Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/28/11 Work SessionMINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room —City Hall 777 Pearl Street — Eugene, Oregon February 28, 2011 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka, Pat Farr. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Heidi Bierle, Chair; Jeffrey Mills, Vice Chair; Jon Belcher, Randy Hledik, William Randall. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Richard Duncan, Lisa Warnes. In the absence of Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy, Council President Betty Taylor called the February 28, 2011, joint work session of the Eugene City Council and Eugene Planning Commission to order. Also present for the item were City Manager Jon Ruiz, Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary, City Attorney Glenn Klein, Deputy City Attorney Emily Jerome, Planning Director Lisa Gardner, Community Development Director Mike Sullivan, and Terri Harding, Carolyn Weiss, Alissa Hansen, and Jason Dedrick of the Planning Division. A. JOINT WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION: Envision Eugene Strategies and Tactics Mr. Dedrick provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Economic Opportunities Pillar Strategies and Tactics. The presentation highlighted the six strategies and associated tactics for the pillar Provide ample economic opportunities for all community members and included information about downtown redevelopment rates and the community's supply of industrial lands. Councilors and commissioners asked questions clarifying the information presented. Strategy 1: Meet all of the 20 -Year commercial land needs within the existing urban growth boundary. Strategy 2: Implement the Joint Elected Officials Prosperity Economic Development Plan and complete the following actions: ])feasibility study of developing a green energy cluster (wood products); 2) feasibility study of development an intermodal rail -truck transport hub. Strategy 3: Consolidate and develop or redevelop existing vacant lands and developed sites. Strategy 4: Support the development or redevelopment of industrial sites that are and will remain outside the urban growth boundary. Strategy S: Determine an appropriate portfolio of industrial sites. MINUTES — Eugene City Council/ February 28, 2010 Page 1 Eugene Planning Commission Joint Work Session Strategy 6.• Additional work to determine the timing and amount of industrial land needed outside the urban growth boundary to address portfolio. Ms. Bierle and Mr. Zelenka arrived during the presentation. Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary facilitated discussion and solicited comments and additional questions from those present. Speaking to Strategy 2, Mr. Brown determined from Mr. Dedrick that it spoke to the potential of Eugene - Springfield as a hub for container transport. Mr. Brown observed that use took up considerable space without much added value. He said that Eugene should accommodate that use to some degree, but he did not recommend pursuing it as a major part of the strategy. City Manager Ruiz clarified that the City would investigate the feasibility of such an approach. He noted the port status that had been granted to Coos Bay and suggested that would impact Eugene as part of the larger region. Mr. Brown determined from Mr. Dedrick that the source of the public funds to support an industrial land bank was not yet known and that question would be examined through a feasibility study. Ms. Taylor asked if Goshen was aware that Eugene was looking toward it to supply a percentage of the region's industrial lands. Mr. Dedrick did not know. He noted that Lane County was studying the Goshen area with the idea of securing an exception to State law to allow it to serve the area. Ms. Taylor asked what type of industry needed 100 acres of land to operate. Mr. Dedrick cited high technology industries that produced products related to solar and wind as examples. Mr. Zelenka believed Goshen made sense as a location for industrial expansion because it had many industrial sites that could be redeveloped, it was proximate to Eugene - Springfield, and it was located on Interstate 5. Mr. Zelenka referred to Strategy 3 and determined from Mr. Dedrick that the reference to the industrial land trust was to a concept based on the West Eugene Wetlands Partnership but intended to facilitate the consolidation of industrial sites. Mr. Zelenka asked what thought had gone into the Brownfield mediation pilot project mentioned in the tactics associated with Strategy 3. Mr. Dedrick said the costs of the pilot and the availability of grant funding for mediation had been discussed, as well as the fact there were such sites in Eugene that might not be officially documented Brownfields but that were in fact Brownfields because they contained such things as old log ponds. Mr. Zelenka observed that there were few good examples of Brownfield reuse that had not required government intervention due to the cost of such redevelopment. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the third tactic under Strategy 3 be reworded to indicate the intent was to make the development process easier in light of constraints on industrial lands. Mr. Clark believed that Eugene had parcels with wetlands and drainage ways that were not officially mapped or designated for protection but could serve as constraints to the development of those parcels. He asked if the City took those features into consideration when it considered the industrial lands supply. Mr. Dedrick said such wetlands, which were not included on the local wetland inventory, still required State and federal permitting to be developed. The State had indicated to Eugene in the past that it must assume that such sites were developable if they were not locally protected. The City now was able to MINUTES— Eugene City Council/ February 28, 2010 Page 2 Eugene Planning Commission Joint Work Session look at such sites more holistically than in the past and take a more qualitative approach to them. For example, it might be that the permitting requirements for a 50 -acre industrial site with 30 acres of wetlands reduced the developable acreage on the site, allowing the City to make practical as well as legal determinations about what could be done on the site. Mr. Clark observed that the City had gone through the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment to determine its land need, but that need was based on assumptions that, for example, the hypothetical site mentioned by Mr. Dedrick was actually 50 acres of available land. He asked what the City was doing to remediate the need when it removed such acreage from the supply. Mr. Dedrick pointed out the City had more industrial acreage than it projected the need for. However, when staff examined the supply it realized most of the industrially designated parcels were small in size and there were few large industrial parcels. The State had facilitated an examination outside the formal lands assessment process by acknowledging the need for cities to consider long -term economic possibilities. Mr. Clark questioned what the City would do if its plans for a property were not the same as those of the property owner. Mr. Dedrick did not anticipate the City would identify lot -by -lot redevelopment opportunities but staff would monitor the implementation of the policies over time. If certain redevelopment assumptions were not being met, it was possible to revisit and adjust them in the future. The City would attempt to both follow and plan for the marketplace using incentives and tools different than those currently in place. Mr. Clark asked what the City was doing to evaluate the marketplace. Mr. Dedrick said staff considered the financial aspects of the land supply but had not surveyed property owners about their intentions. He said such surveys might be appropriate at the area planning stage. Ms. Ortiz suggested that land assembly of underutilized land might a way to facilitate redevelopment in areas of west Eugene. Ms. Ortiz observed that 400 acres of need was a lot. She was disappointed by the lack of large industrial parcels in Eugene. Ms. Ortiz asked what incentive a business would have to locate inside the urban growth boundary where taxes were higher if land was available outside the boundary. Mr. Dedrick said that the provision of services was one reason. He noted that under the approach contemplated, areas outside the boundary would not be included until needed. Mr. Zelenka endorsed Mr. Dedrick's remarks about monitoring and readjusting the strategies as needed. Mr. Zelenka asked how Eugene would manage the addition of more industrial acreage and how it would prevent land values in the areas to be brought inside the urban growth boundary from skyrocketing. Mr. Dedrick suggested that the rate at which City services were extended to such areas was one way of managing the addition. He believed that such lands could be incorporated in a planned fashion. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Dedrick said the 400 acre number was based on the need for large industrial parcels and was the result of the work of the Community Resource Group (CRG), which was not necessarily in consensus on the exact number but was in consensus about the need for large industrial parcels. Mr. Zelenka requested a background memorandum explaining how the number was arrived at. Mr. Pryor appreciated the logic of trying to take something of limited value in the form of small industrial sites and converting them to greater value by rezoning them to commercial. He believed that approach MINUTES— Eugene City Council/ February 28, 2010 Page 3 Eugene Planning Commission Joint Work Session also provided support to the concepts of redevelopment and conversion. Mr. Pryor emphasized the importance of identifying the acres in question soon. Mr. Farr recalled that the CRG had considerable discussion of the subject of the needed acreage and members had been "all over the board." He believed the actual math justified the 400 acre number. City Manager Ruiz concurred. Mr. Farr did not think it was an exact number, and he anticipated that much of the land needed would be added in a "just -in- time" fashion. He emphasized the importance of larger parcels. Ms. O'Donnell continued the PowerPoint presentation. She discussed the strategies associated with the pillar Provide affordable housing for all income levels and noted their connection to the housing mix and housing mix ranges. She anticipated the Technical Resource Group, a subcommittee of the CRG, would continue to work on the issue. Ms. O'Donnell shared the housing mix ranges under discussion and noted the benefits of the ranges identified by community members. Councilors and commissioners asked questions clarifying the information presented. Strategy 1: Plan for a higher proportion of new housing stock to be multi family than the 39 percent of multi family that currently exists. Increasing the proportion of multi family housing increases the amount of housing accessible to all income levels. Mr. Clark said that as a result of past planning, Eugene had experienced slower growth in the number of families with children and decreased demand for single- family detached housing. He suggested that if the community planned for more of the same it would get it, and that meant more young families moving to outlying communities so they could live in single - family homes. That meant declining school enrollment and difficulty funding the schools. He did not want to continue that pattern. Mr. Clark asked if the City wanted to force leapfrog sprawl and increase the number of people who worked in Eugene but lived elsewhere. He preferred to keep those families in Eugene and suggested that the City needed to "get very real" about what the market place really wanted. He asked if the City really knew that young families wanted to live in multi - family housing. His experience suggested that they did not. He recommended that the City consider census data from the entire region when considering the mix. Mr. Farr suggested that the facts mentioned by Mr. Clark could also be attributed to a lack of affordable single- family housing in Eugene. Those with median incomes could not afford Eugene's median house prices. He asked how much thought staff had given to the question of people who did not have the option of single - family detached housing, although such housing was their preference. Mr. Pryor believed the question of housing mix represented a pivotal point in conversation. He said it was also challenging because the City was attempting to predict future demographic and economic shifts. Mr. Pryor suggested the housing mix was also affected by the suppliers. Homebuilders did not want to build low - income housing because they made more money building more costly housing. He maintained that the trends in Eugene were not driven by the market but by the suppliers. Mr. Pryor believed that buyers, builders, and planners needed to recognize that and shift their thinking. He encouraged people to Put aside traditional thinking and gather all the information possible. In response to Mr. Clark's comments, Mr. Zelenka averred that school districts were "declining everywhere." He also maintained that young families did not drive the housing market; the housing market was driven by the "boomers." Mr. Zelenka asserted that the "boomers" were downsizing and wanted to live downtown. Multi - family developments were being built for "downsizing boomers." He suspected that the trend was toward multi - family housing and suggested the council review the data MINUTES — Eugene City Council/ February 28, 2010 Page 4 Eugene Planning Commission Joint Work Session examined by EcoNorthwest. He believed a 55/45 single - family /multi - family split was heading the right direction and predicted the community would not experience more single - family detached development. However, Mr. Zelenka said that did not mean the result would be "giant apartment complexes" but rather developments like high- density row houses, for which there would be increasing demand. He pointed out the row house development near him sold before it was built. Assistant City Manager Medary suggested that the strategies related to the pillar regarding adaptive, flexible implementation could address some of the concerns related to the housing mix. Ms. Ortiz was glad State law considered trends. In her neighborhood people lived together because they did not have a choice. She said the assumptions staff was talking about were for people who had choices and could afford to live where they wanted to. Those people got to move to Veneta. In her neighborhood all large houses had rooms for rent because people could not afford to live alone. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor that the council could not predict the future. She said the City could not discern people's intent. If people had choices, they would move where they wanted to be, and she did not know if the City could anything about that. However, she wanted to ensure choices existed. Mr. Randall suggested that as the City examined the housing mix it also keep in mind minimum and maximum lot sizes. He believed that people would still want single - family detached houses but it could be possible to achieve higher densities through smaller lot sizes. Mr. Belcher said that as gas prices continued to rise, one needed to consider the economic costs of living farther out from the core. Mr. Clark believed the City needed information about regional trends, not just the trends in Eugene. He thought it important to look at the impacts of Eugene decisions on other communities. He also hoped the City would look at a demand analysis for housing. He was aware of a row house type of development near his residence that went unsold for nearly two years and was eventually auctioned off. Mr. Farr observed that trends could be manufactured by limiting what was available. He said Eugene trends were based on what people could afford and what was available. He suggested the question to consider was what people would choose if given more choices, rather than the choices themselves. Ms. Hansen continued the PowerPoint presentation by highlighting the strategies and associated tactics for the pillar Provide for adaptable, flexible, and collaborative implementation. Strategy 1: Create an ongoing monitoring system to collect and track key information. Strategy 2: Develop systems for tracking the key information described above, and producing clear, publicly available reports for the purpose of continuous evaluation of the effectiveness of the Envision Eugene strategies. Strategy 3: Create a dynamic Eugene - specific comprehensive plan to address emerging needs. Strategy 4: Continually evaluate and regularly adjust regulations through a collaborative code simplification program. Strategy 5: Collaboratively plan and partner with surrounding jurisdictions and agencies on such efforts as regional public facilities and services, regional transportation /climate planning, and protection of high -value farmland and natural resources. MINUTES — Eugene City Council/ February 28, 2010 Page 5 Eugene Planning Commission Joint Work Session Strategy 6: Develop an implementation tool, such as design review or through Opportunity Siting, to support efficient and flexible review of development proposals that address the needs identified in Envision Eugene and have broad neighborhood support. Mr. Clark suggested that adjustments to the strategies should occur when an evaluation identified the need, rather later. Ms. Hansen did not think that was precluded, but suggested that some delay could give the City time to more fully monitor the impact or identify related trends. She emphasized that the intent was for flexibility. Mr. Clark emphasized the importance of keeping the code current with what was happening on the ground, and recommended that the City create a mechanism to trigger updates to its regulations when issues were identified. Ms. Taylor adjourned the work session at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beth Forrest City Recorder (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES— Eugene City Council/ February 28, 2010 Page 6 Eugene Planning Commission Joint Work Session