Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/22/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall November 22, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Gary PapS, Gary Rayor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr. DINNER WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL Mayor James D. Torrey called the work session of the City Council to order. Mr. Johnson announced that Jim Carlson had been hired as the Assistant Manager of the City of Eugene. He said that a news release would be sent out on November 23 detailing Mr. Carlson's qualifications for the job. Mr. Johnson said that he was pleased that Mr. Carlson had accepted the position. A.Work Session: TransPlan Jan Childs, Department of Planning and Development, introduced the item and noted that Tom Schwetz, TransPlan Project Manager from the Lane Council of Governments, was present at the meeting to help answer questions. Ms. Childs referred to the material contained in councilors' packets. She noted the two process options for how to proceed with deliberation and review of the draft TransPlan, listed on page 13, which were being considered by the Eugene City Council, the Springfield City Council, the Lane County Board of Commissioners, and Lane Transit District Board of Directors. She identified the options as: the Friends of Eugene Proposal and the Adopting Officials Review Proposal. She said that councilors would have to decide whether to move ahead with reviewing the public testimony themselves or whether to begin a new public input process. She pointed out that one of the cons of proceeding with a new public input process was that it would conflict with the City Council schedule for public hearing(s) and adoption of the new Eugene Land Use Code. She added that after one work session with the Lane Transit District Board of Directors, the directors indicated approval for the adopting officials review proposal and added that December 2000 seemed like a long time before approval of the TransPlan. Mr. Kelly expressed his concern that by the time TransPlan was adopted and put into place, nodal development, which he considered key to the success of TransPlan, would be decades in coming to pass. He read the following motion into the record: Achievement of nodal development -- with a mix of residential, commercial, and employment uses at a scale that promotes walking and alternate modes MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. -- is vital to the success of TransPlan, our growth management policies, and future land use in Eugene. Therefore, I move that the city manager make it a priority to develop code, policy, and administrative strategies that will: (1) maximize the likelihood of significant nodal development over the next few years and beyond, and (2) minimize the loss of potential nodal development sites due to development incompatible with nodal principles. The city manager should bring strategies back to council for discussion and action within four months. Mr. Meisner seconded the motion. Mr. Kelly noted that there was a letter from the Department of Land Conservation & Development (DLCD) in the TransPlan testimony suggesting the need for some shod-term action to move forward with some ideas, such as interim zoning. Mr. Pap~ said that he agreed with element number (1) in the motion, but not element number (2). He was concerned with how element (2) would impact current land owners who might have begun development planning. He said that he would not support the motion with element (2) in it. Mr. Kelly said that someone with an already-approved plan ought to be able to move ahead with that plan. He added that a general idea about a plan years in the future could, however, be impacted. Ms. Nathanson clarified that the motion was primarily asking the city manager for a strategy report in four months. She said that she thought that this motion was a good idea and consistent with the direction of the DLCD. Mr. Lee thought that if this motion helped to clarify nodal development to the public, it would helpful. His concern was how it tied in with the process decision that the council had to make about TransPlan. Mr. Kelly explained that his intent with the motion was to be ahead of and parallel with the process so as not to miss opportunities. Mr. Meisner said that he supported the motion. He thought that the timeline was reasonable. He agreed that there was confusion in the community about nodal development and hoped this motion would help. Mr. Pap~ noted that he was in favor of nodal development and added that he also agreed that there was much confusion about it. He repeated his concern about element (2), particularly if it involved "down zoning" someone's property without compensation. Ms. Nathanson thought that nodal development would tend to push up property value because of increased density, uses, and flexibility. She pointed out that this motion was merely asking for a report and that the time to oppose ordinances or programs would be when they were proposed. Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Johnson and Paul Farmer, Planning and Development Department Director, for any comments on this motion. Mr. Farmer responded that staff would probably be MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. able to give the "two person weeks" of effort on this in order to outline the various techniques and answer questions. Ms. Taylor said that she would support the motion. She agreed that it was time to begin talking about nodal development. Mr. Lee, in responding to Mr. PapS's concern, said that the issue of impacting private property was timeless in that, whenever new policies were created, at some time a line had to be drawn as to when the policies would be implemented. He added that it was important as a government agency to be clear with the public about policies and about the trade-offs of new policies. He said that ultimately the fine balance between private property rights and community rights had to be found. He thought that it was better to have that discussion now, rather than later. The motion passed 6:1, with Mr. Pap8 voting no. Mayor Torrey asked each councilor to give his/her impressions of TransPlan in two minutes. Ms. Nathanson said that she did not want to see the discussion about TransPlan be about who wins and who loses. She did not think that TransPlan was perfect, saying that she would like to see changes in bike paths, school trips, and rapid transit. She said, however, that her objective was to find a way for all three government agencies Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County, to work together to identify what was acceptable and what needed to be changed in a way that fostered cooperation and did not cause a rift between any two agencies. Mr. Lee said that he did not think that the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) could be separated from TransPlan and that the two had to be considered at the same time. He said that he wanted Mr. Farmer to look at TransPlan to make sure that it was in line with Eugene's Growth Management Policies. He supported the Friends of Eugene proposal with experts such as Mr. Farmer leading some of the discussions. Mr. Rayor said that he would like to see changes in TransPlan, but that it was hard to identify those changes. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs said that the Adopting Officials Review Proposal was predicated on responding to the 150 questions asked by the officials from the four groups; responding to the public testimony including the DLCD letter; and providing options back to the adopting officials. She said that she had asked Mr. Farmer to be more actively involved, particularly in the review of the testimony and the development of those options that would come back to the adopting officials. She noted that the direction would come from the adopting officials rather than from another citizen process. Mr. Rayor noted his concern about identifying the Eugene projects in the TransPlan. Ms. Childs responded that during the Planning Commission review process, the Lane County Planning Commission and Springfield Planning Commission had identified some projects as belonging to Eugene. Mr. Kelly said that it was important for the elected officials to have the chance to consider the public's testimony and be provided with some options. He thought that the Friends of Eugene could still give input. He said that he liked the idea of involving Mr. Farmer more in the process. Mr. Kelly said that there were about four or five big policy areas, such as nodal development, transportation demand management (TDM), maintaining existing streets, transit mode share, and some problem projects that would require three or four work sessions. Ms. Childs said that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. number of work sessions would depend on the council's work schedule. She agreed that the testimony did tend to cluster in those areas. Mr. Kelly said that he was supportive of the Adopting Officials Review Proposal if it was possible to have the multiple work sessions that it would take to work through those issues, even if it meant holding Saturday meetings. Ms. Taylor said that she thought that it was the elected officials' responsibility, with help from citizens, to finalize and adopt TransPlan. She said that she was grateful to the Friends of Eugene for mobilizing people to give their opinions about TransPlan. She said that there were many things that she would like to change or eliminate in TransPlan, such as the Valley River Bridge. She thought that TransPlan should be shifted so that it was more in keeping with stated goals about pedestrians and bicycles. She agreed that multiple work sessions would be needed and added that council should work on one section at a time. She thought that a good place to start was to eliminate some things from TransPlan. Mr. Pap~ agreed that TransPlan needed some work. He said that he supported staff's recommendation of approving the Adopting Officials Review Proposal. He said that the process begun by the participating governmental agencies before he was on the council should be continued. He added that he thought that the Friends of Eugene could still participate in the process. Mr. Meisner began by saying that he would not approve looking at TransPlan as a project list with projects to be deleted. He said that he thought that the goals written for TransPlan were admirable and that this draft of TransPlan did not meet them. He noted that TransPlan was built on the premise of land use measures connecting traffic demand management and infrastructure. He said that infrastructure had weaknesses, but that it was only one part of the picture and that all three pads had to be considered. He thought that all of the adopting officials still had the responsibility to review TransPlan, and he did not think that would preclude continued constructive engagement with citizens and citizen groups. He thought that both could happen at the same time. He said that he was not interested in the Adopting Officials Review Proposal without continued engagement of the public. Mayor Torrey made the following observations and comments: · There were not enough votes to approve the Adopting Officials Review Proposal as presented and as adopted by LTD. · Valley River Bridge should be taken off the table and other river crossings should be considered. · Evaluation of the entire Delta/Beltline interchange was needed. Mayor Torrey asked for a motion to give direction to staff. Mr. Kelly suggested that head nods would be enough and summarized the comments and intent from councilors. He said that he had heard a consensus to go with the Adopting Officials Review Proposal, with multiple council work sessions each dealing with a cluster, and with a mechanism for continued public involvement, such as the Friends of Eugene proposal. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to approve the Adopting Officials Review Proposal, with multiple council work sessions each dealing with a cluster MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. or one issue, and with a mechanism for continued simultaneous public involvement, such as proposed by the Friends of Eugene. Mr. Rayor said that he did think that this would work and be in sync with the other governmental agencies. Ms. Childs noted that for any new testimony to be considered in the decision-making process, the record would have to be reopened. Glenn Klein, City Attorney, said that it was important for the council to clarify the intent of the motion in terms of public involvement. Mr. Kelly said that his intent was that there be a mechanism for the public to continue to give input to the discussions. He said that he did not intend to constitute a formal committee. Mr. Klein said that if that was acceptable to the proposer and seconder of the motion, his suggestion was that a vote be taken on the motion and that staff bring back a recommendation as to how that alternative public involvement process could work. Mr. Meisner said that he would accept the change to the motion. Ms. Nathanson warned that if council was too prescriptive about the public involvement process, it would begin a process of divergent paths from the other governmental agencies. She reiterated that her objective was to have a process that concluded with a revised TransPlan adopted by all the agencies. She said that she would support the motion and looked forward to Ms. Childs coming back with suggestions as to how to have public input in a practical way. Ms. Nathanson thought that probably all of the material that would be needed for findings had already been collected. She thought that additional material would probably be information that would help craft amendments or new approaches. Ms. Nathanson wondered about how to interpret the part of the motion calling for multiple work sessions. Mr. Lee said that he preferred that staff worked that out. Mr. Johnson suggested, while referring to page 13 of the memorandum, that the public record remain open until March 2000. Mr. Pap~ made a friendly amendment to leave the public record open until March 2000. Mr. Meisner and Mr. Lee accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Pap~ clarified that the motion intended to keep the same timeline outlined in the memorandum. All agreed that it did. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comment about not making the process of public involvement too prescriptive. Ms. Childs said that staff would come back with suggestions. Ms. Taylor said she thought that the record should just remain open throughout the process. Mr. Kelly told Ms. Nathanson that his intention about multiple work sessions was that council would be able to have serious policy discussions about each of the clusters probably lasting an hour or two, not thirty minutes. Mr. Meisner agreed that he wanted the council to have comprehensive discussions and that he did not want discussions to be limited by difficulty in scheduling. He noted that his goal was to have a TransPlan that was adoptable and was the best for Springfield, Eugene, and LTD. He said that if the best could not be agreed to by the other agencies, then he wanted the best TransPlan MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. for Eugene. He added that he wanted to do more as in TDM, nodal development, and land use measures. Mr. Johnson said that he, Mike Kelly, and Bill VanVector had a major goal of completing this process before December of 2000 because another round of elected officials would take office. Mr. Rayor said that his intent was not for Eugene to slow down the process, but to scrutinize TransPlan a little more. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. B.Work Session: Assessment Policy Recommendations From the Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Street Improvement Funding Les Lyle, Public Works Department, introduced this topic by reporting that the Ad Hoc Committee on Street Improvement Funding had met six times since the council's last work session on assessment policy. He noted that the committee included up to three elected county commissioners, one Springfield city councilor, two Eugene city councilors, three representatives from the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee, and three representatives of the Lane County Roads Advisory Committee. He said that the policies being recommended by the committee were initially focused on arterials and collectors. He expected that they might be appropriately applied to local streets. He said that recommendations about local streets and alleys would come back to the council at a later date. Mr. Lyle said that there were seven policy changes being recommended. Primary access and equivalent assessments were the two most significant changes from current practices. He said that tools had been included in councilors' packets to assist them in reviewing the changes. He noted that additional materials that had been omitted from the packets had been distributed to councilors. He explained that the omitted material contained some calculations for Ayres Road and Garden Way. He noted that there were two example assessment plans for Ayres Road, one that did not assess abutting lots in Riverpointe and Lake Shore developments that do not take primary access onto Ayres Road, and one that did assess those properties since there were irrevocable permits on file. Mr. Lyle explained that Attachment F was a fact sheet that would be mailed to property owners along Ayres Road, Delta Highway, and Garden Way to assist them to participate in the public hearing on December 6, 1999. Mr. Lyle said that staff was asking councilors for any refinement or direction changes they might want to make. Mayor Torrey said that he might have a potential conflict of interest because he lived on a road that connects to Ayres Road. Mr. Klein told the mayor that he was one of thousands of people affected in the city and that he could participate. Mr. Kelly noted that two Ayres Road plans were provided, but that the committee's recommendations had referenced plan 1, assessment based on primary access. Mr. Kelly commented that the process had been an interesting, complex journey. He added that there was no way to be fully equitable to everyone in every situation. He said that the committee MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. had tried to provide an improvement to the current system and a generally more equitable system, particularly to single-family residential properties. He gave the following two examples of that: assessing by a uniform average frontage rather than calculating actual frontage, and the delay of excess frontage on partially developed and vacant property. Mr. Kelly said that he and Mr. Pap8 wanted as consistent a policy as possible across all classes of streets. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments about the difficulty of the process and the belief that these recommendations were more fair than the original policies. Mr. Pap8 said that he did not agree with the comment, reflected on page 19 of the Agenda Item Summary, that the committee did not support exclusive use of building permits as the tool to collect equivalent assessments. He said that he thought that some sort of development activity should be used or a building permit rather than a transfer to another family member of the property that would cause the collection of an equivalent assessment. Mr. Lyle explained that the committee was recommending that equivalent assessment be collected when a land use action was occurring such as a subdivision or land division, but not a sale. Mr. Pap8 said that he supported the recommendations. Ms. Taylor agreed that it was complex topic. She said that she thought that some inequities had been eliminated, but not enough. She said that everyone in a subdivision who went out onto a street should pay, not just the ones who were adjacent. She argued that the people who were not adjacent reaped more benefits without having to suffer the inconveniences of having more traffic go by their home. She said that she hoped that citizens would speak out at the public hearing and that it would still be possible to change this policy. Mr. Rayor complimented the committee for its work. He said that the policy changes addressed a lot of issues. He expressed concern that the policies would increase Service Development Charges (SDCs) and the price of development, and added that he did not know how to solve that. Mr. Lee asked about alley ways. Mr. Lyle said that the committee's intent was to focus next on local streets and then alleys. He said that those recommendations would probably be brought back before the council in February or March. Mr. Lee noted that the West University neighborhood had terrible alley ways and that something needed to be done. He added that he would be patient until February or March. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that the committee for its good work on a complex issue. He expressed the following concerns and questions: · That there would be no assessment against subdivision lots that had primary access on an internal street system. · Currently, a 16-unit apartment house would pay the same as a single-family dwelling. He hoped that the committee would look at density of uses. · What is the fiscal impact on the City? Mr. Lyle responded that existing subdivisions with lots that exit into an internal street system may not pay, but that new subdivisions would pay through an equivalent assessment and payment of SDCs. Mr. Meisner reminded Mr. Lyle of the principle of equal application historically and prospectively. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey asked where Lane County was on this issue. Mr. Lyle said that there was no official position from Lane County. Mayor Torrey said that he was concerned about the issue of family transfer of land. Mr. Kelly responded that only land use actions such as a subdivision would trigger collection of an equivalent assessment. Mayor Torrey noted that it still concerned him that money was being taken from an estate. Mayor Torrey said that it was not fair that an apartment complex would only pay according to its frontage. Mr. Lyle responded by noting that arterial/collector streets were generally paid for by assessments and by SDCs. He said that the apartment complex would pay its commensurate share of SDCs based on its capacity demands on the system and would pay for the share of the local street it accesses. Mayor Torrey said that information needed to be communicated more effectively to the public. Ms. Nathanson said that she had experienced many citizens in her ward not being aware of policies and assessments regarding streets and street maintenance. She said that closing day on a home was not the time to find out about major expenses or obligations. She wondered what had been done to inform bankers and real estate agents about this issue and to provide them with information early in the process so that they could inform potential buyers. Mr. Lyle said that the GIS system (RLID system) was being used to inform real estate agents and potential buyers about the status of a piece of property. He said that the system was now Internet-accessible. Mr. Pap8 assured Mr. Lee that the committee would deal with alleys. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mr. Meisner and Ms. Taylor that "up streamers" or people who live in subdivisions and use an internal streets should pay something for arterials and collectors. He reminded them that developers do pay SDCs for the transportation impact of the development. Mr. Pap8 agreed that there was a need for more education to real estate agents and title companies about policies, assessments, and SDCs. Mr. Kelly spoke about the difficulty of finding a solution to the problem of the impact of multi-unit subdivisions emptying into internal streets. He said that it was almost impossible to find a solution between "primary access" or the "whole city." He said that the committee could not find a way to draw an in-between boundary. Mr. Lyle referred councilors to the general principle statement on page 18 of the Agenda Item Summary. He said that the general expectation through the access policy was that everyone was expected to pay for a street adjacent to their property, either through the development process or through Local Improvement Districts (LIDs); and that people within a subdivision had paid for a local street component through the development process and the valuing of the property; and that people with properties adjacent to arterials and collectors that used those roadways for primary access were expected to participate in at least the local street component with SDCs picking up the balance. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mayor Torrey's comments about the impact of apartments on roads and said that apartment owners should pay accordingly. She asked if apartments were assessed as much per unit as single-family units. Mr. Lyle said that SDCs were based on the type of MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m. development so that a single-family unit would pay less than an apartment house and only new development paid an SDC. Mr. Meisner said he understood the complexity of the primary access debate and that he had no interest in a general obligation bond or in spreading the cost to all of the tax payers. He said that it was very clear in the Growth Management Policies that development was expected to pay its way. He added that at the same time he wished that there could be a way for internal streets relying upon arterials/collectors to contribute to the cost of those arterials/collectors. Mr. Kelly explained that there had been different proposals to address Mr. Meisner's concerns, and that none of them were accepted as workable. He pointed out that property owners adjacent to arterials/collectors were not assessed the full cost of that street, but were assessed the cost of 10 or 14 feet of street width as if it were a local street, with SDCs picking up the balance. Mr. Lyle noted that the internal lots paid an SDC whereas the existing dwellings on an arterial/collector did not. He said that he did not know if that all balanced out. Mr. Meisner said that was part of the fiscal analysis that he would like to have. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Lyle if he could provide a comparison of a SDC for an apartment complex with an assessment for a house on the street. Mr. Lyle said that he would provide that information. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lyle said that whenever a development proposal came to the City, the developer would pay an equivalent assessment for his/her share of the adjoining arterial/collector as well participate in the cost of any other internal street or local street adjacent to the development. He added that the developer would also pay the SDCs commensurate with the type of development. Developers would pay for both the internal network and their share of the adjoining streets as well as SDCs. Mayor Torrey noted that there was a public hearing on the committee's recommendations scheduled for December 6, 1999. Mr. Kelly pointed out that there would be a need for a start-up fund of about $600,000 to front the delayed assessments. Eventually, the fund would become a revolving fund. Mayor Torrey expressed some concern about whether or not the County would approve these policy changes. Mr. Kelly reported that Commissioner Bill Dwyer had said that the committee was heading in the right direction, and that Commissioner Bobby Green had agreed that the policies were ready to be taken to work sessions. He said that the Board of County Commissioners had not scheduled a formal work session yet. Mr. Lyle summarized that the council was supportive of the proposal as presented. He said that staff would address as many of the questions raised during the work session as possible in the briefing paper, but that time was limited before the public hearing. He said that the committee would continue to refine the proposal before coming back to council on January 24, 2000. C. Work Session: Downtown and Franklin Boulevard-Willamette River Planning Mr. Johnson noted that this was a continued discussion on visioning for downtown and the Franklin Boulevard-Willamette River corridor area. Paul Farmer, Planning and Development Department Director, led the discussion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m. Mr. Farmer said that he hoped that the additional information provided councilors in their packets would help the councilors to take action so that the Planning staff could begin to adjust work items on the work plan in order to proceed with projects. He referred to the following three graphics on the wall of the McNutt Room: 1) a map showing the primary area of the downtown planning effort, the Riverfront Urban Renewal District excluding the Research Park properties, and the overlap of the two areas; 2) a summary of the types of projects being recommended and labeled Phase I, Phase II, the Franklin Boulevard/Willamette River Plan, and Placemaking Activities; and 3) a timeline for the downtown and Franklin Boulevard-Willamette River corridor planning. Mr. Farmer reviewed the policy issues contained in the staff report. He pointed out that Growth Management Policies 1, 3, and 17 all related to the studies that were being discussed. Mr. Farmer reminded councilors of the figures he had previously provided that indicated that there was much underutilized land in downtown and noted that Policy 1 referred to density and the use of vacant and underutilized land. Policy 17 had to do with natural areas and natural habitat. Mr. Farmer said that staff was looking at a balance between nature and development especially where downtown development met one of the defining natural features of this area, the Willamette River. He said that Policy 3 obviously related because it read "encourage a mix of businesses and residential uses downtown using incentives and zoning." Mr. Farmer continued his review of the following policy issues: · Renew the vision for downtown · Clarify City role in implementation · Identify resources and tools to implement future actions · Provide guidance for future improvements in the Franklin Boulevard-Willamette River corridor area Mr. Farmer said that vision was very important and that it was also important to make sure that the vision was achievable and realistic. He said that concrete steps were necessary to achieving a vision. Mr. Farmer reviewed the three options in the staff report: A. Proceed only with the Franklin Boulevard- Willamette River Corridor Study; B. Provide contingency funding for downtown visioning in conjunction with planning for the Franklin Boulevard-Willamette River Corridor. Include funding for Phase II in the FY01 budget; and C. Provide contingency funding for downtown placemaking in addition to planning for the Franklin Boulevard-Willamette River Corridor. He noted that options B and C could also be combined and implemented together. The staff recommendation was: Staff recommends the City Council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, allocate $175, 000 in funding for the Franklin Boulevard- Willamette River Corridor Study and, acting as the City Council, allocate $50,000 in the current year for the Phase I, the downtown visioning process and $25, O00 for the placemaking match. It is further recommended that funding for Phase II, the Comprehensive Development Strategy be considered in the FYO1 budget. Mr. Farmer also reviewed the suggested motions for the council. Mr. Rayor clarified that an amendment to the City Code had been prepared to limit building heights in the 5th Street Special District Area. Ms. Nathanson noted that this was included in the North End Scoping Group Report. Mayor Torrey noted that it was in the report without objection. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 10 5:30 p.m. In response to a comment from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Johnson said that a memo had been circulated calling for a work session to consider the role of the City in downtown parking, including a downtown parking exempt zone. In response to a concern from Mr. Rayor about the use of contingency funds for staff to work on the City Hall project, Mr. Johnson said that he was already planning to bring a breakdown of expenses to the December 6 council meeting. Mr. Rayor said that he did not remember authorizing money for staff from the contingency fund to work on the City Hall project. Mr. Johnson said that he would explain the issue of staff time in a memo. Mr. Rayor agreed with that idea. Mr. Meisner said that he shared Mr. Rayor's concern and suggested a work session to discuss the issue of whether or not funds that paid staff were freed for another use when that staff was paid from another source to do a different job. Mr. Meisner noted that he thought that the consultant fee estimate of $120,000 for the Franklin Boulevard- Willamette River Area very high. He said that he just wanted the City to be fiscally responsible. He said that he had similar concern about staffing in the other projects. Mr. Meisner noted that there was more money for consultants than implementation in the placemaking budget. He said that he was interested in results and questioned the need for more consultants in the placemaking plan. He reiterated that he objected to this as a pattern of City conduct and said that he wanted to do things, not plan things. Mr. Kelly said that he would support all three aspects of the proposal. He thanked staff for the additional information. Mr. Kelly also questioned the need for consultants for the placemaking plan. He said that he would rather see in-house staff used for that. Mr. Kelly supported changing the wording under Placemakin~, Duration to read a six-month project that would focus on the Park Blocks and one other site as a p/acemaking site. He thought that the exercise would be more useful if there were two sites. Mr. Kelly expressed his desire to have a mid-course council check-in on the key policy issues during the Downtown Phase II. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farmer said that he thought that discoveries and agreements made in Phase I would begin to influence actions taken by the City or the private sector even before Phase II was begun. Ms. Nathanson said that she assumed that if the Planning Commission and the council adopted the report, that staff could then use those policies. She hoped that there would be a way as an organization to spread the word and to get staff to begin implementing the policies. Mr. Farmer agreed and noted that he had begun having meetings with small work groups throughout the Planning and Development Department. He said that the issue of communicating direction from the council throughout the department had been discussed. Ms. Nathanson said that she supported the recommendation. Ms. Taylor said that she supported some effort at placemaking. She thought that it would take persuading some property owners to take action. Ms. Taylor said that she was also concerned about the issue raised by Mr. Rayor of funding for staff time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 11 5:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor said that it would be nice if people who owned vacant property in downtown would rent it for low rents just to help get things started. Ms. Taylor was alarmed by the idea of planning to develop land on the river front. She thought that restoration and returning some of the land back to nature would be a better use than more underpasses and pavement. Mr. Pap~ said that he hoped that a specific implementation process was included throughout the planning process. He told Mr. Johnson that he would like to have a report on the status of the contingency fund any time in the future that there was a proposal to use these funds. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Lee asked how the information gathered in the Downtown Summit would be used in this process. Mr. Farmer said that this process would be a continuation of the summit and not the beginning of a new process. Mr. Lee wondered if the outcomes listed on page 46 were consistent with the results of the summit. Mr. Farmer said that they were, and offered that the summit also raised interesting questions to be answered through this process. Mr. Lee commented that he did not like to raise public expectations about projects for which there was no funding. He said that in the context that this was a continuation of the process begun with the Downtown Summit, he would support the recommendation. He added that he would like to have more input from Mr. Farmer about what downtown should look like. He also said that he thought that this had to be a downtown community process in which the community took ownership and shared the vision. He thanked staff for the proposal. Mayor Torrey wondered if the first time the opening of Broadway could happen was in Phase II. Mr. Farmer said that it could be part of the placemaking. Mr. Meisner said that he would make a motion trusting that staff would understand and take into consideration the number of concerns raised during the discussion about how the money was to be spent. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve a $75,000 allocation from Council contingency to fund the downtown visioning (Phase I0) and placemaking match this fiscal year. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Elise Self) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 12 5:30 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 13 5:30 p.m.