Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/1991 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room May 28, 1991 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Shawn Boles, Kaye Robinette, Roger Rutan, Paul Nicholson, Randy MacDonald. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Debra Ehrman The regular meeting of May 28, 1991, was called to order by his Honor Mayor Jeff Mill er. Mayor Miller noted that City Manager Mike Gleason had injured his eye in a handball game that day and would be at home for several days under the orders of his doctor. He said Linda Norris, Acting In Capacity (AIC) Assistant City Manager, would assist the council until Mr. Gleason returned. I. DISCUSSION OF BLUE WATER BOATS e Mayor Miller asked if the council wished to reconsider the Blue Water Boats amendment to the Metropolitan Area General Plan. Mr. Rutan said he had misread the sentiments of the council for which reason he had not asked for a postponement of this item by the City Council. He said that although he supported the request, he hoped the council would have the chance to reconsider it. Mayor Miller said that Ms. Ehrman had notified him that she would agree to whatever decision the council made. Ms. Bascom said she was even more disturbed by reaction to the council's May 13 meeting than she had thought she would be. She said she was concerned that the council's opposition to the Blue Water Boats amendment, which was supported by the planning commissions of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane Coun- ty, might jeopardize her work on intergovernmental bodies. Mr. Boles agreed that there was a problem, but he said he felt land use plan- ning was at the center of the issue. He said the amendment should be re- turned to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) with the understanding that it needed the clear approval of all three jurisdictions. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 1 e e e Ms. Bascom said the issue was whether the council would accept the unanimous decisions of the three local planning commissions. She said these groups were just as concerned about urban growth as is the council. Mayor Miller pointed out that he had raised this issue in order to determine what process the council should use in deciding its position on the amend- ment. Mr. Nicholson said "startling" new evidence had been presented at joint hear- ings on the amendment which was not available to the planning commissions. He said the council needed time to reconsider the issue and other jurisdic- tions should have time to do the same. Mayor Miller said he was concerned that the council could create an unpleasant atmosphere at the MPC level if it sent the MPC an opposition vote on this issue. Mr. Rutan said that since the Eugene City Council was the only body to have opposed this issue, the MPC might prove to be confrontational. (Mr. Green arrived.) Mr. Boles said he would like the opportunity to ask City Attorney Bill Gary whether the Blue Water Boats issue could be returned unmodified to the coun- cil by the MPC. He said this could lead to a legal challenge on the part of the City. Mayor Miller questioned whether the council would want to create this kind of a situation over this particular issue. Mr. MacDonald said he had talked to Mr. Boles, the Mayor, the president of the Springfield City Council, the Mayor of Springfield, and numerous other parties and had come to the conclusion that he would support reconsideration of the Blue Water Boats amendment. He suggested that the amendment be recon- sidered prior to its submittal to the MPC. Mr. MacDonald said the potential seemed to exist for engendering enmity on the part of the City's partners. He said the council's opposition to the Blue Water Boats amendment would adversely affect the opportunity for agree- ment on the Metro Plan Update. Mr. MacDonald said council ground rule 3 under Section 2 of the "Rules and Procedures: Process Guide1ines" stated: "Councilors can request that an item be postponed to the following meeting." He said Mr. Boles intended to postpone the Blue Water Boats issue until the council's next meeting. Mr. Boles asked if Ms. Ehrman would be at the council's May 29 meeting. Mayor Miller said Ms. Ehrman had indicated that she did not plan to attend that meeting. Mr. Nicholson said Ms. Ehrman should be involved in this issue and he would favor postponing reconsideration of the amendment until May 29, if she would be present. Ms. Norris said Ms. Ehrman's next scheduled council meeting would be June 3. Mayor Miller said the council's opposition of the Blue Water Boats amendment might negatively affect its chances for an update of the General Plan. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 2 e e e Boles said that if reconsideration of the issue were postponed, he would like to postpone it until Ms. Ehrman could be present. Mayor Miller pointed out that the council's next meeting, after its May 29 meeting, would be after the next MPC meeting. Mr. MacDonald suggested someone from the City Attorney's office should be present at this meeting so that the council could discuss its options in this matter. He said Mr. Gary had told him that the MPC could return this issue to the council in one of three ways: 1) the original version; 2) the origi- nal version as modified; or 3) a denial of the original motion. The City Attorney's opinion was that the MPC could return the original ver- sion to the council as the committee's recommendation. Ms. Norris said staff would attempt to contact Mr. Gary to see if he could attend this meeting. Mr. Nicholson said he was unhappy that he had to vote against the Blue Water Boats amendment because one of his personal goals was to create industrial employment within the city. However, he said testimony at the final public hearing on this amendment led him to believe that the request for extension of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was based on the existence of cheaper land in this location. He said that, based on this criteria, it would be diffi- cult to deny an extension of the UGB for any significant project. Ms. Bascom said that the UGB was a boundary established to encourage compact urban growth and that the planning commissions were dedicated to this con- cept. She said she felt those who opposed the amendment were using obstruc- tionist tactics to keep the issue from being approved. She said the council needed to view the situation from an intergovernmental perspective. Mr. Nicholson said there was no point in the MPC process if individual bodies participating in the MPC could not question the decisions of their partners. Mayor Miller said the purpose of this night's meeting should be to determine the will of the majority of the council and to determine a process by which this determination could be reached. He said it appeared that Mr. MacDonald would move to reconsider the council's original vote. Mr. Boles said that if this issue did not go to the MPC, Eugene had no assur- ances that Springfield and Lane County would agree to update the Metropolitan General Plan. Ms. Bascom said she did not think the "threat" of the council voting in opposition to Blue Water Boats would convince the other two juris- dictions to participate in the update. Mr. MacDonald said he, too, wanted a full review of the Metropolitan General Plan. However, he said next year would be the plan's fifth anniversary and many preliminary steps in the update were under way, such as the Commercial and Industrial lands Studies. He said the review depended on the full co- operation of all three local jurisdictions and that if the City attempted to force participation, it might instead just "harden the opposition." MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 3 e Mr. MacDonald said he would feel different if there were five votes the Blue Water Boats, since that would be a solid council majority. an evenly split vote would have no impact on the MPC. He said this opposition would not be constructive. Mr. Boles said he would prefer to postpone a revote on this issue until Ms. Ehrman was present and a full council vote could be taken. Ms. Norris point- ed out that all the councilors were not scheduled to be present at the same time at a council meeting until the end of June. Mayor Miller said he felt the vote would be the same whether or not Ms. Ehrman were present. against He said kind of Ms. Bascom said that, as one of the council's MPC representatives, she felt the issue of housing needed more consideration before the May 31 MPC meeting. She said testimony on the issue of the Good Neighbor Care Center amendment, and the votes of the other jurisdictions, had been confusing. She said she would like a clear majority vote of the council on this issue to take to the MPC. Mr. Nicholson said he would like the council to address the major issue of whether it was the council's policy to allow projects to locate outside the UGB. He said Major Defoe, owner of the Blue Water Boats company, had said that his primary objective in locating outside the UGB was to get land cheap- ly. e Mayor Miller asked Mr. MacDonald if he would move to reconsider the Blue Water Boats amendment at the council's 7:30 p.m. meeting that night, and Mr. MacDonald said that he would. Mr. Boles asked if the second for this motion would have to come from the prevailing side in the previous motion on this issue, and Ms. Norris said it would not. Mr. MacDonald discussed council guidelines. Ms. Bascom said she appreciated the fact that Mr. MacDonald had taken a statesman-like role in this process. II. WORK PLANNING SESSION Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Abe Farkas, Director of the Planning and Development Department (POD), said the Retail Task Force (RTF) had not completed its recommendations in time to incorporate them into the Commercial lands Study. He said that on May 7 the Chamber of Commerce pro- posed that the City create a separate task force similar to the Systems De- velopment Charges (SDC) Task Force to work on the Commercial lands Study. Mr. Farkas said the Planning Commission agreed to this proposal and planned to extend the timeframe for commission action on the draft Commercial Lands Study. In addition, he said staff felt that most of the RTF Part 4 recommen- dations could be included in the Commercial Lands Study. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 4 Mr. MacDonald commended staff for taking the initiative on these adjustments ~ to the RTF recommendations and the Commercial lands Study. Mr. Boles said he adamantly opposed these changes. He said the newly created subcommittee was completely self-serving and not analogous to the SDC Task Force. He said the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) was unlikely to sup- port this group which was comprised of people with deep economic interests in the outcome of their review, rather than the larger values of the community. He said this seemed to be an attempt by the Chamber of Commerce to "come in the back door." e Mr. Rutan said Part 4 of the RTF recommendations was an additional layer of land use planning measures. He referred to the costs associated with a land development on Country Club Road. He said the City should be devising meth- ods for helping development projects located outside the downtown area be- cause costs were higher in those areas. Mr. Rutan said that the community has spent decades creating land use poli- cies and he felt it was inappropriate to create another layer of bureaucracy in an attempt to direct the value of land. He said the council should re- spect the will of the voters who just turned down one aspect of the RTF's recommendations, the Downtown Redesign, and allow everyone time to think about what should be done next. He said he did not support the call for a work program on Part 4 of the RTF recommendations. Mr. MacDonald said that in view of Mr. Bole's comments, he was not certain that a work program on Part 4 of the RTF Recommendations should be included in the Commercial lands Study. He said that while he appreciated Mr. Rutan's perspective on this work program, he did not agree with it. Mr. Boles said the RTF had been asked to find policies which would lead to compact urban growth and that Part 4 was one such set of policies. He said it had been Mr. Rutan who asked that this section of the recommendations not be given to the Planning Commission until after the council had had time to review it. He said the council should expect an independent work plan on these policies as originally requested. Mayor Miller pointed out that the involvement of the Chamber of Commerce in City projects in the past had helped to create consensus in the business community. Mr. Boles said this consensus may have led to the watering down of certain policies. He said Chamber involvement in the SDC process had been very successful because a clear distinction had been made between technical and policy issues. He added that the council has had sufficient time to hear from all interested parties on the subject of the Commercial lands Study. In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Jan Childs, Planning Division Manager, said the Planning Commission preferred to address Part 4 of the RTF Recommendations in the context of the Commercial Lands Study. She said the commission was disappointed that the council had not held a work session on Part 4 to determine which sections it wanted the commission to address, until after it had released the draft Commercial Lands Study. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 5 e e e Ms. Childs said that because the commission was told that the council wished to proceed as quickly as possible with Part 4 recommendations, and the Cham- ber of Commerce wanted to have time during the summer to review the Commer- cial lands Study, it felt that this was an opportunity to do two things. First, to establish a task force which would include representation from the Chamber of Commerce, the league of Women Voters, and other interested groups which testified before the commission during the course of the study. Second, Ms. Childs said the Planning Commission felt that some of the Part 4 recommendations could be addressed in other ongoing planning work. She said downtown parking was being reviewed as part of the Central Area Transporta- tion Study (CATS) Update. She said the Planning Commission is interested in reviewing a majority of the Part 4 recommendations in the context of the Commercial lands Study. Mayor Miller said the Chamber of Commerce wants to become more proactive and to represent a broader spectrum of people. He said the City needs to find ways to deal with controversial issues and should involve as many people as possible in decision-making processes. Mr. Boles said random selection would create the most broadly based community group. However, he said this kind of selection process was not needed be- cause the Commercial lands Study inc1uds a long and comprehensive citizen involvement process. Mr. Boles said that although the Chamber of Commerce is an important part of the community, it is only one component. He said the community has worked long and hard to develop a citizen-involvement process, and that it seemed this process was being circumvented in this instance by the call for the creation of a task force. He said he found this offensive. Mr. Rutan said the Planning Commission seemed to want to move ahead with a task force and that the commission could usually be relied upon to provide independent thinking. Mr. Boles said that of 4,500 businesses in Eugene, 1,100 are members of the Chamber of Commerce. He said the officers represent a small group of very large developers. He said these few people were using the chamber to repre- sent their own interests, in the guise of representing the interests of many. Mr. Rutan said that as a former member of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, he felt that Mr. Boles was wrong. Mr. Farkas said the purpose of the Commercial lands Study was to solicit input. He said one type of input was the call for more deliberation, which was one of the reasons for the creation of a task force. He said the council could consider the questions it had raised about the Commercial lands Study in greater detail at a June 10 work session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 6 - e e Mr. Boles said the council had requested a staff-based work program on the Commercial Lands Study. Mr. Farkas said that the Eugene Decisions process had caused some work to be deferred. However, he said that since the council had indicated that it wanted work on Part 4 of the RTF Recommendations to proceed staff had integrated it into studies which were already under way, such as the Commercial lands Study and CATS. Mr. Boles said he felt that the Eugene Decisions process had led to an error in judgment on the part of staff in this instance. Ms. Bascom said she felt it was important that the Planning Commission take the first step toward the implementation of Part 4. She said she felt that the council had given staff confusing directions in this instance. Mr. MacDonald asked if staff work groups, council work teams, or some other option could be used to pursue Part 4 recommendations, or if the task force could be asked to devise methods for pursuing these goals. Ms. Norris said this might best be discussed at the council's June 10 work session. Mr. Farkas said the Planning Commission would begin to frame the task force assignment at its meeting the following night. He said that information could be presented to the council. Ms. Childs added that the commission felt strongly that the Commercial lands Study was the best place to address Part 4 recommendations. Mr. Nicholson said the council had clearly directed staff to bring this issue back to the council. He said that many Part 4 recommendations involved tax issues rather than land use issues, which could not appropriately be deliber- ated by the Planning Commission. Mr. Boles said it would have been helpful if staff had let the council know of the Planning Commission's desire to include Part 4 recommendations in the Commercial Lands Study so that the council could approve or disapprove of that plan. The council agreed to further deliberate the issue at its June 10 work ses- sion. Mr. MacDonald suggested that at the end of the year, the council should make Goal 5 on transportation a goal for next year. III. CONSIDERATION OF CITY POSITIONS ON STATE lEGISLATION Glen Potter, Intergovernmental Relations Division, said that three of the four measures being considered by the council no longer required council action for the purpose of directing the lobbying staff. He said staff would prefer that the council take some action on these bills for Intergovernmental Relations Committee records. Mr. Nicholson recommended that House Bill 3222 be dropped to Priority 3. Mr. Potter suggested that, in keeping with Mr. Nicholson's recommendation, House Bills 2387 and 2773 should also be dropped to this priority. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 7 e e e Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to approve priority 2 support for House Bill 3533. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. IV. URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE Jan Staszewski, Urban Forester, Public Works, introduced Tree Commission Chair Greg Ahlijian, member Jenny Sirnio, and nominee for new commissioner, Bruce Bergby. Mr. Staszewski summarized the citizen involvement component of the Urban Forest Management Plan, explaining that the Tree Commission has designated this a high-controversy project, according to the Citizen Involvement Guide- lines developed by the CIC. He said he and Tree Commission members have presented the plan to many local groups, including the Lane County Home Builders Association, the Building Construction Advisory Committee, and the American Institute of Architects. Mr. Staszewski said the management plan will include regulations for heritage trees. He said that the recent removal of a heritage tree on Coburg Road was a loss to the community, but the Tree Commission felt it was an isolated incident. He said the overall sentiment of the public, as voiced at public hearings on the management plan, has been that the public appreciates trees but does not want the City to infringe on individual rights. Mr. MacDonald said he had received letters expressing outrage about the cut- ting down of a heritage tree on Coburg Road. He said he was afraid people would destroy heritage trees before the City could pass tree ordinances. He asked if any environmental groups had been invited to attend public hearings on the tree management plan. Mr. Staszewski said notice of the Urban Forest Management Plan's first scoping session had been sent to environmental groups, among others, and members of these groups had attended that session. He said he had also re- ceived many letters from members of environmental groups. In response to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Staszewski said the Tree Commission had offered to give presentations to many different groups, in- cluding environmental groups. Ms. Bascom said the Tree Commission was at- tempting to build support for the tree-management plan among those most like- ly to oppose such a plan. Mr. Boles said the Citizen Involvement Guidelines designed by the CIC call for the same level of response to all interested parties in a high-controversy project, such as the Urban Forest Management Plan. Mr. MacDonald said the general public is very concerned about heritage trees. Mr. Staszewski said he had received many calls about the heritage tree on Coburg Road. He said the Home Builders Association was very surprised that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 8 e this particular heritage tree had been cut. He said this group wanted to reach a community consensus on this issue, not to cut down all the remaining heritage trees. Mr. Boles said the tree removal on Coburg Road was not an isolated incident. He said another large heritage tree was cut down recently on 6th Avenue in front of the former L'Auberge Restaurant. He said the issue was whether the ownership of heritage trees was a right or a privilege. He said it was his belief that owning heritage trees was a privilege and that such trees should be protected. Ms. Bascom noted that when she was first notified that plans were under way to cut a heritage tree on Coburg Road, her best idea had been to call Regis- ter-Guard columnist Don Bishoff. She said she had then attended a Tree Com- mission meeting at which she discovered that the City does not have a clear definition of heritage trees. She said the creation of tree ordinances will take time. e Mr. MacDonald said it was frustrating that the best resource for preserving trees was to contact the news media. He said he would like an ordinance for the preservation of all trees with diameters of three feet or more. Mr. Boles said that because it would take time to implement the tree manage- ment plan, the City should declare an immediate moratorium on the cutting down of heritage trees. He said the urban forester could review the cases at hand. He said there would have been no question that the tree cut down on Coburg Road was a heritage tree. He said the urban forester was supposed to protect old growth. In response to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Staszewski said approximately one percent of all trees within the city were heritage trees. V. CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION ON ISSUES RELATED TO RECONSIDERATION OF THE COUNCIL'S VOTE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN City Attorney Bill Gary said the motion to reconsider the Blue Water Boats amendment must come from the prevailing side in the previous vote, but the second did not have to come from this group. Mayor Miller said two councilors wanted to use a council ground rule and call for the privilege to postpone this issue until the following day. He said they could also move to table the issue to a specific date. Mr. Gary said the motion on the Blue Water Boats amendment could be continued to the council's Wednesday meeting the following day, but the matter would have to be voted on at that meeting. He said a motion to reconsider could not be tabled to a date beyond the current month's meetings. Mayor Miller asked if a reconsidered motion could be tabled and Mr. Gary said it could be. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 9 e e e Mr. MacDonald asked if the MPC could send an issue back to the council in its original form. He asked if the council could vote on such an issue without reconsidering a motion which had already been voted on. Mr. Gary said the MPC could send an issue back to the council for its recon- sideration in its original form. He said this issue pertained to a former statute in which the language was very clear that the MPC had four options: I} amending the recommended change in the plan; 2} recommending denial; 3) recommending that the council approve the original change; or 4) taking no action--which would have the effect of a denial. He said this matter was under the auspices of an old statute because of when the issue had arisen. He said that when the issue returned to the council, it would be considered a new issue and the council would have ten days in which to act. To take no action would be the same as a denial. Mr. Boles asked Mr. Gary for an analysis of postponement. Mr. Gary referred to the Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised. He said City Code mandates that the council follow these rules. He said Subsection b of 2.007 states that the council has an obligation to "get to the meat of the matter" and not "get bogged down" with procedural niceties--to avoid invoking the finer points of parliamentary rule. He said this meant that when dealing with fine points, the council should attempt to get to the merits of the issue. Mr. Gary said motions to reconsider are also addressed by the code. He said the council's regular meeting is on the second Monday of the month and is continued throughout the month. He said the code also addresses the kinds of issues which can be considered at the council's Wednesday meetings. He said the code states that any two councilors can request that a matter which comes up at a Wednesday meeting be carried over to the following Monday meeting. Mr. Gary said the code states that a motion to reconsider which occurs at a Wednesday meeting will automatically be taken up at the following Monday meeting. He said this meant that a motion to reconsider any action taken at a Wednesday meeting is automatically something of such significance that it must be done at an evening meeting. Mr. Gary said the code addresses issues which come up at evening meetings. He said the code seems to favor having motions for reconsideration considered at Monday meetings because it favors dealing with weightier matters on Mon- day. However, the council has adopted process guidelines which are to be followed when not inconsistent with the City Code. Mr. Gary said it was not inconsistent with the code to allow two councilors to request that a matter which would ordinarily be considered at a Monday meeting be considered at a Wednesday meeting. He said the code allowed this to occur in this instance. Mr. Gary said the council must consider a motion to reconsider at its Wednes- day meeting, rather than delay a vote, because a delay to a Monday meeting would defeat the motion to reconsider, due to the fact that the council can- not reconsider beyond the last meeting in the month. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 10 e e e Mr. Boles said it was his understanding that the MPC meeting had originally been scheduled for June 6. Ms. Childs said the MPC meeting on May 31 was a special meeting which had been set in order to meet the time frame require- ment between the time that an item is referred to the MPC and the time that MPC begins an action. Ms. Bascom said the June 6 meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting. In response to a question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Boles said he had originally suggested postponing the Blue Water Boats issue until the next day (May 29) in hopes that the entire council would be present for that vote. He said that since the whole council would not attend the Wednesday meeting, and according to the City Attorney's interpretation that the issue could only be postponed until the next day, he encouraged the councilors to vote against a motion to reconsider. VI. WORK SESSION: ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPEALS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Brant Williams, Traffic Engineer for the Transportation Division, explained that the ordinance concerning appeals of traffic-related administrative deci- sions would establish a hearings officer for traffic-related appeals and establish more criteria for making traffic-related decisions. He explained the process by which these changes could occur. Mr. Williams distributed options for council review on hearings official decisions. He said Mr. MacDonald had expressed concern about the council's involvement with traffic decisions after a hearings official's decision had been made. Mr. MacDonald thanked Mr. Green for his support in bringing this matter to the council's attention. He said that while he appreciated the council's desire to shorten its work plan, he would like to retain the prerogative for the council to hear certain traffic issues--as per option 3 on Mr. Williams' memo to the council. Mr. Green said he, too, would like the chance to review some traffic deci- sions. He asked if language in the options referred to two thirds of the entire council, or just of those present at any given meeting. Christine Andersen, Public Works Director, said reference to a majority of the council referred to the majority of councilors present at a meeting, while a two- thirds majority referred to two thirds of the whole council. Mr. Green asked if some of the specific traffic issues could be expanded. He said that a councilor's constituency sometimes requested council involvement in traffic issues. Mr. Boles said the council needed to ensure that it would not lose the opportunity to discuss certain traffic issues. Ms. Andersen said staff was attempting to devise a method wherein the council would be informed of specific traffic issues without being burdened by all traffic issues. She said staff could identify certain types of issues which MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 11 e the council wanted to review and send the minutes of the appeals to the hear- ings official on these issues to the council. Mayor Miller asked why the council wanted to involve itself in this level of administrative policy. Mr. Boles said there were specific traffic issues which needed council review. Mr. Rutan said he felt the council should react to issues only when necessary. In response to a question from Mr. Boles, Ms. Andersen said the public would undoubtedly call the councilors when they were informed by staff that the council had agreed to consider certain kinds of traffic issues. The council agreed that a majority of those present should be required when requesting review of the record of appeals for traffic-related issues. The council also agreed that it should receive copies of records for appeals of all traffic-diverter and street-closure issues as well as any other appeal specifically requested by a councilor. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ~~- Micheal Gleason, ~ City Manager e (Recorded by Kris Bloch) mncc 052891 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 12