Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/1991 Meeting . e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Conference Room May 13, 1991 5:30 p.m. . COUNCILORS PRESENT: Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette, Ruth Bascom, Shawn Boles, Randy MacDonald, Debra Ehrman (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Bobby Green (arrived at 6:17 p.m.). COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan. The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by his Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. DISCUSSION OF METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS A. Background on Metro Plan Amendments Jan Childs, Planning Division Manager of the Planning and Development Depart- ment (POD), reviewed the background for the amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan proposed for Blue Water Boats and Good Neighbor Care Cen- ters. Ms. Childs said the planning commissions of the cities of Eugene and Spring- field and Lane County, voted to support the amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for Blue Water Boats. She said all three planning commissions had held public hearings on the issue and there had been additional public testimony at the joint elected officials level. Ms. Childs said there had been some confusion about the testimony of the representative from the Department of Fish and Wildlife concerning the Blue Water Boats proposal. She said there was concern that the statements made by this individual differed from statements in a letter from the department. She said the letter was the department's official position. Mr. Nicholson asked if the Department of Fish and Wildlife had indicated that the State biologist had altered his viewpoint. Ms. Childs said she did not know. She introduced Mel Oberst, City of Springfield staff. Mr. Boles pointed out that the City of Springfield was one of the two initia- tors of the Blue Water Boat amendment to the Metro Plan. He asked if Mr. Oberst had spoken during the rebuttal session at a meeting of the joint elected officials. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 1 e e e City Attorney Tim Sercombe said Mr. Oberst has worked on the issue as staff. He said that in quasi-judicial matters, proponents give testimony; the oppo- nents give testimony; then staff is allowed to give any necessary explanation before rebuttal. He said this process was followed at the meeting two weeks ago of the joint elected officials at which Mr. Oberst spoke. Mr. MacDonald said the tone of Mr. Oberst's comments at this meeting seemed to rebut prior testimony. He said he did not wish in any way to denigrate Springfield staff but that in the future, when a jurisdiction is a co-appli- cant, staff should be a neutral third party. Mayor Miller said that if this was not a legal problem, the council should flag the issue and deal with it as a process issue in the future. Mr. Sercombe agreed. He said Mr. Oberst could speak at this meeting as staff and co-applicant without corrupting the process, as long as he did not offer new evidence at this time. Mr. Nicholson suggested that participants at this meeting might have violated the rule that no new evidence could be offered at this time. Mr. Sercombe said there was a difference between commenting and advocating. He said new facts could not be offered after a public hearing was closed but staff could offer explanation and answer questions. Mr. Nicholson asked if the council would be correct to interpret the state- ments of the State biologist as legitimate evidence to consider a "no" vote. Mr. Sercombe said it might not be valid to ask staff for clarification of information which came about as part of a public hearing because this might be considered new evidence. Ms. Childs said the Springfield City Council had taken formal action to ap- prove the Metro Plan amendments. She said the Lane County Commissioners had considered both amendments at a recent work session and had given them tenta- tive approval. She said the commissioners would take final action the fol- lowing week. In response to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Sercombe said ex parte contact did not apply to discussion among councilors. He said ex parte contact re- ferred to contacts with people outside the staff or council who had an inter- est in the proceeding and which occurred after the initiation of application. Mr. Gleason said it was not inappropriate or prejudicial for a public body to assert a position in the General Plan process. He said there were three jurisdictions involved in this process and members of the bodies of each had the right to discuss issues among themselves. Mr. Sercombe said Springfield and Eugene city councilors could deliberate jointly on the amendments to the Metro Plan. Ms. Bascom said the Housing Policy Board had declined to comment on the amendments because of the fact that a judicial process was involved. Ms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 2 . e e e Childs said that since not all members of the board were elected officials, it would probably be inappropriate for the group to discuss this issue. In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Ms. Childs said visits to the sites involved were permitted. Ms. Bascom said she had visited the sites and felt that this should be part of the decision-making process because the visits could present a different impression of the overall issue. Ms. Childs said site tours were available to the Planning Commission and elected offi- cials could be invited to attend these tours. B. Blue Water Boats Ms. Bascom said that while she respected the decisions of the Planning Com- mission and other bodies, a site visit had convinced her that environmental issues related to the Blue Water Boats amendment were not persuasive. Mr. MacDonald asked if staff had considered additional booming on the south- east side of the pond proposed for use by the Blue Water Boats project as an additional refinement. Mr. Oberst said staff had not considered this issue after the public hearing. (Ms. Ehrman arrived at the meeting.) Mr. Nicholson said the Planning Commission had not considered testimony that Major Defoe had gone outside the UGB to get cheap land, although Mr. Defoe had made a comment to this effect. He said this statement did major damage to the underlying argument that there was no property inside the UGB which was suitable for this project. In response to a question from Mayor Miller, Mr. Oberst said he did not know what the total mitigation cost would be. Mayor Miller said that if this project were successful, it could be used as a prototype of other such projects within the UGB. Mr. Boles said the West Eugene Wetlands mitigation was another such prototype. Mr. Nicholson asked if the council could consider the cost of land in the UGB as one of the criteria for deciding this issue. Mr. Sercombe said the coun- cil should consider whether the criteria were consistent with the Metro Plan in general. He said policies of the Metro Plan included furthering economic growth and encouraging a variety of industrial sites at price ranges commen- surate with industrial needs. Therefore, expense of land within the UGB would be a relevant consideration. Mr. Nicholson said that if it was permissible for the councilors to state how they intended to vote on this issue, he would like to hear the councilor's reasons for the positions they planned to take. Ms. Bascom said she had some knowledge of birds and did not feel that birds would have as difficult a time adapting as assumed. She said the Blue Water Boats project would be a good way to provide a bird habitat and would not erode that habitat. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 3 e Mr. Robinette said it was his inclination to follow the Planning Commission's recommendations. He asked if anyone disagreed with this. Ms. Ehrman said she was concerned that Mr. Dafoe did not seem to think that extending the UGB was a major issue. She said he and others involved in this issue should be aware that this kind of a change to the UGB was not taken lightly. Mr. Nicholson said the testimony from the wildlife biologist was very differ- ent than anything in the record. In addition, he said Mr. Dafoe had made statements about his motives which were different than anything he had stated for the record. He said that if he could believe Mr. Dafoe's recorded moti- vation for seeking an extension of the UGB, and that the mitigation plan was completely adequate, he would have no problem voting in favor of this amend- ment. However, he said the testimony seemed "shaky." e Ms. Bascom said that while the State biologist had amplified the variety of impacts which would occur due to the Blue Water Boats project, he had not altered his original position. Mr. Nicholson said the biologist felt the impact of the project would be negative, but this was not recorded in his letters to the elected officials deciding this issue. Mr. MacDonald said he had read these letters very closely. He said the State biologist had been consistent on the wildlife impact and the ability to miti- gate th~s impact. He said that over a period of time the biologist's knowl- edge base had broadened, although he had not fundamentally changed his posi- tion. Ms. Ehrman asked if the council had discussed the role of the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) as a resolver of disputes. She said representa- tives to the MPC from the council could represent the council's position but asked what would happen if an issue could not be resolved. Ms. Childs said all three jurisdictions would have to approve the amendments to the Metro Plan in order for any of them to be adopted. She said that even if the MPC approved the amendments, they would still need the approval of the three jurisdictions. (Mr. Green arrived at the meeting.) Ms. Bascom said further negotiations on this issue might be needed. Ms. Childs pointed out that the site plan for the Blue Water Boats project was greatly modified during the course of three separate public hearings held before the three planning commission public hearings. Mr. Boles said it was possible that one of the jurisdictions might be recal- citrant to approve the plan in which case some kind of resolution would be needed. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 4 e e e Mr. Gleason said it would be helpful to the MPC if each councilor would state his or her reasons for approving or voting against the amendments. Ms. Childs added that the ordinance on the Blue Water Boats project in the coun- cil packet had findings for approval of this amendment. She said that if the council opposed the amendment, it would need to direct staff to issue addi- tional findings. C. Good Neighbor Care Center Ms. Childs pOinted out that the record on this matter was closed for which reason Mr. Sercombe had noted that Ms. Bascom's comments on her site review should not go beyond recorded information. She noted that all three planning commissions had voted in opposition to changing the Metro Plan to allow land currently zoned industrial to be rezoned residential as requested by the Good Neighbor Care Center, Inc. Ms. Childs said the majority of the Springfield City Council supported this amendment, while the majority of the lane County Board of Commissioners op- posed it. Due to the split vote, both votes are tentative. She said the issue would go to the MPC after the Eugene City Council voted. Ms. Childs said the council packet contained an ordinance for approval of this amendment and that the council's vote would be tentative and would re- quire supplemental findings. In response to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Sercombe pointed out that this was the first time the MPC process adopted last fall had been used. He said the council could adopt the Good Neighbor Care Center amendment that night if it chose to, but staff recommended against this because, if approved, the ordinance would still need to be changed to meet the requirements of the other two jurisdictions involved. Mr. Boles asked if the adopted legislation as approved by the three jurisdic- tions dealt with tentative votes. Mr. Sercombe said the legislation did not address tentative action. He said the legislation requires that the juris- dictions approve, deny, or modify amendments to the Metro Plan within 30 days of the filing date. In response to a question from Mr. Boles, Ms. Childs said she did not know how long the land in question had been on the market as industrial land. (Mr. Mott, Springfield Planning Manager, had just left the meeting to attend a Springfield City Council meeting.) She said it was in the record that the property had been for sale for a lengthy period of time. Ms. Ehrman said there was nothing on record which would substantiate the concern voiced by some that this development would become a ghetto. She said existing residences are located closer to a chemical plant in the area than houses would be in the proposed new development. Mayor Miller said that although 500 low-income units have been proposed for this site, nothing would prohibit the construction of a mixture of middle- MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 5 e e e and low-income units. Ms. Childs noted that the plan amendment did not ad- dress rent levels, only a change in residential density. She said the coun- cil was only being asked to approve an amendment to the Metro Plan. She said the City of Springfield was the only body which could make a zoning change in this area. Mr. MacDonald said people tend to complain about low-income "ghettos," al- though it is possible to have a middle-class ghetto. He pointed out that the housing in the Good Neighbor Care Center development would be new, not run- down. He said his biggest concern about this project was its proximity to a chemical plant. He said lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (lRAPA) recom- mended against the project in a memo because the agency did not favor con- structing housing so near a chemical plant. However, existing residences are closer to the plant than would be proposed housing. In response to a request from Mr. Nicholson, Ms. Childs explained that the Planning Commission had based its conclusion on the fact that arguments in favor of retaining the property in an industrial designation were site-spe- cific; i.e., it is a large site with single ownership, has real access, etc. Ms. Childs said the arguments in favor of redesignating the property for family residences were based on the need for housing in general, not to the specifics of the site. She said the Planning Commission was concerned about concentrating a number of low-income units in one project. The commission's housing dispersal policy sets a maximum for low-income family units in any one project. Ms. Bascom said the property in question has been zoned industrial for a long time. She said the Housing Policy Board wants to emphasize dispersal and has targeted 10 to 40 units of low-income housing per project as a maximum. Mr. Boles suggested the City might need to set a minimum number of low-income units per project. He pointed out that the Walnut Grove housing development is directly across the street from a railroad track on which chemicals are transported regularly. Ms. Ehrman said the council was being asked to make a land use decision with- out any guarantee that its recommendations about how the land should be used would be followed. Mr. MacDonald asked what initial requirements the council could make. Ms. Childs responded that the MPC needed the council to identify the major issues, either for or against the amendment, for later review by the commission. Mayor Miller said he was concerned about land east of the road dividing this property. He said that if housing were constructed in this area, there would be no buffering from the chemical plant. He said he was also concerned about the area becoming a ghetto. He said housing which is 20 to 30 years old can easily become a ghetto. He suggested that housing in this development should be for both low- and middle-income people. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 6 e e e Mr. Nicholson said "ghetto" when referring to a middle-class neighborhood, meant a homogeneous concentration of people. He said the council seemed primarily concerned about housing becoming substandard. Ms. Bascom said most of east Springfield is zoned industrial. She said the property in question is one portion of a much larger industrial area. Ms. Childs said this area is covered by the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan which attempts to address issues of residential and industrial coexistence. She said the plan identifies this land as remaining industrial. In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Ms. Childs said the metro area has nearly reached equilibrium on medium-density residential housing in the metro area, although there is no excess land for this purpose. She said the Metro Plan has not identified where more medium-density hOUSing could be placed. She said that in terms of inventory, the area could probably use more medi- um-density development. Mr. Boles said one of the issues the council should raise for consideration by the MPC was whether this property could be effectively buffered for use as a housing development for low-income and elderly persons. He noted that contiguous property is residential. Ms. Bascom said the housing in this area included some of the lowest-income residences in Lane County that she had ever seen. Ms. Ehrman noted that the lane County Commissioners are concerned about the schools in this area because they are already full. Ms. Bascom added that the Springfield City Council is very divided on this issue and probably open to negotiations. Mr. MacDonald said one point to negotiate might be the need to attract supermarkets to the area. Mr. Green said this kind of commercial development would probably occur naturally after a housing development was built. Mayor Miller noted that he felt a wider buffer from east to west was needed in this project. In response to a comment by Ms. Bascom, Ms. Childs said the original proposal made by Good Neighbor Care Centers included more housing units and was reduced, based on the need to provide more buffering. She noted that specific comments about the plan designation would be helpful to the MPC. Mayor Miller said the council could state that it wanted the plan configuration changed in certain ways. In response to a comment by Ms. Bascom, Ms. Childs said the council could not ask for specific kinds of development, such as owner-occupied cooperative housing for low-income people, because this was not part of the plan amend- ment process. She said the owner could be asked to enter into a covenant to this effect. Ms. Childs pointed out that even it the council voted to approve the Metro Plan amendment, the current ordinance findings would probably need to be expanded. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 7 e Mr. Boles questioned the importance of the council's motion that night be- cause of the fact that the vote was only tentative. Ms. Childs said that if the council denied the request for approval of the amendment, it would need to direct staff to prepare additional denial find- ings. Mayor Miller asked how much discussion time he should allow at the public hearing following this meeting. Mr. Green suggested that since this issue would definitely return to the council, discussion should be limited to one and one half hours. Ms. Ehrman said each councilor should comment on the amendments to help provide staff direction on findings. II. WORK PLAN SESSION Ms. Ehrman asked how the Eugene Decisions process was affecting council Goal II, specifically the Retail Task Force Report and the Downtown Plan Review and Revision. Mr. Gleason said Eugene Decisions required a great deal of staff time which would otherwise be spent on projects identified as part of the Council Goals. He said Hillary Kittleson, of POD, was the Coordinating Manager for Eugene Decisions. Ms. Childs said that, in terms of the POD Work Plan, certain projects were being temporarily postponed if staff had not already been dedicated to them, rather than postponing something staff was already working on. ~ Mr. Gleason said Eugene Decisions was similar to a General Plan rewrite, and would include just as much citizen input, but that it was being accomplished on a tighter time frame. Mr. Boles said that some of the POD Work Plan projects being delayed by Eu- gene Decisions have been major Council Goals, such as the Retail Task Force Report. He said an ordinance on Section 4 was needed quickly. Mr. Gleason said Ms. Childs could work on revising the list of Council Goal items postponed due to the Eugene Decisions process. Ms. Childs said items could be rearranged as the councilors chose. She noted that the Spring- field-initiated Gateway Refinement Plan was being delayed due to issues which were completely unrelated to Eugene Decisions. She further noted that the West Eugene Wetlands Study, the Metropolitan Natural Resources Special Study, the Metropolitan Industrial lands Special Study, and Metro Plan Amendments were all items which would be considered in a joint hearing with other juris- dictions, for which reason they could not be delayed. Mr. Gleason said that as the City has made cutbacks, the planning program has slipped each year. He said the Metro Plan has slipped even further and staff time tends to be spent on planning intricacies rather than metro-wide plan- ning. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 8 e e e In response to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Gleason said the design and bid process for the Highway 99N--Phase II project would take place next year. Mr. Green said he had been under the impression that funds for this project were already in place. Mr. Gleason said he would review this issue and pro- vide the council with more information on it. He said a great deal of staff time was being .spent on the Ferry Street Bridge project. Mayor Miller said the bridge project should not take away from the importance of work on High- way 99. Mr. Boles noted that citizens have already spent a great deal of time working on the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) Update. Mr. Gleason said staff was recommending that work on this project be delayed to February 1992 from May 1991. Mr. Boles said he did not think this delay was appropriate. Ms. Bascom noted that a group was already at work on the Urban Forest Manage- ment Plan. Mayor Miller said the council was raising some difficult issues for staff. He pointed out that in spite of council's objections to certain delays in its work plan, the council wants a quality Eugene Decision process. Mr. Boles said Eugene Decisions would probably require more staff time 1n1- tially than in later phases. He suggested the council review its work plan in another quarter. Mr. Gleason said staff would prepare options for issues such as CATS and the Retail Task Force Report. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~'rl Micheal Gleason, City Manager (Recorded by Kris Bloch) mncc 051391 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1991 Page 9