Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/14/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 14, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pap~. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. TransPlan Planning Director Jan Childs reviewed the materials related to the agenda item included in the meeting packet. Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting. Ms. Childs called the council's attention to Appendix F of the TransPlan document and said the glossary definition of nodal development was not updated to reflect the Planning Commission's changes. She asked the council to refer to the Metropolitan Plan amendments rather than the generic TransPlan glossary for that definition. Mr. Farr arrived at the meeting. Ms. Childs referred the council to a memorandum in the meeting packet entitled Review and Recommendations: TransPlan Provisions for Land Use/Nodal Development and reviewed the staff response to testimony and recommendations regarding TransPlan's provisions for nodal development and land use. She requested council input. Ms. Childs referred to the definition of nodal development on page 2 of the memorandum, noted testimony from Friends of Eugene (FOE) calling for a definition of "node," and said that after consultation with legal counsel, staff now recommended not having such a definition. The City Attorney's Office indicated concern over two separate definitions of nodal development and node, and the potential one could be referred to over the other in a land use proceeding. Mayor Torrey determined that there was no objection to the staff recommendation. Mr. Meisner said that there was no goal statement associated with nodes, or a sense of what the community was trying to accomplish. He believed that there was community misunderstanding about what a node was. He suggested that using the word "concentrated" from the FOE definition gave the definition more focus. Mr. Kelly concurred. Ms. Childs clarified that the staff recommendation was to compare the two definitions and attempt to find the strongest points in the two. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly observed that he liked the clarity of the FOE text regarding transit stops. Referring to the last bullet in the May 1999 draft TransPlan, A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density of at least 12 units per net acre, Mr. Kelly said it was his understanding that the ratio would be about 9 units per gross acre, which he believed at a minimum was "awfully flimsy" in terms of making transit and alternative modes effective. Saying he had no "magic" number, Mr. Kelly suggested the minimum be revised to be 12 units per gross acre, which would achieve what the Metropolitan Plan identified as medium-density residential development. Mr. Meisner believed the May 1999 draft text was more clear than the FOE definition, particularly in regard to the characteristic of a transit stop. He requested an example of a local area that might be considered a node, with mixed-uses and average net density at net 12 units per net acre. Ms. Childs said that she would show the council some examples when it discussed implementation of TransPlan. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Childs said that the figure of 12 units per net acre was derived from the Transportation Planning Rule definition of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center or neighborhood, which was a statewide minimum definition. Mr. Farr requested information about lot size at a density of 12 units per net acre. Ms. Childs said that it was just under 4,000 square feet if the development was all single-family housing. She concurred with Mr. Farr that was a small lot. Mr. Rayor disliked that the definition did not specify how much housing needed to be in a node. If a 100-acre node had ten residents on one acre, the definition made no sense. For that reason, he was concerned about the focus on commercial and employment centers. Ms. Childs noted that item 3 on page 3 of her memorandum addressed a suggestion that the portion of the definition describing neighborhood, commercial, and employment centers be deleted. Those descriptions attempted to provide a range of percentages for the proportions of housing and housing types in a node. Ms. Taylor asked if Valley River Center would still be considered a node. Ms. Childs said the council would make that decision when it discussed implementation of specific nodal areas. She concurred with Ms. Taylor that the center was currently a shopping center but indicated there was a potential for infill of a mixture of uses within the center. Ms. Taylor asked if a mixture of housing would result in some lots being larger than 4,000. Ms. Childs said yes, adding she would assume a mixture of single-family and multi-family units in a node. Mr. Meisner said Mr. Rayor's point was a good one, and given his experience working with neighbors on the Whiteaker Plan, he also questioned how the City could mandate that housing opportunities were preserved in nodes. Ms. Childs said that the mixed-use zones envisioned in TransPlan were more prescriptive in nature than the mixed-use zones in Whiteaker. Mr. Meisner endorsed that approach. Mr. Farr suggested that the current housing codes must be revised to accommodate the densities envisioned in TransPlan. To achieve housing affordability the City must consider other housing types, such as row houses, houses without garages, etc. He acknowledged stafPs work in moving in that direction. However, he did not think that the City could achieve the proposed density and still have affordable housing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Childs confirmed that the council could discuss the actual density numbers during its implementation discussion, adding that by that time she would have more information about the response of the other three adopting bodies to the subject. Ms. Childs clarified that Eugene could establish its own targets. Ms. Childs noted testimony advocating that the three types of nodal development areas be deleted from the definition of nodal development. She said she did not have a sense of how the other adopting bodies viewed that testimony. She indicated that, if the council retained the concept, she would recommend at a minimum the statement that residential uses might not be appropriate for some areas be deleted. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the density targets, Ms. Childs said that the Planning Commission had been concerned about being detailed about the percentages, but decided that because nodal development was a new concept to some there was value to providing detail about what was expected in the different nodes. She said that the targets were on page 22 of Appendix F, copies of which were distributed prior to the meeting. She reviewed the targets for neighborhood, commercial, and employment centers. Ms. Childs anticipated that the City Council would discuss a Eugene-only approach to nodal development implementation. Mr. Meisner expressed concern it was not clear that the fundamental characteristics of nodal development applied to all the examples in the memorandum. Ms. Childs said she would make that clear. Mr. Meisner said that TransPlan specifically referenced floor area ratios (FARs) for commercial centers but they were not included in employment centers. He requested clarification. Mr. Meisner said that some of the identified nodes exist now, while others were speculative. He suggested that may be a need to regulate development patterns differently between the two categories, given that one regarded completely new development. Ms. Childs agreed that a different set of tools was needed to address nodal development in a greenfield setting and nodal development in an existing neighborhood. Ms. Childs asked for input on the testimony recommending nodes be renamed "mixed-use centers." Mr. Kelly did not think changing the name would change anything. Mr. Meisner added that the change could create confusion with mixed-use zoning. Mr. Meisner likened nodes to villages within a city with their own focus and identity, and said that was the vision he wished to capture in TransPlan. Referring to the characteristic of nodal development that indicated public spaces were within walking distances, Ms. Nathanson said that the post office and grocery store are also public spaces, although grocery stores are privately owned. She did not want the definition of nodal development to be so narrow that it did not encompass all public spaces that people were visiting in a node. Ms. Childs said that the initial concept was more focused on public gathering spaces, but as the Planning Commission discussed the issue it felt that places like transit stops, fire stations, and branch libraries could be as much a part of a node as a public open space or plaza, so the concept was broadened some. Ms. Taylor endorsed the testimony to call nodes mixed-use centers because she did not think people understood the concept of nodal development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor also endorsed the testimony to delete commercial and employment centers from the definition. At the request of Mr. Kelly, Mayor Torrey asked the council to indicate if it wished to delete commercial and employment centers from the definition. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the deletion. Mayor Torrey noted his support for renaming "nodal development centers" to "mixed-use areas." Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Meisner that the City was already using mixed use in another context. Mr. Meisner suggested that the City investigate what terminologies other cities use, and pointed out that as specific areas are identified, an area may "choose its own name" or have a name assigned it by the neighborhood. Ms. Childs observed that Portland used "mixed-use area." She indicated staff would follow-up. Mr. Rayor proposed that ratios for housing be increased in the employment and commercial centers. He believed that unless the ratios were higher the areas would be less dense than desired. He suggested that the City Council recommend 25 percent residential for both commercial and employment centers. There was general council concurrence. Mr. Meisner reiterated his interest in seeing FARs included in the nodes. Mr. Rayor said that nodes were crucial to the implementation of TransPlan. He asked if Hyundai, for example, was included in a node, or did it skirt the node? He said that when a facility was fenced for security purposes, he had a hard time considering it part of the node. Ms. Nathanson asked what common threads existed between node types; was it a minimum percentage of housing or was it the transit hub aspect of the node? She questioned whether it was necessary to describe the range of percentage of housing in a node or if it was better to establish a minimum percentage housing for a node to be healthy. Ms. Childs said that the list of fundamental characteristics and a minimum percentage of housing made an area work as a nodal development area. Mr. Lee reminded the council it would discuss implementation of TransPlan on March 13. Ms. Taylor questioned why three categories of nodes were needed given the shared fundamental characteristics and minimum housing percentage, rather than just varied proportions of different uses. Ms. Childs said that initially, it was to demonstrate that there was no "one size fits all" approach to nodal development. She was unsure how important it was to Springfield to have more than one category of node. Mr. Kelly said that testimony indicated that the map in Appendix A was not understood, and said that it needed to be tied to text in the document. He said the fact that some of the "blobs" on the map were larger than a node could be needed to be explained as well. He also asked that the map be refined with one or two sentences explaining what each area was doing on the map. Mr. Rayor indicated that he was not opposed to labeling a node as employment or commercial center if a minimum percentage of housing was included in each node. Ms. Childs noted that the memorandum recommended that the first sentence in Land Use Policy 1 be revised with the text suggested by FOE for a definition of a node: "Apply the nodal development strategy--living, shopping, and employment areas concentrated in an area where walking and transit services are emphasized--in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern." Mr. Kelly said that was an improvement. He understood that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 4 Work Session entire definition could not be included in the policy, but suggested it be referenced. Ms. Childs noted her suggestion later in the memorandum to add the preamble and the fundamental characteristics in the text under the Plan Diagram, as those statements are policy and a glossary definition was not. She added that the City Attorney had recommended deleting any description clauses in Land Use Policy 1 and suggested instead "Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern." Ms. Childs said that she would recommend deleting the description clause and modifying the statement to read "...pedestrian-friendly, transportation-efficient land use pattern." Ms. Childs reported that FOE recommended that Land Use Policy 3, Transit-Supportive Land Use Patterns, be deleted from TransPlan because that organization believed the plan should focus on nodal development and the policy provided some support for transit corridors. She said that she would want to consult with staff of the Land Conservation and Development Commission if the council decided to delete the policy. No councilor voiced support for deleting the policy. Ms. Childs said that public testimony suggested that Policy 4 be revised by replacing the word "accommodate" with the word "encourage." Ms. Nathanson asked City Attorney Glenn Klein if the City's actions could encourage as opposed to accommodate. Mr. Klein defined accommodate as "you make it available but you don't care whether it happens" and encourage as setting out a goal of sorts. The City could defend either word. Referring to Land Use Policy 4, Mr. Kelly said he would like to see staff expand the discussion of redevelopment and industrial sites by focusing on areas over a certain size. Ms. Childs noted stafffs intention to revise the land Use Findings to clarify the relationship between two phrases in Finding 11. The council postponed the remainder of the review of the staff response to testimony to a future meeting. B. Work Session: Discussion on Proposed Toxic Fee Structure Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, introduced Toxics Board Chair Steve Johnson. Mr. Johnson was present to answer questions. Mr. Potter said that the proposal before the council was the proposal that survived further legal review following the public hearing in January. It was one of three proposals forwarded to the council by the Toxics Board in October 1999. The proposal was to assess hazardous substance fees to all Eugene manufacturers with ten or more employees unless they can show they use no such substances in their manufacturing processes. The fees would be based on the number of a company's full- time employees. Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible that a manufacturer used no hazardous substances in its processes. She said that her workplace, which was essentially an office setting, had many hazardous materials data sheets for the chemicals used in that setting. Mr. Potter said that it was theoretically possible for a manufacturer to use no hazardous substances. Mr. Meisner said the council needed to act in a manner consistent with the remaining sections of the charter amendment. He thought the board's recommendation was true to the intent of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 5 Work Session charter amendment, and supported the proposal. He did not want to put the charter amendment before the voters again, or use General Fund moneys to support the program. Mr. Kelly asked why an ordinance was being employed to pass the 2000 fees rather than a resolution as was done in 1999. Mr. Klein said the charter imposed the fee on a certain group of businesses, and the board's recommendation would mean companies not otherwise covered by the charter would be required to pay the fee. As the charter does not provide a basis to charge the fees, an ordinance was required; the resolution merely set the amount. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Klein said that the ordinance did not amend a section of the existing code and that was not uncommon. He said that the code could be amended to include a new section heading. Mr. Kelly said that it would make it easier for people to find information on the Web site. Mr. Klein said that he would follow up with fellow counsel to find out why the ordinance was drafted not to amend the code. Mr. Kelly noted his agreement with the remarks made by Mr. Meisner, saying that the City had been left no options by the courts and State legislature and all that remained was to stay as close to the intent of the charter amendment as possible. He said that he wanted to revisit the issue of the quantity-based fee with the 2001 State legislature. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the need for consistency between the Standard Industrial Code (SIC) numbers in the charter amendment and in the ordinance, Mr. Potter said that it would not hurt to be consistent, adding that the SIC codes were four-digit numbers divided into larger categories designated by two-digit numbers. Responding to a follow- up question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Potter clarified that the codes were specific to what a business was doing rather than the type of chemicals used. Mr. Farr argued for sending the charter amendment back to the voters because the section struck down by the courts was so significant to the implementation of the amendment. He thought the courts' rejection of the fee basis would have affected the way voters cast their ballots in the last election. He said the voters should be given a chance to have a say on the ordinance. He thought the council was acting irresponsibly in trying to interpret the will of the voters. City Manager Johnson reported that the plaintiffs in the court case that led to the nullification of the fee basis had returned to the Court of Appeals to make more arguments about other elements of the amendment. Mr. Farr asked if the City could avoid legal fees by placing the charter amendment before the voters with the new language in place. City Manager Johnson recommended that the board be asked to come up with a compromise and send it back to the voters. Ms. Taylor did not support sending the charter amendment back to the voters, saying that people had worked hard to get it passed. Mayor Torrey said while it was true the voters had passed the charter amendment, he questioned whether the vote would be the same given the changing language of the charter. He believed that the measure appealed to voters because they wanted to know what was in their air. Mayor Torrey asked if the council wanted to "win a battle, or achieve an outcome?" He thought the best way to achieve a good outcome was to ask the board to try to arrive at a compromise set of amendments to the charter for consideration by the voters. He said that there was no guarantee MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 6 Work Session in the legal process that the entire measure would not be overturned. Mayor Torrey urged the council to seek a compromise position, adding that the issue was not time-sensitive. Mr. Lee asked the board to seek a compromise position to put before the voters. He said that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations should attempt to seek changes that enable the City to assess fees on the basis of quantity, but given the current makeup of the State legislature, he doubted those efforts would go far. Mr. Lee said that the proposal before the council was the only legally defensible position the City had. He did not like the fact the council had no other options, saying he preferred there be a more direct relationship between the program and the fees, but supported the option as the only one the council had. Mr. Kelly doubted the board would have an alternative recommendation because of the all the work it had already done on the topic. He believed the council needed to take care of fees for the current year and move the item to a public hearing, but wanted the board to sit down and find some common ground on both the fee question and related issues. He endorsed a comprehensive review and revision of the amendment by the board if it could find consensus on the issues involved. Ms. Nathanson did not think the council had only one option. She did not think it was a good idea for a charter amendment to address the level of specificity the right-to-know amendment included. She thought a charter amendment should be about the form of government and high- level policies. She did not think the charter amendment could be fixed. The public wanted those responsible to pay, but the proposal would alter the citizens' understanding of the program if those not using hazardous materials were also required to pay for the program. Ms. Nathanson said that many of those who had previously said that the charter amendment could not be changed were now asking the council to change it through an ordinance, and she did not think it was fair. Mr. Meisner did not think the council was changing the charter. It was retaining the amendment with the exception of the section struck down by the court, and abiding by the court decree. Mr. Meisner said that those had spoken to about the subject were generally well-informed but unaware of the threshold for chemical use; they had all believed that all users reported and paid. He supported the option before the council. Regarding the mayor's remarks, Mr. Meisner said he would oppose asking the board to develop amendments to the charter. He said that directing the board to develop a charter amendment just put the "political heat" on the board instead of the council. In addition, that would not stop further legal challenges from those who continued to object to the charter amendment on the grounds it was duplicative of State programs and burdensome to small businesses. Mr. Rayor said the option before the council was reasonable and the ordinance approach superior to asking the voters to consider an amendment. He said it represented the minimum necessary change, and showed leadership in maintaining the program for the current year. Mr. Rayor said the court's nullification of a single clause in the amendment fell below the threshold of what the council should be taking to the voters. He acknowledged the concerns of industry, but believed that the option was faithful to the will of the voters, and "in some strange way" faithful to industry as well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Lee believed that Ms. Nathanson made some good points, and asked if the council could do nothing. Mr. Klein said that doing nothing was a de facto decision to fund the program with General Funds, or have the City Manager defund it. Mr. Lee asked if it was legal to pay for the program using General Funds. Mr. Klein recommended the council defer such a discussion to an executive session, because he did not want to give arguments to anyone who wished to sue the City. He said the City did not have an opinion from the courts as to what the charter meant without the nullified section. The court left interpretation of the charter without the nullified section to the City Council. To Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Lee said that the council had few options for the upcoming year. He suggested the council could refer the issue to the voters in the future or work through the legislative process. Mr. Fart said he would agree with Mr. Rayor's remarks if the matter concerned an ordinance rather than the charter. He believed that by rewriting the section related to how the program was funded the council was amending the charter, and it should not be doing so. While he respected the efforts of those who put the charter amendment on the ballot, he hoped others would think seriously before they attempted to amend the charter. The council should not "rewrite things on the fly" that were initially passed as charter amendments. Mayor Torrey said he thought the council was mistaken in not taking advantage of the board's expertise on the topic. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct staff to return with Option A at the appropriate date for a public hearing. Ms. Nathanson clarified that she had not been focused on legal challenges in her remarks, but on what was required to make the charter amendment meet the legal tests that were applied by the State courts. She agreed with Mr. Lee that in practical terms the option before the council was the only practical one, but expressed the wish the community had a way to fix the local charter issue before it had to pay for the program in a manner contrary to what the voters supported. Regarding the use of the board to process the issue, Mr. Kelly expressed willingness to ask the board to attempt to find consensus on potential future revisions of the charter amendment. Other councilors indicated willingness to hear from the board. Mr. Meisner expressed hope that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations made the subject a legislative priority. Mr. Klein determined that the council was considering Option A with any technical changes needed. The council concurred. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. C. Work Session: Report and Update on City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office provided an overview on staff's work on the City's Boards, Commissions, and Committees. She described work on the database developed for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 8 Work Session program, which made it easier to run reports and track applicants from the point of application to the point of appointment. Ms. Walston referred the council to a sample report included in the meeting packet. She said that a complete listing of the City's boards, committees, commissions, and department advisory committees had previously been provided to the council. That information would be published on the City's Web page. Ms. Walston requested council direction on several issues, including term limits, lack of consistency among the membership term lengths of committees, the expiration date of intergovernmental and ad hoc committees, which was now different from the standing committees to the council, resulting in two recruitment processes. She recommended an annual, more focused process with a media event; perhaps concurrent with the Eugene Celebration. Ms. Walston said that it could also be an opportunity to involve the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) in the recruitment process. Ms. Nathanson liked the concept of an annual recruiting process. She asked why the City should be consistent with regard to term lengths. She suggested there may be good reason some committees had longer term lengths than other committees; on some committees, experience may be crucial because of complex topic matter and the steep learning curve associated with service on the committee. Ms. Nathanson said that some committees may want to suggest longer term lengths. Mr. Farr agreed with Ms. Nathanson, citing the Planning Commission as an example of an advisory committee that might need longer terms. He was concerned about the City's effectiveness in recruiting a broad range of candidates for its committees. He was intrigued by the idea of using the Celebration as a recruitment vehicle to get to the people "where they are." Mr. Meisner liked an annual recruitment if it was more effective. He did not think the City did a good job of advertising such volunteer activities; unless people scanned the paper very carefully or were computer-literate, they were unaware of such opportunities. Mr. Meisner disliked the current application form and said that the questions on the application were not particularly relevant. The City did nothing to ensure a person was providing accurate, complete, and truthful information. He also called for standardized supplemental questionnaires. Mr. Meisner said that the council also needed to acknowledge that the interview process was vital and attendance at interview meetings should be obligatory, and not optional, for individual councilors. Mr. Meisner did not favor term limits but thought it important the council was aware of how long people served. He did not see consistency in term length as a necessity. Mr. Meisner was unhappy with the changes to citizen involvement made in 1993. He regretted the loss of what he considered important groups, such as the Bicycle Commission. He did not find the voter or neighborhood pool to be particularly random in implementation, and questioned whether the recruitment process was as open as it had formerly been. Mr. Kelly liked the annual recruitment proposal and many of the other ideas proposed by staff. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner that consistency was not necessarily a desirable goal. He noted the suggested motion referred to the need to achieve consistency, and he suggested it instead refer to the need to clarify the Eugene Code, which was inconsistent as to the topic. He saw no need for universal term limits. Mr. Kelly congratulated staff on the database and said he looked forward to seeing the information on the Web. He believed that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 9 Work Session membership and start dates for members would also be useful information for the public. He agreed with Mr. Meisner about the need for an improved questionnaire and standardized supplemental questionnaires. Ms. Taylor endorsed an annual recruitment process and spoke in favor of employing the Eugene Celebration for that process. While she did not approve of term limits for elected officials, she favored term limits for appointed committee members, saying citizens can vote out councilors but not planning commissioners. She believed that there was a tendency among the elected officials to keep the same people on committees because they are known. She also questioned why some people served on so many committees, suggesting that those who represented groups such as the Human Rights Commission on the CIC got "double or triple power somehow." She did not know how it started and did not know whether it was a good idea, and wanted to think about it more. Ms. Walston noted that membership on such groups as the CIC was codified, and the code could be changed. Mr. Lee believed that the system was confusing and hard to explain, and some consistency was helpful. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct staff to draft an ordinance to revise the term lengths and length of service for standing committees to the council in order to achieve consistency and to create an annual recruitment process. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to amend the motion by deleting "to achieve consistency" and replace it with "to clarify the Eugene Code." Mr. Meisner suggested a friendly amendment: "that to achieve consistency and/or to clarify the Eugene Code." Mr. Lee accepted the friendly amendment, and Mr. Kelly and Mr. Rayor withdrew the motion to amend and second. Mr. Lee restated the motion: To direct staff to draft an ordinance to revise the term lengths and length of service for standing committees to the council in order to achieve consistency and/or to clarify the Eugene Code and to create an annual recruitment process. Ms. Taylor moved to retain term limits. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 10 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 11 Work Session