Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/21/05 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall September 21,2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pape, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and reported that Item B, Public Safety Task Team Update, had been postponed and an executive session was added. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend the time for Item A to 1: 15 p.m. to allow the council to consider two motions having to do with the November ballot measure and related mailings. That would extend the meeting end time to 1:45 p.m. Mr. Pape indicated he did not think he would be able to stay past the 1 :30 p.m. deadline due to a previous conflict. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Pape voting no. A. WORK SESSION: GoalS Natural Resources Study City Manager Taylor introduced the item, noting the City's GoalS Natural Resources Study was 14 years in the making and was a part of the City's partnership with its other regional partners in the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Springfield and Lane County. The study was a result of State- mandated periodic review of the Metro Plan. He introduced Natural Resources Planner Neil Bjorklund, who provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Goal 5 Natural Resources Conservation Project. Mr. Bjorklund reminded the council that Oregon's land use planning program was designed around 19 goals, of which GoalS was one. The Natural Resources Study involved only natural resources and addressed only a few of the natural resources in the community. It interacted with Goal 9, Economic Development, and Goal 10, Housing. GoalS discussed how to address natural resources inside the planning area. He said the guidelines for implementing Goal 9 specifically mentioned the need to consider the carrying capacity of the air, land, and water resources of a planning area as a major determinant, and stipulated that land conservation and development actions provided by planning documents should not exceed the carrying capacity of those resources. Mr. Bjorklund said the three goals worked together to balance development and economic needs with natural resources protection needs inside an urban area. Mr. Bjorklund discussed some of the economic and social benefits of protecting natural resources, which included increased property values, reduced costs of maintaining water quality, physical and mental health benefits, recreational experiences for those who could not afford to travel outside the city, and attracting and keeping employers and employees in the area. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 1 Mr. Bjorklund said the GoalS inventory under consideration consisted mainly of water resources, including wetlands, ponds, rivers, and streams. He emphasized the value of riparian areas and wetlands to maintain- ing water quality, and said that healthy water systems provide humans with clean water and support wildlife. Mr. Bjorklund reminded the council that water that passed through the community was used by other communities such as Corvallis for drinking water, and the City's actions affected those individuals as well. He noted the wildlife diversity in the community, saying that there were few major mammals other than deer in the metropolitan area but other species, such as birds, plants, fish, and insects, were diverse and numerous. Mr. Bjorklund discussed the GoalS process, noting that periodic review work program item was focused on three resource types: 1) riparian corridors; 2) upland wildlife habitat; and 3) wetlands. He briefly described the characteristics of each resource type. He reviewed the steps in the process, which called for the City to map the resources, identify conflicting land uses, designate impact areas, analyze the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) consequences, determine which sites to protect, and adopt and apply protection measures. Mr. Bjorklund reviewed past key dates in the GoalS inventory process and key dates in the GoalS ESEE process. He emphasized the considerable contact between staff and affected property owners over the past few years. Mr. Bjorklund said that the council would consider adoption of the local wetland inventory and GoalS inventory of significant wetlands, minor corrections to the riparian and wildlife habitat inventory, the ESEE analysis and site recommendations, code amendments to create the \ WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone, and legislative changes to apply the \WR overlay. Mr. Bjorklund called the council's attention to a map on the meeting room wall that depicted corrections to the inventory since 2003 made possible by more precise mapping tools and new information. Mr. Bjorklund reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. With regard to significant riparian areas, there were 950 total site acres in question and the commission recommended 886 acres for conserva- tion. With regard to significant upland habitat, there were 177 total site acres and the commission recommended 152 acres for conservation. With regard to significant wetlands, there were 619 total site acres and the commission recommended 331 acres for conservation. Mr. Bjorklund reviewed the exhibits accompanying the ordinances before the council, noting that Ordinance 1 applied inside the city limits and Ordinance 2 applied to the areas outside the city limits yet within the urban growth boundary. He said the Lane Board of County Commissioners would also have to adopt the recommendations for those areas outside the city limits. Mr. Bjorklund overviewed the proposed GoalS regulations, noting they were based on regulations already in place in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area. He said they included flexible conservation setbacks for protected GoalS resources. The flexibility included a setback averaging option and what he termed a "reduce and restore" option that allowed a developer to reduce a setback in one area in exchange for restoration of the remaining conservation area. He indicated that previously existing development was proposed to exempt from the regulations. Mr. Bjorklund provided a Web site for additional information: www.eugeneNR.org. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 2 Mr. Bjorklund acknowledged the contribution of Ann Siegenthaler to the staff work involved in preparing the materials before the council. Mayor Piercy asked how many of acres recommended for protection were located outside the city limits. Mr. Bjorklund estimated that 75 percent were located inside the city limits, and 25 percent were located outside the city limits. Mayor Piercy invited questions and comments from the council. Mr. Kelly commended the thorough staff work and thanked Mr. Bjorklund and all other Planning Division staff involved in the preparation of the materials before the council, as well as the Planning Commission for its review. Mr. Kelly asked if the commission automatically recommended the \WR overlay for sites that the ESEE analysis indicated met the criteria for limiting conflicting uses or if there were such sites for which the overlay was not recommended. Mr. Bjorklund said that where the ESEE analysis concluded that uses should be limited, the Planning Commission recommended the application of the \WR overlay. Mr. Kelly asked if the commission recommended that uses be prohibited on any site. Mr. Bjorklund said the commission did not recommend any sites for that designation because some of the uses allowed by the regulations include low-impact trails and, subject to standards review, interpretative kiosks or other interpretative facilities. Minor impacts were allowed within the protected areas that would not be allowed on a site that fell into the category of "prohibit conflicted uses." Mr. Kelly liked the \WR overlay concept but was concerned about the adjustment review process. He offered as an example of his concern the case of a lot that included an established conservation easement. If the overlay was applied to the lot, it appeared the process allowed the conservation area to be reduced to one-third of the lot, even if before the process it covered a much greater percentage of the lot. Mr. Bjorklund concurred. Mr. Kelly said that similarly, the ordinance allowed a reduction of the setback by 20 percent, including the setback along the Willamette River. Mr. Bjorklund concurred. Mr. Kelly said his problem with that was that it concerned sites that were already declared significant. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Bjorklund for his presentation. She clarified that the acres recommended for conservation did not mean those acres were being completely protected from development. Mr. Bjorklund said the acre numbers he shared were acreages of the site; because the protected area included the site and a setback that could extend beyond the site, the total area in the conservation area would be somewhat greater than the figures he shared. However, the flexible provisions he had described made it difficult to say what exact number of acres would be no longer available for development. Ms. Solomon asked how that affected the completion of buildable lands inventory given that staff did not appear to know how many acres remained buildable. Mr. Bjorklund said staff must analyze the impacts of the commission's recommenda- tions against the existing inventory. He pointed out that because of the way the regulations were written, they would not result in an unbuildable lot. If every lot could be built on, the City had not subtracted from the buildable lands inventory. In addition, when land was divided it was generally divided along waterways, so the resources were at the back end of the lot and the developers placed the house on the front of a lot so the functional "buildability" of those lots was not lost. Mr. Bjorklund said staff also analyzed the acreage assuming the entire conservation area was unbuildable, and found there were still excess acres of buildable land based on adopted land inventories. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 3 Ms. Solomon referred to the Bethel Community Park site and said there was a wetland running through the park in the area that the City had promised residents through the parks and open space bond measure would become an off-leash dog park. That park was not being built as promised and Ms. Solomon asked if it was because of the wetland designation. Mr. Bjorklund did not know. The site had not been recommended for protection by staff or the Planning Commission. He noted that the City would have to go through the State and federal permitting process to fill the wetlands on the site. Ms. Taylor noted her concern about two properties containing the Amazon Creek headwaters, and asked if those entire properties, rather than just parts of them, could be designated for complete protection from development. Mr. Bjorklund said the portion of those properties on the GoalS inventory was recommended for protection. The remainder of the properties would be studied through the upcoming South Hills study. Ms. Taylor said the sites contained rare plants that would not be protected if development occurred, and the sites were also important for the purpose of connectivity for wildlife. Referring to Mr. Bjorklund's statement that the regulations would result in no unbuildable lots, Ms. Taylor asked if the owner of a large lot would be able to develop a second house on the lot if they had a seasonal stream on their property. Mr. Bjorklund indicated it would depend on the situation. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's earlier remarks, Mr. Bjorklund noted that connectivity to other open spaces was considered by staff and the commission in their deliberations, and connectivity led to certain sites be recommended for more protection. Ms. Taylor asked ifMr. Bjorklund's statement that there would be no unbuildable lots meant that the owner of a large parcel would be able to build on as many lots as fit on the parcel. She cited the property on Nectar Way and Dillard as an example. Mr. Bjorklund said such a property would have to go through the planned unit development (PUD) process to be developed. He recalled that 10 to 11 acres of the 45-acre site was in the GoalS inventory, so a large part of the site was not impacted by the study, and the GoalS regulations would not affect those acres. Ms. Taylor asked if existing requests to develop would be exempt from the ordinance. City Attorney Emily Jerome said State law governed the issue and it stipulated that complete applications must be considered under the standards and criteria in place at the time the application was submitted. She pointed out that the Planning Commission had added some provisions for existing application approvals that the council might wish to review. Ms. Taylor indicated she would offer the council a motion to establish a development moratorium for site E37 on September 26. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Bjorklund that affected property owners living outside the city limits had twice received direct notice of the zoning actions being contemplated. Mr. Bjorklund added that he had talked to many, many property owners who lived outside the city limits. At the request ofMr. Poling, Mr. Bjorklund explained the significance of the two maps mounted on the meeting room, explaining that one showed corrections in mapping by making the location of sites more accurate and the second depicted the Planning Commission's recommendations. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Bjorklund said the maps could be found on the Web site and were posted in the Atrium Building. In addition, staff had e-mailed copies of the map to many property owners. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 4 Mr. Pape determined from Mr. Bjorklund that the council's action to change the City's approach in the uplands inventory in the south hills did not affect the study before the council. Work on the uplands study had not begun. Mr. Pape asked if additional protections could arise from that work. Mr. Bjorklund said yes. Mr. Pape determined from Mr. Bjorklund that somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 lots would be affected by the uplands inventory in the south hills. Mr. Pape asked if the City would notify the property owners of the council's action. Mr. Bjorklund said yes, when the staff embarked on that work. At the request of Mr. Pape, Mr. Bjorklund reviewed the different levels of protection being proposed at this time. He said that adjustments were available in each category, but they were keyed to the category and the type of resource in the category. The commission wanted to avoid a situation where the setback was reduced so far that the resource was not adequately protected. Mr. Pape asked about the impact of Ballot Measure 37 on the regulations, suggesting that additional setbacks could impair a developer's ability to divide a site into as many lots as previous. Mr. Bjorklund concurred, but pointed out that in the case of subdivisions that had been developed in the past five years, developers were generally designing them to maintain such corridors as an amenity to the development. Mr. Pape said if the City was taking land out of the 20-year land supply by protecting more acreage, it may have an issue with the existing buildable land supply. Ms. Jerome responded that the City could not adopt a land use regulation without doing an analysis of that issue. She reiterated that staff did a worst-care scenario analysis that indicated a surplus still existed in all three categories of buildable land. Ms. Bettman commended staff for its work on the issue. She recalled the council's motion to establish a conservation fund to pay for natural resource sites, and asked when the council would see the results of that work. City Manager Taylor indicated the City Attorney's Office was doing the required work. Ms. Bettman referred to the "reduce and restore" option and asked how the City monitored the restoration and setback when the property changed hands. Mr. Bjorklund said the City would take the same approach as it did to code enforcement violations, which was frequently complaint-driven. He suggested that education was the key to compliance with the ordinance. He said staff would continue to work with property owners to educate them about the regulations, and with Parks and Open Space staff, for example, on such things as community education regarding native plants. Ms. Bettman asked if the property deed would reflect the \WR overlay, or if there would be any documenta- tion of the overlay that was carried with the ownership of the property. Mr. Bjorklund said the City had limited opportunities to affect deeds, but it would track that information. Ms. Bettman suggested the 20-year buildable lands inventory was less predicated on lots than on housing units, and that was a density issue. She questioned why, in Section 9.2751, Special Development Standards for Table 9.1040, staff proposed that the Planning Director round down the acreage of land to the previous whole number to calculate the minimum net density, which could diminish the potential density on large lots. Mayor Piercy solicited a second round of council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Bettman's request for follow-up regarding the proposed compensation fund. Mr. Kelly returned to his concerns about the flexibility provided by adjustment review. Mr. Bjorklund referred him to Section 9.8030(21)(a)(l), and explained that the 33 percent calculation was not 33 percent MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 5 of everything on the site; one did not get to factor in the pond, stream, or wetland itself in the 33 percent. He added that staff found only a couple of sites where the 33 percent would apply. In those cases, staff found the regulations could allow a reduction in the setback and rerouting of the waterway while enhancing the waterway's functions. The situation arose in only the small lots, rather than the large parcels. Mr. Kelly suggested rephrasing might help with better understanding and asked for a diagram illustrating Mr. Bjorklund's remarks. He also suggested a GIS run of real world examples would also be useful. Ms. Bettman suggested that staff could address the density issue in a memorandum but she would bring it up at the public hearing. She asked what happened if the Board of County Commissioners refused to take action. Mr. Bjorklund said there was no guarantee of adoption, but if the County did not adopt something, it would have failed to have met its periodic review obligations. The board could decide to adopt something different. Staff would initiate the board adoption process following council action. B. VOTERS PAMPHLET Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, for the purpose of alerting and informing the public that the Eugene City Council has placed Measure 21-06 on the ballot, what the measure is, when the election is, where and how to vote, and important dates and deadlines; moved to direct the City Manager to expedite a neutral informational mailing in a format consistent with previous City informational mailings describing City measures, to be mailed no later than October 5. The information shall include the question and summary of the ballot measure, and a copy of the charter amendment. The information shall also include election timelines and logistics, including the dates that ballots and Voter's Pamphlets are mailed, and a Web address, and other points of access to review the Police Commission's report of July 25. This motion also allocates up to $20,000 to complete the mailing from the Council Contingency Fund. Ms. Bettman said a precedent existed in past City mailings regarding past ballot measures. She believed that the date of October 5 could be achieved. She said she would not object if the mailing occurred a few days either before or after that date. Ms. Walston suggested the potential of an insert in The Register-Guard and the Eugene Weekly. Ms. Bettman believed that would reduce the number of people who received the information. Ms. Ortiz supported the motion because it represented what had been done in the past. The council was not asking for anything special. Ms. Solomon asked what the existing City policy was, and how the motion differed from policy. She asked why the council was discussing the issue if it was the case that such information was provided in the past. Ms. Walston recalled that the issue was discussed on August 8 when the resolution to place the measure on the ballot was adopted. However, there was no motion to go forward at that time. Staff believed, on the advice of the attorney, that it would be difficult to produce a neutral piece because of the fact the election involved a charter amendment and staff could not point to facts such as what would be purchased, as occurred with a bond measure, for example. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified there was no existing policy about such mailings, but there was past practice. In most cases, the City prepared some sort of pamphlet or brochure. He had advised on August 8 MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 6 that he did not think the City could do a traditional explanatory pamphlet because the measure was not factual to the same extent as a bond measure. The kind of information Ms. Bettman mentioned in her motion was the type of information that would be included in a Voters' Pamphlet, so he did not have the same concern about the City spending public resources to publish it. Mr. Klein was somewhat concerned about the reference to the Police Commission report, but suggested to counter that, the City could provide information in its materials about where to secure information, pro and con, about the measure. Ms. Solomon thought that was fair if the City was truly trying to be neutral. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about providing information pointing people to sources of non-neutral advice, pro or con, in a factual mailing. He preferred to drop the reference to the commission report rather than reference information from the proponents or opponents of the measure. Mr. Klein said it was his opinion that the City could not make copies of the Police Commission report and distribute them because the report was not neutral information. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, accepted by the maker and second to the motion, to drop the reference in the motion to the Web address and access to the Police Commission report. Responding to a question from Mr. Pape, Ms. Walston said the City would contract for the printing and might have to seek more than was allocated in the motion. Mr. Pape asked what the total was when combined with the funding adopted on August 8. Ms. Walston estimated around $25,000. Mr. Pape did not support the amount being proposed. Mayor Piercy expressed support for the motion because she thought it important the public received the information in a timely manner. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pape voting no. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to expedite the production of the Voters' Pamphlet to guarantee that it was mailed by October 17 before the ballots were mailed. Ms. Bettman noted that the timeline for getting the pamphlet out was longer than typical, and it had become clear that many voters would have their ballots and would be able to cast their votes before they received all the information. She thanked Ms. Walston for her assistance in developing the motion. Ms. Ortiz asked about the cost of the effort. Ms. Walston said that there would be an increase in costs because it was likely overtime would be required to do the work. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Walston said the ballots would be mailed on October 21 and if the City could get the pamphlets to the post office on October 17 they should be delivered prior to the ballots. Mr. Pape requested a post-election accounting of City costs related to the election. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Walston that Lane County did not mail Voters' Pamphlets to out-of-state voters or voters living in other countries, and she did not think Eugene had mailed such pamphlets in the past either. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 7 MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 8 C. WORK SESSION: Public Safety Task Force Update Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to postpone the item to September 26,2005. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. D. EXECUTIVE SESSION The council entered into executive session in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(e). Mayor Piercy recessed the executive session and called the council back into public session. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to extend the meeting for ten minutes. The motion passed, 7: 1; Mr. Pape voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to immediately be- gin a swift, high-priority initiative to discuss assignable purchase options on PeaceHealth property and that of other property owners in the vicinity of 12th Avenue and Willamette Street. The City Manager should call on the assistance of local private sector individuals with real estate expertise to expedite the process. Mr. Kelly said it was clear from the earlier discussion that the council was very interested in the site and the manager indicated steps would be taken to determine the site's suitability for McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. He said the motion did not mean the City had to take the options, but would work with McKenzie- Willamette/Triad in the near-term. He believed it was necessary to send a visible signal to McKenzie- Willamette/Triad and the physicians that the council was taking a leadership role in this situation. Mr. Klein noted the conflict of interest declared by Mr. Pryor and Ms. Ortiz during the executive session and indicated that declaration carried over into the present meeting. He further opined that, as it regarded the substance of the motion, Mr. Pryor and Ms. Ortiz had potential conflicts as opposed to actual conflicts of interest. Ms. Solomon determined from City Manager Taylor that he did not interpret the motion as authorizing him to doing more than working with the involved parties to determine if there was interest in proceeding with options. Ms. Solomon asked if that reflected Mr. Kelly's intent. Mr. Kelly said yes, pointing out that given the short time line facing the City, nothing would come to fruition in the time before McKenzie- Willamette/Triad returned. He was merely trying to get out in front of the issue. Mr. Klein added that there was nothing in the motion authorizing the manager to sign an option agreement that committed City money without council consent. Mr. Pape thought it critical that representatives of PeaceHealth be involved in any discussions and that the City secure an option from PeaceHealth first before attempting to assemble the smaller parcels around it. He asked why, if the issue was so important now, the council had not taken a similar action with regard to the EWEB property. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly agreed to accept a friendly amendment to change the word "discuss" to "pursue." MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 9 Mr. Poling said he was hesitant to see the City get involved in the necessary real estate transactions. While the motion allowed the council to demonstrate its seriousness about the site in question, he believed a for- profit hospital such as McKenzie-Willamette/Triad should be able to purchase the properties in question without the City's assistance. He said the City was doing a lot of the work for McKenzie-Willamette/Triad if the council adopted the motion on the table. Mr. Poling said someone was really going to have to convince him to persuade him the City should buy the properties. Ms. Bettman said a hospital at the Ith Avenue and Willamette Street site would be a $200 million investment in downtown and would also ensure the community had a full-service emergency room for residents living south and west of the Willamette River. She believed the City Council had created a precedent for the motion through its facilitation of the construction of the federal courthouse. Ms. Bettman pointed out the City lacked large sites in downtown for such a redevelopment, yet such a redevelopment was a key to the success of downtown. She said that to create such opportunities, the council must step in and show leadership in the same way as it did when it aggressively pursued the purchase of the courthouse site. The community now had a courthouse to show for that effort. Mayor Piercy supported the direction reflected in the motion as being in the best interests of the community. She thought it important that Eugene have a hospital where babies could be born and important that it be on the south side of the river. Health care was important on both sides of the river. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1 :55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 10