Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/11/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room, 777 Pearl Street, Eugene October 11, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, David Kelly, Bobby Lee, Gary PapS, Gary Rayor, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. 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: FRANKLIN BOULEVARD-WILLAMETTE RIVER AREA WORK PLAN Department of Planning and Development Executive Director Paul Farmer introduced the topic, calling attention to the wall charts reflecting the area(s) under discussion. Mr. Farmer said this followed the council's discussion two weeks ago on the downtown area and this additional work has resulted in a slightly different staff conclusion. He indicated the presentation would be on the Riverfront urban renewal district minus the Riverfront Research Park, saying the goal was to develop a process to provide leadership for the development of this area. Mr. Farmer said he learned that local government had four sets of tools for guiding change: 1) advice, e.g., the growth management policies; 2) controls, e.g., through regulation; 3) incentives, e.g., tax abatement, zoning bonuses; and 4) development. Mr. Farmer narrated a Powerpoint presentation giving background information and describing the program's goals, the two complementary processes (downtown and Franklin Boulevard/Willamette River areas), and the themes behind those processes. Mr. Farr arrived at the meeting. Mr. Farmer said the purpose of the overall study was to articulate a coordinated vision for the area that was not only "an aspiration of where we want to take the community but one which would also be achievable." He indicated that the work would be divided into the following general categories: open space and natural resources; land use and development; access and mobility; and, public infrastructure and regulation. He said within these, the study would be dealing with specific issues such as Agripac, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and General Services Administration (GSA). Mr. Farmer said staff recommended using a council advisory committee (CAC), holding a series of workshops involving interdepartmental teams, and using input from consultants. The project would take from 12 to 18 months and cost approximately $175,000, with the Lane Transit District (LTD) as a possible partner. Mr. Meisner wondered about the possibility of EWEB partnering as well. Mr. Farmer said that was a good possibility. He identified the funding sources as the Riverfront Urban Renewal District Capital Projects Fund and LTD, and possibly EWEB and others. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Mr. Farmer reviewed the council's first two options for the downtown (status quo or placemaking), recalling that the second option involved looking at existing public places and exploring ways of better utilization of those spaces. He said this would be approached as a pilot project and include three target areas, one of which would be a neighborhood site. He described option 3 as a "vision update and opportunity area focus." This last option, he said would look at the downtown more broadly and try to understand the market forces and figure out why the area has not functioned up to its potential. Mr. Farmer indicated that this also would be a 12- to 18-month process, with consultant assistance. He noted the budget would roughly be equally divided between internal and external resources. He described the approach in two phases. Phase 1 would deal with development of a 1 O-year vision (both aspirational and achievable) based on community expectations, markets, and public policies that would identify priority opportunity areas. Phase 1 would cost about $50,000 (from the Contingency Fund) and could get underway in January 2000. The cost for Phase 2 could be included in the next budget cycle and would address open spaces, alternative modes, issues of parking structures and the like, and more specifically addresses housing, office, retail and commercial uses downtown. Mr. Farmer concluded his presentation by calling attention to a chart depicting a quarterly time line for the joint visioning process, planning, and implementation. Ms. Taylor said that before urban renewal funding was used, there should be a public hearing. She said she was disturbed by how much emphasis there seemed to be on development, asking to hear more about restoration along the river front. She indicated she preferred the placemaking option for the downtown area, with inclusion of the Saturday/Farmers Market area as a focus. Mr. Pap~ said he hoped the CAC included private property owners. Mr. Kelly said these are both critical areas for planning and he was glad to see that there was an implementation process. He asked for an update on the University's work on the Riverfront Research Park area, adding that the study was an appropriate expenditure of the urban renewal fund. Mr. Kelly noted that the description of the Franklin-Willamette River plan was very specific with regard to outcomes. Mr. Meisner said he agreed with Mr. Kelly about having a plan that has meaning and impact. He expressed appreciation for the joint planning area and said he has asked the City Manager to have staff explore some transportation demand management (TDM) options for the city beyond what the metro partners might be willing to approve. Mr. Meisner said that, in general, he appreciated the staff recommendation. With regard to costs, Mr. Meisner asked for more detail on what staff costs entail. Mr. Rayor said the options for the downtown lacked outcomes. He asked for more information on costs associated with consultants and staff. He said the downtown had many problems that needed to be addressed, including parking issues and zoning, among others (everything that has been exempted from the code). Mr. Lee said the council should be focusing on its objectives for the area and added that he was concerned about spending $175,000 on a "to do" list for which to find funding mechanisms. Mr. Farr said he appreciated the staff recommendation and believed the proposal should move forward immediately. He questioned that such a study required a long time line and asked for more details. Mayor Torrey ascertained that the $175,000 did not include any funding for the University planning process. He said he hoped that the options did not preclude extracting specific areas out of such a study. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey reported on communication from Tom Dyke, University of Oregon, saying the University had not identified members of its committee. Appointment was imminent. He read the e-mail message, highlighting a request about whether there was $50,000 available from the Urban Renewal District for its planning process within the Riverfront Research Park. He noted that the University expected to spend $35,000 on the project. Mr. Farmer said there seemed to be some disconnects within the policy context, the market context, and the community context, adding that the "do nothing" alternative was more of that disconnect. He suggested trying to bring those closer and that will require sustained dialogue. He said it was possible to pull some things out and do them early and he was not suggesting that nothing would happen before the 18-month period. He cited Lane Transit District's BRT as an example where early work could be done. Mr. Farmer recalled that the nodal development and growth management policies had identified these two areas for development. He said staff has proposed a very public process to insure public control over the funding. With respect to the issue of planning and implementation, Mr. Farmer said the only planning he liked to engage in was that that led toward implementation. Addressing the issue outcomes, he said those would be detailed as requested. A SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) analysis, he continued, would be included. He commented that some of the lessons gleaned through that type of analysis apply generally, i.e., citywide, but the focus would help frame the questions to assess applicability elsewhere. Finally, Mr. Farmer said, property owners and other stakeholders would certainly be involved in the planning effort. Mr. Meisner called attention to a 1984 Downtown Plan, noting some elements remain "very good." He said the council had been constrained in its discussion on BRT because Franklin Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation. He wondered about the possibility of a transfer of jurisdiction to the City. Ms. Taylor said she continues to oppose development along the river. She believed "placemaking would be a good way of doing something and then do some more planning." Ms. Taylor said a change would inspire people to do further planning. Mr. Farmer said the balance between environment and development was something that should be placed at the forefront of the study. In many cases, he added, development was one of the ways to get to maintaining the environment. He said he would like to eventually have an overall riverfront plan for the entire city. Mr. Lee emphasized that a realistic approach was required for implementation of any plan. Mr. Farmer said staff would be responsible with the budget allocated for the project. Mr. Lee reminded the council that it would be involved in a cost-cutting effort in two years. City Manager Jim Johnson said the urban renewal district provided an additional funding resource should the council choose to use it. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Taylor's support for the placemaking options, adding the following caveat to option 3: add some short-term focused impacts ofplacemaking. He said he would support $50,000 for the first step of option 3, with the other $90,000 plus for the placemaking. Mr. Fart echoed Mr. Lee's concern with realism but added that he trusted staff had "a grasp of that," adding staff was "absolutely on the right track." Mr. Rayor said he still believed that the best place to use money downtown was for the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) and some implementation. He expressed concern with ending up with a planning effort that MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. "sits on a shelf," adding he needed to have very specific deliverables--despite the fact that it was getting ahead of the process. He expressed a desire to do something downtown immediately. Mr. Farmer said there already exists a very generous code for the downtown and yet development continues to happen elsewhere, so it was hard to see what additional code changes would be of benefit. He agreed that the parking issue was critical and needed to be addressed quickly. Mr. Meisner agreed that parking was a critical issue and the council had to address the question of who is responsible for parking downtown. He supported the idea of doing some placemaking, but he was not supportive of the whole package, particularly about spending over half the funding for consultants. He ascertained that the Riverfront Urban Renewal District would survive seven years without renewal. Mr. Kelly encouraged Mr. Farmer to plan intermediate check-ins with the council, given that the Planning Commission and City Council involvement comes at the end of the process. He asked if there was any plan to spend urban renewal funds for planning beyond the district. Mr. Farmer responded that the funds spent outside the district were for infrastructure. Mr. Fart wondered if park and ride lots in the periphery were provided at some public cost. Lisa Gardner, LTD, indicated that the cost was nominal. Mr. Fart cited the need to discourage vehicle travel in the downtown, adding that BRT was one way to do that. He again cited the need for bike paths in the Bethel area into downtown. Mr. Fart said a good way to do that was to plug into the Fern Ridge bike path. Addressing a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Farmer said parking development downtown in other communities was provided by public and private development. Typically, he said, developers look for a certain number of on-site parking spaces they control and do not want to be responsible for all the parking. Some cities rely more on mass transit and exclude ordinances that require parking. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Farmer said the proportion of parking in private and public hands here was equally divided. In response to Mayor Torrey's offer of council assistance, Mr. Johnson said staff needed direction to prepare a motion for the council's consideration, adding that what he heard was a request for more detail on the budget and outcomes. Mr. Meisner agreed, summarizing additional request for some money for some placemaking now, action-oriented rather than consultant-oriented. Mr. Rayor said he was interested in the FTE implications, if any. Ms. Taylor reiterated that she favored option 2. Ms. Taylor moved to pursue option 2 for downtown. The motion died for lack of a second. Without objection, the council agreed to proceed with Mr. Johnson's and Mr. Meisner's recommendations as summarized above. Mr. Rayor said he wished to include limited placemaking in the implementation and to either hold to the proposed budget or come back with other budget options. At Mr. Fart's request, Mr. Farmer described "placemaking" as a technique for capturing visions and articulating them with funding included. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelly noted that option 3 included the question of opening west Broadway as "a black and white issue"-- something he wanted to avoid, noting there are many shades in between. Mayor Torrey directed the council's attention to the message from the University of Oregon requesting urban renewal funding for the Riverfront Research Park refinement planning process ($50,000). The message indicated the University believed it was inappropriate for the City Council to appoint individuals to the planning committee. Mr. Meisner said he continued to wonder if the City's only role in this "partnership" was providing money. He asked if there had been any involvement in the project City staff. Mr. Farmer responded that the City had not had any input in the planning thus far. Mr. Pap6 wondered if there was a precedent for the University's request. Mr. Johnson said the City has never had such a request and, if it had, the answer would likely have been "no." Addressing a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Johnson said the problem with the memo was that it was not clear what the City's role was. Mr. Lee said that if City money was being used, it was appropriate for the public to have some say in how it is used. Mr. Farmer said City staff had engaged in conversations with University staff and it had indicated that City staff would be involved with them as before. He added that his guess was that by "planning" they meant such things as hiring a consultant and other internal processes. Mr. Rayor said he believed, as a taxpayer, he was being taken advantage of and the City was being treated as a source of "free money." Mr. Kelly said he wanted very much to make this a partnership and was dismayed at the memo's comment about "trying to interpret the council's intent," adding that he and others representing the City had met with the University president and others to make the City's position clear. Mayor Torrey said the council first needed to identify the conditions under which the City would help fund the study. He cautioned that if the University removed itself from the partnership, the City would lose "total control" of the project. Mr. Lee said he was in complete agreement with the Mayor yet believed he was not being unreasonable in saying that when public funds are used, the public should have a voice in it. He said it was beyond belief that the University's relationship with the City could be fractured over this issue. Mr. Meisner noted that, in function if not legal fact, what the University was proposing was the City as a silent partner--who gets to invest but gets no return of any kinds. He added that the University was, in fact, profiting from the businesses developed by faculty in the district. He said he wanted an active partnership. Mr. Fart said the City often provided money to entities without any expectation of involvement in their decision making. He noted that, as a public body, the University has a right to spend public money. He said he did not oppose setting conditions, adding that he trusted the University to use the money judiciously. Ms. Taylor said the University had used the money to "pave riverfront land and to attract businesses away from the downtown" and the City should not provide any more money. In response to her question, Mr. Johnson said City staff involved thus far had been paid out of that district fund. Addressing a follow-up MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. question, he confirmed that if staff were withdrawn from that project, they could attend to other City business. Mr. Pap~ said that at least two of the businesses in the park had not moved from the downtown area but were spawned at the University. Mr. Lee said the message from the University was vague and he wished to have clarification before proceeding. Mr. Johnson said the council had three options: deny the request; seek clarification and renegotiate the intergovernmental agreement (IGA); and ask staff to work with the University to provide more details on the type and outcomes of the planning to be done, the staff to be associated with it, and the cost--identify what the City would be buying with the money. Mr. Meisner noted the application process for funding requests from the contingency fund, pointing out that the council had no information from the University. He said he was not interested in developing a set of conditions but did want more information. Mr. Kelly said that renegotiating the IGA was a broader action than the council seemed to be asking for. He requested clarification from the University and suggested a video tape of this proceeding be provided to clarify the council's intent: that the project be a joint City/University effort; and that the City appoint two members to the planning committee. Mayor Torrey said he could guarantee that the University would not agree with the second request identified by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Pap~ said the council should proceed with developing a set of conditions it requires for the funding. Mr. Johnson said it could be a renegotiation of the IGA because a major part of the discussion was the council's belief that there is no partnership and the way to correct that is to try to negotiate a new kind of arrangement. Ms. Taylor said the University was much more than the people involved in the Riverfront Research Park; a great many students and faculty are opposed to the park. She said she was opposed to approving any funding, regardless of conditions. Mr. Rayor said he believed a renegotiation of the IGA was possible, adding that the City needed to be very careful about "giving the taxpayer's money away and make sure they are getting value for that every time." Mr. Farr urged the council to protect the City's partnership with the University. Mr. Pap~ wondered if the City had any involvement in the selection of members to the Riverfront Research Commission. Mr. Johnson said the Mayor nominated and the council appointed the members of that commission. Mayor Torrey said that process would come before the council in about two months. Mr. Johnson added that the University had yet to say what the commission's role was in the adoption of that plan. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the University president/Mayor nominated/appointed four members and the mayor/council nominated/appointed three members of the commission. Mayor Torrey ascertained that there was no consensus on the council to develop a set of conditions under which the City would provide funding. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. Councilors agreed that they wished more information and clarification. Mr. Meisner said he was not prepared to say he would support anything with a set of conditions, but if some are proposed, he wanted conditions with "teeth." B. WORK SESSION: DOWNTOWN ISSUES The item was discussed under Item A above. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m.