Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/1984 Meeting ,/ /\ ". M I NUT E S 'i Eugene City Council City Council Chamber July 9, 1984 7:37 p.m~ COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Debra Ehrman, Emily Schue, Betty Smith. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Councilor Obie in the absence of His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF GIFTS FROM ATHLETES OF PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA Stating that he had represented the Mayor at the July 8 ceremony for the arrival of the Olympic Torch to Eugene, Councilor Obie said he had welcomed members of the Olympic teams of the People's Republic of China and South Korea who were training in Eugene. Mr. Obie displayed two gifts which he had accepted from - the Chinese athletes on behalf of Mayor Keller--a flag of friendship and a set of eight porcelain horses. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS , - A. 1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies (memo, resolution, background information distributed) Councilor Obie introduced the agenda item. He stated that he had received requests from two councilors that the council not take action that evening and that the period for accepting written testimony be held open until September 10. Pat Decker of the Planning Department presented the staff report, first reviewing the material distributed to the council which included the Planning Commission recommendation, errata, and revised introduction to the Community Goals document, the 1984 Community Goals and Policies document as developed by the conference delegates, materials received after the Planning Commission public hearing, and the July 6 memorandum from Councilor Holmer. Based on the questions raised during the Planning Commission public hearing, she stated that staff had performed some follow-up work with the Land Conservation and Development Commission to discuss how. the goals should be reviewed. She said staff was recommending that the period for written testimony be held open for 45 days in order to submit the Community Goals and Policies document through the post-acknowledgement process. Ms. Decker stated that LCDC agreed with this action. She stated tha t Roger Rutan, President of the Planning Commission, would present the recommendations of the commission. Mr. Rutan briefly reviewed the actions of the Planning Commission in regard to the Community Goals and Policies as described in the July 1, 1984, Planning Department memorandum. He explained that the commission had decided not to - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 1 perform any major revisions to the document, but to review the document and to - discuss any opinions and concerns to be presented to the council. In response to a question by Councilor Obie, Mr. Rutan said the commission felt that the City Council had the responsibility of deciding the degree to which it would make any changes to the document during its review and then how to use the document. He explained that the commission has used past documents to support its decisions with regard to the Metro Plan. He said the majority of the commission felt that the process by which the document was constructed was appropriate. In response to a question by Councilor Holmer, Mr. Rutan said the commission had only considered whether the council should adopt the document and that no alternatives were discussed. The public hearing was opened. Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, stated that she had been the initiator of the Community Goals process in 1965, thus she was alarmed at the July 9 Register-Guard article concerning the document. She explained that the Community Goals process was based on the Berkeley Master Plan process and that the goal of the process was to develop a community policy which could be followed by the Planning Commission and other boards, thus the importance of the document's adoption by the City Council. Ms. Niven stated that some concerns had also been raised during the adoption process for both the 1967 and 1974 documents but that the council had adopted the document each time. She said it was important to recognize the role of the proposals, noting that the document format had been changed to closely identify the proposals with the policies. She said the proposals or suggested actions allowed citizens to become more involved in the Community Goals process. She stressed that the - City Council has always adopted the document with a resolution outlining specific action by the council with regard to the document. She urged the council to protect the integrity of the Community Goals process, stating that the council might alienate citizens if the document were not adopted. She suggested that the council should address only the key issues of conflict within the document in its review rather than addressing each item. Richard Miller, 2460 Malabar, stated that he had participated in the past three conferences. He urged the council to recognize the goals adopted by the April Community Goals Conference. He said he would also feel alienated if the council recognized the substantive changes to the document made by the Planning Commission. He explained that a majority of the conference delegates had voted not to consider the proposed amendments submitted at the end of the conference, explaining that the delegates had recommended only those items which had been fully discussed. Referring to Suggested Action 2.1 of the Citizen and the Community section, Mr. Miller said it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to weaken the language addressing affirmative action as adopted by the delegates. He said he was glad that the LCDC had recognized the significance of the document by requiring the 45-day notice. In response to a question by Councilor Obie, Mr. Miller stated that he will submit his testimony in writing. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten, Mr. Miller clarified that he wished the council to adopt the document and recognize the suggested actions as adopted by the conference. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 2 ~ t - ~ Bill Lioio, 2678 Sharon Way, responding to the July 9 Register-Guard article - addressing the Community Goals and Policies document, said it was inappropriate for the City to include highly political opinions in a community policy if it were seriously seeking economic development and wishing to attract new busi- nesses to the area. Stating that he has lived in Eugene since 1971, he felt that the City's attempts at community planning had been unsuccessful, adding that the downtown was a more attractive, but less successful area. He said the council should not be involved in controversial subjects if it were serious about attracting new businesses; he said the community should express its opinions through individual citizens rather than in a City policy. Councilor Obie asked Mr. Lioio to submit in writing those suggested actions which he felt should be deleted. Carroll D. Fentress, 3883 Blanton Road, said he had enjoyed the Oregon Bach Festival concerts, stating that he appreciated the work of Royce Saltzman and the Hult Center staff. He also expressed his appreciation to those councilors and staff who had participated in the Community Goals and Policies Conference. He said he could not recommend final action when he did not know the wording or scope of the document being considered. Referring to the July 3, 1984, City press release which stated that the Planning Commission had developed some changes to the document, Mr. Fentress asked for clarification of the revisions recommended by the commission. He briefly reviewed the procedures followed during the April conference, stating that little time had been allowed for substantive debate or amendments. He suggested that the council send the document to each City committee and board for comment and recommendations and that it hold at least five public hearings with City-wide distribution of the document prior to any action by the City Council. Mr. Fentress then e stated his own goals for the City which included enhancing the City as an attractive place to live and enriching the lives of its citizens in the areas of education, culture, sports, industry, tourism and business. He stated that he would submit his testimony in writing to the council. LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President Street, stating that she had previously addressed the Planning Commission in regard to attracting retirees to the Eugene area, said she was concerned that the document might change City policy based on the work of only 150 citizens. She felt that the base group involved was not broad enough to sufficiently represent the entire community. She said she shared Councilor Holmer's comments regarding the document. While she felt that the document was usable, she said it should not be adopted by the City Council. She recommended that any goal which might suppress jobs or hinder economic development should be deleted from the document. Elizabeth G. Brown, 665 West 5th Avenue #4, stated that she was very surprised at the Register-Guard article on the Community Goals document. She stated that Councilor Holmer 's objections had expressed her own feelings on several sections of the document, even though those sections contained some statements which she favored. She felt that no community consensus existed on many of the issues included in the proposals, stating that economic development was a complicated and political issue, she said it was important to have sufficient discussion on that issue. She commented that it was difficult to follow the various City plans and policies. Ms. Brown said the council should not support a City policy which did not have the consensus of the community. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 3 Ken Wullschleger, 3415 Saint Street, said he agreed with the comments of e Councilor Holmer as stated in the July 9 Register-Guard article. He said the past policies of Eugene and Lane County had established an anti-growth and anti-business reputation; he felt the document would establish an anti-patriotic reputation by not allowing nuclear defense industries to locate in the area. With regard to homosexual rights, he said the City had previously voted down a proposal addressing that issue. He suggested that the document should either be voted on by the entire community or be disregarded. Shawn Boles, 105 North Adams Street, recommended that the City Council should adopt the document and recognize the suggested actions. He felt that the document included sins of both omission and commission but that it also represented a collective wisdom of the community through a democratic process. He felt the document would provide guidance to the City if it were adopted. While he recognized that the document included some conflicts, he felt it would be an insult to the citizens if the document were not adopted. Elizabeth F. Fox, 340 North Adams Street, stated that the City had numerous plans and that the Community Goals and Policies document contained both good and bad proposals. She said the City should not tie its hands with too-specific policies. She felt that the community was always in a turmoil because of some conflict over one plan or another. She said the plan for the downtown should be for the best of the entire community, adding that the downtown should be opened up. While she did not want to alienate the conference delegates, she commented that any plan adopted would be difficult to change. She felt the City would prosper better with less stringent rules. e Robert R. Bennett, 85334 South Willamette Street, stating that he was a self- employed engineering and management consultant, stated that any rules restricting manufacturing would be inappropriate for the City, and might develop another Cone-Breeden situation with its lawsuits and dissention in the community. He stated that high-technology components were not necessarily good or bad; he questioned why only nuclear weapons should be restricted and not all weapons. He felt that Eugene was sending the signal that it was hostile to business. He felt that it was also inappropriate for the City to restrict any opportunity based on politically controversial issues. He said the document included community attitudes rather than goals and policies. Tonie Nathan, 1350 Charnel ton Street #14, referring to the Cone-Breeden situation, stated that Data General was unable to locate in Eugene because of lawsuits against rezoning the involved property. She stated that this situation and others had created the image of Oregon being against business. She felt that the document contained specific policies that would hinder Eugene1s economic development efforts. She stated that the Dunn and Bradstreet Report had described Eugene as the fourth fastest-shrinking city in the country. She said she liked the goals and appreciated the work of the Planning Commission in its review of the document. She recommended that the council only needed the goals listed on Page 1 of the document for sufficient guidance. Laura Stockford, 308 West 20th Avenue, felt the document was good but had not included enough citizen involvement. She questioned why so many people were threatened by the document since it was only a guide and not a law. She urged the council to adopt the document after additional public hearings were e held. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 4 Jim Saul, 2780 Elinor Street, stated that he will submit written testimony but wished to highlight certain key issues. Referring to Ms. Niven's brief e history of the Community Goals and Policies Conference process beginning in 1965, he stated that many changes had occurred since the first document was adopted in 1967. He explained that the City had over 750 policies relating to land use planning. He felt that much potential conflict existed between the various policies, stating that the Metro Plan contained 27 policies regarding economic development and the Six-Point Economic Development Plan contained 29, to which the Community Goals and Policies document would add another 19. He said the council should consider whether the community would be well-served by adding more policies, stating that nearly identical policies were contained in both the Metro Plan and the Community Goals and Policies document relating to economic development. He felt the Community Goals and Policies document proposals went beyond the policies already adopted in the Metro Plan, stating that it would open each land use issue to debate. David J. Pedersen, 2261 University, First Vice-President of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, submitted written testimony dated July 9, 1984, to the City Council. The major concern of the Chamber of Commerce was in the relation- ship of the Community Goals document to the Metro Plan and related policies and the possible variance existing between the various documents. Mr. Pedersen stated that the Chamber was recommending that the council receive, rather than adopt, the document and then consider the proposed goals and policies during the next update of the Metro Plan. Responding to Ms. Niven's testimony, he said the process of setting community goals had already been compromised by the various City plans and policies, resulting in an unclear future for the community. Dorothy Anderson, 939 East 21st Avenue, correcting a statement made by e Mr. Rutan, stated that the Planning Commission had specifically recommended that the City Council adopt, and not just receive, the Community Goals and Policies document. Responding to Mr. Miller's testimony regarding the amendments added by the commission, Ms. Anderson agreed that the conference delegates had voted not to consider some of the proposed amendments. She clarified that a majority of the delegates, but not the required two-thirds majority, had voted to continue the conference to consider the amendments. She stated that numerous individuals spoke to the environmental amendments at the Planning Commission public hearing. She felt that it would be a breach of faith if the document were not officially adopted by the council, stating that the delegates had been informed that the council would adopt the final document. She stressed that the Community Goals Committee had attempted to establish a cross-section of the community to be invited to the conference. While she recognized that the document was not perfect, she stressed that it was a citizens' document and was an expression of the community's desires for the City's future. Ms. Decker stated that staff was recommending that the City Council hold open the period for submission of public testimony until September 10, 1984. She said the staff notes contained recommendations for alternative wording to be inserted in the document to address concerns raised in the testimony heard that evening. She said staff will discuss those issues at a work session with the City Council. She added that staff will work with LCDC and the City Attorney's Office to clarify the issues raised concerning the relationship between the document and the Metro Plan. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 5 Councilor Obie said he had spent considerable time at the conference. He felt e that not to adopt the recommendations from the conference delegates would demean the process. He felt that the council had a responsibility to the delegates to work with the document and to develop a consensus. He suggested that the council schedule a work session to discuss those items agreed upon by at least six councilors. He said the period for public testimony would be held open until September 10 unless the council directed otherwise. Councilor Schue agreed with Mr. Obie that the record should be held open for written testimony. She said the council had a debt to the conference delegates to adopt the finished document but only to receive the suggested actions. She felt that reaching consensus on suggested actions would involve a great deal of time. She also agreed that a work session to address the document issues was appro- priate. She said she was pleased with the general direction of the document. Councilor Hansen said he did not feel as strongly as Ms. Schue that the council had to adopt the document. He agreed with Mr. Saul that many plans had been adopted over the years; he said he was interested in knowing what duplication existed between the proposed and existing policies. While he recognized that the document warranted consideration, he did not feel that adoption was mandatory based solely on the work of the delegates. Councilor Ball said he was ready to adopt the document and to receive the suggested actions. He said his only concerns were those which may surface in the LCDC process. He agreed that a work session should be scheduled to address those concerns. Councilor Wooten, stating that she was a member of the Community Goals Committee, e agreed that the document should not be adopted simply because of the work involved in its development but that adoption should be based on the compromise developed by the delegates for the future of the community. She said she looked forward to reviewing the items raised by the councilors. Councilor Ehrman stated that she had not participated in the conference but had reviewed the material presented to the council. She did not see the role of the council as rewriting the document because the document was the work of the citizens. She suggested that the suggested changes and revisions be incorporated into one document for ease of review. Councilor Holmer said he was unsure of the usefulness of a work session, stating that the conference delegates had developed a strong statement for the community. While he recognized that strong efforts were made to represent the entire community at the conference, he did not feel that the conference contained sufficient representation. He felt that it would be better for the council to accept the document rather than to revise and then adopt it. He said he could recognize some of the suggested actions but could not adopt the entire document. Councilor Smith felt that past Community Goals documents had been helpful in providing guidance to the City Council and the Planning Commission. She did not feel the council was ready to adopt the document that evening; she suggested - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 6 that the council hold a work session, collect further input, and revise the e document into a guide for the City. She hoped the council will adopt a unified, strong goal statement which will provide guidance to the City for the next four years. Councilor Obie said the consensus of the council was to adopt the document. He asked staff to come back on a Wednesday meeting with a proposed process for further discussion of this issue. He also suggested that staff identify those items added after the conference was concluded. He asked the councilors to identify those items to be discussed during the work session. The meeting was recessed at 9 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. B. Review of Eugene's Citizen Involvement Program for 1984/85 (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Jerry Jacobson of the Planning Department presented the staff report, reviewing the July 2, 1984, Citizen Involvement Committee memorandum to the City Council. He said the last program evaluation was performed in 1982. He explained that the CIC was delaying the current program evaluation in order to incorporate the results of the 1984 Community Goals and Policies document, the Neighborhood Group/Public Information Survey, the CIC Subcommittee studying the possible expansion of the CIC program, and the Council Subcommittee studying the possible consolida- tion of some City boards and committees. Mr. Jacobson stated that the CIC was requesting the City Council to adopt the draft program with the understanding that a comprehensive evaluation will occur later in the year. He stated that e the program had been distributed to all interested parties and that the Planning Commission had reviewed the program on June 11, 1984, with no substan- tial comment. He added that a letter had been received from Jim Hale of MAPAC which suggested that the document should be edited for clarity. Mr. Jacobson stated that a complete redrafting of the document will occur in the fall. He stated that three members of the CIC were present to answer any questions of council. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the Citizen Involvement Program for 1984-85 as recommended by the Citizen Involvement Committee. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. C. Code Amendment for Community Event Signs (CA 83-5) (memo, ordinance, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Jerry Jacobson of the Planning Department presented the staff report, reviewing the July 2, 1984, Planning Department memorandum to the City Council. He explained that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 7 the code amendment would remove the City Council from the designation process e necessary for the approval of any community event banners and would authorize the City Manager or a designee to make the designation. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended adoption of the proposed amendment with the addition of a provision to allow appeal of the City Manager's decision to the Sign Code Board of Appeals. He added that the proposed amendment had been distributed to all interested parties but no response had been received. Councilor Hansen questioned if a private business could use a banner to welcome a group which fell within the guidelines of the proposed amendment. Mr. Jacobson said the City Manager could approve the banner if it fell within the ordinance guidelines. Councilor Obie asked if a banner could be used to welcome a group of teachers or other conference to the city. Mr. Jacobson stated that an existing current City ordinance addressed banners welcoming conference groups. Councilor Schue stated her concern with the removal of the banners in a timely manner after the termination of the event. Mr. Jacobson stated that the ordinance required that signs and banners be removed no later than seven days after the event. He added that a suggestion was made during the Planning Commission discussion to require a deposit or bond that would be refunded after the signs were removed. He stated that Sign Code Inspector Barbara McDonald did not feel that any problem currently existed in the removal of the banners. The public hearing was opened. e There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. CB 2757--An ordinance concerning community event signs; amending sections 8.803 and 8.670 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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, 8:0. Council Bill 2757 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. 19262). III. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF FUTURE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS City Manager Micheal Gleason announced that a City Council Work Session on Economic Development had been rescheduled from July 17 to July 30 at 5:30 to 9 p.m. in the McNutt Room. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 8 Councilor Obie announced that a City Council Revenue Worksession was scheduled for July 10 at 5:30 p.m. in the McNutt Room. ~ The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 to July 11, 1984. ;;;~ 'M; C<::~. Gle son . . '. Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS :ts/CM7bll e - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 9