Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/10/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall July 10, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Bobby Lee, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Stormwater Basin Planning and Open Space Preservation Les Lyle introduced Therese Walsh and Linda Harris of the Engineering Division and Neil Bj6rklund of the Planning and Development Department, who were all involved in developing the recommendations before the council. In addition, Mike Farthing of the City's Stormwater Management Department Advisory Committee (DAC) was present; the DAC was also involved in the development of the proposal. Mr. Lyle provided a Powerpoint presentation on the City's efforts at stormwater basin planning and open space preservation. Copies of the presentation were distributed to the council. Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting at 5:40 p.m. Mr. Lyle discussed the recommended proposal, which had four basic elements: 1) multiple- objective water quality design requirements for new development and major redevelopment; 2) protection and restoration of open waterways; 3) multiple-objective capital programs, and 4) enhanced City processes. He described each element of the proposal in detail. Regarding the recommendation that the City buy significant stream corridors, which would require the allocation of an additional $500,000 annually and a subsequent 50-cents increase ~n the stormwater user fee, Mr. Lyle noted that the DAC felt the investment was minimal given the priority of the stream corridors, and proposed a study to identify those significant corridors. He sought the council's input on the basin proposal for stormwater management and direction on the DAC's recommendation to purchase stream corridors. Mr. Lyle noted that the Planning Commission was in general support of the proposals with some concerns expressed about the maintenance implications of a green infrastructure approach. Mr. Fart commended in general the work done by Mr. Lyle for the City. He noted his long-time concerns about the impact of regulations on the supply of buildable residential land, and the cost of development of residential land. Mr. Lyle did not think the site management techniques would MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 1 Work Session have much of an impact on an individual site. If a property owner was considering a subdivision- based system, that could require some land for such facilities as detention ponds. He noted that the staff had tested the assumptions in the Royal Node to get a feeling of the land impact and cost implications, and indicated he would provide that information to the council. Regarding cost, Mr. Lyle said other communities that had implemented the techniques being proposed found them less expensive than conventional approaches in the long-term, generally because the facilities were contained on a site. Mr. Lee arrived at the meeting at 6:54 p.m. Mr. Meisner asked how many acres would be impacted by the proposal, what those lands were zoned, and how that would translate to a demand to expand the urban growth boundary. Mr. Lyle suggested that staff respond to that question when it returned in August with more information about the interim buffers. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Lyle said that the Willamette River had such unique maintenance responsibilities that it was not included in the financial model. Mr. Meisner asked if those responsibilities would increase, and if Eugene has the resources to maintain the riverbank. Mr. Lyle reiterated that because it was so unique, the river was not included in the model, but staff anticipated that the City would have some degree of maintenance responsibility, although they would not be very different from the responsibilities the City had today. Mr. Meisner asked if it was necessary to increase the stormwater fee to provide funding for acquisitions, and to what uses the increase applied. Mr. Lyle responded that the proposals could be accommodated within the current rate base, but if the City Council wanted to modify the proposal, it would require a program reduction in existing activities or the fee increase. He said the DAC felt the acquisition program was important enough to recommend the fee increase. Mr. Lyle said that the fee was based on impervious surface area for all types of development, and the rate was a cost per square foot. Mr. Kelly commended the work of staff and the DAC. He felt the recommendations represented forward-looking thinking and reflected a practical approach. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the proposal that 80 percent of annual stormwater runoff be captured and treated on-site, Mr. Lyle clarified that 80 percent was the threshold the City would like to attain, although it may not be possible in all cases. He suggested an "in-lieu of" approach as an alternative if a site was unable to meet the 80-percent requirement. Mr. Kelly said that was a good approach. Mr. Kelly supported the proposed increase in user fees to acquire stream corridors. He asked if the City would consider other approaches, such as easements. Mr. Lyle said yes. He added that the DAC believed that outright acquisition was appropriate in many cases. Regarding the financial implications of the recommendations, Mr. Kelly said he wanted to ensure the council heard about upcoming funding shortfalls before they occurred. Mr. Rayor thanked Mr. Lyle for the proposal. He asked about the basis for the proposed 50 cent fee increase. Mr. Lyle said that the increase was based on the estimated amount required for acquisition, $500,000. Mr. Rayor asked if commercial and industrial properties would also pay the increased fee. Mr. Lyle said yes. He reiterated that the amount was based on the amount of MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 2 Work Session impervious surface area of a development. Mr. Rayor favored the proposal but wanted a breakdown of the fee assessment to ensure that residential properties did not subsidize commercial and industrial properties. City Manager Jim Johnson indicated that the proposal would be put into ordinance form and the council would receive more information as well as public input. Mr. Rayor asked if the program could address the inadequacy of drainage in many parts of the community. Mr. Lyle responded that staff included a proposal to examine those stream corridors in the Capital Improvement Program with the purpose of putting together some proposals on how they might be restored. In new developments, the amount and volume of flow would be controlled so they had less impact. Mr. Rayor asked if that was understood by the public. Mr. Lyle said that staff would conduct public outreach. He said that the DAC members had also committed to communicating with their constituent groups, and he had not yet heard objections to the approach. He added that the approach was not significantly different than the approaches taken in other communities. Mr. Pap8 commended the staff and DAC work on the proposal. Referring to the concept of green roofs, he asked if the City had studied that approach. Mr. Lyle said that the City would support a Best Management Practice (BMP) of that sort. It worked quite well in some areas. Mr. Pap8 suggested that could help property owners achieve the 80-percent on-site treatment requirement. Mr. Pap8 asked if the community's buildable land could be inventoried in a matrix that showed the impact of implementing various regulations, such as the open waterways ordinance, the Land Use Code Update, and the proposed recommendations. Mr. Lyle believed that staff could produce such an analysis related to the open waterways ordinance. He was unsure that the analysis could address the Land Use Code Update. Ms. Nathanson asked how City staff knew $500,000 annually was the right amount without more information about what would be purchased. She wanted "a lot more work done" on what was needed and how much it would cost before the council considered the issue again. She was skeptical the funding would be inadequate because of what she believed was a lack of acquisition personnel, and reluctant to authorize a fee increase without knowing more about what money was needed and how it would be spent. Mr. Lyle said that information would be included in the scope of work and the follow-up evaluation. He added that no detailed analysis had gone into the proposed figure, which staff would need to validate through further analysis. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the possibility the City could use another acquisition specialist, Mr. Lyle said that information about that topic would be included in the scope of work. Ms. Nathanson asked about proposed increased in capital expenses. Mr. Lyle estimated $2 million annually over ten years. He said that as other issues or priorities arise, the annual amount could change. Ms. Nathanson asked if the Planning and Development Department had input about the impact of the proposed maintenance approaches on land use development. Mr. Lyle said that staff had examined the unintended consequences of the ordinances, but he acknowledged that there was still work to do. Both an internal and external review was planned to ensure those issues were worked out. Planning Director Jan Childs said that the Planning Commission had also flagged the issue of unintended consequences, and staff would work to identify them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor favored all the recommendations. She asked if the City was considering TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) limits for new developments. Mr. Lyle said that staff was not considering TMDL limits at this point because the limits had not yet been established, but staff was looking at issues related to the temperature of waters entering receiving streams. That was the reason for focusing on infiltration rather than conventional systems. He said that staff was also looking at the relationship between the program and Urban Forestry Program, as planting and retaining trees could help shade waterways and help to address water temperature concerns. Ms. Taylor suggested that there were lands that were unsuitable for development, which could prevent stormwater and erosion problems. Mr. Lyle said that the staff did not comprehensively look at all vacant lands in developing the recommendations. However, he anticipated that there might be cases where the City would not be able to regulate land without entering into the takings issue. He said that acquisition or the "in-lieu of" approach could be considered if it was impractical for someone to meet the standards. Mr. Lee asked how Eugene compared to other communities of its size in the effort involved in the recommendations. Mr. Lyle said that Oregon cities such as Portland and Gresham and some Washington cities were implementing many of the same concepts and approaches. Eugene had relied on the work done by those communities in formulating the recommendations under consideration. Mr. Lee emphasized the importance of the multiple-objective approach the City was considering. He commended the recommendations. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to adopt Option 1, approval of the proposal as presented, and direction to staff to proceed with broader public outreach. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to adopt Option 1, approval of the DAC recommendation related to enhanced waterway acquisition and direction to staff to proceed with preparing a scope of work for a waterway acquisition plan and to return for a work session in September/October 2000. Responding to a concern expressed by Mr. Farr regarding the relationship between the proposed regulations and housing affordability, Mr. Lyle suggested a distinction between development costs and user fees. Mr. Farr said that the cost of owning a home should also be kept in mind. He said that people should understand that such regulations could improve the quality of life in Eugene while raising housing prices. The motion passed, 8:0. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to adopt Option 1 for open space acquisition. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to amend the motion by directing staff to develop a proposed scope of work related to open space acquisition, and return to the council for a work session in September/October 2000 to take immediate steps toward the purchase of the part of the Amazon Headwaters in the South Park PUD proposal, and to direct the City's grant writer to pursue grant money for open space acquisition, including the rest of the Amazon Headwaters land. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly supported directing the grant writer to seek further dollars for open space acquisition. However, he wanted to know more about the City's legal ability to act as proposed in Ms. Taylor's motion. Mr. Johnson noted that the Hearings Official had not yet rendered a decision on the South Park planned unit development (PUD). City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the City could make an offer on the property, but the council and manager could not be involved in the PUD process. He pointed out that the property owners could decide at any time to dispose of the property. Mr. Kelly asked if staff had a sense that the area in question was a priority, given that the South Park PUD was only 20 percent of the headwaters area and funding was limited. Mr. Lyle did not. He said that the priority status and acquisition of other properties was also an issue, as well as the impact on buildable land. Mr. Kelly said that he did not have enough information at this time to determine that the South Park PUD area was a key purchase. Ms. Nathanson said that Mr. Kelly had raised her issue, which was whether this property would be the first key property for acquisition. Mr. Meisner said that his issue was the same. He was not persuaded the City should take the acquisition out of sequence of other properties, so he would not support the amendment at this point in time. Mr. Meisner asked how long it would take the City to replace the departing grant writer. Mr. Johnson said he would discuss financial strategies with the department managers and was contemplating a hiring freeze; he had not determined if the grant writer position would be included in the freeze. Mr. Meisner observed that the grant writer had been a valuable personnel addition, and had produced considerable money for the City. Mr. Rayor was also uncertain about the amendment, while acknowledging its importance to the affected neighborhood. He was not convinced that the streams could not be protected in the PUD process, and he was concerned about the loss of connectivity and residential housing land inside the urban growth boundary. Mr. Pap8 agreed with the remarks of other councilors and suggested that criteria be developed to assess such purchases. Ms. Taylor said that the property in question was in danger of immediate development, and the runoff from the property would go directly to the Amazon Creek. She pointed out that the creek was being cleaned in the lower areas and said it did not make sense to allow the upper portions of the steams to adversely affect the areas being cleaned below. She agreed there were other acquisition priorities but said that the property in question had some urgency given the owner's development plans. Mr. Lee asked how money much was involved in such a purchase. Stressing that there were many factors that would affect the price, Mr. Lyle estimated between $500,000 and $750,000, which did not include infrastructure improvements. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee regarding other acquisitions, Mr. Lyle said that the stormwater program had acquired stream corridors rather than large tracts of land. He said that the stormwater program had only been involved indirectly in acquisitions of larger tracts by the BLM in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area. The City Council had not to this point adopted a proposal for the acquisition of large parcels through the stormwater program. Mr. Lee asked if MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 5 Work Session the land in question had been assessed for environmental impacts. Mr. Lyle said that such an assessment occurred through the PUD process. Ms. Taylor asked if it was true Amazon Creek had high temperatures. Mr. Lyle said that it was a concern for a portion of Amazon Creek. If imposed, TMDLs would likely be applied to the lower sections rather of the creek than the higher sections, but he acknowledged there was a relationship between the upper and lower sections of the creek and the lower creek was affected. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lyle confirmed that the program had sufficient funds in reserve to support the acquisition. Mr. Kelly said that if the proposal was to acquire the full Amazon headwaters area, he would support it as he agreed the creek was a critical waterway. Because the area involved was only 20 percent of the headwaters area and the City had no assuranace it could acquire the remaining 80 percent, he could not support the proposal. The motion to amend failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting yes. The main motion passed, 8:0. B.Work Session: West Eugene Wetlands Plan Amendments Senior Planner Neil Bj0rklund and Planning Director Jan Childs joined the council for the item. Mr. Johnson reminded the council that the purpose of the work session was to give staff direction on the findings for each site. Final action was not scheduled until July 24. Mr. Bj0rklund provided background on the Eugene speedway site and reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation for the site. He said that the property owner wanted access from West 11th Avenue to the developable part of the property, and that access was precluded by the recommendation. The owner requested an additional area of land adjacent to the existing access be designated for development. Mr. Bj0rklund termed that proposal Option "2B." Ms. Nathanson said that West 11th Avenue was a dangerous roadway and the City had been working with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on speed control, design, and safety features. She questioned how the site, when fully developed, would affect traffic, and if the access should be taken from another road. In response, Mr. Bj0rklund said that the property owner would have to get permission from ODOT to access West 11th Avenue. It was possible that even with council and Board of County Commissioners approval of the wetlands designations, ODOT could deny that access. Mr. Kelly said he was comfortable with Option 3, the staff recommendation, because of the work done to reference the criteria. Mr. Bj0rklund noted the City's receipt of a letter after the close of the public record, which also addressed the issue of access. If the area to the east were to be acquired by the West Eugene Wetlands Partnership, the price would be based on a fair market appraisal. The appraisal value of the area would depend in part on the property owner's ability to have commercial access to the site. Mr. Bj0rklund said that raised the issue of access to more than one part of the property. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Staff was asked by the property owner what it would take to provide access to the speedway facility for appraisal purposes at a minimum. He called the council's attention to a possible adjustment in the line dividing the developable and protected portions of the site, which would provide a wide enough area for a local street, referred to as Option 3B. Mr. Johnson added that if negotiations broke down between the property owner and BLM for acquisition of a portion of the site, there was a question about how the property could be accessed. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the issue was not raised within the public record period and the option had not been analyzed. Mr. Pap8 asked if the property owner had reviewed Option 3. Mr. Bj0rklund said that staff had not talked to the property owner about the option, but had attempted to address the issues that the owner raised. He said that the recommendation would avoid impacts on a federally listed plant. Mr. Pap8 asked if the plants could be transplanted. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the answer was probably yes, with permission from the regulatory agencies. From a botanical standpoint, the partnership had no experience in moving the plant in question, Erigeron decumbens. He noted that the proposed access was not wide enough for a street built to City standards. He noted the speedway was not now in operation, but if it continued as a speedway, the access to West 11th Avenue could still be used. Mr. Rayor said that he would have a difficult time opposing the initial Planning Commission recommendation because the entrance to 11th Avenue was within 600 feet of Willow Creek Road and he doubted it could serve as a major access to the property in question. He could favor enhancing the strip road for access, such as increasing access width, but was not moved by the argument for the need to access West 11th Avenue. The proposal essentially destroyed wetlands when the access could be located elsewhere. Mr. Meisner was not interested in either Option 2 or Option "3B." He liked Option 1, the commission recommendation. He agreed with Mr. Rayor that some access enhancement might be acceptable. Mr. Farr noted the close proximity of Beltline to the property in question. He found the area along West 11th Avenue in question already highly congested. Mr. Farr said he believed strongly in individual property rights, but he did not fully comprehend the reason for an access at that particular location. He also noted that Willow Creek Road allowed access to the property for a considerable distance. Mr. Farr said he was still uncertain about his position on the issue. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Bj0rklund described the past development and use of the property. He said that the area recommended for protection was the area that had never been plowed. Mayor Torrey asked what would occur if the City did not provide the desired access: was the City at risk of devaluing the property? Mr. Klein said no; the City was regulating the property, which could affect property values, but did not represent a regulatory taking if the City was not depriving the property owner of all economic use of the property. He said that the lawyers for the developers would argue the opposite; those lawyers had not been successful yet in making those claims. Mr. Kelly asked if the size of the street could be modified to accommodate the available space. He suggested that staff examine that option if the council expressed support for Option 3B. Ms. Childs said that the Local Street Plan required a minimum 55 feet of right-of-way for a public MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 7 Work Session commercial or industrial street; the developer could build a private street under certain circumstances. Mr. Pap8 asked about the utility easement on the site. Mr. Bj0rklund identified it as a usable sanitary sewer line. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City could take action contingent on action by another agency such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Mr. Klein said it would be possible, but it would require adopting additional plan policies with the County's concurrence. Alternatively, should the contingencies come forth, the property owner could request a plan amendment. Mr. Bj0rklund noted that the State rules for wetlands protection might not allow the City to take such a contingent action. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor to direct staff to prepare findings consistent with Option 1. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Farr and Mr. Pap8 voting no. Ms. Childs noted that Option 1 was reflected in the ordinance that went to the public hearing. Mr. Kelly clarified, for the record, that the intent of the findings prepared for the City View site was to protect the entire site. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to prepare findings consistent with Option 2 for the Davidson and Murray sites in the various site ordinances. Mr. Pap8 asked if the staff recommendation addressed the testimony received. Mr. Bj0rklund said yes. Ms. Nathanson referred to the Murray property and the reference to groundwater contamination on page 66 of the meeting packet. Mr. Bj0rklund clarified that the recommendation for development was not based on the suitabilility of the site for stormwater treatment, but whether the site could be protected in perpetuity. The BLM was unable to acquire the property because of the groundwater contamination. The plan criterion was designed specifically to address such a situation. Ms. Nathanson referred to page 67 of the meeting packet and asked Mr. Bj0rklund to discuss the staff recommendation for the Davidson site. Mr. Bj0rklund said that because of the amount of impervious surface, much of the site was exempt from the buffer regulation, making it difficult to protect the site; development on the remainder of the site would probably cut the pond turtles off from their breeding areas. He added that pond turtles were easier to move than plants. The motion passed 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. C.Work Session: TransPlan Tom Schwetz of Lane Council of Governments, TransPlan Project Manager, provided an overview of proposed TransPlan Alternative Performance Measures designed to comply with the State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) (meeting packet page 92). He emphasized that the process was new and had not been tested, but he anticipated that the local metropolitan planning MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 8 Work Session organization would apply to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for the use of the standards, so whatever specific numbers were developed for the measures would be monitored and progress reported to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Mr. Schwetz reviewed the process. Mr. Lee asked how the community could be sure it could not meet the State target. Mr. Schwetz said that modeling indicated that information. Mr. Lee asked how the plan could be modified to meet the rule. Mr. Schwetz said that staff had attached alternative strategies and plan concepts tested as part of the plan development process, and those concepts included a range of pricing strategies and tools that were not acceptable to the elected officials five years ago. Mr. Lee reiterated his question, asking what the metropolitan area could do to change the plan to meet the target. Mr. Schwetz responded that discussion with the State indicated that there was no "bottom line" for the TPR. The State recognized that there were many ways to measure reduction in reliance on the auto. Mr. Schwetz said that the metropolitan area cannot meet the VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) target, but it could reduce automobile reliance, as measured by the four alternative performance measures. Mr. Kelly said that the goal of the plan should have been to meet the five-percent VMT target, which had been reduced by five percent since its initial adoption. He noted that changes had been proposed to the draft that would require changes to the model, which he believed made adoption of the alternative performance measures premature. Regarding the alternative measures, he said he did not see any plan policies that addressed DLCD concerns about Bus Rapid Transit and nodal development. Regarding the first travel response measure, Mr. Kelly said the proposed reductions "sounded great" but meant that drive alone mode share only dropped five percent, which he termed "fairly close to statistical noise" and insignificant. He found the same true of the percentage of nonautomobile trips. He suggested that instead, the plan state the drop from x percentage to y percentage. In response to Mr. Kelly's comments, Mr. Schwetz said that DLCD sent Eugene-Springfield "down the path" of using the percentage change as basis for judging progress. He noted that the existing VMT per capita was 11.0, and the change in the trend condition was 12.0. Mr. Schwetz said that local staff had pointed out to DLCD staff that a ten-percent change over a twenty-year period was hard to measure with the models that currently existed. Ms. Childs said that Bob Courtright of DLCD would be at the work session on July 12, and could provide more input on what the State expected. Ms. Nathanson said she would appreciate more frequent transit service to her neighborhood. She asked what percentage of the population was actually served by a bus coming by every 15 minutes as opposed to the percentage of the population served by a bus every half-hour. Regarding increases in bicycle miles, Ms. Nathanson reported that she had been discussing how to increase citizens' awareness of the available bicycle paths in the community with the City's Alternative Modes Coordinator. Mr. Meisner noted his interest in achieving compliance with the TPR/VMT goal plan concept, but would alter it slightly by encouraging staff to look at measures that achieve the ten percent reduction while broadening the plan concept to include nodal development in all potential development areas. He was also interested in a serious emphasis on Transportation Demand Management. Mr. Rayor suggested it was confusing to see bicycle miles compared to the number of trips. He wanted to see all the figures in terms of trips. Mr. Schwetz responded that the framework developed for the approach was in direct response to the objectives in the TPR, and one of those MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 9 Work Session objectives was that achieving the standard would accomplish a significant increase in the availability or convenience of alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the plan identifies what was being done on the "supply side" of the plan to achieve that objective. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 10 Work Session