Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/15/1984 Meeting e- e - \ . MI NUT ES Eugene City Council City Council Chamber February 15, 1984 12:05 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, and Betty Smith. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS; AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Response to Letter from the Mayor of Springfield Councilor Wooten stated that she had several comments in regard to the letter from Mayor Lively of Springfield on that city's position on flow-based rates. She stated that she is concerned and believes that the council should take some action. She suggested that the issue could be discussed at the end of the meeting. Mayor Keller suggested that the other councilors familiarize themselves with the letter for discussion later in the meeting. B. Appointments City Manager Micheal Gleason requested that the balloting for interviewees for the Downtown Commission be postponed until the end of the meeting. It was agreed that this item be delayed until later in the meeting. C. Announcements City Manager Micheal Gleason announced that the City Council has a special meeting that evening at 5:30 p.m. in the McNutt Room for the purpose of inter- viewing applicants to the City Council position for Ward 3 vacated by Mark Lindberg. II. ROUTINE ITEM FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL: City Council Dinner/Work Session Minutes of January 18, 1984 (minutes distributed) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to approve the City Council minutes of January 18, 1984. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 1 e e - III. LANE COUNTY PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ZONING PROPOSALS (memo, ordinance, maps distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Gary Chenkin of the Planning Department presented the staff report, briefly reviewing the February 15, 1984, Planning Department memorandum. He stated that the Lane County Board of Commissioners was taking testimony that day on the issue; therefore, staff must provide any comment to the board that afternoon. He stated that staff plans to submit a brief memorandum to provide direction to the board on the council's opinion on the issues. Councilor Holmer stated that his concern is with the land outside the Metro Plan as addressed in Part II of the memorandum. In regard to the approximately 700 acres of the Industrial Triangle parcel, he said the single ownership property just north of the urban growth boundary has been seen as a potential industrial park site. Mr. Holmer said the owners have their own plans for the property, but these plans do not propose any amendment to the Metro Plan. He questioned whether any other response can be given to the property owners prior to the five-year plan update in 1987. Jim Farah of the Planning Department responded that the Metro Plan is an agreement between the three major metropolitan juris- dictions. He said that staff is recommending a continuing partnership approach. He said staff with concurrence from the other jurisdictions can respond through the major update or in the mid-year update in 1985, clarifying that staff had not anticipated any major update in the mid-year review, but he acknowledged that it is an opportunity. In addition, Mr. Farah stated that the property owner can request that the plan amendment be removed from the process and studied independently. In response to a question, Mr. Farah said he believed that no additional barriers to a plan amendment would be created if the County designates the property for farm use only. He said the urban reserve area in the Willow Creek Basin is the next logical area for large-scale development. Other areas for possible industrial development are the LCC Basin and the Industrial Triangle. He clarified that State law requires that each area within an urban growth boundary be zoned for some type of land use and that the plan amendment process will require a review of the land use. Councilor Hansen said the jurisdictional boundary is apparently on Awbrey Lane under the Metro Plan; therefore, property to the north is beyond the City's overall plan. He questioned if the City Council still has influence with the Board of Commissioners toward its plan for that property. City Attorney Tim Sercombe responded that the ability of the City to comment on Lane County's process is a factor of its proximity; therefore, the City does have some stand- ing to make comment. He stated that any land converted to urban uses must be within an urban growth boundary. In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe stated that annexation differs from comprehensive plan designation. He stated that industrialization of the land would not require formal annexation to the city, but it would require that some comprehensive plan allow industrial use as a designated use. Mr. Gleason added that the City cannot annex or industrialize the property unless it is within the city's urban growth boundary. He said LUBA has already ruled that the land cannot be developed unless it is within the urban growth boundary. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason stated that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 2 e e - issue of Lane County zoning the property would be tested by LCDC and would probably be rejected as a plan element as inconsistent with its statewide planning goals. He stated that the land would have to be within the urban growth boundary and then designated for industrial use before it could be developed. Mr. Gleason said he does not believe that the Lane County plan will be approved with the Industrial Triangle property designation included. He said that action would violate the goal regarding urbanized land established by the LCDC. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the property is already zoned for manufacturing uses. He said the issue is whether the property is appropriately designated in a comprehensive plan as suitable for industrial uses, the current designation on the County plan being Industrial Reserve and Agricultural. He explained that the issue before the County commis- sioners is whether to change those designations to Industrial for the property to be used for industrial purposes. He said the legal position is that the pro- perty cannot be designated as Industrial on the County plan. In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe said the County will determine whether the property is to be designated Industrial or Agricultural; therefore, a change will occur for the property. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten, Mr. Chenkin stated that the Eugene Planning Commission discussion on the issue of support of the EFU for the property was brief and that the commission was basing its recommendation to the City Council on past council action. Councilor Wooten stated that she was ready to support EFU zoning for the Industrial Triangle parcel, stating that she believes the City has proceeded in a conscientious manner to fund the infra- structure development of the property. She felt that support of the straight Industrial zoning would sabotage the Metro Plan as adopted by LCDC. Councilor Schue said it was her understanding that if the urban growth boundary was moved to include the property and it appeared as Industrial within the plan, then the City would be obliged to provide services. Mr. Farah stated that a Metro Plan Policy states that all urbanized land will have City levels of services. Ms. Schue stated that it is for that reason she is opposed to making any changes in the present situation. She said it is unrealistic to give any implication of service provision in that area. Councilor Holmer agreed that it is premature to make any commitment, stating that his primary concern is for a complete review of any proposal presented by the property owners or undertaken by the City. He asked staff if it would be appropriate to indicate in the testimony to the County that the City is ready to facilitate the review of a detailed plan for the development of an industrial park site without making any commitment. Mr. Gleason responded that the Planning Commission reviews and recommends the work plan for the Planning staff. He said the work plan is based on the General Plan which specifically stated that the City annex and service the industrial land inside the urban growth boundary as quickly as possible. He explained that the plan update is a major work item and that staff could perform the update if the City Council directs staff to drop other projects in order to accommodate that work item. In response to a MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 3 - e - question, Mr. Farah stated the work item could be part of the update. Mr. Gleason said the work plan would have to be agreed upon by the City of Springfield and Lane County as well as the City of Eugene. He said that MAPAC is currently meeting to formulate the work plan. Councilor Smith said she wishes to keep the City's options open and that the City needs to look at future planning. In response to a question, Mr. Chenkin stated that staff plans to submit a memorandum to the County Board of Commis- sioners to reflect the City Council's direction to staff on the issue. He said the County will make its final decision on February 18. In response to another question, Mr. Gleason stated that the City Council has no responsibility to act, but his understanding of the Planning Commission's interpretation, past City Council discussion, and the adoption of the General Plan is that, in order for the land to be urbanized, it must be within an urban growth boundary. He said that any change of the land should be dealt with as an urban issue. Mr. Sercombe said staff is not recommending a substantive decision of whether the land is an appropriate place for future industry; he said staff wishes to state that a process exists which all the jurisdictions agreed to follow and that they are mandated to follow by State law. He said it is an urban issue and must be treated in an urban planning process. In response to the suggestion made in a letter from Michael Farthing, Mr. Sercombe said the suggestion is within the Metro Plan process and would be consistent with the law. Councilor Hansen said he is uncomfortable with telling the County what to do with its land. He said the property has had mixed-designation for some time and that he would feel more comfortable with the council not giving any input to the County on that issue. Mr. Sercombe, speaking from a legal standpoint, explained that a developer could apply for construction permits if the County approves the .land for industrial use. He said the council must assert that the land must be within an urban growth boundary for development if it wishes to preserve that point. If the council does not advocate that point, then the City loses the issue. In clarification, Mr. Sercombe stated that the City would be forced to accept the property use if it is developed within the County. Mr. Gleason said a public right would exist to use the land for a specified use once the land is permanently zoned. He said the issue cannot be avoided. He said that the City will have to deal with the development once the urban issue has been decided. Mr. Sercombe stated that the issue has been in litigation from 1980 to 1982, the issue litigated being the process by which the development is allowed. Councilor Wooten said she feels strongly that the council should proceed with the staff recommendation to address the issues. She said it is important for the City to maintain its policy consistency and that she does not want to be forced into a position contrary to previous actions by the council. Councilor Schue said she understood that the State would not allow the land to be zoned Industrial because it is outside an urban growth boundary and would be a Violation of the State planning goals and guidelines. Mr. Gleason said it is his personal opinion that the issue of urbanized and non-urbanized land is relatively clear. He said it is true that the buillding official cannot deny a building permit if the land is zoned Industrial. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 4 - Councilor Schue stated that she wants the land to stay in agricultural use for the present time. She said this opinion should be presented to the County Board of Commissioners. e Councilor Ball stated that he was ready to support the recommendations of the Planning Commission to support Agricultural designation and zoning. He stated that any parcel cannot be considered on its own merits or in a vacuum. He said the City should continue to follow its process for the metropolitan area. Councilor Obie felt the council did not have the facts on which to base a recommendation to the County, but he acknowledged that it does not appear that the County's action is appropriate. He felt the issue of whether to include the subject property in the urban service area or to have it zoned Industrial has not been studied. Based on the council discussion, Mr. Obie felt that some shift of feeling by the council had occurred and that he was prepared to make a motion to adopt the ordinance and a subsequent motion to direct staff to include the issue in the mid-term plan update. He said he wanted to have some consensus from the council and staff before making a motion. ~layor Keller stated that he would support the staff recommendation. He stated that one element that has changed in the process is that the City is being asked to consider 727 acres. He said he is sensitive to property owners being told how to use their land by the government. He acknowledged that the issue is difficult because of the size of the property. Mayor Keller said that placing a priority on this land would set a precedent for similar considerations. Having gone through the Metro Plan update, he said the land was left out of the process because it was felt to be premature. He stressed that any plan must be more comprehensive than looking at one parcel. He agreed that the issue could be considered during the mid-term udpate, but he shared the concern of Ms. Schue in not giving any false hopes to the property owners. In response to a question, Mr. Farah stated that the property would probably have been considered during the five-year update if not done sooner. Councilor Holmer indicated his support for the course of action suggested by Mr. Obie. He assured Mayor Keller that his support did not imply any change in City direction but merely a desire that the issue be given a full airing. Mayor Keller responded that the council did not take any issue or make any decision lightly. Mr. Holmer stated that he had monitored the work of the Industrial Lands Task Force and was aware of the council sessions at which the general question of industrial lands was discussed. He said he was not unaware that the Industrial Triangle had been previously before the council and other municipal bodies. He said the council is at a point at which the property owners may seek a plan amendment and he feels they have not had a chance for a review of the situation. Councilor Hansen voiced his concern whether enough industrial land exists for the community. He said the Metro Plan tends to discourage Heavy Industrial land. He felt Mr. Holmer raised the point that the City has become too depen- dent on high-technology industry for its economic diversification. He said e ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 5 e e - the property should be placed on a priority and that the Metro Plan be studied. He stressed that the City should look at the land until the Heavy Industrial needs of the city are readdressed. In response to a comment, Mr. Obie clarified his motion as previously suggested. CB 2725--An ordinance adopting amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; amending Ordinance #18927; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, 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, 7:0. Council Bill 2725 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, 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. 19229). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that staff be directed to include the issue of Awbrey/Meadowview Industrial Area in the mid-term update of the General Plan. Councilor Wooten said she wanted to be sure that the council is forwarding its request for EFU zoning for the Awbrey/Meadowview Land Industrial Area to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Gleason said the ordinance deals with minor amendments within the urban growth boundary. He said the thrust of staff in understanding Mr. Obie's motion is that they will forward the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Commissioners and will include the Awbrey/Meadowview Plan in the work program for the mid-term update. Mr. Ball asked if the review can be accommodated in the work plan without a major reallo- cation of resources. Mr. Farah responded that the Planning staff will coordinate with the other jurisdictional staffs to inform them of the City's desire to review the Awbrey/Meadowview area. Mr. Hansen suggested that a copy of the recommendation be forwarded to Lane County. Mr. Obie agreed that it might be helpful in placing the issue on the mid-term review. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. IV. RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP CONCERNING OREGON'S PUBLIC FINANCING AND TAXATION SYSTEM (memo, draft distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. He stated that the draft had been requested by the council and there would be no staff report. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to forward the proposed letter to the Governor and other appropriate State government leaders. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 6 e e - V. REPORT ON CITIZEN INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION SURVEY (memo, report distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Council-Community Servi ce Di rector Marj ori e Beck presented the staff report. She referred to the report distributed to the council, stating that it is the first of two to provide public review of the Neighborhood Group program. She said the program was set by council resolution in 1974 and was then revised in 1976. Ms. Beck stated that most of the program components have remained unchanged and are covered by that council policy. She explained that no staff analysis was included in this report because any analysis should include all involved parties. She stated that she would return to the council in March with specific recommen- dations on the report evaluation process. Ms. Beck asked the council to consider those parties to be involved in the evaluation of the report, the timing of the review, and any additional information desired. In regard to the survey, she felt that a good return rate was accomplished and that the information received was valid. VI. UPDATE ON BUY OREGON PROGRAM (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Doug Eveleth of the Business Assistance Team presented the staff report, stating that a staff summary and analysis of the Buy Oregon Program was presented at the January 26 meeting of the Council Subcommittee on Economic Diversification and that the council has received copies of the final report. Highlighting key points of the summary, Ivlr. Evel eth stated that the contract negoti ated wi th the Nei ghborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO) had been completed; money has been redirected into the local economy through the matches; jobs have been created and more are being developed; and the majority of match activities are still under contract negotiations. He stated that staff's recommendation to the CCED is to negotiate an additional contract for $10,000 to continue the match service for Eugene businesses, to work with the EPIC to develop job referrals, and to actively pursue additional private sector support for the program through fees, donations, or a combination. Mr. Eveleth stated that the CCED endorsed those recommendations. He stated that Alana Probst, the project director of NEDCO and the Buy Oregon Program, was present to answer any questions. Councilor Holmer, while he finds the program professionally done, stated that he ;s still concerned with the City's support of this program. Referring to the BAT report, he stated that new business of $58,000 and a savings of $16,000 were created by the program. He said it has been suggested that any business receiving a new contract as a result of the program pay 5 percent of the contract amount and possibly 50 percent of the first year1s savings back to the program. He stated that Ms. Probst has acknowledged the difficulty in identifying a completed match, referring to a $200,000 match project mentioned last spring. Mr. Holmer felt that the program is not appropriate for the City's involvement and said he is disappointed that the City is continuing its support of the program. IvIINUTES--Eugene Ci ty Council February 15, 1984 Page 7 - In response to a question, Mr. Gleason stated that no company in the metropolitan area would be refused assistance by the program. Mr. Ball stated that he did not understand how the program could be considered restrictive or exclusive. Mayor Keller added that the Buy Oregon Program personnel have been informed that funding will not continue beyond one year. Councilor Wooten stated that the council hopes that the program can diversify its own funding sources. She expects that the fund-raising committee will make progress in this area. Mr. Ball said he has shared some of Mr. Holmer's concerns regarding the programs underwritten by the City with public money; however, he stated that the Buy Oregon Program is providing a good return on a low investment. Councilor Schue said she shares the feelings of Mr. Ball in that the program has been well done. She said the report has answered some of her questions on why the program is being publicly funded, stating that the program has done more toward economic development than other programs. She expressed her approval of continued support for the program. VII. "SHAPING UP 184 CAMPAIGN" (memo distributed) e City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. William Sloat, refer- ring to the February 15, 1984, EDD memorandum, presented the staff report. He stated that Mayor Keller and Mayor Lively of Springfield will officially launch the "Shaping Up 184 Campaignll on February 22. Mr. Sloat stated that there is much community support for the campaign and that over 100 service groups will be contacted to provide additional assistance. VIII. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Councilor Wooten requested that the item from Mayor Lively of Springfield regarding flow-based rates be scheduled as an agenda item at the next regular Wednesday meeting of the council. Councilor Ball questioned the status of two items: providing ten minutes for public comment each month at the beginning of a council meeting, and a clock positioned behind the councilors to note the lapse of time during public hearings. Pat Lynch stated that the clock project is in progress. Mayor Keller requested that staff check the minutes of the City Council meeting where this was discussed to clarify the issue of the public comment period. IX. BALLOT FOR INTERVIEWEES FOR DOWNTOWN COMMISSION OPENING Mayor Keller announced the following results of the balloting: Robert Fraser - 4 votes Robert Brinkman - 4 votes Stephanie Pearl - 3 votes Dean Owens - 2 votes - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 8 e e e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the City Council interview Robert Brinkman, Robert Fraser, and Stephanie Pearl on February 22, 1984, at 11 a.m. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. The meeting was adjourned to February 22, 1984, at 1:25 p.m. o R~~ctfUl y SUb~~t;.1: . -~ -C7~ /' ",'.' Ai"~f. , .0 J./O ),' ~.;;~?,... - ....' '1._...... _,__:,.:.;.~.. Micheal D. Gleason Ci ty Manager ."-7~ (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS: vr/CM7 a19 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1984 Page 9