Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1984 Meeting (2) ... e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber September 10, 1984 7:35 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. DOWNTOWN RETAIL DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to formally adopt the guidelines recommended by the Downtown Commission relating to the commercial development in the downtown. Councilor Wooten stated that the motion was a result of the discussion with the Downtown Commission at the dinner session preceding the regular meeting of e the City Council. She said the City Council and the Downtown Commission were attempting to encourage a thriving downtown retail community. She said that decisions will be made on the basis of City financial .participation and the design concept. She added that the opportunity for publ ic participation will be provided in the coming months. Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:0, Mr. Hansen abstaining. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies (memo, resolution, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Pat Decker of the Planning Department presented the staff report. She briefly reviewed the September 4, 1984, Planning Department memorandum which described the material distributed to the council. She stated that the Revisions and Errata reflected the changes tentatively agreed to by the council at its August 13 work session. She stated that the document Introduction was revised to improve the readability and to clarify the relationship between the Community Goals and Policies and the Metro Plan. Ms. Decker said that the Land Conservation and Development Commission had indicated that it understood the relationship of the document to the Metro Plan and had no problems with the contents of the document. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 1 " Referring to the department memorandum, Ms. Decker reviewed the issues which e were left unresolved after the August 13 session and the staff recommendations for those issues. Addressing material from Dr. Rhoda Love distributed to the council, she said Dr. Love had raised some concerns regarding Suggested Action 2.0 on page 13 of the June draft. Ms. Decker said the Suggested Action was revised by staff to delete lIuncommonll from the statement in an attempt to respond to concerns raised at the previous public hearing and to make the suggested action consistent with Metro Plan language. She s ta ted tha t the letter from Dr. Love addressed additional concerns regarding the language recommended in the Revisions and Errata and that staff would comment on those issues after pUblic testimony has been received. The public hearing was opened. Rhoda Love, 393 Ful Vue Drive, stated that she was pleased with the cDopera- tion shown by staff and councilors. She said she liked the revised wording of Suggested Action 2.0 on page 13, but she questioned the use of Illegally adopted State-wi de 1 i stll si nce no such 1 i st exi sted. She said the Natural Heritage Data Base had published its first edition in 1983 and it was being adopted by various Federal and State agencies. She suggested that the Suggested Action be revised to read lias recognized on the Oregon Natural. , Heri tage Da ta Base Li st. II Elizabeth Brown, 665 West 5th Avenue #4, stated that she had changed her mind Slnce last glvlng testimony on the Community Goals and Policies document. While she had previously agreed with Councilor Holmer that the council should not adopt a document containing controversial issues, she now felt that the e document was fairly representative of community opinion on numerous issues. She felt that the few contradictions contained in the document would keep people humble once the document was formally adopted. She recommended that the original wording of Suggested Action 2.4 on page 10 of the June draft be retained, stating that she had understood that the original wording had been deleted as being too vague. She said the Nuclear Free America organization had suggested more specific language to resolve the problem rather than deleting the statement entirely. She suggested that the suggested action be amended to include IIknowingly and willingly manufacture nuclear weapons or components. II She said she was concerned because she was not sure who the City Council was afraid of offending in retaining the language. While she recognized that the current economic development efforts of the City were not contro- versial, she felt that weapons contractors or similar high-technology firms would raise public concern. She acknowledged that a community consensus banning the production of nuclear weapons or components existed, but she stated that a consensus supporting such production probably did not exist. Referring to the current historic trees ballot measure, Ms. Brown felt that it was an attempt by people to slow down the economic development measures so that issues could be clarified. Marilyn Odell, 750 West Broadway, stated that the language for Suggested Action 2.1 on page 2 as proposed by the Goals Conference should be retained rather than the change recommended by the Planning Commission. She fe 1t tha t e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 2 ;.> ,- the "affirmatively seek" language reflected the community opinion, stating - that the delegates had been chosen to represent a cross-section of the community. She said the language developed by the conference should be retained unless the council could state a clear reason for any change. Ms. Odell stated that the City Manager's Office had statistics reporting that women composed only 25 percent of the City boards and commissions, excluding the Human Rights Commis- sions and 4hose individuals serving on more than one commission. She sai d the 25 percent figure was unacceptable and must be affirmatively changed. She said the City Council must provide the direction to the boards and commission to recruit minorities and women to apply to the boards and commissions. She also stated that a study should be performed to determine the applicant flow rate as compared to the present representation. Referring to her own applica- tion to the Downtown Commission, she said two of the six applicants were women and that the nine-member commission currently had only two women. Ms. Odell felt that women were not applying to City boards and commissions because they were discouraged with the process. She said the City Council must affirma- tively act to seek representation by women and minorities. Richard Miller, 2460 Malabar, stating that he had previously provided testimony to the City Council, said the council should be considering the Community Goals and Policies document as developed at the conference. He felt that the revisions made by the Planning Commission did not reflect the opinions of the conference delegates. He cited Suggested Action 2.1 on page 2 regarding applicants to City boards and commissions as an example of the weakened language recommended by the Planning Commission. In addition, he felt that the council revision to delete the second sentence of Goal 4 on page 1 of the June draft would not adequately emphasize the need to temper economic development e with growth methods consistent with other City goals. Carol Cogswell, 1280 East 39th Avenue, referring to Policy 2.0 on page 13 of the June draft, felt that the change proposed by Dr. Love left out the con- c1 uding words "and for a diversity of wildl ife." She said the data base recommended by Dr. Love would limit Eugene to preserving only those areas that are important for rare, threatened, or endangered plants, birds, and animals. She stressed the importance of including the phrase mentioned or add the sentence "In addition, preserve areas of the city that are important natural habitats for a diversity of wildlife.1I Addressing the accompanying Suggested Action 2.1. Ms. Cogswell stressed the importance of establishing a process for identifying the natural habitats in the city prior to any development. Carroll Fentress, 3883 Blanton Road, stated he had not planned to testify but wished to respond to the testimony given by some of the previous speakers. He felt that the City would be limited in its actions by the numerous policies and suggested actions. While he felt the Community Goals and Policies document would be invaluable as a reference tool, he said the adoption of the document by the council would mean the approval of each item as City policy. He suggested that the document be carefully studied by legal authorities before adoption to ensure that the document does not abolish existing policies or establish unwanted future actions. He suggested that the council take some action less than full adoption of the document. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 3 ,- Jane Alward, 2100 Madison Street, stated that she was speaking for the Eugene -- Commlssion for the Rights of the Disabled. She said she had previously testified before the City Council and the Planning Commission on the document. She said the Community Goals and Policies document did not include any mention of access for the handicapped or any consideration for those individuals in employment. She stressed that the issue of accessibility must be emphasized as part of the City's efforts to make the city attractive to businessess and consumers. David Oaks, 458 West 12th Avenue, said he favored the prohibition of nuclear weapons or components manufacture in Eugene as recommended in Suggested Action 2.4 on page 10 of the June draft. He stated that he was part of the Political Action for Lasting Security group which had been canvassing the area in support of a nuclear freeze. He said wide support existed for the freeze, and he stressed the importance of that issue. Referring to Women in the Resistance and the Holocaust, he said the mass genocide addressed in the book was similar to what would occur with each use of a nuclear bomb. He mentioned that all portions of the world would be affected by the use of nuclear weapons and possible creation of a "nuclear winter." He felt that banning nuclear weapons would be a step forward in the process toward peace. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Referring to the testimony given by Dr. Love and Ms. Cogswell, Ms. Decker stated that staff had contacted the Natural Heritage Data Base group and the Lane Council of Governments staff on the M~tro Plan language addressing the issue. She said that elected officials in the development of the Metro Plan -- had discussed the language but were unable to agree on a specific list to be referenced, hence- the reference to a "legally adopted state-wide li st." She said the list mentioned by Dr. Love was used by several State agencies but had not been adopted by the State and could be superseded in the future. She sai d staff was concerned that referencing a specific list in an adopted policy statement would be a liability. As alternatives, she said the council could direct staff to present information on the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base List for local adoption, direct staff to present that list for consideration during the Metro Plan Mid-Period Review, or develop a suggested action which made specific reference to that list. Addressing Ms. Brown's comments on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and components manufacture and the testimony on representation to City boards and commissions, she said staff did not have any additional comments. Referring to Mr. Miller's testimony on Goal 4, Ms. Decker said the cDuncil had previously felt that the first sentence addressed the balancing issue and that the second sentence was merely further explanation. Responding to the questions raised by Ms. Alward concerning accessibility, she said that Goal 11 as added by the conference and Policy 2.0 on page 23 both addressed this issue. As a means of facilitating the process, Councilor Obie suggested that a motion be made to adopt the resolution and then individual councilors could make motions to amend the resolution. -- MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 4 .- e Res. No. 3867--A resolution adopting the 1984 Eugene Community Goals and Policies and repealing Resolutions 2314 and 3235. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt the resolution. Councilor Wooten asked what problem existed in adding the Natural Heritage Data Base List to Policy 2.0 of the Natural Features and Appearance section if it was used by Federal and State agencies. Ms. Decker responded that the City Council had deleted other specific references in the document and staff was concerned that any such reference would become outdated. Ms. Wooten suggested that the policy be revised to include "or until such time as there is a legally adopted State list." Councilor Bascom suggested revising Policy 2.0 to read "Preserve areas of the City that are important natural habitats for a diversity of wildlife and for rare, threatened, or endangered plants and animals." She said the accompanying suggested action could address the legally adopted or data base list. Ms. Decker said staff had language for a suggested action which would reference the Natural Heritage Data Base List. In response to a question by Ms. Bascom, Ms. Cogswell stated that Ms. Bascom's suggestion would be in keeping with the proposed amendment as long as the adopted policy did not exclude those habitats for non-endangered species. Mayor Keller suggested that the issue could be referred to the Metro team for comment. Councilor Schue suggested that Ms. Bascom's suggested language for Policy 2.0 could be revised to include lias recognized in the currently used State-wide list." Councilor Obie said he shared the feelings of the other councilors. but was concerned with the possible magnitude of the list. He e asked if staff could present background information to the council. Councilor Hansen said he was concerned with the phrase "diversity of wildlife," stating that the terminology might be too vague and subject to wide interpretation. Mr. Obie said he was also concerned with the document becoming too specific. Mr. Ball moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to amend the Natural Features and Appearance Policy 2.0 to read "Preserve areas of the City that are important natural habitats for a diversity of wildlife and for rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals.1I and to add Suggested Action 2.1 as developed by staff to include reference to the data base list of those habitats. Councilor Obie asked how that goal would be achieved. Ms. Decker responded that the term "unconvnon" had been deleted because it was an undefined term; she said "diversity of wildl ife" was al so undefined. She said Ms. Bascom's recommendation included a suggested action which referenced the list and to rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals. Ms. Wooten commented that the suggested action might mean the City should consult the li~t of habitats before any action was taken to modify or develop habitat areas. Mr. Hansen asked if a standard for "diversity of wildlife" existed, stating that some confusion might occur in a judgment decision. He said he preferred the deletion of that phrase. In response to a question by Mayor Keller, Ms. Decker stated that staff had not reviewed the Natural Heritage list but noted that the motion contained the list only as a suggested action. Mr. Obie e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 5 ~ " said he would support the motion if the IIdiversity of wildlifell phrase were e deleted. Councilor Ball said the motion did not require any action by the council but did allow the council to consider other wildlife than those species on the list. In response to a question by Mayor Keller, Mr. Ball said he felt that the intent of the language was to preserve a diversity of wildlife. Ms. Schue commented that she felt the language meant that some areas of the city should be preserved to provide for a diversity of wildlife such as the Ridgeline area; she said the language did not mean that every animal would be protected in every situation. . Roll call vote; the motion carried, 6:2; Councilors Wooten, Ball, Bascom, Ehrman, Holmer, and Schue voting aye and Councilors Obie and Hansen voting nay. Councilor Wooten stated that she agreed with the comments of Mr. Miller regarding his suggestion to reinstate the second sentence of Goal 4. She felt that the second sentence defined and clarified the intentions of the City in the area of economic development. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to retain the language of Goal 4 as written in the June draft of the Community Goals and Policies document. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Schue to amend Suggested Action 2.1 on page 2 of the June draft to read IIDevelop standards and affirmatively seek applicants. . . II e In response to a question by Ms. Bascom, Councilor Ehrman explained that the council had discussed the language at its August'13 work session. She said the Planning Commission had changed the language from lIaffirmatively seekll to lIencourage.1I She believed that the commission viewed lIencouragell as. less objectionable. She supported the original language, stating that it placed the burden on the City Council. In response to a question by Councilor Obie, she said it could the the personal goal of individual councilors to solicit women for City boards and commissions but the language would not specifically advertise for women to fill vacant positions. Ms. Wooten said the City commissions could be used to notify citizens of vacancies. Mr. Obie said he wanted the council to clarify its position to the public. He said he preferred a council policy to seek a balance on boards and commissions. Mayor Keller felt that tying the council into a specific program would cause conflicts. He commented that October was Citizen Participation Month and that the City usually obtained numerous applications for a small number of vacancies. He felt the council had performed well in a difficult process but that there were not enough vacancies to place all people in the positions they desired. Ms. Wooten felt that lIaffirmatively seekll meant the council would assume the responsibility of seeking female and minority applicants and to notify the Human Rights commissions of existing vacancies. She said vacancies would not be advertised to solicit applicants of a particular sex or other category but to clarify that the council would consider individuals who had not previously participated. Ms. Schue shared the feelings of Ms. Wooten, stating that the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 6 . . -- City did not have adequate representation by women and other minorities on its boards and commissions. She felt that the representation problem could be resolved by a revised recruitment process which would solicit those individuals who did not respond to the current methods. Ms. Bascom asked if the "affi rma- tively seek" language would limit individual councilors in choosing the applicant they thought best qualified. Referring to the comment by Ms. Schue, Mr. Hansen felt that the council should affimatively seek applicants and then appoint individuals based on their merits. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Wooten stated that she had been directed at the August 13 work session to develop language for Suggested Action 10.2 of Citizen and the Community to address the concerns of the American Civil Liberties Union. She stated that she had originally suggested revising the statement to add "non-public information" as listed in the Revisions and Errata but that the ACLU had recommended additional language on September 7. Ms. Ehrman moved to adopt the following language as developed by 'the ACLU for Suggested Action 10.2 of the Citizen: "This would prevent the maintenance of mailing lists developed to maintain contact with individuals and organizations concerning City matters." The motion failed for lack of a second. In response to a question by Councilor Obie, Ms. Decker stated that Goal 11 as added at the April conference addressed the issue of accessibility for handi- e capped individuals. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to amend Suggested Action 2.4 of The Environment section to read "Prohibit the willing or intentional manufacture of nuclear weapons or compo- nents with the city of Eugene." Councilor Hansen asked what action the City would take if a company chose to manufacture such weapons or components. Ms. Wooten said the suggested action would not require the City to close down the company; she said it was not official legislation and that no enforcement clause was included. She said it was a statement of the sentiment and interest of the community. Mr. Obie commented that computer chips had a wide range of uses and that such specific language would threaten a company involved in that industry. Ms. Schue stressed that the language was only a suggested action and a statement to indicate the sentiment of the community. She did not believe the City could take action against a company manufacturing such items. Ci ty Attorney Tim Sercombe stated that the City Council could restrict certain land uses through the Zoning Ordinance; however, he said that prohibiting the manufac- turing of certain items within the city might be in conflict with the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 3:5; Councilors Ehrman, Schue, and Wooten voting aye and Councilors Ball, Bascom, Hansen, Holmer, and Obie voting nay. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 7 < . Councilor Holmer stated that he was proud of the goals, policies, and actions - included in the various City plans and had great respect for the participants of the April and January conference delegates. However, he did not feel that those delegates represented a cross-section of the community, stating that the manner in which those individuals were selected created an elite group. He felt that any citizen who desired should have been allowed to participate even though that still might not have been a true cross-section. He stated that he had urged the acceptance, rather than the adoption, of the document, stating that he felt the document was flawed and unnecessary. He said the document as developed by the conference would have been useful as a reference tool. He said that he would not support the resolution. Mayor Keller stated that he appreciated Mr. Holmer's comments. Ms. Ehrman said the City Council took on the task of reviewing the document when faced with the issue of adopting the document. She added that not everyone was able to attend the two conferences but that public input was allowed through additional hearings. She said the council had made few changes to the document as developed at the conference and thus she favored its adoption. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt the amended resolution carried, 6:2, Councilors Obie, Wooten, Ball, Bascom, Ehrman, and Schue voting aye and Councilors Hansen and Holmer voting nay. The meeting was recessed at 9 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m. B. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (memo, resolution, plan distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Director of Parks e and Recreation Ernie Drapela presented the staff report. He briefly reviewed the August 29, 1984, Parks and Recreation Deparment memorandum which outlined the technical and substantive changes to the plan as recommended by the Joint Parks Committee and the Planning Commission. He stated that the intent of the plan was unchanged from the document adopted by the City Council on May 9, 1983. He added that the Joint Parks Committee will review any items scheduled for improvement or correction to the plan in 1985. Referring to a staff memorandum regarding a $700,000 positive cash flow from the Portland public golf course, Councilor Hansen asked if staff had made any determination on giving higher priority to the Laurelwood Golf Course to generate a positive cash flow similar to that experienced by the City of Portl and. Mr. Drapela stated that the history of the Portland Park Program in relation to its golf program was substantially different from Eugene's. He said the investments required to produce revenues comparable to those received by Portland were not currently available. He said the golf course proposed for the Bethel area would not occur for several years. While he felt there was potential for revenues, he said it would not match the amount produced by Portl and. In response to another question by Mr. Hansen, Mr. Drapela stated that the City owned portions of the land required for the proposed Bethel golf course. Councilor Holmer asked if it would be feasible to postpone action on the item so that the council would have a better picture of its financial situation. He stated that he would not have so readily concurred with numerous items in e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 8 the plan 16 months ago had he better understood the overall City finances. He e felt the timing of the plan adoption was awkward. Mr. Drapela said adoption of the plan would place no requirement on the City Council to fulfill the items; he explained that the plan merely updated the figures for presentation to the community. He said the separate Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process would control implementation of the plan. Mr. Holmer said the total of the items was a substantial amount and adoption of the plan would concept- ually authorize those items as eventual elements in the capital budget. He asked if postponing the plan adoption would complicate the process. Mr. Drapela responded that he did not feel that adoption of the plan would greatly influ- ence the capital budget process. In response to a question by Mayor Keller, he stated that a feasibility study on expanding Laurelwood Golf Course to 18 holes will be initiated in the fall. He stated that a report will be presented to the council after completion of the report. Councilor Hansen urged staff to proceed with the project, stating that the expanded course was needed to address the recreational concerns of city residents. While she said she understood the negative attitudes of some individuals toward the Laurelwood course, Councilor Schue said the current operator felt that the course could be expanded without the use of City funds. In addition, she said that the proposed course in the Bethel area will eventually be realized. Mayor Keller commented that he had originally raised the issue in 1983 but no progress had been made during the past year. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten, Mr. Drapela stated that funding was available for the feasibility study. He said the issue will be presented to the Joint Parks Committee, stating that he expected the committee to take action on the study by the end of September. In response to a question by Ms. Wooten e regarding any long-term aquatics program, Mr. Drapela said that the second paragraph of the August 29 memorandum stated that the proposals in the report from the Aquatics Resources Study Committee will be reviewed in March 1985. Res. No. 3877--A resolution approving and adopting technical revisions to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Eugene, Oregon. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt the resolution. Councilor Ball said it was appropriate to adopt the plan at this time as it will put the City on a long-range course for recreational programs and improve- ments. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 to September 12, 1984. Re~~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager e (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS:je/CM32al MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 9