Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/26/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall July 26, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Mr. Meisner asked that councilors with suggestions for the Police Commission's work program analysis get them to Eugene Police Department staff as soon as possible. The commission would discuss the work plan at its August 4 retreat. Mr. Meisner called the council's attention to the date of the event commemorating the start of construction of the new library, which is scheduled for Monday, October 30, 2000, at 10:30 a.m. He noted that events for children would occur all day, and Lane Transit District would provide bus service. Ms. Nathanson raised the issue of the risk of fire in the south hills. She said prior to Independence Day, she had discussed the City's ability to limit the use of fireworks in times of severely dry weather with Fire Chief Tom Tallon and City Manager Jim Johnson. She was raising the issue to demonstrate her concern about it, and asked the manager and Chief Tallon to consider whether the City's ordinances and administrative rules were sufficient to address the issue, and whether the City should do more, such as limiting the use of fireworks in certain geographic areas during certain times of high risk. Ms. Nathanson noted that Eugene had experienced some fires attributable to fireworks during the recent holiday period. Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Nathanson's concerns about the fire risk in the south hills and noted the considerable amount of dry brush in the hills. He encouraged staff to plan ahead for the next Independence Day. Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting. Mr. Kelly said there currently was no convenient way for people to find out who was on committees and commissions on the City's Web site. He suggested that the City's Information Services Division be asked to provide some support to the City Manager's Office so that Web pages were designed to be updated when the data base was updated. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor reported that she had received a few complaints about the City's yard debris program because people objected to the rates for yard debris pick-up. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could water Amazon Park between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. because a constituent had been sprayed by a sprinkler at 6 a.m. while walking on a bicycle path. Ms. Taylor advocated for a work session to discuss the reestablishment of the City's business license program. Mr. Fart said he had received a call from a resident of south Eugene who complained that the road he traveled on between work and home was being saturated with traffic patrols for targeted enforcement. He asked City Manager Johnson for a memorandum on the distribution of traffic patrols in the city, noting that there were frequent calls for more traffic patrols in his ward. Mr. Johnson reported that a memorandum regarding the issue had recently been distributed to the council, and he would ensure that Mr. Fart received a copy. Mr. Rayor noted a recent letter to the editor of The Register-Guard advocating for closure of the public safety station in the University area. He said that he wanted to continue to work on the service issues related to the perceptions expressed in the letter. He said all City agencies should strive for better customer service. Mr. Johnson had no items. Mayor Torrey asked the councilors and councilor-elect Bonny Bettman to consider what committees they would like to serve on in the coming year. He said that councilors would be reminded by staff of their current committee assignments and current council committees. He suggested that the issue of committee assignments and the length of assignments was an issue for a process session. Mayor Torrey reminded the council of his monthly one-on-one sessions with the public, conducted the last Tuesday of each month, and invited interested councilors to sit in on those sessions. He said that the sessions were very interesting, many different issues were raised, and attendance continued to grow. Mayor Torrey suggested that the City needed to find a way to elevate the public's awareness of proposed and adopted changes in City ordinances and regulations so citizens were not taken by surprise by new programs, such as the yard debris program. B.Work Session: Recommendation from Budget Committee Citizen Subcommittee on Area Information Records System (AIRS) The council was joined by Howard Bonnett, Eleanor Mulder, Paul Holbo, Bruce Mulligan, and Jack Lucifer of the Budget Committee Citizen Oversight Committee for the item. Mr. Bonnett, chair of the subcommittee, said that the subcommittee met twice. During the first meeting the subcommittee toured the facilities that would be serviced by the improved AIRS system. During the second meeting the subcommittee reviewed the funding recommendations developed by staff. He said that the subcommittee was pleased to learn that the staff recommendations meant that the City's share of the system could be funded without the need for a serial levy. Mr. Bonnett invited questions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Nathanson noted the origin of the subcommittee's first work assignment in a suggestion she had made. She thanked the subcommittee for its work and said it appeared that the process was working well. Ms. Nathanson said that, in her role as chair of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, she contacted staff to ask whether the proposed request for the federal Community Oriented Policing Support (COPS) grant would be a Eugene-only grant request or a United Front grant request. Staff indicated that the grant was envisioned to be a Eugene-only request. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to ensure it had "covered all the bases" in terms of the pros and cons of submitting the grant as a collaborative, three-party request. She suggested there was the potential a unilateral grant request could become a "wedge" between the partners in AIRS. Mr. Kelly thanked the members of the subcommittee for their work on the issue. He asked if the proposed diversion of dollars from the assessment funds would prevent money from being available for the"jump start" approach contemplated for the deferred street assessment policy under consideration by Eugene and Lane County. Administrative Services Department Director Warren Wong responded that it was his understanding that funds would be available to capitalize the revolving fund at the level of approximately $200,000. City Engineer Les Lyle concurred, adding that a combination of funds would be used to pay for collectors and arterials. He believed that the number of local streets would be Iow in volume, and would not necessitate additional funds. Mr. Meisner asked about the likelihood the grants sought would be received and, if received, how would other funds be reprioritized? Mr. Johnson responded that he was not hopeful the City would receive the federal grant, which was highly competitive and there were many communities that could argue they were more in need. In addition, few dollars were available when compared to the need. Mr. Wong noted that if the grant was received, the additional funding might be needed to supplement the project budget if current project estimates did not hold firm. Conversely, if the estimates proved firm, the grant moneys could be used to supplant the resources identified in the staff recommendation. Responding to a question from about how those resources would be prioritized, Mr. Wong recommended that the subcommittee be reconvened to make that decision. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner about the basis of the City's share of the system costs, Mr. Wong said that the City's share was based on the City's use of AIRS. Mr. Rayor suggested that the issue of who submitted the grant request should be discussed with the other chief executive officers. He said it would be great if a collaborative effort improved the area's chances of receiving the grant. Mr. Rayor asked if Mr. Johnson would characterize the staff recommendations to hold vacant positions open as the beginning of the City's modified hiring freeze. Mr. Johnson said yes. Mayor Torrey agreed with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Rayor about the nature of the grant request. He thought federal dollars were available for technology improvements. He endorsed the subcommittee's recommendations. Mayor Torrey asked staff if the City could retroactively apply grant funds to the program. Mr. Johnson said that in part the answer depended on the grant source. He pointed out that given that the project was a multi-year project, it was likely the City could determine how the grant funds could be used appropriately. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mayor Torrey believed that the COPS grant would make a great United Front request. Mr. Johnson said that he had attended a meeting during the last United Front trip regarding the COPS grant program. At that time, Bureau of Justice personnel indicated that the program would be more flexible regarding automation funding requests. Mayor Torrey noted that the COPS program was passed by Congress on the basis it end after the three-year funding cycle, and now cities were having a problem paying for the officers hired with the federal funding. Mayor Torrey expressed the hope the City was moving forward to replace the departed grant writer. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Information Services Division Manager Randy Kolb described the use-based formula for the system and said that allocations had been frozen two years ago to avoid one partner bearing the cost of the transition. Ms. Nathanson noted that Eugene used the system to a larger degree than its partners but suggested that might be because of people from other communities visiting Eugene. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the staff recommendation to reallocate $100,000 annually from the Law Enforcement Block Grant funding, Chief Hill said that part of the funding had been going to the Public Safety Coordinating Council, and part of the money had already been directed to AIRS. Responding to a concern expressed by Mr. Meisner about the financial preparedness of Springfield and Lane County, Mr. Wong described those jurisdictions' funding plans. A draft intergovernmental agreement had been drafted that committed each jurisdiction to the proposed funding amounts. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council hold a public hearing before taking action. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding Ms. Nathanson's remark about the relationship between use and people from outside the community coming to Eugene, Mr. Johnson said that because Eugene was the county seat, it experienced a higher level of activity from residents outside the city. Ms. Taylor suggested that should make a difference in the City's cost share. Mr. Johnson pointed out the City was a partner in a larger law enforcement system, and other agencies provided services to Eugene. Mr. Holbo noted that the subcommittee had advocated that costs to outside nonpartner agencies be increased if it was possible to do so. Mr. Pap8 arrived at the meeting. Mr. Johnson thanked the subcommittee for its work on the issue. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to accept the report and approve the AIRS Conversion Project funding package recommendation of the Budget Committee Citizen Subcommittee, with formal budget implementation in Supplemental Budget #1. The motion passed, 7:0. Mr. Johnson called the council's attention to a motion drafted by staff for the council's consideration. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to direct the Budget Committee Citizen Subcommittee to study City transportation funding issues, including a review of County Road Fund receipts, and report back findings and recommendations to the City Council by the start of fiscal year 2002. Mr. Kelly endorsed the proposed work program item. Mayor Torrey said that Congress was soon to act on the timber receipts issue and its actions would likely have an impact on the County's Road Fund. He asked the subcommittee to consider that fact in its deliberations. Mayor Torrey thanked the subcommittee for accepting the assignment. Ms. Nathanson also endorsed the work program item and wished the subcommittee luck in its effort. The motion passed, 7:0. C.Reconsideration of Council Bill 4735 Mr. Johnson said that three pages were missing from an ordinance the council recently adopted, and City Attorney Glenn Klein had recommended the council reconsider the ordinance to rectify the situation. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, that the second reading and adoption of Council Bill 4735 be reconsidered at this time. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Taylor moved, that Exhibit A to Council Bill 4735 be amended by adding pages 8, 9, and 10 thereto, and that the amended bill, with the unanimous consent of the council be read a second time by Council Bill number only, and enactment of the bill be considered at that time. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Klein said that the council would consider Council Bill 4735 by number only. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, that the bill be approved and given final passage. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0, and became Ordinance No. 20200. D.Work Session: Land Use Code Update The council was joined by Planning Director Jan Childs, Land Use Code Update Project Manager Teresa Bishow, and Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office. Ms. Bishow requested council direction on two of a series of themes regarding the update, the first of which addressed general policy issues and the second of which regarded traditional neighborhood development issues. She referred the council to the topics pertaining to each MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 5 Work Session theme listed in the meeting packet and the key applicable code sections. The packet also contained questions previously asked by the elected officials and testimony relevant to the themes. Ms. Bishow referred the council to the first two of five policy issues listed in the packet: 1. Should the council direct that issues which cannot be resolved within the Land Use Code Update time schedule be placed as priority items on the Planning Commission work program? 2. Should the City examine updating the zoning map after adoption of the Land Use Code? Ms. Nathanson believed it was essential to examine the zoning map because the City's current zoning patterns did not realize the City's planning goals and often resulted in undesirable development, but she acknowledged the difficulty of doing so from a practical point of view, pointing to the City's experience with the Whiteaker refinement plan, which was a massive undertaking for both staff and the citizens. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said that the council must deal with the issue, and he considered it a work program item for the commission. He suggested that the council could work on the some of the issues involved by appropriately applying some of the new overlay zones, such as the nodal development overlay zone. Mr. Kelly also believed that the City needed to both update and create new refinement plans for neighborhoods to address some of the issues involved. However, he acknowledged the need for examination of some issues at a citywide level, such as the location and distribution of general commercial land throughout the community. Mr. Kelly indicated he was not interested in addressing the specific zoning situations mentioned in testimony outside a more thorough examination of the zoning map. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs clarified that the list of themes and topics listed in the packet were staff's attempt to identify some of the "big picture" issues mentioned in public testimony. She acknowledged that it was possible not all topics of interest to councilors were listed, and solicited additional suggestions from the council. Mr. Meisner advocated for a review of the code that allowed the council to see the "big picture" and gave it an opportunity to discuss the type of city it wanted to see, and to better understand how the various elements of the code worked together. He was not persuaded that the review of the zoning map was needed as part of the update process. He acknowledged the cost of that review as a separate work plan item. Mr. Meisner said that the zoning map review should occur immediately after the update. Ms. Taylor expressed skepticism about a separate review of the zoning map. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the update redefined the zones, which argued for a separate, subsequent review. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the timing of the review, Ms. Bishow said that staff was seeking to complete the code review by the end of the year because of the project's impact on development, to avoid the need for further funding, and to bring the code into compliance with changes in State law. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if the tree ordinance could be removed from the update and processed separately soon. Ms. Jerome responded that the provisions of the ordinance were incorporated into the code to ensure that the development community was aware of what was expected in terms of tree preservation in a permitted development. The provisions could be removed, but that would create the need for another review process that would require more time. Ms. Taylor did not see why more time was required. Ms. Taylor asked that each time the council discussed a proposed code section, the consequences of what was being proposed be made clear for both the council and the public. Mayor Torrey confirmed with the council that it would like to see a comprehensive review of the City's zoning map soon after the adoption of the Land Use Code Update. Mr. Meisner observed that the update had been in progress for some time, and he wished to complete it soon. He noted the development that had occurred since the update had commenced that the City had been unable to either stop, affect, or improve. Mayor Torrey said that the timing of the work sessions was designed to address the council's desire to complete the update by the end of the year as well as the concerns raised by the "Gang of Four" regarding the unintended consequences of the code. Ms. Bishow said staff had examined the testimony closely and was doing careful analysis of the standards in the code to ensure that they worked. She encouraged the council to contact staff with questions about particular code sections prior to the work sessions. Mr. Farr encouraged staff to do what it could to explain the environmental and economic costs of the update to the public. Mr. Meisner wanted to ensure that the code provided citizens with choices in housing and helped the community to preserve the supply of buildable land in the long-term. He said that the consequences of doing nothing should also be analyzed. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to direct the City Manager to retain the key applicable code sections in the April 2000 Draft Eugene Land Use Code related to Theme #1: General. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Bishow discussed key design principles related to traditional neighborhood development. Mr. Kelly said that there were many changes he wanted to make in the section related to traditional neighborhood development. He asked if the revised code would prevent the types of fencing along Gilham Road. Ms. Bishow said yes. Within the setback, property owners could do landscaping to provide a screen, but not a six-foot high fence. Mr. Kelly considered that a welcome improvement. Mr. Kelly noted his interest in eliminating double frontage lots and asked for council concurrence so that staff could draft new text. Mr. Pap8 thought the idea was good in theory but questioned its practicality, given the number of undeveloped lots in existing subdivisions. Ms. Bishow said that the code could be written to apply only to new subdivisions. She said that staff could return with provisions to eliminate double frontage lots, and the provisions would include exceptions to account for certain situations. Mr. Pap8 suggested that an exception be double frontage lots on MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 7 Work Session arterials where conditional uses permitted nonresidential uses. The council concurred with Mr. Kelly's request. Ms. Nathanson described her experience in attempting to walk from Bailey Hill Road to Hawkins Lane, and said she found it could not be done. The development she had attempted to cross was very recent, and she questioned how it was allowed to occur without any provisions for street connectivity. Ms. Nathanson said that development should always occur in context of the larger area around it. Ms. Bishow observed that the City currently had street connectivity standards only for subdivisions and, if land was not subdivided, lacked good standards to ensure that all new development provided pedestrian and bicycle linkages. She said that the pedestrian circulation provisions on page 247 of the code addressed new development of all types. Ms. Nathanson asked what occurred if there was no street. Ms. Bishow clarified that the standards were triggered by new development. In some cases, there might be still be lack of connection until development occurred. Mr. Fart observed that street connectivity was a problem for many pads of the community. Mr. Fart said that the council needed to prepare citizens for the cost impact of the new code on housing prices. Mr. Rayor endorsed the provisions eliminating fences on arterials and called for elimination of double frontage lots. He suggested that fences should be constructed with gaps to allow people to pass through them. Mr. Rayor opposed fenced and gated residential enclaves, saying they were not useful to society. Mr. Kelly supported street connectivity but feared what he considered the "absolutism" provided by the draft code. He suggested that staff revisit the second of the two suggestions related to street connectivity considered and rejected by the Planning Commission and listed in the packet on page 389 (the street to be connected to new development exceeds 1,500 feet in length from an existing intersection), noting that few exceptions to street connectivity now existed. Mr. Kelly was also interested in an exception for dead-end unimproved streets intended to be connected because of development. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly about the absolutism of the City's street connectivity policy, and noted the irony that several streets in her neighborhood had been closed for traffic calming purposes. She thought connectivity for pedestrians was more important than connectivity for automobiles, which often encouraged faster automobile travel to the detriment of neighborhoods. Mayor Torrey said that a good code update would provide community predictability. He said that the code should take into account streets that had been in place for some time. If a street was a dead-end street and it had been such a street for a long time and people bought houses on that basis, there should be a standard applicable to such situations. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about providing a blanket exception for dead-end unimproved streets. She had sympathy for the residents involved, but likened the situation to one where residents lived adjacent to an undeveloped park parcel and considered that land an extension of their own property. In this case, she was concerned that the burden of travel and transportation would be unfairly distributed among residents. She was worried about misplaced community expectations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Rayor pointed out that the draft was already full of exceptions that a savvy developer could take advantage of. He doubted that staff would be able to connect streets to the degree needed under the code. Mr. Rayor advocated for maximum block lengths for local streets, saying 600 feet was too long but something was needed. Although he shared Mr. Kelly's concerns about the topic, Mr. Meisner thought the distance of 1,500 feet in length from an existing intersection was too long for an exception. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's remarks. He said that as the community had annexed new areas, density had declined. At some point, the community must remedy that lack of density, and street connectivity was one tool to do so. The council indicated majority support for staff examination of the two possible exceptions to street connectivity standards mentioned by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Rayor did not favor further exceptions. Ms. Childs confirmed that Mr. Kelly was only referring to automobile connectivity. Ms. Nathanson wanted to address the issue of speeding traffic as a separate issue, and asked if the City had a purpose statement related to connectivity. Ms. Bishow referred Ms. Nathanson to page 253 of the draft code, which included purpose and intent statements. She noted that it was now very difficult for developers to secure exceptions to the standards. Ms. Nathanson suggested that speed could be addressed through new standards for street design and traffic enforcement efforts. Ms. Childs said that the street connectivity standards were adopted when the Local Street Plan was adopted; that plan included new standards for local streets that included design features intended to slow traffic. Ms. Bishow suggested that councilors send additional suggested changes to the draft code to staff by the following week. Staff would review the changes and poll the council for consensus around the suggestions, and the council could discuss the suggestions at the beginning of the next work session, which was now scheduled for September 7. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 9 Work Session