HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1988 Meeting (2)
-
M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
City Council Chamber
February 8, 1988
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT:
Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Robert
Bennett, Debra Ehrman, Cynthia Wooten, Jeff Miller,
Emily Schue.
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was
called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie.
Mayor Obie reported that the council earlier today had toured the new
Eugene Water and Electric Board facilities.
T. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Obie offered the public an opportunity to address the council about
~ subjects not scheduled for council consideration.
Steve Berger, 2682 Madison, spoke in favor of taxi regulation. He said
he thought the deregulation of taxi cabs that had begun two years ago was
a total failure. Mr. Berger said he understood that the deregulation had
occurred because of budget reductions, and he proposed regulations that
would require full insurance coverage for all taxicabs.
Mr. Berger said the deregulation had resulted in a new concept in
Eugene--a "taxi limo,1I referring to four-door cars running on limousine
insurance. He said limousine insurance cost about half as much as taxi
insurance, and about half of the cabs in Eugene were operating as "taxi
1 i mo s . II
Mr. Berger said he believed, after discussions with insurance agents,
that if a IItaxi limo" were to be involved in a wreck, with or without
passengers, chances were good that insurance would not cover on-demand
public service calls or taxi service. He said nothing had occurred yet,
but he thought the City should look into the matter as soon as possible.
Mr. Berger also said he thought a City the size of Eugene should
carefully regulate its taxicabs to ensure that passengers arriving at
terminals were fully insured in case of accident. He added that the City
of Springfield required proof of insurance of all cab owners.
--
Mayor Obie thanked Mr. Berger and said someone on the councilor staff
would get back to him.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 1
-
II. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL METROPOLITAN PLAN
AMENDMENTS (AWBREY/MEADOWVIEW) (MA 87-6)
City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item.
Wendell Wood, Oregon Natural Resources Council, expressed objection to
the participation of Mayor Obie and Councilor Rutan in this item because
of campaign contributions they had received. The objection was seconded
by a member of the audience.
Mayor Obie said the public hearing had not yet been opened, but the
objections would be noted.
Teresa Bishow of the Planning Department presented the staff report. She
said copies of amendment language were available at the information table
and noted that changes included text amendments to the economy element,
changes that would affect two existing special heavy industrial areas,
and a proposed amendment to expand the urban growth boundary to include
approximately 200 acres for a special heavy industrial park north of
Awbrey Lane and east of Highway 99.
-
Ms. Bishow encouraged speakers to specify which amendment they were
addressing and decision criteria that the council would use in its
deliberations. She said the City Council had received two pieces of
written testimony, a letter from Jim Ross of the Department of Land
Conservation and Development, and a memo dated February 8, 1988, from the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Partnership. She added that a third
piece of testimony, dated February 8, 1988 from the League of Women
Voters of Lane County, had been distributed tonight.
Ms. Bishow reported that staff had received a request from the Junction
City School District to hold the record open until February 11 at 5 p.m.
She said that the quasi-judicial procedure required those testifying in
support to have an opportunity for rebuttal, and staff therefore
suggested holding the record open for those in support until February 16
at 5 p.m.
Mayor Obie reported that the City Council had met with the Planning
Commission for two hours tonight and that councilors had received
extensive background materials.
Mayor Obie called for any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest.
e
Ms. Wooten indicated that she had been involved in two conversations
regarding the subject of tonight's hearing, but she believed they had
resulted in no bias, and she would vote on the item. Tim Sercombe of the
City Attorney.s Office said a change in the law required reporting the
general substance of conversations and with whom they had been held. Ms.
Wooten said one conversation had been held with the City Manager. Mr.
Sercombe said discussions with staff did not constitute ex parte
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 2
-
contacts. Ms. Wooten reported that she also had requested additional
information from Nena Lovinger about materials submitted for the record.
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
Richard Miller, 2460 Malabar Drive, said he spoke on behalf of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Partnership and Executive Director Vicki
Dietmeyer, who could not be present tonight. He noted that the
partnership had submitted a memo supporting diagram and text changes,
which his testimony also supported.
Mr. Miller said the Mayor and City Council were committed to taking a
strong role in economic development in our community. He said the
partnership, of which the City was a partner, saw its place fitting in
with that strong role. He said some councilors had been involved
initially with the development of the metropolitan plan, part of which
had been the determination of whether a need existed to justify plan
designations for meeting the various types of uses.
Mr. Miller said the partnership testimony submitted to the council
indicated that through its experience, a strong and urgent need had been
shown for additionally designated heavy industrial land in the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan, and more particularly for land
located adjacent to railroads or that could receive rail service.
e
Mr. Miller said the partnership had shown that a large number of
companies wanted to locate here, on land that was adequately served by
railroads. He said that information would lead the council to conclude
that this "rather modest" change would certainly be in order.
Mr. Miller said Ms. Dietmeyer had reported a great deal of frustration
about the lack of adequate land suitable for meeting clients' needs and
eventually providing jobs. He said the partnership supported the
proposal and thought there were certainly adequate facts to justify
approving the amendments, and asked that the council, "Please do it now."
Mayor Obie noted that those testifying in support would have an
opportunity for rebuttal.
Speaking In Support:
Larry Douglas, 3321 Shelton, representing the Eugene Chamber of Commerce,
noted that testimony in support of the Metropolitan Plan amendment being
considered this evening had been given at previous hearings. He added to
that information by quoting from a document dated May 28, 1956:
In February of 1955, business leaders of Eugene appealed to
the Chamber of Commerce to make studies of ways and means to
attract new, diversified payroll sources to this community.
It was soon learned that one of the pressing needs for new
business was a variety of fairly priced, well-located
building sites at costs that would be attractive to firms
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 3
e
considering locations in western Oregon. It was discovered
that few such locations were available, and often at prices
higher than those found in larger cities. . .
Mr. Douglas said a detailed study of the Eugene area had been performed
in an attempt to find a block of undeveloped property that could be
shaped into an industrial district where necessary improvements, such as
rail and highway transportation, electric power, water, sewage disposal,
and adequate zoning protection, could be added. Mr. Douglas said the
need mentioned in the article had been addressed by development of 80
acres located west of the 7th Avenue portion of Highway 99 and north of
West 11th, in an area within the city limits and adequately situated for
subdivision into convenient, accessible building sites. He suggested
driving Conger Street today in order to see the success of that 1956
effort. Of particular note, he said, was the extendibility of rail
service to that particular block of land. Another notable feature of
that property in those days was the fact that 80 acres could be blocked
up, zoned industrially, and priced at an attractive rate, he added.
e
Mr. Douglas said that, thanks to the foresight and leadership of the
members of the Eugene Planning Commission and the City Council, the 1988
version of that same dilemma was being addressed both by efforts to add
the Awbrey-Meadowview property to the industrial land base, and by the
council IS commitment to continue to address the community.s industrial
lands needs by defining the strategy as had been done in the Economic
Development Strategic Plan now under consideration. He cited that
strategy: liTo explore the potential for creating a wider variety of
high-quality industrial sites through the addition, redesignation, or
reconfiguration of industrial property." Mr. Douglas said the Chamber of
Commerce commended the council's efforts and supported its continued
efforts in this regard.
Jim Saul, 111 West 7th Suite 300, representing the owners of the Awbrey-
Meadowview property, spoke in support of the amendments. He noted that
preliminary comments had been submitted in written form, and he
highlighted key issues in those comments.
Mr. Saul said the need for the expansion of the urban growth boundary was
clearly evident from the data submitted by the Metropolitan Partnership,
indicating that nine firms over the past two and one-half years had
required sites of more than 40 acres and with rail access. He added that
those firms, involved in lumber and wood products; silicon production;
roofing materials; and medicinal chemicals, had been actively seeking
locations and were not just miscellaneous inquiries.
e
Mr. Saul said the partnership also had submitted data indicating that a
limited number of sites was available with rail access. He said he had
submitted to the Planning Commission an analysis of all existing
industrially zoned property of five acres or more with existing or
potential rail access in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. He
said the number of available sites was extremely limited, and of those
few, a number had significant problems, which were described in his
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 4
e
e
e
written comments. Mr. Saul said that analysis had examined opportunities
for redesignating other areas, but other sites were not appropriate
options because of the impossibility of rail service, recommendations in
the Alternative Industrial Growth Areas Study, or because of the location
of the proposed West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Saul said material included
options outside the urban growth boundary that might be considered to
meet needs, but he noted that rail facilities were relatively fixed to
the west and north of Eugene, through Glenwood, south to Roseburg, and
the natron area in southeast Springfield. He said the owners thought
evidence fully supported inclusion of the area in the urban growth
boundary now, and not waiting for the update, which could take from two
to two-and-one-half years, on an optimistic schedule.
Mr. Saul said the range of permitted uses was an issue arising because
the amendment first had been owner-initiated in the mid-period review but
ultimately had become council-initiated. He said that may have resulted
in some variance between the owners' perspective and the special heavy
category crafted for this review process. He said the owners' consistent
intent had been for an industrial park with large parcels, all served by
rail. He said the owners believed evidence clearly indicated a shortage
of such parcels, adding that because of a Statewide Goal exception being
needed, a correlation should exist between the justification for the
amendment and the expected uses. He said the justification was the size
of parcels and the rail service, not whether processing would be primary
or secondary. He cited a report from the Planning Department to the
Planning Commission, stating that the limitation to primary existed only
as currently written, but the council had the opportunity for changing
the amendment. Mr. Saul said he hoped by February 16 to submit in
writing more specific proposals as to how the council might address the
issue of allowable uses. He said permitted uses could be changed by the
council, and he thought the council should focus on distinguishing
characteristics of the property. He asked why medicinal chemicals or
silicon should be precluded in the area, as long as needs included a
large parcel with rail service.
Mr. Saul said a question had been raised about other areas, and he hoped
to receive additional information from the Port of Portland by February
16. He submitted copies of an article in the January 31, 1987, edition
of The Oregonian, about a 483-acre industrial park being developed in the
Hillsboro area.
Speaking In Opposition:
Arthur Farley, 3281 West 16th, representing the Lane County Audubon
Society, spoke in opposition to the amendments. Mr. Farley said the Lane
County Audubon Society included about 1,100 members, and its membership
was growing as people realized the importance of the environment, which
often was one of the reasons they lived in the area. He asked the
council to defeat the annexation proposal and to defer it for
consideration as part of the metropolitan plan update.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 5
e
Mr. Farley said he felt it was easy to make piecemeal changes to plans,
and the first speaker had referred to the change as "rather modest.1I He
said that was the desired perception--that the change would have a modest
effect on the environment, yet seemed to have an overwhelming, possible
positive effect on the economy of the area. Mr. Farley suggested that
many people had moved from areas where they had seen what those changes
lead to, for example in the Beaverton area, which he said had changed
from a rural area into continual development, with the detriment to
wildlife and environment.
Mr. Farley said he had been impressed with the local approach, for a plan
update every 13 or 14 years. He said he understood that the City had
been considering doing an environmental evaluation and wetlands review of
the area, and although it had not yet been concluded, he had been invited
to consultants' presentations and was aware of the plans and research for
the project. Mr. Farley said he believed the best way to proceed was to
review everything comprehensively at the same time.
~
Mr. Farley said the Lane County Audubon Society recently had been
involved with two similar issues, concerning a housing development near
Goodpasture Island Road and development on Confluence Island, both of
which he said eliminated or threatened heron rookeries. "Always, itls
seen that, well, maybe there's not a good chance that the effect will
occur, or it's a small effect, but indeed, over a period of time, when
you make these piecemeal changes to the plan, you find that,
surprisingly, the environment is radically changed. Eugene is not a town
that has herons along its river, that has many birds around the backyard.
Itls livability as well as economy that we1re looking for."
Mr. Farley asked that the council wait until a full evaluation of the
annexation could be made.
Wendell Wood, 1161 Lincoln Street, representing the Oregon Natural
Resources Council, spoke in opposition to the amendments. He said he
thought it would come as no surprise that the ONRC did not support the
designation as special heavy industrial for the Awbrey-Meadowview site.
Mr. Wood presented the council with copies of contribution reports
indicating that Mayor Obie had received $1,225 and Roger Rutan had
received $450 from property owners and their close relatives. He said
the ONRC protested their continuance in the hearing, as members did not
believe it contributed to an impartial tribunal.
Mr. Wood said ONRC opposed expansion of the urban growth boundary and the
rezoning of the parcel from an agricultural to a special heavy industrial
designation for several reasons. He said demonstrated need for the
change had not been established, and speculative demand was not enough on
which to base a plan amendment this radical and a land designation change
this major. Mr. Wood said the appropriate time for thorough analysis and
consideration of this proposal was during the metro plan update process.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 6
e
e
e
Mr. Wood said even the Eugene Planning Commission, which had by a split
vote supported the amendment, realized that demonstrated need for the
redesignation could not be proven. He cited a Planning Commission letter
of findings dated November 24, 1987, "An analysis of the Metro
Partnership data shows that only one firm wanting more than 40 acres with
rail access chose not to come here because of site availability. That
firm would not fit under the special heavy industrial description in any
case. There is no evidence that rail access was a critical location
criterion for any heavy manufacturing firms locating in this region in
the last five years. The desire to provide a variety of industrial sites
is given as a primary justification for expanding onto agricultural
soils. Obviously no specific industries are in mind, since the ones we
have targeted or are cited as growth industries in the west don't fit
under the special heavy industrial designation."
Mr. Wood said the concept of speculative demand as a basis for land-use
allocation was contrary to the requirements of Statewide Goals 2 and 14,
requiring planning decisions to be based on facts, including trends in
population, rates, and kinds of development of industrial lands within
the metropolitan area urban growth boundary and the nature of demand for
commercial and industrial lands statewide. Unfortunately under the
current amendment process, Mr. Wood said, all economic and non-economic
factors were not being seriously considered. He said objective proof of
need must be presented for sound plan revision, and that objective
evidence did not exist.
Mr. Wood said Eugene was preparing a feasibility study to analyze
development potential of the area around the airport, and it would be
premature to alter the Awbrey-Meadowview status until that study was
completed. Furthermore, he said, Eugene faced an imminent cut of $2.5
million from the General Fund budget, and in view of that reality, it
would be completely unwarranted to invest between $5 million and $10
million in the extension of urban services and road improvements to the
Awbrey-Meadowview site at taxpayer expense. IIHow in good faith, can
those in charge of the City's purse seriously contemplate investing vast
sums north of town when in the past few years, millions have been sunk
into the Willow Creek industrial area with little result?" he asked. Mr.
Wood said citizens had every right to be alarmed over the prospect of the
City spending millions of dollars to provide key urban services to the
site "to help generate healthy profit for the owners of the parcel..' He
said it appeared the City was caving in to political pressure exerted by
one man, Stub Stewart. He asked who ruled in Eugene--the law and the
citizens, or money?
Mr. Wood said claims that Eugene needed more parcels zoned for heavy
industry were based on flimsy evidence and only thinly veiled a
politically motivated favor for Mr. Stewart and other owners of the
property. He said the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area should not
abandon the comprehensive plan poliCies that emphasized attracting
non-polluting, light industrial development. He said an adequate supply
of industrial land already existed in the metro area for all kinds of
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 7
e
industry appropriate to the place and supported by the community's
desire.
Mr. Wood said public testimony exhibited a conspicuous lack of support
for this amendment in its invitation to heavy industry. He said the
proposal showed a relaxation of sound land-use planning principles and an
"abrupt about-face" in the type of industry considered desirable for the
community. Furthermore, he said, it encouraged sprawl that inevitably
would creep out further over the agricultural land in the valley. He
cited findings from the Eugene Planning Commission, that the proposed
amendment would result in the loss of agricultural land and would create
pressures for further development in the area, thus causing further
compatibility problems with agricultural uses. The proposed rail spur
would bisect an agricultural area and make it difficult, if not
impossible, to farm the southern parcel, the findings indicated.
Mr. Wood said the metro update process would provide the best forum for a
comprehensive analysis and determination of this amendment issue. He
said the Oregon Natural Resources Council strongly urged the council to
support retention of the Awbrey-Meadowview 200 acres in the community's
and state's agricultural land bank, where it best served the public.
e
Robert Emmons, 1064 West 5th Avenue, spoke in opposition to the
amendments. He said the request for rezoning of 200 acres of
agricultural land to special heavy industrial in expansion of the urban
growth boundary, which would result in a major change in policy and a
reversal of the economic, social, and environmental concerns expressed in
the present Metro Plan, almost exclusively had been justified by
proponents using recent evidence indicating a demand for large-scale
heavy industrial sites with rail access. Mr. Emmons said he had not
heard the alleged evidence clearly discussed or analyzed, and he did not
believe it bore out proponents' claims.
Mr. Emmons cited text changes to the economy element of the Eugene
Planning Commission report, pages 6 and 7, indicating that between August
1983 and April 1987, only about 70 (or one-third) of 205 businesses
making inquiries had wanted rail access. He also said only 23 or about
one-third of those 70 businesses had wanted sites of 25 acres or more, so
only one-tenth of inquiries had wanted large sites, and it was not known
how many of those were heavy industries, although according to data at
hand, it could be as few as one. Moreover, he said, less than one-half
of these firms, which might be all medium industrial, needed rail access.
The ten firms looking for 40- to 70-acre sites might not be the firms
needing rail access, and in fact, most of those that did might be looking
for sites ranging from 5 to 20 acres, Mr. Emmons said. "This is pure
hokum--a not-so-clever smokescreen, which, far from supporting the
owner's claims, rather suggests that the demand, whatever that may be,
would be well-served on land within the urban growth boundary," he said.
e
Mr. Emmons said the study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,
referred to in number 15, page 7, implied that because manufacturing jobs
had increased in the west, they had increased in Oregon. Yet, no
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 8
e
e
e
statistics for Oregon were offered, he said. Mr. Emmons said
manufacturing industries experiencing growth were in the electrical and
electronics fields, most of which occurred in California and Washington.
He said the lumber industry was cited as one industry not experiencing
growth.
Mr. Emmons said the data cited as evidence by the proponents, upon
analysis proved to be worthless as pertinent data supporting industrial
demand, heavy or otherwise, for Oregon and for this site in particular.
Mr. Emmons said the cost of providing services to the Awbrey-Meadowview
property had been calculated to appear negligible or at least reasonably
manageable in planning documents, but nothing could be further from the
truth. He said costs would be inordinately high, and certainly
unacceptable, considering that the City, having pledged funding for
"high-ticket" projects like the Hult, the Hilton, and the Airport, now
was not providing adequate service within the urban growth boundary and
was facing severe budget cuts in the coming years. Mr. Emmons said the
articles on the merger of police and fire departments published in
Sunday.s Register-Guard only began to suggest the "devious manner in
which strategic reductions in basic services have been distorted,
misrepresented, and hidden to feed this administration's zeal for
large-scale development and annexation at any cost."
Mr. Emmons said environmental impacts had been written off simply as
lessons by changes in technology and environmental regulations--"the old
refrain, in other words, that science and government will take care of
it, when time and again they have proven to be negligent, politically
encumbered, or downright incompetent." He said the City had not attained
airshed requirements, because of industrial smokestacks, car exhaust,
slash and fuel burning, and woodstoves, all pinned down by chronic cold
air inversions. But environment includes more than air and watershed
concerns, he said, adding that the social environment also should be
considered in terms of the impact of heavy industrial development,
narrowly defined as progress, on the carrying capacity of the community,
on the sense of place that defines its character. Mr. Emmons said it was
clear to him that the argument in support of the amendment was nothing
more than a fabrication to allow a few influential people, in a favorable
political climate, to subvert established policy, reverse the direction
toward light industrial recruiting, and betray the community's good
faith.
Mr. Emmons said much had been made of public support for the amendment,
but he thought the public was largely unaware of the significance of the
action, because it had no vital context in which to make an informed
judgment. He said prudent City and local media officials must provide
investigation and exploration of issues and the implications of actions
commensurate with the management of the public trust, yet he did not feel
that had been the case in this administration. For example, he said,
Councilors Rutan and Schue, as well as Mayor Obie, frequently had voiced
their impatience with democratic procedures.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 9
e
Mr. Emmons said the "demand" to rezone the Awbrey-Meadowview property
from agricultural to special heavy industrial "must not be railroaded on
tracks greased by collusion and self-aggrandizement. which passed for
community support only by those who would rather ignore it." He said the
request should be considered during the Metro Plan update, and then,
following the "wise" precedent of the Springfield council and the Lane
County Planning Commission, emphatically denied.
Mr. Emmons noted that at a council work session on February 23, 1987,
Councilor Rutan had expressed his concern or "impatience" that the issue
had been on the table since 1966. He said Mr. Rutan had stated that,
"Itls time to get on with it," and that he had more public testimony than
he knew what to do with. Mr. Emmons said he agreed that it was time to
get on with it, time for Mr. Rutan and the rest of the City Council to
read that testimony and then act upon the wishes of the majority.
Wanda Simmons, 1183 Skipper Avenue, thanked the mayor and councilors for
allowing her to voice her opinion, even though she was not a resident of
the City. She said she spoke on the Awbrey-Meadowview industrial site,
and although she was not against the location as an industrial site, she
could find no guarantee of a certain type of industry--one that would not
allow smells and noise and dirty air.
e
Ms. Simmons said Councilor Schue at a previous hearing had expressed her
opinion that leaf burning in the county should not be inflicted on those
in the City who were precluded from burning. She said she hoped the
council in its vote would think about the things that already had been
inflicted on residents of the area, such as the sewer plant, the sludge
drying bed, Agripac, and the pump stations, which did smell. She added
that she hoped the vote would allow industries that would add to the
area.
Nena Lovinger, 1445 East 21st Avenue, said her testimony supplemented the
Oregon Natural Resources Council testimony offered by Wendell Wood. She
said she, too, spoke in opposition to the expansion of the urban growth
boundary north of Awbrey Lane for a 200-acre special heavy industrial
park.
e
Ms. Lovinger said a decided lack of enthusiasm for this major plan
amendment proposal existed among the Planning Commissions and citizens of
this community. She noted that both the Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commissions had voted against the proposal. She said most
members of the Eugene Planning Commission during their deliberations also
had expressed reservations about the amendment. That commission had
supported the proposal, although with a split vote of 4:3, she added.
Ms. Lovinger said it was important to note that several commissioners, in
response to specific goal and development criteria, had offered what they
admitted were "wimpy yes votes.1I It was evident, she said, that those
individuals harbored true reservations about the amendment proposal. She
said strong conviction was lacking, and she found "wimpy yes votes"
unconscionable when the amendment would require major exceptions to
statewide goals.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 10
e
e
e
"We should not encourage urban sprawl," Ms. Lovinger said, adding that if
the 200 acres were rezoned for special heavy industry, "without doubt,
the camel's nose is inside the tent." She said Mr. Stewart had made it
clear that his desire was for a 500-acre-plus medium- to heavy-industrial
park, which would result in additional pressure to expand the urban
growth boundary in another few years, with the sacrifice of more
agricultural land.
Ms. Lovinger said industries of a similar sort clustered together, and
she cited an observation, made by City of Portland Chief Land Use Planner
Michael Harrison at a previous hearing:
In our research, we have found that industry likes to be part
of a clearly identifiable industrial area. They have found
that to be a good neighbor is in their interests, and it is
easiest to be a good neighbor to another industry. Too small
an area will not foster the establishment of the clear
industrial identity. An area with less than 250 acres will
have so little area in proportion to its perimeter, that its
identity will tend to blur with that of the surrounding areas.
Ms. Lovinger said she contended that establishment of special heavy
industry on the Awbrey-Meadowview 200 acres would breed more industrial
development to the north and east.
Ms. Lovinger said it also should be known that plans existed to sell the
Southern-Pacific rail line in the near future, and according to an
article in the November 16, 1987 Oregonian, the Burlington-Northern
railroad recently had been sold to private operators. Consequently, she
said, the future of those two lines was uncertain, and reliable rail
service was not a given at this time. Until demonstrated need was proven
for the rezoning of the parcel, Ms. Lovinger said it should be retained
in the community's valuable agricultural land bank.
Sue Girardeau, 2398 Douglas Drive, represented the League of Women Voters
of Lane County, a group of about 250 members in the area. She said the
league believed the amendment should not be adopted at this time, but
should be a part of the normal Metro Plan updating process, when this and
all other areas and factors could be considered.
Ms. Girardeau said many factors argued against extending the urban growth
boundary in this piecemeal manner, especially with regard to this
property. She said adoption would require exception to Oregon Statewide
Planning Goals, especially Goal 3, regarding preservation of agricultural
land, and Goal 14, regarding extension of urban services. She said the
action would be subject to legal challenge, and adoption would require a
basic change in the philosophy expressed in the current Metro Plan, to
include the statements, "encourage large-scale heavy industrial
development," and "improve land availability for industries dependent on
rail access.1I Ms. Girardeau said those were the most polluting of
industries, and with regulatory control of emissions having been proven
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 11
e
to be only partially successful in other places, the league questioned
whether that was the type of growth most area residents wanted.
Ms. Girardeau said the chief rationale for inclusion of the property in
the urban growth boundary was rail access. She said the Oregon Economic
Development Department, in its growth industry survey of 1986, had
concluded that on-site rail service did not appear to be an important
requirement for the type of industries expected to use this site. She
added that with both railroads up for sale, service to the area was by no
means certain.
Ms. Girardeau said the extension of public services, such as police and
fire protection, sewer, water, electricity, transportation, and storm
drainage would be in the millions of dollars. Developers were expected
to pay some of the installation costs, she said, but taxpayers presumably
would pay for the ongoing services and maintenance. She asked whether
taxpayers favored that.
Ms. Girardeau said nationwide trends were away from heavy manufacturing
industry development in favor of service industries. In recent years,
she said, non-manufacturing employment had accounted for 97 percent of
annual net job growth in Oregon. She said no assurance had been given
that the property actually would be developed for that use in the near
future or ever. She said the league urged denial of the plan amendment.
She also submitted written testimony expanding and documenting their
opposition.
~ Amanda Marker, 29695 Meadowview Road, Junction City, said she had been
appalled when the Chamber of Commerce representative had spoken in favor
of the request, because she thought the chamber had known more about what
was going on in town. She said the subject property included a 40-acre
plot for a sludge pond being built by Metropolitan Waste. She said
representatives of Brown and Caldwell had told residents that the sludge
would not smell. She said she also did not understand how 42 acres of
sludge could be left out to dry in Oregon!
Ms. Marker cited a 1986 study conducted to find the best areas for urban
growth. She said great change had occurred since 1986, including the 40
acres for a metropolitan waste drying bed, condemnation of Agripac
farmland, and the stench from Agripac that last summer had made people
sick and had resulted in costs to farmers who thought their equipment was
malfunctioning. Ms. Marker said representatives of Brown and Caldwell
had told residents that cannons and piano wire would be used to keep
birds away from the metro waste drying pond, as well as that there would
be no smell, and she had difficulty believing them.
e
Ms. Marker said she wondered about the type of businesses that would be
able to use the site, which had about 250 feet of railroad without going
through the sludge plant or the neighbor's property. She said only about
67 feet of property along the north side of Meadowview Road was owned by
the applicants, and the rest of the property between the railroad tracks
and Highway 99 was owned by private individuals.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 12
e
Ms. Marker asked how rail access would be supplied either east or west,
because long trains often resulted in lengthy closures of Awbrey Lane and
Meadowview Road. She said new roadways and railroad tracks would be
needed, and county officials had agreed that the intersection of
Meadowview and Prairie Roads was an example of poor engineering.
Ms. Marker said she wondered what type of industry would locate next to
the 42 acres of sludge that would be built.
Ms. Marker said she favored waiting for the Metro Plan update, adding
that she did not understand the reason for the rush. She suggested
waiting to see if it was true that the sludge would have no smell, and
perhaps cleaner industries could be recruited.
Ms. Marker said she represented many residents of the neighborhood who
were concerned about the price they would have to pay for electricity,
water, sewer, and roads, as well as about the effect on wells, which
served all residents from Awbrey Lane on. She noted that residents would
pay to hook up to sewers, which would dispose of sewage by allowing it to
dry in sludge ponds next door.
e
Ms. Marker said she wondered whether officials were looking at the
proposal in a feasible manner or for potential revenue. She suggested
thinking about the impact on taxpayers who lived in the area and about
the type of businesses that would want to locate in the area with the
existing problems. Ms. Marker said that if businesses were going to
create more stench, complaints should not be made about burning by county
residents. She asked the council not to bring in companies that would
cause more stench in their backyards, because residents did not want
them.
Greg Shaver, 1225 Water, Springfield, said he had been appointed to
represent the majority opinion of the Springfield Planning Commission. He
said he understood a little of the task facing the council tonight, but
Springfield had not had to deal with infrastructure costs, as did Eugene.
Mr. Shaver said the Springfield Planning Commission had recommended
waiting for the Metro Plan update, and he reviewed the reasons for that
recommendation.
Mr. Shaver said the commission had found no compelling need. He said
much testimony had been contradictory and unfocused. He said some
speakers had supported a large-scale, rail-dependent site, some had
supported a special-light industrial site, and others had supported a
campus setting. He agreed with Mr. Saul's statement that his testimony
had been contradicted by people who, nevertheless, supported the
amendment.
e
Mr. Shaver said the single unique feature to the site identified by the
commission had been the dual rail access. He said the trend observed had
been away from rail-dependent industry, and the study and firms cited by
the partnership were thrown into question by the first entry, stating
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 13
e
that B.F. Goodrich had not located its aircraft brake manufacturing plant
here because of rail access, while the company actually had looked at two
sites, both special light, neither with rail access, and had left because
of a better financial offer elsewhere that could not be matched.
Mr. Shaver said reciprocal switching of rail cars allowed use of other
railroad's cars without any additional fee and eliminated the need for
two accesses to the site. He added that he believed the Eugene City
Council already had made the determination that the rail factor was not
as critical as stated in testimony, and his belief was borne out by the
decision to extend the 6th/7th connector as had been done, cutting off
rail access to already existing industrial sites.
~
Mr. Shaver said most of the decisions and discussions on this site had
occurred in a relative vacuum, because it had not been discussed in
relation to the 2,000 to 3,000 other undeveloped acres of industrial land
already inside the urban growth boundary. He said the Springfield
Planning Commission had decided to wait for the update, including the
economic development plan and the industrial land studies to be done, so
that needs, impacts, and benefits could be balanced against the
community's existing industrial sites. He said he thought continued
economic growth was critical, he thought the national trend was toward
service industry, and he thought some manufacturing had to be brought in
or everyone would be very poor someday. Mr. Shaver said he thought the
last thing the community needed was a decision based on poor planning and
that then would be overturned by the courts, sending out a message once
again that the community was "anti-business." He said he did not think
that would be appropriate.
Gordon Elliott, P.O. Box 2074, Eugene 97402, spoke under other comments.
He said he was against putting anything in the area although it was
reasonably priced for industrial development. He said he did not want
the area to become like Portland or anything approaching that, but he did
favor providing employment for local residents. Mr. Elliott described
his plans for a self-sufficient village in the area, which he said had
been affected by an update of the 1990 plan. He said he favored
practicality, and too much farmland existed for taxpayers to support
uneconomic farming. He expressed concern about the cost of sewers to
small businesses and farmers. He said he did not think the sewer system
was necessary, and he favored options such as drainfields and a solar
waste recycler like that used in San Francisco. Mr. Elliott said he had
fought the construction of the wastewater treatment plant as impractical,
and he did not favor putting anything in the area that would contaminate
the environment or create noise. He said he favored small industries and
thought they were practical because of water and soil conditions, adding
that he hoped to see an end to selfish politics. He said his adult
village would have been a long-term investment that would benefit the
entire community and that met all statewide goals, but because it had not
been in the Eugene or Springfield tax bases, the property had been
removed from the urban growth boundary.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 14
e
Gary Kutcher, 85560 Svarvend, spoke against the proposal. He said no
need had been proven for adding to the heavy industrial area and taking
away needed agricultural land. He said he agreed with Mr. Shaver's
statements that plenty of other industrial sites were available. Mr.
Kutcher said he was most concerned about the costs for additional large
capital projects that would result in further City service cuts.
Responding to Mayor Obie's question, Mr. Kutcher said he referred to the
estimates of $5 million to $10 million in capital improvements needed for
the site to be developed.
Mr. Kutcher said he agreed with speakers who had said they liked the area
because the environment had been kept fairly clean and a large amount of
urban sprawl had not occurred. He said he objected to the current City
plans to encourage that sort of sprawl, adding that if he wanted that, he
could move to Portland or New York City.
Rebuttal Comments:
Mr. Miller and Mr. Douglas deferred their rebuttal comments to Mr. Saul.
Mr. Saul said he would present his rebuttal in written form.
Mayor Obie closed the public hearing and announced that the record would
be held open for written testimony until February 11 at 5 p.m. and for
rebuttal testimony until February 16 at 5 p.m. He said council
discussion would be postponed, but questions of staff could be asked now
and answered at future work sessions.
e
Ms. Schue requested additional information for next week about electrical
rates and statements that EWEB did not serve the property. She also
asked how costs related to those of the Willow Creek site.
Ms. Wooten requested additional information about the status of railroads
and whether access would be available in the future.
Ms. Bascom noted that the map used at the work session had been helpful
and would be available for viewing during the break.
Mayor Obie thanked speakers for their testimony and said two council work
sessions on the item were scheduled in the future. He recessed the
meeting for a short break at 9 p.m.
III. PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFT FY89-94 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Carla Crebari of the
Planning Department presented the staff report. She said the Budget
Committee and Planning Commission had reviewed the draft document, and
summaries and minutes of their meetings were included with agendas and
under separate cover.
-
Ms. Crebari responded to a request made at a Budget Committee meeting,
about whether the Beltline Sound Barrier was in the Lane County CIP. She
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 15
e
said the Lane County Board of Commissioners had not adopted the CIP and
was scheduled to do so in April or May. She said the item was not
included in that CIP at this time. The Roads Advisory Committee at its
February/March meeting, however, might be recommending the inclusion of
that project in the CIP, she added.
Ms. Crebari briefly reviewed information included in packets. She said
the errata sheet and revised funding summary tables reflected Planning
Commission suggestions, Community Development Committee actions taken
since the Budget Committee public hearing, refinements to cost estimates,
identification of an additional project deemed necessary in FY89, and
some corrections to data entry errors.
Ms. Crebari said staff recommended adoption of the draft FY89-94 CIP,
incorporating the changes listed on the revised errata sheet dated
February 2, 1988. Upon adoption, the first year of the CIP would become
the basis for preparing the next year's capital budget, she explained.
e
Mr. Holmer said staff had indicated that the first year of the CIP would
be the basis for the capital budget, but the staff notes indicated a
likelihood that the City Manager would submit another capital improvement
list. Mr. Gleason said the CIP had been developed independently of the
fiscal strategic plan process. He said the City Council had instructed
him to proceed with development of a proposal consistent with the
strategic outline, and that might require some proposal modification to
the first year list. That had not yet been developed, he added.
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
Clark Winston Cox, Jr., 1085 Patterson #9, spoke in favor of a traffic
signal replacement at Hilyard and Patterson Streets. Mr. Cox said he did
not know whether the project was included in the draft CIP, but it had
been mentioned in earlier rounds of the public process, and he urged
retaining it.
Mr. Cox offered two reasons for retaining the replacement signal:
1) Timeliness of the project. He said the City had plans this summer to
rebuild east 13th Avenue all through the West University Neighborhood,
and Hilyard and Patterson were two of the affected cross streets, so it
would make sense to change those signals at the same time. He said the
block bounded by East 12th, Patterson, East 13th, and Hilyard was the
tentative subject of improvement by Sacred Heart Hospital (and,
incidentally, a vote in favor of Item X, concerning a street vacation
request, would help bring that a step closer to actualization), and he
favored doing all three projects at once; 2) Signals were antiquated,
required replacement, and presented problems to EWES and its customers in
the area. Mr. Cox noted, for example, that failure of two signals on
Patterson Street in August 1986 had resulted in a power outage of more
than seven hours for area residents.
e
Ruth Bremiller, 590 West 29th Avenue, spoke as a representative of the
Eugene Bicycle Committee. She said the committee previously had
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 16
-
e
e
submitted a memo on the budget item for the bicycle pathways preservation
program. Ms. Bremiller said members were concerned that the memo had
been unclear about the request for a funding increase, which was the
result of an unexpected need for reconstructing a portion of the Fern
Ridge bike path between Chambers and City View. She said the reasons for
the reconstruction were clearly stated in the memo, however the amount
shown in the budget item for FY88-89 probably was not adequate to make
the repair and to permit coverage of average maintenance costs.
Consequently, she said, the committee requested that the council consider
increasing that budget item.
Richard Gold, 1486 East 25th #B, asked that the City Council, as the
Eugene Urban Renewal Agency, consider the following questions concerning
the Eugene downtown, also known as the Eugene Development Area, as listed
in the Capital Improvement Program draft FY89-94: 1) Is the Capital
Improvement Program the best mechanism for looking at changes in the
downtown tax increment district, or should these changes be separated and
looked at in the context of the downtown urban renewal district itself?
For instance, he said, the council might look at the use of tax increment
funds for loans. 2) Who pays for downtown parking, and is this form of
payment fair? Certain downtown parking structures with reserved spaces
were being rented to downtown businesses for less than half their
replacement costs, he said. 3) Who benefits from the proposed changes as
listed in the draft plan, and are these changes the best use for tax
allocation funding?
Gary Kutcher, 85560 Svarvend Road, said he objected to so much money
being spent on capital improvements, when much-needed services that could
provide for the welfare of the people in the City were being ignored or
cut.
Mr. Kutcher said one case of the service cuts to which he objected was
the recently begun taping and broadcast of City Council meetings by cable
access television. He said the program was important for keeping people
in touch with the actions of the City Council, and it was a relatively
small budget item, at about $100,000. In comparison, Mr. Kutcher said
several budget items in the millions of dollars included costs that he
believed had been overexaggerated and were not needed. He cited the
planned expenditure of more than $20 million for a new library as one
example, "Yet we don't have the $100,000 to keep cable access going."
Another example was that, after much testimony at a well-attended public
hearing last summer on the issue of the downtown mall (and overwhelming
opposition to major changes in the mall, particularly opening the mall to
traffic), the budget now included several million dollars for changes to
the mall.
Mr. Kutcher said it seemed that the council was failing in its
responsibility to be sensitive, responsive, and open to the concerns of
the public. "Losing cable access is just a symbolic case, where people
aren't going to be able to watch the council in its proceedings," he
said. Meanwhile many City services, such as those dealing with the
unemployed, homeless, and people with drug problems, were being ignored
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 17
e
as the City planned to pour millions of dollars into building structures.
Mr. Kutcher said he seriously encouraged the council to take a close look
at the issue, and to try balancing some of the needs of the people of the
City regarding services with the "incredible capital outlays that this
proposal includes."
Harold Chapman, 51 Chapman Drive, referred councilors to a handout that
he had distributed. He said that as a result of comparing this year's
proposed CIP with last year's CIP, he had some questions.
Mr. Chapman referred to the $5 million proposal for River Road/Santa
Clara Lateral Sewers on Page 118. He said the top page of the handout
compared that figure with the $13 million listed in last year's CIP for
the same purpose. Although additional funding was listed for sewer lines
along Green Lane and Irving and Prairie roads, it appeared that the
proposed CIP contained about $7.5 million less for River Road/Santa Clara
sewers than did last year's CIP. A related question, he said, was the
status of the sewer safety net program, which the City was supposed to be
developing to assist low-income residents in financing sewer connections.
He said he could find no funding for that program in the draft CIP.
e
Mr. Chapman said the other six pages of his handout referred to his
second question, concerning the priority given to building a new fire
station facility to serve the northwest area of the city and the River
Road district in last year's CIP and the current proposal. He said the
facility previously had been the top priority and had been scheduled for
construction in 1988, but a major postponement was indicated in the
current draft, and even design of the station now had been moved back to
1991. Mr. Chapman said the Planning Commission had been told last Monday
that the station would be built when River Road annexed. He asked about
the reason for the difference in priorities and about the City1s current
intent regarding construction of the proposed River Road fire station.
Steve Andresen, 2640 University, said Page 2 of the introduction
discussed the background of the City's financial problems, citing
reductions in Federal transfer funds and revenues received from other
sources, such as Lane County and the State. He said those revenues were
indicated in Section II by the Special Funding column, but the amounts
received from each source were not listed. Mr. Andresen asked, for
example, how much State money was being received to fund a project like
the airport, including construction, payment of debt, and future
receipts.
Mayor Obie said staff was available to assist in reading the draft CIP
document and would respond to questions after the public hearing had been
closed.
e
David Zupan, 972 West 4th Avenue, said he had not had a great deal of
time to study the document, but he had spoken to people in the community.
Mr. Zupan said he thought it was important to speak for people who could
not be here tonight and to keep in mind that a lot of people who cared
very strongly about their concerns did not necessarily attend or testify
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 18
e
at hearings. He said he spoke for a number of people he knew who had
contributed several years to cable access and who were extremely upset
about the low priority given to that project. He said it was difficult,
but appropriate, to have a sense of humor when comparing that to some of
the items given priority, such as the destruction of the rest rooms on
the mall and replacing them, at great expense, with a remodelled design.
e
Mr. Zupan said he thought some of the actions proposed in Eugene would be
laughable to people in other parts of the country. "It seems that we
take vast sums of money and shuffle them back and forth on different
projects as if it were to solve some problem." For example, he said that
in order to solve the problem of "vagrants" in the mall, the rest rooms
there had been destroyed, creating other problems for customers of the
mall. In the same category, Mr. Zupan said he would place the "vast
sums" of money allocated for the fountain demolition and replacement with
a street. Mr. Zupan said councilors had heard comments on that issue,
and he hoped they were aware that the majority of the community did not
want that kind of change to take place and would rather see their money
put into more appropriate areas. "0bviously the library is a major
concern in the community--I'm glad that some of you are picking up on
that," he said, but "in general, it would behoove the council to take
another look at the whole budget and to take into account the human needs
in the community, not just the more short-sighted, superficial changes
that one could make, such as supposedly to deal with the problem of what
to do with vagrants.1I Mr. Zupan said that was like blaming the victim
and resulted in short-sighted actions. He said he appealed to the
council's better sense to address serious problems such as providing for
the hungry and the homeless and the illiterate in the community. Mr.
Zupan said the community needed fewer roads through the mall and less
destruction of existing services that already so much time and energy had
gone into.
Mr. Zupan said he felt that a different group of people could come to
vastly different conclusions than those in the document, and he feared
that some of the decisions being made were being done purely for
political or economic reasons or for self-interest, which he did not
think was appropriate for the offices held. He said the council had an
obligation to represent the entire community's needs, and Mayor Obie had
expressed the concern that "every person counts." He wondered about the
people in wheelchairs, and those who have put a lot of their lives into
cable access, and so on. Mr. Zupan said he thought the council could
reconsider any of the issues in the budget that involved the human
element, and he hoped the result would be the finding that human services
were much more important than carrying out the self-interest or economic
interest of anyone person.
Mayor Obie closed the public hearing.
Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow responded to Mr. Andresen's question
about airport financing. He said State funding for the airport project
amounted to about $770,000, which was from lottery funds and which
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 19
e
already had been spent on the land side of the project. He added that no
State funds were used in the terminal project.
Les Lyle of the Public Works Department responded to Mr. Chapman's
question about River Road/Santa Clara lateral sewers. He said plans for
FY88 included a proposal to bid an improvement project along Irving
Drive, from Canterbury to River Road, and that would amount to about
$800,000. For FY89, staff had attempted to break the River Road/Santa
Clara sewers into specific projects, and two of those had been
identified--the Green Lane system listed on Page 116, and the Irving and
Prairie Roads system listed on Page 117. Mr. Lyle said FY90 projects
would be based strictly on annexation activity and would be funded by
assessments.
Mr. Lyle said another question had been raised about bikepath
reconstruction. He said the Public Works Department proposed addressing
that issue by constructing the bike path from Richardson Bridge to Bailey
Hill, which has similar expansive soil characteristics, and evaluating
the results the following winter. He said the $20,000 allotted for rehab
work then could be used to build another test section in the area
identified and to verify that the desired approach would respond to
expansive soils.
e
Ms. Bascom asked about the amount of increase requested by the Bicycle
Committee. Mr. Lyle said he thought no dollar amount had been
identified, and it was proposed that the Bicycle Committee evaluate the
rehab dollar needs as part of the Bicycle Master Plan update process and
that further approval be sought from the City Council.
Ms. Wooten asked about the safety net issue raised by Mr. Chapman, to
allow financing of sewers by low-income residents. Mr. Lyle said staff
was reviewing that issue to try to develop an approach. He said a
proposal now was being made to the Department of Environmental Quality
for a funding resource to assist low-income and elderly residents, and a
proposed code change to address that was scheduled for council action
shortly. Ms. Wooten asked whether people had applied for the assistance.
Mr. Lyle said no one had applied at this time, and the only approach now
available was the deferral program as defined in the code. Ms. Wooten
said she favored proceeding with that as soon as possible, because the
necessity of that program had been discussed and requested from the
outset of the grant discussions. Mr. Gleason said the current property
tax deferral program for capital improvement programs was available, but
another program specifically for sewers was being developed.
Ms. Wooten noted that proposed improvements for the Willamette
Street/Broadway redesign were scheduled for two years from now, in order
to accommodate the final decision regarding the opening of Willamette
Street.
e
Ms. Wooten said she would like to defer the item on Page 85 referring to
realignment of Cheshire Street, because agreements had not been reached
with property owners, the issue was becoming major in two neighborhoods,
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 20
e
and she was extremely uncomfortable with the condemnation procedures that
had been proposed. She requested more information about that.
Ms. Wooten said she would like responses to a number of items, and she
suggested delaying approval of the draft plan. Mayor Obie said he
agreed.
Ms. Wooten said she would like to re-examine the proposal to acquire 5th
Avenue frontage at Scobert Park, on Page 95. She said the request
apparently had been made by the police department regarding vision access
for patrols. She said people along 5th Avenue did not want City
acquisition of properties that became available; they wanted different
adjustments to Scobert Park that reclaimed the park for families who
lived in the area and that made it comfortable for children.
Ms. Wooten asked about the timing of the Irrigation Renovation proposal
on Page 84. She said she had raised the issue of Sladden Park at a
Budget Committee meeting, and Ernie Drapela of the PARCS Department had
responded that the project was scheduled for 1991-94. She said it would
be great news if the item had been moved up to 1988-89 as listed, but she
wanted confirmation.
Ms. Wooten said she would address other questions with staff on an
individual basis.
e
Mr. Holmer said that a year ago and the year before that he had raised
questions about the process of reviewing the CIP with the Budget
Committee. He said he found the draft document very useful, comments had
been received, and he recognized that legitimate issues ought to be
resolved by the Budget Committee, but he was prepared to state the
motion.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to adopt the
Draft Fiscal Year 1988/89 through 1992/94 Capital
Improvement Program, incorporating the changes on the
errata sheet dated February 2, 1988.
Mr. Holmer said he made the motion assuming it would not preclude the
council from answering or addressing all of the questions that had been
raised.
Ms. Wooten said she appreciated Mr. Holmer1s well-spoken comments, but
she would vote against the motion on the basis that Budget Committee
members, particularly if they were not on the capital subcommittee, too
often were told that proposals already were in the Capital Improvement
Plan for that year, and plans were proceeding. She cited Child Care,
Inc., which was located on City-owned property in Skinner Butte Park as
an example. Ms. Wooten said neither Councilor Bennett nor she had been
immediately aware that that property would be demolished for the Cheshire
Street realignment, but when asked, the explanation had been that the
item already was in the Capital Improvement Plan and was considered done.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 21
e
She said she favored spending more time at the beginning of the planning
process as opposed to the line-item and fiscal allocation considerations.
Mayor Obie asked staff to respond to the concern raised by Mr. Cox about
the traffic signals on Patterson and Hilyard. Dave Reinhard of the
Public Works Department referred councilors to Item 31 on Page 116. He
said that item included improvements at Hilyard and 13th and for a new
signal at 12th and Hilyard, or between 12th and 13th, for a pedestrian
crossing. Mr. Reinhard said he was not aware of the Patterson problem,
but he would look into it.
Mr. Miller said the council understood that the amount of money hoped for
in the capital budget did not exist because of budget constraints, and he
asked whether Ms. Wooten's concerns could be addressed adequately through
the subcommittee, knowing that many projections in the CIP would never
make it through the City Manager's recommendation or the subcommittee
process. Ms. Wooten said that was possible, but she had asked that the
vote be delayed.
e
Ms. Ehrman said she wanted to respond to criticisms of the capital
budget. She said the interrelation and interdependency of the two
budgets had become clear to her as a member of the council. She said the
council often had lamented the fact that the capital budget was so small,
so she was sensitive to criticism that it now was too big. She said the
council had experienced a difficult time in segregating money for capital
projects, and she hoped members of the community understood that the
reason for that was to preserve the existing capital facilities. Ms.
Ehrman said she strongly supported the CIP, adding that she knew the City
in the past had not always been so forward-looking and she thought it was
very important to continue planning as it now occurred.
Ms. Schue commented on the use of the Capital Improvement Program. She
said the City Manager referred to the CIP as a IIplanning document," and
that did not mean that the funding sources for all of the projects had
been identified, because they had not. For instance, she said, the new
library proposal had not been funded. It was a topic for public
discussion, but the source of funds was not known, Ms. Schue said. She
said other items were included for planning of approximate costs, and the
Budget Committee would work on funding for the first year's priorities,
which would be funded as far as possible. Ms. Schue said the council
invited comments about whether items should be included or moved up, but
the conclusion that every item in the CIP would be built and funded
should not be drawn and was not true.
Mr. Bennett said he was interested in some of the same issues as
Councilor Wooten. He asked about the time intended if the item were
delayed. Mayor Obie said he had considered a delay of about one week.
Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:2, Councilors Holmer,
Bascom, Ehrman, Miller, Rutan, and Schue voting aye;
Councilors Bennett and Wooten voting nay.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 22
e
IV. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTIES LOCAT-
ED WEST OF RIVER ROAD BETWEEN KINGSBURY AVENUE AND LYNNBROOK DRIVE
(GENERATION INVESTMENT CO.) (AZ 87-13)
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Gary Chenkin of the
Planning Department presented the staff report. He said the request
involved approximately 59 acres that were inside the urban growth
boundary but non-contiguous to existing city limits. The request had
been made by the owner of all but about one and one-half acres of the
annexation. The entire area now was vacant and undeveloped with the
exception of three farm accessory buildings. The property was located
between two developed, low-density residential subdivisions to the north
and south, and current zoning was Suburban Residential and Agricultural
Urbanizable Land in the County. It was designated for low-density
residential use in the applicable Santa Clara/River Road Facilities Plan.
A sewer line was adjacent to the majority of the property on the north
and west boundaries, and Mr. Chenkin said the owner's intent to develop
the property, using the available sewers, was a primary reason for the
request.
e
Mr. Chenkin noted that the criteria considered by the Planning Commission
in its deliberations were described beginning on Page I-A-2 of the staff
notes dated December 1, 1987. He also noted that a recent amendment to
the Metropolitan Plan had been approved by all three jurisdictions and
referred to non-contiguous annexations. He reviewed the three criteria
for those annexations according to the amendment: 1) an urban service
must be desired by the owners and available to the property--Mr. Chenkin
said sewers were the main urban service desired, and public safety was
another; 2) urban services must be available to be provided in a timely,
cost-efficient manner and be a logical extension to the property--Mr.
Chenkin said elaboration of that, and the minutes of Planning Commission
discussion, were included in council packets; and 3) the non-contiguous
annexation must be supported by the owners of at least half the area.
Mr. Chenkin said earlier discussions largely had concerned whether the
annexation was needed. He said the Metro Plan required that at least a
six- to ten-year supply of buildable and subdividable land be maintained
inside the urban growth boundary. When the Metro Plan had been updated
from the 1990 Plan, Mr. Chenkin said a good deal of discussion among the
development community and government bodies had indicated a desire to
ensure setting the urban growth boundary in a way that would allow an
adequate supply of residential land, so that housing prices would not be
driven up. Mr. Chenkin said the most current calculations available, for
the period 1977 through 1986, showed about nine years of subdividable
land and about seven and one-half years of buildable land in the Eugene
portion of the urban growth boundary. Mr. Chenkin added that predicting
the amount of needed land was not a precise science but provided the best
information available.
e
Mr. Chenkin said the Planning Commission also had raised the point that
this would be the first time in the history of the community that a fully
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 23
e
serviced residential development, with all the urban services supplied by
a general purpose government, would be made available for development in
the River Road/Santa Clara area.
Mr. Chenkin said zoning recommended by the Planning Commission was RA
Suburban Residential District, in conformance with the designation on the
River Road/Santa Clara Plan. He said SR Site Review was being added to
account for natural areas, such as the Flat Creek drainage on the
property, preservation of which also was provided in the RR/SC Plan. Mr.
Chenkin said staff from the departments of Public Safety, Public Works,
and Planning were available to answer questions.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared.
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
e
Dan Leahy, 656 Charnel ton Street, said he was a real estate broker with
Countryman Realty Associates, Inc. and represented Generation Investment
Company, Inc., owners of approximately 57 acres of property on the west
side of River Road between Kingsbury Avenue in Bell Estates and Lynnbrook
Drive in Lynnbrook, located at about the 4200 block of River Road. Mr.
Leahy said Generation Investment Company requested annexation to the City
of Eugene and Lane County Metropolitan Area Wastewater Service District,
rezoning from Lane County RA/UL and AG/UL to City of Eugene RA/SR,
Suburban Residential District with Site Review procedures; and from Lane
County R1/UL to City of Eugene R-1, Low-Density Residential District.
The company requested application of the Residential Sign District and
withdrawal from Santa Clara Water District, Santa Clara Rural Rire
Protection District, and Junction City Water Control District.
Mr. Leahy said the reasons for development included a desire for an
exemplary residential subdivision in the River Road area. He said the
property consisted of about 59 acres of contiguous land between two
well-developed subdivisions. Property currently had sewer along both the
north and west sides of the property, and water was located in the
frontage along River Road. Mr. Leahy said the property contained two
accesses from Lynnbrook Drive, one from Bell Estates, and one from River
Road. He characterized the property as very unusual and very fine for
development, being large enough to create its own environment. In order
to proceed with development, he said owners needed to know what they had
to work with; they could not afford to spend money in planning and
engineering unless they were annexed and properly zoned. Mr. Leahy said
the request was for RA/SR zoning for the major portion of the site and
for R-l Low-Density Residential for the smaller portion, approximately
one-plus acres, for the following reasons: 1) it provided known density
and restrictions for proper planning; 2) it allowed keeping the current
farm uses until improvements were in place; and 3) the site review
process allowed the City to monitor the development plan and see that it
was beneficial to the area, well-planned, and provided for proper
drainage, landscaping, and so forth.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 24
e
e
e
Mr. Leahy said he thought development of the property was needed. He
said many lots often could be seen in the metropolitan area, but builders
had discovered that it was much cheaper to build on flat land than to
build on hills. Consequently, he said, few lots could be found available
in the Ferry Street Bridge area, and prices there were beginning to
skyrocket. He said lots were available in Springfield and in Danebo, but
not all demand was for those areas. Mr. Leahy said very few houses in
the River Road area were less than 12 years old, which meant that not
much development had occurred in that time. He said a recent development
in the area had required dividing a three-acre lot in a way that never
should have occurred because it ruined the property. Failure to allow
proper development, he said, would result in more instances of property
being ruined from improper development.
Mr. Leahy said he had been frustrated trying to develop properties in the
area for the past ten years, and he thought it was time to start offering
people a way to do things instead of telling them why nothing could be
done. He said the proposed development probably would take two to three
years, but the zoning needed to be known before money was spent. Mr.
Leahy said he expected the council tonight to hear many excuses why the
request should wait, but he thought they had been waiting long enough,
and it was time to get moving.
Harold Chapman, 51 Chapman Drive, spoke against the request. He referred
councilors to a handout and a letter distributed last week from a
majority of the River Road/Santa Clara Citizen Advisory Team. Mr.
Chapman said the issue tonight was somewhat different than previous
annexations before the council in that this was the first time it had
considered an undeveloped parcel bordering the urban growth boundary in
the Santa Clara area.
Mr. Chapman said the first two pages of his handout from tonight had been
submitted to the Planning Commission, but because only the cover of the
Planning Department's annual report had been included in some copies, he
resubmitted two pages to make sure that Page 7 of the report was made
part of tonight's record.
Mr. Chapman said Section 9.158, subparagraph 2b of the Eugene Code
required that for approval of annexation, it must be found that public
services and facilities can be provided as described not only in the
Metropolitan Area General Plan but also as described in the applicable
refinement plan. The applicable refinement plan tonight was the River
Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, he said, and the plan required
that as annexation occurred, IIEugene shall provide for a level of police
service comparable to that received in the remainder of the City." Mr.
Chapman said he did not believe the required level of police service
could be provided to the property proposed for annexation. No regular
beat existed in the area, he said, and last Monday Eugene Public Safety
Director Ev Hall had told the Planning Commission that the six officers
to begin a regular beat in the RR/SC area would not be hired until 1,000
homes in the area were annexed. He said Mr. Hall also had stated that
until that time, annexations would be diluting police service to current
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 25
e
e
e
City residents. Mr. Chapman said the proposed annexation, about one and
one-half miles from the city limits, could not be provided police service
comparable to that received in the remainder of the city. He said he
believed any claim by staff to the contrary certainly was very suspect in
view of the statements by former police chief Packard, quoted in
yesterday's Register-Guard. In addition, he noted that just over one
year ago, the Crime Action Task Force report stated that "Eugene's ratio
of 1.17 officers per 1,000 population was the lowest on the West Coast.1I
Mr. Chapman said the Portland Oregonian last Thursday had reported "in
large type" that "Reported Crime jumped nearly 20 percent in Eugene.1I He
said the question must be asked, "How much more can the citizens of
Eugene stand to have their police service diluted?1I
Mr. Chapman said the RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan also contained a policy
in regard to fire service upon annexation. That policy stated, liAs
annexation occurs, Eugene shall provide for a level of fire and emergency
services comparable to that received in the remainder of the city. He
said a comparable level of fire services was not provided by the
volunteers in the Santa Clara Rural Fire District and by the City of
Eugene. If the SCRFD were to terminate its contract with the City, Mr.
Chapman asked how the City would provide fire service to the area
proposed for annexation tonight. He said he hoped each councilor had had
an opportunity to read the Appendix A from the Urban Facilities Plan,
which had been submitted for the record. He said that appendix made
clear that the City of Eugene had no legal claim to either the fire
stations or the fire trucks of the Santa Clara Fire District. Mr.
Chapman said the present contract with the district had been drawn up
quickly at the time of the Santa Clara Square annexation and never had
been intended to serve as a long-term agreement. The City had proposed a
long-term agreement in 1985, he said, but that agreement violated State
law, and no long-term agreement had been made. The exchange of
correspondence was included in the packet he submitted tonight, Mr.
Chapman added.
Mr. Chapman said the prOV1Slon of police and fire services to the area
proposed for annexation also was relevant to Eugene Code Section 9.158
(2)(c), which required that an annexation would result in a boundary in
which service can be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely
manner. He said the proposed annexation conflicted with the orderly,
efficient, and timely provision of sewer service to the areas of Santa
Clara and River Road already developed and subject to the sewer hookup
schedule of the EPA grant. Because the hook-up schedule pertained to
developed property, and not to undeveloped property, priority to the
construction capacity of local contractors should be given to projects
that served developed property, not undeveloped property. For example,
he said, construction of sewer lines last summer along Irving Road and
Santa Clara Avenue had to be canceled when bids for the project had come
in over estimates because of the shortage of sewer contractors in the
Eugene area. Mr. Chapman said it had been stated tonight that the line
now was estimated to cost S800,000. If sewers were built where they were
not needed, the work would occupy contractors and workers that could not
be used where they were needed.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 26
e
e
e
Mr. Chapman noted a policy in the RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan
environmental element, stating that in the event of annexation or
incorporation, agricultural zoning "shall be maintained on land to which
it is currently applied until the property is needed for urban levels of
development." He said a "comedy of errors" had resulted in a 5:2 vote by
the Planning Commission on this issue. Mr. Chapman referred to a 1985
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision, Spalding v. Josephine County,
in which LUBA had stated that "where the local jurisdication chooses to
adopt a public need criteria in its land use regulatory scheme, it may
not ignore the requirement thereafter." He said the ruling was from an
Oregon Court of Appeals case in 1980, when the City of Salem had been
sued.
Mr. Chapman said the Eugene area was awash in lots ready for development.
He referred councilors to the last page of his handout, describing the
situation in Springfield, which was similar. He said ample evidence
proved no public need, and the Planning Commission had been wrong to
discuss the developer's need, because courts had ruled that a developer's
wishes or desires were not need. He said the Planning Commission also
had been wrong to think that market choice was not available in Santa
Clara.
Mike Hennessey, 375 Carthage, said he was a member of the board of the
Santa Clara community organization and was a member of the citizen's
advisory team to L-COG for the Santa Clara area Metro Plan update. He
read from a letter in council packets, from the SC Community
Organization, dated January 29, 1988. He said the organization found the
request premature and urged its rejection.
Mr. Hennessey also said SCCO President Jerry Finnegan had stated in the
minutes of a previous meeting that areas with the following
characteristics would be given the highest priority for non-contiguous
annexation: 1) close proximity to existing City limits; 2) contiguous to
previously annexed, non-contiguous areas; 3) adjacent or relatively close
to an existing sanitary sewer line; 4) on or relatively close to a major
route currently traveled by police patrol cars to and from areas of
existing service; 5) of a relatively large size, especially parcels
containing an easily identifiable service area, such as a complete
subdivision, and 6) with identified current or historic septic tank
failures, which are in need of sanitary service. He said that, as Mr.
Finigan pointed out, this annexation did not meet guidelines 1, 2, 4, or
6, and he recommended that the council vote against the request.
Dale Olmstead, 324 Lynnbrook Drive, had submitted a request to speak but
was no longer present.
Wanda Simmons, 1183 Skipper Avenue, spoke against the request. She said
she agreed with the comments made by Mr. Hennessey and Mr. Chapman. She
said she would Keep her comments brief because of the time, but she
wanted to remind the council of its Resolution 4002, #2 on the first
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 27
e
e
e
page, in which State law required that the area proposed for annexation
be logical and not arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, or unnecessary. Ms.
Simmons said she thought the area was all of the latter.
Gordon Elliott, P.O. Box 2074, said he was a long-time follower of
planning and development politics. Mr. Elliott said he favored what was
in the best interests of the majority of the people in the area. He said
the sewer line running to the subject property was adjacent to his
property. Mr. Elliott said he could document the way that Eugene had
tried to stand in the way of development unless it would have control of
it. He said he agreed with the opinion that small cities, from a
population of 5,000 up, generally were able to provide services and to be
more responsible to people than bigger cities. He said his development
for property adjoining this site had been turned down for development,
and although a mile of sewer trunk was located on his property, the City
had refused to let him hook up to that line unless he agreed to annex to
Eugene. He also said he originally had proposed a self-sufficient
development that would have provided recyclable waste treatment.
Mayor Obie closed the public hearing.
Ms. Ehrman said she was troubled by Policy #2 on Page 4-4 of the RR/SC
Urban Facilities Plan, which calls for retaining land in agricultural use
until the property is needed for urban development. She also asked why
rezoning was being done when Mr. Leahy had expressed support for
retaining the agricultural designation. Mr. Chenkin said he believed Mr.
Leahy had meant that the RA Suburban Residential District, as opposed to
the R-1 district, allowed continuing agricultural uses until actual
development occurred. Mr. Chenkin said the Planning Commission had not
felt that Policy 2 presented a conflict because on the basis of need, the
analysis done in terms of annexation and zoning showed that the Eugene
portion of the metropolitan area had a six- to ten-year supply, which was
a minimum in the Metro Plan.
Ms. Bascom asked about the number of housing units anticipated for the 59
acres. Mr. Chenkin said he believed Lynnbrook was developed at about
4.25 dwelling units per acre, and the area could be developed into about
200 lots in that configuration.
Res. No. 4077--A resolution furthering annexation to
the City of Eugene and the Lane County
Metropolitan Service District for
properties located west of River Road,
between Kingsbury Avenue and Lynnbrook
Drive.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to adopt the
resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:2,
Councilors Bascom, Bennett, Ehrman, Miller, Rutan and
Schue voting aye; Councilors Holmer and Wooten voting nay.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 28
e
Final Order No. AZ 87-13--A final order rezoning property
located west of River Road be-
tween Kingsbury Avenue and
Lynnbrook Drive form County
R-l/UL to City of Eugene R-l Low
Density Residential District and
from County AG/UL and RA/UL to
City of Eugene RA Suburban
Residential District, and apply-
ing City Residential Sign Dis-
trict.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to adopt Final
Order No. AZ 87-13. Roll call vote; the motion carried
6:2, Councilors Bascom, Bennett, Ehrman, Miller, Rutan and
Schue voting aye; Councilors Holmer and Wooten voting nay.
Mayor Obie noted that the council had reached its mandatory adjournment
time.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to continue the
meeting until 11 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion carried
7:1, Councilors Bascom, Bennett, Holmer, Miller, Rutan,
Schue, and Wooten voting aye; Councilor Ehrman voting nay.
e
V. PUBLIC HEARING: LOCAL VOTER'S PAMPHLET ORDINANCE
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Public Information
Director Barb Bellamy presented the staff report. She said copies of the
ordinance had been made available to the audience, and the council had
been acquainted with the item at its work session.
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
Richard Gold, 1486 East 25th #B, spoke in favor of the ordinance. He
said that for once, he agreed with what the council was doing, and he
liked the idea of a voter1s pamphlet.
Mr. Gold noted that the ordinance called for appointment of a five-member
committee to develop a neutral explanation of a ballot measure. The
mayor would appoint four members, and those members would select the
fifth member. Mr. Gold said it appeared to him that the committee
structure would result in a contentious situation, rather than a neutral
statement. He said he did not believe the fifth member was needed.
Mr. Gold said he also suggested that if a State pamphlet was available,
it might be paid to include City issues, in order to reduce costs for the
City publication.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 29
e
Mr. Gold asked whether Section 2.994 (d) of the ordinance, concerning
content and other general information, included maps and graphs, and
whether both proponents and opponents would be able to submit relevant
information for inclusion.
Mr. Gold referred to Section 2.995, concerning preparation of an
explanatory statement. He said the statement was to include an estimate
and explanation of the annual financial costs to the city if the measure
is passed. He asked what resources would be afforded to the committees
to do their work and who would bear the costs.
Mr. Gold asked why only the opponents were required to swear under oath
that they were opposed to the adoption of the measure, while the
proponents were not.
Mr. Gold said he would like to add to Section 2.995 (3) the word
"neutral" before "explanatory statement for each measure for review by
the committee," because the City Attorney sometimes had problems with
that. Mr. Gold said he thought the ordinance was intended to provide one
committee for each measure, but the text seemed to imply that one
committee would prepare statements for all measures.
e
Mr. Gold suggested lowering the petition requirement for submitting
arguments to 250 voters, rather than 500, in order to foster the greatest
possible participation. Mr. Gold said he appreciated the effort to
develop the local voter's pamphlet, and he thought the council also
should consider costs, because many low budget items already were being
cut.
Gary Kutcher, 85560 Svarvend, said he appreciated the opportunity to
speak and the council's presence at the late hour to receive public
comment. Mr. Kutcher said he had some questions about the voter's
pamphlet, and like Mr. Gold, he was pleased to find that he agreed with
the council for a change. He said he thought the issue was important to
public awareness, the people should have the right to know what was on
the ballot, and it was the council's responsibility to make sure that
happened.
Mr. Kutcher asked how a pamphlet would deal with advisory elections, if
the council passed the ordinance planned for consideration tonight.
Mayor Obie said questions would be answered after the public hearing had
been closed.
e
Mr. Kutcher said one part of the ordinance that he found valuable and
that he believed should be a major part of all ordinances considered by
the City was the public input process in preparing explanatory
statements. He noted that the committee formed to draft the statement
was required to provide reasonable public notice, to hold a public
hearing on the draft statement, and to seek public comments thereon. Mr.
Kutcher said he wanted to stress his feeling that it was very important
that the council receive public input on any ordinance it planned to act
on, and that it give reasonable public notice for such action.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 30
e Mayor Obie closed the public hearing.
Ms. Bellamy responded to questions raised in testimony. She said the
process for appointing the committee that prepares a neutral explanation
was patterned after the process used for the State voter's pamphlet, with
four appointed committee members selecting the fifth member. She said
City measures could not be included in the State pamphlet, although City
candidates could. Ms. Bellamy said relevant information that could be
included in the pamphlet would be restricted to that directly related to
the election, such as polling places, if it did not pertain to a ballot
measure, explanation, or argument; that information would be provided by
City staff. She said the ordinance was intended to provide one committee
for each measure on the ballot, and the ordinance would apply to advisory
elections.
~
Tim Sercombe of the City Attorney's Office said the proponents who were
appointed to the statement committee must be the petitioners or
councilors who had voted in favor of referring the measure to voters, so
the intent was to have people who were on record, either proponents or
opponents, on the committee. Mr. Sercombe said graphs could not be
included as part of the explanatory statement or arguments, which were
restricted to words and numbers only. He said the ordinance covered
advisory elections, and the fifth member was intended to provide a
tie-breaker in the event of dissension between the opponents and
proponents on the committee.
Responding to Ms. Wooten's question, Mr. Holmer said the fifth member of
the committee must be agreed upon by the other four committee members.
Ms. Bascom said she was "lukewarm" on the issue, primarily because of its
significant cost, and she asked about the estimated costs. Ms. Bellamy
said production costs for printing and mailing the pamphlet would be
$6,500 for an eight-page pamphlet, which was the minimum, and the cost
would increase from there depending on the number of arguments. She said
staff costs were difficult to determine but were estimated at about
$2,000 for staff and attorney time per measure. Those costs would depend
on the amount of committee deliberation over explanations, she added.
Ms. Schue said she did not think the City could afford any more new
programs, no matter how deSirable they were. She said she agreed that
the voter's pamphlet was a good idea, but it was not a free idea, "and we
can't fund the good ideas we have now." She said she did not enjoy doing
it, but she would vote no.
Mr. Miller said he thought this item took precedence over other things
the City was doing, and he thought it was vital to have a mechanism
available to people in the community to find out what implications were
in the measures they were voting on. He added that he thought the action
was timely and desperately needed.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 31
~
CB 3020--An ordinance concerning a voter's pamphlet;
adding Sections 2.993, 2.994, 2.995, 2.996,
2.997, and 2.998 to the Eugene Code, 1971;
repealing Section 2.989 of that code; and
declaring an emergency.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, 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, 8:0.
Council Bill 3020 was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote 7:1;
Councilors Holmer, Bascom, Bennett, Ehrman, Miller, Rutan,
and Wooten voting aye; Councilor Schue voting nay; the
bill was declared passed and became Ordinance No. 19533.
VI. ORDINANCE CONCERNING ADVISORY ELECTIONS
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item.
e
CB 3021--An ordinance concerning the authority and proce-
dure for calling advisory elections on
questions; adding Section 2.999 to the Eugene
Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, 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.
Ms. Wooten said she had received a request to raise the issue of public
hearings prior to referral of advisory questions. She said she thought
it was a good idea, and she was not certain it was necessary to include
that in the ordinance, but she would like to hear other councilors'
views. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the hearing would be on a ballot
referral. Ms. Wooten said that was correct. She said it had been
pointed out that advisory questions might need some input by the public
in terms of formation of questions, and that even though the ultimate
public hearing was at the ballot box, it would useful to have a public
hearing before referring. Ms. Ehrman said she assumed an issue that
would be on the ballot would receive a public hearing at some point. Mr.
Bennett said he assumed the same. Ms. Wooten said it had been pointed
out that the Nuclear Free Zone Ordinances as they were being referred had
not had public hearings before the council.
e
Ms. Bascom said she did not think such a requirement was necessary in the
ordinance.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 32
~ Ms. Wooten said she would like it to be understood that as the council
proceeded with the precedent of advisory votes, if the process was used
again, a public hearing process would be included.
Ms. Bascom and Mayor Obie said a decision about a public hearing could be
made at any time.
Roll call vote; the motion carried uanimously, 8:0.
Council Bill 3021 was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all
councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared
passed and became Ordinance No. 19534.
VII. RESOLUTION PLACING ADVISORY QUESTIONS CONCERNING A NUCLEAR FREE
ZONE ON THE MAY 17 ELECTION BALLOT
e
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Glen Potter of the
Intergovernmental Relations Division presented the staff report. He said
the resolution would formalize the council decision of January 27, to
call for an advisory vote on the nuclear free zone issue. He said the
resolution would place two questions on the May 17 ballot, and those
questions were included in exhibits 1 and 2, which had been distributed
at councilors' places. Mr. Potter said the resolution also would declare
in Finding 3 the intent of the council to adopt the type of nuclear free
zone ordinance, if any, favored by voters in the advisory election.
Res. No. 4078--A resolution of the City of Eugene, Lane
County, Oregon calling a special election
to submit advisory measures on a City of
Eugene Nuclear Free Zone to the voters of
the city.
Ms. Ehrman said she had not been present at last Wednesday's meeting,
when the council had voted on the issue. She said she would vote in
favor of the advisory election, but she would have voted against
resubmitting the issue to voters.
Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0..
VIII. APPOINTMENTS: NOTIFICATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS TO THE BICYCLE
COMMITTEE
City Manager Mike Gleason noted the following appointments by the Mayor
to the Bicycle Committee:
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 33
e
e
e
Ruth Bremiller, 590 West 29th Avenue, Eugene 97405, term ending December
31, 1990.
Connie Toomey, 2577 Harris, Eugene 97405, a term ending December 31,
1990.
Brian Churchill, 1225 West 17th Avenue, Eugene 97402, to complete an
unexpired term ending December 31, 1988.
IX. 1988 CITY COUNCIL BOARD/COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. City Council President
Holmer said Council Vice President Bascom, Mayor Obie, and he had
presented to the council a report of 1988 assignments.
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS 1988
Brian Obie
Council Committee on Economic Diversification--Ex Officio
Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Partnership
Eugene-Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau
Emily Schue
Budget Committee
Joint Parks Committee
Lane Council of Governments
Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
Legislative Subcommittee
Metro Policy Committee
Ruth Bascom
Boundary Commission
Budget Committee
Eugene Arts Foundation
EWEB 4th Avenue Plaza
Joint Parks
Lane Council of Governments--Alternate
Tree and Beautification Commission
Debra Ehrman
Budget Committee
Eugene-Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau--Alternate
Library
Joint Social Services Budget Committee
Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 34
e
Rob Bennett
Budget Committee
Council Committee on Economic Diversification--Alternate
Downtown Marketing Committee
Council Audit Committee
Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
Lincoln School Committee
Metro Wastewater Management Commission
Freeman Holmer
Budget Committee
Council Audit Committee
Council Committee on Economic Diversification
Eugene Arts Foundation Board
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Partnership--(City Council President)
EWES 4th Avenue Plaza
Historic Preservation Ordinance Revision Task Team
Metropolitan Policy Committee
Jeff Miller
e
Budget Committee
Citizen Involvement Committee
Community Development Committee
Legislative Subcommittee
Lincoln School Committee
Cynthia Wooten
Budget Committee
Council Committee on Economic Diversification
County Room Tax Subcommittee--Alternate
EWEB 4th Avenue Plaza
Joint Social Services Budget Committee
Legislative Subcommittee--Alternate
Lincoln School Committee
Roger Rutan
Airport Committee
Budget Committee
Council Audit Subcommittee
Council Committeee on Economic Diversification
County Room Tax Committee
Hayward Field Restoration
Legislative Subcommittee
Southern Willamette Private Industry Council
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 35
e
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the
1988 City Council board/comission assignments as
presented.
Mr. Miller expressed his appreciation for the confidence expressed in
appointing him to a committee he had not expected to be on.
Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0.
X. CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 14, 1988, CONCERNING A STREET
VACATION REQUEST (SACRED HEART HOSPITAL) (SV 88-1)
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item.
CB 3022--An ordinance calling a public hearing for March
14, 1988, to consider vacation of 12th Avenue
between Hilyard and Patterson Streets.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, 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.
e
Ms. Ehrman said she had attended a neighborhood meeting where a
representative of Sacred Heart had stated that the vacation was
uncertain, and she asked whether fees had been paid and what would happen
if the council acted and the hospital was not ready to proceed. Mr.
Gleason said the amount for the vacation had not been paid, but he
believed the application fee had been paid.
Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0.
Council Bill 3022 was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all
councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared
passed (and became Ordinance No. 19535).
XI. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 1988; DINNER/WORK
SESSION, WORK SESSION, AND MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1988; LUNCH/WORK
SESSION OF JANUARY 13, 1988
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the
City Council meeting minutes of January 6, 1988; January
11, 1988; and January 13, 1988. Roll call vote; the
motion carried unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. to February 10, 1988.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 36
e
-
e
Respectfully submitted,
~ft::;
Micheal Gleason
City Manager
(Recorded by Leslie Scales)
a7
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 8, 1988
Page 37