Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1982 Meeting . - - , M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council City Council Chamber July 21, 1982 11:45 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Keller, Brian Obie, John Ball, Gretchen Miller, D. W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten, Emi ly Schue. , Adjourned meeting of the City Council of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Mayor Keller. 1. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Items from Mayor and Council 1. Senior Nutrition Site Ms. Wooten asked staff for a report on the status of the Senior Nutrition Site at the Lane County Convention Center. She recalled that a letter had been submitted to the Lane County Fair Board supporting the request of the Senior Task Force that the Convention Center become a nutrition site. Th e site i s needed because the programs are being combined due to revenue short-falls from the Federal government. Staff agreed to follow-up on her request. e 2. Telecommunications Bill Ms. Wooten also noted that Senator Barry Goldwater had worked with the National League of Cities regarding Senator Packwood's Telecommunications Bill which this City Council perceived took away an enormous amount of local control in franchise agreements with cable operators. She understood that the new Goldwater bill which was introduced on Monday was as bad or worse as the original Packwood bill. She asked that an inquiry be made from the City to the National League of Cities for their opinion so the City might consider appropriate action. Ms. Smith said she had no objection to the inquiry; however, she did not believe there was a unanimous council position on the issue. Ms. Wooten said she only wanted to know what the National League of Cities' position was regarding the bill and their analysis of it, particularly as it relates to the former Packwood bi 11 . Mr. Hamel agreed the issue should be studied. He said that when the Packwood bill was proposed, Senator Goldwater worked to have it defeated. He was sur- prised that Senator Goldwater would write a bill that would put cities in a worse position. He supported the inquiry so the council could take a position on the bill. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 1 3. Comments by Councilor Ball e Mr. Ball commended those who submitted to the dunking machine at the Pickle Family Circus last weekend. He said funds were raised for a good cause. He also noted that he would be working to relieve the deficiency of park develop- ment in Ward 6. Residents of that ward are very supportive of park development and a very successful first annual Peterson Barn Run was held June 27 to raise funds for park development. 4. Naming of two-block square Mayor Keller said a request from the news media had been received regarding the list of proposed names for the area encompassing the Performing Arts Center, Convention Center and Hilton Hotel. The media asked for the list so they could ask the public for comment. Council consensus was that the media could have the list by Friday at 5 p.m. Mayor Keller said councilors had agreed to each submit one name for considera- tion by the full council on Wednesday, July 28. Mr. Obie said each councilor would vote for two names during the council.s lunch and he suggested the top three names be voted upon by the council at the regular meeting. B. Announcements Mr. Gleason announced that the draft Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Update would be reviewed by the council in a work session immediately following this meeting. He also announced that next Wednesday's meeting would begin with lunch at e 11 :00 a.m. II. ROUT! NE ITEM: PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (listings distributed) Res. No. 3698--A resolution authorizing the payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period June 30, 1982, through July 21, 1982. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARING: EASEMENT VACATION LOCATED EAST OF CITY VIEW ON THE EAST SIDE OF CORINTHIAN COURT (Lawrence Ellins) (EV 82-2) (map, background information distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission April 26, 1982. Vote--7 :0 Mr. Gleason said the staff was available for questions, but there was no formal staff report. Public hearing was opened. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 2 ", CB 2503--An ordinance authorizing vacation of a ten-foot-wide public utility easement located east of City View on the east side of Corinthian Court. - Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2503 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Obie 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 numbered 18998. IV. ADOPTION OF WILLOW CREEK SPECIAL AREA STUDY (background, findings dis- trubted) Mr. Farah said he and Mr. Croteau had reviewed the Willow Creek Special Area Study with the Springfield City Council and that the council had unanimously endorsed the plan amendment. He said the Lane County Commissioners held first reading on the plan amendment and were scheduled to hold second reading on July 28. Mr. Farah noted two attachements to the resolution distributed. Attachment B from the City Attorney's Office contained supplementary findings; Attachment B-2 contained the total set of recommended modifications, including those forwarded by the Planning Commission and those developed by staff following the council's e public hearing. Staff recommended the council adopt the resolution. Mr. Obie noted that he owned property adjacent to the study area. He did not feel a confict of interest existed and would vote on the resolution. Res. No. 3699--A resolution adopting the Willow Creek Special Area Study and amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro- politan Area General Plan. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously with Ms. Smith abstaining. Ms. Wooten thanked staff for the extraordinary effort to prepare the plan amendment in record time as part of the City.s economic diversification program. V. CONDEMNATION AUTHORIZATIONS A. 11th Avenue Widening from Garfield Street to Arthur Street (memo, ordinance distributed) Mr. Allen said the West 11th project is a City project that has gone through the budget process. The City is acquiring portions of additional right-of-way off the north side of two properties on the south side of 11th Avenue. Counc il - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 3 authorization will allow staff to begin negotiations. Staff recommends the council adopt the ordinance. e In response to a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Allen said the project involved acquiring 10 feet from property owned by a bank and an auto repair business and would add a second left-turn lane going east. CB 2504--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of property interests for the purposes of street widening, sidewalk construction on West 11th Avenue from Garfield Street to Arthur Street; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Ro 11 call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2504 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Obie 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 decalred passed and numbered 18999. B. Seasonal Industrial Waste Treatment Site and Pressure Line (memo, map, ordinance distributed) e Mr. Allen said this project involved the City in acquiring property rights on five properties at the Agripac site and eight properties for construction rights of the pressure line. The Public Works Department is under contract to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission to do this project. St aff recommends that council adopt the ordinance. Ms. Schue asked how the waste got from the cannery to Beacon Drive. Mr. Allen said the waste was moved by a separate 12-inch pressure line whose route had been established by public hearing before the Wastewater Commission. The pressure line will carry the industrial waste of the Agripac facility only. Mr. Ball asked about the longevity of the Agripac facility. Mr. Allen said that was a Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission concern that had been debated and the last official word was that the facility was here to stay. Mr. Gleason said his communications with the President of Agripac indicated that they fully intended to stay and were spending a great deal of money to upgrade the plant. Even if the plant were sold, Mr. Gleason noted the waste would still need to be moved and the new wastewater facility, which the cities of Eugene and Springfield have designed and spent millions of dollars on, will not work if the hydraulic loads are not moved to a separate site. He also noted the Metropolitan Wastewater Study completed three years ago for which public hearings were held, the public hearings on the pressure line, and the environmental impact statements completed. Mr. Gleason said in other cities in which he has worked that had liquid waste from industrial plants, the waste was moved to a separate site. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 4 Ms. Smith commented that whether Agripac was going to stay or not was a concern of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. She said the commission e had done everything in its power to encourage that operation to stay in this area. Everything the commission heard from Agripac has been positive and the commission felt the only choice was to operate on the assumption that the company was staying. CB 2505--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of property interests for the purposes of construction of sanitary sewer and seasonal industrial waste facilities in the vicinity of Prairie Road and Beacon Drive; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2505 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Obie 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 numbered 19000. VI. STAFF REPORT CONCERNING TRAFFIC FLOW ON OLIVE STREET BETWEEN 6TH AND 7TH e AVENUES (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason said this was an informational item only and there was no formal staff report at this time. Ms. Wooten asked if the report addressed the issue of signalization. Mr. Hanks said it did not, but only dealt with whether Olive Street should become a two-way street or should be left as it is. She noted interest in such a report in the future. VII. POLICY DIRECTION: ANNEXATION OF NON-CONTIGUOUS INDUSTRIAL LANDS (memo, background information distributed) Tom Hayes, Planning Department staff, said the policy direction the staff was seeking which had received unanimous approval of the Planning Commission last week, was for the council to adopt a concept for annexation of non-contiguous industrial land and the criteria proposed for evaluating such annexations. Residential and commercial land uses would continue to be reviewed under exist- ing criteria and the specific criteria proposed was for non-contiguous industrial annexations only. Mr. Hayes said the proposal was the result of revisions in State statutes that omitted the contiguity requirement for certain types of annexations ruled on by the Boundary Commission. Staff was proposing that the City have the flexibility to annex non-contiguous industrial lands. Mr. Hayes said the proposal did not e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 5 change long-term City commitments contained in the Metropolitan General Plan for servicing land within the Urban Growth Boundary. This would be a short-term implementation strategy that would establish criteria to review requests for non- e contiguous industrial land annexations. Staff recognized the concept was experi- mental. An application is pending for non-contiguous industrial annexation and staff would like authorization to proceed with reviewing that application. Mr. Lindberg asked what staff meant by experimental and did staff expect an ordinance to be developed once the concept was approved. Mr. Hayes said staff was suggesting this be experimental in the sense that there may be many issues to be considered in a non-contiguous annexation that staff was not aware of at this time in terms of servicing and cost efficiencies. Staff would like approval of the concept and the opportunity to review the one application to see what issues arise, rather than commit to a long-term strategy at this time. Ms. Miller felt criterion 2 was not clear about the extraordinary costs to service non-contiguous property. She thought the phrase should read "financing, time and phasing" rather than simply "time and phasing" as the two factors to be looked at. Ms. Schue said she was somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of the council approving the concept and staff trying it to see if the details work out. Mr. Gleason said the proposal had evolved gradually as a result of discussions about annexing property within the Urban Growth Boundary, particularly with regard to industrial land. It is a method for expediting the execution of the General Plan and sitings of firms. He said after discussions with department heads it was felt staff could proceed with the application and come up with a good product. After that application process is complete and public hearings have been held and the Boundary Commission has reviewed it, staff would like to e come back to the council for a reassessment of the procedure. That is the experimental nature of the proposal. Mr. Gleason noted that last year the council had changed the annexation policy with regard to the River Road/Santa Clara area and agreed to annex incrementally as long as it was consistent with the General Plan. This proposal is a further refinement of that particular issue. Mr. Gleason did not believe the concept would have been proposed had the County adopted the original suggestion of the City Council with regards to the Urban Growth Boundary. The County chose to adopt a different procedure. Mr. Gleason said the properties are going to be developed and if the City does not bring them inside the City limits, the City cannot bond them to pay for the utilities that will be necessary. Ms. Wooten said she had serious concerns about the proposal. She asked what was the substance of the experimental proposal; was the application for a large acreage, where was it located, and will it have a large impact? She said perhaps more details should be outlined before the council takes a final vote. She was very concerned about going ahead with "leap frog" annexations for industrial purposes and having the the council commit to a proposal which she felt was dramatic and moved from the usual City planning process. Mr. Gleason said he did not believe the proposal moved or was dramatic; if anything the City was being overly cautious. He said this was part of implement- ing the General Plan. The Willow Creek Special Area Study the council adopted e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 6 is outside the City limits. He said within the General Plan the City has agreed to allow industrial sitings in those areas that are within the Urban Growth Boundary. Because of the triple majority requirement in the State law for e annexation, he said it was very likely, unless someone is forced to be annexed that does not want to be annexed, that the City will have to provide services outside the City limits or come up with an annexation procedure. His feeling was that the proposal before the council allowed it to have the mechanism for annexing land when it has to be serviced, without forcing adjacent property owners to be annexed. Mr. Farah said the proposal was for industrial lands between the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary. In terms of industrial lands, staff did not believe there was anything sacred about contiguity. The servicing of industrial lands is markedly different from the servicing requirements of residential properties where contiguity may be a much more important criterion. Staff felt the proposal was saying what had been said during the discussions which developed the Metro- politan General Plan; that the cities will be the providers of urban services, that urbanization will occur in the area out to the Urban Growth Boundary, and that the best way to deal with the issues is to develop an active annexation attitude regarding industrial lands. Staff did not believe this was a dramatic step; only an incremental step. Ms. Wooten said she respected the work of the staff and the elected officials committee; however, she was very nervous about the proposal. If the City, for example, agrees to an annexation that is on the outer fringe of the Urban Growth Boundary, she was concerned that this would create a precedent for going beyond the boundary. She did not want the council to send a signal that it was prepared to deal with requests like that. e Mr. Gleason said the City Attorney had pointed out that the proposal only dealt with voluntary annexations, and was not binding on the council in terms of an annexation decision. Staff was asking for a determination of the policy. An annexation may come before the council which it may not wish to accept. This proposal does not bind the council for those future decisions. Ms. Wooten asked if the council could have more information about the application that had been received. Staff said that was possible. Ms. Miller did not feel that was the proper way to proceed. She said the proposal did not concern one particular application and she wanted to proceed with the policy decision on the basis of whether the council felt the policy was appropriate or not. When an application is received, she said the council could review it and de~ide whether it is an appropriate candidate for annexation and whether it should be taken to the Boundary Commission. She said the proposal was for specific City policy for implementing the General Plan. She said the General Plan was agreed to by all three jurisdictions and within a short time should be approved by LCDC. She said during the discussions in the adoption procedure of the General Plan, the council reviewed the implications for the City. She felt the council over the next five years or so would have this kind of decision regarding implementation of the General Plan. Ms. Miller said she had no problem with the council saying that as it implements the General Plan it is implementing basic City policy that cities are the providers of urban services. If there is an opportunity to provide an area for e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 7 industrial development that would provide employment opportunities for the community, that is an urban level of development and should take place within a e city. She did not feel the proposal concerned 1I1eap frogll development in terms of small areas of development allover the county, but concerned development within the Urban Growth Boundary and the City would tolerate some extra ineffic- iencies within that boundary to go after specific parcels that are particularly important for some specific reason. Until the City looks at a specific applica- tion, it will not know how much more money it will cost or how inefficient it will be. That was why she wanted financing added to the criteria. Ms. Miller said within the framework of her comments, she was prepared to approve the policy and to make the same evaluation of any proposed non-contiguous annexation as she would of any contiguous annexation proposal. Mayor Keller commented that once the City Council decided to claim land inside the urban growth boundary as urbanizable, he felt it made a commitment to develop it. How that development would occur was a new step for the council. He said when it was decided that cities would provide urban services, the vote of the jurisdictions was 6:0. The County asked the cities to develop the criteria for the necessary annexations and this proposal is a response to that request. He said Springfield may try a totally different approach. He sa i d i f a major plant relocation or major development was proposed, he would expect staff to be sensitive to the issues as would the council. He agreed with Ms. Miller that who the applicant was, was not necessarily as important as how does the council give leadership and direction to staff to do their work. Mr. Obie supported the comments of Ms. Miller and Mayor Keller. He said the council could only reassess the policy as it obtains experience in it and that e was what he liked about the tentative nature of the proposal. He said it allows the council to refine the policy as it is used. He felt the City had an obliga- tion to implement the adopted General Plan and had an obligation to provide industrial lands to satisfy community needs. He said the proposal answered that community need and at the same time is responsive and reflective of the planning effort that has gone on in the community for years. He urged the council to adopt the proposal as outlined with the proviso that it will be reviewed from time to time to see if it still meets the community's needs. Mr. Ball asked if it was absolutely understood that this proposal was strictly for non-contiguous industrial lands and would not be the first step towards an annexation policy for non-contiguous commercial or residential lands. Mr. Gleason said it was. He said in the adoption of the General Plan, staff recognized that industrial properties would be developed first, followed by com- mercial and residential properties. That is the sequencing for executing the General Plan and one which will be followed in developing the Willow Creek area. Mr. Gleason said there is a directive in the General Plan that says that when a certain acreage of residential property is reached, the City must have a certain reserve. If the numbers get out of balance, the council will be requested to make more annexations, and when requests come before the council, staff will recommend for or against the request based upon the percentage. Mr. Ball asked if criterion 2 would be changed to reflect Ms. Miller's concern regarding extraordinary costs. Mr. Gleason said it would. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 8 . . . Ms. Schue thanked Ms. Miller, Mayor Keller and staff for working out this compromise. She said she found Ms. Miller1s comments informative and reasonable. e Recognizing that the Urban Growth Boundary will be protected and services will be provided by the City, and in view of the need for economic growth, she felt the proposal was a reasonable compromise and one that the council ought to agree to. Ms. Wooten said she would reluctantly, or perhaps skeptically, support the proposed policy. She asked how long was the experimental phase of the proposal and when could the council expect to have a review and analysis of how well the proposal was working. Mr. Farah said staff is in the process of preparing a series of other policies that relate to the Metropolitan General Plan and urbanization. One checkpoint in the process might be a review of the entire package of urbanization policies which could include the proposal before the council today. This review should occur in late fall or early winter. Ms. Wooten said she recognized that the area in question was urbanizable land. However, she hoped the policy worked to enhance the Urban Growth Boundary and opposed to sending any signals that the council would be willing to compromise that boundary. Mr. Gleason noted that in his judgement and the judgement of the City Attorney, it would be illegal for the City to annex land outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Any change in the boundary would have to be agreed to by the three jurisdictions. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the pOlicy as e recommended by staff with the change of including the word IIfinan- cing" to criterion 2 as recommended by Ms. Miller. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VIII. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING DOWNTOWN COMMISSION (ordinance distributed) Mr. Gleason noted the amendments were those requested by the City Council at its last meeting and staff recommended adoption at this time. CB 2501--An ordinance concerning the Downtown Commission; amending Sections 2.155, 2.157, 3.700, and 3.715 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an effective date. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2501 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Obie 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 numbered 19001. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 9 . . IX. DISCUSSION/ACTION ON DOWNTOWN COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Ballots were submitted as follows: - Balloting for the Downtown Commission positions (2) for the In-District category: Cynthia Wooten: Anne Bennett, Mike Schwartz; Emily Schue: Anne Bennett, Mike Schwartz; Betty Smith: Mike Schwartz, Anne Bennett; Brian Obie: Anne Bennett, Mike Schwartz; Bill Hamel: Mike Schwartz, Anne Bennett; Gretchen Miller: Anne Bennett, Mike Schwartz; John Ball: Anne Bennett, Mike Schwartz; and Mark Lindberg: Anne Bennett, Mike Schwartz. Balloting for the one (1) At-Large position: Cynthia Wooten: Tom Schott; Bill Hamel: Tom Schott; Mark Lindberg: Tom Schott; Gretchen Miller: Tom Schott; Emily Schue: Tom Schott; Betty Smith: Tom Schott; John Ball: Tom Schott; and Brian Obie: Tom Schott. Mr. Ball said it was clear to him that there has been an under-representation of women on the former downtown boards and commissions. He said it appeared that this would be an on-going problem for some time. He felt the community needed to take note of that and determine to work hard to correct it in the future. He said the commissions are unnecessarily weakened as long as they don't have a wide enough process to involve a good cross section of the community. Ms. Schue supported Mr. Ballls comments and said she and Mr. Ball would be watching the replacement list for some good women candidates. Mayor Keller said the Women's Commission would also be following that process very closely. He e said the comments were appropriate and he knew the council struggled with that issue. He complimented the council on its work and noted it was difficult to step back sometimes and review, but the council did. He said there were some major areas of concern that perhaps went unrepresented and the council dealt with those. What pleased Mayor Keller most was that the commission could begin its heavy work schedule united and supported by all elements of the community, which was very important. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that Mike Schwartz and Anne Bennett be appointed to the In-District positions on the Downtown Commission, and Thomas Schott be appointed to the At- Large position on the commission, and that the Mayor, President, and Vice-President of the City Council be delegated to make a recommendation back to the council relative to terms of appoint- ment for each of the appointees, including those appointments made two weeks ago to the Downtown Commission. Roll call vote; motion carried unani~ously. Mr. Obie expressed his appreciation of the council's work and he was pleased that when problems such as this one arise, they are handled in such a way that is responsive to the community and the interests of the council. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 10 . . . , Mr. Obie expressed his appreciation of the council's work and he was pleased that when problems such as this one arise, they are handled in such a way that - is responsive to the community and the interests of the council. Mr. Obie said he and Ms. Schue were requesting that staff advertise for positions that will become open on MAPAC. He hoped everyone would encourage strong women candidates to apply so they may be considered. The meeting was adjourned. R;~. M;cheal D. Gleason City Man ager MDG:pm/CM8a23 - e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 11