Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/16/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall November 16, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILOR ABSENTGeorge Poling. : Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the November 16, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Sequencing of Financial Measures to be Presented to Voters City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, stating the goal of the work session was to have a high- level discussion about when ballot measures would be brought to the council and to get feedback from the council. Mr. Carlson provided an overview of issues and options to facilitate a discussion about timing and sequencing of proposed local option levies. Mr. Carlson said it took time and effort to prepare and debate the ballot measures and to have them ready for consideration by the voters. The goal of the work session was to get feedback from the council to provide staff with sufficient information to develop the strategy for making the best use of available election dates given the currently identified needs of the City to prepare for the November 2006 election. Mr. Carlson explained that due to Ballot Measure 47/50, November in even numbered years presented opportunities for the voters to be asked to vote on money measures without requiring a double majority. He added there had been some success in taking ballot measures to the voters during the May primary elections when they were done in conjunction with other major issues. Typically, however, November elections are considered the primary opportunity. Mr. Carlson stated that as identified in the Multi-Year Financial Plan presented to the Budget Committee on January 20, 2005, the current Library Local Option levy was effective through fiscal year (FY) 2007. Additionally, Mr. Carlson said, the current four-year Youth/School-Based Services Local Option Levy was also effective through FY07. He stated that when the council placed the current levy on the ballot, councilors acknowledged that the measure was a stop-gap one until a statewide solution was found for school funding issues. Mr. Carlson said that the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan was scheduled MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 1 Work Session for City Council approval in December, and historically there had been interest in another bond measure for PROS Comprehensive Plan projects. He said staff was recommending that a PROS levy be deferred until 2008 because the PROS adoption process and subsequent project development work had not been completed. He stated that staff was seeking information on the council’s interests and priorities. Mr. Carlson said the intent of the day’s discussion was not to debate the details of any of the financial programs, but rather to provide direction to staff on which projects needed further analysis. He stated staff was seeking approval of the tentative election schedule included in the agenda packet, or direction on how the council wanted the schedule changed. Mayor Piercy invited questions and comments from the council. Ms. Taylor said there was no doubt about the need to renew both the Library and Youth/School Based Services local option levies, and she expressed confidence that they would be approved by the voters. She continued to believe this was not a good way to pay for essential services, and that tax reform or more reliable revenue sources were necessary. Ms. Taylor wanted to place a PROS measure on the 2006 ballot. She asked if adoption of the suggested motion today would preclude being able to put the parks issue on the 2006 ballot. Mr. Carlson replied that the actions taken by the council today would not dictate exactly what would be placed on the 2006 ballot. Staff was concerned about the time that would be needed through the public process for the PROS Comprehensive Plan adoption. Mr. Carlson said the council would need to consider the feasibility of the voters accepting three measures on the November 2006 ballot. Ms. Taylor recalled that the voters approved three measures in the past that were similar to those under consideration today. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Carlson said the council had until August 2006 to make a final decision on which measures to place on the November 2006 ballot. City Manager Taylor said there was sentiment on the part of some staff that going forward with the PROS bond issue as well as an operating and maintenance levy was desirable. He said the council could conclude to forward capital costs as well as operating and maintenance levies to the voters in November 2006. Ms. Taylor asked if the Oregon State Legislature resolved the school funding problem in 2007, could the City simply not collect the Youth/School Based Services local option levy. Mr. Carlson replied that current contracts with the schools districts contained a mechanism by which if the legislature raised the amount of revenue going to the school districts in 2003 or 2005 over a specified target, the amount the City levied would be reduced. Mr. Papé said that although he concurred with Ms. Taylor on the need for the school levy, he believed that the school district took too long to dispose of old school properties and Civic Stadium. Before he went forward with another levy, he wanted clear direction from the school district as to how it would get the revenue from either rent or sale of excess properties. Mr. Papé asked if it was known what measures other jurisdictions would be placing on the November 2006 ballot. Mr. Carlson said the Tentative Election Schedule in the agenda packet included all measures that staff was currently aware of. He said it did not appear that other jurisdictions would have measures on the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 2 Work Session November 2006 ballot, but Bethel School District was considering a local option levy in May 2006. He added it was conceivable that if the measure passed in May but there was no double majority, the district could bring the measure back in November. Mr. Carlson said the Eugene School District 4-J was considering taking a levy for General Obligation School Construction Bonds to the voters in 2008. Mr. Carlson confirmed that the proposed library levy would be the second renewal of the levy. Mr. Papé expressed frustration with the need for ongoing serial levies to provide basic services. He asked for a strategy on funding the library at its current level without a bond measure. Mr. Carlson replied that the basic strategy without a bond measure would be to reduce services elsewhere in the organization. He stated that the Multi-Year Financial Plan included $700,000 in the FY08 budget plan to begin to reduce the amount taken from the local option levy. Currently, the local option levy paid for almost one half of library services. Mr. Papé expressed a desire to develop options, including cutting other services, to fund the library through the General Fund operating budget. Mr. Carlson said other funding strategies, including special districts and alternative revenue sources, had been discussed in the past, but those strategies had been rejected. The alternatives under current council direction would be to reduce other services. Mr. Papé maintained the council had not been diligent in spending the money from the last PROS levy. He did not want to prejudice the needs and community effort by waiting until 2008 to put another levy on the ballot. Ms. Ortiz, as a former school board member, supported school funding. Through her experience, she learned that many operating bonds approved in the past were about equity, giving schools the ability to offer programs outside of the regular teaching day for the students who may not otherwise have access to other avenues of enrichment experiences. She expressed doubt that the State would adequately take care of all of the education issues in the next two to four years. Therefore, she would support anything to do with schools. Furthermore, she would listen carefully to conversations about other funding issues as they arose. Mr. Pryor noted that serial levies differed from bond measures in that they had different mechanisms and needs and could be used for different purposes. He said Mr. Papé raised an interesting point, in terms of how diligent an organization was in realizing revenue from its sources, such as selling excess property. He said during his tenure as a school board member, the Eugene School District 4-J did designate surplus property, and had sold some of those properties. Mr. Pryor confirmed that money from the sale of properties was used for capital expenditures rather than operating expenses. He added the levy the council was considering was a Youth/School-Based Services operating levy. Mr. Pryor agreed that the need to fund ongoing operating requirements needed to be a continuing conversa- tion by the council. He said if the levy was necessary to continue to fund current services, he would want to ensure that due diligence within the organization had been done before proceeding with the levy request. Based upon his work with staff, Mr. Pryor said he believed that it was reasonable and prudent for staff to suggest slowing down somewhat on the PROS levy. There were still many unanswered questions in the community before the necessary level of comfort was achieved. Mr. Pryor said people needed an opportu- nity to evaluate and comment on the plan. He expressed concern that moving too fast to get a levy on the ballot would hurt a good plan. He fully supported the plan, while at the same time, he fully supported doing it at a speed where it could be effectively implemented. Thus, Mr. Pryor said, 2008 was the earliest the council should go forward to the voters with a levy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Papé that serial levies were an absurd way to fund ongoing government services. He supported the need for tax reform, and wished those feelings around the table would translate into having a discussion on tax reform and tax restructuring. He said only three of nine councilors identified tax reform as a priority at the council’s strategic planning retreat in February 2005. He found it difficult to find enough City services to cut to avoid a library levy. He stated that he supported a renewal of both the Library levy and the Youth/School-Based Services levy. Mr. Kelly said the other challenge of the levy renewals was that the individual items could become a target for general dissatisfaction with the government, noting that people could love the library and the services, but vote against a levy because it was their only opportunity to weigh in on the budget. Mr. Kelly said in terms of another broad PROS measure, he understood the value of waiting until 2008. However, he was worried about lost opportunities, particularly in regard to land acquisition, noting once an area was developed it was no longer available for park uses. He was interested in giving staff direction to consider a limited PROS bond in 2006 focused on time-sensitive items such as land acquisition for future neighborhood and community parks in underserved areas, or other time sensitive projects. Ms. Bettman had a clear sense of what she thought would work, and she favored going out in 2006 for the Library local option levy and Youth/School-Based Services levy. She said the school-based services were essential in that they freed the education system to teach students. Ms. Bettman said city hall replacement needed to be a priority in 2008. This would then bump the PROS bond measure. This was not a commentary on the plan that she had not yet seen, but rather a way to sequence the vote and achieve success. She said she believed the PROS plan belonged on the 2010 ballot. Ms. Bettman was intrigued by Mr. Kelly’s idea about lost opportunities, and said she may be willing to consider a very reduced version if it would not prejudice the chance of the other bond to pass. Ms. Bettman thanked the Eugene Public Library Foundation and those who worked on the campaign for the school-based services levy, and expressed hope that the same level of energy and commitment would be demonstrated the next time the issues were put to the voters. Mayor Piercy stated that she supported both the Library and Youth/School-Based Services levies, and believed it was very important to continue to support them. She liked the idea of gradually reducing the City’s dependence on using levies for operating budgets. She said the tax restructuring question was a worthy, albeit difficult, issue. She said there was currently a lot of great thinking around the PROS issue, but she did not feel ready to make any comment on it at the present time. Mayor Piercy agreed that city hall replacement and a limited PROS measures were significant. Mayor Piercy solicited a second round of council questions and comments. In response to Mr. Pryor, Ms. Taylor said the land will not wait, and she was especially interested in natural areas, many of which were under threat of development. If they were not acquired, they will be gone. She said parks staff wanted to do it all at once because if there was something for all interest groups, the measure was more likely to pass. As far as addressing the city hall issue first, she said people would likely vote it down in 2008, resulting in it being brought up again in 2010. People were much more interested in parks than replacing city hall. Ms. Taylor asked what would be cut if the library levy were reduced or eliminated. She asked if the need for the levy would be eliminated if the branches were eliminated. She supported branches, and suggested putting branches as one issue on the ballot, with the downtown library MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 4 Work Session operation as a separate issue. Mr. Carlson said the library levy currently paid for the branches and a significant portion of the hours at the downtown library. He said staff would bring details to the council when the levy discussion took place. Mr. Carlson said the council could choose to place two library funding questions on the ballot. Mr. Papé said that although three levies had been passed at the same election in the past, he reminded the council that the 1998 election took place during the “go go” nineties, when the community was in better financial shape. Addressing Mr. Pryor’s comments, Mr. Papé said although he appreciated that proceeds from the sales of school property could go to capital purposes, it was a school board policy decision rather than a law. The school board could change its policy and use those funds for operations. He said if the funds remained in capital, those funds could be reinvested to improve insulation or systems so that operational funds for electricity could decrease. He reiterated his wish to have the school board advise the council regarding its intent with excess properties before the council decided to support the levy. Mr. Papé agreed with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly regarding missed opportunities in the area of PROS. He said the PROS Comprehensive Plan committee had completed its work, and the council could not continue to decline to act on the recommendations. Mr. Kelly said that Civic Stadium was periodically mentioned as excess Eugene School District 4-J property. He said the stadium was a valuable community asset, and hoped and expected that any Eugene School District 4-J discussion about disposition of the property could broaden into a community conversa- tion about how use of Civic Stadium could be retained, regardless of who owned the facility. Mr. Kelly said he would not support any new serial levy for any purpose, as proposed for PROS operation and maintenance funding, although he would support renewals of existing levies. He said if the council moved forward with a narrow PROS funding measure in 2006 for time-sensitive acquisitions, there would be little near-term operating and maintenance costs. Mr. Pryor said the PROS Comprehensive Plan was a visionary document with a plan for strategies over a 20-year period, noting that the list of actual capital projects had not been identified. He asserted that it would be some time before the capital projects list would be in a form that would be sufficiently vetted and discussed. A PROS measure in 2006 based upon vision and strategy, without a clear list of capital projects, may not be acceptable to the community, and risked being turned down. He was intrigued by the notion of having something specific to lost opportunities but it would have to be something of a nature that was very specific, clearly identified, and that clearly fell into the category of lost opportunities. Mr. Carlson said one of the uses of the Multi-Year Financial Plan was to remind councilors of similar items already identified. He said several park-related items, such as improvements at both Sheldon and Echo Hollow pools and roof repairs at Campbell Senior Center and the Hult Center, could be included in a bond measure and would not contribute to increased operating costs. Mr. Carlson said the parks systems development charge (SDC) that was not available 20 years ago was a funding source available to purchase land for neighborhood parks. He said the last PROS bond measure allowed the City to do a quick catch-up following a period when neighborhood park acquisitions were not up-to-date. Mayor Piercy solicited a third round of council questions and comments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 5 Work Session In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Carlson said SDCs could not be used for maintenance of parks and facilities due in part because the City did not have excess capacity in the parks and was not currently meeting all of the standards set for the community. In response to Mr. Pryor, Ms. Taylor said there was not a need for a definite list of parks to go to the voters, but rather the list should develop with community participation as things go along. She said the City should be buying the Santa Clara School but it was not on the list. The council deviated from the list in the past and it could do so again. People in the area supported acquisition of the school. She hoped the school board would consider making concessions just as the City of Eugene had done when the Eugene School District 4-J wanted properties or help with the sports fields. Mr. Papé agreed with Mr. Pryor that the PROS proposal needed to be vetted before going to the voters. As a member of the original PROS advisory committee in 1997, he recalled that the committee did not complete its work until four or five months ahead of the bond measure election. He disagreed with Ms. Taylor, in that although the original committee did not identify specific locations for parks or specific acquisitions, the committee did specifically outline how the funds would be used. This action was critical in passage of the bond measure by such a wide margin. He opined that the work could be completed in time for the November 2006 election. Mr. Papé said if Civic Stadium was a community asset, it was not up to Eugene School District 4-J or the Bethel School District to supply community-needed stadiums. Their missions were to educate our children. If the community needed a stadium, the City needed to step up and purchase it, rather than keeping the onus on the school district to retain and maintain it. In response to Mr. Papé’ comments, Ms. Bettman did not think the City should hold Eugene School District 4-J to a standard that the City did not itself adhere to. She said the City set aside money for capital expenditures and it was sacrosanct. There were times when the council eyed those funds for public safety and other types of services, but the organization and council had been unwilling to expend money that had been set aside for capital on operations. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the Tentative Election Schedule. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the motion to further direct the City Manager to bring specific project ideas early in the new year for a focused parks bond in 2006. The focus would be on time-sensitive items with low operations and maintenance costs. Mr. Kelly said passing this amendment was in no way deciding whether to go out to the voters with such a measure, but was asking staff to look at the draft project list and the Multi-Year Financial Plan to determine what projects could be included for review by the council. Mr. Papé said he would appreciate it if staff contacted Eugene School District 4-J to find out how the district used its capital moneys, and what it had as excess properties that could be disposed of. Ms. Bettman said she would support the amendment, but would make a subsequent motion to move the general obligation (GO) bonds for PROS and the local levy for PROS operating and maintenance costs to 2010. Otherwise, she would not be able to support the tentative schedule. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 6 Work Session The motion to amend vote was unanimous, 7:0. Ms. Bettman moved to reschedule the general obligation bonds for parks, recreation and open space projects and the local option levy to maintain parks, recreation, open space pro- jects to the FY2010. The motion failed for lack of a second. The amended motion to approve the Tentative Election Schedule and to further direct the City Manager to bring specific project ideas early in the new year for a focused parks bond in 2006, with the focus on time-sensitive items with low operations and maintenance costs, passed 6:1, Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. B. WORK SESSION: Joint Meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission The council was joined for the item by Planning Commissioners John Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Mitzi Colbath, Randy Hledik, and John Lawless. City Manager Taylor said the purpose of the work session was to continue the discussion about City Council expectations regarding Mixed Use Centers (MUC) and the use of opportunity siting as a tool for achieving desired densities in MUCs, greater neighborhood compatibility for new growth, and determining how future populations will be allocated throughout the city. City Manager Taylor introduced Kurt Yeiter, Planning Division staff, who introduced Mitzi Colbath, Planning Commission President. Ms. Colbath thanked the City Council for providing the second opportu- nity for the commission to meet with the council. She said the commission was following up on council direction from the July 2005 meeting to address two issues: ? 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 cen- ters. ? 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. Ms. Colbath said the Planning Commission looked at this joint meeting as an opportunity to discuss opportunity siting as a tool for MUC planning, to outline other proposals to implement MUCs and citywide infill strategies, and to garner additional clarity from the council to implement the commission’s work plan. Mr. Yeiter offered a PowerPoint presentation on opportunity siting, a paper copy of which was distributed to City Council members. His presentation was based upon the following topics: ? City Council direction from July 2005. ? Purpose of the joint meeting. ? Opportunity siting definition. ? Uses of opportunity siting to date. ? Lessons learned from higher density infill in MUCs. ? Current impediments to MUC implementation. ? Short term actions: support mixed-use centers. ? Continue planning identified MUCs. ? Streamline PUD process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 7 Work Session ? Require master plans in select areas. ? Future Actions: Accommodating growth outside MUCs. ? Citywide review of infill strategies. ? Purse a citywide opportunity PUD. ? Pursue other incentives. Mr. Yeiter said the Planning Commission developed a proposed definition of opportunity siting: Identify locations characterized by features that lend themselves to concentrated development or redevelopment that achieves the goals of Eugene’s Growth Management Policies, including but not limited to increased residential density that preserves the character of adjacent neighborhoods, and provides pedestrian access to commercial and employment centers and transit corridors, and directing growth into these locations. Planning Commissioners introduced themselves. Mr. Kelly stated that he found much to like and much to be concerned about in the Planning Commission presentation, but he supported the general direction of the proposal to look broadly at specific ideas. Mr. Kelly had a big concern that opportunity siting had been redefined by the working definition since the council and commission met jointly in July. He did not like the working definition at all, in that it did not reflect the original July 20 council motion. Mr. Kelly, referring to page 472 of the July 20 agenda packet, noted that “opportunity siting” was described as a mechanism that focused density on targeted parcels. Targeted parcels were a narrower description than locations, which could mean anything from entire neighborhoods to PUDs to cities. He asked the commission to use the council’s definition as a starting point. Mr. Kelly said he had been surprised by Mr. Yeiter’s statement that opportunity siting had been used in the original designation of mixed-use centers (MUCs) or nodes, and would again be pursued. He said the statement presented a different level of scale than the council intended. Mr. Kelly appreciated Mr. Yeiter noting that opportunity siting was done in combination with population estimate and targeting. Ms. Bettman said it seemed like the City kept going back to the same place it started in July 1995, recalling that the Land Use Measures Task Force that had worked on nodal development. There were numerous other resources to identify specifically what processes needed to be changed to achieve the council’s identified goals. Ms. Bettman said she was not opposed to doing opportunity siting out of mixed-use areas, but she was opposed to using other forms of increasing density that destroyed the fabric and texture of established neighborhoods. She said it was not possible to upzone and subdivide lots in established neighborhoods while doing opportunity siting. Opportunity siting was an alternative to the traditional methods of achieving infill and density in ways that destroyed neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman added that opportunity siting provided equity throughout the city by distributing density. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council follow the same strategy it used when reviewing the Downtown Plan, by having the mayor and two councilors meet with the Planning Commission when it addressed opportunity siting issues. Ms. Solomon said the Planning Commission did a great job of answering the questions posed by the City MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Council, and she expressed appreciation for the work offered in today’s presentation. She added that the presentation raised additional questions. Recognizing the realities of how development occurred in Eugene, and the market demand, the commission’s proposal was a reasonable tool to get the council moving forward. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Yeiter stated that TransPlan identified 38 or 39 potential sites, and plans were adopted for Royal, Chase, part of Chambers, and Crescent Village MUCs. He said that staff was currently working on two new sites: Walnut Station and lower River Road south of Rasor Park. Grant funding was needed to complete the lower River Road portion of the project. Referring to the Walnut Station MUC, Ms. Solomon asked if the City would have such specific require- ments for the Romania site, currently owned by the University of Oregon (UO) Foundation. Such specific requirements would exclude many opportunities. She expressed concern about how opportunity siting would work on that parcel. Mr. Yeiter said the process used in MUCs included identification of assets, existing conditions, natural resource areas, open spaces, historic resources, and a market analysis of what could happen in the areas. He added that staff worked with property owners on opportunities for their sites. Several scenarios that offered different levels of intensification and different types of uses were being developed for analysis by neighbors and property owners for the Romania site and other developable sites in the Walnut Station MUC project,. From this analysis, a plan would be developed, through which specific sites may be targeted for specific types of development. It was conceivable that a wide range of uses would be allowed on a specific site to fit into the overall development pattern. Allen Lowe, Walnut Station MUC Project Manager, stated that Planning Commissioner John Lawless was a member of the steering committee. Mr. Lawless said the Walnut Station MUC project area was a sensitive one, and steering committee members were learning that trying to contain the project within a predefined boundary was very limiting, problematic, and not realistic. He said the impact that the surrounding areas could eventually impose on the project were enormous. He said the steering committee hoped to find a way to expand the allowance for considering what happens when a market proposal comes through adjacent to, but outside of, the boundary limit. The steering committee suggested finding mechanisms to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts, regardless of the project, property, or planning boundary source. He said there needed to be a way to make an analysis that pushed the proposal through a set of filters that identified good and bad proposals. Mr. Papé said he wanted to reconsider what the City Council did on Monday night regarding the Chambers neighborhood. He thanked the Planning Commission for its efforts in cooperating with the neighborhood. He asked what would happen if the same process was used in all neighborhoods when looking at mixed use and it was not possible to comply with citywide growth management policies and plans by achieving the prescribed densities. Mr. Papé said it may be easier to achieve density goals by looking at greenfields, such as the Royal Node, where greater flexibility may be possible than with established neighborhoods. Ms. Colbath noted that commissioners, councilors, and others were concerned with the issue. She said the Planning Commission attempted to address this concern with its third proposal, Use of opportunity siting citywide in an exercise to coordinate future populations while balancing other needs for space (e.g., parks, natural resources, other land uses) and better protecting neighborhood character. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 9 Work Session The process would include the following steps: ? Asset Mapping ? Requirements Assessment ? Review Options and Techniques ? Decisions ? Implementation Ms. Colbath said this process would allow the City to be flexible and react in a positive manner when proposed developments, parks plans, or Goal 5 plans were presented, and allow for a more comprehensive look at the proposed project. Mr. Papé commended the Planning Commission for its work, and asked what resources were needed to support the commission’s proposal. He wanted to assist staff in securing adequate resources and technologies to move forward. Mr. Nystrom replied that staff was hoping to continue to evolve the opportunity siting concept. He said more specific strategies would be developed following the council’s direction today, and may result in requests in the FY07 budget. He added that staff would continue to move forward with the current work program, determine where it needs to go in the future, and bring that back to the council. Mr. Lawless said that the Chambers Revisited project should not be looked at as a holistic study. He said that the council could add resources to fill out the process that looked at one fine-grain component of how infill and neighborhood quality can be measured, scoped, shaped, and evaluated in response to potential infill projects. Chambers Revisited did not go to the next step to determine how additional density can be achieved to get to the higher levels. Mr. Lawless said even old neighborhoods could absorb some density. Although they may not be able to meet the entire target, they could contribute to a positive outcome rather than degradation of both older residential and older commercial neighborhoods. Rigid interpretation of planning rules produced broken components of the process. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Papé, noting this was an interconnected series of discussions. He said the Planning Commission helped the City Council by studying very complicated issues. He said greater flexibility and creativity had helped the process. Mr. Belcher said during his six years on the Planning Commission, it had never been found that the actions of the commission had an effect on residential, commercial, or industrial lands, because it had looked at everything in its own specific context. He said, in fact, there had been an impact on residential, commercial, and industrial lands, and asked the council to direct the commission to return with a program that looked at the big picture in a comprehensive manner to determine where the City was going with the 19 growth management policies. Mr. Carroll said it was true that the resources identified in the Chambers Reconsidered process were about the neighborhood and compatibility, but those neighbors did put their feet on the ground and looked at specific parcels within the mixed use center. He said when using the term opportunity siting, it was important to remember for whom it was an opportunity. Neighbors could help with and have ownership of the process by mapping assets. Keeping neighbors involved often and early was important. The opportunity was in finding the overlap where neighborhood goals met development/investor and growth management goals. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Hledik said it would be helpful to the Planning Commission if the City Council would provide examples to illustrate how an opportunity siting idea would apply to a parcel, to enable the commission to better grasp how limiting or flexible the council wanted the commission to be in further developing this strategy. Mr. Kelly apologized to the Planning Commission for the short duration of the day’s work session. He said the commission’s idea on master planning was exciting and had much potential, citing the rail yards as an example. He agreed with previously expressed concerns regarding available resources for duplication of the Chambers Reconsidered process on a citywide basis. He said the Chambers Reconsidered project got ahead of opportunity siting and population allocation discussions and he urged the Planning Commission to get ahead of future things to enable the council to say that it had the big picture. Mr. Kelly said the opportunity planned unit development (PUD) sounded intriguing, and liked the idea that it was a prototype for an alternative path. He asked the Planning Commission to look at it broadly, so that it was an alternative that need not be burdened by Chapter 9 standards for all development. Mr. Kelly expressed nervousness over statements like streamlining the PUD process, adding that he wanted to see focus on the issue. He said it was important to talk about neighborhood involvement rather than neighbor association involvement. Ms. Bettman concurred that streamlining also made her nervous, especially since opportunity siting was predicated on involving the neighborhood and empowering the neighborhood associations through the process of developing density goals. She said the City may need to do a demonstration project. Ms. Taylor asked for more of an explanation of what the Planning Commission meant by streamlining. Ms. Colbath explained that it was not the commission’s intent to streamline past the public involvement component, but noted that time was money. The public involvement was included in the general standards to which PUDs would need to adhere. She said public involvement would come at the front end of projects, as criteria were created for the desired outcome. Mr. Belcher agreed with Ms. Colbath, noting it was important to balance development needs to streamline the process with community needs to ensure that proposed projects were good ones. He suggested that code language could include a requirement that developers needed to meet with impacted neighborhood groups at the time of application. Mr. Lawless said the current process was an eight-step process, and suggested that triaging the process by eliminating unnecessary steps prior to the application process would be beneficial. Ms. Taylor said there may also be lists of activities that developers would know were inappropriate. She was concerned about allocating a certain amount of density to each neighborhood, noting that some neighborhoods were more suited to density levels. She stated the south hills were not suited to the same density requirements as flat areas. Mr. Kelly said the density or population allocation was very important to him. He said one size did not fit all, and the appropriate density in the south hills area because of topography and natural resources would differ from the West University neighborhood. Nevertheless, there was a good way through opportunity siting to arrive at ways to add density, albeit not as much density, to south hills neighborhoods and there was a way to add density to the West University neighborhood. It was a matter of doing specific, and therefore, costly study to develop appropriate allocations. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Pape, that it was important MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 11 Work Session to spend the necessary money to do the project right. Ms. Bettman reminded the Planning Commission that non-residential uses need to adhere to density standards. Additionally, she said the demographics demonstrated that densely populated neighborhoods were declining in population, which was undesirable. She expressed concern that a class society was being developed where some neighborhoods were not subject to density requirements. There are appropriate places in the south hills for density, and it is up to the neighborhood associations to determine where they choose to absorb the density. Those neighborhoods needed to accept their fair share of density. Ms. Piercy thanked the Planning Commission for attending today’s meeting. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 12 Work Session