motion or allow it to be defeated so that staff could develop a motion reflecting her actual intent. Ms. Hocken said that as long as LTD was not prohibited from placing guideways in the median, she did not think it was a problem. Mr. Hamm cautioned the council against making a change to the project description as it had been presented to in the Environmental Assessment, because that would send LTD "back to the drawing board." The amendment to the motion failed, 7:1, Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by revising Finding H in Resolution 4670 as follows: "Guideways are one of the defining features of BRT because they protect transit from traffic congestion. Where bso~,JS8 it h~s !ess ~dverse impact to those b,JSi~sssss. Where feasible, guideways should be utilized in all BRT installations." MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman said that while she did not disagree with the text of the resolution, she did not want to limit the options available to the design team. Mr. Farr did not think the text of the resolution was overly confining. He thought it important to protect the businesses that existed on the streets where the BRT routes would be located, and logical to keep the text. Mr. Kelly supported the amendment because of the predisposition for the use of the median as reflected in the prior motion, just defeated. He thought that striking the sentence would make no difference to the pilot corridor. He had confidence in LTD's ability to work with the businesses along the corridor to minimize the system impact. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the council was trying to address a potential problem in one location that would have unintended consequences in another location. Mr. Meisner supported the amendment. He did not think inclusion of the sentence was significant. However, he thought it an overstatement to suggest that the median was better for BRT routes because commercial developments were along the side of the street. Often BRT would be a benefit to the commercial development in question. Mayor Torrey asked if LTD had concerns about the amendment. Ms. Hocken said, with Mr. Hamm's caveat about the Environmental Assessment, she did not think so. Ms. Bettman said she was trying to avoid being specific about the design criteria in the findings. She thought the sentence limited the design in that there may be situations where the interest of a business must be balanced with the success of the BRT system, and she thought ultimately BRT should prevail because the businesses would benefit from their location along the BRT route. Often businesses were reluctant to be along such routes until they discovered its values. Ms. Taylor did not think removal of the sentence was significant, given that it was contained in a finding and not in a condition. Mr. Yeiter thought the sentence could be removed without a substantive change to the project. He added that many of the findings were included to address the issues raised by the Planning Commission, which wanted to offer a justification for the current project design. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Mr. PapS, Mr. Farr, and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by revising Section 1, Paragraph 3 in Resolution 4670 as follows: "Significant adverse changes, as determined by the Eugene members on the Eugene/LTD BRT Policy Committee, will require review by the Eugene Planning Commission and approval by the Eugene City Council." Ms. Bettman explained that she thought if a significant adverse change was made to the existing plan, there should be a way for the council to "weigh in." Mr. Meisner thought the motion made sense. He asked who was on the Eugene/LTD BRT Policy Committee. Mr. Yeiter clarified that the LTD management and City Manager established the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 5 Work Session committee, which included City Engineer Les Lyle, the City's Planning and Development Department Director, Mr. Hamm, and Mark Pangborn of LTD Planning staff. Mr. Kelly sought LTD's comments about the amendment. Ms. Hocken said her concern was about how cumbersome the process could be. She was concerned about delays that might result from the City Council's full schedule. She suggested that if the Planning Commission had concerns, they could be conveyed to the council. Mr. Kelly said he could accept that approach. He suggested that LTD might want to work on alternative text for the IGA. Mr. Rayor asked if BRT represented a land use or transportation decision. Mr. Yeiter said it was neither. No land use permits were needed. He said that staff was attempting, through the resolution and IGA, to craft procedures that emulated a land use agreement. He anticipated another IGA would be needed when the system was fully designed and the operational characteristics of the system would be more fully spelled out at that time. Mr. Hamm said that the staff policy committee was proposed to address the concerns raised by the council and to ensure a continuing dialogue between the two agencies and clear direction to the policy team when needed. He said that, in terms of partnership, many items in the resolution discussed control by the City of Eugene, and to say Eugene would determine what was considered adverse was to not recognize that partnership. He was concerned about delays in the process created by the amendment. Ms. Nathanson was concerned about the use of the term "significant adverse changes," saying that what was adverse to one person might not be adverse to another. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly accepted a friendly amendment from Ms. Nathanson to strike the word "adverse." Responding to Mr. Hamm's concerns, Ms. Nathanson said it appeared that the motion merely stated the Eugene representatives on the committee would not be empowered to act on behalf of the City to approve something that was a significant change. Mr. Farr opposed the motion. He thought that the council tried to take on too much. It continually tried to micromanage processes, and made things more cumbersome than they needed to be. Mr. Pap8 agreed the amendment made the process more cumbersome. Responding to a question from Mr. Papa, City Attorney Glenn Klein said the text in the resolution regarding approval by the City Council was not needed; the Planning Commission, if it believed there was an issue of significance, could at any time seek direction from the City Council on any issue related to BRT. He said that it was a question of whether the council wanted everything significant to come to it, or to leave it to the Planning Commission's direction as to whether it needed council input. Mr. Pap8 said that the council should leave the issue of whether to seek council input to the discretion of the Planning Commission. Ms. Taylor said she supported the amendment. She thought it was needed because the system was not fully designed. Mayor Torrey noted his opposition to the amendment, saying nothing "would get by" community activists. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed that the project was a partnership, but he believed Eugene had a serious stake in transit in the community. He thought significant changes could mean the project might become something not envisioned by the council or commission. He indicated agreement with Mr. Klein's statement about the commission's ability to seek direction from the council. Ms. Bettman indicated acceptance of a friendly amendment by Mr. Kelly to delete the phrase "and approval by the Eugene City Council" and to change "review by the Planning Commission" to "approval by the Planning Commission." Ms. Bettman said the council was considering the amendment because it was being asked to commit a large amount of resources to a plan that was not complete. The amendment gave the City authority to oversee the plan as it unfolded and changed over time. She reminded the council that it passed a motion that the IGA would preserve the City's fundamental authority over the project in the city limits. She was trying to reflect that agreement in the amendments. Mr. Rayor said it appeared Ms. Bettman was trying to turn the resolution into general policies for BRT in Eugene, but the resolution was only specific to the downtown-east-University section, which was fairly well defined. However, he would support the amendment because there would be future segments and future IGAs. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by replacing Section 2, Paragraph 3(a) of Resolution 4670 with the following: "Costs distribution, including a requirement that the City receive reimbursement for technical consulting and other services provided by City staff. A plan showing how all City costs would be funded would be brought back to the City Council. The plan will delineate which costs can be charged back to the project, which costs will be absorbed by the City, and how the City Manager suggests to fund the balance." Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her amendment, saying it was her intent that the staff time spent on the project was accounted for and, if it could not be paid for with existing resources, that a source of funding for the cost of implementing the plan be identified. She wanted to know what the City was committing to the project. Mr. Rayor opposed the amendment. He said that he had a difficult time with the concept of capturing "all" the costs. He thought the funding plan should be an internal staff issue. He also thought the motion implied that LTD would not be a responsible partner. Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Rayor. Mr. Kelly believed that the City had both responsibilities to and benefits from the project, and he did not object to some cost-sharing. He did not want to require that the City receive reimbursement. He could not support the amendment unless the work "requirement" was changed to "opportunities" as it was in the initial resolution. Ms. Bettman accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. Mayor Torrey opposed the amendment, saying the City needed to develop stronger relationships with its partners. He said the City Council often wondered why its partners frequently told it to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 7 Work Session "take a hike." He thought it was the lack of confidence as expressed by the amendment that elicited that response. He said that LTD was "not out to steal money from us." Ms. Bettman found the mayor's comments irrelevant, saying that it was a matter of what it would cost the City to participate in the project. She said the council needed that information to know before it committed to the project. She had been unable to get information about the scale of the project cost and for that reason offered the amendment. Ms. Taylor supported the amendment. She did not think it was a matter of trust between partners, but a matter of trust between the council and the citizens that the council would know what money was involved before it committed it. Mr. Kelly said had the amendment remained in its original form, he would have completely agreed with the mayor. In its current form, it merely directed the manager to return with an estimate of costs and how they would be paid for. Ms. Nathanson thought the amendment requested staff to do something that would be very difficult to accomplish. She said there would be times when different departments would be involved in the project. Staff would be spending time in many different activities, such as responding to the council and talking to citizens. She questioned if those costs would be incurred because LTD was doing the project or because of the way Eugene did business, which was to be as thorough and comprehensive as possible. Ms. Nathanson questioned if it was really possible to identify "all City costs." She opposed the amendment. Mr. Farr agreed with Ms. Nathanson, saying the council was overanalyzing the issue and placing an additional burden on staff. He opposed the amendment. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He thought too often the City got into things it did not know the scope of, such as the Land Use Code Update. The amendment let the City know what it was getting into. Mayor Torrey said that if the council did not believe the City Manager and department heads would watch out for unreasonable requests for assistance, it should replace them. 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~, and Mr. Rayor voting no; Mayor Torrey opposed the amendment, and the final vote was 5:4. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved amend the motion by replacing Section 2, Paragraph 4, of Resolution 4670 with the following: "Provide for involvement of City staff in project design and construction oversight and require that the Eugene Planning Commission and City Council to be involved in the selection of future routes. The agreement shall preserve City authority over all fundamental elements of the project within the city limits." Ms. Bettman said the amendment was a reflection of a resolution previously adopted by the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Rayor reiterated that the IGA was specific to the segment involved, and the amendment was more global than that. He asked what was left for all LTD to do if the City had control over all project elements. Mr. Kelly solicited comment from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson confirmed that the City had authority over the right-of-way and LTD would have to follow its regulations. He said that the purpose of the policy committee was to bring the two agencies together to resolve problems. Mr. Kelly thought the amendment overly strong. Mr. Pap~ agreed. The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to extend time for the item by 15 minutes. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend Section 2 of Resolution 4670 by adding a new paragraph 6, as follows, and renumbering previous paragraph 6 to be new paragraph 7: "Provide a commitment by both the City and LTD that the great majority of BRT corridor service within Eugene will feature exclusive busways to provide adequate performance and to attract customers (the goal would be at least 80 percent exclusive busways)." Mr. Kelly said that for BRT to succeed as a system, it must be seen as providing a distinct advantage over other forms of transportation in the corridor. Without the exclusive busways, BRT buses will be stuck in the same traffic as single-occupancy vehicles and would not be perceived to have an advantage. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Hocken said she supported the motion as worded. Mr. Rayor preferred to qualify the statement with the phrase "to the greatest possible extent" given that there was uncertainty about future routing. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Fart said that he supported BRT. He appreciated Ms. Bettman's efforts to ensure that the system was done well. However, he said that there was public skepticism about BRT and its efficiency. There were those who feared that BRT would give the community "tomorrow's congestion, today." With the understanding that the pilot phase was an experimental work in progress and change could occur, he would support the resolution. He said that the City and LTD needed to listen to the community's concerns and recognize that tradeoffs might be needed in implementing BRT. Ms. Nathanson thought the community needed better, faster public transportation now. She said the system was needed more each day than the day before. It was time to let LTD start the project. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged the plan had changed over time, but said that was because LTD was reworking it in response to City Council interests and concerns and the concerns expressed by residents and businesses. She said the council should be pleased by the changes as long as LTD had not compromised the system's success. She said the system had to have the "wow" MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 9 Work Session element to succeed. She also thought that new technology in buses would help in achieving that success. Ms. Nathanson thought the pilot corridor not an inappropriate start because of the need for quick and efficient transit between the two cities' downtown. She was happy to support the resolution. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Fart, called for the question. The motion to call the question failed, 3:5; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Fart voting yes. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion to May 30. Mr. Pap~ and Ms. Nathanson preferred to finish action on the item now. Ms. Nathanson noted that neither she nor Ms. Taylor would be present at the meeting scheduled for May 30, and she wanted to participate in the vote on the issue. Mayor Torrey noted that under the council's ground rules, if Ms. Nathanson requested a delay, no vote could occur on May 30. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Hamm indicated the delay did not present a problem for LTD. Ms. Bettman supported the motion to table as she wanted to know how much the City was committing to the project and needed more information about whether the station could be moved to save the two trees mentioned by Mr. Synder before she could support the resolution. The vote on the motion to table was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, Mr. Rayor, and Mr. Pap~ voting no; Mayor Torrey voted in opposition to the motion, and the final vote was 5:4. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to extend time on the item until 7:15 p.m. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the motion by adding a paragraph to Section 2 of Resolution 4670 stating that the Intergovernmental Agreement will include a best-effort commitment by Eugene and LTD to the current schedule for the pilot corridor and first extension of the pilot corridor in Eugene. Responding to a question from Ms. Hocken, Mr. Kelly clarified that he was referring to the schedule dates for the first extension (routing selection to begin May 2001 and service to begin May 2005) and the pilot project (service to begin September 2003). Ms. Hocken noted that routing selection for the first extension was unlikely to begin for two months. Mr. Kelly said that was the reason for the motion; the schedule he consulted was only two months old, and he was concerned about a further two-month slip within two months. Mr. Vigianno clarified that LTD had started work on identifying future corridors. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Pap8 agreed with Ms. Nathanson remarks regarding the "wow" factor and the use of new technology. He asked what the buses would look like and how they would be powered. Mr. Hamm noted that the board, by resolution, had committed itself to a hybrid diesel-electric application as soon as the technology was proven. He said LTD had committed itself to a system that resembled the image of rail, and had discussed various options with different manufacturers. He believed that when the system "hit the road," the community would see something that looked different and was environmentally friendly. Mr. Pap8 asked how many trees would be planted in Phase 1. Mr. Vigianno said that would be determined during the final design. However, he anticipated that many more trees would be planted than would be removed. LTD would work with the City on the type and location of the trees to be planted. Mr. Pap8 thanked LTD staff and asked Ms. Hocken to thank the LTD board for its willingness to meet with the council and answer its questions. Mr. Rayor thanked LTD staff and Ms. Hocken, saying BRT was very progressive and the agency had a lot of good ideas. He thought the BRT concept good for a city of Eugene's size. He did not think the system could meet everyone's expectations but believed that many people had input into the system design. He said the City wanted to work with LTD to make BRT a success. He suggested the possibility the system could eventually become a loop system, serving major employers in both Eugene and Springfield. Mr. Rayor thought the success of the first phase key to securing further federal dollars. Ms. Taylor thanked the LTD staff and board. She agreed with Ms. Nathanson that better and faster bus service was needed, but she believed the pilot project supplanted service that was already successful. If BRT did not improve service, it would kill the remainder of the system. She wanted better bus service for the entire community. Ms. Taylor thought the council was being rushed to approve the system. She was not ready to support the resolution. Ms. Bettman said she supported the concept of BRT but was not satisfied with the pilot project as proposed by LTD. She termed the money to be spent on the pilot project astronomical and said the numbers did not add up to her. Because her amendment regarding the City's authority over system design had failed and she thought Eugene was buying a "pig in a poke" because of the lack of final design, she could not support the resolution. Mr. Kelly said the community needed a BRT system now. He was not excited about the pilot corridor but acknowledged LTD had to start somewhere. He predicted that LTD would hear from the City Council about next phases. He said the amendments that had been made to the resolution and the comments of staff had satisfied the majority of his concerns. The motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Farr left the meeting. D.Work Session: Status Report on High Priority Stream Corridor Acquisition Planning City Engineer Les Lyle joined the council for the item. He provided an overview of the stream corridor acquisition planning efforts and associated time line for public review. Mr. Lyle reported MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 11 Work Session that staff had identified some high-priority sites at risk and that could be acquired in the short- term, at a cost of about $1.3 million. Staff had further identified about $6 million to $7 million in acquisition needs over a five- to ten-year period. The council will review both elements in June. He noted that funds had been budgeted annually for acquisition, but those funds (approximately $150,000) were mainly focused on maintenance access. Those moneys had been fully expended in the current fiscal year. Mr. Meisner left the meeting. Mr. Lyle said the focus of today's work session was on a specific acquisition of interest to the council, the Beverly property. He called the council's attention to maps distributed before the meeting showing the location of the Beverly property in the south hills of the community, and pointed out the areas on the property that the City proposed to acquire under the auspices of the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program. Mr. Lyle reported that the property owners had met with staff to discuss their plans to remove vegetation from the property; a memorandum summarizing that meeting was included in the meeting packet. It appeared the Beverlys would, at minimum, have to secure an erosion control permit. There were some urban forestry requirements pointed out to the Beverlys as well. Mr. Lyle called the council's attention to three possible options for proceeding with the purchase, outlined in the staff memorandum. Because funds for this year were exhausted, he would make a contingency fund request to the council to underwrite the cost of acquisition if it agreed to go forward with the purchase. Mr. Rayor asked questions clarifying the location of the buffering proposed on the property. Mr. Rayor asked if the "middle" branch on the property could be left open and not piped. Mr. Lyle said it would depend on the land use regulations in effect at that time. He thought the City could encourage that approach. Mr. Rayor encouraged staff to look at that stream in terms of minimizing its piping. Mr. Lyle felt the open waterways ordinance would be adequate to protect this particular stream. Mr. Rayor thought the staff recommendation for proceeding a great one, and he supported it. Mr. Kelly confirmed with Mr. Lyle that the budget figures presented to the council did not include stormwater user fee increase proposed by the Stormwater Management Department Advisory Committee to underwrite acquisitions. Mr. Lyle further confirmed that the supplemental budget request would be specific to the Stormwater Fund. He added that staff would present various funding options for the overall acquisition plan to the council in June. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Lyle confirmed that staff was in contact with the majority of the property owners of the nine properties on the list of priority acquisitions. Ms. Taylor wanted to purchase the entire Beverly property because it contained wetlands and several streams. She believed the Beverlys' vegetation management control plan would have the effect of encouraging the growth of invasive blackberries. Ms. Taylor said the property was important because of the quality of habitat on the site and because of its location at the Amazon Creek headwaters. She found it "ironic" the City sought federal funding for cleaning the creek downstream but was contemplating letting the headwaters be developed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 12 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if the site contained rare plants. Mr. Lyle indicated he would have to defer the question to others. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Andrea Riner of Parks Planning identified City-owned property in the vicinity of the Beverly property, specifically that purchased with the revenue from the Parks and Open Space bond, on a wall map of the area. Mr. Lyle noted the partnership between Parks Planning and Public Works Engineering staff on land acquisitions using a combination of Parks and Open Space funds and stormwater funds. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Lyle said that staff's work on stream corridor acquisition was guided by adopted council policy as established by the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Master Plan. He added that staff did not contemplate using any Parks and Open Space funding for the stream corridor acquisition. Mr. Pap8 asked if the list of top stream corridor acquisitions had been prioritized in relationship to one another. Mr. Lyle said the priorities were based on the importance of the corridor and the risk of development. Ms. Nathanson was pleased to see the City acquire land. She said that there was considerable development occurring in the south hills, which put pressure on the community's stream corridors. She believed the proposed acquisitions addressed water quality, habitat, and the City's image of itself, which included the forested south hills. Ms. Nathanson was concerned that the City should develop a more comprehensive list of acquisitions before it expending available funding. Mr. Lyle reiterated that staff would identify the top acquisitions for the short-term and the funding needed for acquisitions over the long-term and proposed funding options. Ms. Bettman said that staff had accomplished just what the council requested in a short time. She asked if there was an advantage to purchasing a larger area of the Beverly property so that the buffer touched the property already owned by the City in the area. She also asked about the status of the Parks Systems Development Charge (SDC) Fund and if money from that fund was available for the purchase. Ms. Bettman clarified she was interested in using the Parks SDC to acquire the entire property as a park. She said that the property was close to the running trail and Spencer Butte. Mr. Lyle said that a review of the Parks SDC was planned, and staff could incorporate the additional space acquisition approved by the voters into the SDC formula. Staff could then begin to pursue other space acquisitions at the direction of the council. He did not know how the site in question fit into the future parks systems. Ms. Riner said the Parks SDC did not include an open space acquisition component, and the available funding was used to purchase neighborhood and community parks. She noted that the bond measure reflected the community's ten priorities for open space acquisition; those priorities did not include the site in question. Regarding the size of the buffer, Mr. Lyle said that staff consulted experts about the topic; those experts did not agree, and staff settled on what seemed to be a reasonable, appropriate middle ground. Staff was tailoring the buffers to the properties in question. Mr. Lyle said that on the Beverly site adjacent to West Amazon Drive, staff was recommending the site be purchased to the boundary, because otherwise there would be an uneconomic remnant on the site. In a typical setting, staff was looking at a 150 foot-wide buffer for the stream. In the absence of clear need for a larger buffer, he was unsure the City could justify one. Mr. Lyle noted the considerable private interest in the Beverly property, and suggested the City could enter a partnership with those private interests to possibly secure more property and accomplish what Ms. Bettman was suggesting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 13 Work Session Mayor Torrey recommended that the council pay attention to the interests of the broader community before it expended all the funds in question. He said that without the involvement of School District 4J, the northern portion of the community would have not parks enhancements. He said the council should look to the future for the next level of funding, and involve the community. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to continue acquisition negotiations for the stream corridors on the Beverly property as highlighted on the map and to direct staff to process a supplemental budget #3 request for the funds necessary to finance the acquisition. Ms. Taylor said the south hills were a community asset used by all residents and the importance of the acquisition reached beyond the south hills. She said the acquisition was also important for wildlife habitat and water quality. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the work done by staff on the property acquisition and to minimize damage from vegetation removal. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to ask staff to investigate ways to find the money to buy the entire Beverly property, including stormwater funds, grants, and gifts. Mr. Kelly tentatively supported the intent of the motion, but said he could not do so at the expense of the other high priority sites. Mr. Pap~ opposed the motion because the City was putting too much emphasis on the property in question and not enough in other areas of the community. Mr. Rayor thought the public understood the City had limited dollars. He said that the property in question was 25 acres of the larger 300 to 400 acre headwaters area, and he thought it shortsighted to concentrate on the property. Ms. Bettman said staff good job of prioritizing projects. She thought the motion merely gives it direction to look into a larger purchase, taking into account other priorities. Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion would mean the remainder of the property not addressed by the immediate acquisition would be considered the higher priority for purchase than the other eight or nine high-value properties on the list developed by staff. Ms. Taylor said yes; the property was in more danger than the other properties on the list, and it was her intent to make it a higher priority. Ms. Nathanson indicated she could not support the motion because there were other properties in danger of development that were designated as high-priority acquisitions. The motion failed, 4:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 14 Work Session James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 15 Work Session