Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/23/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon October 23, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A.Work Session: Scope of Work for Preparing a Stormwater, Stream Corridor, and Open Space Acquisition Plan City Engineer Les Lyle and Senior Planner Steve Gordon of Lane Council of Governments joined the council for the agenda item. Mr. Lyle reminded the council that on July 10, 2000, he presented the staff and Stormwater Management Department Advisory Committee (DAC) proposal for basin plans, new development requirements, and associated natural resource strategies. At that time staff indicated that green infrastructure was a key goal, but it had maintenance cost implications. Mr. Lyle said that the staff and DAC's recommendation recognized those costs within the existing stormwater fee base, as well as called for a stream corridor acquisition strategy funded by a user fee increase that realized about $500,000 annually, which was about 50 cents per household per month. He said that the work session was scheduled to discuss the work program associated with the establishment of a stream and open space acquisition plan. Mr. Lyle said that he proposed a two-phased approach. The City would initially examine the storm-water-related stream corridor acquisitions and related open space acquisitions, followed by a phase that examined a broader series of objectives, including the relationship of the program to City park and open space acquisitions, regional open space acquisition, and how a multiple- objective perspective that employed multiple funding sources could be accomplished in the long- term. Mr. Lyle referred the council to the proposed work plan included in the meeting packet. He reviewed the elements of the work plan. Mr. Lyle referred the council to a wall map that showed where interim stream side setbacks would affect the development of vacant or partially developed properties in the community. Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting at 5:41 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Lyle said that the wall display provided the council with a list of current staff work activities and illustrated that there was little staff capacity to implement the proposed work plan. For that reason, he recommended the use of consultants, or that something on the current work program be dropped. Mr. Lyle said that staff would seek the required funding of $250,000 in Supplemental Budget #1, but wished to proceed in advance of that process using stormwater user fees. There may be post-adoption resource needs but he was unsure of what would be required at this point. Mr. Lyle invited questions and comments. Ms. Taylor asked how much money the Stormwater Fund has available. Mr. Lyle was unsure, although he thought it was enough to fund the proposed work plan. Mr. Johnson determined from Ms. Taylor that she was seeking information about the fund reserves because she believed they contained a large amount of money to purchase land now. Mr. Lyle said that the council could choose to use those funds for acquisition but it could mean other program elements may not get implemented. Ms. Taylor said that the City may not be able to acquire properties in the future as land was used for development purposes. Mr. Lyle acknowledged that was a concern. Regarding the cost of green infrastructure, Ms. Taylor noted her interest in acquiring the headwaters stream near the end of West Amazon, and asked what costs the City would incur if it owned the creek. Mr. Lyle said that comments by the Stormwater Management DAC regarding maintenance implications for the basin plans were more focused on requirements that would be placed on new development as well as capital projects such as stream restoration, all of which would be more costly to maintain. Ms. Taylor suggested that City acquisition of the creek could reduce costs because of reduced pollution. Mr. Lyle said that there was a potential of that; however, it would be more costly than conventional pipe. He stated that the staff worked with the DAC to determine what level of maintenance was needed. He cited control of invasive species as an example of a maintenance cost not incurred with a piped system. Mr. Rayor referred to the proposed community outreach program and asked how the cost of that compared to the cost of other outreach programs the City conducted. Mr. Lyle said the program would be very similar, comparing the program to the City's effort for the "no pipe, no fill" ordinance. Mr. Rayor asked questions clarifying the cost of the program and the sources of program funding. Mr. Lyle indicated that funding would be predominantly from the stormwater user fee. Mr. Pap~ asked if commercial and industrial properties would see a fee increase for a stream acquisition program. Mr. Lyle said that the DAC has recommended a $500,000 annual program increase, which included an increase of 18 cents per thousand square feet of impervious surface area for nonresidential properties. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Lyle clarified that multi-family developments were considered commercial. Mr. Pap~ noted his previous interest in a matrix that showed how various City regulations and plans impacted the City's inventory of buildable lands and asked if that was what C(6) in the work plan was attempting to address. Mr. Lyle said that was part of the intent, but not to the extent Mr. Pap~ was suggesting; staff would examine the current regulatory framework, and identify the impact of acquisitions on the buildable lands inventory. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pap~ questioned how staff determined where the community's limited resources were best spent. Mr. Lyle said that the basin planning effort examined the best set of strategies to manage water quality, natural resource protection, and flood protection. The DAC looked at restoration opportunities and other protection measures. Those elements are embedded in the basin plans and Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Pap~ said that if the City was looking at overall stream quality, it needed to pull all its efforts together, not just basin planning. Mr. Lyle said that there are a number of studies underway and it would be ideal to have all the answers because it would make the effort easier and more complete, but he believed the council's sentiment was to proceed at this time because of the pace of development and concern over the loss of natural resources that might occur prior to completion of those other studies. Mr. Kelly said that Patrick Conden had indicated in his presentations in Eugene that green infrastructure was cheaper to maintain, and asked staff to do more research in that area. Mr. Lyle recollected that the capital expenditure was potentially less expensive, but did not recall if operating costs were similarly reduced. Mr. Kelly believed the acquisition of stream corridors was a time-sensitive issue in some situations. He suggested that the City could acquire streams and development could proceed around those acquisitions. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the cost and the time line for the work plan. He said that the cost was $250,000 before the City purchased any property, which was something not scheduled to occur until spring 2002. Mr. Kelly wanted a less expensive option to compare the proposal to, although he did not want to delay the process. Mr. Kelly said it was the type of task he would assign one professional FTE to complete in one year, which was a far lower cost. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the time line and cost. Requesting brief answers with no further explanation, Mr. Meisner asked what type of maintenance and public access the City intended to provide to the lands once acquired. Mr. Lyle said that staff had not yet defined the type of access that would occur and maintenance varies by the character of the stream. Mr. Meisner was concerned that there was no information about access identified in the work plan. He understood that there were many purposes to acquisitions, but said what the City acquired and what it did with the land was of incredible importance. The issue of access made a difference to him. Mr. Meisner expressed concern that there had been no outreach as an initial step in the work plan to ask the public if it wanted the City to undertake such a program. He said that there was no opportunity for public comment at all, and called for a conversation with the public. Mr. Meisner was uncomfortable with the timing of the proposed examination of the buildable lands inventory, considering it too late in the process. He wanted to know the zoning of the land that the City was looking at and how much would be lost from the inventory, creating pressure to expand the urban growth boundary. Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Meisner. He said that the City was building pressure to expand the urban growth boundary. He determined from Mr. Lyle that information on the impacts on the boundary and buildable land inventory would be produced in Phase 1. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Lyle confirmed the cost per square foot for impervious surface for commercial and industrial users if there was a user fee increase that MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 3 Work Session would generate $500,000 annually. Mr. Kelly observed that the total cost for a 200,000 square- foot parking lot would be $432 per year. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly about the cost and time line for the process. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the basis of the costs estimated for the public outreach process proposed in Phase I, Mr. Gordon said that he based the cost, which was a high-level estimate, on similar processes that had been conducted recently. Ms. Bettman suggested that staff examine the various ongoing planning efforts to determine if there was overlap and perhaps some could be combined to save money. She questioned if the elements of the work plan related to background and research could be removed from the plan and done through another process. Mr. Lyle clarified that staff did not plan to do new research, but instead would be gathering available information. He did not intend to duplicate other efforts. A revised work plan could limit the background research and documentation. Mayor Torrey asked City Attorney Jerome Lidz if the City could choose to buy one property using stormwater funds while deciding against purchasing another nearby property even though it might have the same values. Mr. Lidz said yes. The City had broad authority to determine where the community got the most value for its dollar. He did not think a court would second-guess the City Manager's judgment about where the need was. Mr. Pap8 noted the citizens' passage of the parks and open space bond and said it appeared there was some overlap in the acquisitions proposed through that process. Mr. Lyle said that the City could focus its energies on existing acquisition efforts for maintenance access needs or focus on stream corridor acquisition only and couple that effort with the parks and open space effort. Mr. Johnson clarified that the proposal before the council was specifically directed at stormwater-related streams and open space. The parks and open space effort included the recreational use of the open space component. Mr. Lyle said that the City would attempt to couple multiple objective purchases where appropriate. Mr. Pap8 asked if there was federal funding available for such acquisitions. Mr. Lyle said that staff would explore the availability of those funds. Mr. Johnson reminded the council that there were other techniques to protect stream corridor other than acquisition, such as a conservation easement. Mr. Rayor asked if the setbacks established as a result of the salmon listing would diminish the need for the program. Mr. Lyle said it could be affected, and the interim setback was another tool. He suggested the question was whether the council prepared outright acquisition or easements versus easements with setbacks. Mr. Rayor wanted to ensure that property owners were aware of how their properties were affected and what development prohibition existed, and asked if land could be set aside in some way, such as in a common area. Mr. Johnson said that staff intended to determine the best tool for the protection of each individual stream. Mr. Lyle concurred, saying that staff would return with a hierarchy of approaches to the council for its review and would also seek guidance from the council regarding the definition of stormwater-related open space. Mr. Rayor suggested that the City complete components A through C and report back to the council before embarking on components D through E, which were the major cost components of the work plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly suggested that, given the fact the other studies and stream-related planning efforts were in process, he believed it would be useful for the open space element of the work plan for the City to take a more tactical approach to the issues. He recommended that staff get a sense of the background environment, identify three or four high-priority acquisition sites, purchase them, and wait for the Endangered Species Act issues to be resolved. While he appreciated Mr. Rayor's remarks about interim buffers, he believed that it was speculative at this time to discuss the ultimate buffer or setback that might result from the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Kelly supported the use of consultants given the existing work load, but wanted the "net cast wider" than the Lane Council of Governments for those individuals. He said that there were other people in the community with similar expertise. Mr. Farr emphasized the importance of water quality but said there was only so much public money to spend, and the public must be made aware of the tradeoffs involved in the choices it made. He noted that the plan would also have an impact on the cost of housing. Mr. Farr asked staff to let the council and the public know what the plan was costing the public and what was not being purchased so the plan could be funded. Ms. Bettman said she was also interested in knowing the total amount available in the Stormwater Fund for land acquisition. She asked what the properties in question would be zoned after acquired, and if that zoning would be related to the purpose of acquisition. Ms. Bettman did not want to see the City spend $250,000 before any land was acquired. Regarding the time line, she pointed out that given the current rate of development in the community, the City could lose opportunities to purchase open space that benefitted the community, and she wondered if there was an approach that would give the City the ability to make some more immediate purchases. Mr. Meisner wanted to find an approach that cost less, suggesting that the City did not have to do such high-quality planning for every step in the work plan with the result that it could not implement the plan without a new tax or increase in the user fee. He did not support the work plan proposal as submitted and called for a more simple approach that accomplished something. Mr. Meisner was uncomfortable that there was no concept of how the lands to be acquired could be used. Mr. Meisner suggested that the cost to residents could also be framed in terms of cost per 1,000 square feet of impervious surface as the stormwater fee was based on a graduated square foot basis. Ms. Taylor stressed the importance of acquiring stream corridors and open space. She believed that plan sounded good but it should cost less and acquisition should begin sooner. Ms. Taylor also wanted earlier public participation, and endorsed Mr. Meisner's suggestion that occur first. She believed that part of the purpose of the Stormwater Fund was to underwrite the costs of land acquisitions that helped to protect the water quality. She liked Mr. Kelly's suggestion that staff initially identify a few high-priority sites. Ms. Taylor said the council should keep in mind the future residents of the community and provide for open space for them. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Lyle confirmed that the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan called for stream corridor acquisition, which has generally been focused on providing maintenance access to stream corridors. Mayor Torrey said that if the City went beyond what was intended in that plan, it needed to seek the input of the citizens. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Farr commended the work done by Mr. Lyle as City Engineer. For the benefit of the public, Mr. Farr asked staff about other techniques for corridor protection. Mr. Lyle cited the easements secured through the development process as a condition of development and the use of interim setbacks as examples. Staff would identify the different tools available and how those might accomplish the plan's goals. Mr. Fart asked if the use of easements meant that a property would no longer be the property owner's land to use. Mr. Johnson said that the code outlined what a property owner could and could not do inside the easement or setback. The setback could not be built in, but it could be used for other purposes. Mr. Lyle added that the underlying ownership would be with the property owner; only if the City purchased the land in fee would it be in public ownership. Ms. Taylor said that when she called for a less expensive process she was advocating for less money for planning and more for implementation. She thought there were some purchases that the council knew should be made, such as West Amazon. Mr. Kelly advocated for a shorter, more strategic process with less detail. He asked staff to provide the council with the relevant adopting ordinances stating what the Stormwater Fund was intended for. Mr. Kelly asked that staff take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to protect water quality in the interim. Mr. Pap~ suggested that staff prioritize property acquisitions and return to the council with those recommendations. The council would review the recommendations and send them through the public review process. Then the results of that process could be looked at by the council. Mr. Johnson said he envisioned such a process. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor liked Mr. Papa's suggestion. Mr. Meisner did not think the proposed work plan was needed to determine the highest acquisition priorities. He said that the analysis of priorities should not be decided by "who made the most noise." He advocated for a shorter, less expensive process that produced on-the- ground, rather than on-the-shelf, results. He reiterated his desire for up-front public input. Mr. Meisner wanted to know what the public would receive in terms of public information about the process. Mr. Johnson summarized the council's policy direction, saying that staff would return soon with another proposal that was simpler, less costly, got things done more quickly, and was a tool for action that identified high-priority property acquisitions in an early phase. He asked for direction on the timing of the public process. Mr. Meisner clarified that he was recommending early public input on whether residents wanted the City to acquire land; he envisioned a later public input phase during which the community could comment on what was proposed to be acquired. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the staff to come back soon with a number of choices for the council, embodying Mr. Johnson's summary, and with a staff prioritization of the most crucial acquisitions. The council agreed with a suggestion from Mr. Kelly that no motion was needed given the manager's summary of the council's direction. Mr. Kelly clarified that the manager will return to the council with criteria for site selection as opposed to actual sites. Mr. Johnson agreed. He added that, given the council's full schedule, he anticipated that the item would be scheduled for a regular meeting rather than a work session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor withdrew her motion, and Mr. Fart withdraw his second. B.Consent Calendar 1. Approval of Council Minutes a. September 20, 2000, Work Session b. September 25, 2000, Work Session c. September 26, 2000, City Council Meeting d. October 10, 2000, Work Session 2. Approval of Tentative Agenda Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Mr. Kelly offered the following corrections to the minutes of the work session of September 25, 2000. On page 3, paragraph 6, the first sentence should be clarified as follows (struck text deleted; italicized text added): "Mr. Kelly commented that the pilot nodal development projects had not been completed approved yet." On page 7, paragraph 1, replace the sentence beginning "Mr. Kelly called for consensus" with "Mr. Kelly directed the council's attention to item 4 on the motion sheet regarding subsequent actions impacting trees. He called for consensus..." Regarding the regular meeting of September 25, Mr. Kelly noted that the minutes erroneously indicated the meeting occurred in the McNutt Room rather than in the Council Chamber. Mayor Torrey determined there was no objection to Mr. Kelly's revisions. The motion passed, 6:0 (Mr. Meisner being out of the room when the vote was taken). C.Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Mr. Rayor said that he had voted against referring the alternative measures to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) at the meeting of the Joint Adopting Officials because he believed they were a crucial part of the plan. He requested that the council be provided with the MPC's meeting packet. He thought the plan needed shepherding by the council. Mr. Rayor suggested that the council have a discussion of the implementation policies and send its MPC representatives to the meeting with its direction. Mr. Rayor said that he wanted to know if there were other strategies, how effective the proposed strategies were, and the cost. He wanted the strategies interpreted in terms of VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled). He noted that he had attempted to fund the bicycle program more fully as he thought it would provide much of the VMT reduction the metropolitan area would present to the State Ms. Bettman passed. Mr. Farr commended the work of former Administrative Services Department Director Warren Wong and hoped he continued to stay in touch. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pap~ also remarked on the Joint Adopting Officials' meeting and the action the council took on Lane County Commissioner Peter Sorenson's letter. He said that at its process session, the council had discussed the need to do things in an above-board way with appropriate notice. He did not think that occurred in the case of the letter. He was particularly concerned that Ms. Taylor, as de facto council president, be able to rise above partisanship in the MPC and ensure that everything was done with appropriate notice to the council. Mr. Pap~ cited the council's vision statement about effective accountable government that worked openly and respectively with all members of the community, and he did not think the letter was respectful to the City's other governmental partners. With the exception of those in the audience who orchestrated the letter, he believed other members of the community felt the same. Discussion about the letter had consumed 30 to 40 minutes of the meeting when there were many issues to be discussed, and he was disappointed by that. Mr. Pap~ said that the City's intergovernmental partners would be valuable to it in many areas in the future. He did not think the letter was effective in changing the process or plan outcome, or as a political publicity statement. Mr. Kelly said he would have preferred that Commissioner Sorenson had distributed his letter to all bodies before the Joint Adopting Officials meeting so people had time to reflect on it. He pointed out to Mr. Pap~ that the delay in the meeting resulted from members of the other bodies feeling the need to comment on the Eugene council's motion. He did not think the letter was a political statement but rather a policy statement. He felt it was legitimate for the council to support the letter. Mr. Kelly said that he had received an e-mail message from Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments, which indicated that because a concern had been raised about the federal requirement that the plan have a 20-year planning horizon, staff had developed an appendix to TransPlan addressing the five years past 2015. He was concerned that the MPC resolution process would occur and then at the adopting meeting the elected officials would be faced with a new appendix. Mr. Kelly suggested that and any other changes should be sent out to the elected officials as soon as possible. Mr. Kelly said the e-mail message also raised federal implications about not adopting TransPlan in a timely manner and impacts on other projects. He said that all the adopting officials should be alerted to the problem, and staff should consider other strategies, such as interim policy adoption, to avoid the problem identified in the e-mail message. Ms. Taylor said she had been very surprised by the fact that she was to preside at the meeting and hoped Mr. Pap~ did not think she was responsible for the letter. Mr. Meisner noted he had been contacted by Mr. Sorenson prior to the meeting about the principles he intended to include in the letter. He shared those principles. Mr. Meisner pointed out that many of the elected officials had indicated in August that the plan was not what they anticipated and hoped to do better in the spirit of compromise. He believed that the meeting had been largely productive and pointed out that many of the issues had been resolved by compromise text. Mr. Meisner was troubled that rather than addressing the content of the letter, the elected officials chose instead to make process objections. He did not think the letter was a political act. Ms. Bettman also regretted that the elected officials had not had the letter prior to the meeting but pointed out that in a similar situation she had been in no one had offered to postpone action MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 8 Work Session so she could become familiar with the issue at hand. She did not think supporting the letter was political but rather an act of conscience. Ms. Bettman said that everything in letter was consistent with what she had been saying about TransPlan for many years. She considered the council's action on the letter to be a proactive move in that she was not going to be able to cast a yes vote to adopt the plan as presented and did not see a lot of compromise happening in the joint meetings. Ms. Bettman thought the process had gotten in the way of substantive discussion in the past. The positions councilors had advocated for did not get a fair hearing, and Eugene had been consistently outvoted by Springfield, Lane County, and Lane Transit District She said she went away from the last meeting feeling positive that Eugene had let the other jurisdictions know that there were councilors who did not support the plan in its current form because she believed it increased the willingness of the other jurisdictions to compromise and gave the councilors an opportunity to advocate for what they believed to be in the best interest of Eugene. Regarding next steps, Ms. Bettman suggested that the council consider creating a subcommittee of councilors to bring back ideas for recommendations for the issues remaining to be resolved, including the alternative plan measures. Mayor Torrey reviewed the resolution process adopted by the MPC. He said that the MPC would submit its recommendations to the adopting bodies and at that time the council would determine what was acceptable. He urged the councilors to review the MPC packets and provide input to Ms. Taylor, himself, and alternate MPC member Mr. Meisner prior to meetings. He also encouraged councilors to represent themselves as members of the community during the public comment period at MPC meetings. Mr. Johnson indicated that all MPC materials on TransPlan will be forwarded to all councilors. Regarding Commissioner Sorenson's letter, Mr. Johnson advised the council to think seriously about placing a prohibition on road building outside the urban growth boundary. He said that given that Eugene was the socioeconomic center of the region, people still needed to be able to reach it. Stopping all road and highway construction outside the boundary may not be the best approach. Mayor Torrey suggested that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations prepare recommendations regarding the City's legislative priorities funding before the next session for council consideration. Mr. Fart expressed the hope that the council could hold together over the next few years and try to make the right decisions for all citizens. He said that the councilors should not surprise each other. He called for council collaboration and cooperation. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 9 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 10 Work Session