Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/13/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall--Eugene, Oregon December '13, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council Vice President Taylor called the meeting to order. Mr. Rayor recused himself for Item A on the agenda due to a potential conflict of interest and rejoined the council for Item B. A.WORK SESSION: INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS PLAN, EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN, AND DRAFT TRANSPLAN RELATED TO THE WEST EUGENE PARKWAY ( OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) Planning Director Jan Childs introduced the item, which was a continuation of a previous work session on proposed amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, Eugene Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan, and TransPlan. The council was joined by Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green, who provided the council with background information on the State project selection process. Mr. Green urged the council to respect the vote of the people regarding the West Eugene Parkway project, which he termed critical to the district he represented. He asked the council to return the issue back to the citizens for another vote. He also asked the council to consider the City's partners in Lane County, as the funding for the parkway was unlikely to be reallocated to another local project. Mr. Green said that the region did not compete well with other regions when it came to State transportation funding. Elton Chang of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) explained the federal government's requirement that all phases of the parkway be included in the 20-year financially constrained TransPlan. He attributed the requirement to the need for local accountability in transportation planning and indicated that there was no negotiation on the requirement. Ms. Bettman thanked Mr. Chang for the clarification. She said she thought transportation realities had changed radically since the 1986 vote on the parkway. Ms. Bettman said that municipalities had to do more with less, and she believed the parkway "did less with more." The funding that would have to be included in TransPlan to accommodate the parkway would displace $71 million in other projects in the plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to direct the City Manager not to initiate amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, and to study a variety of strategies and mechanisms to improve safety and traffic flow in west Eugene, particularly in the West 11th Avenue area. Ms. Nathanson said that while she understood the federal government's interest in a comprehensive and coordinated approach to transportation planning, she objected to the fact the FHWA had imposed a new requirement at the very end of a process that had started years ago and been delayed many times, which she considered unfair. Ms. Nathanson shared the thoughts of Mayor Torrey, who was unable to attend the meeting. She said the mayor asked that the council initiate the amendments requested or, if it was not willing to do so, that it place the issue before the voters. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the unfairness of the requirement that all phases of the project be included in TransPlan. He said that thousands of hours had been put into ranking the projects in TransPlan. Inclusion of all phases of the parkway in the plan would eliminate almost all other State projects in the plan, which seemed to him a precipitous action at the last minute. Regarding the 1986 vote referred to by Mr. Green, Mr. Kelly said that a vote was not forever; he said the vote was a "snapshot in time" of the conditions of the time, which did not include the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. He suggested the vote deserved respect but should not have veto power over the council. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the vote was on the whole parkway, and there was no funding for the whole parkway. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding whether construction of the parkway would affect the City's ability to secure future federal Land and Water Conservation Funds to underwrite acquisition in the wetlands plan area, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson explained that lands purchased with those funds could not be transferred for another purpose. However, Bureau of Land Management could allow the land to be used for right-of-way. The waiver referred to in BLM correspondence was an allowance of use permit of right-of-way across the BLM property. There was no indication from the City's past discussions with BLM staff in Washington, DC, that the parkway would threaten the City's ability to obtain future Land and Water Conservation Funds. Mr. Kelly said he heard secondhand that David Beaver of BLM had indicated future such funds would be threatened by the parkway. Mr. Farr said it was ludicrous to suggest the vote of the citizens was no longer valid because it happened in 1986. He said that the vote was valid, and the 80/20 split in favor of the parkway was a mandate. He said that dismissing the vote was an insult to those who were in Eugene at the time and it demonstrated an arrogance people were coming to resent from government. Mr. Farr believed that the matter should be referred back to the voters if the council was really interested in what the people of Eugene wanted. He pointed out that there were councilors who wanted to hold public forums for decisions as small as a street vacation, but were willing to eliminate the parkway without input. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's analysis of the fiscal concerns. He did not think the 1986 election was invalid, but he agreed with Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly that conditions had changed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 2 Work Session He said that the residents needed to know the impact of the project and that it would eliminate other State projects. Mr. Meisner did not think the project addressed the need that existed. He did not think the project provided connections to other pads of the transportation system. Mr. Meisner said that he believed in the "if you build it they will come" analysis of system improvements, and had seen nothing in the parkway plans outside the eight percent reduction in projected congestion that made the investment worthwhile. He thought the motion made sense. While he thought it important that the State funding remained in the area, he did not want it unless it was for a good project. Ms. Nathanson said she objected to the federal imposition because it failed to recognize reality. The country did not build a complete interconnected interstate highway system with all money identified for the entire system, yet a small local government was being asked to do that, which she considered very unrealistic and unfair. Ms. Nathanson noted that the motion offered by Ms. Bettman did not preclude construction of the parkway. She did not think emphasizing alternate modes and system improvements were the complete answer to the transportation issues in west Eugene as much of the terrain in the area was hilly, discouraging residents from bicycling or walking. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the discussion was not only about intracity travel but about intercity travel as well. Some of the problems created by West 11th Avenue were a result of a State highway passing through the city, and she thought this was a good time to use State expertise and State money to solve a problem that was created by a statewide transportation system. The parkway could take intercity traffic off local streets. Regarding the issue of public input raised by Mr. Farr, Mr. Kelly said that the council had heard considerable testimony about the West Eugene Parkway during the TransPlan adoption process and had received many e-mail messages and letters about the issue. He said he was sensitive to the traffic issues in the west Eugene area and would not have supported the motion without the study Ms. Bettman proposed. He said there was no "magic bullet" to traffic problems in west Eugene. Mr. Kelly said a wide variety of tools could be used, such as access management. Mr. Kelly said that there may be a need for a new arterial street, not a limited access highway, from th th 6 and 7 avenues to Beltline. He did not think the West Eugene Parkway would solve the problem Ms. Nathanson wanted to solve given the modeling projections. He did not think residents would notice an eight percent reduction in congestion on West 11th Avenue in 2015. Mr. Kelly noted that there was no structural solution proposed by the State to keep traffic on the parkway and off Eugene streets. Mr. Pap~ said that councilors opposing the parkway appeared to be minimizing a vote they could not ignore. He thought the only way to put the public's sentiment to a test was to ask the community to vote on the issue again. Mr. Pap~ said that there were many activists who appeared before the council to testify, but there were many other members of the public who did not testify but did vote. Mr. Pap~ said that the comment about the parkway he recalled best came from Dave Kleger of the Lane Transit District Board, who was a supporter of mass transit but who suggested that not to build the parkway was to break a promise to the voters. Mr. Meisner agreed that the parkway was a proposed solution to a State-created problem. He cited the problems created by the 6t' and 7th avenues expansion, saying that the project had not MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 3 Work Session taken traffic off local streets in downtown, and the area was not signed to ensure that such traffic intrusions in neighborhoods did not occur. Because of that project, Mr. Meisner did not have a great deal of trust in the Oregon Department of Transportation. He did not think Ms. Bettman's motion was restrictive to alternate modes improvements but could result in the construction of more collector and arterial streets if the study found them needed. He noted his ward reached Seneca Street, and he would personally appreciate a better way to reach Beltline from the Big Y area. Mr. Meisner did not favor a straight line extension even if it did not run through the wetlands beyond Beltline. Mr. Farr said that if the council supported the motion, the West Eugene Parkway, which had been planned for 14 years and approved by 80 percent of the voters in 1986, was dead. He wanted the public to know that. He said the council appeared to be prepared to vote on the parkway without public input. He expressed the wish that Mayor Torrey could be present for the discussion. Mr. Farr, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to table the motion. The motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Farr voting yes. Mr. Farr reiterated that there had been a great deal of planning that had gone into the parkway project and the council as a group of seven were acting as if they knew better than the residents of Eugene. Ms. Childs noted that staff had provided the council with information about election logistics. Ms. Bettman said when the project was first proposed, the conventional wisdom was that road building eased congestion. She believed that the conventional wisdom had changed. Research proved that road building frequently caused more, not less, congestion. Ms. Bettman said that the residents of Eugene should ask themselves if they lived here 14 years ago when the vote was taken. She thought that would highlight how much had changed in 14 years. She said that fiscal realities were forcing the City Council into a hard decision. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the City Manager could not initiate amendments to the plans mentioned in the motion; unless the council took affirmative action, the amendments would not be initiated. Ms. Bettman called the question. There was no second. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the adopting officials did not receive much testimony about the project from those who supported it because it was an approved project, was already in TransPlan, and was proposed to be built. She said that if the motion passed, she wanted to participate in discussions about other system improvements in the west Eugene area. However, if the motion passed and the City Council was counting on other system improvements to help solve traffic problems in west Eugene, what was the estimate of that cost? Where would the money come from? Ms. Nathanson assumed it would not come from the State. She asked how long it would take to identify money to come up with a solution. Traffic Engineer David Reinhard indicated he did not know, and estimated the majority of funding could come from systems development charges. Ms. Nathanson said that it appeared the motion could result in a long study process with no identified dollars for system improvements. She determined from staff that the City could not take the State money it had allocated to TransPlan and apply it to City system MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 4 Work Session improvements. She asked if the State could reallocate the funding to pay for those improvements. Mr. Pap~ asked if future system improvements could be identified and included in the State Transportation Improvement Program. Ms. Childs said that the plan would be updated every three years and new projects could be added during updates. She said that if the motion passed, the City should extensively lobby the State to retain the money for other State projects in west Eugene identified in the staff notes. Mr. Pap~ suggested that council allow the project to stay in TransPlan pending the result of a community vote. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Klein said that the general rule was that those voting in favor of a motion that passed could move for reconsideration at a future meeting. However, the council that met in January 2001 would be a new City Council, and any councilor could make a motion related to the parkway and any three councilors could request that the subject be scheduled for discussion. Mr. Farr wanted a work session on the subject to be scheduled as soon as possible. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Fart voting no. Mr. Rayor rejoined the meeting. Due to a lack of time, the council postponed items C and D on the agenda. The council took a brief meeting recess. B.WORK SESSION: LAND USE CODE UPDATE The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer and Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein noted that the court granted a preliminary injunction to preclude the implementation of Ballot Measure 7, passed by Oregon voters in November 2000. He anticipated a Circuit Court decision in January or February 2001, with a direct appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals. A final decision from the final appellate court would probably be handed down in later summer 2001 or, if not expedited, three years hence. He did, however, believe the process would be expedited. Notwithstanding the measure's current status, Mr. Klein believed there was a risk to adoption of new regulations restricting the use of property. However, that was not to suggest that the council postpone implementation of the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) prior to the resolution of the measure's fate. He said that there were actions the council could take to reduce the risk of imposing new regulations. However, legal counsel had not yet had time to explore all those options. Mr. Klein suggested one approach could be to give property owners the ability to "opt in" to LUCU, and to waive their Ballot Measure 7 rights. Mr. Meisner asked if a waiver granted by one property owner would be honored by the next. Mr. Klein responded that such waivers could be recorded with a property's title. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly asked if a property owner could choose to "opt out" of the Land Use Code. Mr. Klein said that approach came with a higher risk; it was not clear under the parameters of Ballot Measure 7 that the council had the authority to waive regulations. Mr. Kelly questioned why Eugene could not overrule its own regulations through code. Mr. Klein said that the answer would depend on what extent the City was acting to implement a State regulation. He did not want to rule anything out, reiterating legal counsel had not had an opportunity to analyze the issue. He added that there may be actions the council could take shod of shelving or fully adopting LUCU without substantially increasing risk, but counsel had not examined those options. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the impact of Ballot Measure 7, Mr. Klein said that setbacks and parking lot standards were among the regulations that could be interpreted as limiting the use of a property. Ms. Nathanson thought it important to explain to the citizens the impact and nature of the measure. Ms. Bettman believed that many City land use regulations created a benefit for property owners. She asked how the City could turn that benefit into a way to enforce the LUCU standards or create revenue to fund Ballot Measure 7 claims. She asked if the City could get property owners to voluntarily comply with LUCU standards in exchange for the value provided by actions that intensified a property's use, such as a zone change. Mr. Klein said the approach could be legal if it was voluntary. Ms. Bettman wanted to explore the possibility. Mr. Farmer provided an overview of the FTEs (full-time equivalents) required for the implementation of the Land Use Code Update, noting that some of the costs could be covered by fees but other sources of funds would be required. He reviewed three options for proceeding, listed on the last page of a summary of his presentation: 1. Direct the City Manager to continue to prepare an updated revised Land Use Code based on prior council directives, but to postpone the council January 22, 2001, action date until further council review of cost impacts can be undertaken in light of the overall City budget and to account for legal concerns related to Ballot Measure 7. 2. Direct the City Manager to maintain the schedule for adopting the Land Use Code and to include full implementation in the draft City budget using a combination of General Fund and cost recovery through fees. 3. Direct the City Manager to reduce the amount of staff resources needed to implement the Land Use Code by amending the code to: A. Eliminate Standards Review for large-scale commercial, multi-tenant commercial, and multiple-family residential B. Reduce use of Adjustment Review by creating a points system approach to achieve compliance with design standards. C. Institute use of Professional Certification for Landscape Standards, Geotechnical Reports, and Special Hazardous Materials Review. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Farmer reported that the latest National Association of Homebuilders Affordability Index listed the City as the eighth least affordable housing market in the country, down from the second least affordable. Implementation of LUCU, the Construction Fund proposals, and increases in the systems development charges would raise Eugene to fifth or sixth on the affordability index. Mr. Kelly appreciated the choices offered to the council. He said that he was not surprised by the number of FTEs needed to implement LUCU. Mr. Kelly said that the council and community had made an extraordinary commitment to the code update. The City's Growth Management Study policies would be implemented through the code update. Mr. Kelly supported Option 2. He agreed that implementation could not be entirely recovered by fees and said staff should work to identify those services most appropriately funded by the General Fund. He thought an organization with more than 1,000 employees should be able to shift a few employees around. Regarding the risk of Ballot Measure 7, Mr. Kelly said he appreciated the legal analysis but thought that since the public could file a claim against current regulations as well, there was no reason not to proceed with implementation of the code. City Manager Jim Johnson noted that the council was scheduled to take action on the update on January 22, 2001. Ms. Taylor suggested that councilors indicate what options they tentatively supported at this point. Ms. Nathanson said she could not indicate a preference without more discussion about the implications of Option 3. Mr. Kelly indicated support for Option 2. Mr. Pap8 supported Option 1. Mr. Farr noted his interest in Option 3 but concurred with Ms. Nathanson more discussion was needed. Mr. Meisner was unsure of his position on the options at this time. Mr. Rayor supported Option 1. Ms. Taylor supported Option 2. Ms. Bettman supported Option 2. Mr. Pap8 left the meeting at 7 p.m. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Farmer confirmed the eight proposed FTEs were a net increase in the number of City employees. Regarding the issue of housing affordability, Mr. Meisner said that the council discussed housing affordability as though the City's regulations were the only factor driving the cost of housing. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 7 Work Session pointed out that every community in the state had regulations. He called for a comprehensive analysis of the issue, relative to the experience of other cities. Mr. Rayor wanted to move forward with implementation of the Land Use Code Update. He was concerned about Ballot Measure 7, and thought the City would know more in a month than it knew now. Mr. Rayor said the staffing analysis presented by Mr. Farmer was not adequate for him. It did not address economic conditions in Eugene and how many people actually sought permits. Construction activity was slowing down, and Mr. Rayor wanted more of a sensitivity analysis related to permit volumes. He was very concerned about the budget and very concerned about the number of FTEs employed by the City. He said that the City needed to determine if there was any extra capacity in the organization that was not being utilized. Mr. Farmer said the land use permitting process was different than the building permit process in that the building permit process was tied to interest rates and other national factors. The land use process was a little "lumpier" than the building permit process, and it was a challenge to ensure that staff was available when people come to the Permit and Information Center counter, and were managed so that they have something to do when applications were not coming in. He said that staff was working hard to realize efficiencies, and pointed out the department had eliminated 25 positions last year in Building and Permit Services. Ms. Nathanson asked for discussion of Option 3, specifically (A). Senior Planner Teresa Bishow said that the option suggested a different way to administer the standards. The standards themselves would remain. The key change in A was no public notice component. There would be no "watch dog" role for the public in checking the staff consistency in code interpretation, for example. Ms. Nathanson said she was interested in Option 3(C) and asked about its workability. Ms. Bishow believed that the approach could be used, and the listed professional certifications were those most likely to be familiar with the type of review involved. She suggested that there may be inconsistency between professionals regarding code interpretation. Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of housing affordability, saying that the index referred to by Mr. Farmer was always produced in the context of local wages. She believed Eugene's ranking was as much a reflection of the fact the local labor force was not being paid very highly as it was of the cost of housing. She did not want to use the index as a reason not to regulate. Ms. Bettman asked if it was reasonable for the department to raise its cost recovery target from fees. Mr. Farmer did not think it was realistic. He said that realizing 85 percent to 90 percent of the cost of services from fees was not feasible, particularly because of the City's approach to recovering the costs of administrative overhead through the Central Services Allocation. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Johnson confirmed that there had been some downsizing in the Planning and Development Department following the completion of the Hyundai plant, but those positions had been completely supported by the fees assessed to Hyundai. Responding to Mr. Kelly's earlier remark regarding claims against existing regulations, Mr. Klein disagreed with Mr. Kelly regarding the potential of such claims, pointing out that in that case, the MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 8 Work Session regulation was in place prior to the measure's adoption and it did not authorize a claim for a property owner who "came to the regulation." Mr. Klein advised the council to postpone the January 22 scheduled adoption of the code. He said that if the code was adopted at that point, all those property owners without claims today would have claims. He also counseled waiting because a court decision was expected in February 2001. Mr. Farr believed that the community was moving in the right direction in terms of housing affordability. He was pointed out that the drop in ranking could partially be attributed to increased wages in the community. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to adopt Option 1. Ms. Nathanson offered a friendly amendment to the motion to direct the City Manager to reduce the amount of staff resources through items 3(A)-(C). Mr. Farr and Mr. Rayor accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly said he could support Option 1 with an intended adoption date, suggesting February 26, 2001. Mr. Farr and Mr. Rayor accepted Mr. Kelly's suggestion as a friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly said he supported the motion as offered but not as amended because he had a number of questions about 3(A)-(C). Mr. Meisner supported the motion as amended. He suggested as a friendly amendment that the City Manager be directed to prepare staff reductions for items 3(A)-(C). Mr. Farr and Mr. Rayor indicated acceptance of Mr. Meisner's suggested amendment. Ms. Bettman did not support 3(A) and 3(B). She opposed 3(B) particularly as she did not support adjustment review, and 3(A) eliminated neighborhood notice, which she found troublesome. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said if the court upheld Ballot Measure 7, it was likely to interpret its meaning, which would give local government some guidance in evaluating the risk of adopting LUCU. Ms. Bettman asked if the council supported her suggestion related to linking zone changes to the standards. She said that zone changes were happening all the time and the City was allowing that to occur while stopping progress on the code update. She was concerned about that and thought the City should address it by perhaps eliminating the FTEs doing zone changes and transferring them to another service. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 9 Work Session City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 10 Work Session