Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/24/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 24, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Items from the Mayor and Council Ms. Taylor requested that the City Council discuss the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting agendas prior to MPC meetings. She cited the committee's decisions related to the 1- 105 soundwall as an example of an issue that should have full council consideration. She reiterated a previous request that the council begin to think about its agenda for the next legislative session. Ms. Taylor asked if the issue of a Mexican sister city was on a future meeting agenda. City Manager Jim Johnson said no. Ms. Taylor noted interest on the part of residents in the topic and asked that it be scheduled soon as an agenda item. She also asked if the issue of the Amazon headwaters was scheduled. Mr. Johnson indicated a more comprehensive discussion of natural resource acquisitions was scheduled. Mr. Kelly reported that Oregon Department of Transportation had asked the engineering firm CH2M Hill to form a Beltline Decision Team and a stakeholder working group as part of the public outreach associated with the Beltline/I-5 interchange. He said he represented Eugene on the decision team, which also included Bill Dwyer of the Lane Board of County Commissioners and Christine Lundberg of the Springfield City Council. The team would meet periodically and would advise the two councils and the board on issues related to the project. Mr. Meisner asked for information on how much staff time Eugene expended on support to the Sister City Foundation. He further noted that the foundation had not provided any information about its development activities, and asked what funds the foundation was raising independently. Mr. Fart thanked Public Works Department Director Christine Andersen for her role in extending the Beltline project to the Barger overpass. As a result, Royal Avenue would become a local street serving local traffic. Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. Mr. Fart touched on the topic of his recent attendance at council meetings. He said that he was at a pivotal time in developing his business, and it was a complex and difficult process that was taking a great deal of his time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Continuing, Mr. Fart said that he had discussed the issue of his meeting attendance with members of his constituency, who did not object to his recent absences. He hoped his attendance would become more regular soon, and thanked the mayor and council president for their indulgence over the past few weeks. Mr. Fart said that managing a business was time- consuming, particularly having three children in school. Mr. Rayor said that because of articles he had seen in Chamber of Commerce and Homebuilders Association newsletters, he had attended the Chamber of Commerce's Friday morning government group meeting to discuss issues related to the waterways ordinance with members and to assure members that the council was listening to their concerns. Mr. Rayor commended the professionalism of the staff and consultant support for the Ad Hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning and announced that a Powerpoint presentation from Terry Moore of EcoNorthwest on the economics of downtown was recently presented to the committee and would be presented again on June 6 at noon at the Downtown Athletic Club. He encouraged other councilors to attend the presentation. Mr. Rayor said that he was advising a resident in his ward seeking a traffic calming device about the process, and noted their willingness to pay for the cost of such a device. Referring to the Land Use Code Update, Ms. Nathanson asked where citizens could submit comments to the council about the update. She encouraged earlier submittal of such materials to give the council time to review them. Ms. Nathanson said she had encouraged staff to consider videotaping and broadcasting the Powerpoint presentation referred to by Mr. Rayor on MetroVision. She suggested that the City take advantage of students interested in working on video projects, and encouraged more use of MetroVision to communicate with citizens about City issues. Ms. Nathanson mentioned the possibility of employing the Churchill High School facility as a community center for southwest Eugene, noting the presence of the fire station and the facility's already heavy use by Lane Community College students, and commenting on the fact the facility was nearly in use 19 hours daily now. Mr. Pap~ commended staff and the Hendricks Park Department Advisory Committee for its work on the Hendricks Park Master Plan. He spoke of his own memories of the park, saying he loved the park and appreciated the vision of Mr. Hendricks in donating the land to the City. He was excited over the long-term vision represented in the master plan. Mr. Pap~ regretted the loss of the elk that formerly lived in the park. Mr. Johnson reported that the shelter at Hendricks Park was under construction, and encouraged the council to visit the park and view the shelter. Mr. Pap~ was happy about the allocation of funds to a study of the River Road/Santa Clara area, and the opportunity for residents of those areas to provide input to Eugene about the services they want. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Papa, Mr. Johnson said that construction on the first youth sports park had begun. He indicated that no publicity was planned for the commencement of construction, but a ribbon-cutting ceremony was planned. Mr. Pap8 encouraged staff to schedule a celebration of the commencement of construction as well as a celebration of completion for the youth sports park and other projects made possible by the Parks and Open Space bond measure. Responding to a comment from Ms. Taylor that she was shocked there was no work session scheduled on the Amazon headwaters, Mr. Johnson said that there were not three councilors who wanted to specifically discuss the purchase of South Park or the Amazon headwaters, but rather three councilors who wanted to schedule a discussion of the council's policy role in giving guidance to staff on natural resource purchases throughout the community. Mr. Rayor pointed out that the scope of the agenda item did not preclude a councilor from making a motion specific to a particular area. He also pointed out that the property in question was a fraction of the headwaters, and supported a discussion of the broader issue. Mayor Torrey encouraged Police Chief Jim Hill to communicate with local high school principals and encourage them to sponsor supervised, all-night graduation activities for high school seniors, and to be vigilant about any activities that might bring youth on the roads and in danger. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey regarding a report he had seen in the newspaper, Mr. Johnson confirmed that a five-day conference of the Workers Right Consortium was scheduled at the University in August. He said that staff was attempting to identify the student organizers so the Police Department could work with them. He said that the City would approach the coordinators and request information about the event to determine what security needs were appropriate. B.Work Session: Renewal of Downtown and West University Service Districts Russ Brink, Executive Director of Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEl), was joined by Sue Prichard, Vice President of DEl, and Scott Gibbs, President of the University Small Business Association. He emphasized the importance of the districts to public safety, maintenance, and marketing activities. He discussed the methods used to assess property owners within the district for those services. Mr. Brink noted the threat to the districts from a new ballot initiative that would require all or increased taxes, fees, and charges subject to a public vote. Mr. Gibbs provided an overview of the West University Service District, the district's budget, and the services offered by the district. He asked the council to consider renewing the district with a three-year sunset clause that would only expire if the property owners in the district requested the expiration. Ms. Taylor asked if there continued to be business owners who objected to the West University district. Mr. Brink recalled some opposition at the time the district was formed, noting that largely, those businesses and property owners who opposed it were taken out of the district. The current district fronted 13th Avenue from Kincaid to Ferry streets, and both districts were proposing that 66 percent of the assessable square footage of each district must be in favor of the district, evidenced through signed letters prior to the public hearing. Mr. Gibbs said that he had received no calls of complaint or opposition to the district renewal from any district ratepayer. Mr. Pap~ asked how many participants were required to dissolve the district. Mr. Brink said that the votes of two-thirds of the members were needed to dissolve the district. Mr. Rayor MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 3 Work Session suggested a less restrictive threshold for dissolving the district given the elimination of the sunset. Mr. Kelly requested feedback from the districts and staff on the two-thirds majority requirement as opposed to a simple majority requirement before the upcoming public hearing. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said he discussed the subject with staff, and recommended to the council that two-thirds of the property owners be required to request the City Manager to schedule a public hearing before the City Council on the district's dissolution. He did not think the property owners should be given that authority. Mr. Kelly continued to want an answer to his question. Ms. Prichard discussed the Downtown Service District. She said she witnessed the value of the Downtown Service District and the guides in particular on a daily basis. She emphasized the value of the district to several planning efforts underway in a post-Ballot Measure 47/50 atmosphere. She briefly noted services delivered by the district, adding that funding was largely devoted to public safety. Ms. Prichard asked the council to renew the district prior to January 1, 2001, to avoid the impacts of the initiative, if it passed. She said that DEl was also asking that for the payments due on July 10 and October 10, 2000, the owners pay DEl directly. Ms. Prichard acknowledged the risk to that strategy and said she hoped that property owners would recognize the value of the services and continue to pay without the mandatory system now in effect. If the initiative passed, DEl would have to continue direct collection or put the district out for a public vote. Ms. Prichard said the district would like to increase fees for both boundary areas effective January 1, realizing approximately $54,000 in increased revenues to hire and train quality employees and examine new opportunities to improve the appearance of downtown and attract more citizens downtown. In addition, the board hoped to build a small operating reserve. Ms. Prichard reiterated Mr. Gibbs' request for elimination of the sunset. She also asked that properties owned by government be subject to the same assessment as private property owners, citing a precedent for the practice in Portland. Mr. Meisner wanted to continue both districts because of their good work. He noted nonprofit organizations were exempted from the property tax but benefitted from the district. He questioned if there was another way to get those organizations to contribute. He thought the same was true of residential uses downtown. He asked the districts' boards to consider that subject. Mr. Meisner asked the downtown district's representatives if they envisioned changes in the district boundaries. Ms. Prichard said that the boundaries were not set in stone and the board was open to changes. Mr. Meisner asked the board to consider the concept of a greater downtown, pointing out it widened the base of who paid and benefitted more properties. Mr. Meisner questioned the higher administrative percentage costs for the University Service District. Lew Bowers, Planning and Development Department, responded that, because the district was smaller, it cost relatively more to administer. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Johnson indicated he would make Mr. Brink's Budget Committee presentation available to him. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Farr supported subjecting government properties to the district's assessments. Regarding Mr. Meisner's suggestion to include residential uses, Mr. Farr said that residential uses downtown should be exempted from the district's assessment to help keep housing costs down. Mr. Farr believed that there had been a huge difference in the downtown area since he had taken office, and he attributed that, in part, to the service district. He commended the services provided by the districts, saying they were invaluable and the City was "getting a whole lot of bang for our dollar." Mr. Kelly said that both districts were doing good work and he supported their continuance. He was comfortable with the concept of the property owner remonstrance as opposed to sunset but would await more information before taking a final position. He suggested that the ordinance be specific that the council could sunset the district if it choose. Mr. Kelly noted his continued opposition to some of the behavioral ordinances the guides and police administered in the district. Mr. Kelly supported the inclusion of government properties in the district. He suggested that the manager return to the council with a Contingency Fund request to support the cost for the City, and asked that the cost be based on a square-foot basis rather than a flat fee so that increases or decreases in downtown office space could be easily adjusted. He argued that given that government already contributed to the maintenance of downtown, he believed the City could argue for a slightly lower rate. Mr. Rayor favored the increase but wanted to consider "sunsetting the sunset." He wondered if the City's assessment could be earmarked for downtown projects. Ms. Taylor asked what vacant properties did not pay district rates. Mr. Brink said that the district was legally constrained by State law; the assessment was an occupancy fee that could not be tied to the consequence of owning property. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Brink clarified that the rate for hotel rooms was based on quarterly occupancy figures. Ms. Taylor was unsure about the City's participation in the district. She wanted the City to help the Saturday Market to stay downtown and to pay for amenities such as benches. She wondered if the City's contribution to the district could be earmarked for that purpose. Ms. Nathanson said that it was wise to establish a sunset date for new programs. However, she did not see the benefit of renewing the sunset date given that the districts were doing what they were set up to do and property owners within the districts appeared to be satisfied. She supported government paying assessments to the district because public employees and citizens coming to downtown City facilities also benefitted from the district. Mr. Lee supported the ordinance but questioned if charging government for services set a precedent. Neither Mr. Johnson or Mr. Lidz thought a precedent was being set by adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Lee observed that there were other major issues facing the merchants in the West University area. He stressed the importance of the quality of a neighborhood to business success. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 5 Work Session called for making the neighborhood a better and safer place to live. He suggested the council have a more comprehensive discussion of the West University area at a future meeting. Mayor Torrey questioned whether the percentage increase proposed for the downtown district was fair. Mr. Brink pointed out that the increase was the first in over six years, and the board was seeking to fund other programs that would benefit downtown. Mayor Torrey supported the assessment to City government and hoped other governments downtown would also contribute. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mayor Torrey's final comment, although he was not hopeful that other governments would contribute. Mr. Meisner said if the City Council choose to go forward with a rate based on square footage, it should be conscious of the impact of that approach as new facilities, such as the library, was built. He said that a flat payment of $12,000 was one thing, but he did not want to have to seek additional library funds in the future to pay those costs. Mr. Johnson acknowledged Mr. Meisner's remarks, and clarified that the proposal submitted by Mr. Brink did not increase because of the new library. Responding to a request for direction from Mr. Johnson, the council agreed that staff could draft language including nonprofits in the rate base for further consideration. Mr. Kelly asked for information on how many nonprofits were affected. Mr. Lee left the meeting. C.Work Session: Yard Debris Collection Rate Mr. Pap8 recused himself from the agenda item and left the meeting. Nancy Young, Planning and Development Department, provided a presentation on a proposal for a regular curbside yard debris program. She reminded the council that it had discussed such a program in November 1999. Such a program would reduce the waste stream going to the local landfill, as yard debris constituted approximately ten percent of all disposed waste. Ms. Young referred the council to the program options included in the meeting packet for yard debris curbside collection, including program funding and proposed exemptions. She reviewed the staff recommendation, which was for a regular curbside yard debris program with exemption by use of a 21-gallon refuse container. She further recommended that customers pay $2 for the service, and that the balance of the funding come from an excise tax on commercial haulers. Ms. Young noted that the City's consultant, Scott Hobson, of the firm Hilton Farnkoff and Hobson, was also present to answer questions. Responding to questions from Mr. Rayor regarding the haulers' rate of return, Mr. Hobson said that not all haulers report the same rate of return, but with the exception of one smaller hauler, all those providing commercial service generate sufficient a level of profits that would allow the City to implement the excise tax and reduce rates while still generating profits. Ms. Young said four of the five haulers could meet the threshold. Mr. Rayor said that the $2 fee for customers seemed reasonable. He noted that the 21-gallon service was a weekly service that cost about $7 monthly. His can was a 32-gallon can and he had service once a month at a cost of about $5. Mr. Rayor believed that more work needed to be MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 6 Work Session done on the exemptions in terms of the volume collected. Ms. Young said that the issue could be addressed in the ordinance or through the administrative rules. Staff was attempting to present an example in place at this time. Mr. Rayor asked what would occur with the single commercial hauler that could not afford the cost. Ms. Taylor asked why Eugene residents paid more for garbage than Springfield residents. She asked why rates could not be dropped to those levels so an added fee would not hurt as much. Ms. Young said Springfield's rates were lower because it had a single commercial hauler, and commercial rates subsidized residential rates. Ms. Taylor suggested that Eugene take a comparable approach. Ms. Taylor did not support compost inspectors, thinking the community would not accept them readily. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Young said that staff was recommending the use of 65-gallon cads for program participation. Mr. Kelly supported the proposed ordinance with an exemption mechanism. He expressed support for more comparative information from other communities, suggesting that Eugene's approach might be a hybrid of several approaches. He wanted to make exemptions available to people who deserved them because they did not generate yard debris. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council should not consider the concept of the commercial excise tax in isolation from other issues. For example, if the commercial haulers were exceeding the allowed rate of return, the rate review should produce lowered rates. Mr. Kelly said that the excise tax appeared to be taking a general concept and applying it to a specific opportunity. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments. He said the council must keep the purpose of the program in mind. He said that while he was somewhat troubled by the need for physical inspection of exemptions, there was a financial and environmental cost to the community from not having such inspections in the form of increased waste flow to the landfill. He was not interested in a program without exemptions, or with exemptions by choice, adding that the 21- gallon container may be an indicator of little or no debris, but that would vary with each resident. He agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the need to exempt those who did not contribute to the waste stream. Mr. Meisner did not object to spreading the cost of a community need. He wanted the City to look seriously at franchising garbage service. He supported Option 1 until the entire question of subsidies and franchises had been explored. Mr. Fart said he agreed with the provision of exemptions and was interested to see more information on the type of exemption discussed by Mr. Kelly. He requested more options. Mr. Fart generally favored the proposal as he wanted to reduce the waste stream going to the landfill to the extent possible. However, he objected to the commercial subsidy proposed for the program. He said that some elements of a business were more profitable than others, and identifying one element of a business to tax could seriously impact the entire business. He believed a $3.50 fee assessed to residents was reasonable for the service. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Nathanson noted that commercial rates had stayed the same over the last decade while residential rates had been raised a couple of times. She wanted to keep residential costs in the forefront of the discussion. She was not opposed outright to a cross subsidy, noting that the telephone system worked in a similar manner before deregulation. She had asked if the costs could be reduced in November 1999, and was disappointed they had not gone down. She pointed out, however, that a comparison of Eugene's costs with other communities showed it was not out of line compared to cities such as Gresham, etc. Ms. Nathanson asked why a 65-gallon cart was being recommended. She wondered if a smaller container would reduce monthly costs to the customer. Mr. Hobson said that the difference in the cost of the cart was insignificant, it would be a negligible cost on the program. The larger cart allowed residents to keep their yards free of debris. Ms. Nathanson expressed interest in knowing the costs of administering the program using different exemption options. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Meisner about the need to study the issue of exclusive franchise districts to avoid wear and tear on the streets, excessive noise, and extra cost. Ms. Nathanson wanted to know how multiple-family residential units were taken into account in the proposal. Ms. Young said that it depended the size of a development; those using large refuse bins were charged commercial rates. Ms. Nathanson asked how residents of such developments would benefit from the proposed program, and asked if there was an "in-between" option that would allow a multi-family development to participate fairly. Ms. Young said that the more people who were exempted from the program, the higher the cost; under a universal program, service to the individual and the benefit to the community were balanced. Ms. Taylor said that $3 was a lot of money to some residents. She was also concerned about exemptions, thinking people would choose to be exempted and the program would be less effective. She wanted to bring the residential rates down before the program was implemented. Regarding the issue of fairness, she pointed out that those with concrete yards were contributing more run off and pollution to the storm system. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to require haulers to provide universal, biweekly curbside yard debris collection service to residential customers, with partial subsidy from a commercial excise tax. Mr. Rayor suggested that commercial rates had not risen because the rate studies were not adequate. He questioned using the excise tax concept to bring the rates into balance and said he would like to see the recent rate studies. He suggested identifying the smallest users and exempting them from the charge, and also of providing a way for people to apply for the exemption. He concurred with Mr. Meisner and Ms. Nathanson about the need for the City to examine franchising options from a "big picture" view that encompassed energy use and the wear and tear on streets. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend the motion by dropping the phrase "partial subsidy from a commercial excise tax" and replacing it MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 8 Work Session with the phrase "with an exemption mechanism reflecting council discussion." The motion to amend passed, 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Young said that commercial rates had not increased, and the targeted rate had been exceeded. The City had made different attempts to reduce the rate of return by requiring haulers to offer more programs and by raising license fees. Mr. Johnson noted that staff was advised in such matters by a citizen advisory committee. Ms. Nathanson asked if the providers had been keeping their costs down, which accounted for the lack of a rate increase. Ms. Young responded that commercial service was much more efficient to deliver than residential service. Mr. Farr suggested that the additional profit generated on the commercial side offset some of the costs of serving residential customers. Ms. Young said that the City's system had haulers with many commercial customers but no residential, and some with more residential than commercial. A subsidy brings some haulers out of balance, which led to the need to look more comprehensively at the system. The main motion passed unanimously, 6:0. D. Work Session: Growth Management Implementation Status Report 2000 Jim Croteau, Planning and Development Department, reviewed a document included in the council's meeting packet entitled Growth Management Implementation Policies, Status Report 20000, and called the council's attention to a list of projects in that document that were intended to implement the council's Growth Management Study policies. Acknowledging that individual councilors may support projects not on the list yet, he said that a tremendous amount of work had been done. Mr. Croteau reviewed the list of projects. Ms. Nathanson commented that the City organization was very busy. Acknowledging the lead role taken by Planning and Development Department, she noted the multi-department effort that it required to implement the study policies. Ms. Nathanson said that the organization was doing a lot of good things to achieve its goals. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Johnson said that it was possible work on the East Bank Bicycle Trail could go forward this year. The application for the bicycle path had been withdrawn. Ms. Taylor asked about the status of the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Croteau said that the West Eugene Parkway was awaiting a final SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement), but little else was occurring. Planning Division Director Jan Childs said that the final SEIS was still awaiting release; she expected it in the next few months. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the report. He said that the City was making progress but was moving painfully slowly on many projects since the adoption of the Growth Management Study policies. He said that if the City was serious about the study, it should budget for those priorities in the annual budget, and not rely on grant funding to the extent it was. Mr. Kelly requested information on the two nodal pilots. Ms. Childs said that a Planning Commission public hearing on the Royal Node project was scheduled for July 7. She said that the project was delayed by the discovery of more extensive wetlands on the site than was previously supposed to exist. The Chambers node project was delayed pending resolution of the alignment of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system through the area. She said that the City was MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 9 Work Session awaiting a decision on that issue because it had an impact on how the transit components of that node would function. Mr. Kelly noted that Lane Transit District had delayed BRT in that area because of its focus on the pilot. Ms. Childs concurred. Mr. Kelly suggested that perhaps another nodal pilot should proceed before the Chambers node. Ms. Childs said that the City was moving forward with the Chase node as quickly as the department could get the appropriate staff on board. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the Oregon Supreme Court's review of the public benefit criteria established for the enterprise zone, Mr. Johnson indicated staff would provide the council with a memorandum on the issue. Mr. Farr observed that North Eugene residents would benefit from several projects mentioned in the document, including work on several parks, a new branch library, a new police substation, a reopened fire station, and a link to the Amazon bicycle path. He was very pleased with the efforts in that area, saying that the area would be a much different place in terms of services received. He thanked the manager for his work in the area. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the organization was very busy and that staff was doing a great deal of work to move the policies forward. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly about the need to implement the policies more quickly. He suggested that the council consider sitting down with staff and the Planning Commission to brainstorm how best to accomplish some of the goals inherent in the policies, rather than merely tying them to ongoing efforts or grant applications. Mr. Meisner further questioned how the Land Use Code Update implemented the policies. He did not see that the update contained the tools needed to do so. Mr. Rayor said that the report was complete, comprehensive, up-to-date, and he thanked staff. He asked if the nodal areas would be included in the Land Use Code. Ms. Childs said that a Royal Special Area was proposed for addition to the code. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the urban reserves in the southwest hills, Mr. Croteau said that staff was doing an analysis of the existing reserves, and doubted that the Willow Creek area was suitable for urban expansion given the natural resource issues in the area. Ms. Nathanson asked that the North End Scoping Group final report be mentioned in the report, and asked at what point that group's recommendations would be implemented. She pointed out that some of the recommendations were quite minor in terms of their cost to implement. Mayor Torrey said that the council had not had a discussion of economic development for some time, and he thought it would be helpful for the community to know what the council considered "environmentally sensitive businesses" suitable for the community. He was frequently asked why type of business was welcome in the community. Mayor Torrey noted that Eugene had been considered as a location for a call center in the past and likely would be in the future. He asked if there were businesses that the City should encourage to locate in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson did not recollect all the recommendations of the Council Committee on Economic Development, but noted her interest in Eugene as a print/electronic publishing center and as a center for businesses that manufacture items necessary for a sustainable society. She cited energy conservation, efficient transportation, and improved building materials and techniques as MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 10 Work Session examples, and noted that the community already was the home of several leading bicycle manufacturers and technology firms. Mr. Kelly requested a brief report on the staff and community focus group recently convened to discuss housing types. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner about how those recommendations would be incorporated into the Land Use Code Update, Mr. Croteau indicated staff would return with a proposal. Mr. Kelly hoped that the council could have a work session that could involve a review of the final report of the Council Committee on Economic Development with the goal of updating and implementing the report. Mr. Johnson thanked Planning and Development Department staff members for their work in implementing the Growth Management Study. He said that the City had accomplished a great deal over the past year with limited staff and fiscal resources. He emphasized that staff frequently discussed how to implement the Growth Management Study policies as it considered new plans and regulations. E.Work Session: Land Use Code Update Primer Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer, Planning Commission President Anne Marie Levis, and Senior Planner Teresa Bishow were present for the work session, which was being held prior to a public hearing the council was scheduled to hold jointly with the Lane Board of County Commissioners on May 31. Ms. Levis provided the council with background information on the Land Use Code Update process and the Eugene Planning Commission's deliberations about the draft Land Use Code. She identified the following objectives the commission had operated under and cited examples of the ways the commission tried to reach them. l) Streamline the code and improve efficiencies; to that end, Ms. Levis said, the commission had consolidated application procedures. 2) Balance the rights of property owners, neighbors, and public interests; as an example of how the commission achieved the objective, Ms. Levis cited the commission's work on the solar standards. 3) Achieve broad community objectives; Ms. Levis cited the inclusion of design standards to improve the appearance of new development as an example of how the objective was met. 4) Create a code the City can afford to administer and is easier to understand; Ms. Levis said that the commission did not have an opportunity to investigate the costs of administering the code, and it was hard to know what the cumulative impact of the code was. In attempting to reduce administrative costs, the commission had discussed reducing the area of public notice of pending land use actions, but there had been strenuous community objection, and the commission agreed with the public that reducing notice was not a community goal. Ms. Levis deferred the task of achieving the last objective to the City Council. She said that the commission had not been able to achieve all its objectives, but it attempted to do all it could in the time available to it. Ms. Levis reviewed the public outreach that occurred during the commission's review of the update. Mr. Farmer discussed the history of comprehensive zoning in the United States. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Farmer emphasized the need for local zoning to balance interests regarding private property owner, rights and responsibilities. He said the ordinances before the council attempted to reflect that balance. Mr. Farmer said that the community needed to determine what its values were, make it easier for people to do what the community wants, and make it harder for people to do what the community did not want. Mr. Farmer distributed a list of working themes developed by staff with related issues identified under each theme title. He recommended that the council work through issues related to the update using the themes as a template for discussion. Mr. Farmer noted that the code, as recommended by the commission to the council, would require an additional seven full-time employees. Staff would continue to tally the staff resources required by any additions suggested by the council during its upcoming deliberations. Staff would also identify some things not in the code because of a Planning Commission recommendation, and things not in the code because they represented relatively new ideas and required further work. Mr. Farmer believed that the updated code represented an improvement over the current code. He recognized the contributions of the citizen volunteers, the Planning Commission, staff, Project Manager Teresa Bishow, and Planning Director Jan Childs in developing the update. Ms. Bishow encouraged the council to use the update to make a difference in Eugene. Ms. Bishow reviewed key recommendations of the Planning Commission about which the council was likely to hear testimony. She said that there would be people expressing frustration about the commission's recommendations to the council because their vision was not included or they were concerned about a specific piece of property. She encouraged the council to consider that testimony, and said that staff was committed to helping the council shift that frustration into community transformation. She said that staff continued to meet with residents, property owners, and groups who had questions about the update. Mr. Farmer said that the department would put an advertisement in the paper to let people know staff would be available to the public at a public information session to be held before the public hearing. Planning and Development Department staff would also be present during the hearing. Councilors asked a series of questions and made several comments, which staff recorded for future response. Mr. Kelly agreed that it was important to look at the costs of code administration but suggested it was also important to consider the costs to the community of not implementing the code. He assumed that the costs of more employees would be underwritten by fees. Mr. Kelly said he would like a formal mechanism developed for the council's work sessions that allowed the council to put issues that could not be resolved through the update on a first priority work plan list and a second priority list for those items requiring considerable more work. He then wanted to adopt the two priority lists by council motion or resolution to signal that those were now staff work plan items. Mr. Kelly liked the list of constructing work sessions around working themes. Regarding the list of the commission's working themes, he said that the themes were interesting reading but the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 12 Work Session meeting packet did not indicate what changes resulted from the commission's discussions about those themes. He requested more information. Mr. Kelly also wanted a process to handle the "little things," such as one-sentence changes, that might arise in the council's discussion. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council indicate its support of when the record would close. He recommended two weeks after the public hearing, or June 14. Ms. Bishow said that staff recommended that written testimony be accepted through June 19. There was no objection from the council to the staff recommendation. Mr. Rayor believed that the tree removal/replacement ordinance included in the meeting packet was not complete. In response, Johnny Medlin of Public Works Department said that he did not think the ordinance was incomplete in that tree replacement was addressed through the administrative rules. He anticipated testimony about the topic. Mr. Rayor said that he did not understand how parking could be accommodated in the setback for the flag lots. Mr. Rayor asked where the requirements for geotech reports were in the code. Mr. Rayor asked if a redevelopment could result in a requirement that the property owner remove existing piping as a result of the open waterways ordinance. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bishow said that the definitions section described development activity, which included building additions, expansions, change of uses, etc. Different standards included exemptions for when those requirements did not apply. She suggested that staff complete a one-page matrix showing when standards were triggered. Mr. Rayor asked that the standards for the tree ordinance and open waterways be included in the matrix. Ms. Levis left the meeting. Ms. Nathanson suggested councilors contact Ms. Bishow ro informally review questions related to the code. She noted her interest in a discussion of how the City Council should analyze the City's zoning map, and what type of furor would it cause in the community if the City did such an analysis. She did not believe that many community goals could be achieved with the zoning patterns that currently exist in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson requested more information on the types of staff positions that would be required because of the code update. She wondered if any staff would be allocated for code enforcement, nuisance abatement, or mediation. Mr. Meisner was pleased to hear the idea of future work program items to amend or revise the updated code following its adoption. Mr. Meisner asked if the City was working to ensure that commercial land was used efficiently. He cited campus industrial land as an example of his concerns. He not only wanted to preserve uses, but increase the opportunity for uses to occur. He asked if FAR (Floor Area Ratios) were recommended to any area outside the/TD area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 13 Work Session Mr. Meisner noted there was no minimum density in the new R-1.5 zone and requested more information about that recommendation. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the city's existing zoning patterns made some of the goals of the update hard to achieve, and reminded the council of the adoption of the Whiteaker Plan, which had been highly controversial since it involved concurrent rezoning. Mr. Meisner said he respected the debate that preceded the decision to impose minimum densities on new development, but was curious about the consequences of that for older areas of the city. He cited established central neighborhoods currently zoned R-2 as an example of his concern, asking about the consequence of altering lot sizes to be either smaller or larger. He asked how that requirement would change or improve present development practices, such as the development of six unit apartment complexes with balconies overlooking the backyards of established houses. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs said that the council's action in adopting the code would be legislative in nature. She said that Planning staff would work with City Manager's Office staff to ensure any e-mail messages sent to the council were part of the public record. Mr. Kelly agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner and Ms. Nathanson regarding zoning patterns as they related to City goals, and asked Planning Division staff to generate some ideas about how to address that issue. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 14 Work Session