Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/10/08 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon March 10, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor (by telephone). Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Ms. Taylor would be participating by telephone from Washington, DC. A. ACTION: Resolution 4932 Calling a City Election on May 20, 2008, for the Purpose of Referring to the Electors of the City of Eugene Ordinance No. 20401 Amending Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337, to Extend the Sunset of $0.02 Per Gallon of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business License Tax until February 28, 2011 Mayor Piercy said the County had conducted its first round of validation on the petition and the signatures had not been acceptable; a second validation was underway and she expected results in three or four days. City Attorney Jerome Lidz outlined the council’s choices with regard to the ordinance it adopted in January 2008, extending the sunset provision of a portion of the gas tax. He said signatures had been gathered to refer that ordinance to an election and the County was in the process of validating the petition. He reviewed the options set forth in the agenda item summary, which included repealing the ordinance, sending the measure to the May ballot, taking no action and allowing the measure to go to a September election if there were sufficient signatures, and referring a competing measure to the September ballot. Ms. Bettman said she was inclined to take no action and wait until there was a final determination on petition signatures before taking action. She understood that if the council took no action the ordinance was not enforceable if there were enough signatures to refer it to the ballot and the $0.02 would not be collected through September. If there was no other competing measure, the council had the option to move the election to November. Mr. Lidz said the council did not currently have the option to move the election; it was one of the election code amendments that would be considered later on the agenda. Mr. Poling said he was inclined to accept the City Manager’s recommendation to adopt a resolution and place it on the May ballot. He pointed out that the $0.02 tax was enacted until other funding sources were sought and that had not yet happened; it was not a new tax. He preferred the less expensive option of placing the measure on the May ballot to that of a special election. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Poling about avoiding the expense of a special election. He felt the people had a right to vote on the matter and asked what the threshold was for valid signatures. City Recorder Mary Feldman said the County was required to use a statistical sampling methodology, which varied from one petition to another. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Clark said it would be difficult to pass the measure and would be in favor of repealing the ordinance and saving the voters the expense of an election. Mr. Zelenka reiterated that it was not a new tax; it was a continuation of an existing tax. He preferred a May election consistent with the City Manager’s recommendation. He said there were a wide range of gas prices in the metropolitan area and the $0.02 tax probably had little impact on consumer choices. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Taylor indicated they would support the City Manager’s recommendation. Mayor Piercy pointed out that $17 million in gas tax revenue had gone to pothole repairs throughout the community. Mr. Zelenka added that all gas tax revenue was dedicated by law to road repairs. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution No. 4932, Calling a City Election on May 20, 2008, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene, if the Requisite Signatures Were Obtained on the Referendum Petition, Ordinance No. 20401 Amending Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337, to Extend the Sunset of $0.02 per Gallon of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business License Tax Until February 28, 2011. Mr. Clark moved to substitute a motion to repeal Ordinance No. 20401. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the sunset provision was extended instead of being repealed because the gas station owners asked the City for the opportunity to work with the legislature to institute a statewide gas tax; the City’s tax could be repealed if a statewide tax left the City whole. He said the gas tax was being extended because there had not yet been a funding solution at the State level. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the preparation and distribution of a vot- ers pamphlet for the May 20, 2008, Primary Election and authorize the expenditure of up to $25,000 for the voters pamphlet. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add language regarding the requisite number of signatures. Mr. Pryor accepted the amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to appoint Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka and Chris Pryor to the Voters’ Pamphlet Proponent Committee for the ballot measure on Ordinance No. 20401, should the requisite number of signatures be verified. The motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor left the meeting at 5:50 p.m. th B. WORK SESSION: Neighborhood Infill/19 and Alder Proposal Terri Harding of the Planning Division provided an overview of a development proposal for a seven-story, th 52-unit apartment building at the corner of 19 Avenue and Alder Street. She said neighbors had expressed MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 2 Work Session concern about the compatibility of the development with the surrounding neighborhood and Mr. Zelenka had posed several questions related to those concerns, which were addressed in the agenda item summary and related materials. She said the developer had indicated the price of the property was based on its zoning and development potential and it was necessary to build a certain number of units to make a profit on the property. She said the possibility of a multi-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE) might make a smaller building feasible, but the MUPTE boundary would need to be expanded to include the site. Ms. Harding said a moratorium on the building was not recommended because of the process requirements which would take longer than 45 days, during which time a building permit could be submitted. She said the Minor Code Amendments Process (MiCAP) was unlikely to affect the height of a building on the site, although parking provisions could require increased parking on the site. She said any other code amend- ments that might resolve the issue would be subject to a process that would require at least four months. She said the question of whether to expand the definition of infill to address the number of residents per apartment would be forwarded to the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team for evaluation as part th of the ICS process. She said designating the area directly south of the University on 19 Avenue between Hilyard and Agate streets would also be explored. Ms. Harding reviewed the council’s options and said the City Manager recommended option 1 and 3 related to working with neighborhood residents on long-term city-wide solutions through the ICS process and working with the developer to encourage consideration of the neighborhood’s concerns. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Harding illustrated the existing zoning in the neighborhood on an aerial photograph. Ms. Bettman said she could support the City Manager’s recommendation but would offer a motion to amend it. She objected to revising the MUPTE boundary for one particular project and if the council wished to provide a subsidy in exchange for certain design changes it should look to other funding sources. She said it was ironic that some development was allowed at the lowest possible density in outlying neighborhoods while the highest possible density was required in the urban core. She said a minimum density requirement compatible with the City’s objective of absorbing population growth without expanding the urban growth boundary should be imposed on new development. Mr. Zelenka said the residents do not object to development; but wanted it to be compatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhood through a graceful transition instead of an abrupt edge. He would propose a number of amendments to the City Manager’s recommendation to address that concern. Mr. Clark related that he had toured the site and observed the existing parking problems in the area, which would be compounded by the proposed development, although the developer was simply following the rules established by the City. He hoped a way could be found to mitigate the impact, but this issue reflected the quandary of the City’s growing up or out. He asked if Alder Street would be altered in any way. Ms. Harding replied there were no plans to change the street. Mr. Pryor said the council’s involvement in attempting to resolve the conflict between the developer’s need for a financially viable project and the neighborhood’s concern with compatibility would be to find a solution that recognized both of those interests. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz agreed it was a difficult issue to resolve and it was about balancing the interests of both sides. She would support the recommendation to require the developer and the neighborhood to continue working together to find a solution. Mayor Piercy stated it was a classic example of trying to live more densely, but that should not mean having to choose between greater density and neighborhood character. Mr. Zelenka commended the developer’s willingness to discuss neighborhood concerns. He said this issue could be thought of in two stages: short-term issues with the compatibility of this project and long-term issues related to zoning along the south edge of the University of Oregon campus. Mr. Clark asserted that the City’s policies should be designed to be clear and dependable for those who were subject to them and he hoped to see greater clarity about the intent and policies so the council did not need to become involved in mitigating this type of conflict. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to direct staff to work with residents toward compatibility solutions through the ICS process. In addition, direct staff to contact the developer and residents immediately and continue to work toward mutually beneficial solutions. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to amend the motion by including the fol- lowing language: to direct the City Manager to pursue through the Minor Code Amend- ment Process code amendments that would mitigate the following impacts from incompati- ble infill: ? Excessive building height in R-3 and R-4 zones that are proximal to R-1 zones, ? Excessive demand for on-street parking by multi-family development in R-3 and R-4 zones with a substantial number of dwelling units that have five or more bedrooms, ? Include a definition in the code’s glossary for “Residential Character” to mean that the use, zoning or development of land or structure that is residential vs. non-residential, as well as the particular nature and character of the current or potential residential use, zoning or development. Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her motion. She said people were not opposed to all density; they were opposed to incompatible density. She said the issues identified were relevant to neighborhoods across the City. Ms. Harding noted that excessive on-street parking demand was currently being addressed in the MiCAP process. Regarding excessive building height, she said the current code offered protection by limiting height of development in R-3 and R-4 to 30 feet if it was within 50 feet of an R-1 zone. She was concerned about how Ms. Bettman’s amendment would affect the rest of R-4 and R-3 zones and developers’ ability to attain the higher densities the City sought. She felt the MiCAP process would be slowed by adding items that would require deeper analysis. She was not certain that adding the definition would address the problem when a development went directly to a building permit. Mr. Zelenka offered friendly amendments to change the reference in the second bulleted item from five or more bedrooms to three or more bedrooms and to add the following MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 4 Work Session phrase at the end of the first bulleted item: to reflect a height transition into the R-1 zoned area. Ms. Bettman accepted both friendly amendments. In response to questions from Mr. Clark, Ms. Harding said the amendment would expand the building height trigger that was already in the code. She said MiCAP staff would need to rethink the code amendment that was currently being proposed if the motion passed. Mr. Clark reiterated his primary concern was to achieve certainty and clarity in the code amendment process so that developers would understand the implications of purchasing a property zoned R-4. He did not want each development proposal to be subjected to council intervention. He was in favor of a lower threshold for parking requirements. Ms. Solomon preferred to let the ICS Task Team review the issues. She objected to adding items to the th MiCAP process at this point. She was concerned with changing the rules after the developer of the 19 and Alder property had research the code and purchased property with a specific development in mind. She did not want to frustrate developers who were necessary to helping the City achieve its goals. th City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that any of the amendments being discussed would not affect the 19 and Alder project as long as the developer submitted his building permit application before the amendments were approved by the council. Mr. Poling was not opposed to adding the items to the code amendment work plan and did not feel they would affect the developer because it would take some time to complete the amendment process. The vote on the motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to add a requirement for the City Council to send a letter to the developer encouraging him to work with the neighbors to make the project more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; to direct staff to include the area south of the University from Alder Street to Agate Street as a test case for the ICS process; to direct staff to have the ICS investigate and make high priority alternative definitions of density, including people per acre instead of units per acre, and in- vestigate enforcement mechanisms; to direct the staff to have the ICS investigate and make a high priority alternative parking requirements, including consideration of people per acre rather than merely number of units; and have staff bring back options for incentives for making the project more sustainable and more compatible. Ms. Bettman indicated she was withdrawing her second unless the language related to incentives was removed. Mr. Zelenka agreed to remove that language from his motion. Ms. Bettman confirmed her second to the motion without incentive language. Mr. Clark expressed concern that there was not adequate time to fully discuss and understand the implica- tions of some items in Mr. Zelenka’s motion. Ms. Solomon said the motion dealt with items that spoke to the larger issue of infill, which should be discussed at a separate work session. She was loath to direct the ICS to make certain items priorities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 5 Work Session The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor. The main motion as amended passed unanimously, 7:0. C. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Evaluation Process City Manager pro tem Angel Jones introduced Alana Holmes of Human Resources to outline the short-term and comprehensive evaluation processes for the police auditor. She suggested a shortened evaluation process to review the past year since Cris Beamud was hired as the Police Auditor, followed by development of a comprehensive evaluation process. She reviewed the materials contained in the agenda packet, which identified several options for the council to consider and invited feedback. Mayor Piercy thanked Ms. Beamud and the Citizen Review Board (CRB) for their hard work. She characterized the purpose of an evaluation as being helpful and providing information that could be used to move forward. She supported the idea of a shortened evaluation at this point and a more comprehensive evaluation next time. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mayor Piercy’s comments. She noted that Eugene’s police auditor model was unique. She said the ordinance was clear that the CRB would establish criteria and evaluate the work of the auditor’s office. She supported providing a verbal evaluation to the police auditor, using the Checklist Summary Form: Police Auditor Evaluation included as Attachment A to obtain feedback from the CRB and tasking the CRB with developing a recommendation to the council for a comprehensive annual evaluation process as set forth in Option A. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mayor Piercy and Ms. Bettman. She indicated she would like to see Ms. Beamud conduct a self-evaluation as well. Mr. Pryor agreed with previous suggestions. He said an evaluation was a tool to guide performance and provide support and felt the CRB would provide valuable assistance to the council, which was the accountable body, in conducting the annual evaluation as it was more familiar with the daily operations of the auditor’s office. He favored both written and verbal evaluations. Ms. Solomon asked if citizens who used the police auditor complaint process could be surveyed about the effectiveness of the system. City Attorney Klein said he thought that was possible but would research the question. Mr. Zelenka concurred with previous speakers’ remarks. Ms. Ortiz asked who Ms. Beamud went to when she had concerns as no member or members of the council had been designated as the point of contact. Ms. Beamud replied that she tried to meet with the Mayor and president of the council on a monthly basis and was willing to meet with any council member at any time. She saw an evaluation as a road map of important expectations in the coming year. Mr. Poling supported obtaining input from citizens who used the system as part of the evaluation process. He said the police auditor reported to the council and should go to the president or vice president of the council first if there were concerns that needed to be addressed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Clark commented that Ms. Beamud had been very accessible to council members. He was pleased to hear that Ms. Beamud met regularly with the Mayor and council officers and wanted to see her also meet with the entire council. Mr. Zelenka observed that as the council’s employee, it was important for Ms. Beamud to meet with council officers. He supported the idea of regular feedback to the full council, either at meetings or in written reports, on perhaps a quarterly basis. Mr. Pryor moved to provide an abbreviated performance evaluation consistent with the April 9 options 1 and 2 and develop an ongoing comprehensive evaluation process consis- tent with Option A. Ms. Bettman asked if Mr. Pryor would accept a friendly amendment to include Citizen Re- view Board feedback. Mr. Pryor agreed. Ms. Bettman provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. City Manager pro tem Jones asked if the self-evaluation was assumed to be part of the motion. Mr. Pryor said it was included. Regarding the idea of customer input, Ms. Bettman suggested using the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to contact citizens who had used the process in order to preserve the public’s view of the independence of the auditor’s office. Mr. Clark suggested having CRB members or Ms. Beamud contact citizens to determine their willingness to participate in a survey instead of involving another organization such as the HRC in the process. Mayor Piercy said the CRB would be tasked with determining how best to obtain citizen feedback. Mr. Poling suggested taking up Item 8, Committee Reports and Items of Interest, from the regular meeting agenda. There were no objections. 8. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling stated he attended the Eugene Police Department (EPD) promotion ceremony and awards ceremony. He said both events were well attended. Mr. Zelenka announced that the Willamette Career Fair, sponsored by the Lane Workforce Partnership, would be held March 13 at the Lane Events Center. Ms. Solomon and Ms. Ortiz reported they had attended a meeting of Active Bethel Citizens and were impressed by the new energy of the group and pleased to see a number of City staff present. Mayor Piercy noted that Lorraine Kerwood, founder of Next Step Recycling, was recently recognized as one of the top volunteers in the country and received a monetary award to reinvest in her organization. She reported on attendance at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) dinner MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 7 Work Session and the United Front trip to Washington, DC. She announced the West Eugene Collaboration would be holding a design workshop. City Manager pro tem Jones said that options on West Broadway properties had not yet been received, which might require some adjustments to the March 13 agenda. Mr. Clark commended the citizens who were honored by EPD for coming to the assistance of an officer. He congratulated Det. Steve Williams for being named officer of the year. He said he enjoyed reading to Ms. Nelson’s first grade class at Awbrey Park Elementary School. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 8 Work Session