Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/13/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall January 13, 1999 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, David Kelly. Mayor James D. Torrey called the council to order at 11:30 a.m. 1.CITY COUNCIL LUNCH WORK SESSION A. Items From Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Lee welcomed the incoming councilors and said he looked forward to a productive year. He said the January 11 State of the City event went very well and commended the mayor on his address. Mr. Meisner welcomed the new council and wished all the councilors the best of luck in 1999. Mr. Meisner requested a future agenda item to discuss the possibility of forming a citizens advisory committee to resolve the many issues raised in the past by citizens, the council, and the press, regarding the City Charter. He cited specifically council compensation, the scope of the council's powers, and the structure of Eugene's municipal government. Ms. Nathanson welcomed the incoming councilors. Mr. Pap8 thanked the council for its welcome. Mr. Fart welcomed the new councilors and said it would be a pleasure to work with them. His experience of them was that they were all fair, deliberative, and courteous people. Mr. Fart said that the last council had also been able to work together in a civil way. Mr. Farr identified three goals for 1999 and beyond: 1) to work more closely with the local school districts to help the districts leverage the services they provide, producing a product neither the districts nor the City would be able to provide separately; 2) to build on the past work of the Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth in providing assistance to youth, particularly those least able to care for themselves; and 3) to strengthen the area's quantity of Iow-income housing stock, both publicly subsidized housing and privately provided housing. Mr. Farr stressed the importance of assisting those least able to care for themselves, and said he hoped the council would continue to work on such issues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 1 11:30 a.m. Ms. Taylor welcomed the new councilors. Ms. Taylor said she hoped the council would work on a new tax structure to provide relief to those whose housing was not affordable because of their tax burden. She also wanted to keep the issue of inclusionary zoning before the council. Ms. Taylor requested information on the status of the conditional use permit at Rest-Haven Memorial Park. She asked if the council could reconsider the decision it made on the zone change for the Aster property in the Willow Creek area. Mr. Rayor said that a citizens group in Ward 1 was interested in emergency preparedness, particularly as it related to the Year 2000 issue. He requested that the City provide the group with information from the City regarding its emergency preparedness and how it interacted with such agencies as the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr. Rayor asked that the council have a discussion of the Riverfront Research Park prior to consideration of the Planning and Development Department budget. Mr. Kelly thanked the councilors for their welcome and said he was delighted to be with the council. Mr. Kelly reported that there would be a Year 2000 Community Forum on January 29, and indicated he would provide additional details in the future. He requested an update on the status of staff resources devoted to graffiti removal. Mr. Kelly suggested that, because of the number of new elected officials in the metropolitan area, a joint elected officials meeting be scheduled in April 1999 to discuss local budget conditions in the post-Ballot Measure 50 era, future budget projections, commonalities and differences between jurisdictions, and alternatives for the future. City Manager Jim Johnson indicated Mr. Kelly's suggestion was timely because the Public Safety Coordinating Council had also asked for such a discussion. He said staff would provide an update on graffiti removal. Mr. Johnson asked the council if it wished to schedule a work session related to charter review in the spring. Ms. Nathanson asked if the issue could be raised in the context of the upcoming process/goals session. Mr. Torrey agreed. Mr. Meisner explained that he was not seeking a discussion of specific changes to the charter, but rather a discussion of how to involve the public in an advisory process. Ms. Nathanson indicated her understanding of his intent, but pointed to the many competing priorities before the council and said that she would like the council to discuss if charter review was important enough among those priorities to warrant further staff and council attention. She did not object to holding a work session on the topic, however. Mr. Torrey suggested it was unlikely the council could find time to schedule the item prior to the process/goals session. Mr. Johnson proposed that staff schedule the item on a future agenda and that the council briefly discuss it at the process/goals session to give staff some direction on how to structure the work session. Responding to Mr. Rayor's request, Mr. Johnson noted that a discussion of the Riverfront Research Park was scheduled for February 10, 1999. Responding to Ms. Taylor's question, Mr. Johnson said the City had requested further information from Rest Haven Memorial Park; that information was received the previous day. He anticipated MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 2 11:30 a.m. that he and Public Works Department Director Christine Andersen would make a decision before January 27, 1999. Mr. Johnson indicated to Mr. Rayor he would schedule an update on the Year 2000 situation as it pertained to the City and its intergovernmental partners. Mr. Kelly suggested that the update be tied to the report from the interdepartmental Year 2000 team, scheduled for February. Mr. Pap8 recommended the council be given a brief monthly oral report on the topic. Mr. Lee asked that a work session on the Endangered Species Act be scheduled. He expressed concern that the City was moving forward in implementing the Growth Management Study policies without knowing more about the impact of the act. He also requested that a discussion of issues related to the west University area, such as alleyway improvements, be scheduled for a future agenda. Mr. Torrey welcomed both returning and new councilors. He said he was looking forward to working with the council and anticipated that it would get a great deal accomplished in 1999. Mr. Torrey reminded the council of an incident involving Eugene resident John Gainer in late December, during a period when the council was not in session. He said that in response to several councilors, staff had prepared a letter on behalf of the council apologizing to Mr. Gainer for the incident. Mr. Torrey added that the council should do all it could to ensure that everyone in the community felt they were equal citizens. He asked the council to adopt a motion to send the letter. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve the letter of January 13, 1999, to John Gainer. Mr. Lee said that race identity is a personal identity issue for many and people take this issue very seriously. He was concerned about the way the community was having the discussion about the incident. He did not think it was productive. Mr. Lee said that incidents such as that experienced by Mr. Gainer can make people shy away from a meaningful discussion of race relations. He expressed the hope the council could have such a discussion. Mr. Lee said that Mr. Gainer deserved an apology; he did not choose to be misidentified. He said the incident was not merely about wrongful identity, but rather about the perception of inequality on the part of certain community members. Mr. Lee maintained that living in Eugene was difficult for people of color, and cited census data from 1990 regarding per capita income for people of color. The data indicated the annual average income for white residents was $14,213; $7,993 for African American residents; $7,901 for Hispanic residents; $10,229 for Native American residents; and $10,272 forAsian American residents. Mr. Lee said that Eugene was a place for opportunities, but not for everyone. He said that 1980 data indicated that for over ten years the disparity between whites and people of color had worsened. Mr. Lee suggested that the combination of economic disadvantage and incidents of prejudice led to hurt. He said if the council took the time to understand the "big picture," it could have a meaningful discussion. As leaders of the community, he felt it was important the council facilitated discussion in a meaningful way. Mr. Lee said that he was working with the Human Rights Commission to help the council better understand the larger societal inequities involved in the issue by putting together a "report card" on various social and economic inequalities in Eugene. He asked for the council's support. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 3 11:30 a.m. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the incident started with a security guard's report to the police, which police officers followed up on. Mr. Pap8 asked if the Eugene Police Department behaved in an appropriate manner. Mr. Johnson said yes, and offered to provide the council with the reports prepared by the officers who responded to the report. Mr. Pap8 asked if the security officers acted appropriately, and if they were licensed. Mr. Johnson said that the appropriateness of the security officer's reaction was an issue for communities of color. Security at Valley River Center believed it spotted a robbery suspect on the bus; the police responded to the call. Mr. Johnson said the initial misidentification was made by Valley River Center security staff. Valley River security staff believed an unfortunate mistake was made. He said it was difficult to tell private security guards not to make a police report if they believed they saw a wanted suspect. He did not believe that was a message the City wanted to send. Mr. Johnson said it was a judgment call as to how close Mr. Gainer's description fit the composite description seen by the security guards, and how much judgment was exercised by the guards in making the identification. Mr. Kelly said that although the letter was directed to Mr. Gainer and he believed the apology it contained was deserved, his purpose in helping to draft the letter was to help frame the larger issue for the community. Each time such a situation occurred there seemed to be a logical explanation, but the preponderance and universality of such incidents indicated Eugene as well as the larger society had a continuing problem that required continuing attention. He indicated his agreement with Mr. Lee's remarks and said the letter was a beginning rather than an end, as well as a reminder that leaders must do everything they can to gradually transform the community. Mr. Kelly hoped that Eugene's communities of color would help by giving the council specific suggestions about how the City could improve the community environment. Ms. Taylor did not perceive the incident as a racial incident, and said it would be too bad if police felt they could not legitimately question a person of color. She termed the incident unfortunate, humiliating, and upsetting, but suggested sometimes such situations could not be avoided. Ms. Taylor asked if the council intended to apologize to everyone questioned or even greatly inconvenienced and humiliated by the police. She expressed regret that citizens had not approved of forming a citizen review board because that seemed like the right venue for those who believed they were wronged by the police. Ms. Taylor did not think the council should immediately assume the police acted incorrectly. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the recently approved Police Commission could discuss policies related to the incident and their application. Mr. Johnson concurred, noting mention of that was included in the letter to Mr. Gainer. Mr. Meisner said that when viewed in isolation, each incident was explainable, defensible, and consistent with policy and practice. However, the recurring pattern of incidents, or the "big picture" to which Mr. Lee referred, was a problem for him. Mr. Meisner said that Eugene had an unsavory racial history and an active history of racial discrimination. He looked forward to a "big picture" discussion, and hoped the incident "startles us into acting" as councilors and individuals. Mr. Meisner added that he did not doubt the good faith of the Eugene police officers involved, but they lived in the same culture as all others in the community and needed to do better. He said that the council's goal should be to make the system work better for everyone. Mr. Johnson reiterated that he believed the police behaved in an appropriate manner. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 4 11:30 a.m. Mr. Torrey indicated he would meet with the City Manager, County Commissioner Bobby Green, and members of the African American community to discuss the incident. He said the council should be looking at outcomes down the road. He said that the issue was not just the apology, but how the community could reach a point where people of color believe they are respected. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The council agreed all members and the City Manager would sign the letter to Mr. Gainer. B. Approval of Minutes of Joint Elected Officials' Meeting of November 16, 1998; City Council Lunch Work Session of November 18, 1998; City Council Dinner Work Session of November 23, 1998; and City Council Meeting of November 23, 1998 Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Johnson indicated that staff would contact the outgoing councilors regarding any changes they might have to the minutes, and return to the council if revisions were requested. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve the minutes of the Joint Elected Officials' meeting of November 16, 1998; the City Council lunch work session of November 18, 1998; the City Council dinner work session of November 23, 1998; and the City Council meeting of November 23, 1998, pending review by the outgoing City Councilors within a two-week period. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. Discussion of Election of Council Officers City Attorney Glenn Klein reviewed the election process, reporting that the City Council must elect officers at its first regularly scheduled meeting of the month, which was defined by the charter as an evening meeting. He said that historically the council has selected officers at its first meeting and ratified that selection at the first regularly scheduled meeting as defined by the charter. Mr. Klein referred the council to the staff report on page 46 of the meeting packet, which cited Eugene Code 2.009 (1):... That person who has served the longest on the council and has not previously acted as council president shaft normally be entitled to election as the president. A councilor may be reelected as president of the council only after the expiration of one year from the date the councilor last served as such president unless two-thirds of the total membership of the council votes otherwise. A councilor will not be eligible to be elected president who has not served as a councilor for at least two years. Mr. Farr suggested that the council first elect the president and then the vice president. He requested nominations. Mr. Rayor nominated Mr. Meisner for council president. Mr. Pap8 nominated Ms. Nathanson for council president. Ms. Taylor nominated herself for council president. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 5 11:30 a.m. Mr. Farr requested that councilors indicate by a show of hands their support for Mr. Meisner, Ms. Nathanson, and Ms. Taylor. Ms. Nathanson received four votes; Mr. Meisner received three votes; Ms. Taylor received one vote. Mr. Farr indicated that Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner received the majority of votes and asked councilors to vote again. Ms. Nathanson received the votes of Mr. Lee, Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, and Ms. Nathanson; Mr. Meisner received the votes of Mr. Kelly, Mr. Rayor, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Meisner. Mr. Farr said that his year as vice president assisted in helping him prepare to be president. He believed that the president of the council should serve one year as vice president first. He noted that Ms. Nathanson had served as president and vice president and in addition was the senior councilor. Mr. Farr said that for such a new council, he would be more comfortable with Ms. Nathanson's experienced leadership. Mr. Rayor said he preferred to spread out leadership positions among councilors. He said that Mr. Meisner had not yet been an officer and should have that opportunity as a relatively long- serving member, which had already been accorded to Ms. Nathanson twice. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Rayor, adding that Mr. Meisner had observed the duties of a president sufficiently to occupy that office. He said the code text was included to ensure that leadership duties were shared among councilors. Mr. Pap~ said his support for Ms. Nathanson was based on his experience with her work as chair of the Parks and Open Space Committee, which included a very diverse group of people. Mr. Meisner recollected that during the previous year's discussion, Ken Tollenaar's election to the seat of vice president had been justified on the basis there was no need for a person to serve a year as vice president because there was no longer a Council Officers Committee. Ms. Taylor agreed, noting that she had objected to Mr. Tollenaar's selection only because he was leaving office and would not be able to serve as president as was customary. She further pointed out the council included three people who had served longer than two years and not been president. Mr. Johnson noted that the council did not have to take action at this time. He suggested the council table the issue until January 20 to avoid a situation in which the mayor had to break a tie. Mr. Torrey indicated an unwillingness to break the tie as he believed the issue of council leadership was one for the council to decide. He endorsed the City Manager's suggestion to table the issue and resume discussion on January 20. The council agreed to table the issue until January 20. D. Reconsideration of Eugene City Council Resolution 4469 as Requested by the City of Springfield Related to an Amendment to the Metropolitan Plan to Expand the Urban Growth Boundary to Include the Site Known as the Springfield Sports Center Planning Director Jan Childs introduced the item. She said that the council would consider a resolution on January 25 to reconsider a decision it made in 1995 to opt into an urban growth boundary (UGB) amendment sought by Springfield. Ms. Childs said that the amendment referral MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 6 11:30 a.m. was the first to come to the Eugene council after modifications were made to the process used for Metropolitan Plan amendment referrals; up to that time, any plan amendment had to be considered and adopted by all three jurisdictions. Process revisions to streamline and simplify the process were adopted in 1995; those revisions included a provision that allowed a jurisdiction to "opt in" in participating in amendments to another jurisdiction's UGB. Ms. Childs said that to opt in, the council had to make findings of regional impact based on specific criteria in the plan and the City Code. Ms. Childs said that in 1995 the Springfield City Council had initiated the amendment proceedings for a site outside the UGB on which it wanted to locate a sports center. The Springfield council referred the amendment to Eugene for action, and the Eugene council had concluded it had insufficient information to determine whether the amendment met the regional impact criteria because no traffic impact analysis of the site had been done. To keep its options open, the council adopted a resolution that allowed it to opt in, and agreed to reconsider the action once the traffic impact analysis was completed. Ms. Childs said that the traffic impact analysis had been done, and had been submitted to the council as the basis for reconsideration. The analysis, on page 83 of the council packet, indicated that for both the "no build" and "build" scenarios, with mitigation, the level of service (LOS) on key intersections does not fall below LOS D. Mitigation included limiting the size of the facility and signal timing. Anything below LOS D would trigger an amendment to TransPlan and signify regional impact. Ms. Childs believed the traffic impact analysis provided the facts and documentation the council needed to rescind Resolution 4469. Ms. Childs highlighted two issues. The first was a general recognition that there were traffic problems and issues in the Beltline/l-5 area. As a result, the Oregon Department of Transportation (©D©T) was conducting a study of the area and would make recommendations regarding projects. She noted there was a project in TransPlan related to reconstruction of the intersection. Ms. Childs clarified that ©D©T's effort was independent of the sports center, and the evaluation of the traffic impacts for the sports center must be specific to that facility. She said the council could not attempt to solve all the traffic problems at the Gateway area on the back of the sports center proposal. The second issue highlighted by Ms. Childs was the need for the proposal to satisfy the criteria for an urban growth boundary expansion established by the State. She said there had been a considerable amount of analysis produced as a result, and suggested that even if it chose to opt out, the council might be interested in seeing those reports to become more familiar with the level of detail needed to make the case for such an expansion. Mr. Rayor referred to page 72 of the meeting packet, which was a memorandum from Eugene Public Works staff regarding its concerns about the trip count as too Iow and about the conclusion there was no regional impact. He said that if he was convinced there was no regional impact he would support opting out of the process, but the memorandum seemed to be directly at odds with Ms. Childs' statements. Ms. Childs said the problem was a semantic one; "regional impact" has a specific definition in the Metropolitan Plan, and that was the evaluation the council was required to make. The regional impact test in the Metropolitan Plan and the City Code addressed the issue of whether an amendment to TransPlan would be required for the project to occur, and was additionally focused on arterial and collector streets and changes that would degrade the LOS below D. Ms. Childs said that there was an acknowledgment there would be MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 7 11:30 a.m. some additional traffic generated by a development such as the sports center, but that additional traffic in and of itself did not meet the regional impact test. Ms. Nathanson asked how the threshold of LOS D was established. Ms. Childs said that was the threshold included in the adopted TransPlan. It was also the standard used by ©D©T for State facilities, and as I-5 and Beltline were both State facilities the standard had further significance. Ms. Nathanson differentiated between Eugene as party to the development approval process and Eugene as a party to the planning process. She recollected feeling concerned about the impacts of Gateway on Harlow Road within the Eugene city limits and having no way to change those impacts or the finance resources to offset those impacts. She asked how a jurisdiction could participate as a serious player in planning and receive funding for required modifications or improvements that resulted from a development not in its jurisdiction. Ms. Childs said that the City had the opportunity to provide input into the Beltline/l-5 study and suggested that the council schedule a status report on that study, which had reached the point of alternatives development. The City also had the opportunity to participate in regional transportation planning through the TransPlan update adoption process. Ms. Childs anticipated that major work would be needed at the Beltline/l-5 interchange, and that would require a regional decision. She suggested that larger transportation impacts could be addressed through those processes. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Childs to confirm that continuing the status quo merely kept Eugene "formally at the table" in the decision making process on the amendment. Ms. Childs concurred. She suggested that a question that must be answered was whether Eugene could remain involved if the traffic impact was not judged not to be regionally significant. She said that Eugene's authority to participate in the proceedings could be appealed on a procedural basis. Mr. Lee asked how the council knew if the project had a regional impact, and if the staff analysis was reasonable. He said that if it was reasonable, then the process was done for Eugene. Mr. Pap~ asked if Eugene could be enjoined from participating. Mr. Klein said no, but the decision could be appealed on the basis of Eugene's participation if Eugene cast the sole dissenting vote against the UGB expansion. He pointed out that Eugene had already determined there was a regional impact; if Eugene did not want to participate, the council did not have to make a new determination but could merely rescind the resolution. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Childs reiterated that the traffic impact analysis indicated the project would have no regional impact. Mr. Farr said that it appeared from the analysis and the location of the project that it would have no impact on Eugene, so he questioned why the council would want to spend council and staff time on the amendment. The council was joined by Springfield Mayor Maureen Maine and Springfield Development Director Susan Daluddung. Ms. Maine said that Eugene had acted appropriately in deciding to opt in to the amendment process dependent on the results of the traffic impact analysis. The traffic impact analysis performed by Branch Engineering indicated no regional impact, or no demonstrable impact on the traffic facilities of the non-home city, as outlined in the criteria cited on page 61 of the staff notes. Ms. Maine endorsed the Eugene staff recommendation and asked the council to opt out of the amendment proceedings. She said concerns about traffic in the area will be addressed through the ©D©T study, and she anticipated Springfield would request Eugene's assistance in requesting funds for the projects that would result from the study. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 8 11:30 a.m. Ms. Daluddung showed the council aerial photographs of the site in question and provided background on Springfield's proposed sports center. She described the scope of the sports center project and the activities that would occur there. Ms. Daluddung noted the unsuccessful search for an alternative site. Ms. Daluddung introduced Brian Barnett of Springfield's Transportation Division, Springfield Planning Director Greg Mott, Springfield Economic Development Director John Tamulonis, and consultant Jim Branch of Branch Engineering, whose firm prepared the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Meisner said that cumulatively, the effect of individual developments in the Gateway area was significant. Those developments have created the need for improvements to the intersection of Beltline/I-5. He was troubled by the conclusion there was no regional impact. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Maine why Springfield wanted Eugene to opt out of the process and what advantage there was to Springfield. Ms. Maine responded that from a philosophical standpoint it was a home rule issue. She said it was important that communities should be able to chart their progress and identify a vision, acknowledging that there was overlap between jurisdictions and a need to work together on regional issues. Ms. Maine said that there was a fundamental feeling that within the city's boundaries, Springfield should be able to do what was good for its citizens and their future. She suggested that the tendency amongst communities was to opt in to such processes "just in case," slowing the process, which was not always the best government. She said that Springfield would not want to impede Eugene in such a way, and suggested it should be reciprocal that each city could make decisions about its own future. Ms. Maine added that opting out did not mean Eugene could not be involved, or that Springfield would not take regional concerns into consideration. Mr. Lee requested comment from Mr. Branch. Mr. Branch said the site would generate about 400 trips during the peak hour, and about 4,000 to 5,000 trips per day; he estimated about 60 percent of the traffic from the project would be destined for the freeway, while 40 percent of the traffic would use local streets. He suggested that approximately 10 percent of trips generated by the facility would be going to Eugene. Mr. Farr asked if the trees on the north of the site would remain. Ms. Daluddung responded that the area in question was a inventoried natural resource; it was a riparian area with high wildlife values. She said that Springfield intended to protect the area. Mr. Kelly said he understood Ms. Maine's remarks about home rule, and agreed that without demonstrable regional impact the decision to expand the UGB should be Springfield's alone. He was, however, inclined to be concerned about all but the "most trivial" of UGB expansions, and was also concerned about the impact of further traffic at the Beltline/I-5 Interchange. Mr. Kelly referred to the memorandum from Eugene Transportation staff Gary McNeel and Gary Ludke regarding the impact analysis, which suggested a higher peak trip rate might result from the development and indicated concerns about the conclusion the project had no regional impact. He said it was not clear to him questions about the technical criteria were addressed. Mr. Kelly referred to Eugene Code 9.015(b), which stated an amendment was of regional impact if it had a demonstrable impact on the non-home city's transportation facilities, and asked 1) which city was I-5 in, and did the fact the project had an impact MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 9 11:30 a.m. on I-5 make the amendment regionally significant; and 2) did the fact the Beltline- Gateway intersection was physically located in Springfield preclude the City from having standing even though the Beltline-Gateway intersection and Beltline to the west carried traffic that was clearly from Eugene. Mr. Kelly also noted Eugene staff's contention that ODOT studies found the northbound off-ramp from I-5 to eastbound Beltline to be operating at LOS F in the p.m. peak period. Ms. Childs responded that staff interpreted the code to mean the project must reduce the level of service on Eugene streets for there to be a demonstrable impact. Eugene's Transportation staff did not think the project would have that result. She added that staff had focused less on that criteria because of a general understanding the primary impact of the project would be on the road network immediately adjacent to the site. Ms. Childs said that the agency with jurisdiction over I-5 was ODOT. She added that she would be more concerned about the potential impact of the project if it was not for the fact the ODOT Beltline/I-5 interchange study was underway. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs confirmed that Springfield and Eugene shared a common UGB. Mr. Rayor liked the fact the northern half of the site was not being developed as it appeared to be a natural resource area. He asked why it was included in the expansion proposal, adding he would be more willing to opt out of the process if the expansion was minimized to the actual area needed for development. He suggested that deleting that area from the amendment would bring the UGB expansion more in contact with the Maple Island Slough environmental corridor. Ms. Daluddung confirmed that the area in question was owned by the City of Springfield and within the jurisdiction of Lane County. The natural resource area was included because Springfield staff felt the municipality could offer greater protection to the site and because its inclusion would facilitate site management and allow Springfield to treat the site more holistically. Mr. Rayor suggested that the area would be better protected from development if it remained in Lane County. Ms. Daluddung did not agree, based on Springfield's plans for the area and the current Metropolitan Plan designation for the area. She added that staff could consider Mr. Rayor's concerns in the planning process, and noted that there were many legal and regulatory considerations Springfield must address. Mr. Rayor asked if Springfield had considered alternative sites or the possibility of contracting the UGB in another area commensurate with the area of expansion. Ms. Nathanson asked if Springfield's marketing analysis assumed that Eugene residents would use the facility. John Tamulonis, Springfield staff, explained that Springfield's analysis assumed some Eugene users; the consultants believed the bulk of users would be Springfield residents stopping by the facility on their way home from working in Eugene. Traffic to the facility could be in conjunction with such work trips and would not create an additional cumulative impact. Ms. Nathanson questioned how the two cities would collect and share systems development charges for the cost of needed improvements if contiguous city boundaries were involved. Ms. Nathanson said she was inclined to support opting out of the amendment process but did not want either city to lose sight of the need to pursue joint transportation planning and funding, particularly when a project in one city created additional traffic volume on the other city's streets. Mr. Torrey stressed the need for the programs that would be provided at the sports center. He said that Eugene citizens already use the ballfields at the site. He pointed out that the sports center could attract people from around the state as well. If Eugene did not assist Springfield, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 10 11:30 a.m. potential users for the facility would turn to the new facilities at Eugene high schools, creating a greater system impact. Mr. Torrey believed the best transportation system in the area was the I-5 system, and the Beltline/l-5 interchange was a continuing high priority for State and federal funding for both Springfield and Eugene. Mr. Torrey asked the council to consider the home rule issue involved. He said that Eugene should have a "pretty darn good reason" to opt into the amendment process. Regarding Mr. Rayor's concerns about the natural resource area, Mr. Torrey suggested that given Springfield's expressed willingness to protect the area, it was better included in Springfield's jurisdiction rather than Lane County's. Mr. Torrey said that the rationale for the location of the UGB was often property ownership rather than any particular logic. He reminded the council of the prison siting issue and the council's resistence to extending Eugene's boundary, with the result that the prison would be sited less than a mile away inside a much expanded Junction City UGB. Mr. Torrey said that Eugene would be negatively impacted by that decision, and the council needed to be smart about the decisions it made about the boundary and not assume it was "motherhood and apple pie." He thought the sports center proposal was a great plan, and Eugene would be negatively impacted by a failure to allow the proposal to go forward. Mr. Pap~ asked if the sports center could be developed outside the UGB. Ms. Childs said yes, if public facilities were not to be extended to the site. Springfield was able to develop the soccer fields on the site under a conditional use permit with Lane County. The fields were not served with public facilities. Responding to questions from Mr. PapS, Mr. Branch clarified that his firm had been retained by Roy Gray of the Broadbased Boards, a nonprofit organization with a preliminary lease agreement with Springfield for the sports center. He said that the firm had followed industry standards in conducting the traffic analysis. Regarding Mr. Kelly's questions regarding the figures used for trip generation, Mr. Branch said that the figures used were correct for the peak hour of the adjacent street in the area. The higher figure would be used for the peak hour of the generator, but at a time when traffic volumes on the street were not as high; his firm had examined the time periods when traffic volumes were highest. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's question regarding project funding, Mr. Torrey said a committee that included representatives from the Springfield and Eugene councils and the County board was being formed to examine ways projects in areas where jurisdictional boundaries met were funded. Mr. Meisner suggested that not all of the impact from the development would be on the contiguous area, and a way should be found to recover the costs of more distant impacts. He noted that the council had to make a finding of regional impact to opt in to the process, and said the council should be careful if it choose to opt out, and do so without retracting that finding. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Daluddung if the Glenwood area was considered in the search for alternative sites. Greg Mort, Springfield staff, indicated 35 to 40 sites throughout the entire metropolitan area that met the threshold standards were evaluated. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 11 11:30 a.m. Mr. Meisner asked if the sports center reflected a change in the mission of Springfield, given that Willamalane Parks and Recreation District provided recreation services to the city. Ms. Daluddung explained that when the proposal was initially raised, Springfield had asked the district's board for the power to proceed with the project. Willamalane had granted that power and was supportive of the concept, but the sports center was outside the district's mission and goals at that time. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Branch likened the traffic impact from the project on Eugene to the traffic from 150 homes or the daily traffic experienced by a small gas station/convenience store. Ms. Maine reiterated that the proposal met the criteria for no regional impact, that Springfield was interest in doing the right thing with the site, and suggested that good things that happened in Springfield benefitted Eugene. She pointed out that the traffic impact analysis did not reflect a potential reduction in trips to sports facilities in Eugene. Ms. Maine said that planning for the sports center had been in progress for some time, and the site was always intended to hold a sports center. She said the proposal was a personal vision of former mayor Bill Morrisette, and it had the support of Willamalane Parks and Recreation District. She asked the council to opt out of the amendment proposal and allow Springfield to move forward. Ms. Childs noted that action on a resolution to rescind the previous resolution was scheduled for January 25, 1999. She indicated staff would provide more information about the memorandum from Transportation staff at that time. Mr. Fart left the meeting at 1:35 p.m. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Childs confirmed that the council needed to make a finding of regional impact to opt in, but did not have to make any such finding to opt out. Mr. Kelly asked that the council be provided with a draft resolution that did not rescind the finding of regional significance. The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) R: \ ~ 999\CMQ\City Council\cc990 ~ ~ 3m ~. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 12 11:30 a.m.