Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MInutes - 07/20/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall July 20, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pape?, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: West Eugene Enterprise Zone Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the date for Lane County’s notification on the enterprise zone issue, contained in the motion passed at the July 18 City Council meeting, from July 22 to August 2. Ms. Ortiz explained that the commissioners do not meet before July 22 and suggested that as a matter of professional courtesy, the commissioners be given until August 2 to respond to the council’s concerns. She then voiced hope that the City Council and the Lane Board of County Commissioners could revisit the enterprise zone issue in the near future. Mr. Kelly commented that he supported Ms. Bettman’s motion at the July 18 City Council meeting as it affirmed the City Council’s commitment to the enterprise zone. He said, however, he was pleased to provide the Lane Council Commissioners with additional time to respond to the council’s action. Ms. Bettman commented that Ms. Ortiz’s motion postponed the deadline for the County to respond; however, she perceived “intent” in Ms. Ortiz’s comments that circumvented the motion of July 18 in order for the City Council and the Lane Board of County Commissioners to come together and negotiate. Ms. Ortiz concurred that a revisit of the issue with the Board was a formidable goal. Ms. Bettman stated she was willing to extend the deadline to the commissioner’s next meeting in order to provide them the opportunity to take action on the resolution of April 20; however, she said she was not willing to extend the deadline to continue a dialogue of disagreement. Mr. Papé stated he did not support Ms. Bettman’s original motion; however, he was willing to support Ms. Ortiz’s motion in order to move the issue forward in a congenial setting. He opined that the County had legitimate reasons to take its current position; additionally, he noted that of the eight City Councilors and five County Commissioners debating this issue, eight wished to continue the enterprise zone dialogue. He voiced disappointment that five members were stalling MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2005 Page 1 Work Session the process. Mr. Papé further opined that the County had not been disingenuous in this process; rather, it was attempting to do what was best for the enterprise zone. Mr. Pryor voiced appreciation for Ms. Ortiz’s motion and noted his desire that an agreement between the two entities could ultimately be realized. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Ortiz to assure the council that the motion she put forth was not broader than the language stated. Ms. Ortiz assured Mr. Kelly that the language spoke solely to Ms. Bettman’s original motion and explained it was her personal preference that an agreement with the County ultimately was reached through additional dialogue. Mr. Kelly directed staff not to interpret Ms. Ortiz’s motion to be broader than specified. Ms. Bettman restated the intent of the motion for the record that on August 2, if there was no agreement with the County and it declines to uphold its original agreement with the City of Eugene to make application, the manager will proceed to end the City’s participation in the enterprise zone. Ms. Ortiz concurred with this assessment of the process. City Manager Dennis Taylor commented that assuming no agreement was reached between the two bodies, a meeting with the State director in charge of the enterprise zone program would be scheduled to reconsider the designation; further, a discussion of legal options to terminate the enterprise zone would ensue, based on the City’s inability to provide zone management services. Ms. Bettman stated she would vote against Ms. Ortiz’s motion as the postponement was unnecessarily long. She noted that the commission meets on Tuesday July 26 and could discuss the issue at that time. Ms. Bettman then questioned how staff would proceed if an application were to be received prior to August 2. City Attorney Lidz responded that it would not be processed according to the council’s action on Monday, July 18; however, he elaborated that if the application were eventually processed, it would be subject to the State’s standards. Ms. Bettman pointed out that it was due to Lane County’s negligence in protecting the interests of the community regarding the enterprise zone that no standards currently existed. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to change the response date from August 2 to July 26. The amendment failed 2:5, with Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. In support of the motion to amend, Ms. Taylor stated there was no viable reason to prolong the process to August 2 as the commission meets on July 26. Mayor Piercy commented that the council action of July 18 reaffirmed the original agreement for the Lane Board of County Commissioners; however, she stated that such action would not preclude additional dialogue. She voiced hope that an agreement between the two bodies could ultimately be reached. The motion passed 5:2, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Railroad Crossing Quiet Zones Traffic Engineer Tom Larsen summarized the material contained in the Agenda Item Summary. He explained that recent federal rules, effective June 24, 2005, establish a process to obtain a MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2005 Page 2 Work Session quiet zone designation by installing safety measures at all crossings in any half-mile piece of track. Mr. Larson then referred to a map illustrating 3,000 feet of railroad track in the downtown and the Whiteaker neighborhoods. Mr. Larsen referred to a spreadsheet which outlined eight different alternatives to meet the first requirement stipulated in the rules – ranging in scope from installing a supplemental safety measure at all crossings to installing supplemental safety measures at two or three crossings. He spoke of alternative safety measures that would not result in quiet zones: targeted enforcement and an educational program. He said if these measures were deemed effective, the federal Railroad Administration (FRA) might accept them. Mr. Larsen explained that if Eugene met the National Risk Index level, an annual review would ensue and if the index level decreased, additional supplemental safety measures would be required to maintain the quiet zone. Mr. Larsen stressed that the rules were quite convoluted and no jurisdiction had yet gone through the process. He said there were many ramifications to the installation of alternative safety measures and referred to photographs that illustrated quad gates which stop vehicles from driving through the gates and require additional detection/preemption equipment from the railroad as the approach gate must close before the exiting gate. Mr. Larsen revealed that the additional detection and preemption equipment required to install quad gates could cost approximately $2 million. He commented that such gates would have the least impact on adjoining businesses and would require that the City enter into an agreement with the railroad to maintain them. Mr. Larsen went on to say that, at a much lower cost, the City could install medians. He explained that the initial requirement to install a median was that a street within 60 feet of a specified crossing would need to be closed before a median could be built. Mr. Larsen spoke of the Hilyard at 8th, Pearl at 5th, and Lincoln at 3rd locations and opined that those three sites would be inappropriate for medians due to the requirement to close the side street. He then explained that an additional requirement to install medians was that all commercial driveways within 100 feet of the crossing would need to be closed. In conclusion, Mr. Larsen stated that to meet the requirements for a “whistle zone,” six of the remaining seven sites appropriate for medians would need to be closed and opined that that could be accomplished. Mr. Larsen referred to the railroad inspection reports, noting they were out of date for Eugene and hence the risk analysis figures were not reliable. He stated that if they were to be taken into account, the City’s Risk Index level would be approximately 23,000 and the national figure was 17,000. Mr. Larsen reported that medians could be built for approximately $120,000. He then noted that some businesses would be affected, as they were within 100 feet of the crossing and the City would be liable for damages to those businesses. Mr. Larsen spoke to other alternatives, such as converting two-way streets to one-way and the use of dual gates on the one-way approach. He opined that the most reasonable approach would be signals; two quad gate signals would cost the City approximately $3 million. In regard to the federal process, Mr. Larsen noted that the City would be required to provide notification and plans, which he said was a six-month process. Mr. Larsen further explained that any design would need to be sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Rail Section, which also required a six-month process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Larsen explained that the Risk Index level involves the Average Daily Traffic (ADT), the number of trains, and the width and alignment of the rail and also seems to lean heavily on “crash” history. Mayor Piercy solicited a first round of council comments and questions. Mr. Papé complimented staff and City Manager Taylor for the excellent background materials and voiced hope that the public could be made aware of how complex and costly it would be for Eugene to implement a quiet zone. He voiced support for further exploration of closing some crossings as a possible solution. In response to question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Larsen replied that the proposal for the hospital would turn Patterson into an under crossing and the Agate crossing would become redundant and most probably close. City Manager Taylor noted that the University of Oregon Board of Trustees and Riverfront Research Park were stakeholders in that project and have a contrary preference to that crossing; therefore, additional engineering would need to ensue. Ms. Ortiz spoke to the cost for such a project and joined Mr. Papé in supporting research on the possibility of closing some crossings; however, she suggested that the neighborhood associations be brought into the process prior to any final decisions. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Larsen stated there would be some low costs associated with closing crossings, as they much less costly than installing quad gates. He spoke of the mobility concern and the increased risk (i.e., closing Monroe Street adds additional traffic to Madison Street); additionally, he reiterated that the closure of two streets would not raise the Risk Index level to the point needed to gain a whistle-free zone from Jefferson Street going west. Mr. Larsen reiterated that the rules were specific in that a quiet zone must be one-half mile in length. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Larsen stated he did not know which funding source could be tapped for such a project. Ms. Bettman noted that the City spent $250,000 on a bicycle lane which has yet to be built and opined funding would be available for such a project if the council wished to make this project a high priority. Mr. Kelly commented there was a real community desire to respond to the noise from the train horns. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Larsen replied that the current gates were on railroad right-of-way and were therefore maintained by the railroad. He said the FRA states that any local jurisdiction which undertakes a quiet zone would pay the construction costs of the improvements to the rail system and the railroad would maintain the zone but would likely expect jurisdictions to maintain anything over and above the current standards. Mr. Kelly said that if the project moves forward, it should be ascertained whether the FRA would be willing to enter into negotiations regarding these costs. He requested that staff fine-tune cost estimates and options as well as identify available resources and consider funding alternatives such as the private sector. Mr. Kelly noted that the FRA would be willing to measure current levels to bring the Risk Index up-to-date for Eugene. Mayor Piercy spoke to the interim nodal discussions that were underway and said support could possibly come from that arena. She then mentioned the Ames, Iowa wayside horns and Mr. Larsen said that such devices could be an alternative safety measure. He elaborated that the federal rules stipulate that wayside horns could be installed, even in quiet zones; however, if the City were to attempt to calculate a reduction in the Risk Index, there would be no reduction for MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2005 Page 4 Work Session installing wayside horns. Mr. Larsen said some monitoring could be undertaking to ascertain if wayside horns were indeed effective. He concluded there was a process in the federal register that allows alternatives such as wayside horns to be upgraded when additional research was undertaken. Mr. Kelly noted that wayside horns were directed to traffic and therefore have less effect on neighborhoods. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to monitor the efforts of other jurisdictions in their efforts to obtain quiet zones under the Risk Index with Horns criteria until such time as an implementation and cost history was developed. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to fine-tune quiet zone cost estimates and construction options, using internal and external knowledge resources, and to consider funding alternatives, including private sector participation. Mr. Papé offered a friendly amendment, accepted by the body, to direct the City Manager to research if the combinations of islands and quads were tenable, and further, to direct the City Manager to identify funding sources and costs for a quad gate and island and ascertain if resources were available in the 2006/07 budget cycle to undertake such a project with the intent of moving forward with a quiet zone in the future. The amendment passed unanimously. The motion passed unanimously. C. WORK SESSION: Implementation of Mixed-Use (Nodal) Development Program Allen Lowe of the Planning and Development Department stated that staff was seeking council confirmation of program consistency with growth management policies. He then proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation referencing staff materials on Mixed-Use Centers/Nodal Development and spoke to the following: 1. History of Mixed-Use in Eugene 2. Mixed-Use Development Essential Characteristics 3. Specific Area Planning Projects 4. Priority Nodes 5. Pending Projects 6. Lessons Learned Mr. Lowe summarized his presentation with the following points: ? The Mixed-Use Program was consistent with adopted policies. ? Work in progress requires the City to adapt and be flexible. ? The City must be willing to experiment with different approaches. ? Changes will occur incrementally and over a long period of time. Mayor Piercy called for a first round of comments and questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly thanked Mr. Lowe for the comprehensive background materials and subsequent presentation. He stated he remains committed to mixed-use development and densification. Mr. Kelly believed that the more economical approach and quality of life was density; however, he stressed that this direction needs to done right. He opined that part of the problem with this project has been the lack of political will, and noted the slow progress to date. Mr. Kelly said, however, that the Land Use Code Update changed the direction in a positive way to facilitate the sort of development under discussion. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly stated that opportunity siting provided staff with a focused direction from the council and was critical for on-the-ground change and community participation. Ms. Bettman concurred with the comments expressed by Mr. Kelly and stated she could endorse the process to move forward but could not endorse the general scope of the program. She asked staff to define a “mixed-use center” and a “mixed-use zone.” Mr. Lowe responded that the “zone” was the specific tool utilized to create the center; the “center” was the physical manifestation. Ms. Bettman noted that the original concept for mixed-use centers was based on transit-oriented development and a requirement of those centers was frequent transit service. She pointed out that currently, the Lane Transit District (LTD) has cut back on transit service and focused on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); therefore, she pointed out that the centers would not realize such transit service for many decades. Ms. Bettman urged that staff focus on the changed realities as the process moved forward and to develop a practical model for the next 10-20 years. She opined that adding density to a mixed-used center without frequent transit service was counter- productive to the City’s goals. Mr. Pryor asked for clarification from Ms. Bettman if it was her wish that opportunity siting be incorporated, or substituted, into some of the substantive work. Ms. Bettman replied that opportunity siting would be used as a primary tool for achieving density. She elaborated that rather than zoning an entire residential area as a way to achieve density, the density would be achieved by opportunity siting. Mr. Pryor surmised that staff already recognized and would incorporate into the neighborhood development strategy such a component. (It was noted that staff would make a presentation on how this strategy could be achieved at an upcoming City Council work session.) In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Lowe replied that how to achieve density and maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods would be carefully considered. He explained that discovery of how to satisfy some of the fundamentals of services, open space, types of housing, affordability will result in a very rich mix. Mayor Piercy thanked staff for presenting this issue to the neighborhoods. She specifically praised the Whiteaker neighborhood for setting a fine example to other neighborhoods on achieving mixed-uses effectively. Ms. Taylor stated that the current density proposals were inappropriate in many areas of Eugene. She urged staff to consider such density in suitable areas only. Ms. Taylor pointed out that houses were being built on vacant lots that were totally out of character with the neighborhood. She then turned to the employment and commercial centers and pointed out that these centers continue to be under discussion. Ms. Taylor questioned how an employment or commercial zone MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2005 Page 6 Work Session could be called a mixed-use center or a node. Mr. Lowe responded that an employment center had daily activity with the people who work there, i.e., restaurants, banks. He commented that a broad plan to include employment, shopping, and entertainment environments would result in diversity of services. Mr. Lowe added that discussions around such a plan would then ensue to debate the pros and cons. Ms. Taylor argued that such an area should not be labeled a mixed-use center. Mr. Lowe noted the City Council had asked that the program be “fixed” and that staff interpreted that direction broadly. It reviewed, and will continue to review, all the elements of the program to ascertain what was not tenable and craft solutions and/or approaches to improve accordingly. He added that one of those components under review was in the “naming” of the various elements and staff created techniques to differentiate between different types of areas. Ms. Taylor concurred there should be differences in nodes; however, she reiterated that an employment center was not a mixed-use center. She suggested that the City Council take action on staff’s proposed plan regarding these centers. Mr. Poling stated that when done correctly, mixed-use development was a viable product. He pointed out that residents were fighting to save their neighborhoods. An increase in density was the right approach at this time and will protect the integrity of the various neighborhoods. Mr. Papé commented that the first rule was “do no harm” which he said the City was attempting to accomplish. He thanked the Planning Commission members in the audience for the exemplary work they put forth toward this project. Mr. Papé recognized that there were many unique areas throughout Eugene and customizing the mixed-use concept will result in a fine product. He noted that the West University neighborhood has densified with renters, students, conversions, and apartments and hoped that future densification will be handled in a different manner. Mr. Papé pointed out that opportunity siting was one aspect of mixed-use zoning, but a broader direction was required and urged staff to move the project in the direction the Planning Commission recommends. Ms. Bettman, seconded by, Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to incorporate opportunity siting as described in the July 19, 2005, email to the Mayor and City Council as a primary strategy for achieving density targets in mixed-use centers. Ms. Bettman thanked the Planning Commission, staff, and colleagues for their willingness to embrace innovation and look for new ways to accomplish the goals set forth. Mr. Kelly, in agreement with Mr. Poling, offered a friendly amendment to request that opportunity siting be combined with citywide estimates of future population which will be approximately allocated to mixed use districts and other areas in the city. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule a joint work session with the Planning Commission in October 2005 for more policy discussion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman explained that the components of commercial use and transit in mixed use centers had yet to been addressed and further discussions with the Planning Commission staff would assist to move the project forward appropriately. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2005 Page 8 Work Session