Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/09/09 Work Session M I N U T E S City Council McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon September 9, 2009 Noon PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, George Brown, members. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. JOINT MEETING WITH EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION The council met jointly with the Eugene Planning Commission. Commissioners present were President Philip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, Rick Duncan, and Jeffrey Mills. Planning and Development Department Director Susan Muir, Planning Division Director Lisa Gardner, City Attorney Emily Jerome, and planners Steve Nystrom and Carolyn Weiss were also present. Planning Commissioners Anne Kneeland and Heidi Bierle were unable to attend. Mayor Piercy thanked the commission for all its hard work and acknowledged those commissioners soon leaving the commission, Mr. Lawless and Mr. Carroll. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Carroll presented the commission’s annual report and noted several completed projects. Ms. Gardner presented both the Planning Division and Planning Commission’s fiscal year 2010 work programs. The Planning Commission solicited council feedback on the commission’s work on the Opportunity Siting Project, Infill Compatibility Standards project, Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment, West Eugene Collaborative recommendations, and West Eugene EmX corridor planning. At the request of Mayor Piercy, Ms. Gardner described the purpose of the Infill Standards and Opportunity Siting projects, explaining that they were intended to help preserve existing residential neighborhoods from the impact of higher density housing. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the frequent conflict between the council’s goals for higher community densities and its desire to mitigate the impact of those densities in existing neighborhoods and the challenge of addressing that conflict. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for remarks made by Mr. Carroll regarding the need for a community vision. She agreed with his suggestion that it would be useful for the City to have a graphic depiction of the future that showed the community what the City would look like if it achieved its planning goals. Responding to a question from Mr. Brown, Ms. Gardner identified carpooling, ride sharing, fixed-route mass transit, and telecommuting as demand management techniques designed to reduce the impact of traffic. Mr. Brown noted the growth management policy related to community policing and determined from Ms. Gardner that the commission had not discussed the subject of community policing for many years. Mr. MINUTES—City Council September 9, 2009 Page 1 Brown suggested that such discussions were really in the purview of the Police Commission. Mr. Brown determined from Ms. Gardner that an assessment of mixed use centers was planned and that she anticipated that the project would look at the strategies the City had chosen to implement mixed-use centers. The City had applied for a State transportation growth management grant to underwrite those costs; it failed to receive that grant and she proposed to fund the project using existing resources given how it important it was. She noted that the State Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) would be meeting in Eugene in October to discuss Eugene-Springfield’s success with the mixed-use center approach. Mr. Brown ascertained from City Attorney Emily Jerome that questions regarding the River Ridge Metro Plan amendment proposal were premature at this time. Mr. Clark suggested that dedicating 12 percent of resources to the topic of mixed-use centers seemed like a high number. He asked about the rationale. Ms. Gardner explained that several projects were involved. She reminded the council of the importance of mixed-use centers to the TransPlan goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled and suggested that it was necessary to devote the resources called for given the importance of that link. She briefly reviewed the projects that would occur and conceded that they were time intensive. Mr. Clark determined from Ms. Gardner that the intention of the projects in question was to further the mixed-use center concept. Mr. Clark said he understood the value of mixed-use centers and their connection to TransPlan. He recalled that Eugene-Springfield had suggested the mixed-use center approach to meet the State-mandated goal. Mr. Clark was concerned that the council had adopted regulations through the minor code amendment process that decreased density and increased the amount of cars on site in particular developments. He said the council seemed to be working against the goals it established. He asked Ms. Gardner to comment on how those amendments worked in harmony with the City’s goals with regard to mixed-use centers. Ms. Gardner said that the issue identified by Mr. Clark was the subject of a remand from the Lane Use Board of Appeals. While she could not speak to the legal issues involved, she reminded Mr. Clark that the code amendments in question were developed by residents of the City’s neighborhoods. She thought that conflict between community goals was an issue the council would be wrestling with in the future. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Clark, Mr. Zelenka said that in the case of the South University Neighbor- hood, the issues for residents was “how dense was dense” and neighborhood compatibility. In the case of the issue of parking, Mr. Zelenka thought the City’s policy was forward thinking but collided with the reality of how many cars people owned today and how many people lived in one apartment. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, regarding the degree to which the commission employed the City’s Growth Management Policies in its daily work, Mr. Duncan acknowledged the challenge of doing so given the inherent conflicts that existed, but indicated the commission used them quite a bit. The commis- sion had a formal way of measuring how it used the policies. Mr. Carroll believed the policies became internalized over the course of the commission’s service. He suggested the question might more appropriately be how usable the policies were. He said they were not readily applicable, and he looked forward to the more graphic vision that he mentioned earlier, a more depictive vision, to assist the community to resolve those internal conflicts. Speaking to Mr. Clark’s question about the resources required for mixed-use centers, Mr. Carroll cited the complexity of the planning process for the Walnut Mixed Use Center as one reason for the projection. He also indicated the form based code approach employed language the commission was unfamiliar with and MINUTES—City Council September 9, 2009 Page 2 commissioners wanted to do things right. Mr. Mills said that as the newest commissioner, he frequently referred to the policies to try to link what he was reviewing to those policies. He found the policies very useful. Mr. Zelenka expressed appreciation for the commission’s willingness to meet jointly with the Sustainability Commission given the connections between those bodies’ work. Mr. Zelenka cited as most important to him, the commission’s work on the infill compatibility standards, opportunity siting, mixed-use centers because of the importance of the Walnut Mixed Use Center to his neighborhood, and the strategic neighborhood plans. Ms. Taylor agreed that completion of the infill compatibility standards were an urgent matter. While work on the standards were in progress, things were happening that were not good for neighborhoods, particularly in the South University Neighborhood. She thought everyone should be concerned about that neighborhood. Ms. Taylor was very interested in tree protection but it had been dropped off the commission’s work plan. She recalled that the City passed a strong ordinance that was remanded by LUBA in 2001, but nothing had been done subsequently to address the issue. She believed that old trees were very important to sustainabili- ty because of their contribution to air quality, and indicated she planned to offer a motion to move work on the remand to the top of the commission’s work plan. In response, Ms. Gardner said that portions of the ordinance referred to by Ms. Taylor were implemented in different ways. She said the council had not ranked the item highly and it was dropped. She suggested staff provide the council with a memorandum regarding existing tree protections. Ms. Taylor asserted that the community’s old trees were being sequentially logged given that people could remove five trees a year. She said that young trees do not serve the same purpose as old trees. Old trees were not replaceable and many in the community were concerned about that. Ms. Taylor asked about the status of height standards. Ms. Jerome indicated the height standards in place before the adoption of the minor code amendments were in place now. The Infill Compatibility Standards Project had produced a recommendation for height restrictions that the council would discuss in October. The minor code amendments remand had also been scheduled for council discussion. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Jerome confirmed that the council could always take action on an ordinance with an emergency clause. Mr. Pryor acknowledged the difficult tasks faced by the commission. He was not inclined to make any changes to the work plan. He thought the commission had based its work plan on a well considered assessment of what it thought could and needed to be done. He acknowledged the conflicts in the growth management policies mentioned by the Mayor and termed those the ‘whack a mole’ aspect of the commis- sion’s work. He thought it was time the council revisited the policies to clarify them and ensure that the commission and staff stayed focused. He recommended that work be done with the assistance of the Planning Commission. While Ms. Ortiz supported the work plan presented to the council, she said it appeared the commission was focusing on the core urban areas of the community and she challenged it to pay attention to the outskirts of the community as well and involve those neighborhood groups in the work it did. Ms. Ortiz mentioned that the Active Bethel Citizens and the Trainsong Neighbors had discussed attempting to do something around the Highway 99 corridor, but she did not think that effort had made progress. She MINUTES—City Council September 9, 2009 Page 3 hoped to get that effort back on track, and suggested it was important both to plan for what one wanted and what one did not want. She did not think the area around Highway 99 had been given enough attention. Ms. Ortiz asked Ms. Gardner the status of the Rasor Park Mixed Use Center Project. Ms. Gardner said the project had concluded. She anticipated the Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan would continue the dialogue begun through that project. She suggested that the action plans could also help to involve the outlying neighborhoods in planning processes, particularly if they lacked the resources of other neighborhood groups. However, due to a lack of resources, no second phase of the Rasor Park Mixed Use Center Project was planned at this time. Ms. Ortiz asked that any outreach to neighborhood groups in the Highway 99 area include outreach to businesses. Mayor Piercy maintained that the community still believed in the growth management policies, but there were tensions between them and she thought that would always be the case. She did not think the policies needed to be changed as much as people needed to understand the intrinsic tensions between them. The community had to figure out the tradeoffs between the policies and reach the best possible decisions. Mayor Piercy noted the City’s climate work plan called for a reduction of the community’s carbon footprints, which required mixed use and that people worked closer to home, and all the pieces fit together and did not stand alone. She thought all the items on the work plan were part of a larger picture and the council needed to keep the connections between them in mind. Speaking to Ms. Ortiz’s comments about paying attention to the community’s edges, Mayor Piercy pointed out the West Eugene Collaborative process, which she thought was evidence that some attention was being paid to those areas. She commended Ms. Ortiz for keeping those issues at the forefront and agreed the council needed to “grow the whole” in the direction the community wanted to be. Mr. Brown also questioned the resources proposed to dedicated to mixed use centers and recalled a commission discussion of the Walnut Mixed Use Center during which commissioners acknowledged the need for a basic plan to meet State mandates but questioned how much more time they should spend given that development itself was out of their control. He believed the same was true for the projects associated with interdepartmental collaboration, including the Eugene Water & Electric Board project and the West th Eugene Collaborative recommendations for West 11 Avenue. He thought that Public Works could address th the immediate traffic improvement strategies needed on West 11 Avenue, but he questioned how much time City staff should spend on the multi-way boulevard concept given that it was dependent on private development and would take years to realize. Mr. Brown questioned the allocation of nine percent for strategic neighborhood action plans and expressed concern the project would result in a new level of neighborhood bureaucracy in the form of a planning committee apart from the elected neighborhood board. He asked why the City would want to do that. He envisioned another level of complexity with no concrete on-the-ground results. He also questioned its inclusion under planning and suggested it should be included in the City Manager’s Office under Neighbor- hood Resources. In response to Mr. Brown’s concerns, Ms. Gardner clarified that the Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans was a program under development and it was unclear what the eventual structure would be. She said there was no attempt to create a separate neighborhood structure. The City’s goal was to ensure that the action plans had the broadest base of community representation possible. The division was working closely with MINUTES—City Council September 9, 2009 Page 4 the City Manager’s Office on the process. She reminded the council that the strategy was an alternative to full updates of all neighborhood plans, which would require most staff resources for up to ten years and a considerable amount of funding. Mr. Brown continued to be concerned about the establishment of separate planning committees and indicated he preferred to amend the work plan to eliminate that provision. Mr. Clark continued to be concerned about the amount of time being dedicated to mixed-use centers. He said that people in Eugene disagree about many things, but most agree they live in Eugene due to the quality of life and the community’s beauty. Nothing affected one’s quality of life as much as being able to take care of one’s family. He said that Eugene-Springfield had double-digit unemployment. The City was participat- ing in work teams to establish regional economic development strategies. He noted the proposed resource split, which called for only one percent of resources to be devoted to developing local economic development code amendments. He thought that was a mistake and called for a broader focus on that issue. He thought it was central to what the community was facing and touched on what was needed to get people back to work. Mr. Clark encouraged the commission to give the issue greater thought. Mr. Zelenka thought the Strategic Neighborhood Action Plans were extremely important due to their connection to neighborhood livability and because the idea came out of the neighborhood summits. He recalled that he had offered a proposal to change the neighborhood empowerment goal to incorporate planning, to give neighborhoods the ability to use the tools in the land use code to preserve their livability. He thought the plans were the next best thing to refinement plan updates and appreciated the concept. He suggested to Mr. Brown that the neighborhood action planning committees, as he envisioned them, would be subcommittees of the neighborhood organizations rather than distinct and separate bureaucracies. Speaking to the issue of the resource allocation for the mixed-use center, Mr. Zelenka thought the topic was very important and key to how Eugene grew. It was also a sustainability and transportation issue. He thought the mixed-use centers had important implications for the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and found the allocation of time appropriate. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the Fiscal Year 2010 Planning Commission and Planning Division Work Plan. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to direct the City Manager to add “Code Amendment to address 2001 Tree Ordinance Remand” to the list of City Council priorities on pages 8-9 of the draft Planning Division Work Plan and to accommodate this addition by reducing the percentage of staff resources from the Council Priority project “Mixed Use Centers” from twelve percent to four percent and delaying the target completion date of this priority project to the year 2012. The motion failed: 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting yes. The main motion passed on a vote of 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting no. Mayor Piercy thanked the commission for its hard work. She supported Mr. Clark’s remarks regarding economic development, but found elements of economic development in the mixed-use centers, infill compatibility standards, and opportunity siting. Mr. Zelenka requested that staff provide the memorandum on tree protections mentioned earlier. MINUTES—City Council September 9, 2009 Page 5 B. WORK SESSION: Joint Elected Officials Metro Plan Amendments Ms. Gardner and Ms. Jerome were present for the item. Ms. Gardner indicated the work session was a follow-up to the June 1, 2009, joint elected officials meeting regarding the development of a work plan to initiate specific regionally based changes to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan). She recalled that the elected officials directed staff to develop a work plan with a timeline, cost estimates, and implications of specific changes to the Metro Plan. Attachment A in the meeting packet included a list of regional issues that would be addressed through amendments. Mr. Clark commended the staff work the subcommittee of elected officials charged to develop the list of issues had received. Ms. Ortiz said initially several subcommittee members wanted to look at changes to the Metro Plan. Once it had been explained how expensive and time-consuming such a process was, participants agreed that now was not the time. Ms. Gardner agreed. She said that staff had reviewed the costs of a full amendment as opposed to a more surgical “fix.” She said the subcommittee members found several areas of overlap to agree upon, and those were reflected in the attachment. Other issues could be addressed within a separate timeline. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct staff to proceed with development of a Metro Plan work plan to address regional issues as identified in Attachment A. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session at 1:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz, City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—City Council September 9, 2009 Page 6