Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/10/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon August 10, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment Jason Dedrick of the Planning and Development Department provided responses to questions raised by the council at its July 22, 2009, meeting. He said the Infill Compatibility Siting (ICS) study was on a slightly different timeline than the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA), with ECLA concluding by the end of 2009, and ICS continuing into 2010. He said the ICS process was addressing how infill could occur instead of whether it would occur. He felt the amendments that emerged from that process would not have a large impact at the aggregate, citywide level, which was where ECLA functioned, although any amendment affecting the housing supply would include documentation of how that would be addressed. The ECLA process would incorporate any new amendments that occurred prior to its conclusion. He said it was also possible that the Opportunity Siting (OS) process could result in impacts that balanced those of ICS. He said employment growth rate was projected at 1.4 percent over the next twenty years, based on the State forecast and implicit in that rate was an assumption that there might be years when the rate was higher or lower. Mr. Clark asked if the employment growth rate was a policy issue or intended to demonstrate that Eugene was following the appropriate formula with its model. Mr. Dedrick said it was both; if the City chose that rate the State considered it “safe harbor” because it was based on the State forecast. The City could use a different figure, but did not currently have data that suggested one. That policy question could be addressed by the council during its September review of the ECLA process. Ms. Taylor expressed concern with the assumptions as they did not appear to consider the City’s adopted sustainabil- ity principles, which would affect things like the amount of infill that was allowed. Mr. Dedrick said the baseline numbers being used were based either on historical data from the last several years or a published forecast. Staff could prepare variations on those numbers if the council wished to look at higher or lower development rates and impacts on the land supply. Ms. Taylor preferred to see assumptions that considered sustainability instead of just being based on historical data. She asked why the ECLA community advisory committee was no longer meeting. Mr. Dedrick replied that the committee’s work had been concluded, but the ECLA process would move forward through 2009. He said committee members would continue to be involved as interested parties and kept apprised of the process. Ms. Taylor asked for a minority report from the committee. She noted that the employment projections were higher than the population growth rate. Mr. Dedrick said the difference in numbers was due in part to Eugene’s role as the MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 1 Work Session County’s employment center and provided jobs for people other than residents of the City. Ms. Gardner said the community committee was a department advisory committee and the group functioned in such a way that no minority opinion surfaced, although any member of the committee could provide their individual comments to the council. Ms. Piercy said it appeared that there was a desire to have a policy discussion at some point on future economic development, as well as how it could be guided by sustainability principles. Mr. Zelenka observed that half of the people who worked in Eugene were not residents. He asked what prevented the baseline assumption from becoming the only path forward, instead of using several scenarios to project future growth. Mr. Dedrick said the decision to move away from scenarios, which had broad policy implications, was made in order to complete the products required by House Bill (HB) 3337 in a timely manner. Staff was at the point of beginning to look at variables and the committee had provided some guidance on the direction those should take. Mr. Zelenka asked how the ECLA process and council’s policy discussions would relate to any consideration of expanding the urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Dedrick said determination of a land needs number through the ECLA process was not tied to any amendments to the UGB. There were three routes to meet that land need: amendment of the UGB, efficiency measures established through policy or some combination of both. Mr. Zelenka asked if it was possible to avoid using the initial baseline number unchanged through the entire projection period. Mr. Dedrick said the economy over the past 12 months had been factored in to reduce the employment base to a more realistic figure and the council could also discuss how it wished to alter that 1.4 percent growth rate. Mr. Zelenka noted that the proposed motion was to move forward with the baseline assumptions and questioned what that meant. Mr. Dedrick said it was intended to indicate that staff was on the right track with respect to data analysis, but periodic reports to the council over the next several months could include discussions of variations in data that the council wished to have analyzed before any final determination. City Manager Jon Ruiz clarified that staff would be testing some assumptions suggested by the advisory committee and reporting results to the council in late September and the council would have an opportunity to direct staff to explore other assumptions. Mr. Pryor indicated that he was comfortable with using the baseline assumptions as a starting point for policy discussions and in order to satisfy HB 3337 requirements to provide data. He said the assumptions did not commit the council to a policy direction; those discussions would occur during the process. Mr. Brown said the City’s current unemployment rate was approximately 15 percent and it would take several years to recover at an employment growth rate of 1.4 percent. He asked if the baseline assumptions could be examined at some point in the future to determine the real growth rate and adjusted if necessary before there was any considera- tion of expanding the UGB. Mr. Dedrick said the periodic review process was intended to do that. Mr. Clark asked how the new population growth figures developed by Portland State University (PSU) and adopted by the County had changed the growth rates for surrounding cities such as Coburg, Veneta and Elmira; resulting in a larger percentage of the projected population growth going to smaller cities than Eugene and Springfield. He understood that the PSU number showed 12,000 fewer people in the City of Eugene as a function of projected growth than the safe harbor numbers. Ms. Gardner agreed that was the general trend. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Clark questioned how those growth assumptions took into account the City’s growth policy related to working cooperatively with urban partners and nearby cities to avoid urban sprawl and preserve rural character outside the UGB. Ms. Gardner said that issue had not been specifically considered in the ECLA process but could be pursued in future conversations. Mr. Zelenka commented that growth rates, such as construction of single-family homes and density of development, were dramatically different over the last three years than the figures reflected in averages over the last eight years. He asked if it would be more accurate to use recent numbers in the model rather than averages. Mr. Dedrick said the period of time for which data was reviewed was defined by statute as since the last code update, 2001-2008. He said the committee felt the average of 64 percent for single- family dwellings seemed high. A review of the last 30 years indicated that 55 percent was more realistic as larger developments could have a disproportionate impact in a shorter period of time. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the density per acre and housing type figures should be modified. Mr. Dedrick replied that the advisory committee had already asked to see both higher and lower variables for housing mix and housing density in scenarios. Ms. Taylor asked why the council had to pass a motion instead of waiting for other scenarios. She said the motion language seemed to mean the recommended values were being accepted. Mr. Dedrick said the motion would inform staff that the baseline data was an acceptable starting point. He said staff would continue to provide scenarios. Ms. Taylor asked if a 1.4 percent employment growth rate indicated how much land would be needed as well as the number of jobs. Mr. Dedrick said the employment forecast translated into jobs created and the City would need to plan for land. Trends indicated the employment sectors, job types and density that could be anticipated. The council could express a preference for certain types of jobs. Mr. Brown thought the 1.4 percent employment growth rate over 20 years was too high because it would take several years for the City to recover jobs lost in the past two years. He asked if the PSU forecast was the basis for the employment growth data. Mr. Dedrick said the PSU forecast was only relevant to housing. Ms. Ortiz remarked that staff was going in the right direction. She pointed out that one large employer could make up for the recent job losses. She looked forward to future conversations as more scenarios were developed. Ms. Piercy commented that small cities had strong opinions about their destinies and Eugene had no ability to control their desires for growth, but all jurisdictions in Lane County should plan cooperatively for the future. Mr. Clark asked that the council have an informed conversation about accelerating the growth rate at which jobs were recovered and the impact that might have on land need. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved, with the understanding that there would be dif- ferent scenarios in the future, to direct the City Manager to move forward with the baseline assumptions, which is a starting point, expressed as recommended values in column 2 of At- tachment C, for the analysis of future employment land needs, residential land needs, and public and semi-public land needs. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to add the following at the end of the motion: “as a baseline to inform the policy discussions and development of future scenarios.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka restated his motion: I move to direct the City Manager to move forward with the baseline assumptions expressed as recommended values in column 2 of Attachment C, for the analysis of future employment land needs, residential land needs, and public and semi-public land needs as a starting point baseline that will inform future scenarios and poli- cy discussions. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Brown and Ms. Taylor voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Downtown Outcomes Amanda Nobel Flannery, Planning and Development Department, used a slide presentation to provide an overview of the agenda materials. She identified the common themes and aspirations for downtown that had emerged during the planning activities to date and provided some sample outcomes: ? Downtown as a regional center – a strong economic center that drew everybody downtown ? Building downtown – collaborating with businesses, property owners and developers to generate projects ? Enhancing special places – downtown character identity and civic pride, including open space and public art ? Getting around – making it easier to get to and through downtown by bike, car, walking or transit The councilors each wrote several desired outcomes on slips of paper that were collected by staff and organized in categories. Mr. Ruiz stated that staff would develop the outcomes in the collective statements for the council to review. He asked if there were any issues that had not been addressed during the exercise. Ms. Taylor said refurbishing City Hall should be added to the list. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern that bringing the subject of urban renewal districts into the discussion would divert attention from downtown development. She preferred the future of the urban renewal district to be a separate conversation. Mr. Pryor agreed that the discussion at this point should be at the visionary, not the proposal level; the urban renewal district was a specific strategy. Mr. Brown asserted that all of the discussion was headed toward amendment of the downtown urban renewal district. He had many specific questions on that subject and felt it should be discussed very soon. He saw no value in the council’s visioning exercise as nothing new had been added to the list of outcomes developed in earlier planning processes. Mr. Clark felt it was productive to have a larger visioning conversation to help the community see and support an image of what downtown could be. He said there would not be fundamental change downtown until the council was willing to take bolder steps such as locating a new city hall on the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site and making the current City Hall into a farmers’ market. Those were actions that would significantly change how downtown was used. Ms. Piercy noted that the council composition had been different during earlier discussions of downtown’s future; the current council had not yet confirmed its common vision. She hoped there was an opportunity to work collaborative- ly with the County. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Pryor and Ms. Ortiz that the urban renewal district should be discussed separately. He said it was time to take action instead of just discussing a vision for downtown. Ms. Taylor said actions should be incremental, organic and local and do no harm. She said those things worth keeping should be nurtured. Ms. Piercy remarked that the many conversations about downtown were moving the City toward action. Ms. Ortiz affirmed that ongoing discussions about downtown were important until actions were taken. She said revitalization of downtown was an important task. Mr. Pryor hoped that current and future conversations about downtown would be more collaborative and productive as some prior discussions had been divisive. Mr. Brown said he did not understand the purpose of the process, other than to create some type of document, followed by a discussion of tools to implement strategies. He said one of the tools was the downtown urban renewal district and that was where the conversation was leading. He said the council should “cut to the chase” and begin discussing specific projects and plans. Mr. Ruiz summarized that the council wanted to define what it wanted to accomplish downtown, and then determine how that should be accomplished, including use of the urban renewal district. He noted that the council had acted to pursue several redevelopment projects and address public safety and parking issues at the same time it was refining the vision for downtown. Mr. Zelenka said it was important to move through the visioning phase as quickly as possible and develop a specific list of activities and estimated costs so the council could begin to discuss how to pay for those. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 5 Work Session