Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/27/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall September 27, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, David Kelly, Bobby Lee, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pap~ Gary Rayor, Betty Taylor. The adjourned September 22, 1999, Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.; His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. A. Work Session: Update on Amtrak Station Project Mayor Torrey said action would be taken on this item at the council meeting in the Council Chamber following the work session. Public Works Director Christine Andersen introduced the topic and acknowledge the presence of Public Works staff Tom Larsen and Dave Reinhard to respond to questions. She provided background information and noted that the current Amtrak Train Station site was the preferred long-term site for train station service. She said staff had engaged in constructive dialogue with the property owner and continued to negotiate acquisition, with the owner's understanding the City's need to move forward with the authorization for condemnation, at this time, in order to assure Amtrak and federal funding for the project. She emphasized that no City funds were required for the project but given the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30, it was important for the council to support the condemnation authority at this time. Ms. Andersen also provided an update on the high-speed rail program, reminding the council that the State Legislature had allocated $10 million to continue the Cascadia service and enhance service in the corridor with an additional train and additional bus connections. Ms. Andersen said one of the reasons Amtrak supported the project was that it provided for a long-term commitment for the location of the station and for an opportunity to maximize the use of that corridor. Additionally, she said, the State had $25 million in federal funds for improvements along the corridor itself that would enhance the safety and travel time. Ms. Andersen added that Hugh Prichard was present to represent the property owner. Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting. Ms. Nathanson asked about the potential for coordinating the Eugene Water & Electric Board's (EWEB) utility upgrade along 5th Avenue with the train station project. Ms. Andersen said she was not aware of a direct tie as design options have not been developed, adding that there may be a joint opportunity if there was no delay in this project. Ms. Nathanson said she hoped that what the North End Scoping Group envisioned for the area would be realized. Ms. Andersen modified her response by saying any street and pedestrian improvements that could be done in conjunction with a "street tearout" would definitely be something that the City would take advantage of. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Mr. Meisner said he hoped the current station was preserved and restored in time for the sesquicentennial celebration. He asked if there was a possibility that additional money would be available for such restoration. Ms. Andersen said that Amtrak is very concerned that grant funds can be used to implement projects in a timely manner as it must report to Congress on the effective use of its funds. She said if the City was in a position to move aggressively on the project, it improved the City's chances of acquiring additional funds. Mr. Meisner wondered if the resolution restricted the City to the area outlined on the wall charts. Ms. Andersen said that at this point the area described was broad enough to leave open the possibility of including the old baggage annex east of the station. Mr. Meisner reported on a tour he took of the buildings and made a public appeal for photos of the original lobby and other interior areas. Mr. Kelly said he wanted to be sure the property owners understood that the condemnation proceeding was a formality. Ms. Andersen clarified that council action on this issue would serve to authorize use of condemnatory procedure to acquire needed property; however, a court proceeding would be a last resort taken by the City should it fail to reach a negotiated settlement with the property owner. Addressing a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Larsen confirmed that all the property in question was owned by one party and in the course of negotiations that party has agreed to continue to maintain the two railroad buildings east of the station in their original configuration and appearance. Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting. Mr. Kelly asked which four parcels were subject to eminent domain; and, if the purpose for including the eastern most parcels was access, why was that not stated in the resolution? Ms. Andersen explained that it was not the City's desire to purchase all the properties and the intent of the resolution was to identify those parcels that staff anticipated would be impacted by the City's acquisition needs. She added that the issue of access was still under negotiation. Mr. Kelly wondered why the resolution could not specifically state the portions under consideration as access to be "determined by the design." Mr. Larsen said the identification was usually done by tax lot numbers regardless of the size of the portion of interest to the City. Ms. Andersen said it would be possible to reference access as the primary function for those particular lots. Mr. Rayor said he believed identifying parcel 4 alone would be sufficient to secure funding, and that as negotiations and preliminary designs develop, staff could prepare an additional ordinance for the other parcels. He had concerns with identifying all six properties in the condemnation proceeding. Ms. Andersen acknowledged that this was an unusual case, noting that usually the project would be designed by this time in the process. She said the North End Scoping Group discussion included access to the train station and the intention here was not to acquire extraordinary amounts of land but rather to work with the property owner on how best to meet the mutual needs. Mr. Rayor said he would then have to agree with Mr. Kelly on identifying the parcels where the interest was limited to access. Hugh Prichard, representing the property owner, explained that the party was comfortable with the ordinance as drafted. Mr. Meisner said that the resolution authorized the institution of condemnation but he assumed that if the necessity arose, staff would provide a report before anything was filed. He emphasized that this was not a building project but rather a functional one. Mr. Meisner said he was very concerned about not acquiring the old baggage shed because there did not seem to be enough ticket window area now, adding he wanted to avoid having to expand the building later. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to ensure that what was being purchased and planned now would meet the future demand. She asked to take a step back and review the effect of not buying the medium-sized property to the east. Ms. Andersen said both staff and Amtrak had discussed the expansion needs, noting there could be further acquisition to the west if the property owner opposed going further east. She said staff was requesting flexibility in the attempt to work out a negotiated agreement about how the project would eventually look while keeping in mind the notion that the structure, in and of itself, was not adequate for the long term. Mr. Larsen added that the high-speed rail study identified a 1,500-foot expansion just to the west of the existing station to make it adequate and staff would certainly anticipate doing that at least. Ms. Nathanson said it appeared that the council wished additional discussion time and she believed further discussion of the actual negotiation would be best discussed in executive session. Ms. Andersen said that at this point staff was directed to move forward with acquisition of the property without coming back to the council unless staff was unsuccessful in negotiations, adding that there was no current process for involving the council in the actual negotiations. Ms. Nathanson said an executive session might be appropriate if too many details were revealed at the table. Mayor Torrey asked the council to be prepared to take action on the item at the next council meeting. B. Work Session: Priorities for Five-Year HUD Consolidated Plan Linda Dawson, Planning and Development Department provided a PowerPoint presentation on the plan, noting that the council would be adopting the next Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan in April, 2000. Mr. Kelly ascertained that copies of the PowerPoint presentation were not available and asked staff to provide them hereafter as they are very helpful for making notes on specific points. Ms. Dawson said this was a joint effort with the City of Springfield and Lane County. She said the plan encompasses a process that identifies and addresses needs in housing, homeless and in community areas, and was required by HUD for a variety of funding sources. She reviewed the plan's three components: a needs assessment; a housing market analysis; and a set of long term objectives/priorities and strategies to address those needs. She indicated that the public process had started in June with a kick-off public hearing and included a steering committee with representation from all jurisdictions and others. Comment boards have been placed at over 70 community locations on the Internet, and advertised on bus posters. Ms. Dawson said staff would develop a draft plan and hold a second public hearing in December. The draft plan would be released in January, a final public hearing will be held in March, 2000, and final council action has been scheduled for April 24, 2000. At Mr. Rayor's request, Ms. Dawson described the survey she distributed to the council. Mr. Meisner said he was surprised at the low figure allocated in the council survey for households with children, adding that was his highest priority. Mr. Lee reported on the HUD conference he had attended recently in Kansas City, saying the disparity between the rich and poor was starkly apparent in that city. He said one of the problems locally was that housing projects were not integrated with work force development services, something Kansas City was successful in doing. Mr. Lee said the federal government was interested in "one-stop" centers, a combination of employment services/workforce development in school districts. He expressed disappointment that housing was left out of that discussion, which is part of the "best practices" guidelines. Ms. Dawson said MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. staff could research best practices and see what kind of models were available. Mr. Lee said Kansas City sought to create a seamless connection in the human services system. Mr. Kelly said his involvement with the Housing Policy Board has impressed him with the staf?s support of these programs, adding that it has also made him realize that the problems are much bigger than the funding. With regard to priorities, he said it made sense to continue with what was underway, but he would add a component that provided for integrated services counseling for individuals. At Mr. Papa's request, Ms. Dawson described the Housing Investment Partnership Program, whose goal was to provide affordable housing over the long term. Mr. Meisner agreed with comments made by Mr. Lee, adding that government in general tends to "treat symptoms." He said jurisdictions needed to approach the problems comprehensively. He asked staff to compare rental assistance to capital investment programs. Ms. Dawson said the City does not at this time provide rental assistance services because of the difficulty in administering the program. Mr. Meisner said he hoped staff would research a rental assistance program, noting that that type of assistance provided more immediate relief. Ms. Nathanson joined Mr. Lee and Mr. Meisner in pointing out the important connection between social services and the "brick and mortar" or direct housing programs. She recalled a previous discussion about where community social services are located in the community, commenting that a comprehensive approach may better distribute those services. Mr. Fart said the City had a remarkably professional staff, adding that housing programs in some cases already combined a few other services and he was sure the council's comments were not "falling on deaf ears." Ms. Taylor said she was very concerned about the high cost of subsidized housing, favoring rental assistance over home ownership programs for two reasons: services can be more widely spread; and the service is more transitional. She asked staff how the plan's priorities would be set. Ms. Dawson said all the jurisdictions, through their representatives on the various committees, would have input and their recommendations would come back to the council for final adoption. Addressing a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Weinman described HUD funding recently allocated to the University of Oregon. Mr. Lee noted the United States Congress' reduction in the block grant program. Ms. Dawson said the last word she had was that the allocation had not changed. Mr. Lee said it might be wise to lobby the federal government to ensure that is the case. He urged the City to at least take some steps toward integrating services and suggested a pilot site-based program. Mr. Lee said there had to be more creative ways of addressing services. Mr. Pap~ echoed comments about the professional staff and wondered if records were kept to track the success of families benefitting from these programs. Ms. Dawson said successes were tracked in a limited number of specific programs, such as the threshold program which places renters into home ownership. Mr. Kelly said he was surprised by some of the projects listed as past recipients of block grant programs and asked for a list of the projects funded in the current Consolidated Plan. He also requested copies of the next MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. draft plan to enable council to become involved earlier. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Lee that small pilot projects would be good steps toward the integration of services. C. Draft Arterial and Collector Street Plan Dave Reinhard, Public Works, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the plan and said staff wished further council direction. He reviewed the staff-recommended changes to the plan addressing issues raised at the council's May 12 meeting and the June 14 public hearing. He said the council may wish to: 1) direct staff to incorporate the proposed plan changes into a set of revisions, with adoption of the revised version to occur at a future council meeting; or, 2) provide direction on additional changes to the draft plan prior to adoption. Mr. Kelly said he appreciated the proposed changes, adding he was very pleased with staf?s recommendations. He wondered what the council would receive prior to approval of the plan. Mr. Reinhard said staff wanted to ensure that the council felt comfortable that all its comments would be incorporated but a final report format had not been developed. Mr. Kelly suggested adding only changes and identifying them as such in the new draft. He pointed out an inconsistency between pages 24 and 22. Mr. Kelly wondered if the two issues raised in public testimony were addressed: 1) access management (driveway cuts); and, 2) adjacent land use design guidelines (can some of those be standards?). Ms. Taylor ascertained that the plan did not address bike lanes--something that is included in the TransPlan. She wondered if speed bumps were not allowed on collectors and minor arterials. Mr. Reinhard said the City was discouraging speed bumps at all because of the concerns raised by Fire/EMS staff. Ms. Taylor asked why the designation of Monroe Street between 11th and 13th avenues was not changed. Mr. Reinhard said the issues of traffic volume, spacing, and connectivity for bikes and pedestrians outweighed the other concerns. Ms. Taylor questioned staf?s "no change" recommendation for 12th and 15th avenues (retain as local streets). Mr. Reinhard said that was consistent with staf?s intent for a simpler classification system with many variations within that. Ms. Taylor said streets specifically designated for bikes would eliminate the need for lanes in other streets, which often displaces on-street parking. She wondered why this was being adopted before the TransPlan, and what would be the effect of not adopting it now, and why not adopt it by sections? Addressing the questions, Mr. Reinhard said staff and the Planning Commission believed this was one of the building blocks of the transportation planning system. It was the companion of the previously adopted Local Street Plan and these two were seen as one of the foundation pieces of the transportation system. He added that it was not essential to adopt the plan before the TransPlan and another option may be to adopt the plan with specific caveats. Responding to the suggestion to adopt the plan by sections, Mr. Reinhard asked the council to consider the drain on staff and council resources. If adoption is postponed, he added, many projects would be placed "on hold." Mr. Rayor said he compared the ordinance with the plan and it posed some problems, e.g., where no width is designated, the street shall have the maximum width (60). Will property along streets less than 60 feet be required to re-plat? He said he was concerned that in places where there was not enough right-of-way that all the standards ignore slopes. Mr. Reinhard said the 55 feet referred to the average street mapping, adding that he would provide additional information in writing addressing Mr. Rayor's concerns. Mr. Meisner said he appreciated staf?s recommendations and said he hoped the City could emphasize the importance, despite their advisory nature, of the standards and guidelines to the other jurisdictions. He said he supported safe, convenient routes for bicyclists but he did not want to support those as a means of getting bicyclists off other roads. He said he appreciated the use of parking bays and did not believe they are MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. incompatible with bike lanes. Mr. Meisner asked staff to make suggestions for presenting the plan to make it appropriate for public consumption--create a clearer plan "that is not written for a planner." Referring the council to item F on page 23 of the plan, Ms. Nathanson said she was also concerned that the standards and guidelines only apply to those streets within the city limits. She wondered if there were a way of creating some mechanism to have standards that can be jointly adopted for all streets, including those outside the city. She said she also was interested in designating on-street bicycle routes but without eliminating existing ones. Ms. Nathanson questioned the need for two plans, one for streets and one for bicycles, and wondered about the possibility of an integrated, comprehensive, multimodal transportation map for the future. Mr. Reinhard said that was a good idea but it would be quite a different document. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to consider this for the future as part of "the big picture." Mr. Farr asked the council to address the issue of equal discussion times for members of the council, noting that he would not have an opportunity to speak to the topic. Mr. Papd said he has heard from business owners on the west end of Stewart Road and wondered if those people were being ignored in favor of the larger throughway serving the mostly residential east end. Mr. Reinhard said most of the north side of the street was in natural resource ownership or under protection so there had been some conflicts. In suggesting the change in classification, he added, it was staf?s intent to take the pressure off and commit to finding a way to improve the street. Ms. Nathanson called staf?s suggestion for Stewart Road a "timeout," allowing for a "rethinking" of the area. Mr. Farr left the meeting. Mr. Pap~ raised the problem with bike lanes on Hilyard Street. He raised the problem with the Crest Drive area, noting there are strong sentiments on both sides. Mr. Reinhard said a special study of the area was in order and this would have to be processed through the council. The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m.