Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/1985 Meeting (2) M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chamber September 9, 1985 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Jeff Miller. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Obie gave an opportunity to those who wished to address the council about subjects that are not scheduled for council consideration. No one indicated a desire to speak. - II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Riverfront Park Study and Metropolitan Plan Amendment (memo, ordinances, background information distributed) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Pat Decker of the Planning Department presented the staff report. She said the council had tentatively adopted the Riverfront Park Study and had previously initiated an amendment to the Metropolitan Area General Plan. She reviewed the attachments to the back- ground material the council had received. She discussed the concerns express- ed by organizations and individuals. She said a letter from Susan Detroy, 38483 Wendleny, Marcola, was just distributed to the council. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. Betsy Brown, 665 West 5th, No.4, said the action she expected the council to take would be wrong. She asked if she could discuss both the Riverfront Park Study, the Metro Plan amendment, and a tax increment district. Responding to a question from Mayor Obie, City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the Mayor could incorporate the testimony given during consideration of the River- front Park Study and the Metro Plan amendment into the public hearing (which would be later in the evening) on the Riverfront Park Urban Renewal Plan which involved a tax increment district. Mayor Obie wished to do so. He told Ms. Brown and others they could speak about both issues. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 ~~l Ms. Brown said the relevant issues are classified or military-related - research, toxic chemicals, and the economic feasibility of the project. She said people who favor classified research were not present at the hearing because they do not think the Riverfront Park is economically feasible. She said the council is considering a tax increment district for the Riverfront Research Park because Eugeneans are not willing to pay for the Riverfront Resea rch Pa rk . She said citizens should be willing to support a viable project with taxes. Nan Cohen, 907 River Road, opposed the Riverfront Science Park because some people are working to make Lane County a nuclear free zone, the site is a bad choice, the majority of the jobs will be given to people from outside Oregon, existing small businesses should be helped first, and the industries may create conditions which will adversely affect health. She did not understand the tax increment district and asked the council to consider it more thorough- ly. She submitted her testimony in writing. Ms. Cohen submitted written testimony from Richard Gold, 4275 Oak St, who was not present. Thomas Ellis, 960 East 20th, read an article from The Register Guard by Steve Forrester concerning a study titled liThe Wealth of the States/The Political Economy of State Development." He also read from an editorial in The Register Guard which indicated that taxing units, such as the school district, might lose revenue if a Riverfront Tax Increment District is created. He sa i d the Riverfront project will be a massive investment, the environmental effect is e questionable, and the economic payoff is hypothetical. Barbara Kell{, 540 Kingswood, opposed the Riverfront Research Park. She said citizens cou d initiate a referendum on the Riverfront Park or replace coun- cilors if they vote against the will of the people. She said the City will pay for utilities in the Riverfront Park and the Carley Capital Group will draw most of the capital away from the community. She said citizens will have to pay for cleaning up spills, secret research may be initiated, animals might be used in the research, and toxic wastes might reach the river. Ninety-nine percent of 3,000 people tested in Texas had toxic wastes in their systems, she said, and there is no assurance that the research would not develop into manu- facturing as it did in Los Alamos. Answering a question from Mayor Obie, Ms. Kelly said she had completed her testimony on both the Metro Plan amend- ment and the tax increment district. Gail Elber, 665 West 5th, No.4, opposed the tax increment district and the Riverfront Park because classified military research might be done and because the Greenbelt along the Willamette might be damaged. She also opposed the district because Eugeneans might be taxed to pay for the improvements if the Riverfront Park does not succeed. Frankl in Stahl, 2525 Floral Hill Drive, is a professor of biology at the University of Oregon. He said there are other suitable sites for the research pa rk . He said interaction with business-based researchers is usually uninteresting. He hoped classified research will be prohibited in the River- front Park as it is on the campus. If it is not, some faculty members may not ~. - be willing to cooperate with the businesses in the Research Park and that may hinder the Park's development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 Pa ge 2 ~ Bayard McConnaughey, 1653 Fairmount, is a professor of biology at the Univer- - sity of Oregon. He read his testimony and then submitted it in writing. It concerned a meeting of the University Planning Committee on July 17, 1985. He said concerns were expressed about the desirability and the beneficial results of the Riverfront Park, the origin of the project and the approval process, the appropriateness of the site, and possible adverse effects from some acti- vities. None of the people at the meeting from the science departments indi- cated that the University will benefit from the Riverfront development. Mr. McConnaughey said some people at the meeting indicated high tech indus- tries will probably not alleviate unemployment here because the benefits will go to developers, contractors, and outside investors. The idea for the River- front Park did not originate with the departments that might interact with the businesses. The people in those departments have not officially discussed the project. Mr. McConnaughey said some people in the Institute of Molecular Biology signed a petition urging that nothing be done to harm the free and open atmosphere and trust of the scientific community here. A geography professor indicated that the Riverfront site is unsuited for the development proposed. Better sites are available on West 11th Avenue and other places. Some people indi- cated that undesirable activities might be conducted in the Research Park unless all classified research is banned. Mr. McConnaughey said problems should be solved before a ground lease is signed. Howard Bonnett, 1835 East 28th, opposed the plan amendment because it is spot e zoning. He said a tax increment district is not appropriate. He said no other site was given serious consideration. Revenue from businesses, such as Burger King, now goes into the general fund, but, if a tax increment district is formed, revenue from such new businesses will be used to finance the River- front Park and relocate the bike path and soccer field, he said. That revenue will not be used to finance schools and other public expenditures. It will provide housing for rich people on a site which should be a public recreation area. He said the proposed tax increment district is too large and is a subterfuge to pay for spot zoning of the land. He emphasized that the best economic development will result from maintaining the attractiveness of the local environment. Catherine Larson, 810 East 20th, opposed the location of the Riverfront Research Park because it will cause metropolitan sprawl. She asked if the council knew what kind of industry will be located in the Riverfront Park. Jon Silvermoon, 2441 Madison, said other sites should have been considered for the Riverfront development. He wondered how transportation improvements on the ends of the site will serve it if the first development is to be in the middle. He said the Riverfront Park might increase traffic on the Ferry Street Bridge and hasten the need for its replacement. He noted that River- front tax increment funds will not be used for the bridge. Mr. Silvermoon indicated officials should deal with the classified research and toxic waste issues. He did not think the Riverfront Park will enhance the - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 ~~3 Willamette Greenway. He said the Greenway should protect the wildlife and - scenic qualities along the river. He did not think the archaeological value of the area had been addressed. Mr. Silvermoon questioned the validity of Finding H which concerns Statewide Goal 2 because the Metropolitan Plan Monitoring Report indicated there is more industrially zoned land than is needed in the community. He noted that the Special Light Industrial zoning district was approved to create the same kind of jobs the Riverfront Park is to create and there seems to be an over-supply of such sites. He wondered how the public investment in the sites will be recovered. David Thaler, Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Oregon, said the Riverfront Park will invite the military/industrial complex into the commu- nity. He referred to an article in the New York Times concerning $3 billion which is to go to university-associated research. He said the best science is not secret. He read a petition signed by about 120 people who work at the Institute of Molecular Biology. He asked the council not to approve the Riverfront Park until university officials have taken a position on classified research. George cris~ P.O. Box 5346, Salem, represented Agripac. He favored the Riverfront ar and the tax increment district. He said they will create jobs, strengthen the university, enhance the area's beauty, and diversify and shape the economy for the future. He said Agripac has participated in the planning process for the Riverfront Park and demonstrated a wish to cooper- e ate. Agripac and the Riverfront can co-exist. He said Agripac plans to stay at its present site for about 20 years, although that decision may be reconsi- dered if the Riverfront Park succeeds. He emphasized the need to construct the improvements in the existing Agripac plant that were identified in the Riverfront Park Study. John Moseley is Vice President for Research at the University of Oregon. He said the Riverfront Research Park has been considered in the normal, estab- lished planning process of the university. The Campus Planning Committee held open hearings. Mr. Moseley read from its findings. He said President Olum is drafting land transfer conditions that will be presented to the Oregon Board of Higher Education. The conditions will be consistent with the Riverfront Park Study. There being no more requests to testify, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Responding to the testimony, Ms. Decker said the Eugene Software Council tes- tified previously that the Riverfront Park will employ people who are in the community now. Several local businesses might relocate in the Riverfront Park. Improvements to the site will be phased after a specific development plan has been submitted and after a master site plan has been approved. The access points on the east and west ends of the development will minimize costs at the start of the development. When it adopted the Downtown Plan, the council indicated that the Riverfront Research Park section of the Willamette River should have an urban edge to emphasize its relationship to the downtown. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 ~~4 Jim Farah, a consultant for the Planning Department, discussed why an alterna- . tive site is not appropriate for the development. He said the Riverfront site is unique. It meets the criteria for success for a research park. Referring to Page 7 of Attachment D, he made corrections in the following conclusions: (Underlined material should be added) 1 . Coordinated development of the proposed alternative site would be difficult because of the fact that: it contains a series of exist- ing streets (including Franklin Boulevard) which separate develop- ment parcels; only 64 percent of the entire site is under public control, and the remainder is contained in ~ separate ownerships; . . . 4. Development on the proposed alternative site could ultimately involve displacement of 183 people. 5. Based on the same land use mixture and employee/acre ratios used in the draft Riverfront Study, full development of the portion of pro- posed alternative site south of Franklin could ultimately involve 5500 employees. . . Answering questions from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Moseley read the folloWing from the Campus Planning Committee recommendations: In the Riverfront Research Park, no research will be carried out the clearly foreseeable and probable result of which, the direct result of e which, the direct application of which, or any direct purpose of which is to destroy human life or incapacitate human beings. He said University President-Olum will present a condition that will ban the same kind of classified research in all University of Oregon-owned areas that is banned on the University of Michigan campus. President Olum will recommend a specific ban on weapons-related research which, it is assumed, will apply to classified and unclassified research. Ms. Wooten said her understanding was that President Olum will, at the least, recommend a ban on weapons-related research and on classified and unclassified research which would be harmful to human life. Replying to a question from Councilor Miller concerning the possibility of lowering the standards for industries in the Riverfront Park if it does not succeed as expected, Ms. Decker reviewed the many stages of approval the project will go through. Mr. Gleason said a performance bond will be required from the developer. The access points will be the only improvements made early in the development. They will create a debt service of only about $100,000 a year. A buildout of 80,000 square feet will pay the the debt service although a buildout of one million square feet is planned. The improvements will probably not be made until 20,000 to 80,000 square feet are under construction. Mr. Gleason said the Riverfront Tax Increment District will not lessen the revenues from other city districts. The areas of the other districts will not . change and revenues are received from those areas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 ~~5 Answering a question from Councilor Holmer, Ms. Decker said there will be no e relaxation of existing City standards concerning hazardous materials and toxic wa stes. Ms. Wooten added that the council will be considering a proposal that will have enforcement provisions to protect the whole community from pollu- ta nts. Responding to Councilor Hansen, Mr. Hibschman of the Eugene Development Department said tax increment financing can only be used for "public purpose" improvements. The proposed tax increment plan will end in twenty years, but it could be extended. Answering a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Farah said the Riverfront site was not identified in the Metro Plan as a site with archaeological value. If archaeological value is proved, Statewide Goal 5 would require a balancing of the need to maintain the site with the need to develop it. The proposed Metro Plan amendments contain an expedited process for balancing needs. Councilor Bascom discussed the good experience she had visiting a research park in Sweden that is similar to the proposed Riverfront Research Park. Councilor Schue said part of the responsibility for the development of the Research Park is the council 's and part is the university's. The major responsibility for the investment of funds is the developer's. The council has to be sensitive to the other responsibilities. The classified research issue is important, but it belongs to the university and testimony about it should be directed to the university. The council should be concerned with e providing sewers and streets and responding to Land Conservation and Develop- ment Commission issues. Ms. Schue said the Riverfront property is not very attractive now, but it has great potential. The project has many purposes. Agripac needs and recrea- tional needs are important parts of the project. She said the financial proposal seems logical. She emphasized that Riverfront tax increment funds will not exist if the project is not approved; therefore, the project will not cause existing tax districts to lose funds. The council is exhibiting respon- sible stewardship by considering the project promptly because of a possible change in a State law which would make the tax increment district less advan- ta geous. She would support the project. Ms. Wooten will support the project with the two assumptions that (1) no research will be permitted which will harm human life and (2) that an analysis of toxic and hazardous waste pollutants and a report concerning the protection of the Willamette River will be completed. She will withdraw her support if those things change. She does not want any construction started until Eugeneans are protected from toxic and hazardous pollutants. She has heeded the testimony and comments about the project. Ms. Wooten said the economy must be diversified and efforts to diversify the economy must be diversified. She said the developer will determine the eco- nomic feasibility of the project. She said the process is publicly account- able and public improvements will go through the City's budget process. -- MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 Pa ge 6 Ms. Ehrman said much of the testimony concerned the "worst case scenario," and -- she does not think it will happen. The council will have many chances to change its action when it reviews the development. She is concerned about a lack of support for the project within the university community and about the university's action on classified research. Ms. Wooten said she favors height restrictions for the Special Development District. She asked the staff to discuss and recommend height restrictions when the council considers the Special Development District. Ms. Bascom said she is concerned about height restrictions. CB 2845--An ordinance adopting the Riverfront Park Study; and declaring an emergency. CB 2846--An ordinance adopting amendments to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; and declaring an emergency. Incorpora ting the background IlB terial, sta ff notes, testimony, and findings, Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bills be read the second time by council bill numbers only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be consi- dered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unani- mou sly, 7: O. e Council bills 2845 and 2846 were read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all council- ors present voting aye, the bills were declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19347 [CB 2845J and 19348 [CB 2846J. Mayor Obie recessed the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. III. RESOLUTION FOR RIVERFRONT PARK URBAN RENEWAL PLAN City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Responding to questions, Mr. Sercombe said Res. No. 917 is a recommendation from the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency to the Eugene City Council. Res. No. 917--A resolution recommending adoption of the Riverfront Park Urban Renewal Plan. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to adopt the resolu- ti on. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. -- MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 Pa ge 7 e Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and recon- vened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Riverfront Park Urban Renewal Plan (memo, ordinance, background inforllB ti on di stributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Bob Hibschmann of the Eugene Development Department gave the staff report. He said the River- front Research Park Area Plan and the Report on the Riverfront Research Park Area Plan are combined in one document. The plan itself follows a format recommended in the statutes. The report conta ins background informa ti on and the financing plan. The plan w111 be adopted by the council. The report wi 11 not be adopted. The boundary of the Riverfront Research Park Area Plan is the same as the boundary of the Riverfront Park Study. The project descriptions inplement the goals and objectives of the plan and address findings of blight which involve the condition of the buildings, the lack of a transportation system, and the condition of the sewer system. An amendment process is included in the plan. Mr. Hibschmann said the scenario in the financing plan of the report is based on a buildout of one million square feet over twenty years. It is assumed the ta x ra te wi 11 rema in the same. Financing sources for each project are included in the list of projects. The list indicates that the University of e Oregon will pay for relocating the soccer field. Mr. Hibschman discussed the three amendments recommended by the Planning Com- mission. They concerned the modal split, the upper millrace, and identifica- tion of the property owned by the University. Mr. HibschllBn distributed a memo to the Mayor and City Council dated Septem- ber 6, 1985, titled "Technical Amendments to Riverfront Research Park Tax Increment Plan and Report. II He discussed changes recommended in the memo. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. He said many people had testified about the Riverfront Park Urban Renewal Plan in the pUblic hearing earlier in the evening when the Riverfront Park Study and Metropolitan Plan Amendment were considered. David Thaler, Institute for Molecular Biology, said it is difficult to control or dea 1 wi th IlB teria 1 tha tis secret. There being no more requests to testify, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Ms. Ehrman noted that the council is scheduled to vote on approval of the Riverfront Park Urban Renewal Plan on September 11, 1985. Replying to a question from Ms. Ehrman about the size of the proposed tax increment district, Mr. Hibschman said the Advisory committee found that some e' needed improvements will not be funded with tax increment funds if the tax increment district is limited to only university-owned land. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 Pa ge 8 Mayor Obie thanked members of the Riverfront Plan Advisory Committee and the e Planning Commission for their work on the Riverfront project. Mayor Obie recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened it at 9:40 p.m. B. Commercial Airport Safety Subdistrict (CA 84-1) (memo, ordinance, background inforllBtion distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Gary Chenkin of the Planning Department gave the staff report. He said the Commercial Airport Safety Subdistrict will combine with existing zoning districts. The subdis- trict will affect only the approach areas to the airport. It wi 11 prevent obstructions that might cause accidents. It is not a list of permitted uses. It reflects a policy in the Metro Plan. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. There being no requests to testify, he closed the public hearing. CB 2848--An ordinance concerning a commercial airport safety sub- district; amending Section 9.268 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, 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 e time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 2848 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all council- ors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19349). I II. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING: CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE REVISIONS (memo, ordinance distributed) City M1nager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Randy Kolb of the Admini stra tive Servi ces Department gave the sta ff report. He said the council will consider revisions to the contract on October 14. He asked the council to give the ordinance a first reading and direct the staff to publish the appropriate public notice to call for a public hearing. CB 2849--An ordinance granting Group W Cable, Inc., a non- exclusive franchise for the operation of a cable com- munications system; and amending Ordinance No. 18284 and 18936. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to direct the City e Manager to provide notice of the public hearing on October 14, 1985, and that the bill be read by council bill number only and MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 Pa ge 9 that the City Council adopt first reading of the ordinance at 1\ this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. IV. FINDINGS AND MINUTES OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1985, AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS (memo, findings, minutes distributed) A. Improvements in Al faretta Drive (#85-16) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. l. Adopt Findings/Minutes of Hearings Official Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the find- ings and minutes of the Hearings Official meeting of September 3, 1985. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. 2. Levy Assessments CB 2850--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewers in Alfaretta Drive from Rio Glen to 700 feet east. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous con- sent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this e time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 2850 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be a pproved and gi ven fi na 1 pa ssa ge. Roll call vote; all councilor present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19350). B. Improvemen ts on Ba i 1 ey Hi 11 Roa d (#85-22) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. l. Adopt Findings Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the find- ings concerning improvements on Bailey Hill Road. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. 2. Levy Assessments CB 2851--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Bailey Hill Road from 950 feet south of West 11th Avenue to 1,200 feet south of West 11th Avenue. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 Pa ge 10 Council Bill 2851 was read the second time by council bill number only. - Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be a pproved and gi ven fi na 1 pa ssa ge . Roll call vote; all council- ors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19351). C. Improvements to Eugene Park Place (#85-24) City M1nager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. City Engineer Bert Teitzel said the council will be asked to make assessments in a few months. l. Adopt Findings Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to approve the find- ings. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~., Micheal D. Gleason TLI e City Manager (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) 1843C e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 Pa ge 11 . .- M E M 0 RAN 0 U M e September 9, 1985 .... TO: Eugene City Council FROM: Randy Kolb, Information Services Director SUBJECT: CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE REVISIONS As required by the existing cable TV franchise with Group W, the Metropolitan Cable Television Commission has concluded its triannual review of the franchise. This review included extensive Commission review, public hearings, and negotiations between the Commission's legal staff and that of Group W. Both Lane County and the City of Springfield have reviewed and approved the new franchise. The triannual review was made more complicated by the newly ~dopted 1984 Federal Communications Policy Act. Under this Act, local government lost many of the traditional areas of regulation, including rate making, regulation of programming and termination/renewal of existing franchises. Another factor that compounded the negotiations was that this review was the first time Group e W Cable Inc. headquarters analyzed the Metro area franchise which they acquired from Teleprompter. The major changes accomplished the goals set by the Commission: 1. Clarification ~hat 'basic service' includes 21 channels of programming and not just the programs on the traditional 12-channel dial. 2. An increase in the franchise fee from 3 percent to 5 percent of gross revenues. 3. Deregulation of rates and programming (except for broad categories of programming). 4. Local acceptance of the obligation to operate the access facility and finance it subject to buaget committee approval of appropriations. Virtually all of the other changes were related to clarifying problems that have arisen because of the Federal Act or-efforts to simplify the cable company.s operation as a means of avoiding ra~e increases. These include allowing the cable company to sell its services in one-month blocks and not have to prorate the service for parts of a month, increasing the population density factor before the operator is required to ex~end service, allowing the operator to charge subscribers if they negligently or intentionally damage cable equipment and, when customers approve. to sell its customer list. . / . ~ ~ CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE REVISIONS September 9, 1985 Page 2 e The City Council should now proceed to adopt the franchise Ordinance. The proce,ss for this is dictated by Section 43 of the City Charter. The Ordinance must be read at two consecutive regular meetings (defined as second meeting of each month) with a public hearing held prior to the second reading. In addition a public notice must be placed in at least one major newspaper in the area. This notice shall run once a week for three weeks. The schedule should run as follows: at the September 9th meeting the Ordinance gets first reading and a motion is made directing staff to publish the required public hearing notice; at the October 14th meeting staff will make a presentation, the public hearing will be held, and the Ordinance will get its second reading. I have attached a copy of the franchise Ordinance for your review. I would be pleased to meet with any of you to discuss this further if you desire. I can be reached at 687-5070. DPRCK214 Attachment ~ - . '..., M E M 0 RAN DUM ~~- September 9, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: FINAL ADOPTION RIVERFRONT STUDY/METROPOLITAN PLAN AMENDMENT I. BACKGROUND On July 17, the City Council took action conceptually approving the draft Riverfront Park Special Area Study and initiating the amendment process to the Metropolitan General Plan. As a result of that action, the following materials were forwarded to the Metropolitan Area Plan Advisory Committee (MAPAC), the City of Springfield and Lane County: 1. Changes to the draft Study adopted by the council at its July 17 meeting; 2. Language creating the "University/Research" land use designation in the Metropolitan Plan; 3. A list of tax lots to which the University/Research designation It is to be applied; 4. Findings substantiating the plan amendment's consistency with the acknowledged Metropolitan Plan and the Statewide Goals, which support the amendment to the Metropolitan Plan. MAPAC, the City of Springfield. and Lane County considered the proposed amendment during the months of July and August. . II. PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS The following outlines the results of the plan amendment process which has occurred to date. A. As part of the ongoing communication with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCO), the staff referred the draft Riverfront Pl an (as modi fi ed by the counci 1) to that agency for comment. Written comments from the DLCD and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) , in their role as administrators of the Wil i amette Greenway, are contained in Attachment A. 8. July 24th -- MAPAC considered the proDosed amendment at a public meeting, and voted 9 to 1 to support the amendment. Attachment . A contains correspondence from MAPAC to the councij on the Riverfront Study. 1 , I C. July 24th -- The Springfield Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a public meeting and voted 6 to 1 to recommend approval to the Springfield City Council. -~--4It - D. August 5th -- The Springfield City Council considered their Planning Commission's recommendation in a public hearing. As a result of that hearing, the Planning Commission's recommendation and its own discussion, the Springfield City Counci 1 voted 5 to 0 to support the plan amendment. Correspondence from the Spri ngfi e 1 d Council is contained in Attachment A. E. August 13th -- The Lane County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners considered the proposed plan amendment in joint public hearing on August 6th. As a result of that hearing and their discussions, the board and Planning Commission asked Eugene staff to respond to a seri es of questions. Staff responses are contained in two memoranda enclosed as Attachment B. At a second joint meeting on August 13, the Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend that Lane County support the plan amendment. At the same meeting the Lane County Board of Commissioners voted 3 to 1 to support the proposed plan amendment. Correspondence from Lane County is contained in Attachment A. Written testimony presented to the board and Planning Commission as part of Lane County1s hearing process is contained in Attachment C. 4It III. ISSUES RAISED BY ELECTED OFFICIALS THROUGH THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS As a result of the Metropolitan Plan amendment process, elected officials raised two concerns: 1) the council IS deletion of provisions for height limitation in the draft SD, Special Development District; and 2) progress on amendments to Eugenets code governing handling and disposal of toxic wastes. While the council may wish to discuss both issues at this time, neither adoption of the Ri verfront Speci a 1 Area Study nor the related Metropolitan Plan amendment are predicated on resolution of these issues. The height limitation issue will be addressed in development of the SD, Special District, which will be reviewed by the council this fall. Amendments to code provisions governing handling and disposal of toxic wastes will be discussed by the council in early fall. IV. ISSUES RAISED THROUGH PUBLIC TESTIMONY A seri es of issues have been raised a s a resul t of the pub 1 i c hea ri ng process on the Metropolitan Plan amendment. Staff has responded to those issues in the memorandum dated August 12,1985 (Attachment B). In addition, the council has received correspondence from Mr. Al Urquhart, dated August 6, 1985. which raises new questions concerning the compliance of the draft study and proposed Metropolitan Plan amendment with Statewide 4It Goals. This letter has been included along with other correspondence to .~ the Council contained in Attachment A. A separate written response to Mr. Urquhart's letter is contained in Attachment D. 2 ~i.,; IV. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION - -" Based on the processes involved in developing the draft Riverfront Study, e----..,-- supporting background information generated as part of those processes, and policy direction resulting from development of the study, the staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt the Ri verfront Speci a 1 Area Study by ordi nance, bas i ng that action on the work of the Riverfront Study Committee, the public hearing and modification of the draft study by the Planning Commission, and public hearing and further modification of the draft study by the council as outlined in Attachment E. - 2. Adopt by ordi nance the amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (as detailed in Attachment F) basing that action on: the findings (also contained in Attachment F); the concurrence by the City of Springfield and Lane County; the City Council's public hearing process on the proposed amendment; and the council's own discussions on this matter. 3. Forward the Metropolitan Plan amendment to the Lane Council of Governments Board for ratification. That action is scheduled to be considered by the L-COG Board on September 26, 1985 at the Veneta Community Center. p 1 j fmem8 e Attachments e "' .) .' - . ;. M E M 0 RAN DUM e September 10, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FRor~ : Downtown Commission SUBJ ECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO MALL ORDINANCE AND PROPOSED MALL REGULATIONS Background The Downtown Commission unanimously recommends that the Council revise the mall ordinance and direct the City Manager to adopt the accompanying regula- tions. Management of the downtown mall is an important component of the downtown management program., In order to implement the Downtown Plan's policy of improving the mall as a business environment, changes and clarifications to existing rules and procedures are needed. The attached revisions to the City ordinance regarding the mall and proposed mall regulations have been developed with extensive collaboration from the Eugene Downtown Association, the Parks and Recreation Department, the Police Department and the City Attorneyls office. The final draft was reviewed and recommended to the Downtown Commission by the Mall Management Task Team, which includes staff e from Parks Administration and Maintenance, the Police and Fire Departments, Public Works Maintenance and Facilities, the Permit and Information Center, and the Community Development Division. In reaching its recommendation, the Downtown Commission held a public hearing and received testimony supporting the revi si ons. The ordinance revisions and proposed regulations are enclosed under separate cover. After the council enacts the ordinance, the City Manager will immediately adopt the regulations on a temporary basis and invite written comments for a specified period. Ordinance Revisions One change is the shift of administrative authority and responsibility for management of the mall from the Eugene Parks and Recreation Department Director to the "department head designated by the City ~~anager, II which will be the Eugene Development Department Director (Ordinance--2.812, 4.871). Because of EDDls involvement in downtown development and other activities which affect the mall, this consolidation will facilitate coordination of mall management. The revisions consolidate and clarify activities which require a permit. The definition of commercial pursuits has been refined (Ord.--4.87l, 4.876, 4.877, Regs.--MR-1015(2)). Commercial pursuits include such activities as - advertising, displaying, or distributing goods or services. and providing a C 0. ., ~ AGENDA ITEM V: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO MALL ORDINANCE AND PROPOSED MALL REGULATIONS Septemoer 10, 1985 Page 2 - place for customers to sit. One section consolidates activities which were prohibited in the past with proposed new prohibitions. *Bicycling (Ord.--4.872(S)) *Skateboarding (4.872(6)) *Roller-skating (4.872(7)) *Lying down, except in grassy areas (4.872(9))(neyJ prohibition) *Using the mall as a place to sleep, except by pre-school age chil dren (4.872(10)) (ilew prohibition) *P1aying sports in a manner that is harmful to plant life or that interferes with other mall users (4.872(12)) *Sitting on surfaces intended for pedestrian purposes, except on the central fountain steps, under certai n condi ti ons (4.872 (11 ) ) ( nev,r prohi bi ti on) *Operating or using any noise-producing machine, vehicle, device, or instrument in a manner that disturbs other mall visitors, except in performing authorized maintenance or construction (Regs--MR-101O(2)) *C1imbing trees or mall s t ru c tu re s (4. 872 ( 2 ) 1 ) *Bringing animals on the mall (4.872(3)) *Putting litter or any substance in the fountain. Using th~ fountain for any purpose other than observing or wading. (4.872{4)) One section makes willful violation of any of the regulations an offense - punishable by a fine not to exceed $1000, or confinement not to exceed one year, or both lOrd. 4.990(5)). It is not anticipated that such a penalty will often be imposed, however, this provision gives the Police Department a resource it does not currently have because the current violations are not arrestable offenses. While recent court decisions have determined that panhandling and charitable solicitations are forms of constitutionally protected speech, the new mall regul at; ons will require that these activities only occur by permit. The City may only reasonably regulate such activities. It cannot prohibit them. The Attorney:s office is working on a city-wide regulation of charitable solicitation which may allow for more control of such activities on the mall. Other items addressed include crov/d control, damage to plant life and public facilities, motor vehicles, and mall activity pennits. The proposed revisions are the product of extensive inter-departmental and public/private reviev/ and comment. enacting the mall regulatins will be a positive step for the downtown management program and Downtown Plan implementation. Action RecOli1mend that trle City Council enact the revised ma 1 ordinance and that the City i1anager adopt the regulations temporarily, and nvite written public comment. - 07035 Attachments