HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/1988 Meeting (2)
e
e
e
M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
Council Chamber--City Hall
April 25, 1988
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Freeman Holmer, Rob Bennett, Jeff Miller,
Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Roger Rutan.
The adjourned meeting of April 13, 1988, of the City Council of the City of
Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie.
I. PUBLIC HEARING: Metro Plan DIAGRAM AMENDMENTS RELATED TO
SPRINGFIELD'S EAST MAIN REFINEMENT PLAN
City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Teresa Bishow of the
Planning Department presented the staff report. She said the Springfield
City Council recently had adopted a refinement plan for the area around East
Main Street in Springfield. She said the area now was characterized by a
great variety of uses, and the plan would encourage development of medium-
and high-density housing in some undeveloped areas and would promote local
industry and compatible mixed uses. She said the Metro Plan diagram
amendments probably would result in no significant impact in terms of the
overall Metro Plan land-use allocation, but would help resolve troublesome
land-use issues by providing better direction for mixed-use areas and greater
certainty in the land-use development process. Ms. Bishow said the Eugene
Planning Commission unanimously had recommended approval of the proposed
Metro Plan diagram amendments, and she noted that Bill Mitchell of the
Springfield Planning Department was available to answer questions.
Mr. Holmer asked about the degree of support in recommendations from the
Springfield City Council. Mr. Mitchell said the refinement plan had been
adopted with one dissenting vote, and the Metro Plan amendments had been
adopted unanimously.
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
The public offered no testimony, and the Mayor closed the public hearing.
CB 3037--An ordinance concerning the City of Springfield East
Main Refinement Plan and amending the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 1
e
e
e
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill, with
unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by
council bill number only and that enactment be considered at
this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously,
5:0.
Council Bill 3037 was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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. 19550).
Ms. Wooten asked whether the refinement plan included bicycle lanes on East
Main Street. Mr. Mitchell said that issue had been addressed by the City
Council just prior to the refinement plan process, and studies by the State
Highway Division temporarily had recommended against placing bike lanes on
East Main. Ms. Wooten expressed regret and noted the danger of traveling
from East Springfield to downtown. She said that was the only possible route
because of all the dead-end streets to the north of East Main. Mr. Mitchell
said the plan addressed bike lanes on Daisy Street, which should provide some
help, and the Springfield Bike Committee was exploring other routes as well.
II. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO EUGENE WATER EXTENSION POLICY
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Jim Croteau of the Planning
Department presented the staff report. He reviewed the history of water
extension policy since 1975. (He said Eugene Water & Electric Board in the
early 1970s had been providing water service to a private water company that
was providing water via its lines to property off Highway 58. : He said the
City at that time also was developing policies with regard to the urban
growth boundary to attempt to limit development to cities, and the City
Council had felt it was imperative to limit water extension. Those policies
had been adopted in 1975 and had been amended in 1977, he added. (Mr. Croteau
said current policies allowed water extension only to existing development
outide the City of Eugene and required the signing of an annexation
agreement, while allowing no extension to new development. He said water
extension now was provided to two facilities, Lane Community College and the
airport.) A Metropolitan Plan amendment approved last fall would allow the
proposed extension to a third site, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission Sludge Treatment Facility. Mr. Croteau said staff recommended
approval of the resolution.
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
The public offered no testimony, and the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Res. No. 4085--A resolution amending Policy No. 2643, to allow
extension of municipal water service to the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 2
e
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Sludge Treatment Facility located north of
Awbrey Lane.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the
resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously,
5:0.
III. PUBLIC HEARING: ESTABLISHMENT OF A WHISTLE FREE ZONE
Copies of a telephone message from Ross West, dated April 25, 1988,
expressing support for the petition to create a whistle free zone, were
distributed to councilors.
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Dave Reinhard of the Public
Works Department presented the staff report. He said the Whistle Free Zone
had been proposed in December 1986 in response to concerns from residents of
Ya-Po-Ah Terrace apartments about noise. He said staff had expressed concern
about pedestrian safety, and representatives of the Public Utility Commission
had responded that no way existed to lessen the sound of train whistles. He
also said the cities of Salem and Bend, Oregon, had established whistle free
zones without experiencing any problems or accidents. Mr. Reinhard said the
proposal had been sent to the City's commissions on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities and on the Rights of Aging Citizens, where no objections
had been expressed. He also noted that the Commission on the Rights of Aging
e Citizens had submitted a memo ,in support of the proposal.
Mr. Reinhard said staff had considered input and now had no objection to
establishing a whistle free zone for trains in downtown Eugene, from the area
of Hilyard Street and 8th Avenue to the crossing at Van Buren Street. He
said the process would involve submission by the City of a petition to the
Public Utility Commission to establish the zone and was estimated to take
between 60 and 90 days. It probably also would include a public hearing
before the PUC, he added.
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
Bill Blair, 350 Pearl Street no. 1408, spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr.
Blair said he had moved into the area about ten months ago, and at that time
he had been unaware that train whistles blew quite often, with eight to 14
trains running each night. He said whistle free zones had been established
and continued to operate with no problems in Pendleton, Bend, and Salem. He
said he believed most residents of Ya-Po-Ah Terrace favored the proposal, and
he suggested it might alleviate some health problems.
John Humbert, 2786 Almaden, administrator of Ya-Po-Ah Terrace, spoke in favor
of a modified whistle free zone. He said he recognized the issue of City
liability and the importance of safety factors in creation of a whistle free
zone. He proposed a modified whistle free zone to provide quiet during the
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 3
e
sleeping hours and said he believed it would allow better conditions and
livability for Ya-Po-Ah residents and for the city in general.
Mr. Humbert said it was true that the railroad tracks had existed before the
apartments, but he noted that regular floods in the valley had been changed,
and he thought this change was possible and was for the good of all the
commun ity .
Gary Meyer, One West 4th Avenue, Apt. 55, spoke in favor of the proposal. He
said he had lived across the street from the railroad tracks for a year and a
half, and he agreed with many of the personal reasons given by other
residents for wanting the train whistles silenced. He also offered some
general reasons why the ordinance should be passed.
Mr. Meyer said he believed the ordinance would improve the economic viability
of downtown Eugene by making it a more attractive place to live. He said an
attraction of downtown as opposed to outlying shopping areas was that people
could live downtown, in addition to working and shopping there. He said more
residents downtown would enhance viability and should be encouraged by the
City. Passage of the ordinance would be a step in the right direction, as
would making it more attractive for developers to construct rental housing in
the downtown area, he added.
e
Mr. Meyer said he believed passage of the ordinance would make it easier to
find tenants for the Riverfront Research Park, which unfortunately was
bisected by the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. He said the ordinance
would partly diminish the negative aspects of trains at the site.
Mr. Meyer said he also believed the ordinance would enhance--not
decrease--safety. He said that in living near the tracks, he had many
occasions to cross the tracks by foot, bicycle, or car. He said he generally
used the train whistles as an "early warning device," to speed up and take
more risks trying to reach the railroad crossing before the crossing guards
fell. He said he suspected that others did the same. Mr. Meyer said
eliminating the train whistles would do away with that safety problem, and he
asked the council to put the ordinance in place as soon as possible.
Kent Howe, 221 East 3rd Avenue, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. He
said he thought safety was an important consideration and whistles were
essential when more than one train might be travelling in opposite
directions. He said transportation corridors were associated with whistles
and other warning devices, which he considered attractive amenities to
historic districts. Mr. Howe said he enjoyed listening to trains approaching
from the distance and to the "doppler effectll as they passed by. He said
whistles could be heard from many other places in Eugene, and he found the
sound comforting. He said he liked the romantic, historic aspects of trains
and he hoped steam engines might be restored. Mr. Howe said he had grown
accustomed to using the whistles as a clock. He said the trains and their
whistles were pre-existing uses, while the residents requesting the whistle
free zone were recent relative to the time the whistles had been blown. He
said many residents had moved to the area because of the many historic
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 4
e
amenities, one of which was the train whistles blowing. Mr. Howe said he
hoped that if the whistle free zone was enacted, it could be modified to
allow whistles during the daytime.
Gerald Morsello, 2643 Kincaid, spoke under other comment. He said he had
been raised in a railroad family and he recognized the safety concerns as
well as the problems experienced by residents. He said he supported a
compromise, and the staff report had been unclear about whether the PUC would
consider a compromise according to time of day.
Mr. Morsello said it was more important to establish a whistle free zone
during the night because lights on crossing arms and headlights of
approaching engines had a clearer impact at night. He said more activity by
pedestrians, vehicles, and children playing along the tracks occurred in the
daytime, and it therefore was important to allow whistles during the day.
Mr. Morsello said he, too, used the Amtrak whistle as a measure of time,
which he would miss. He also said he felt the whistle provided a form of
advertising for an energy-efficient form of transportation.
Mr. Morsello requested that if the City Council wished to pass a whistle free
zone, it specify nighttime hours in order to satisfy both residents and the
safety concerns of Southern Pacific.
e
Bill Blair responded that he did not favor a modified zone. He said
representatives of EWEB had informed him that they favored the proposal. He
said EWEB had been given permi.ssion from Southern Pacific to use the railroad
crossing as an egress only, and gates were locked from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.
There being no further requests to testify, Mayor Obie closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Reinhard presented staff response to issues raised in testimony. He said
the PUC generally did not favor the idea of whistle free zones, and he
expected railroad representatives to oppose the idea at a public hearing.
Reasons for opposition included safety concerns and workability. He
suggested the council discuss whether it favored a whistle free zone and
perhaps presenting proposals as first and second choices.
Mr. Holmer asked about legal liabilities and the function of the PUC if
whistles were prohibited. Mr. Reinhard said he did not believe the City ever
could be completely absolved of liability, but he felt Oregon administrative
rules provided a sound process for developing whistle free zones. Tim
Sercombe of the City Attorney's Office said the discretionary function
defense against tort claims in Oregon provided that the City could not be
held liable for the effects of City Council policy decisions. He said he
believed creation of the whistle free zone would be such a policy decision
and would allow a defense against any tort claim.
Ms. Schue asked whether gates existed at all crossings in the proposed zone.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 5
e
Mr. Reinhard said all public crossings had gates, but the private EWEB
crossing at Mill Street would require exploration with the PUC.
Mayor Obie expressed agreement with concerns about noise and safety.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to petition the
Public Utility Commission to establish a Whistle Free Zone
(trains are prohibited from blowing their whistles), between
the Hilyard Street crossing and the Van Buren Street crossing.
Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0.
IV. REPORT FROM COUNCIL COMMITTEE CONCERNING LINCOLN SCHOOL
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Jan Bohman of the Development
Department presented the staff report. She summarized the work of the
committee and its recommendations. She showed slides of other school
rehabilitation projects and asked that the council take action on the
recommendations.
Ms. Bohman reviewed the committee1s consideration of several options,
financing, security, and maintenance and said it had identified a need to
address repairs and safety issues. The committee had recommended against
interior demolition, which could be reconsidered later, she added.
e
Ms. Bohman reviewed estimated costs of repairs and maintenance. She said the
committee had considered two processes of determining use and financing for
the building. Those included establishing a community/City task force and
developing a Request for Proposals or Request for Qualifications (RFP/Q) for
distribution to the development community.
Ms. Bohman said the community task force process would look at a wide range
of public and service uses, primarily through public and foundation funding,
and would emphasize service uses. She reviewed recommendations for task
force representation and said its work could include a needs and interest
assessment and overseeing an architectural, engineering, and financial
feaSibility study.
Ms. Bohman said development of an RFP/Q would describe desired uses of the
building and would be sent to the development community. She said it could
include criteria that would reserve parts of the building for uses that had
been considered and might extend to as much as one entire floor. Ms. Bohman
added that the City had received a letter of interest for a proposal that
would develop housing in the upper floor and would reserve the lower floor
for community uses.
Ms. Bohman said the recommendation of the majority of the committee was to
use a task force approach to maximize public input and to attempt to retain
the entire building for community uses. A minority opinion preferred
approaching the private development community first, she added. She also
said the committee had discussed combining the two approaches, but staff
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 6
e
e
e
recommended against that because of the possibility of misleading and
confusing information. She said the task force process was estimated to take
about four months, in addition to time for formation and closure; an RFP/Q
could be accomplished in 60 to 90 days, in addition to some time for
developing a proposal.
Ms. Bohman said the Community Development Division had been staffing the
committee and believed that staffing a task force process would put a strain
on the staff load, perhaps delaying other projects or lengthening the task
force process. Another option that might be considered was hiring a
consultant to staff the task force, she added.
Ms. Bohman showed slides and distributed copies of information about
rehabilitation projects in Oakland, Oregon, and at Multnomah School in
Portland.
Ms. Wooten, a member of the subcommittee, encouraged support for the
recommendations. She said she believed the council had an obligation to
exercise its hope and will, that after a needs analysis and development of
priority uses for the building could be done by a community task force, a
funding package would be developed that would allow implementation of the
plan. If the optimum choice could not be funded, she said the fallback
position remained to pursue the other option of issuing an RFP/Q for private
development with some public uses according to neighborhood and community
needs.
Mr. Bennett, also a member of the subcommittee, said he represented the
minority and had served because he felt very strongly that the building
itself, regardless of a potential use, needed a place in the community. He
said the building was part of the history and integrity of the community and
he thought it was sound structurally and worth saving. Mr. Bennett said he
favored a different direction, however, and given the budget situation, he
would like to make the building as safe and attractive as possible while
allowing time for development of possible funding sources and other important
public contributions. He said he thought the best chance for successful
comprehensive development of the building was as a public/private venture.
He said attraction of private investment was important for sharing risks,
both capital and operating, and for providing the best chance that a portion
of the building would remain in community use at the lowest possible cost.
He expressed concern that grants and funding sources were few and said he
thought it was in the best interests of the community to try to identify
funding sources and realistic approaches before forming a task force to look
at uses. Mr. Bennett said he thought the best approach was the RFP/Q
process, in which costs were identified as $2 million to $2.5 million. Using
that estimate, he said monthly loan payments would be about $17,500, and
monthly operating costs could be $16,000, for monthly rent of about $.70 per
square foot, which was difficult for community users to pay. He also said
rehabilitations were expensive and difficult to do well. He said he was
concerned with other important social, capital, and operating issues, about
entering the project with a positive attitude and without funding sources.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 7
e
e
e
Mr. Bennett said he strongly recommended looking at a public/private approach
and finding out first whether private capital was available.
Mr. Miller said he recently had met with about 60 residents and he had come
away impressed with their desire to explore options and to put their energy
and creativity to work. He said he thought it would be wise for the council
to allow that process to occur. He said he did not think residents were
naive about the funds available, and he urged allowing the chance to see what
the community could do, adding that he thought it was worth a four- to
six-month process. He asked whether the amount for annual ongoing security
could be mitigated. Ms. Bohman said cost estimates could be reviewed by the
PARCS Department.
Mr. Miller asked whether volunteer time could be used. Mr. Gleason said
volunteers required organization and support. He noted the need to address
both maintenance and operation, which if not done as efficiently as possible
could take away from other maintenance programs.
Ms. Schue said she thought it was a wonderful idea to redo the building for
useful community projects, but she had experience with similar projects in
the past, and she was concerned about the charge to the task force. She said
she thought the project was not a neighborhood project, but was a citywide
project. She said the direction to the task force should ensure that
realities of funding and operating costs were addressed. She said she was
willing to include some private use of the building in order to support the
public use, as was done with parking structures.
Ms. Wooten noted that the second page of the agenda item summary listed five
items that might constitute the charge to the task force. She also asked
that staff return with a report after consulting people of various interests
and levels of expertise on both the formation and composition of the task
force and a more clear and definite outline of the costs of staffing the task
force. Ms. Schue said she was concerned that the charge to develop a
consensus regarding uses would depend on available funds. Ms. Wooten said
she thought that referred to agreement about prioritization of uses, and if
funding could not be fit to those priorities, they could be reshuffled until
funding did fit.
Mr. Bennett said all five items listed by Ms. Wooten would require staff
costs, and the last three items would entail additional costs. He said the
risk of spending public funds would be justified if a realistic business plan
was possible, but he was concerned about that risk in light of other budget
priorities.
Mr. Holmer said he thought the process had been backwards because the
building had been purchased before uses, costs, or funding methods were
known. Given the previous commitment by the council, however, he said he was
prepared to state the motion.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to request that
staff return with a specific proposal for implementing the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 8
e
recommendations as outlined in the staff memo, including the
design of a Request for Proposal/Qualifications to determine
what the private sector might have to offer in the way of
options.
Mr. Bennett said the motion would allow consideration of more than one
alternative, but the development of a proposal required substantial time and
effort. Unless proposals were perceived to have a reasonable chance of
acceptance, none would be received, he predicted. Mr. Holmer said he did not
intend to seek detailed and definitive proposals for immediate adoption, but
rather to make available a set of workable concepts from both the task force
and the private community. Mr. Bennett reiterated his concerns about
availability of financing and about direction. Ms. Wooten said the
subcommittee had considered parallel processes but had respected professional
advice that both would not produce good results.
Ms. Schue said she presumed that finances were the big concern. She
suggested seeking a financial analysis to identify types of funds available
before redesigning the building. She also asked whether Head Start or other
funds might be available.
Mayor Obie said he favored developing a staff proposal to bring back to the
council when more councilors were present.
e
Mr. Gleason suggested the council hold a work session, and he reviewed time
frames and requirements for private and public financing. Any approach would
require operation and maintenance funds and investment in project
development, he added.
Mr. Miller said he thought it would be best to go through the community
process and then to deal with an RFP/Q. He also said he favored obtaining
more information about concurrent or independent processes and waiting for a
decision by the full council.
Ms. Wooten said the council had agreed to save the building for up to five
years, and staff costs for a task force were perhaps $15,000. She said
$120,000 for an interior demolition had been available previously, and she
did not think any reason existed to delay the process. She said she believed
it was important to choose tonight to support a community task force that
would be funded through a portion of the funds that had been allocated for
demolition. She said that if the best hopes and fondest wishes of a mature
community could not be realized, fallback positions like that described by
Mr.Bennett were a real possibility, but she thought the community owed itself
this minor investment.
Ms. Wooten said she understood the motion to request from staff more
clarification of the mission and goals statement, as well as a recommendation
on formation of a task force, and task force simultaneous consideration of
Requests for Proposals or Qualifications for private/public development.
Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 9
e
Mayor Obie requested that the report be returned to the council at a work
session. Mr. Gleason agreed.
V. EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN PARTNERSHIP QUARTERLY REPORT
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Janice Eberly, president of
the Metropolitan Partnership, presented an update of organizational and
administrative issues. She said the partnership's executive committee had
identified goals for 1988 as: recruitment (100 plus jobs); maintaining the
financial stability of the partnership; and enhancing community awareness of
the Metro Partnership.
Ms. Eberly said the committee had specified that the executive director of
the partnership should allocate work according to an 80/20 percent ratio in
favor of recruitment. She noted that an administrative manager position also
had been established and that a new recruitment director had been hired to
begin this week.
Ms. Eberly said the budget committee tomorrow would present a budget
recommendation to the executive committee. The budget for FY88-89 was
$500,000, a reduction of approximately $100,000 from last year, she added.
Ms. Eberly said the review committee, an evaluation committee that met
annually, had begun its series of meetings. She explained that the committee
was made up of members representing each of the partners and was chaired by
Bruce Hall.
e
Vicki Dietmeyer, executive director of the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan
Partnership, reported on recruiting efforts of the partnership. She
expressed appreciation for the new work direction and said recruiting was
using targeted research efforts and market analysis in order to match
industries with community resources.
Ms. Dietmeyer said the partnership in the first quarter of 1988 had averaged
70 cases, which was a substantial increase over 45 cases the same time last
year. She also said that increase had occurred at the same time that staff
had been reduced.
Ms. Dietmeyer said the partnership was starting more intensive work on
monthly case reporting, including compiling information about the location of
the majority of companies' operations. She said 23 of the current 70 cases
were from Oregon, Washington, or Idaho; the majority of those were Oregon
companies seeking to open a second plant or considering a move within the
state. Fifteen companies were from California; ten companies were from the
Northeastern United States; six were from the Midwest; ten were foreign firms
from the Far East or Europe; and five were unknown and being handled through
a consultant. Ms. Dietmeyer added that almost all of the companies from the
Pacific Northwest were secondary wood products companies, while the companies
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 10
e
from California were in more diversified industries--a trend she expected to
continue.
Ms. Dietmeyer said about one-third of the companies expected to create up to
25 jobs and another one-third expected to create between 25 and 75 jobs. She
reviewed recent investment research efforts in California and discussed the
advantages of the Eugene/Springfield area in comparison with those of
Sacramento. Strengths of the local area included low utility rates and
property costs; property taxes were an obstacle, but enterprise zones were
expected to help, she said.
Mayor Obie commended John Lively, who recently joined the State of Oregon
Economic Development Office, as a valuable resource.
VI. APPOINTMENTS: MAYOR'S NOMINATION FOR DOWNTOWN COMMISSION
REPRESENTATIVE ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item.
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to appoint Jim McCoy,
1190 West 5th Avenue, to represent the Downtown Commission on
the Community Development Committee for an indefinite term
length. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0.
e VIr. CITY COUNCI L MEETING .MI.NUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 1988
Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the City
Council meeting minutes of February 22, 1988. Roll call vote;
the motion carried unanimously, 5:0.
The meeting was adjourned to April 27, 1988, at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
>$0:/"'/ /J.""') l ~".;'
.~2?~
Micheal D. Gleason
City Manager
CRecorded by Leslie Scales)
mncc 042588-730
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 25, 1988
Page 11