Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/1989 Meeting . e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber--City Hall Apri 1 19, 1989 11: 30 a. m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman, Bobby Green, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan. The adjourned meeting of April 12, 1989, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. WORK SESSION: ORDINANCES CONCERNING THE CITY'S NUCLEAR FREE lONE City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Glen Potter, Intergovern- mental Relations, presented the staff report. Mr. Potter reviewed the report submitted as background for the work session. The report discussed six different nuclear free zone (NFl) proposals, which included the original ordinance, the existing ordinance, the minimally revised version (MRV), the Bennett ordinance, the Boles/Green ordinance, and the Miller ordinance. The report briefly outlined the history and highlighted key provisions of each proposal, provided local election results on the issue, and offered cost estimates. Mr. Potter said principal factors that determined the cost estimates were staffing and overhead for a nuclear free zone board and anticipated legal costs. The Nuclear Free Zone Task Force envisioned staff support for an NFl board as .5 to 1.0 FTE (split evenly between clerical and professional support). Anticipated legal fees are based on the likelihood of City enforcement activities and on the potential for legal challenges to a particular ordinance. Ms. Ehrman inquired about the $5,000 estimated cost difference between the Boles/Green ordinance and the Bennett ordinance. Mr. Potter responded that different legal fees were anticipated because of the greater breadth of the Boles/Green ordinance. Ms. Bascom proposed appointment of a board as a means to provide an opportunity for the peace community to become involved and she recommended basing appointments on the criteria developed in the MRV. Ms. Bascom suggested limiting the boardls expenses to $10,000. Ms. Ehrman asked whether Ms. Bascom would support the Boles/Green ordinance with the addition of an expenditure cap. Ms. Bascom responded that she MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting April 19, 1989 Page 1 e considered the Boles/Green version to be unnecessarily broad in scope and favored the scope of the Bennett ordinance. Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Potter explained that in both the Boles/Green and Bennett versions, the members of the appointed board would be required to be nuclear free zone proponents sympathetic to the spirit of the ordinance. In the Boles/Green ordinance, a member of the City Council and a member of the Sister City or a human rights commission would be added to the seven-member board as ex officio members. Ms. Bascom indicated that a seven-member board would be preferable to a larger one. Ms. Schue encouraged the council to strive to achieve resolution on the issue today. She summarized the council's options as being: the Boles/Green position which supports the MRV; the existing ordinance; or a compromise as offered by the Miller and Bennett proposals. Ms. Schue favored the Bennett ordinance as a compromise and agreed with Ms. Bascom1s proposal regarding the board. She suggested proceeding with the implementation of the important aspects of the original ordinance which would include appointing a board and holding a memorial event in August. Ms. Schue recommended that the council review the issue in a year. Mr. Boles maintained that the broader scope of the Boles-Green proposal is consistent with legal constraints and most closely corresponds with what the voters have indicated as their preference. e Ms. Ehrman requested additional information about the board1s proposed reporting relationships and about the impact a budget cap would have on the board1s functions. Mr. Potter replied that the different proposals vary, with some having the board advise the City Manager, others the City Council. He said it was unclear to whom an elected board would report or be accountable. Mr. Potter anticipated the board's biggest expenditure would be staffing. Estimates for funding a signing and notification program and an annual commemoration program are between $5,000 and $10,000 annually. Staff support for the board would be an additional expense. Ms. Bascom reported that members of the peace community have indicated their desire to volunteer to reduce expenses. She suggested limiting the scope of the board so members can carry out its functions with less staff support. Answering a question from Mayor Miller, Mr. Potter estimated that expenses for minutes taking and distribution would be approximately $5,000 to $6,000 annua lly. Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about a budget cap that would preclude staff involvement. She considered the administrative expertise of staff important for a City board. Mr. Bennett said he hoped for council agreement to a compromise proposal similar in scope to that included in the Bennett ordinance, which he preferred to refer to as "Plan B." Mr. Bennett pointed out that this particular proposal was discussed by the task force as a compromise and resulted from efforts of City Attorney Tim Sercombe and Mr. Potter as well as e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting April 19, 1989 Page 2 e himself. Referring to budget issues presently being faced by the City, Mr. Bennett urged care in allocating substantial funds to a regulatory board. He encouraged the council to seek consensus and questioned the value of a split vote on the council over this issue. While he appreciated the work of Mr. Bennett and the task force, Mr. Boles reiterated that consistency with the instructions of the voters was the primary issue, not cost or content of the ordinance. Mr. Green shared concern regarding costs, but he concurred with Mr. Boles that the intent of the voters must be followed. Mr. Green alluded to the humanistic aspect of the issue and said taking action now will help avoid a greater cost later. Mayor Miller suggested that the only way of curtailing board costs would be by narrowly defining the scope of the boardls activities. Mr. Holmer reminded the council that he and Ms. Ehrman had voted to implement the measure passed by the voters in 1986, but they were overruled by a majority vote of the council. He said the ordinance that was adopted identifies the community sufficiently to attract an international convention. Affirming his belief in the initiative process, Mr. Holmer urged the council to refrain from attempts to distort or modify that process by intervening to enact a new ordinance at this time. e Mr. Ehrman recalled that the task force forwarded both the MRV and Bennett proposals with the same vote (seven to six in each case, according to Mr. Potter). Responding to Ms. Bascom1s request for comments regarding the board's cost to the City, Mr. Gleason said a sanctioned body of the City must operate under certain legal constraints. A board with investigative powers is required to adhere to stringent statutory restrictions. He recalled a situation involving human rights commissions and said City staff and boards should always receive legal advice before investigating in the areas of civil liberties and free speech. Mayor Miller summarized the direction the council appeared to be moving as being toward a board with appointments made according to the criteria of the MRV, and with limited expenditures made possible by the board being more educational and promotional. Mr. Gleason pointed out that expenses would be reduced by the boardls authority not involving difficult legal issues and by the council adopting a work program for the board. Ms. Bascom suggested appointing, through council interview and by the criteria established in the MRV, a seven-member nuclear free zone board. Ms. Ehrman suggested designating two of the seven members as representatives of the Sister City and human rights commissions. Ms. Bascom responded that this restriction of appointments could make it difficult to appoint a working board. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting April 19, 1989 Page 3 e e e Ms. Ehrman and Ms. Schue concurred that two positions on the board should be reserved and Ms. Bascom stated her opposition. Mr. Holmer, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Boles, and Mr. Green preferred taking no position on this point. Mr. Bennett stated that in the absence of consensus, he preferred continuing with the present ordinance until the initiative election in May 1990. Mr. Boles and Ms. Schue agreed that the councills process of addressing the issues was not successful in bringing about consensus or a strong decision. Ms. Ehrman felt that the council could reach a compromise and she would be disappointed if the matter was dropped until the 1990 election. Mr. Green indicated his intent was to vote on the issues before the council and he stated he could not support a board whose purpose was promotional. He maintained that the scope of the board's authority must reflect the intent of the voters. Mayor Miller argued that the Bennett proposal clarifies and reflects that intent, but Mr. Boles responded that only the MRV and the Boles/Green version are broad enough in scope to satisfy that intent while being consistent with the City's legal obligations. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Sercombe to comment on the defensibility of the Boles/Green version and the possibility of litigation. Mr. Sercombe said one of the issues involved is whether the MRV or the Boles/Green revision is defensible from constitutional attack based on a claim of vagueness and violation of due process rights of persons affected by the ordinance. His judgment was that the ordinance passes that constitutional threshold because it is clear enough to defend, but he also considered it subject to a great deal of interpretation in terms of where the coverage begins and ends. He specifi ca lly ci ted the terms "primary intended purpose," "command, control, and communications systems," and "delivery system" as being particularly difficult to interpret. Mr. Sercombe said there could be situations in which the City, through a declaratory judgment proceeding (being sued) or in an enforcement proceeding (suing), incurs great litigation expense in defining the scope of the MRV. Mayor Miller commented on the difficulty of always meeting constitutional criteria while making decisions in a representative democracy. Mr. Bennett ~dded that the council had attempted to act in accordance with the City's charter provisions when it modified the voter-approved ordinance to make it legally enforceable. He reiterated his objection to spending $30,000 to $50,000 on this ordinance and again encouraged the council to put this issue aside in order to address other important issues in the community. Answering Mr. Boles's question regarding the difference in enforceability between the Bennett and the Boles/Green versions, Mr. Sercombe said it was difficult to predict, but because the MRV and the Boles/Green version are more broad and less technically clear as to scope, they would subject the MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting Apri 1 19, 1989 Page 4 e City to the two types of legal costs he mentioned earlier (declaratory judgment and enforcement proceedings). Ms. Ehrman observed that the community has identified the issue as one of its priorities regardless of other competing needs for funding in the community. She questioned whether the board could satisfy the intent of the ordinance if it was limited to a promotional function and she said she would not support appointing a board without investigatory authority. Mr. Sercombe answered a question from Mr. Bennett by saying that the charter amendment charges the board with responsibility for ensuring compliance with the act in cooperation with City law enforcement and other appropriate agencies. He assumed that this might give the board some duty or power to look at suspected violators and to report them to City authorities. Additionally, the board is charged with being responsible for informing the appropriate agencies and legal authorities of suspected violations. Mr. Sercombe described this as a referral function and said it might be possible to give the board referral authority without giving it the duty to investigate and gather evidence. Ms. Bascom observed that Mr. Sercombe's suggestion of a board with referral authority was not part of any of the proposals before the council. Ms. Schue again suggested not taking any action at this time with the understanding that discussion will continue and the issue may come back for council action if agreement appears likely. e Councilors concurred that agreement on the issue appeared unlikely at this time and discontinued their discussion. The meeting was recessed to the McNutt Room at 12:27 p.m. II. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER A. Gun Control Ordinance Mr. Holmer inquired about the status of the council's request for a copy of the Los Angeles ordinance outlawing the sale and possession of AK47 weapons. Mr. Boles said the council forwarded a copy of the ordinance to the Public Safety Advisory Committee (PSAC) and recommended that PSAC form a task force to address the issue. PSAC chose to process the issue through its Legislative Subcommittee rather than form a task force. The subcommittee decided not to address the issue until the State Legislature makes a decision regarding the various gun control bills that have been submitted. B. Railroad in Alton Baker Park Mr. Holmer said a conditional use permit hearing will be held on May 10, 1989, to decide whether a narrow-gauge railroad can be built in Alton Baker Park. He said the City Attorneyls Office raised a number of questions e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting April 19, 1989 Page 5 e e e and recommendations regarding the railroad in a memorandum (dated March 13, 1989) to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services (PARCS) Department. Mr. Holmer asked for a report on how these issues will be resolved before the conditional use permit hearing. Mr. Gleason said these issues will be covered in the contract with the developer. This contract will be forwarded to the council for its review before it is signed. Ms. Schue said members of the Joint Parks Committee are split 4:3 in favor of allowing the railroad, with the caveat that the railroad company meet all the requirements (including those issues raised by the City Attorney's Office). C. Mayor/Council Compensation Mayor Miller circulated a memo concerning mayor/council compensation. He asked councilors to relay any concerns they might have about the memorandum to him within the week. Mayor Miller indicated that if no concerns are raised, he would begin making appointments to the review committee. III. URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT--11TH AND WILLAMETTE STREET Bob Hibschman, Planning, Development, and Building staff, introduced the item. Wendy St. Laurent, Development Director for St. Laurent Development Company, gave an overview of the project. The proposed project will be a mixed-use development on a site owned by the Eugene Renewal Agency at 11th and Willamette Street. The project will include retail, office, parking, and two floors of housing. Ms. St. Laurent said this site is on a prime corner and is at a major entrance to downtown. In addition, the City has identified downtown housing as a primary goal. Ms. St. Laurent felt this project would address both the goal of creating a more vital downtown and the need for more housing. She felt the project would also help link the University of Oregon to the Downtown Mall. Ms. St. Laurent said the ground level of the project will be occupied by retail, the next two floors would be reserved for office space, and the upper two levels would contain two-story townhouses. She said the project would be transitional in scale between the residential character of the university neighborhood and the more urban character of the mall. To promote this transition, the building will be developed in a series of setbacks with each floor being set back slightly from the one previous to it. Ms. St. Laurent said there will be approximately 14,000 square feet of retail space, 25,000 to 30,000 square feet of office space, and 25 apartment units. Underneath the structure, approximately 70 parking spaces will be developed in a single level. Ms. St. Laurent said although the site is in a parking-exempt zone, the company felt it was important to provide some parking since the development would eliminate a current surface parking lot. Ms. St. Laurent said rent for the townhouses will range from $.65 to $.70 per square foot. She said while this is on the high end of the market now, by the time the units are developed rental rates may reach this level. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting April 19, 1989 Page 6 e e - Mr. Hibschman reviewed the proposed terms of land disposition and development. He said the council will be asked to review the Memorandum of Understanding for the project at its May 10 meeting. Staff is proposing a lease of the land with the option for the developer to purchase the land at any time at the appraised value at that time. Also under this proposal, annual payments for the land after the second year will be six percent of the value of the land. This rate will increase to ten percent after a ten-year period. Mr. Hibschman said a parking loan of up to $1 million from the Tax Allocation Fund is being considered. An interest rate of six percent would be charged on this loan, with a 30-year term and a 15-year call. Mr. Hibschman said staff has spent much time reviewing the forma and discussing the project needs with the developer. have been tailored to the unique character of the project. the project is financially feasible. development pro He said the terms Staff believes Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Hibschman said there has been discussion about making some parking spaces available to the public, but this option is not practical given the developerls desire to provide security for the parking so the housing portion of the project will be more marketable. Ms. Ehrman noted that the Downtown Development.District Review Group took this development and the consequent loss of public parking into consideration during its review of the parking situation in the downtown area. Ms. Bascom asked what alternatives will be available to those who currently park in the surface lot at 11th Avenue and Willamette Street. Mr. Hibschman said currently the surface lot is used quite intensively by people associated with Lane Community College (LCC) Downtown Center. Staff will notify LCe of the timing of the development and emphasize other parking opportunities such as the Overpark and other surface lots in the Olive Street area. In response to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Hibschman said there is a tax abatement over a ten-year period for the housing portion of this project. However, after the third year, the developer would be paying ten percent of the normal taxes into a low-income housing fund. Reference to this agreement will be included in the Memorandum of Understanding. Several councilors complimented the developers on the project, particularly for the integration of housing and for attending to the scale of the building. IV. WORK SESSION: HB 3414 ABOLISHING THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION Pat Decker, Planning, Development, and Building staff, introduced the item. She said at the council meeting on April 10, Representative Larry Campbell requested that the council reconsider its position on HB 3413. Ms. Decker MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting Apri 1 19, 1989 Page 7 e noted that staff responses to questions about the Lane County Boundary Commission raised by Representative Campbell and Councilor Holmer were contained in the background information for this item. Ms. Schue said this bill addresses the issue of how to effectively control annexation in areas of growth. She stressed that this is one of the purposes of the Boundary Commission. Mr. Holmer quoted an article in The Register-Guard (April 19, 1989) which stated that "termination of the boundary commissions would return local government boundary determination wholly to local electorates or local government governing bodies or both. Because of the complex ramifications of boundary proposals, and the fierce passions they commonly generate, local electorates cannot be depended on to determine local government boundaries best in the overall public interest.1I Mr. Holmer noted his complete agreement with this statement and asked why local governments and local electorates do not decide questions regarding boundaries in the overall local public interest. He said any local governing body that is given unilateral power to determine such a boundary will commonly, if not universally, be caught in a conflict of interest. e Given this, Mr. Holmer said the chief defense of the boundary commission in this area is that it allows for an expedited procedure. Mr. Holmer cited several statistics pertaining to local annexations last year to support his position that the Lane County Boundary Commission does not effectively expedite the annexation process. He pointed out that it is not necessary to retain the Boundary Commission to have an expedited process; this can be accomplished under the general annexation law that applies in many other counties throughout the state. Mr. Holmer added that the urban growth boundary and Metropolitan Area General Plan provide a means for ensuring that annexations are reasonable and fair. He felt the council would behave responsibly with respect to annexations, and noted that State land use laws also require this. Mayor Miller felt the Boundary Commission provides for an efficient delivery of urban services and equitable payment for those services. He did not feel the existing laws ensure that these functions would be met if the Boundary Commission were eliminated. Ms. Schue added that if HB 3413 passes, the City would lose its authority to annex non-contiguous areas, because this type of annexation is only permitted by a boundary commission. Ms. Bascom indicated her support for the Boundary Commission, which she feels helps address the issue of who to include in the payment schedule for urban services and promotes sounder decisions about when to proceed with annexations. Ms. Schue said she agrees with Mr. Holmer1s position that the Boundary Commission does not completely solve the problems associated with annexation; it is one tool among many for dealing with a very complex issue. However, Ms. Schue felt the Boundary Commission is still needed. She said if it were to be abolished, the City would have to deal directly with the Lane County e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting April 19, 1989 Page 8 - Board of Commissioners. Ms. Schue pointed out that the County Commissioners are not very enthusiastic about annexations at this time. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the council continue with its present policy to oppose HB 3413. The motion passed 6:1, with Ms. Bascom, Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Green, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Boles, and Ms. Schue voting in favor, and Mr. Holmer voting against. V. CONCEPTS AS REFLECTED IN LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 1989 Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to approve the concepts reflected in the April 10, 1989, Legislative Committee minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. At 1:30 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to April 24, 1989. 4It (Recorded by Mary Feldman and Tanya Northman) MNCC 041989 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session and Meeting April 19, 1989 Page 9