Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCAgenda-4/21/04WS City Council City of Eugene 777 Pearl Street, Room 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793 (541) 682-5010 (541) 682-5414 FAX (541) 682-5045 TTY www. ci.eugene.or, us EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA April 21, 2004 Noon CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION McNutt Room, City Hall 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon 97401 Meeting of April 21, 2004; His Honor James D. Torrey Presiding. Councilors Bonny Bettman, President George Poling, Vice President David Kelly Scott Meisner Nancy Nathanson Gary Pap~ Jennifer Solomon Betty Taylor Noon CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Noon A. WORK SESSION: Comcast Cable Franchise Fee Review 12:30 p.m.* B. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 1:00 p.m.* C. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) To Adopt As Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chapter Ill-C: Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date *Time approximate Eugene City Council Agenda: April 21, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\A040421P.doc The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair- accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 682-5010. Telecommunications device for the deaf assistance is available at 682-5045. All council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. E1 Consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene aprecia su inter6s en estos asuntos de la agenda. E1 sitio de la reuni6n tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Hay accesorios disponibles para personas con afecciones del oido, o se les puede proveer tm interprete avisando con 48 horas de anticipaci6n. Tambi6n se provee el servicio de interpretes en idioma espa [] ol avisando con 48 horas de anticipaci6n. Para reservar estos servicios llame a la recepcionista al 682-5010. Hay aparatos de telecomunicaci6n disponibles para ayudar a personas con obstrucciones del oido permanentes al tel6fono 682-5045. Todas las reumones del consejo estan gravados en vivo en Metro Television, canal 21 de Comcast, y despues en la semana se pasan de nuevo. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT THE COUNCIL COORDINATOR AT (541)682-5010. I~SIT US ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB AT WWVK. CI. EUGENE. OR. US Eugene City Council Agenda: April 21, 2004 L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\A040421P.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: Comcast Cable Franchise Fee Review Meeting Date: April 21, 2004 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Pam Berrian www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5590 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a work session to discuss the findings of an independent franchise fee review of Comcast Cable Company, the City's position in support of the findings, and review options for the collection of franchise fees owed the City. The council is asked to approve a motion to initiate franchise-specified binding arbitration proceedings as the next step in the debt collection process. BACKGROUND Council Action History In February 2004, staff provided a memorandum to the City Council on the subject of the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County Comcast Cable franchise fee examination, collection activities, and recommendations. Staff placed fee review findings and related correspondence in the Council Office for review. The Lane County Board of Commissioners discussed the subject on March 10 and approved a motion to initiate binding arbitration as provided in the franchise. The City of Springfield discussed the subject in an April 12 work session, with no action. Springfield's Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) representatives will have the opportunity to take action at the May MPC meeting. Policy Issues The existing franchise agreement with Comcast appears to require that binding arbitration be initiated when a dispute seems irresolvable after good faith efforts have been expended. The City and Comcast appear to be at that juncture. City Code specifies conditions under which the City Manager may 'modify, compromise, or cancel" a claim; this dispute does not appear to warrant modification, com- promise, or cancellation at this time. Staff endorses the findings of the franchise examination and acknowledges that dispute resolution efforts to date have not been fruitful. Staff believes that waiting until Comcast's other-city fee disputes are resolved will not necessarily promote resolution in Eugene's dispute. Comcast neither agrees to be bound by the decisions of the other-city arbitration nor does it consider itself bound by its own current practice of paying franchise fees on the very same revenue under an almost identical franchise in Oregon under its franchise with the Metropolitan Area Cable Commission (MACC) serving several cities and counties around Portland. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421A. doc Lane County and Springfield staff agree with City staff that the sums demanded of Comcast are rightfully due. Background In January 2003, the Metropolitan Policy Committee, acting as the cable commission, directed that a limited review of the cable franchise granted to Comcast be undertaken to review the accuracy of franchise fee payments for the period January 1, 1999, through September 30, 2002. The review was prudent and timely, especially considering that the receipt of revenues associated with advertising and launch revenues was the subject of litigation of national significance, decided in favor of such revenues fitting the franchise definition of "revenues earned in the service territory." The City, as did Springfield and Lane County, contracted with the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to coordinate the fee examination. LCOG retained Public Knowledge, Inc. to conduct that examination, paid under agree- ment with then ATT Broadband, now Comcast. The findings were delivered in March 2003; staff met with Comcast staff in April 2003 and began re- questing payment May 2003. Since that time, a number of meetings and exchanges of correspondence has occurred. Each time, the jurisdictions believe they produce more than enough franchise and court case substantiation supporting the audit findings, and each time Comcast volleyed with a new twist rather than a response to the material. Comcast's most recent letter was received in March 2004 and offers no new material information regarding the findings. At least one section is outdated, assuring that a Los Angeles case was expected to be resolved by March 2004. Comcast has requested a delay in that case. In essence, Comcast disputes all of the findings, and asserts that there is no underpayment. The essential nature of the dispute is a disagreement over the relevance of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), on Comcast's advertising commissions and launch fees paid by advertisers and programming companies. Staff believes the City has a fiduciary responsibility to progress towards collection on the unpaid debt. Initiating binding arbitration is the franchised-based next step in cases where disputes remain unresolved. Comcast continues to account for the questioned fees in ways staff has already determined to inappropriately understate the franchise fee revenue base. Staff expects that for fiscal year 2003 there have been similar underpayments; these will continue into 2004 and beyond if not resolved. Arbitration Cost-Benefit: The franchise specifies that if the parties are unable to agree with respect to the results of a limited franchise review, binding arbitration shall be initiated. However, Comcast has requested that the City not initiate arbitration; that the City await the decision in the Los Angeles arbitration. Staff believes there is more value in moving forward to collect the debt than in waiting. First, Comcast itself has sought to delay the LA decision. Second, there are other cities moving towards binding arbitration. Third, any other city's arbitration decision has no legal precedent on the City of Eugene. Fourth, Comcast has not voluntarily agreed to be bound by the LA decision if the City of Eugene waits and could conceivably request that Eugene wait until other city arbitrations are concluded as well. Finally, if Eugene voluntarily delays debt collection, there may be a question regarding whether the penalty/interest on the unpaid debt continues to accrue. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421A. doc There are obvious financial ramifications of proceeding to arbitration to resolve the dispute as provided for in the franchise. Public Knowledge submitted its report on March 14, 2003, disclosing that Comcast had unreported franchise-applicable revenues with the resulting effect of underpaying franchise fees to the three jurisdictions in the total amount of $112,897 for the exam period. Eugene's share of the underpayment is $66,824, and a 10% penalty. Comcast continued to refuse to recognize the payment obligation into 2003 and 2004 and staff expects that to continue, increasing the debt owed. The cost to the jurisdictions of binding arbitration is estimated at $60,000 (based upon the experience to-date of Los Angeles), to be shared by the participating jurisdictions (Eugene, Springfield, and/or Lane County). The franchise specifies that jurisdictions shall recover from Comcast the costs associated with the arbitration if the jurisdictions prevail. There is no similar provision if Comcast prevails. Council Goals This franchise fee issue falls under the 2003-2004 Council Goal of Fair, Stable, and Adequate Financial Resources, which strives to assure that Eugene is a "local government whose ongoing financial resources are based on a fair and equitable system of taxation, and other revenue sources are adequate to maintain and deliver municipal services." Other Background Information Summary of the GAAP-Related Dispute: Advertising commissions are payments made by advertisers in addition to the cost of placing advertisements. Though typically included in the total cost of advertising, these payments are not typically received by Comcast per se, but rather by a wholly owned advertising subsidiary of Comcast. Launch fees are typically paid by programmers to induce Comcast to carry their programming. These fees, according to Comcast, are used to offset expenses associated with marketing the programming in question. Comcast asserts that it is obliged, by a variety of laws and regulations, to report its financial results in accordance with GAAP. Staff agrees. Comcast asserts that when results are reported in accordance with GAAP, the advertising commissions and launch fees are properly recorded as "contra-revenue," not revenue. Staff does not feel it is necessary to comment on Comcast's assertion that this is the direction they have received from their accountants. Rather, staff asserts that it is not uncommon for contractual relationships to establish bases to calculate payment that are different from their reporting base. The critical issue is this: Comcast asserts that since it would not report these receipts in financial state- ments produced in accordance with GAAP, it is therefore required to exclude them from the revenue base used for calculating franchise fees. It is with this contention that staff of the three jurisdictions, and the retained examiner, disagree. Of importance is that the franchise language does not contain any reference to GAAP reporting in its definition of "gross revenues," as compared with franchises in other jurisdictions where there are clear and explicit references to revenues reported in accordance with GAAP. Nor did designers of our franchise (TC! Cable, then transferred to AT&T, later to Comcast at their collective requests) cite such an intention. Timing Should the City Council agree that this issue warrants initiating the binding arbitration clause of the franchise, staff will report the decision to the Metropolitan Policy Committee, acting as the cable commission, at its May 2004 meeting. Lane County Commissioner's approved a similar recommenda- L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421A. doc tion; Springfield discussed the matter in a work session without specific action. Interest/penalties (10% specified in the franchise) will continue to accrue if staff moves forward with the debt collection process. OPTIONS 1. The council may approve the proposed motion recommending that binding arbitration be initiated. This recommendation will be communicated to the MPC at its May 2004 meeting. 2. The council may take no action. The dispute will remain unresolved and debt collection will remain unfulfilled, unless the MPC takes action to initiate binding arbitration. Both past debt and future collection of franchise fees based on the disputed revenues could essentially cease. There may be a legal question whether penalties/interest on the unpaid debt will continue to accrue if the City voluntarily halts its collection activities. 3. The council may postpone action until a later time. There may be a legal question about whether penalties/interest on the unpaid debt will continue to accrue if the City voluntarily halts its collection activities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is that binding arbitration be initiated, as provided in the franchise. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve that binding arbitration be initiated as provided in the franchise, that the decision be relayed to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and that arbitration costs be proportionately split between participating jurisdictions. ATTACHMENTS A. Franchise Fee Disputes Involving Advertising Commissions and Launch Revenue, Other-City Experiences Note: Eugene's correspondence file on this issue was placed in the Council Office in March, and kept current. ,4 public viewing file is available at Information Services Division, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m., Monday Friday, at 100 West lOth Ave (Eugene Library), 4thjToor. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Pam Berrian Telephone: 682-5590 Staff E-Mail: pam.c.berrian~ci, eugene.or.us Prog. Web Site www.ci.eugene.or.us/telecom L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421A. doc ATTACHMENT A Franchise Fee Disputes Involving Advertising Commissions and Launch Revenue, Other-City Experiences In addition to Los Angeles and Oregon' s own Metropolitan Area Cable Commission (MACC) experi- ences, the City of Tacoma, Washington conducted a Comcast franchise review, after which Comcast was informed there were deficiencies in franchise payments during the review period Jan. 1, 2000 through March 31, 2003. Comcast concurred with a portion of the findings and paid additional franchise fees related to (a) itemized FCC regulatory fees, (b) Itemized PEG fees and (c) inconsistency in video reve- nue determination. However, Comcast disputed the findings related to (d) Gross advertising sales reve- nues, (e) Revenues from programmers, and (f) cable modem service. At this time, Tacoma is awaiting for the City's Tax and License Division's more formal tax audit of Comcast to be concluded (within the next two months) before deciding its next steps. Chandler, Arizona is currently in a similar dispute after conducting an independent franchise fee audit of Cox Communications. The City is reviewing their options and next steps. Montgomery County, Maryland advises that it would be totally inconsistent for Comcast to contest pay- ing franchise fees on such ad revenues in their area under their franchise agreement although it has not yet conducted the fee review to obtain documentation that such fees are being withheld. Sacramento, California has presented a demand for over $300,000 in franchise fees owed in a case al- most identical to Los Angeles, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and others. It does not have a bind- ing arbitration provision which makes possible the termination of the franchise for breach of contract. Indianapolis/Marion County, Indiana audited Comcast and received amounts due related to non- advertising commissions revenue and errors in addressing. The audit also revealed amounts due as a result of Comcast not paying franchise fees on revenue from advertising commissions and launch fees and the City/County are evaluating their debt collection options. Walnut Creek, California had a franchise fee dispute with TCI Cable (predecessor to ATTBB and Com- cast) in the mid-90's. Issues were using affiliates to sell advertising and reporting a fraction of the advertising revenues back to the local franchisee, deducting advertising commissions was another issue, and launch fees (TCI refused to provide any information). A lump sum settlement was reached avoid- ing litigation but allowing the practice of under-reporting for a specified limited time. Eugene staff are currently looking into dispute similarities in Oakland and Berkeley, California; details were not available at the time of printing. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421A. doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Action: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing; and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Meeting Date: April 21, 2004 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Richie Weinman www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5533 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is action on an ordinance concerning multiple-unit housing; and amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (Multiple Unit Housing Property Tax Exemption [MUPTE] program). BACKGROUND Council Action History In 1996, the council placed a moratorium on accepting applications for MUPTE in order to redesign the program and clarify the benefits to the community. Subsequently, Measure 47 was adopted by Oregon voters. The council ultimately debated and adopted a redesigned program in October 1996. However, due to the uncertainty around the provisions of Measure 47, the ordinance that placed a moratorium on new applications was kept in place. In January 2001, the council reinstated the MUPTE and adopted a boundary area substantially smaller than what had previously existed. (No applications have ever actually been submitted under the redesigned rules.) In February 2003, the council approved motions that directed staff to return to City Council with proposed amendments to the current Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) ordinance. In July 2003, the council approved a minimal expansion of MUPTE to include the development site at 14th and Olive and directed staff to return at a later date with additional amendments to the MUPTE program and boundary. On November 10, 2003, the council conducted a work session on the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE). The council approved conducting a public hearing on amendments including an expanded boundary. An element of the council's motion required staff to propose quality standards, and provide them at least ten days prior to the hearing. On February 9, 2004, the council conducted a public hearing on this proposal. Four of the ten people who testified requested slight modifications to the border. Two people who testified supported additional standards. All of those who testified supported the concept of the program. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc Policy Issues and Council Goals The key policy issues are whether the City wishes to provide a tax exemption as tool that encourages construction of housing in the core area, determine an eligibility area boundary for the tool and determine what, if any additional standards the council will place on housing in order to obtain the exemption. MUPTE provides an incentive for new housing and, under current rules, may also raise funds for low-income housing. There are numerous adopted policies that offer support. These are noted below. Downtown Plan Policy 14: Encourage the production and conservation of housing and residential support services in the downtown that are attractive and affordable to a diverse population. Growth Management Policy 2: Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development. Policy 3: Encourage a mix of businesses and residential uses downtown using incentives and zoning. Policy 6: Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. Policy 8: Promote construction of affordable housing. Policy 10: Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and implementation of nodal development concepts. Downtown Vision Expand housing, recreational, and cultural opportunities downtown - Develop strategies for encouraging development of downtown housing as separate buildings or upper floors. 2003 - 2004 Council Vision and Goals Statement Sustainable Community Development - Promote a variety of additional housing in the downtown core and provide stability to downtown and neighborhoods adjacent to downtown by preserving existing housing and residential uses. - Increase the supply of low-income housing throughout the city. Financial and/or Resource Considerations The Oregon property tax system fundamentally changed as a result of measures 47 and 50. As a result, the City of Eugene and other local taxing districts now forgo revenue when a property is exempted from taxes. When approving a tax exemption request, the council must determine whether the public benefit of the housing outweighs the loss of revenue during the exemption period. This public benefit is imbedded in the character and density of the encouraged development, its impact on the core of Eugene, the contribution to compact urban growth, and the long-term gain in taxable valuation. "Public benefit" is also currently achieved from the provisions of MUPTE that provide payments to the low-income housing fund. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc The MUPTE program provides a ten-year tax exemption on the value of the new housing investment. While the housing improvement is exempted, the land beneath it continues to be taxed during the exemption period. The new housing investment, which likely represents a significant value increase over the pre-project improvements, is placed on the tax rolls at an appreciated value at the end of the exemption. Other Background Information At a work session, the council requested staff to suggest quality standards that could be added to the program. Four City staff met with three private sector architects to identify potential standards. Each of the architects has worked on designing downtown buildings. The team included Mike Sullivan and Richie Weinman of the Community Development Division, Patricia Thomas, an architect in the Planning Division, Nan Laurence, a designer in the Planning Division, Curt Wilson of WBGS Architecture and Planning, Planning Commissioner John Lawless of TBG Architects and Planners, and Sara Bergsund ofBergsund Delaney Architecture and Planning. As a result, last December the following options were placed in front of the public for comment. The neighborhood associations, Downtown Eugene Inc., and other known interested parties were notified. In January this proposal was referenced on the City's home web page and linked to: www. ci. eugene, or. us/downtown/tax exemptions. Timing Action was originally scheduled on the City Council' s February 23, 2004, agenda but was moved to April 12, 2004, and postponed again until April 21, 2004. OPTIONS Boundary Options: The maps in Attachment A include options for a new boundary that were identified at the public hearing. Proposed options for quality standards related to the granting of a Multiple Unit Housing Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) are noted below: Option 1: Replace the "Public Benefits" portion of the MUPTE application with one referencing seven quality standards: 1. Incorporation of sustainability features such as conservation performance measures, solar heating, natural lighting, and "green" building (techniques that use environmentally friendly materials and practices), and landscaping with native species that reduce the need for fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. 2. Responsiveness to adjacent historic structures that are on the National Historic Register or listed as a City Landmark. 3. Use of higher quality materials that contribute to longevity or durability or enhanced building design. 4. Prominent entry facing the public street. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc 5. Number of units by which the minimum density is exceeded or the percent of housing units that have three or more bedrooms, to encourage families. 6. Number of available ADA accessible units that exceed the required standard. 7. Responsiveness to neighborhood character and safety in respect to height, mass, architectural detail, landscaping and open space, "Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CEPTED)." Applicants must respond in writing as to how each of the seven quality standards relate to the proposal. Since some of the standards may not apply (such as adjacent historic structures) the applicants must demonstrate how their proposal will meet at least four of the seven quality standards. The council will consider these responses when determining whether to grant the exemption. Option 1 a: Testimony at the public hearing suggested adding two additional standards to the list that applicants would need to address. The testimony requested that these be included and applicants then must meet five of nine standards. 8. Designed for home ownership. 9. Solicitation of comments from the relevant neighborhood association. (Staff and the city attorney recommend against the suggestion that neighborhood associations must approve the project. The council can consider recommendations from the neighborhood association, but it cannot delegate to the neighborhood association the governmental power to deny an application. Moreover, neighborhood associations do not always meet regularly and, in fact, historically some have a spotty history of being "active".) Option 2: (Fariation of Option 1) Replace the "Public Benefits" portion of the MUPTE application with new language in the preamble. In that preamble stress the importance City Council places on adding higher quality housing to the core area. The seven items in Option 1 will be listed as examples of features that add to that quality. Explain that when the council considers granting a MUPTE they will be interested in considering how the development addresses these or other examples of quality. Option 2a: Add to the preamble the two standards (number 8 and 9) in Option la. Option 3: Keep the "Public Benefits" portion of the current MUPTE application as is. (Attachment C) Option 4: Do not require additional standards that exceed what is already in the Eugene Code. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION Quality Standards Staff advises that the new land use code includes multi-family housing standards that may be adequate to provide quality housing. Given the council's direction to staff related to quality standards, the draft ordinance that is provided (Attachment B) most closely aligns with Option 1. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc Staff recommends Option 2 because housing proposals will differ greatly depending on their proposed size, location, and target population. Option 2 provides the council with information to make an informed decision and it provides a framework for proposals to respond to these and other quality considerations. Additionally, because applications are submitted for MUPTE when projects are in their conceptual stage, prior to when the design is final, the project financing in place, and permits issued, it may be unfair to place specific requirements on a project. Low Income Housing Fee MUPTE is an incentive program. About fifteen years ago, the low-income housing fee was created to satisfy the council's desire to be clearer about the "public benefit" of the exemption. The fee originally represented about 10% of the tax benefit. It is currently charged to all projects, unless more than half of the units are dedicated to low-income tenants. Since the fee was instituted, all of the granted tax exemptions projects paid the fee. Staff now knows more about the economics of housing construction and recommends against the fee. Items to consider: 1) It is barely economically feasible to provide a multi-unit housing development in today's environment. Incentives are required to enable projects to break-even financially during the first ten years. Providing less than a full MUPTE incentive undermines the goal by making the incentive less useful. 2) If the City wishes to encourage higher quality projects, it is likely those projects will also be more costly. Therefore, the City should encourage higher quality through full benefit of the tax exemption incentive. Otherwise the developer may cut quality to balance their budget. 3) Mixed-income projects are unlikely, but if they occur they will almost certainly be created as an element of a more heavily subsidized low-income housing project. The low-income portion of the project will likely have to request and receive the twenty-year low-income housing property tax exemption. 4) Owners and managers of market rate projects are not typically in a position to request income information from their tenants as a condition of ongoing tenancy, making it difficult to dedicate units for low-income purposes. Such a dedication also might make it difficult for a borrower to obtain financing. Boundary Options Given the testimony at the public hearing, staff recommends adding the options "A" and "B" to the boundary as shown in Attachment B. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt the ordinance in Attachment A, a boundary as shown on Attachment B (with the two additions), and with direction to the City Manager to draft administrative rules consistent with the language in Option 2 and 2a. Note: If the council wishes to adopt Option 1 or ia, the following language may be added to Section 1, Paragraph 6(a)2: ... desigrn features that meet at least 4 [or at least 5] of the quality standards listed in subsection (2) of this section... L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc ATTACHMENTS Please refer to attachments included with April 12, 2004, agenda. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Richie Weinman Telephone: 682-5533 Staff E-Mail: richie.d.weinman~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING MULTIPLE-UNIT HOUSING; AND AMENDING SECTION 2.945 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsections (2) and (6)(a) of Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide: 2.945 Multiple-Unit Housinq - Property Tax Exemption. (2) In order to provide the incentives described in subsection (1) of this section, the provisions of ORS 307.600 to 307.691 are hereby adopted as the city's multiple- unit housing property tax exemption program for the city's core area. The city's core area shall include the area generally bounded on the,,,.,.,,r ..... * by ._..~ ~""~'~"......... ~]nodh by 1~ Avenue, then south on Lawrence Street to 7~n Avenue, then e~st to Lincoln Street, then south to 13~n Avenue, then e~st to Street, then south to 17~n Avenue, then e~st to Kinc~id Street, then no~h to the Willamette River and along the Willamette River to 4~n Avenue, then west to Pearl Street, then no~h to 3~ Avenue, then west to Lincoln Street, then nodh to Is~ Avenue, as more particularly described in the standards and guJdelJRes adopted by the city manager in the manner prescribed in section 2.01 g of this code. The staRdards aRd guideliRes shall iRclude provisioRs to relate the net fJRaRcJal beRefJt from the property tax exemption to the public benefits provided by the improvements./n addition, the standards ~nd guidelines sh~fl require ~n ~ppfic~nt to ~ddress ~s p~ of the ~ppfic~tion how e~ch of the following seven qu~fity standards ~re met by the proposal, or if a standard is not met, why not: a. Incorporation of sustainability features such as conse~ation pedorm~nce measures, soMr he~ting, n~tur~l lighting, "green" building (techniques that use environmentally friendly materials and practices), ~nd Mndsc~ping with n~tive species that reduce the need for fe~ilizers, herbicides and pesticides; b. Responsiveness to ~dj~cent historic structures that ~re on the N~tion~l Historic Register or listed as a city Mndmark; c. Use of higher qu~fity m~teri~ls that contribute to longevity, durability, or enhanced building design; d. Prominent ent~ f~cing the public street; e. Number of units by which the minimum density is exceeded or the percent of housing units having three or more bedrooms (to encourage families); f. Number of available ADA accessible units that exceed the required standard; and g. Responsiveness to neighborhood character and safety in respect to height, mass, architectural detail, landscaping and open space. (6) In approving an application, the council must find that: (a) In the case of the construction of, or the addition or conversion to multiple-unit housing: 1 .The construction, addition or conversion will be completed on or before January 1, 2006; 2.The owner has agreed to include in the construction, addition or conversion, as a part of the multiple-unit housing, design features that meet the quality standards listed in subsection (2) of this section and contained in the standards and guidelines, as well as one or more other public benefits, including but not limited to open spaces, parks and recreational facilities, common meeting rooms, child care facilities, transit amenities and transit or pedestrian design elements, or as otherwise specified in the standards and guidelines referred to above; 3.The proposed construction, addition or conversion project is, or will be at the time of completion, in conformance with all local plans and planning regulations, including special or district-wide plans developed and adopted pursuant to ORS chapters 195, 196, 197, 215 and 227, that are applicable at the time the application is approved; Section 2. The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the City Attorney, may administratively correct any reference errors contained herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971 to the provisions added, amended, or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this day of ., 2004. ~ day of ,2004. City Recorder Mayor L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc ATTACHMENT B t}THAVE I 0THAVE ~ 14'FHAVE 15TH AVE 17TH AVE L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc ATTACHMENT C Current MUPTE Application PUBLIC BENEFITS Location - core area 75 pts Affordability. To receive a maximum benefit, the project shall dedicate over 50% of the dwelling units, on site, to Iow-income housing during the period of exemption (Iow- income housing is defined as housing which is affordable to families or persons whose income is at or below 80% of the median income of families or persons in Lane County, Oregon, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development or its successor). 50% or over of dwelling units, on site, are dedicated to Iow-income 35 pts 20% - 50% of dwelling units, on site, are dedicated to Iow-income 20 pts 10% - 20% of dwelling units, on site, are dedicated to Iow-income 10 pts OTHER PUBLIC BENEFITS. ~ provide ADA accessible (as opposed to adaptable) "ready available" units 3 pts/unit ~ build at higher than minimum R-3 density requirements (20-56 units/acre) 5 pts (For computation purposes, all eligible properties will be considered R-3) ~ build at over 20% higher than minimum R-3 density requirement 10 pts (18 or more units) L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc ATTACHMENT D MULTI-UNIT HOUSING PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM HISTORY Broadway Center Washington and Broadway 12 studio; 71 One-Bdrm; 24 Two-Bdrm; 1978 12 Studio (107 total) Lawrence Court 8th and Lawrence 50 One-Bdrm 1980 (all low-income) (approx) Washington Abbey 10th a~d Washington 90ne-Bdrm/plus loft; Five Two-Bdrm; 34 1984 One-Bdrm (48 Total) Olive Terrace 15thAve. & Olive St. 4 Studio; 12 One-Bdrm Units; 12 Two- 1989 Bdrm Units. (28-Total) Joseph Shapitka 445 W. 10th Ave. 8 Two-Bdrm Units. 1990 (8-Total) Burnell Ambrose 17 & 35 Lawrence St. 70ne-Bdrm Units. 1995 (7-Total) Nozama Apartments 525 & 541 E. 19th Ave. 12 Two-Bdrm Units; 2 Four-Bdrm Units. 1995 (14-Total) Art Carrnichael 701 & 725 E. 14th Ave. 1357 44 Two-Bdrm Units; 90ne-Bdrm Units. 1995 & 1377 Hilyard (53-Total) Phil Klingensmith/ 632 E. 15th Avenue 6 Studio; 80ne-Bdrm Units; 1996 Don McRae 16 Two-Bdrm Units. (30-Total) High Stxeet Terrace 10th Ave. & High St. 20 Studio; 26 One-Bdrm Units; 12 Two- 1996 Bdrm Units. (58-Total) Broadway Place Broadway and Charnelton 74 Studio, 72 One-Bedroom, 24 Two 1996 Bedroom (170-Total) Additional Exemptions (not MUPTE) Lincoln School 58 units Historic Exemption (15 years) Tiffany Building 28 units (maybe) Historic Exemption (15 years) Aurora Building 57 units Low-income exemption (20 years) [in construction] Additional Notable Downtown Multi-Family Housin~ Olive Plaza 1133 Olive 150 units - taxed Ya Po Ah Terrace 350 Pearl 210 units - tax exempt Parkview Terrace 255 High Street 150 units - tax exempt Eugene Hotel 222 E. Broadway 88 units - taxed Willamette Towers 1313 Lincoln 89 units -taxed - condos High Street Rowhouses High near 2nd 18 units - taxed - condos Florence Apartments 1272 Willamette 48 units - taxed L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc ATTACHMENT E Council Minutes - Public Hearing - February 9, 2003 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Taylor called Richi¢ W¢inman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, to the podium to speak to the issue. Mr. W¢inman explained that the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) was a ten-year property tax exemption for housing, new construction of five units or more designed to encourage development in the urban core. The proposal before the council sought to expand the boundary for MUPTE. He opined that without help to "level the playing field" and provide assistance, it was unlikely the City would see new multi-family housing developed in the downtown area. He said, after ten years, the City would see substantial benefit from developments built with the MUPTE incentive. Councilor Kelly noted that, on the second page of the ordinance, the section that had required that a development meet "at least four of" the design features listed in subsection (2) was not in the present draft. He stated that, for action, he thought it should be included. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Deborah Healey, 360 East 15th Avenue, reported that the executive committee of the West University Neighbors (WUN), of which she was a member, had met twice to discuss the issue. She related that the WUN did support actions that would improve housing standards in the neighborhood. She submitted two additions to the seven quality standards mentioned in option one, proposed by the WUN, as follows: 1) Approval by the appropriate neighborhood association would be required; 2) That the proposed development should be designed for home ownership. She stated that the WUN wanted to be part of the MUPTE process. She added that, should the two additions be included, the WUN would advocate for requiring that five of nine of the design features be met rather than four of seven of them. Mark Steven Baker, 360 East 15th Avenue, noted that he was a community member appointed to the joint task force. He attributed the problems the neighborhood experienced to the lack of stability caused by the transient nature of neighborhood residents due to the abundance of rentals and the fact that the population was largely made up of students. He asked the council to craft policies that would encourage some diversity of occupancy in the neighborhood in order to increase stability. Mr. Baker commented that the low level of maintenance done on properties in the neighborhood contributed to the problem. He felt that rental owners were holding property, investing as little as possible, and getting the highest rents they could based on the assumption that the property would eventually become part of the university or the hospital. Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, voiced his support of the staff recommendation. He felt that, because the projects would come before the City Council, there would be opportunities to determine the quality of the project. He did not think that the City would want to get into design contests on a neighborhood basis. Regarding the proposed boundary, he urged the council to move it so that it butted up against Washington Street allowing development to look out over the park. Russ Brink, 214 East 30th Avenue, executive director of Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DE1), called attention to the memorandum included in the council packet, which was the result of a meeting of developers who had built L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc in the downtown area, City staff, and a representative of the architect group. He encouraged the council to read the memorandum. He conveyed the organization's support for the expanded boundary and the staff recommendation for the language on design standards. He noted that staff indicated that the existing Land Use Code was adequate to provide the quality projects the City was seeking. He added that DE1 also supported the elimination of the low-income housing fee connected to MUPTE applications in the past. Mr. Brink asserted that downtown development was some of the most expensive development to pursue. Regarding the concern expressed by some that the MUPTE would represent lost tax revenue, Mr. Brink stressed that undeveloped property did not increase tax revenue, while development eventually increased the tax rolls. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the support of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce for the expanded MUPTE boundary. He called it a tool to help achieve the vision set forth by the Downtown Plan. He asserted that trying to densify the core population of the City would help revitalize the downtown area. He underscored that the City Council had the final say on a project and a prudent investor or developer would realize that there would be an expectation of quality in the application, so the extent that Option (2) provided in the preamble that the council looked for quality, it represented a directional guideline an applicant would want to pursue. Mr. Connolly asked the council to ~demonstrate commitment to the Downtown Plan Update" and approve the MUPTE ordinances before it in conjunction with Option (2). Micheal Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, supported the need to ensure that tax dollars and tax exemptions were spent to the best benefit possible. To that end, he felt the addition of the seven public benefit standards should be approved. He asserted that the City Council would be able to judge the projects using these standards as goals and provide the most benefit for the public dollars. Mr. Roberts said there was a ~real need for this exemption" to make downtown development viable and asked the council to support Option (2) in order to given the community the design standards needed and the flexibility. Hugh Prichard, 101 East Broadway Street, explained that he was a co-developer of the Broadway Place, a mixed-use development that benefitted from the MUPTE it was granted in 1996. He urged the council to expand the boundary and to keep it simple. He felt the process was a ~good, transparent" public process. He described the process, stating that the developer submitted its construction costs in a public work session and in two pro formas. Mr. Prichard said that developer was required to justify the tax relief and suggested that, as the numbers were not completely known at this point, the council go back to the two largest developments constructed to date and analyze their actual financial performance. He related that what would be found was that both Broadway Place and High Street Terrace were overly optimistic in the proformas submitted prior to development. What was thought to be a nine-percent return had become less than a four-percent return. He alleged that the project would now be losing money should it have been made to pay full property taxes. Mr. Prichard stressed that no project could withstand sustained losses and added that Broadway Place had been a success with occupancy that has run no lower than 92 percent over time, though it has the highest rents in Eugene. Mr. Prichard underscored that land in the downtown area cost as much as ten times the cost of multi-family zoned land in the suburbs. Additionally, the collective vision for development was that downtown housing should be multi-story, mixed use, steel and masonry, and with embedded parking. He stressed that this made construction costs more than double that of construction of suburban wooden dwellings. He asserted that rental rates to cover the costs were currently impossible to achieve. He encouraged the council to keep and expand MUPTE and continue to try to ~level the playing field." Martin Henner, 984 Lincoln Street, stated that he was part of a group that was seeking to build co-housing, a cooperative housing with a ~Danish flavor", in downtown Eugene. He related that his group tied down a parcel of land on the corner of 11th Avenue and Lincoln Street that appeared to be suitable for this. Noting that downtown development was very expensive, he stressed that while the council was expanding the MUPTE boundary in other directions, it was not being expanded in the area of this property. He conveyed the desire of the group to increase L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc residency in the downtown area. He asserted there was no reason not to expand the boundary to the west. He recommended extending the boundary to Lawrence Street or to Washington Street. He expressed hope that the council wanted to see more owner-occupied residences downtown and not just rental units. Elizabeth Lyon, 2123 Marlow Lane, spoke as part of the potential co-housing development. She related that she had raised her family in a single-family dwelling and they were now grown. She stated that she was an author with four books and had an editing company. She expressed her desire to be part of a co-housing development now that her children were grown, but felt her position was tenuous. She opined that both low-income and high- income people received benefits for housing in the downtown area but middle-income people like herself received none. She urged the council to help the people "in the middle" who want to contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. Jenny Gussett, 535 West 20th Avenue, testified on behalf of the co-housing group. She said she had a long-held interest in the community and in enhancing the sustainability and livability of the downtown area. She felt the co- housing development had a unique take on the fulfillment of the downtown goals as it featured multi-family, multi-generational housing and would be an opportunity to model how people could live in a community and have ownership at the same time. She added that it would encourage people to use cars less and walk more and asked that the boundary be expanded to include the site at 11th Avenue and Lincoln Street. Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute break at 8:52 p.m. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Weinman clarified that the staff recommendation was that low-income housing would no longer be counted as a public benefit by charging the fee, because it was preferable to see the project quality increase. Councilor Bettman felt the ECO Northwest study did not apply to the West University Neighborhood, as the data was different. She asserted the neighborhood was not a downtown neighborhood. She stated that she had supported the MUPTE for the downtown core, adding that she would support further incentives for that specific area. Councilor Meisner supported the MUPTE proposal as presented before the council, including its boundaries. For those who requested the boundary be extended to Lawrence Street or farther, he stressed that the discussion had been, for years, focused on the preservation of the neighborhood there. He asked if the co-housing proposal could be allowed to benefit from the MUPTE. Mr. Weinman responded that the boundary could be extended to include that property. Councilor Nathanson expressed her support for the reinvigoration of the incentive. She asked staff to look into and present information on what it would take to extend the boundary to allow the co-housing development to benefit from the MUPTE and also to include the area between 1st Avenue and 5th or 6th avenues. She said, while true that the council had been explicit about not changing the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the edge of downtown, the northern edge seemed to be of a separate development type. Mr. Weinman agreed to look into this and provide the information. Councilor Kelly said the staff response to a parcel specific inclusion in the MUPTE boundary was also of interest to him. Councilor Kelly asked staff to prepare an amendment for the adoption meeting that would include the WUN recommendations. Additionally, Councilor Kelly commented that, if the City was not expanding the boundary beyond the downtown core, he would not feel a need for the standards that had been added. He supported them because the boundary L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc had been expanded into the West University Neighborhood. He opined that, should the City be granting public funds to developers, high standards of development needed to be upheld in that area. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Mr. Weinman explained that the Ya-Po-Ah Terrace was a HUD 202 federal project and was tax-exempt because it was a Department of Housing and Urban Development project to build low-income housing. Councilor Pap6 supported the inclusion of the co-housing development project in the MUPTE boundary. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, in response to Councilor Pap6, stated that the Eugene area covered 43 square miles. Councilor Pap6 remarked that the project-by-project approval would prevent the West University Neighborhood from having a shoddy development built within its parameters with the benefit of MUPTE. He said that when counting city blocks, the MUPTE boundary seemed to encompass approximately one square mile and was not excessive. Councilor Taylor strongly believed that everyone should share the tax burden and if people are excused from taxes, it should be for a definite benefit. She supported a tax incentive for the core of the city. She opined that the Broadway Place development had not contributed to making the core of the downtown area more vibrant. She advocated for making all of the standards of quality required. She predicted that any proposed MUPTE would be submitted to the City Council in the Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor asserted that people pay property taxes wherever they live. She thought the idea that a MUPTE was an investment in tax revenue that would otherwise not be collected was erroneous. Councilor Taylor said that new housing just moves tenants from one place to another. Mr. Weinman responded that the population was growing by two percent per year and the need for housing was increasing. He reiterated that increasing the level of development increased the property tax rolls. Mayor Torrey supported the concept of home ownership and incentives that promote home ownership in all areas and in the University area in particular. He recommended ;;thinking outside the box" and allowing, for instance, the co-housing development to qualify for the MUPTE. Councilor Bettman reminded the public that taxing jurisdictions including schools now forego revenue when property is exempted from taxes for ten years. She opined that people would not support forgoing money that would pay for school and core essential services in order to support student housing in the West University neighborhood. Mr. Weinman, in response to Councilor Kelly, affirmed that the council could only approve or reject a MUPTE and could not grant a partial MUPTE. Councilor Bettman predicted that residential housing would be displaced should a developer build on a site. She asked staff to bring back an amendment to delete the expanded district south of 13th Avenue and west of Lincoln Street. Councilor Pap6 asked if an applicant could reapply should the City Council turn a MUPTE down. Mr. Weinman replied that it could. In response to a further question from Councilor Pap6, Mr. Weinman stated that the land on which a development was being built would remain on the property tax rolls during the ten-year exemption period. Mayor Torrey closed the hearing. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc ATTACHMENT F Responses to Questions Raised at the February 9, 2004 Public Hearing and Options for Motions 1) Councilor Kelly asked if the requirement that a project meet at least four of the design features should be in the ordinance Response: If this option is selected by Council it will be placed in both the administrative rules and the application. 2) Councilor Kelly asked for an amendment to be placed in front of Council that included the recommendations from the West University Neighbors. Response: This is listed as option la. 3) Two councilors asked for language that would delete or expand the district. Options are provided below: Boundary Change Options I move to amend the boundary description in subsection (2) of Section 2.945 by: Option A replacing "Lawrence" with "Washington" Option B adding after the phrase "then south to 13th Avenue," the following language: "but including a quarter-block section on the northwest corner of Lincoln Street and 11th Avenue," Option C adding the phrase "excepting therefrom Tax Lots 17-03-30-43-0010 and 17-03-30-44- 04700" after the phrase "then north to 1st Avenue" (Councilor Meisner request) Option D amending the phrase "then south to 17th Avenue" to read "then south to 15th Avenue, then east to Willamette Street, then north to 13th Avenue," (Councilor Bettman request) L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc Possible Motions for MUPTE Ordinance AlS Option 1: I move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, and include as part of the ordinance the words "and to demonstrate how the proposal will meet at least four of the following standards" immediately before the colon in the middle of Subsection 2.945(2). AlS Option la: ! move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, and to amend the new language in Subsection 2.945(2) immediately before the colon to read: "In addition, the standards and guidelines shall require an applicant to address as part of the application how each of the following nine quality standards are met by the proposal, or ifa standard is not met, why not, and to demonstrate how the proposal will meet at least five of the following standards:" and to add at the end of that subsection: "h. Designed for home ownership; and L Solicitation of comments from the relevant neighborhood association." AIS Option 2: ! move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, except that the last sentence in subsection (2) of section 2.945 concerning seven quality standards is deleted, and the new language that references the quality standards in subsection (6)(a)2. of Section 2.945 is deleted. In addition, ! move that the City Council direct the City Manager to rewrite the Standards and Guidelines to be consistent with Option 2. AIS Option 2a: ! move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, except that the last sentence in subsection (2) of section 2.945 concerning seven quality standards is deleted, and the new language that references the quality standards in subsection (6)(a)2. of Section 2.945 is deleted. In addition, ! move that the City Council direct the City Manager to rewrite the Standards and Guidelines to be consistent with Option 2a. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc AlS Option 3: I move that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4862, an ordinance concerning multiple unit housing, except that the last sentence in subsection (2) of section 2.945 concerning seven quality standards is deleted, and the new language that references the quality standards in subsection (6)(a)2. of Section 2.945 is deleted. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Action: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date Meeting Date: April 21, 2004 Agenda Item Number: C Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is the second meeting following the joint public hearing held on February 10, 2004. The proposed amendments that are part of the metropolitan area's periodic review tasks include the following: 1. Metro Plan Text Housekeeping Revisions; 2. An updated Metro Plan; and 3. Revised Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element. BACKGROUND These amendments will conclude the local requirements on several significant state-mandated Periodic Review tasks. Binders containing the record prior to the council' s public hearing are in the Council Office. The memorandum from the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) included with the council's March 10, 2004, report provides background, public testimony, and responses to testimony received during the public testimony and open record. The Lane County Board of Commissioners and Springfield City Council held work sessions subsequent to the Eugene City Council's work session. The Springfield City Council indicated willingness to adopt the amendments as proposed, and may retain Policy J-l, which supports an energy management plan, as requested by Councilor Kelly, if Eugene votes to retain it. The County Board did not take tentative action, as they had questions regarding the forest lands provisions of Metro Plan Chapter III-B. The County Board is scheduled for adoption of these amendments on May 12, 2004. All three metropolitan jurisdictions must adopt the same amendments, or the amendments are referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for mediation. Council Action History The City Council approved the periodic review work program in 1995. A joint public hearing was held on February 10, 2004. A work session was held on March 10, 2004. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421C.doc Policy lssues The amendments to Metro Plan Chapter III-C, pertaining to natural resource protection, are substantive. Specific issues are discussed in the LCOG memorandum that accompanied the council report for March 10, 2004. Council Goal Action Priority Updating the Metro Plan through periodic review is consistent with all City Council goals, but is especially pertinent to the following goal: Sustainable Community Development A community that retains a high quality of life anda healthy economy, effectively links landuse and transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environment. Financial and/or Resource Considerations None. Other Background Information See April 12, 2004, agenda packet for additional information. Timing These Periodic Review tasks are already past due. The State Department of Land Conservation and Development was notified that approval should happen no later than May 2004. There are no provisions for an extension. OPTIONS Options are limited because the same amendments must be approved by Springfield and Lane County. Generally, staff discourages changes that are not within the minor "housekeeping" intent of the package of amendments (outside of Chapter III-C, Natural Resources). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendments by adopting the attached ordinance. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to adopt as part of Periodic Review Metro Plan housekeeping revisions; a new Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element; a new Metro Plan Diagram; adopting savings and severability clauses; and providing an effective date. ATTACHMENTS Please refer to attachments included with April 12, 2004, agenda. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Telephone: 682-8379 Staff E-Mail: kurt.m.yeiter~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421C.doc