Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/1984 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber April 25, 1984 11:55 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Joyce Nichols, Emily Schue, Betty Smith (until 12:40) COUNCILORS ABSENT: Brian Obie 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, ANNOUNCEMENT, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Downtown Plan Timeline Councilor Wooten stated that she has discussed the issue of the timeline for the adoption of the Downtown Plan with several councilors and that both the council and the Downtown Commission has implied the desire to implement some phases of the plan ahead of the adoption timeline. She suggested that the council direct staff to implement the plan adoption in a shorter fashion without preempting citizen involvement, possibly by the end of September. In regard to the amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan required prior to the adoption of the Downtown Plan, she felt that the City could not afford this delay. She asked that staff provide a report on the most rapid timeline possible for the adoption process. Ms. Smith agreed, stating that many downtown businesses desired to move ahead with the implementation of the Downtown Plan. She encouraged a faster review process for the plan. Ms. Wooten commented that it would be inappropriate to proceed with opening Willamette Street at 10th and 11th Avenues if it would violate the integrity of the plan before the public process was completed. City Manager Micheal Gleason said that staff is proposing that the council , hold a joint luncheon/meeting with the Downtown Commission on May 9, following the general business portion of the Wednesday meeting, to discuss the plan. He said staff had been making arrangements for this meeting in response to a previous request by the council for a joint meeting with the Downtown Commission (DTC) to discuss amendment of the work plan. Councilor Hansen stated that he had discussed the issue of the Lane Transit District (LTD) operation on 10th Avenue with a member of its management. He said LTD staff was requesting that City staff discuss with them the effects of opening Willamette Street on LTD operations. Mr. Gleason stated that he will be meeting with LTD staff that afternoon. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 1 - Councilor Wooten felt that predesign work and discussion could be performed prior to the plan adoption, but she did not want to alter the plan before its adoption. She requested that staff develop a draft timeline for presentation to the council. Mr. Gleason stated that he will present a staff recommenda- tion on an amended schedule to the council and the DTC at the May 9 meeting. Ms. Wooten suggested that council create an informal council liaison position with the DTC to observe meetings, answer questions, and promote communications between the two bodies. In response to a question, Mr. Gleason reviewed the proposed meeting schedule for May 9. He said the City Council meeting will begin at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Chamber, with the joint meeting to begin at noon in the McNutt Room. Mr. Hansen asked that the work session end by 1:30 p.m. B. Traffic Diverters Councilor Hansen requested a staff update on the issue of the traffic diverter in Skinner Butte Park. Ms. Wooten stated that she had been working with the Whiteaker Community Council and Traffic Engineering and that a plan was developed to replace the diverter with a raised walkway similar to the one located on Agate Street at the University of Oregon. Mr. Gleason stated that this item was scheduled for council consideration on May 14. Mr. Hansen felt that the issue should be resolved prior to the arrival of Eugene's summer visitors. - C. Appointee to the Convention Bureau Mayor Keller referred to his memorandum distributed to the council, informing the council that Mr. Hansen had been appointed to serve on the Eugene/Spring- field Convention Bureau in place of Ms. Smith. Mr. Ball asked that the council be provided with a memorandum addressing the status of the bureau. D. Announcements 1. Joint City Council/Downtown Commission Work Session City Manager Micheal Gleason stated that the regular council session sche- duled for May 9 will start at 11:30 so that the items can be completed and the council can then meet with the Downtown Commission in the McNutt Room. 2. Proposed City Contract with AFSCME Members Mr. Gleason introduced Stefan Ostrach, representative of AFSCME Local #1724. He stated that Mr. Ostrach and the local leadership had taken a risky position to ensure preservation of the City service system. He stated that he was greatly impressed by the union leadership. Mr. Ostrach formally announced that the membership of AFSCME Local #1724 voted to extend the current three-year contract with the City of Eugene for one year without an additional wage increase. He stated that the contract was slightly modified to provide more job security and health benefits for the employees. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 2 e He felt that the interests of the union members were the same as the taxpayers. He believed that the relationship between the union and the City was maturing and that he looked forward to working with the City on the career development and employee assistance programs. Mayor Keller thanked Mr. Ostrach for the leadership he had provided. He stated that the council and the citizens of Eugene appreciated the modification to the contract and that they looked forward to a continued maturing of the relationship. Mr. Gleason stated that he applauded the union leadership, stating that mutual respect was an important part of the relationship. He felt that the contract modification was an important step in any future relations between the two groups. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Call for Public Hearings re: Abatements at 5300 Fox Hollow Road (memo distributed) Res. No. 3852--A resolution calling a public hearing for May 14, 1984, to consider abatement of a nuisance and unsafe building at 5300 Fox Hollow Road (former roller-skating rink). e Res. No. 3853--A resolution calling a public hearing for May 14, 1984, to consider abatement of a nuisance and unsafe building at 5300 Fox Hollow Road (single- family house). Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolu- tions. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. B. Authorization to Abate a Nuisance and Abandon Building at 1329 Rutledge Street (memo di stributed),_,_____ City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Assistant Superin- tendent of Building Inspection Larry Reed presented the staff report, reviewing his April 20. 1984, memorandum to the City Manager. He stated that Building Division staff has been working with the property owner to effect abatement since late 1973. He said the property was posted under Chapter 6 of the City Code, stating that the owner was not appealing the action. Mr. Reed explained that the owner acknowledged the need to demolish the building but was unable to pay for the demolition. He said the owner was willing for the City to act as her agent in obtaining demolition bids and performing the demolition and would repay the City through monthly payments. The owner also agreed to the imposition of a lien on the property to cover the demolition costs. Mr. Reed said the City would not foreclose unless the demolition costs were not repaid on schedule. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the Building Official be directed to abate the nuisance at 1329 Rutledge Street. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 3 e e e III. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION GRANT (memo dis- tributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Director of Aviation Bob Shelby presented the staff report, reviewing his April 19, 1984, memoran- dum to the City Manager. He stated that he has asked for time in the May 14 council dinner/work session to present an update on the results of the schematic study for the airport improvements. He recommended that the council accept this grant. Res. No. 3854--A resolution authorizing acceptance and execution of a grant agreement for Project No. 3-41-0018-03 for airport improvements. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. IV. REQUEST FOR CITY FESTIVAL DESIGNATION (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Jim Croteau of the Planning Department presented the staff report, reviewing the April 25, 1984, Planning Department memorandum to the City Council. He hoped that the proposed code amendment regarding the issue would be ready for council consideration by late Mayor early June. Councilor Holmer stated that the signs for the Irish Festival had remained posted long after the event was over. He asked what code amendments could be proposed that would assure that the signs would be removed within a reasonable period after the event. Mr. Croteau stated that provisions in the current Sign Code required that the signs be removed within 7 to 10 days after the event was over. He stated that he will check into the issue and will make any necessary modifications to the process. Mr. Holmer felt that the signs should be removed within four days of the completion of the event. Mr. Croteau clarified that the Sign Code allowed the signs to be posted 21 days prior to the start of the event and must be removed no later than 7 days after the event. He said that staff will rectify any lapse in enforcement of the code in the future. Mr. Hansen asked what controls were present with regard to the installation of the signs on public property. Mr. Croteau stated that the Building and Traffic Divisions regulated the placement and design of the banners to ensure that they did not obstruct traffic control devices. In response to a question on any possible damage resulting from the installation of the banners, Mr. Croteau stated that he will study the issue and provide a report to the council. Mr. Hansen suggested that the City Attorney be con- sulted on any legal ramifications. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to designate the Oregon Imagination Celebration as a community event. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 4 e V. RIVER ROAD-SANTA CLARA URBAN FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item, stating that discus- sion on the item was related to the following agenda item. He suggested that it might be necessary during the discussion of the subsequent item for council to consider meeting in executive session. Tom Hayes of the Planning Depart- ment presented the staff report, reviewing the April 25, 1984, Planning Department memorandum to the City Council. He added that the Citizen Advisory Team has been working with staff to develop solutions for development in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Mr. Hayes stressed that the work of the CAT and the policy group emphasized the importance of the River Road/Santa Clara area to the entire metropolitan area. e In regard to the sanitary sewer planning, Mr. Hayes stated that the council had previously held a work session on this item and had received the final draft prior to the April 10 public hearing. He stated that the planning process was an attempt to balance the assurances to the Department of Envi- ronmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the $7 million grant with the mandate from the Metro Plan to address the concerns of the River Road/Santa Clara area residents with regard to the implementation of the sewer project. He stated that the council will be having another work session with the Planning Commission and a pUblic hearing on the final draft plan during May. He stressed that the key factor in the plan was its timing in balancing the needs of DEQ and the concerns of the residents. He explained that staff was working toward a compromise between the DEQ proposed schedule for implementation and staff1s proposal while ensuring that all sewer hookups will be performed by 2000. Mr. Hayes reviewed the major issues in the land use element of the plan as listed in the memorandum. He stated that the goals and objectives developed by the CAT in late 1983 were refined by staff into findings, policies and implementation actions which were included in the second draft of Chapter II of the land use element. A copy of this chapter was provided to council to facilitate some understanding of the dialogue occurring in the area. Refer- ring to Map 2.1 of the River Road/Santa Clara area, he then pinpointed the opportunity sub-areas identified by staff which focused on the land use issues. In regard to the time line for the plan, Mr. Hayes stated that the sanitary sewer plan was in the final draft stage and that staff expected to revise the draft in May and submit it to DEQ in July or August. He stated that the CAT has been working on the land use element since October 1983 and that a public hearing was tentatively scheduled for August. Mr. Hayes stated that the staff hoped to coordinate work on the transportation element with the modeling study for the T-2000 Plan scheduled for the fall of 1984. He stated that the other elements of the plan were currently on schedule for the two and one-half year schedule originally set by staff. Ms. Smith left the meeting at this time. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 5 - Councilor Ball stated that he felt substantial progress was made at the April 23 meeting with DEQ in regards to the scheduling of the sewer implementation. He felt that both sides were working toward a resolution of the issue. Mr. Gleason stated that staff was keeping in mind the request by council to balance for the existing citizens of the metropolitan area to ensure that any solution would not place a burden on one particular group to subsidizing another. VI. INTENTION TO APPEAL COUNTY LAND USE DECISION (memo and background information distributed) e City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. He recommended that the council consider entering into executive session to discuss the details of the item. He stated that the refinement plan for the River Road/Santa Clara area currently underway dealt with several land use issues, including the strip commercial problems in the area and the desire to create commercial nodes. Mr. Gleason stated that the Lane County Planning Commission, the respective staffs, and the Citizen Advisory Team had each recommended that any decision on the appeal be delayed until the refinement process was completed. Based on the decision by the Lane County Board of Commissioners to grant the rezoning, he stated that the City had filed an appeal of the action with the Land Use Board of Appeals as being inconsistent with the General Plan and ordinances adopted by the City Council. Mr. Gleason stated that he has discussed the issue with Lane County staff, including the option of condition- ally zoning the land in question. He stated that the technical application of the appeal has to be reviewed by the City Attorney. He stated that Jim Farah of the Planning Department was present to answer any questions of council on the issue. City Attorney Tim Sercombe stated that he could answer questions on the general policies involved but that any detailed discussion of the issue should be done in executive session. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the Hearings Official had decided against the rezoning in both situations and that the City had appeared before the Lane County Board of Commissioners in support of that decision. Mr. Sercombe then reviewed the process and basis of the appeal as outlined in the April 20, 1984, Planning Department and City Attorney's Office memorandum to the City Council and the Planning Commission. In response to another question, Mr. Farah stated that the application for rezoning was originally made on March 21, 1983. Councilor Hansen asked if the county had agreed not to perform any zone changes until the City had prepared a refinement plan for the area. Mr. Sercombe stated that the Planning Department position was that the General Plan required that commercial activities be done in centers rather than strip development and that the City plan off-street commercial nodes. He explained that those siting decisions could be performed according to the plan either by siting the commercial centers through the refinement process or through incremental decisions. He said the Planning Department believed that any siting should occur through a refinement plan process and that standards be adopted in advance for any incremental siting. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 6 e e -- In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the City had filed with LUBA a notice of intent to appeal during the previous week. He explained that this letter began the appeal process and preserved the appeal rights, the actual legal work to begin during the next two to four weeks. He stated that the City Attorney's Office was currently engaged in discussions with the Lane County Administrator and counsel in regard to alternatives to litigation. Councilor Ball commented that his questions with regard to the relations between the neighborhood commercial criteria and the appeal were best left for executive session. Mr. Sercombe stated that discussing the City's chances in the appeal and the specific legal argument were best left for executive session. However, he stated that the General Plan stated that commercial development should not be performed in a strip development manner and that any neighborhood commercial development should be sited in the context of a center. He stated that the purpose of the plan was to make decisions in a comprehensive rather than an ad hoc manner. He added that the manner in which the decision was reached was the significant issue in the appeal. In response to a question on the time line, Mr. Sercombe stated that some ideas had been proposed to the counsel for Lane County, but that the dis- cussions have centered on other avenues besides litigation for resolving the City's concerns. He expected that the discussion will be completed prior to any further legal action by the County and that the County's position should be known in about 10 to 14 days. He believed that the City and the County may develop a mutually satisfactory solution that will allow Mr. Whitus some development opportunity, that addresses the City's concerns for developing the area in a comprehensive manner, and that allows the County to have some control of the direction taken in the area. Councilor Holmer stated that he was distressed by the process presented to the council. Stating that the council had received a letter from Mr. Whitus, he stated that the council had not had the opportunity to explore the issue with Mr. Whitus or the County Commissioners. Mr. Gleason commented that the council should meet in executive session if it wished to go any further with the issue. He felt that the appeal process was performed with great delibera- tion, by the Planning Commission, explaining that the council was not directly involved because it was a policy position taken by vote of the council that established the record. He stated that the council must change the General Plan if it wished to change the record, thus directly involving the council in the appeal. Mr. Holmer stated that he was concerned with the County Commis- sion arriving at a different decision while using the same rules as the City on the issue. Mr. Gleason stated that the courts will make the final decision, stating that the policy implication of the appeal was quite clear. He said the details of the implication could be addressed in a confidential memorandum or in executive session. He stressed that staff had been careful in the handling of the issue but had originally felt that the issue would have only minor significance. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the distinction between "urban" and "urbanizable" land was raised early in the issue, but he did not believe that it would be an issue in the appeal. He stated that the Planning MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 7 e Department had abandoned the assertion that the property in question was not "urban." In tenns of definitions, he stated that both tenns as defined in the LCDC goals were used in the Metro Plan. He said the issue of delaying the development of the land awaiting urban service provisions was raised because the land could be classified as "urbanizable" land. - Councilor Schue stated that she was comfortable with the general policy of the City in following the General Plan. She stated that she was not personally interested in reviewing the details of this particular application but would concur if the other councilors chose to do so. She stated that the issue was broad enough to be left to staff for interpretation. Councilor Hansen commented that the City must continue with the process now that the notice of intent to appeal had been filed. He asked if it would be appropriate for the council to meet in executive session after the City Attorney has reached some conclusion or prior to the start of any legal action. Mr. Sercombe stated this was a solution but depended on the degree of council curiosity. He said that his preference would be to advise the council of the status of the appeal as events occurred and that any issue resolution agreed upon short of action by LUBA could be communicated by confidential memorandum or executive session. Mr. Hansen stated that he was concerned with proceeding with the appeal, stating that he had not made a decision on the issue. Councilor Nichols stated that she would be comfortable with receiving a report on any steps taken by staff in negotiations. She asked if the timeline for the appeal to LUBA could be del~ed. Mr. Sercombe stated that some time limitations were imposed on LUBA for deciding cases. He reviewed these limitations, stating that the only flexibility allowed was in filing the record. Mayor Keller said he understood council to state that moving into executive session was inappropriate at this time. He stated that the council would expect to receive a report from the City Attorney's Office within the next two week s . Councilor Holmer stated that he supported Mr. Hansen's position, adding that his concern was in dealing with another government which had already-made the decision. He stressed that the council should be careful in taking on the county in an adversarial role. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe stated that he could provide some infonnation on the issue to individual councilors but that any discussion involving deliberation toward a decision would be a violation of the Open Meetings Law. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 8 e e e Councilor Wooten stated that she was supportive of staff proceeding with the course chosen. She agreed that the council should be advised of negotiations as they took place. Based on the material provided, she did not believe that staff has erred in its decision. The meeting was adjourned to May 9t 1984t at 1:06 p.m. R~ect ~ ~~ ' Mic al D. leas ... City Manager (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS:vr/ded/CM23a22 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 9