Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/21/07 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 21, 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: Traffic Safety Options City Manager Taylor welcomed Tom Larsen, Traffic Engineer for the Public Works Department, to the table. Mr. Larsen stated that much had been done over the last several years. He noted that the installation of cameras at red lights had at one time been a council goal. He related that in the late 1990s there had been a lot of support for this, but since then there had been lawsuits and problems with some of the systems in some cities. Mr. Larsen reported that between 32 percent and 48 percent of people who run red lights were doing it with some level of intention. He related that the Public Works Department had already made changes recom- mended by the Institute for Transportation Engineering, such as installing 12-inch signal heads, using light emitting diode (LED) lights in signals, and extending or reducing the yellow intervals. He said there had been a large number of enforcement efforts. He stated that the cities of Albany and Salem intended to install red light cameras and there was a bill in the State Legislature that sought to allow Milwaukee to install them and to lower the population ceiling for cities permitted to do so. He felt the City of Eugene had taken all the steps it could toward effective red light enforcement with the exception of installing cameras. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the opportunity to take up this issue. He acknowledged that a lot had been done. He underscored that for him this was not an issue of red light cameras or the revenue that might be generated by potential enforcement using this technology; rather, it was an issue of traffic safety. He had observed anecdotally an increase in the number of people who ran stop signs and stop lights. He believed that if a person knew he or she would not be caught, obeying traffic signals became optional. He said because the City did not have the resources to have traffic patrols everywhere and because he wanted to reduce red light running and accidents and to focus on safety at intersections, he wanted to propose an outcome the council would like to see and ask staff to identify ways to achieve the outcome. Mayor Piercy asked if there was a role for people who witnessed a person running through a red light. She also wondered how effective an education effort would be. Mr. Larsen replied that he agreed the incidence MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 1 Work Session was increasing. He did not believe a call to the 9-1-1 Center would be appropriate if a person witnessed this type of infraction. Mr. Larsen said in terms of intersection safety, he was not aware of any programs that generated revenue and most had a net cost. Regarding an education program, he suspected that every driver who ran a stop sign or stop light saw the traffic device and knew what it meant; he did not know what could be done beyond that. Eugene Police Chief Bob Lehner stated that from the enforcement angle, a person who witnessed such an infraction should not call the 9-1-1 Center, noting that even if the City of Eugene was a well-resourced community, by the time the call was generated and an officer was dispatched to the scene, the driver would be long gone. He related that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) did enforce traffic laws primarily with its traffic enforcement staff. He agreed that while there was value in educating people about the dangers of running red lights, it would not change the behavior of people who are doing it because they believe they are late, in a hurry, or that they will not be caught. He said this was where red light cameras had some efficacy. He commented that there were a lot of good traffic-related and crime-related studies showing that the effect of a police officer’s appearance disappears soon after the police officer does. He said if the goal was to catch and get the attention of violators in numbers large enough to make a difference, the most cost-effective way the City had available to it would be to install red light cameras. th Mr. Clark echoed Mr. Pryor’s comments. He recounted having an office at Olive Street and 6 Avenue and witnessing approximately an accident per month due to people running the light and the blind spot created by the Hult Center parking garage. He said a traffic engineer came and observed traffic at that location and, because of this study the length of the yellow light had been changed. This had seemed to reduce accidents. He asked if there were comparative studies regarding the change in the yellow pattern and how that affected accidents over time. He also understood that the addition of red light cameras in the City of Beaverton had caused an increase in auto accidents because people would see the camera and slam on their brakes, causing a rear impact. Mr. Larsen responded that anecdotally, the change in the yellow light interval had seemed effective in reducing the crashes caused by people in the tail end of queue. Regarding concern for a potential increase in rear-end accidents caused by a red light camera, he wished to note that in looking at crashes overall a “t- bone” accident was a more severe event. Mr. Clark requested comparative information regarding the changes instituted and what results arose from them. Mr. Larsen indicated he would compile the information for the council. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Larsen why the City was seeing this increase in red light running. Mr. Larsen speculated that as the traffic volumes grow and people were more likely to become cut off by traffic signals, there was more incentive to squeeze through a light. He also attributed it to lifestyle changes that saw more people driving from place to place. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Larsen stated that younger drivers were overrepresented as were drivers with prior speeding convictions. Chief Lehner stated that while the City of Eugene was experiencing an increase in red light running, there was a table in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) which indicated that the City of Eugene was still statistically low in comparison with other cities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Larsen stated that there were a number of vendors that offered a variety of systems. He thought most of the more recent technology captured a video segment. He noted that in the state of Oregon, the camera was required to photograph the auto license and the driver. Gender was checked to ensure that the registered owner who was receiving the civil citation at least resembled the driver. Ms. Bettman favored “anything that works,” though she preferred to review the efficacy of changing light intervals before spending money on additional technology. She wondered if there were particular character- istics of an intersection that was prone to have people run red lights. She noted that there were presentations in the schools that showed graphic depictions in the aftermath of accidents. She suggested an educational campaign featuring such depictions. Mr. Larsen said he did not have any data on a campaign and how that might work. He thought given that the violating drivers skewed young, they would not tend to respond to such a campaign because of the sense of invincibility that most young people have. Ms. Ortiz remarked that driver’s education used to be part of the school curriculum. She regretted that it was no longer routinely offered. She believed it was a social responsibility to instruct young people on how to drive. She opined that the reason people felt they could disregard lights was because there was a lack of officers on the street and people knew they would not get caught. Ms. Taylor suggested that a city-wide traffic committee be formed. She observed that people all feel their neighborhoods are experiencing more problems than other neighborhoods, but she felt that all neighborhoods were seeing a similar level of traffic issues. She thought a committee to consider different ideas for traffic mitigation would benefit the discussion. Mr. Pryor agreed that young adults and teenagers were probably responsible for the largest portion of these traffic infractions, but he had witnessed every age group and people from every socio-economic stratum running red lights. He found the table in the AIS informative and had been pleased to see that Eugene was “not as bad” as other places. However, he believed that 464 crashes caused by disregard of traffic devices was 464 too many. He said it was an issue that had to be addressed. He acknowledged that he was throwing “an enormous issue” into the laps of traffic engineers and said he hoped they could find a way to get a handle on the problem. Mr. Clark recalled that many years ago there were a lot of people parking in handicapped parking areas illegally and that a campaign had been conducted to take pictures of cars and send the owners a note. He wondered if the Volunteers in Policing could play a role in monitoring this issue. Chief Lehner replied that the short answer was yes, in that the EPD used a similar program in the past with neighbors monitoring speeding. He said the civilian monitors were not able to issue citations, but it was felt that sending a couple of letters to those who were committing the infractions did get their attention. He added that it was pretty significant in terms of its resource needs, though most of the people were not paid staff. Chief Lehner commented that while he agreed with Mr. Pryor that any number was too many, it was important to ask the question of at what cost. He said this was why the issue of red light cameras versus in person enforcement was significant. He stated that from a cost perspective, if the objective was to issue citations to people to encourage them not to repeat that behavior, on a per violation/per citation basis there would be a greater effect with photo radar than with police officers who were expensive resources. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 3 Work Session added that there was such an overall staffing deficit on the EPD that he would argue whether the next two police officers hired should be dedicated to traffic enforcement as opposed to some of the other difficult issues the community currently faced. B. WORK SESSION: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment Mayor Piercy asked if any councilors needed to declare ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Mr. Clark indicated that prior to his being seated as a councilor, he had reviewed the record and had attended the other hearings as a spectator. While he did not believe he had a conflict or a potential conflict of any kind, he was acquainted with one of the neighbors involved in the issue. He said he had spoken of the issue with his friend, but he did not believe anything of substance had transpired nor had he engaged in any further conversations with his friend since being seated on the council. Mr. Zelenka noted that he had also familiarized himself with the record and attended the public hearing as he had also not been seated on the council when this was first initiated. Ms. Taylor stated for the record that she had asked the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) to send information about complaints that had been received and she had been present at LRAPA meetings at which area residents complained about the activities of Delta Sand and Gravel. Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), stated for the record that after Ms. Taylor’s contacts had become known to staff, PDD advertised it to all of the parties involved during the public review process and those parties were given an opportunity to respond. He believed it was no longer a conflict. City Manager Taylor said Mr. Yeiter would review where the process was in time with the council. He noted the record had been closed and the County was in charge of the process. Mr. Yeiter explained that this was the first opportunity for an elected body to deliberate the application from Delta Sand and Gravel for an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan), zone change, and variances to allow an expansion of its existing operation. He noted it was located just outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB) but just inside the Metro Plan boundary. This required approval or denial of the amendment by both the City and the County. He said the zone change, the variance, and the opportunity to impose conditions rested with the County and this would be deliberated after the Lane Board of County Commissioners heard from the City Council. Mr. Yeiter reviewed the timeline for the process, noting that the last comments from Douglas DuPriest, attorney for the organized opposition, and Steve Cornacchia, attorney for Delta Sand and Gravel were included in the last packet the City Council received. He related that during the public review period a series of questions from Ms. Bettman had been submitted, but the staff timeframe to respond was short as it had the same limitations as the public response period. Staff answered the questions it was able to respond to. Mr. Yeiter stressed that the decision should be based upon the record. He said the City would provide general recommendations to the County, so that as much as the council as possible could come to agreement regarding where the potential conflicts were and what the conflicts were that were not minimized or MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 4 Work Session mitigated and then forward its input to the board. He underscored that the process was well-regulated by State law. He cited the proposed gravel extraction versus housing as an example of a potential conflict. He said the councilors then needed to decide if the conflicts were minimized. He related that State law required that where there were existing regulations that dealt with impacts or conflicts, those regulations would serve as the threshold for minimization; and, if the application and proposed use would meet those thresholds, they were by definition minimized. Mr. Yeiter welcomed Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director, and Stephanie Schulz, Project Manager for Lane County Public Works. He also noted that City Attorney Emily Jerome was present to provide legal counsel. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Yeiter to review the Lane County Planning Commission’s conflicts and the Eugene Planning Commission’s conflicts that commissioners felt were not mitigated. Mr. Yeiter noted he had prepared a summary, Attachment E in the packet. He stated that both commissions felt the information was adequate, but the Eugene commission felt the site qualified as a significant aggregate resource and the County commission found that the sampling method was inadequate. He reported that both commissions found that there were potential conflicts having to do with dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, and agriculture. He summarized the Eugene Planning Commission’s findings, which were that the impact that was not minimized was dust. He related that the County found there would be no impact to traffic and this was not challenged through the planning commission process. Ms. Bettman noted that the materials indicated that if the County and the City could not agree on the impacts and minimization efforts, the issue would go to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for dispute resolution. She considered this to be a “very undesirable” outcome of the process. She was uncertain how the MPC would address such an issue, given that the consortium included the City of Coburg, Lane Transit District (LTD), and the City of Springfield and those members had not been at the hearings nor had they reviewed all of the materials. Mr. Yeiter responded that both the City and the County code indicated that the decisions, in order to become effective, must be the same, but the codes did not define ‘same.’ He said legal counsel for both entities extrapolated from the codes that the two should be unified in whether the amendment was approved or denied, but the findings could be different. He explained that staff recommended a straw vote at this time because it would allow the City and the County to “go back and forth.” He conveyed staff’s desire for as much detail as possible. Ms. Jerome clarified the staff recommendation. She said one of the ways the County proposed that certain impacts be minimized was through the imposition of conditions that only the County could impose. She said that she would not want to see the council take specific action until the council had specific assurances or could see that the County was heading in a direction that would accommodate the minimization conditions the councilors desired to be imposed. She believed the PA05-6151: Delta Sand & Gravel Deliberation Votes – Metro Plan Amendment and Rezone worksheet County staff had prepared presented the issues in a reasonable logical order. She wanted, to the extent the councilors could provide real direction, to ensure that whatever decision the council made was most defensible and addressed all of the criteria and rules. She indicated her preference to gain direction from council, to work with staff, and then draft a decision for the council to review in order to make sure it reflected the council’s direction. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Yeiter indicated that if the council was unable to come to a conclusion on an issue, staff would take that as a question to bring before the County. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman declared that she had a “major problem” with Lane County’s decision to waive the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Ms. Solomon expressed hope that the council would not make this issue “unnecessarily excruciating” for anyone involved. She felt the information that had been provided was thorough and the councilors had been allowed adequate time to digest the information. She wanted to have a thoughtful and deliberative discussion that would move toward resolution in a timely fashion. Mr. Yeiter stated that Step 1 on the worksheet asked if the Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) information was adequate. Ms. Bettman reiterated her feeling that a TIA was necessary in terms of information needed for a decision to be made. She disagreed with the assumption that the actual production would not increase. She believed there could be impacts to local transportation infrastructure. She also thought an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) assessment should be conducted. She averred that the sampling had been performed in a way that mixed aggregates so that even though the quantity was established, the quantity of the standard that was to be fulfilled was inadequate because of this mixing. She doubted whether the resource was significant. Mayor Piercy noted that the Eugene Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the PAPA was adequate and that the Lane County Planning Commission voted 4:2 that the PAPA was adequate. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Yeiter stated that the planning commissions found there to be enough information upon which to base a decision. He said even if the majority found there was adequate information, the issues could be raised under each topic. Mr. Clark surmised that the commissions ascertained there was sufficient information without the TIA. He asked what the legal standard was for adequacy of information. Ms. Jerome explained that the OAR listed five factors for adequacy. She cited an attachment to the staff report from the date of the hearing and noted that it had listed the OAR criteria. She stated that the Planning Commission, based on County staff recommendations, found that there was enough information in current plans about that area and this had been deemed sufficient. Mayor Piercy called for a straw vote. Straw vote: the information in the PAPA was deemed adequate by a 5:3 vote; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Yeiter explained that Step 2 on the worksheet referred to the quality and quantity of the aggregate resource. He recalled the substantial testimony from the geologist regarding whether the site qualified as a substantial resource and as a Goal 5 resource. Mayor Piercy noted that the Eugene Planning Commission indicated by a 3:2 vote that it considered the site to contain significant material and the Lane County Planning Commission indicated its feeling that the site was an inadequate resource by a 4:2 vote. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman asserted that the significance of the resource was important because it would be used to justify and rationalize the loss of the “grade 1 farmland” and to determine if the expansion of the gravel operation was “worth” the noise and dust to the agricultural and residential uses that were around the property. She did not think the resource was significant enough to justify or rationalize the impacts. Mr. Yeiter pointed out that the elected bodies received more information in that regard than the first hearings of the planning commissions had. Mr. Poling asked how much of the area contained the “grade one” soil. Ms. Schulz responded that the area primarily featured Class 2 quality soils. Mr. Poling asked if the samplings had been conducted according to the criteria for such a process. Mr. Howe replied that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASTO) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) handbook guided the determination of the quantity and quality of the aggregate materials. He underscored that this was the journal/textbook for conducting such samplings. Mr. Poling said in looking at this as a civil action in which a determination would be based on the preponderance of evidence that would be 50 percent plus one. Three samples were taken including one that had been conducted by someone who was not recognized as an expert and two samples that indicated the resources were adequate. Mr. Clark asked what weight testimony from someone who was not considered an expert should be given. Ms. Jerome replied that it was up to the elected officials to make a decision that a reasonable person would make. Mayor Piercy called for a straw vote on the determination of whether the resource site was significant. Straw vote: the vote on whether the resource site was significant was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Clark voting yes, and Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Piercy voted no and the vote failed. Mr. Yeiter noted that Step 3, which sought to determine if identified conflicts from mining could be minimized to acceptable levels of no significant impact, was split into seven areas of potential conflict: traffic, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, flooding, agricultural practices, dust, and noise. He suggested the council address the impacts individually. Regarding traffic, he pointed out that a TIA could be required at a future point as the area experienced increased development and the gravel operation potentially experienced an increase in production. Mr. Pryor observed that it was questionable as to whether the application would affect traffic intensity. He surmised that the application sought to extend the lifetime of the mining application and not necessarily to increase production. He believed the potential traffic impacts could be dealt with at a later point. He reiterated that as it related to this application, market conditions were not a factor. Ms. Bettman felt the council was relying on the applicant’s assertion that traffic was not a factor. She opined that this was not good government. She said with every development there was an assumption that it would impact traffic. Otherwise, the City of Eugene would end up “holding the bill” for whatever kinds of MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 7 Work Session upgrades or improvements needed to occur because of the traffic impact. She averred that a TIA was just a part of conducting due diligence. Mr. Clark said while Ms. Bettman referred to this item as the council was relying on information from the applicant, he would be relying on the unanimous consent of both planning commissions to guide his decision. Mr. Yeiter noted that there were three questions under Traffic. The City could find a conflict due to traffic but it could also find such a conflict could be minimized through the imposition of conditions. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Yeiter affirmed that the planning commissions had not challenged the County’s assertion that a TIA was not needed because of the consistency of production. Mr. Zelenka surmised that this was because production would not be increased at this time. He pointed out that unless there was a conditional use that would dictate that production would stay at that level, it could change. He said if the gravel operation decided to double production there would be a concurrent doubling of traffic. He did not see how they could make this assumption without making a conditional use provision. Ms. Jerome stated that the first step would be to determine the impact area, which could not be more than 1,500 feet from the proposed expansion area boundary unless there were circumstances that warranted the consideration of a larger area. She noted that both planning commissions had found 1,500 feet to be the appropriate area. Mr. Zelenka indicated he would vote that this was a conflict because there was no indication that a conditional use was being considered and no TIA to indicate otherwise. Mr. Clark ascertained from Ms. Jerome that the council was to determine whether there was a current conflict as opposed to a conflict over a period of time. He related that he had some concern regarding the future of the company. He said if the current owners sold the business there would be no way to know how the future owners would choose to operate the business at this point. He did not know if the council could make this decision based on this potential. Ms. Jerome commented that this pointed to the importance of making conditions. She did not think the council could make a final decision without knowing where the County was going with respect to those decisions. Mr. Yeiter pointed out that aside from the County mining permits, production levels were also regulated by LRAPA and other agencies. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the meeting by five minutes. The mo- tion failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 8 Work Session (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 9 Work Session