Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/1987 Meeting (2) M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council Council Chamber--C;ty Hall May 11, 1987 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Obie offered an opportunity to those who wished to address the council about subjects not scheduled for council consideration. The Mayor noted that the item had been scheduled to last ten minutes and that requests to speak had been received for two issues. He said ten speakers had indicated an interest in problems concerning traffic on south Willamette Street (the "Gut") and he would prefer to schedule a future hearing date. He asked whether one person ~ might act as spokesperson for the group. A. "Gut" Traffic Orlin Dean, 39 West 22nd Avenue, said he thought that if the issue could be addressed briefly by three or four speakers, a future hearing would not be necessary. He presented a petition and letters to staff and showed a grocery bag full of empty cans, which he said he had collected in a four-block area near Willamette Street on a Saturday morning. Mr. Dean added that his wife could not sleep on Friday and Saturday nights because of noise and that trash was being thrown in residents' yards. Murray G. McDowell, 28 West 22nd Avenue, said he lived about a half-block west of Willamette Street, where circular traffic repeatedly was driving the area on Friday and Saturday nights, usually after about 10:30. Mr. McDowell said his house and bedroom were in a position that received a great deal of noise from cars on a nearby hill. He said he had been kept awake on the night of April 24 and he had counted 171 cars between 11:30 p.m. and 1 a.m. He said traffic on 22nd Avenue generally turned left on McMillan, and he assumed the drivers continued to 23rd or 24th Avenue before re-entering Willamette Street. He also said the bag of cans was typical of the mess left on Saturday and Sunday mornings, and he added that loud music and hollering often accompanied the traffic. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 1 e Mr. McDowell said he and his wife had called the police and had requested their presence in the area, and police several months ago had responded once. He said current complaints resulted in false promises to respond or in excuses that officers were too busy. He said response was not being received, and he thought the problem needed to be dealt with. Larry Lowenkron, 2135 McMillan Street, said he had moved into his house about two and a half years ago and he recognized that the problem was not new. He said he thought traffic engineering solutions should be sought to what was a very old problem. He said he concurred with previous comments, adding that his yard often contained an "amazing assortment" of non-returnable liquor bottles. He said cars were "dragging" down the street at 11 p.m. and midnight, and speeds were "well in excess" of the limit. Mr. Lowenkron said it was apparent that the people in the cars often were drunk, the situation was unsafe and old, and he thought it was time for something to be done. Todd Albi, 66 West 24th Avenue, said traffic had moved off the "Gut" onto College Hill, and results included broken car windows, urinating in yards, bottles thrown and shattered in yards, and so forth. He said he thought a solution to the problem would be to place "no left turn II signs at 24th, 23rd, and 22nd avenues and at Grandview. Mr. Albi said that would reroute traffic to the commercial area near 24th Place, where a gate crossed Portland Street. Mr. Albi also noted that Portland Mayor Bud Clark recently led passage of an ordinance that made it illegal to drive past the same place twice in one night. e Fred Sackett, 41 West 22nd Avenue, played a tape of traffic noise recorded from his bed, which was 40 feet from the street. He said comments had mentioned noise and litter, but he thought safety should be addressed. Mr. Sackett said that near his house at the corner of 22nd Avenue and McMillan, cars traveled down the hill at high speeds and sometimes left the ground. He said he expected a fatal accident at that corner unless the City provided some help. Norm Thomas, 75 West 23rd Avenue, read from a City pamphlet that cited powers granted under the City Charter. He said the City Council was empowered to enact ordinances, bylaws, and regulations that shall "protect the health, cleanliness, ornament, property, and general welfare of the City." Mr. Thomas said articles in The Register-Guard dating back to 1976 provided evidence that the community had been informed of a problem that he said would not cure itself. He said he thought the council and the residents needed to find a solution before someone was hurt. Marjorie Utsey, 55 West 24th Avenue, said she agreed with previous comments. She said serious problems existed in terms of the safety of passengers because people were riding in lawn chairs in the back of pickup trucks that sometimes traveled at high speeds or left the ground. Ms. Utsey said glass containers commonly were thrown against brick and rock walls in the neighborhood, and other problems included screaming, speeding, obscenities, urination on lawns, verbal abuse of residents and property, and prevention of sleeping in a e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 2 e neighborhood that included a number of small children. She said no question existed that the activities were illegal, so the issue was one of law enforcement and keeping traffic in the commercial areas where it belonged. Mark W. Rosier, 2207 McMillan Street, Allan Shapiro, 22 West 24th Avenue, and Carl Long, 2211 Olive Street, had signed request forms on this issue but did not speak individually. Mayor Obie thanked speakers for their testimony. He said the council traditionally requested a written staff response to issues raised at public forums. He noted that the counci 1 had received "extensive and exhaustive" background on the IIGut" issue and that Ms. Schue had spent many hours working with residents of that area and with the "Gut" Task Force. He requested that staff provide a summary of past actions and suggestions about ways to approach the problem again, and he said copies of those documents would be sent to those who had signed speaker-request forms. Mayor Obie also suggested that Council or Schue mi ght provide a recommendation after those reports were received. Ms. Schue thanked the residents for attending. She said the "Gut" problem was lithe curse of Ward 1," adding that she lived further south on Willamette Street but was well aware of the problems mentioned in testimony. Ms. Schue said problems seemed to occur in "streaks." She said a number of approaches had been tried, some of which had been reasonably successful, but when, for budgetary or other reasons, those responses were re 1 axed, the problems increased again. She said responses could be made and were needed. e Ms. Wooten asked whether the council had received a report that funds for the "Gut" Task Force were being reduced through the FY87-88 Planning Department budget. Mr. Whitlow said he would check. Ms. Ehrman requested a report from the Traffic Engineering Division about the proposal to prohibit left turns. Mayor Obie said speakers would be mailed copies of the reports, and he suggested that they call the City Managerls Office for additional information after those reports had been received. Mr. Dean suggested that the ban on left turns for northbound traffic on Willamette Street be tried for a month. He said residents favored the idea and it would be less expensive than other approaches. B. Police/Teachers Raymond Beard, 699 Sterling Drive, submitted a letter dated May 11, 1987, which he read. Mr. Beard said he was a teacher at Cal Young Middle School in School District 4J and he was concerned about Police Division policies that appeared to deal with crowd control in an inefficient and costly manner. He described three instances of police involvement with picketing and replacement teachers during the teachers' strike. Mr. Beard said the City police response to Cal Young Middle School at 3:30 p.m. on April 27 had included several marked and unmarked cars and a "helmeted, baton-carrying e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 3 e squadll that had formed up to intervene, although intervention had not been necessary. He compared that approach to the "low-key and non-intimidating" prevent i ve exp 1 anat ions offered by Lane County pol ice offi cers and by Springfield police on the mornings of May 5 and 6 at North Eugene High School, Shilo Inn, and the Red Lion Inn. Mr. Beard said no problems had occurred at those encounters. He also described the arrest at Parker Elementary School of Susan Chubb as "an inefficient overreaction" by Eugene police. Mr. Beard said an instance not mentioned in his letter had occurred at Madison Middle School, where State police again had used two officers to intervene early and where no problems had occurred. He said some instances over the past two weeks may have requi red "1 arge massed forces, \I but he thought that on many occasions, Eugene police had overreacted and had dispatched many more cars and officers than was necessary. He suggested that Eugene police consider the role model provided by the three other jurisdictions and their methods. He asked why extensive amounts of force appeared to be the rule rather than the exception, and he said he thought the city needed a police policy of initial, low-key, non-intimidating intervention, not a "riot squad menta 1 ity. \I Mr. Beard noted that an addendum to his letter offered to provide a video of the "overreaction" in which more than 20 officers had been used to arrest five teachers at Cal Young Middle School on May 7. He added that he appreciated the council IS time. e Ms. Wooten said numerous councilors had inquired as to responses of the Police Division during the strike, and some of them had met with the City Manager and with representatives of the Police Division. She added that additional information regarding the incident at Cal Young School also had been requested, so concerns were not going unnoticed or unheard. II. PUBLIC HEARING: RIVERFRONT PARK SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CA 87-3) Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the item. Pat Decker of the Planning Department presented the staff report. Ms. Decker said the establishment of a Riverfront Park Special Development Di stri ct was the second step in a several-step process i nvo 1 vi ng the Riverfront Research Park and would implement the Riverfront Park Study adopted two years ago. She said the issues at tonightls hearing included whether the district was consistent with special district code provisions, the Riverfront Park Study, the Metropolitan Plan, and other policy documents. Ms. Decker noted that staff notes described issues that had been raised during consideration of the district by the Riverfront Design Advisory Committee, the Riverfront Research Park Commission, and the Planning Commission. She added that the Planning Commission had received and considered public testimony in making its recommendations. Ms. Decker said the district would set parameters for future development of the Riverfront Research Park, and she reviewed some of the sections in the . MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 4 e ordinance. She said the primary issues addressed in the Planning Commissionls revisions to the original draft district included solar access criteria, the relationship between manufacturing and primary uses in the district, building signing, desirability of underground utilities, visual corridors from Franklin Boulevard to the river, and protection and enhancement of riparian vegetation. Ms. Decker showed a map to be attached to the ordinance as Exhibit A. She said the map identified the locations of the current bicycle path along the river and of the top of the river bank, which was used in determining building setbacks. She also noted that the district included two major setback areas that first had been identified in the Riverfront Park Study, the East Millrace Outfall area, and the Autzen Footbridge area. Mr. Rutan asked about the di fference between "primary" and "manufacturi ng" uses. He also asked whether the definition of manufacturing uses recommended by the Planning Commission in Use Section 2.a (Page 2 of Attachment A) would allow, for example, manufacturing and distribution of a laundry detergent that might be developed at the research park. Ms. Decker said that type of use would not be allowed. She said the intended manufacturing uses were small- scale, prototype manufacturing, which she said was the reason for the limitation to 40 percent of the gross floor area. She added that representatives of the University of Oregon and of the developer clearly had indicated that they did not want the area to be used for general manufacturing. She also said the expense and limited amount of land were expected to prevent development for general manufacturing uses. e Councilors declared no ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest with regard to the issue. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. David Williams, 2183 Essex Lane, spoke in favor of the district. He said the district would be an admirable accomplishment and would allow appropriate development reflecting the balance of interests in the community. Mr. Williams said he thought the recommendations of the Planning Commission also reflected that balance and were consistent with the related study and plans. He said any changes should be made from the perspective of the City as a "broad planning agency as opposed to a design committee and a university." Mr. Williams urged the council to adopt the district as recommended. Don Corson, 2845 Central Boulevard, spoke on behalf of the Riverfront Research Park Commission and in favor of the district. He noted that the commission had been formed about one and one-half years ago in order to advise the City Council and the University of Oregon with regard to development of a research park between the Universityls main campus and the Willamette River. Mr. Corson said the commission had held two public meetings on the proposed zoning district and he thought the group had taken a general approach of recognizing the special attributes and qualities of the riverfront location, while trying to plan for a research development that would complement the University of Oregon and enhance the Eugene-Springfield area. He said the commission believed the proposed zoning ordinance did a good job of addressing and - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 5 e e e balancing interests. Mr. Corson said the Planning Commission had adopted or addressed all of the suggestions and concerns submitted by the Riverfront Research Park Commission, in addition to adding some important new provisions of its own, which he reviewed. He noted that the district called for protection and enhancement of the natural vegetation between the river's edge and the top of the bank and for landscaped areas, open areas, and vegetation between any deve 1 opment and the ri ver. He also noted that the proposed district called for extensive public access to the river, as well as for fair amounts of solar access to recreation areas. Finally, Mr. Corson noted that in order to preserve some of the natural attractiveness of the site, the district would limit building heights, would require setbacks from buildings, and generally would require underground utilities and that signs not be directed to users of the river. He said these types of provisions and requirements reflected a concern for the unique qualities of the site and a responsiveness to public input. He said the proposed zoning encouraged continued public access, use, recreation, and enjoyment of the riverfront area, while at the same time allowing limited and controlled development. Mr. Corson said the Ri verfront Research Park Commi ssi on strongly supported adoption of the zoning designation. John Moseley, 1925 Dogwood Drive, University of Oregon Vice President for Research, urged the council to adopt the recommended zoning. He said the district had been reviewed extensively within the University and by the Ri verfront Research Park Commi ssi on and he thought the zoni ng addressed general issues in a positive, balanced way. Mr. Moseley said the Master Development Plan would show details of how the zoning would be carried out, along with recommendations from the Universityls Campus Planning Committee and other groups participating in the forum with the developer and planner. He said he thought the forums had been useful in informing the zoning plan, which along with the Master Development Plan, would "substantially enhance the riverfront area and the Willamette Greenway, while at the same time allowing development of research and related activities that will enhance the Universityls research and be a significant catalyst for economic development in the a rea. II John Replinger, 41 West 35th Avenue, said he had attended the previous public forums and was pleased to see how they had transpired. He said he thought the project could be done well, and he offered three suggestions for changes to the ordinance. Mr. Rep 1 i nger urged the council to increase the requi red setback from the proposed 35 feet to 60 feet from the river bank. He said he thought evidence had showed that architects easily could accomodate a setback of 60 to 100 feet, adding that he wished the EWEB facility had been completed so that the implications of building so close to the river could be seen. Mr. Replinger said he thought the solar access requirements as proposed were very lenient and he would prefer that a December 21 date be used as the basis for performance. He said that change would make the ordinance slightly more restrictive, but it would apply only to 60 percent of the frontage. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 6 e Mr. Replinger also said he preferred that Sections 5.3 and 5.4, dealing with height limitations, be amended to include within the 75-foot setback area buildings of perhaps 120 to 150 feet in width, rather than the current 200- foot width. He urged that development standards be stricter, adding that architects easily could meet them and that it later would be easier to relax standards than to strengthen them. Dan Stotter, 1670 Alder, said he spoke on behalf of the 17,000 students at the University of Oregon, adding that he thought they were one of the groups to be most affected by the project. Mr. Stotter said the student community had voiced a number of concerns and had experienced a great deal of difficulty in having those concerns addressed specifically. Mr. Stotter said the first concern involved the South Banks Field area, which was adjacent to the Autzen Footbridge and which currently was not included in the special district. He said he understood that the Planning Commission had decided not to include specific reference to the field, with the idea that the University should determine its own land-use patterns. Mr. Stotter said the South Banks Field area currently enjoyed a "tremendous" level of a full range of uses by both students and other members of the community. He said the field was an important resource that should be included within the special district. He noted that many students had put much effort into attending forums and writing letters in order to preserve the field. He also noted that University students in an 81 percent majority recently had passed a ballot measure in favor of preserving the field, and he submitted a copy of the measure. e Mr. Stotter said students had received a "less than satisfactory" response from the University about replacements for the field. He said planning documents distributed at a recent forum at the Fairgrounds mentioned three alternative sites that to him seemed "completely inadequate." Proposed sites included the top of a parking garage structure and land in the Alton Baker Park and East Campus areas. Mr. Stotter said none of those sites recognized the unique and important characteristics of that field, which he said was a gateway to the city and was located next to a major bike artery and a popular swimming area directly behind the field. Mr. Stotter said another concern that had been neglected was the matter of balancing recreational and environmental interests against those of developing a research park. He said many students had indicated that the "line" should be drawn at the railroad tracks, with the area north of the tracks being important for recreation and environmental preservation, and with adequate room for a research park to the south of the railroad tracks. He said the overall benefits to the community would be greater by limiting the park to that area, and he hoped the council would consider those modifications. Howard Bonnett, 1835 East 28th Avenue, said he thought a "pretty good" job had been done on the current proposal, and his comments were a mixture of "other and against." Mr. Bonnett asked about the definition of the term "complement" as used in the zoning district. He said he thought the definition contained in staff notes was acceptable if clarified, but he asked about the statement, "Similarly, the term 'development site' has been clarified in the draft e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 7 e district,1I implying that IIcomplementll also had been clarified in the draft district. Mr. Bonnett said he had been unable to locate any definition of "complement" and he suggested including that definition in the ordinance. Mr. Bonnett noted that Page 5 of the staff notes described bicycle parking requirements as being located within a maximum of two times the distance to the closest car. He requested that the words IIno more than maximum" be inserted, so that the intent clearly was not to require the maximum distance, or that a fixed distance of about 50 feet be established, whichever was less. He added that bicycle riders should not be treated as IIsecond class citizens" by being forced to walk twice as far as those driving cars. e Mr. Bonnett said he thought staff notes were in error because they implied a long-range goal of 75 percent of use as mi xed research or associ ated manufacturing. He said an everlasting provision was included for non- conforming uses, so the development never could reach 75 percent. He said the project was called a research park, but actually a minority of square footage could be devoted to research, with a majority to be left for alternate uses, manufacturing, and interim uses. He said that if the project was to be called a research park, he thought the square footage should reflect that. Mr. Bonnett said the forums on the project had encouraged him, not because of the action of the City in setting up the zoning ordinance, but rather because of the more responsive attitude he perceived so far from the development team. He said he thought the City appeared to desire keeping available as many options as possible, and he added that he agreed with the previous speaker who had suggested that provisions for solar access, recreation, setbacks, and other issues be made more restrictive. Mr. Bonnett asked whether data from the community forum had been evaluated. He added that several zoning issues appeared to have been ignored or rejected in the document. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Ms. Decker responded to Mr. Repl inger's suggestion that the setback be increased to 60 feet by noting that the minimum setback of 35 feet.had been established during the Riverfront Park Study adoption process and that councilors and planning commissioners had visited the site before deciding on that setback. Ms. Decker said another setback that subsequently had been added required buildings to be no closer than 15 feet from the southern edge of the bicycle path, which meant that buildings could be located between 35 and 50 feet from the river bank. Mr. Croteau noted that in determining solar access requirements, referring to the date of December 21 would use the shortest day of the year, when the sun was at its lowest point. He said the current date being used was February 21, which for a typical 25-foot-high, two-story building would require a setback of 36 feet from the bicycle path. Using the date of December 21 would require a 60-foot setback for that building, he added. Mr. Croteau also said the solstice standard would require a setback of 100 feet for a three- or four- story building, adding that staff felt the February 21 measure being used was reasonable and allowed good solar access protection for those times of the year when the community was most likely to use the area. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 8 - Ms. Decker said one factor in decisions about height limitations was the lack of knowledge about which parts of the site were able to bear taller buildings. She said height limitations therefore were recommended only within a 75-feet area, adding that those types of issues would be addressed in the Master Site Plan process, which would include a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit would include evaluation of whether the developer was responding to the spirit of the Riverfront Park District and Study and of the Metro Plan and could address building locations and possible additional height limitations and setbacks. Ms. Decker responded to the suggestion that the district acknowledge the South Bank Field by reiterating the position that the location of University recreational facilities had not been and was not recommended to be a decision by the City. She said it was known that between $300,000 and $400,000 in University and student fees had been invested in the field, and it would not be moved easily. She added that the options being considered included leaving the field in its present location and that the Hearings Official could address the issue again later during the Master Site Planning process. Ms. Decker said the issue of containing development to the south of the railroad tracks also was being addressed in the Master Site Planning process. She said it appeared likely that the first two phases of the project would be located south of the railroad tracks and that in order for the project to be sufficiently large to be marketable, some development also would occur north of the railroad tracks. She added that development in the area was constrained by the railroad and by existing University facilities located south of the railroad tracks. e Ms. Decker said the definition of "complement" had been omitted from the district partly because of its length. She said the term was defined in staff notes in order to establish legislative intent and also was included in the land transfer conditions drafted by the University. Ms. Decker said the bicycle parking requirement was the maximum used in the code in all cases. She said automobile parking for the project would be located close to the entrance as well as toward the perimeters, and she said bicycle parking would not be located more than two times the distance of the closest automobile parking. She said a fixed maximum distance, such as 50 feet, probably would not create problems. Ms. Decker added that an attempt had been made to be flexible about site development and that requirements included not only racks, but covered and secure bicycle parking. She said a minimum standard could be accomodated. Ms. Decker said the issue of interim uses had been considered at length by the commission, the University, and the developer. She said the conclusion had been that it would be necessary to allow the developer some flexibility within the first 10 years so that if buildings were constructed and if the types of primary, secondary, and manufacturi n9 uses that were wanted were not forthcoming, interim uses would be allowed during some time frame. She said more information about that issue was available on Page 3 of Attachment A, and she reviewed the three limitations on interim uses, requiring at least three months' vacancy and setting maximums for interim use floor area and leases. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 9 e Ms. Decker said the district also included reporting requirements to ensure that annual monitoring would be done. She said the University also would conduct annual monitoring, and if it appeared the interim use section was being misused or abused, the University could refuse to lease subsequent phases. Ms. Wooten asked how the dates for solar access requirements differed from those in the City I S current ordi nance. She also asked what affect the requirements would have on a 45-foot-high building and what ratio would provide the greatest amount of solar access given higher construction. Mr. Croteau said the solar access ordinances had been changed last August. He said current ordinances used a December 21 standard and stated that shadows cast must not be taller than an eight-foot fence at the property line. Mr. Croteau said the district ordinance did not refer to a fence height. He said standards in the special district provided protection about equal to that provided in high-density residential districts and in commercial and industrial districts and probably were slightly less strict than standards for low-density residential districts. Mr. Croteau also said ratios for a 45-foot building probably were comparable to those mentioned previously, so that the setback for February 21 would be about 72 feet and for December 21 would be about 120 feet. e Mr. Rutan asked whether representatives of the Carley Group had commented on the proposed language. Ms. Decker said the language had been shared with the Carley Group as discussions proceeded, and the group had felt that they could make the development work under the criteria in the proposed ordinance. Mayor Obie asked whether any comments had addressed the restrictiveness of the criteria. Ms. Decker said some comments had pointed out that the district was more restrictive than many other districts in the city, but they also had recognized the community concern about the environmental qualities of the site and had felt that the balance was reasonable. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the building official referred to in the interpretation section on Page 11 was a hearings official. Mr. Croteau said other zoning districts sometimes required administrative interpretation of uses. He said the Building Official was a head of the Building Division in the Public Works Department and worked in the processing of building permits. He said the ordinance called for the Planning Director and the Building Official to make a joi nt i nterpretat ion. Ms. Ehrman asked about an appeal process, adding that she was uncomfortable with that section. Mr. Croteau said the ordi nance contained no speci fi c appeal process. He said that in other decisions of the Building Official, an appeal could be made to a hearings officer. Ms. Decker noted that Jim Saul had assisted as planning consultant in the drafting of the ordinance, and she asked him to respond. Mr. Saul said Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code designated the Building Official as the City official responsible for interpreting all of the zoning ordinance provisions. He said the special district was one of two sections of the code to allow exceptions by including consultation with both the Building Official and the Planning Director, who had been included in order to provide an understanding of the legislative history of the ordinance. Mr. Saul said the code provisions dealing with variances stated that disputes concerning interpretations of the Building Official could be appealed to the Hearings e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 10 Official, and the ordinance had been intended to allow such an appeal, even though the Planning Director was included in the process. ~ Ms. Ehrman said she favored working on the language for the bicycle parking requirements. She said the statement that "parking spaces must be located" within a certain area did not allow the flexibility that probably was intended. She suggested stating that "required spaces must be available no farther than" a maximum di stance. e Cathy Briner, of the Eugene Development Department, said that her conversations with the developer and architects for the project had indicated concerns about balancing the flexibility necessary to develop the site because of its constraints with a recognition of the sensitivity of the site. She said developers and architects had analyzed the site with the restrictions outlined in the ordinance, and with the current known factors, felt they could accomplish their goal of developing one million square feet at the site. Mr. Holmer said he had some anxiety about Section 6.1, on page 8 of the ordinance, which required installation of a continuous, two-way (Class I) bicycle path through the development along the river and at other locations designated in the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan. He said he wanted to make sure that the "other locations" designated in the plan would be within the special district, especially since Section 6.2 required pedestrian-scale lighting along the above paths. Mr. Holmer suggested that Section 6.3, providing for street lights along all public streets within the district, might include a minimum spacing restriction. He also said he wished the section contained some indication that, while the standards governed the installation of improvements, they were not necessarily to be provided either by Tax Increment or General Fund allocations. Ms. Decker responded to Mr. Holmer's concerns about the bicycle path by noting that the district would apply only to certain property, which now included University-owned property. She said that in the future, the district could apply only within the Riverfront Park Study area, which included the area north of Franklin Boulevard, between Ferry Street and Interstate 5 and south of the river. She added that the district would apply to property beyond the 71 acres owned by the University only at the property owner's request. Ms. Decker said the bike paths mentioned in the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan were the Riverfront Bicycle Path and a path along the Millrace, which did not yet exist because of the lack of easements for construction. Ms. Decker said the placement of street lighting and other public facilities improvements in that section, along with development and funding plans, would be one subject of negotiation of the disposition and development agreement. Mr. Holmer said he found it awkward to make a commitment without the availability of prices and other data and he thought some language should be added to alleviate that concern. He added that he supported the ordinance in general, but he was not prepared to make a financial commitment. Ms. Wooten said she appreciated Mr. Stotterl s presentation on behalf of University students. She asked Ms. Briner about her expectation regarding a site for relocation of playing fields if it became necessary after the Master e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 11 e Site Plan process. Ms. Briner said the University had not decided on a site because it was not known that the field would have to be moved. Ms. Wooten said she thought it seemed like a good idea to include site availability in the Master Site Planning process. John Moseley, of the University of Oregon, said the University was committed to maintaining or replacing the playing field. He said that as the Master Site Development plan progressed, it appeared possible to maintain the playing field either in its present location or in another location on the site of the property. Mr. Moseley said no specific plans had been made for an off-site location for the playing field because the first objective was to keep the playing field where it was or on the site. He added that in long-term planning, it might become desirable to move the field to another location, perhaps closer to campus, but that current plans included only a best effort to keep the field on the site. Mr. Rutan urged that the council continue to move ahead with establishing the district. He said he understood the need for balance and compromise, given the sensitivity of the site and its location, but he felt that the ordinance overall was too restrictive and contained too many compromises and caveats. Ms. Ehrman said developers had been given an opportunity to comment on the restrictiveness of the ordinance, so she felt fairly comfortable with the proposed ordinance. She said the issue of the playing fields had been discussed throughout the project. She said the council had gone on record numerous times recognizing the issue and indicating its hope that the University would be sensitive to the issue, and she did not think the council could do much else. e Ms. Ehrman suggested changing the language concerning bicycle parking to state that "required spaces must be available no farther than two times the distance (to auto parking)." Staff agreed to make that change. Ms. Ehrman said she was impressed with the work on the project and thought it had addressed all issues without being simply a "compromise document." She said the importance of the area to the city justified any restrictions to protect environmental concerns and recreational uses while accomodating what was hoped to be a very successful venture between the University and the City of Eugene. Responding to Mr. Holmer1s concerns about Section 6 of the ordinance, Ms. Decker said the council could approve the special district ordinance tonight without any obligation to provide certain improvements. She said the council later would act as Renewal Agency in approving the disposition and development agreement and the Master Site Plan, and those issues could be addressed then. CB 2964--An ordinance establishing a Riverfront Park Special Development District. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 12 consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. ~ Council Bill 2964 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be approved and given final passage, as amended. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19470). e e Mayor Obie thanked those in the audience for attending. He added that he shared Mr. Rutanls concern that restrictions may have been an overreaction and he asked the council to maintain flexibility for future solutions if problems were encountered. Other than that, he said he thought it was a worthy cause to try to maintain the area to the best of our abilities. Councilors took a five-minute break at 9 p.m. III. RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA URBAN FACILITIES PLAN Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the item. Cynthia Pappas, of the Lane Council of Governments, presented the staff report. She said the council was bei ng asked to adopt the fi na 1 three elements of the Ri ver Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan dealing with transportation, public facilities and services, and environmental design. She said the council also was being asked to readopt the entire urban facilities plan package, adding that a copy of the plan was included in the items under separate cover. Ms. Pappas noted that the Sanitary Sewer Element of the urban facilities plan had been adopted in May 1984, the Land Use Element had been adopted in May 1985, and the final three elements first were adopted in April 1986. Following adoption of those three elements by the City of Eugene, they had been the subject of a public hearing before the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Ms. Pappas said the commissioners had referred the Police and Fire Policies section of the Public Facilities and Services Element to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and the RR/SC Citizen Advisory Team for reworking. She said those groups had recommended two versions of policy language, and the board in April 1987 had adopted the Citizen Advisory Teamls recommendation regarding fire protection in the event of incorporation, while affirming the MPCls recommendation regarding fire protection in the event of annexation. The board also adopted the MPCls recommendation for police protection in the event either of incorporation or annexation. Ms. Pappas said the County had taken those actions with the understanding that cities most likely would adopt MPCls recommendations in the event of incorporation. Those recommendations included providing fire protection service "comparable to that of the cities of Eugene and Springfield," while the Ci t i zen Advi sory Team had recommended provi di ng servi ce "comparabl e to that of the Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection District." MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 13 e Ms. Pappas noted two corrections to the staff notes of May lIs 1987. On Page 3, the statement at the bottom of the page, under Fire Policies, should reads liAs annexation occurs in the areas Eugene shall provide for a level of fire and emergency services comparable to that received in the remainder of the city." On Page 4, the statement under Police Policies should reads liAs annexation occurs, Eugene shall provide for a level of police service comparable to that received in the remainder of the city." Ms. Pappas also noted a correction to the ordinance included in the agenda packets. Section 9 of the ordinance, on page 2, should state that because concurrence of all three jurisdictions is required for amendments, "Fire Protection Policy No. 2" (replaces lithe fire and police protection policies") as adopted herein will not become part of the final plan. Ms. Pappas said that meant that if the counci 1 chose to adopt MPC' s recommendation for Fi re Policies in the incorporation scenarios that version would differ from the one adopted by the Countys and it therefore would not be included in the final refinement plan. Ms. Schue, who had been a member of the Metropolitan Policy Committee during discussions of this issue, said the group had attempted to compromise and to find other standards for fire protection. She said the group had felt that the Santa Clara Rural Fire District provided a volunteer, rural level of service that was not appropriate for an incorporated city of that size. She said the County did not share that view, and compromise on that issue had been impossible. e CB 2965--An ordinance adopting the River Road-Sant~ Clara Urban Facilities Plan as a refinement to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; and repealing Resolution Nos. 3858, 3919, 3973. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Council bill 2965 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19471). IV. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ANNUAL STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the item. Mr. Miller said the Community Development Block Grant Statement of Objectives for 1987-88 contained adjustments to the third year of a three-year plan. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 14 e e e Ms. Wooten asked staff to provide a breakdown of the $613,920 in business development loans. Jesse Smith, of the Development Department, said the item included the amount allocated for loans during the upcoming year, in addition to income to be generated by Business Development Fund loans. He said the fund included about 40 current loans. Ms. Wooten said she understood that the program was to receive a $250,000 add-on each year, rather than $613,000. Linda Dawson, of the Development Department, said the third year of the plan had included a $324,000 allocation for that program. She said the actual allocation had been less than planned, so the current amount was $318,000, which was added to $295,000 in expected program income. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to approve the annual Community Development Block Grant Statement of Objectives for 1987-88. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. The Mayor recessed the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. V. COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION FUND UPDATE Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the item. Jean Names, chair of the Loan Advisory Committee, provided the report. She said the proposed changes in the Commercial Revitalization Fund could be reviewed. Mayor Obie suggested taking questions from councilors. Mr. Holmer said page 2 of the agenda item summary stated that lithe Ci ty Manager will ma i nta in the administrative authority to set and alter rates and terms," including the authority to grant funds. He said the delegation seemed broad and asked whether any limitations would apply to the authority of the City Manager. Jesse Smith, of the Development Department, said some limitations would apply. He said the program currently operated at interest rates of 6 or 10 percent, as did the Business Development Fund. He said regulations allowed the City either to loan or to grant funds if tests of eligibility and of necessity and/or appropriateness could be met. Mr. Holmer asked whether the Loan Advisory Committee was involved in any or all such decisions. Mr. Smith said the committee now was not involved in the Commercial Loan Program. He said the proposed changes would involve the committee in that process in the same way it now was involved with the Business Development Fund process. Responding to Mr. Holmer's question, Mr. Smith said the City Manager could ignore the advice of the advisory committee. He said the committee would review staff analysis and credit summaries, and its recommendation would be sent to the director of the department or to the City Manager, depending on project size. Ms. Wooten asked whether that clause had been written for the Schaefer Building. Mr. Smith said it had, adding that staff was working on a package that could include the forgiveness of funds loaned for the Schaefer Building. Mayor Obie said that if the details of that package were to be discussed, the City Manager had requested calling an executive session. Ms. Wooten said she did not wish to discuss details. She said she had been uncomfortable with the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 15 e circumstances as described at the staff briefing and with the broadness of the policies as it might pertain to other situations. She said she was not certain she could support the item without knowing more narrowly how it would be applied. She added that she was not concerned about the delegation of authority to the City Manager, but she was concerned about that particular loan. Ms. Names said the committee had felt that forgiveness of debt would be a vital tool for economic development, and it therefore had proposed that change. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to adopt policy guideline changes recommended by the Loan Advisory Committee. Roll call vote; the motion carried 4:3, with Councilors Schue, Miller, and Rutan voting aye; Councilors Ehrman, Holmer, and Wooten voting nay, and with Mayor Obie casting the deciding vote in favor. Mayor Obi e noted that Council or Bennett had requested that if the item appeared likely to fail, it be postponed until he was present. He added that he might bring back to the council a limitation on the City Manager's authority. Mr. Miller said he thought it might be wise for the council to revisit the issue in order to deal with some of the concerns expressed. Mayor Obie agreed and asked staff to schedule a Wednesday noon work session to deal with issues before implementation. It Ms. Schue said she thought the program had some good features, such as the involvement of the Loan Committee, but that did not preclude adjustments. The Mayor adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. VI. FINDINGS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CAMEO ESTATES Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow noted that Items VI, VII, and VIII were routine and that the City Engineer was available to answer questions. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to adopt the May 5, 1987, findings of the Hearings Official concerning Cameo Estates and to award the contract to Wildish Corvallis Construction Company. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0 VII. ORDINANCES AMENDING PRE-ASSESSMENTS CB 2966--An ordinance concerning assessments for paving and sanitary sewers on Roosevelt Boulevard from Bertelsen Road to Maple Street; amending Ordinance 19297; and declaring an emergency. (Contract No. 84-2501) e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 16 e e e CB 2967--An ordinance concerning assessments for paving and sanitary sewers on Roosevelt Boulevard from Bertelsen Road to Maple Street; amending Ordinance 19296; and declaring an emergency. (Contract No. 84-501) CB 2968--An ordinance concerning assessments for paving Roosevelt Boulevard from Bertelsen Road to Beltline Road; amending Ordinance 19295; and declaring an emergency. (Contract No. 84-500) Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bills be read the second time by council bill numbers only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time; Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Council Bills 2966, 2967, and 2968 were read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance Nos. 19472 (CB2966), 19473 (CB2967), and 19474 (CB2968)). VIII. ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS CB 2969--An ordinance concerning assessments for paving and sidewalks on Roosevelt Boulevard from Highway 99 to Garfield Street; and declaring an emergency. (Contract No. 83-18) Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous con- sent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously, 6:0 Council Bill 2969 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19475). MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 17 e e e IX. APPOINTMENTS: NOTIFICATION OF MAYOR1S APPOINTEES TO SISTER CITY COMMITTEE AND 1987 EUGENE CELEBRATION STEERING COMMITTEE Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the item. Mayor Obie announced his appointments to the Sister City Committee and to the Eugene Celebration Steering Committee. He said the remaining positions on the Celebration Steering Committee would be filled later. Mr. Holmer noted that School District 4J was represented, and he reminded the Mayor and council that Bethel School District was not included. The Mayor said applicants from Bethel would be given every consideration. The Mayorls appointees were: SISTER CITY COMMITTEE Adriana Guistina, 1799 Fairmount Boulevard, Eugene 97403, for a term ending December 31, 1987. 1987 EUGENE CELEBRATION STEERING COMMITTEE Dean Camarda, 353 Broken Oak Loop, Eugene 97405, representing the arts community. Don Essig, 2282 Birchwood Avenue, Eugene 97401, representing 4J Schools. Sharon McBride, 353 BroKen Oak Loop, Eugene 97405, representing 5th Avenue Special District. Mary Simon, 3333 Storey Boulevard, Eugene 97405, representing education. Margaret Smolnisky, 2681 Erin Way, Eugene 97401, representing the business community. Lorette Waggoner, 2163 Marlow Lane, Eugene 97401, representing the Eugene Downtown Association and the business community. X. LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 29, 1987 Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to approve the April 29, 1987, Legislative Subcommittee minutes. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. XI. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF MARCH 11, 1987; APRIL 13, 1987; AND LUNCH/WORK SESSION AND MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1987 Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to approve the City Council minutes of March 11, 1987, April 13, 1987, and April 22, 1987. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 18 Ms. Schue asked staff to provide information about how business development loans now were handled. e Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting to May 13, 1987. (Recorded by Leslie Scales) mncc0511 e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1987 Page 19