Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/07/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 7, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. 1.Items from Mayor and Council Mr. Lee had no items. Mr. Fart had no items. Mr. Meisner had no items. Mr. Kelly had several items. Pointing out how well the council was working together, he asked councilors to consider participating as an entry in the Eugene Celebration Parade. Mr. Fart indicated his only reservations would be if the event fell on the same day as a University of Oregon home football game. Mr. Lee wanted the council to do something unique, and indicated willingness to take a lead role in the effort. Mr. Fart volunteered his truck for use as a float. Mr. Kelly discussed his experience in an experimental mediation effort at a protest on June 1 at Broadway Place. He said the goal of the effort was to keep political events safe and productive for everyone, and he believed it went well. He said talking and listening one-on-one with participants was a powerful tool, and the his dialogue may have helped keep the event peaceful. He recommended the experience to other councilors and encouraged them to contact Greg Rikhoff of the City Manager's Office. Mr. Kelly said that he had also heard frustrations expressed by protest participants with the current Eugene Police Department complaint process, and asked the City Manager to update the council soon on improvements made to that process by staff. City Manager Jim Johnson said he would do so. Ms. Taylor supported Mr. Kelly's suggestion for the council's participation in the Celebration parade, and noted her preference for walking the parade route. Ms. Taylor said she had hoped the Police Commission would partially serve as a police review board through its policy-making role. She hoped the commission did not become a mechanism to further a police agenda. Mr. Meisner suggested that the opposite could also be a problem. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor said that she was distressed to hear that a local car washing business was going out of business because of its inability to relocate in a zone intended for such uses. She asked if the Metro Partnership had a role in assisting businesses that were thriving, local, environmentally friendly, and provided employment for youth. Ms. Taylor said that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) would discuss the 1-105 soundwall at its meeting the following day; she understood that there was a proposal to defer the ramps onto Washington-Jefferson Bridge to fund the soundwall. She believed the council should discuss the MPC meetings prior to those meetings, but there was no time to do so. She asked that councilors provide her with any input they had. Ms. Taylor noted that the Tree Foundation had concerns over the possible removal of trees adjacent to the soundwall to accommodate a future third lane. She said she did not support a third lane. Mr. Kelly said that the area residents had been working on the soundwall for some time with the assistance of the City and County. Given the length of time the soundwall project had been under discussion and the fact the ramp project was not the full improvement envisioned in TransPlan, he supported the proposal to defer the ramps to fund the soundwall. Regarding the concerns of the Tree Foundation, Mr. Kelly reported that he had recently responded to the foundation's letter by suggesting that all parties meet after the funding issue was resolved to discuss the issue of the trees. Mr. Meisner said that the Washington-Jefferson Bridge project was important and he did not want it to be lost if the funding was deferred. City Manager Jim Johnson clarified that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had indicated the project would be deferred, not canceled. Mr. Pap8 arrived at the meeting. Mayor Torrey indicated that the MPC would request ODOT's written commitment to the soundwall funding. Mayor Torrey announced that the City Council would discuss Bus Rapid Transit at an upcoming meeting, and asked staff to contact Lane Transit District (LTD) to confirm the date of that meeting. He added that the council needed to let LTD know its position on the issue, and if the council proposed changes to the proposed plan, it should let LTD know as soon as possible. Mayor Torrey said that he had met with the officers of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon and had discussed the special response fee ordinance with them. The officers requested that the council delay action on the ordinance to the fall, when students would be in town and available to comment. He did not think the request was unreasonable. Mr. Rayor said that he had attended the Bus Rapid Transit open house recently sponsored by LTD and discussed the project with the project manager. He said the project manager was largely unaware of many of the issues that had been raised in the past by councilors, such as the issues he had raised about ownership of acquired rights-of-way and maintenance. He recommended that City staff approach LTD staff about those issues. Mr. Farr concurred with Ms. Taylor's statements regarding the situation faced by the local car wash, and asked if the City had a mechanism to assist the owner in retaining his business. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Johnson said that he was working with staff on an informational memorandum about the issue. One option was for the council to amend the Land Use Code to allow the use in the C-1 zone. Mayor Torrey added that he understood that C-2 land was available for the use but the property owner found the land too expensive. He said that as land was consumed within the urban growth boundary, such issues would continue to arise. Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Kelly that the council was working well together, and he suggested the council had learned to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise on the issues it faced. He said that if that continued, the council would continue to work well together. Mr. Meisner urged the council to be cautious in making changes in the Land Use Code in response to the problems experienced by a single business because of the implications it had for the larger community. He hoped that the council could figure out a way to mandate more efficient use of the resource lands the community currently had, citing the land consumed by campus industrial zoning as an example of his concerns. Regarding BRT, Mr. Meisner noted that LTD staff had produced a new video tape showing BRT using the guideway systems on the streets. He said it was remarkable to see, and he had requested copies for the council to view. Regarding the special response fee ordinance, Mr. Meisner pointed out that the ordinance was written quite broadly and was not targeted at the University. He said that the issue was a citywide issue, not a University issue. Mr. Johnson indicated that a public hearing on the special response fee ordinance could be scheduled to accommodate the University's fall schedule. He asked if the council wanted the ordinance reviewed by the Police Commission. Mr. Meisner said that the commission had scheduled a retreat to discuss how to handle its work load given its heavy meeting schedule and the many issues the commission was addressing. He said that the commission's schedule was full until the retreat. Mr. Pap8 concurred with Mr. Meisner. Mayor Torrey said that the after-school task force had discussed bringing Springfield into that effort, and Springfield officials were supportive but reminded him that Springfield did not operate a parks department. He had asked the City to approach the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District about the effort. 2. Work Session and Action: Discussion of Police/Fire Survey Results Mr. Johnson asked the council to comment on the results of the survey. He noted that the council would discuss options for next steps at a work session on June 19. Council Coordinator Kate Rowles distributed ward maps showing the voter turnout by ward and the percentage of voters supporting the police and fire headquarters measure. Mr. Lee observed that the issue did not appear to be of much importance to the public, but nonetheless it was an important subject. He said that it was clear that location was a concern to respondents. He wanted to move forward with another measure, preferably in November. Mr. Rayor said the results reflected voters' confusion about the issues involved. He wanted a quick space study to be performed before another measure was offered to the voters. He also MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 3 Work Session wanted to see a smaller, more cost-effective proposal. Mr. Rayor believed it would be a mistake to locate a police facility anywhere other than on a half-block near City Hall. Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Rayor's remarks. He supported going back to the voters in November with another ballot while the City had some momentum on the issue, and to provide the voters with more precise information on where the stations might be and what they might look like. Mr. Meisner suggested that rather than focusing on a election date, the council focus on the need and on a plan. He wanted to offer the public a careful and deliberative process that informed residents about the need and how the costs were determined. Mr. Meisner said that November might be the best date for a ballot measure but feared it was too soon, and the results would mirror the May results. Mr. Meisner supported going to the voters with a bond for a police headquarters first, adding it was not because it was more important but because City Hall could be remodeled to accommodate the Fire Department if the Police Department was moved out. He also supported identification of a specific site, thinking the appearance of the structure was less important to voters than the site. He said that use of a City-owned site, for example, would cut the cost, and let residents know the council was serious about building in a cost-efficient manner. He suggested that use of a nearby site could reduce parking needs in the shod-term and costs. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Rayor about the need for a comprehensive examination of City space needs downtown. Mr. Kelly said that the survey had been interesting but no dominant reason for the measure's failure stood out to him. He thought the measure offered to the public had been reasonable and did not want to go back to the voters with a scaled-down measure as it was not supportive of the extensive work done by the Police and Fire Stations Task Force, staff, and the consultants, and it would cost the council credibility with the voters. He said that a smaller facility would be inadequate almost immediately. Mr. Kelly said that the City should steer away from any communication with the public that advocated rather than informed. Mr. Kelly said that he would rather "do it right than do it fast" and suggested that the council could overcome the turnout limitations created by Ballot Measure 50 if it decided to postpone placing a measure on the ballot past November. He liked Mr. Meisner's idea of a police-only approach, including the costs of retrofitting City Hall to accommodate the Fire Department's space needs. He said he was most interested in options that addressed space needs and efficiency. If the options included seismic retrofitting, he needed information on how that was financed and how staff prioritized the seismic retrofit in terms of other capital needs. Mr. Kelly said that he would also be interested in more information about an option that involved a fire-only measure with a seismic upgrade to City Hall and police expansion into the existing Fire Department space. He acknowledged that option would not give the police the space the department needed. Mr. Pap~ believed that if the council did not deal with the space needs of the fire and police departments soon, it was not meeting its responsibility as a council. He believed the last measure failed because of a lack of time for a public information campaign, competition with MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 4 Work Session other measures, and the size of the proposed bond. He favored a smaller bond, and supported Mr. Meisner's suggestion for a police-only approach. Ms. Taylor said that those she spoke to resented the apparent suddenness of the measure and were not confused. She called for a planning process for all City space needs with extensive public involvement before any election was held. She supported a fire-only measure because the current facility was inadequate for both staff and equipment and the cost of new fire headquarters was less than the cost of new police headquarters. Ms. Taylor also wanted to identify a specific site for the fire headquarters. Mayor Torrey noted his surprise that the survey indicated respondents supported a new police headquarters more than a new fire headquarters. He wanted to place a measure on the November ballot to avoid the 50 percent voter turnout requirement, and to take advantage of the momentum created by the May election. Mayor Torrey said that he was interested in the Sears building as a location for the police headquarters in part to provide a police presence in that area. He suggested that parking needed for that facility could be made available at off-hours for library parking. Mayor Torrey suggested the survey results indicated that the voters might have supported the measure if the council had done a better job of making a case for the measure. He agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks about the need to maintain credibility, but suggested that a phased square footage approach might be acceptable to the voters. Mayor Torrey indicated support for a police-only measure. He also concurred with councilors who called for more comprehensive space planning. Mr. Johnson noted some concerns about the council's schedule given the many follow-up items identified by councilors. He suggested some agenda items now scheduled may have to be postponed, or meetings added. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Johnson anticipated that staff would meet with the citizen members of the Police and Fire Stations Task Force, but did not plan to reconvene the task force. Mr. Rayor suggested that the level of detail provided about the costs of the facilities was "so great that it's kind of like a snow job." He averred that the council did not understand the information, and that it had been told that failure to support one element of the proposal would cause the entire proposal to collapse like a deck of cards. He said that was not true. He wanted to divide the issue, and wanted the proposal to be smaller and leaner "whether the numbers say it works or not, because it can always be made to work." He opined that staff was unable to differentiate between a "whole pie, and a mostly whole pie." Mr. Rayor called on staff to be innovative, adding that if staff brought the council scenarios that went much over a page, then the council "was not dealing with policy anymore, we are being interior decorators." Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Kelly regarding the issue of credibility. However, he pointed out that Mr. Meisner's suggestion for a police-only measure and the potential of using City-owned land could reduce the cost of a measure without compromising the City's credibility. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Meisner suggested that a comprehensive space study needed to follow any measure, "quite quickly." Mr. Meisner observed it would be very challenging for the council to place anything on the November ballot given the limited time before the summer recess. Mr. Meisner said that members of the council will need to be actively involved in the campaign for the measure if it was to be successful, rather than rely entirely on citizens. Mr. Kelly shared Mr. Johnson's concerns about the council's meeting schedule, and questioned whether the council could resolve its differences on the topic in time to place a measure on the November ballot. While he acknowledged the difficulty in securing the needed turnout at another election date, Mr. Kelly did not want to postpone other important topics that the council had on its schedule. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mayor Torrey that the City had momentum on the issue and said he was not discouraged by the results of the vote. He said that it often took more than one election for a measure to pass, and suggested that the council had a marketing problem to overcome. He indicated willingness to work through the issues as a council with the goal of placing a measure on the November ballot. Mayor Torrey encouraged staff to develop an option that took advantage of all possible cost savings and maintained the council's credibility with the voters. 3.Work Session: TransPlan Planning Director Jan Childs, Transportation Engineer David Reinhard, TransPlan Project Manager Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments, and Stefano Viggiano of Lane Transit District joined the council for the item. Ms. Childs asked the council to continue its discussion on the remaining issues related to the roadway system. Mr. Meisner noted his long-time interest in the addition of a northbound ramp at Interstate 5 and Franklin Boulevard. He said that the Ferry Street Bridge was nearing capacity and it was the only way for many commuters leaving Interstate 5 to reach the University of Oregon and Sacred Heart Hospital. A ramp would provide commuters with way to reach those areas without going through downtown. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to move the 1-5/Franklin interchange project from the Future list to the 20-year Financially Constrained project list, retaining the current project description in the draft TransPlan with the understanding that there would be a comprehensive study to arrive at the optimum project design and address any potential impacts. Mr. Rayor asked if the project's feasibility had been determined. Mr. Reinhard responded that he believed the project was "doable," although he believed the topography was challenging and the reason the ramp was not constructed originally. The project was preliminarily estimated to cost about $25 million. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Rayor said he would vote against the motion because of the unavoidable proximity of such a ramp to the river and other natural features in the area. He did not believe such a bridge would be environmentally acceptable to the community. Mr. Pap8 supported the motion, saying the community needed to find other ways to travel across the river, and working with existing facilities such as the I-5/Franklin interchange might be the best way to do so. Mr. Farr asked if there were any conceptual drawings of such a bridge. Mr. Schwetz said that a committee had investigated the option but there was not much hard information available. Mr. Farr suggested that the bridge would be challenging from an engineering viewpoint. He asked if the project involved the condemnation of private land. Mr. Reinhard said it was too early to know. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. PapS's remarks, saying the community should make the best use of the crossings that exist, and the crossing in question was one that could be augmented. He believed it would reduce traffic volumes on the Ferry Street Bridge. He said that it was necessary to move the project to the 20-year list, but that did not guarantee the bridge would be built. He shared Mr. Rayor's concerns about the environmental impacts of such a ramp, but believed that those impacts would be the same for every contemplated bridge crossing. He noted that such a ramp could not be built without an environmental impact statement. He agreed that the addition of such a ramp could be an engineering challenge. Mayor Torrey supported the motion, suggesting it created an opportunity to examine the possibility of a ramp onto I-5. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that any location over the river would have negative environmental impacts. He was concerned about overloading the Ferry Street Bridge because of its overflow impact on the center of town, and a ramp onto I-5 would mitigate that problem. Mayor Torrey emphasized the importance of placing the project in TransPlan so that City representatives for lobby for funding for it. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The council next discussed projects near the urban growth boundary. Ms. Taylor wanted to eliminate all projects near the urban growth boundary as she believed such projects encouraged sprawl. She added that she wished to "start over again" and include more bicycle paths and facilities for pedestrians, and many fewer roads than were called for in the draft plan. Mr. Kelly noted his hope that the bicycle and pedestrian elements of TransPlan could be improved. He said that while he philosophically shared Ms. Taylor's concerns about projects near the periphery, he believed they should be addressed on a project-by-project basis rather than by wholesale elimination. Ms. Taylor maintained that the City was "building things out to nowhere" and that only encouraged development in those areas. Mr. Farr pointed out that the bulk of remaining buildable land in Eugene was close to the urban growth boundary. The community needed an effective transportation system, and he favored more bicycle facilities and an efficient public transit system. Mr. Farr said badly planned or under planned facilities would only keep people in their automobiles longer. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that projects should be looked at individually, but said without an effective transportation system that accommodated cars people would be driving even more. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 7 Work Session The council considered additional projects receiving public comments. Ms. Childs asked the council if there were any projects members wished to discuss. Mr. Fart noted his previous remarks regarding an effective transportation system and spoke in favor of retaining the West Eugene Parkway on the projects list because of the congested state of West 11th Avenue. Ms. Taylor wanted to delete the West Eugene Parkway from the projects list for environmental reasons. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to delete the West Eugene Parkway from the TransPlan projects list. Mr. Rayor recused himself from any discussion regarding the West Eugene Parkway because of a conflict of interest, and left the table. Mr. Kelly noted that since the parkway had been voted on 14 years ago, there had been changes in the community, and he did not think the results of the public vote "stands for all time" in the philosophical sense. He said that in terms of the TransPlan draft, he was most troubled by the phasing of the projects, and the fact the center segment was the only one on the fiscally constrained list. He believed that building the center segment only would not benefit the public or be a good expenditure of public funds. Mr. Kelly said that the segment was projected to reduce peak hour congestion on West 11th Avenue by eight percent at a cost of $17 million. He thought that was too much money for too little return, and said he understood that the other phases were in the out years of the plan because of funding uncertainty. For those reasons, he was uncomfortable leaving the project in the plan. Mr. Fart said that eight percent did not seem to be much of a reduction, but the return on the investment would not occur at all if the project was deleted from the list. He believed that removing the project removed the pressure on staff to bring the project to final fruition. He thought the community needed to find a way to make the parkway work, and to address the environmental and funding issues surrounding the parkway. Removing the parkway from the list would mean all consideration for the future was gone. He reminded the council of the public vote in support of the parkway, and said that those using West 11th Avenue corridor felt the need for the project. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He did not approve of the proposed connection and thought the project cost a great deal of money for little effect. He did not understand why the parkway needed to be routed so far to the west and needed to consume valuable resource land. He did not trust the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) about the project "at all." He also doubted the City would ever see any protection of West 11th Avenue from Charnelton to Chambers streets, adding that ©D©T had done "everything they can to destroy it and they will continue to do so." He said that there may be some utility in connecting 6th/7th avenues to West 11th Avenue, but did not think it should occur as planned. While Mr. Meisner acknowledged that the voters "may well" have approved the parkway, he suggested that "people change their minds" and the results of a vote could be different in the future. Mr. Pap~ agreed with the remarks of Mr. Fart. He provided context for the discussion, noting the passage of Senate Bill 100 prompted the City to plan for its industrial land base in west Eugene. He said that the parkway was designed in provide access to those areas. During the 1980s, the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 8 Work Session discovery of wetlands in the area had led to the development of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and the mitigation bank, which was an attempt to balance the need for industrial lands with protection of important wetlands. Mr. Pap~ said that the council would be breaking a promise with the voters and violating its planning for industrial lands by removing the parkway from the project list. Mayor Torrey opposed the motion. He said that before the council made such a decision, he wanted to know more about the parkway's status, the environmental impact issues associated with the project, the final route, and its impacts on traffic congestion. He said that ©D©T would be happy to reprogram the funding associated with the parkway, and it would not come back to Eugene. Mayor Torrey did not feel comfortable making a final decision without the presence of Ms. Nathanson, whose ward the planned parkway was in. Mr. Kelly said that building only the middle segment would not be helping the remainder of the industrial properties in West Eugene. He pointed out that the council's decision could not be final because TransPlan was multi-jurisdictional. Passage of the motion would merely lead to further discussion at the joint elected officials' work session. He said that not to pass the motion ensured that discussion did not happen, and implied the first phase would be built. He suggested that the motion be amended to delete the reference to the parkway and replacing it with continued staff study to explore alternative mechanisms for better traffic relief on West 11th Avenue, further staff study of how to fund a fully functional project. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend the motion to substitute a staff study of ways to substantially provide traffic relief along West 11th Avenue for the parkway project. Mr. Farr opposed the amendment. He said the project in question was funded by ©D©T and Eugene did not receive a fair share of State transportation funding now. He said that ©D©T would reprogram the money if the project was eliminated, and there would be no funding to relieve traffic on West 11th Avenue efficiently. He said that the project as proposed would accommodate commuter traffic as well as provide day-long relief to congestion. Mr. Fart said that there was already a problematic mix of semi-trucks and passenger vehicles on West 11th Avenue, and the parkway would help reduce that mix. Mr. Meisner supported the amendment to the motion. He did not think that the solution to west Eugene's traffic problems was to build a 5th/6th connector to beyond Beltline. He disagreed with Mr. Fart that the parkway would provide a separation of passenger and truck traffic. It would merely add additional separate capacity and exacerbate the existing problem. Mr. Meisner was not persuaded by arguments regarding the loss of ©D©T funding, adding that he did not "accept money for a bad purpose." He thought that 6th/7th avenues could be connected to West 11th Avenue much closer in without the loss of substantial industrial or resource land. The motion to amend passed, 4:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. Mr. Pap~ moved to table the main motion, seconded by Mr. Lee. The motion failed, 4:2; Mr. Lee and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Mr. Farr opposed the main motion because so much work had gone into the parkway and he th believed it would serve to alleviate the traffic problems that exist on West 11 Avenue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Kelly wanted further discussion of the parkway, which was why he offered his amendment. He said that if the study resulted in an alternative plan, TransPlan would be revised. If the motion failed, there would be no further discussion. The most likely outcome of its failure would be the construction of Phase 1. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly. He stated that the parkway proposal was not a plan that worked, any more than the 6th/7th avenue project was a plan that worked because it had failed to relieve congestion on West 11th Avenue, which he maintained had been promised by ©D©T. He maintained that the parkway was not designed to relieve congestion on West 11th Avenue. He pointed out that his ward reached to Seneca Street, so Ms. Nathanson's ward was not the only ward affected. Mr. Pap~ asked Nick Arnis of Oregon Department of Transportation what happened to the funding for the parkway if the project was deleted from TransPlan. Mr. Arnis believed that the motion, if passed, would send a strong message to ©D©T about the council's level of support for the project. If the project was deleted from the plan, the money would be reprogrammed for other projects. He said that the agency was very close to completing the Environmental Impact Statement for the parkway, and ©D©T had also acquired right-of-way for the project. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to table the motion for an opportunity for further discussion. The vote on the motion to table was a 3:3 tie, with Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Taylor voting no, and Mr. Farr, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Mayor Torrey opposed the motion to table, so the vote failed, 3:4. Ms. Taylor said that it was irresponsible to spend money simply because it was available from another agency. Mayor Torrey said he would vote no if there was a tie on the motion. He recommended that staff return to the council with a more comprehensive report on the parkway if the motion failed. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs said that the agenda for the joint elected officials work session on July 12 could be structured to include discussion of the parkway. Mr. Lee recommended that course of action. The vote on the main motion was a 3:3 tie, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Taylor voting yes, and Mr. Farr, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Lee voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition, and the main motion failed, 3:4. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 10 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 11 Work Session