HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/17/07 Work Session
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
January 17, 2007
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Mike Clark,
Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, George Poling.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. WORK SESSION:
Green Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development
City Manager Taylor stated that City Engineer Mark Schoening was present to continue the discussion on
green infrastructure and low-impact development the council initiated during summer 2006 when consider-
ing the stormwater ordinance.
Mr. Schoening recalled the public hearing to consider stormwater development changes, which would
require changes to Chapter 9 of the Land Use Code that addressed stormwater quantity and quality from
new development sites. He related that substantial public comment had been submitted before and after the
public record closed. He said testimony included comments pertaining to the topics of the present work
session.
Mr. Schoening reported that staff was currently working with Lane County to develop the final Basin Plan
for the River Road/Santa Clara area. He said prior to the close of the public record a memorandum had
been sent to the mayor and councilors that explained the relationship between the River Road/Santa Clara
Basin Plan and stormwater development standards with the conclusion that the two were complementary and
there was no need to delay the adoption of the latter. After adoption of the stormwater development
standards, the council directed staff to review the public comment that was submitted after the close of the
public record and return to the council at a later time. This work session was subsequent to that direction.
Mr. Schoening stated that low-impact development had the goal of integrating stormwater management and
land use planning with the objective of maintaining the predevelopment hydrologic regime in urban
watersheds. He said the City could approach this through regulations or through incentives utilizing the
Land Use Code. He cited examples of the implementation of low-impact development standards from the
City of Portland that delineated the use of incentive and the use of regulations.
Continuing, Mr. Schoening explained that there could be barriers or opportunities in some of the administra-
tive policies and procedures, such as the street standards which were adopted administratively. He said the
City of Eugene had a “skinny street standard” which had a beneficial effect for stormwater management.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 1
Work Session
Mr. Schoening highlighted the practices of the Puget Sound area, cited in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS),
and demonstrated the integration of stormwater management into land use planning. He related that
communities around Puget Sound formed interdisciplinary teams of people who had expertise in stormwater
and people who had expertise in land use. They conducted a comprehensive review of the development
code, the stormwater development standards, and other sections of the code and administrative policies and
procedures. He said they identified what barriers there might be and ways to encourage more use of low-
impact development practices through regulation and incentives.
Mr. Schoening said the stormwater development standards that the council adopted in June had been in
effect for six months and no problems with the standards had been identified. He felt the idea of low-impact
development had a lot of merit and would be a value to the stormwater program and land use process.
Staff’s recommendation was to continue with current work programs in fiscal year (FY) 2007 for both the
Planning and Development Department (PDD) and the Public Works Department and to direct the City
Manager to incorporate the comprehensive view into the PDD and Public Works work programs for FY08
with the goal of coming up with a series of recommendations to further the use of low-impact development
practices.
Ms. Taylor asked why wait until FY08. Mr. Schoening replied that this was because the City was half-way
through FY07. He stated that PDD had a prioritized work program that would be adversely affected by
moving forward at this time.
Ms. Taylor asked how long it would be after the study was completed before the council could adopt
elements of green development such as an eco-roof or curbless streets. Mr. Schoening replied that it
depended on the measure as some things would go through an administrative rule process, which could go
quickly, while other things would be land use decisions that include notification requirements and would be
processed through the Planning Commission and the City Council.
In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Schoening said the eco-roof was already a
practice available to new development in the manual that had been adopted administratively subsequent to
the adoption of the ordinance. He stated that the measures that would require changes to the Land Use Code
would take the larger process. He cited parking lot standards and floor-to-area ratios (FAR) as examples of
items that were addressed in the Land Use Code.
Ms. Taylor asked how curbless streets could be addressed. Mr. Schoening responded that curbless streets
were a design standard within the arterial and collector street standards that could be altered through an
administrative order. Ms. Taylor surmised that the council could direct the City Manager to enact it. Mr.
Schoening added that one of the reasons the two departments would be involved was because there were
competing values in some of the elements. He underscored the necessity of ensuring that adoption of
something related to stormwater would not adversely affect something else that was important to a
neighborhood, as an example.
Ms. Bettman remarked that it sounded to her that the code provision cited in the AIS created a trade-off to
provide an incentive for utilizing an eco-roof such as the possibility of a more permissive FAR. She asked if
this meant a requirement for a “denser building” to efficiently use a site could be reduced by the use of an
eco-roof. Mr. Schoening replied that he did not think of it that way, though it was possible. He noted that
Portland had viewed it the other way, allowing more FAR in the central business area for the utilization of
an eco-roof. He confirmed that the City could continue to preserve the policies of densifying and the
creation of less permeable surfaces while maintaining incentives.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 2
Work Session
In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Schoening affirmed that the motion was limited
to stormwater management.
Mayor Piercy asked if there were elements the council could provide direction on that could be implemented
in the interim. Mr. Schoening replied that it was definitely possible, especially given that the work that had
been done and documented in the Puget Sound area was available to the City.
Mayor Piercy asked how the council could address neighborhoods’ fears that they would lose the ability to
have the changes they wanted to have while waiting for the council to move forward with code changes.
City Manager Taylor surmised that the mayor wanted the council to be able to direct staff to go for the
“low-hanging fruit” in the potential low-impact development standards. He commented that there were
always more things that needed to be done, especially when it involved Public Works and PDD. He said the
challenge lay in doing as much as staff could with the current level of service and the departments’ stretched
resources while also identifying and prioritizing those additional things.
Ms. Bettman asked if the River Road Basin Plan had been completed. Mr. Schoening replied that it was not
done; rather, it was an ongoing process with the County and the two community organizations as partners
and the end date had been moved to July 2007.
Ms. Bettman recalled that the debate about using swales versus “pipe and fill” was prevalent in the River
Road neighborhood. She asserted that staff had been consistent in saying that the standards were there and
it was up to the development to choose whether to utilize one kind of treatment or another. She alleged that
staff consistently said that they wanted a citywide approach. She did not believe that the City could have a
citywide approach because of the geographical differences across the city. She felt staff “might want to look
at different neighborhoods that have different geography” and then develop different strategies in those
neighborhoods. She said the City had been using a “one size fits all which [the City] had very little success
imposing on the neighborhoods.”
Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to include in the FY08
Planning Division work program and the Stormwater Management Team work program a com-
prehensive review of the Eugene Code and administrative policies and procedures to identify
barriers and regulatory or incentive-based approaches to increase the use of low-impact devel-
opment practices.
Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add to the end of the motion “for stormwater
management practices that are consistent with densification policies and code provisions within
the urban growth boundary.” The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment.
Ms. Taylor offered Option 1 in the AIS as a friendly amendment. The maker of the motion de-
clined to accept the amendment.
Ms. Taylor moved, as a substitute motion, Option 1 in the Agenda Item Summary which sought
to reprioritize the FY 07 Planning Division work program and direct the City Manager to repri-
oritize the Stormwater Management Team work program to include a comprehensive review of
the Eugene Code and administrative policies and procedures to identify barriers and regulatory
or incentive-based approaches to increase the use of low-impact development practices with the
inclusion of Ms. Bettman’s friendly amendment. The motion died for lack of a second.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 3
Work Session
Ms. Bettman asked if it was possible for staff to look into having different strategies for different geographi-
cal areas of the City. Mr. Schoening replied that it was possible. He pointed out that existing standards did
have different strategies for different areas of the community. He cited standards for the south hills, as an
example, which required flow controls because of the steep gradients and the erosive soils and noted that
those standards were not required in other parts of the city. He said he would not characterize the standards
as “one-size fits all.”
Ms. Bettman noted that Puget Sound utilized consultants and asked if the City intended to hire consultants.
Mr. Schoening responded that because the Puget Sound interdisciplinary team had done the work in 2005
and the consultants would be conducting this work with another group in 2006 and in 2007 and all of the
work would be published, staff believed the work could be completed internally.
Ms. Taylor recalled an all-day session that she attended on swales and impervious surfaces. She assumed
that all of that information was still available. Mr. Schoening affirmed that it was.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
B. WORK SESSION:
Update on Commercial/Industrial/Residential Land Studies
City Manager Taylor stated that this was a requested work session for an update on the City’s commer-
cial/industrial/residential land studies that had been postponed from December. He asked Acting Planning
Manager Lisa Gardner and City Attorney Emily Jerome to discuss the item.
Ms. Gardner stated that attachments in the AIS included a memorandum from the City Attorney’s Office to
convey the attorneys’ assessment of the City’s compliance with State requirements and to give a status
report on the current inventories, a memorandum prepared by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), a
rough scope of the work – a “quick assessment” of the work tasks that could be undertaken and order-of-
magnitude costs. She said if there was direction to look at a land inventory update, the first thing to do
would be to put out a request for qualifications (RFQ) to obtain a detailed scope of costs.
Ms. Gardner said there were three components to the buildable lands discussion: 1) the data which was a
snapshot in time; 2) getting a handle on what acreage was commercial, industrial and residential and how
staff was adding or subtracting the acreage accordingly so that it could be used in a user interface tool; and,
3) the compliance component.
Ms. Bettman asked if there was a compelling reason to keep the memorandum issued in December
confidential. Ms. Jerome replied that at the time the memorandum was prepared there was an appeal period
that was “still alive.” Since that period had passed and no appeals had been filed, she indicated that she had
less concern about releasing the memorandum. She said if the council wished to direct her to do so, she
could remove the confidential stamp from the memorandum and release it to the councilors later in the
afternoon.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to make public the interdepartmental memoran-
dum from the City Attorney dated December 6, 2006, with the subject heading: Inventories of
residential/commercial/industrial land.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 4
Work Session
Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to move to revise the confidential memorandum so that
it could be released to the public. Ms. Bettman did not accept the amendment.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. Clark indicated he would be making a motion. He explained that the thinking behind his motion had to
do with his belief in the values of good government; that good government involved being honest, being
transparent, being proactive, and maintaining the value of home rule.
Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the Council direct the City Manager to bring
back to the council documents to initiate the rezoning and redesignation of all land that was in-
cluded in the City’s adopted supply of commercial, industrial, or residential lands and that has
since been acquired by the City for a use that is different from the use anticipated in the adopted
inventory study.
Mr. Clark explained that he felt the City should be honest about what it was starting with. His understand-
ing that of the 1,300 acres identified in the Eco-Northwest study, approximately 900 acres were designated
in other fashions and were lands that Eugene wished to protect. He thought it was wise to protect those
areas and that they should be designated honestly as not being part of the commercial and industrial supply.
Ms. Bettman felt the motion did not speak to the intent of the maker. She thought the motions Mr. Clark
intended to make were “extreme” and were “Measure 37-ish in their utter disdain for. . .land use laws.” She
averred that the approach the City would take was methodical and intelligent and would ensure that the City
grew though with some constraints to ensure efficient use of services and infrastructure. She did not think a
portion of the available lands should be taken out of “the whole picture” to be treated differently because of
an assumption that a property would never be available for development. She called this assumption
“erroneous.”
Additionally, Ms. Bettman pointed out that on page 17 of the report, under Eugene/major retail or mixed
use, the recently rezoned Crescent site was not reflected. Ms. Gardner replied that the data she referred to
was at least six months old.
Mayor Piercy asked if the next periodic review would be in eight years. Ms. Jerome replied that the periodic
review that was now being completed had been initiated in 1994, with the work program approved by the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in 1995. She said at that point all of the tasks
were expected to be completed by January 1, 2000. She stated that, technically, the City would not be asked
to enter into a periodic review again for seven years. She was uncertain if the DLCD intended to wait or
whether it had the means to make the City of Eugene be involved in a periodic review sooner than that.
In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Jerome explained that the date to begin another periodic
review would not be seven years from the present as the City had not completed the one it was in. There
was one more work task, a Lane County task, that was “wending its way through” for approval. She said
the review would be required seven years from the date that the current review was final and DLCD had
given complete approval for it.
Mr. Pryor appreciated the issue regarding compliance. He wanted to get to a document that was compliant.
He also thought about issues of currency and accuracy and whether it was complementary to the planning
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 5
Work Session
efforts being done in the metropolitan area. He did not perceive that the proposed motion would restrain the
City in any way. He saw it as being more informative in terms of the land inventory. He believed that if the
City was trying to create policies, planning, or regulatory actions based on information that was not current
or accurate, then it was out of alignment. He wanted policy documents to reflect what was “on the ground.”
He did not wish to make plans based on land that was not available for use. He averred that the City had the
capability to prepare inventories that were current and accurate and to maintain those inventories.
Mr. Clark stressed that his motion had nothing to do with Ballot Measure 37 or an expansion of the urban
growth boundary; rather, it was about being honest and accurate in regard to the land inventory. He wanted
to have some consensus about the available land supply.
Ms. Solomon observed that a lot of the acreage included in the commercial/industrial land supply was
included in the West Eugene Wetlands and that some of it was in public ownership. She asked staff if the
land was or should be available for development. Ms. Gardner was uncertain of the answer. She
understood that the Metro Plan amendments had been completed to designate those lands correctly. Mr.
Yeiter clarified that the rezoning had occurred. Ms. Gardner stated that whether the land should be
redesignated was a policy decision and not a staff decision.
Mr. Zelenka did not think the study could ever be completely up to date because it would require an ongoing
expenditure to maintain the data. He agreed that the City should not assume that any public land should be
taken out of the inventory. He asked when staff anticipated that the work would be finished. Ms. Gardner
replied that work task #7 in the PDD work program was to prepare scoping on the buildable lands
inventory. She said to do a study would require additional direction from the council.
In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Gardner clarified that PDD currently had studies
that were completed in various years for commercial, industrial, and residential lands so there was no
ongoing effort or direction to do a study. She said this was the question before the council and if the council
did want staff to undertake such an effort it would need to give the City Manager direction to initiate the
process and it would need to identify the resources to accomplish it within the PDD work program.
Ms. Ortiz thought the motion was broad. She could not comfortably support it. She believed that out of
respect for the Planning Commission, the council should ask the commission when this project could be fit
into the PDD work program.
Ms. Bettman pointed out that the City Manager’s recommendation was to take no action. She assumed that
this was based on the evaluation of the periodic review and the three inventories that were offered at the time
that indicated the City had a 20-year land supply plus a surplus. She averred that the City was in
compliance with State law. She said another study would cost a lot of money and take a lot of planning.
She asserted that there were “factions in the community” who were not happy with the conclusions and
wanted to start over with a new process.
Ms. Taylor did not support the motion. She saw no urgency to having another land supply study. She
reiterated her feeling that low-impact development was a higher priority.
Mr. Clark commented that he had discussed the land use supply with Planning staff and the professional
community who “worked in these fields” and he had heard that there was wide disagreement about the land
supply. His motion intended to find a way to discuss the existing inventory and how to move forward
intelligently and responsibly with it. He felt that the problems that existed in the Delta Highway/Beltline
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 6
Work Session
Highway area were due to poor planning in the Santa Clara area. He asserted that the City had not planned
accurately and thoughtfully for that area. In an effort to be pro-active and responsible, he believed an
honest, transparent discussion was necessary.
Mr. Pryor asked if the City had current and accurate information regarding the commercial, industrial, and
residential lands at present. Ms. Gardner responded that, though the City met State requirements, the
information was dated. She said the residential land inventory was more recent, but the commercial and
industrial lands inventory had been conducted in 1999.
Mr. Pryor thought it was essential to know the current land inventory. He did not want to commit to a
certain development path; he just wanted to ensure the information was complete. He did not think saying
“we do not really need it” was enough. He averred that in order to govern the City, the council needed
current and accurate information. He disagreed with the assertion that it would be expensive to undertake a
current inventory, adding that he would be interested in hearing ways it could be conducted within existing
resources.
Mayor Piercy observed that the inventory was an iterative process. She felt it would be costly to maintain
up-to-date data. She noted that the State only required the inventory to be conducted every ten years.
Ms. Gardner stated that the inventories themselves did not present a technological challenge. She said the
challenge lay in the interface in terms of data, which was separate from whether or not the City reentered a
periodic review and were required to do an inventory or chose to do an inventory. She noted that the
Commercial/Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) reports had outlined the complexities of the data challenges
and the costs.
Ms. Jerome said the discussion regarding when the next periodic review should occur was important, but it
was also important not to lose sight of the expiration dates of the land supplies studies which would likely
come before the next periodic review. She noted that the residential lands study would expire in 2015 and
the commercial and industrial land studies would expire in 2010. She stated that whether or not the City
would be in periodic review at that time for DLCD to be checking on the City’s status was uncertain. She
averred the City would at that time be at risk of being told by others, such as the Land Use Board of
Appeals, it was out of compliance.
Mr. Zelenka reiterated that this item was not on the work plans and the City Manager recommended taking
no action. He observed that every time a study was completed it was dated and out of compliance, unless
the City could change to a “completely dynamic system.” He noted that the existing studies concluded that
there was a 20-year land supply. He did not believe it was a wise use of staff time to pursue another land
use study or an ongoing one. He wanted to see the redevelopment of land that was now being underutilized
before any new supplies of land were sought outside of the UGB.
Mayor Piercy called for the vote. The vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Poling, and
Solomon voting in favor; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in opposition.
Mayor Piercy voted in opposition of the motion and the motion failed.
Mr. Pryor requested a memorandum from staff to address whether it would be feasible to conduct an
inventory. Planning and Development Department Director, Susan Muir, said it could be done as a council
assignment. She stated that it could explain some of the advancements that the department had in
technology.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 7
Work Session
Mr. Clark said he would not place his other motions on the table. He reiterated his belief that the State
would “change the process” for the City and it would be prudent for the City to lead the process by planning
for what would work best for it rather than having it dictated to the City by the State.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 8
Work Session