Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/1992 Meeting (2) . M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Council Chamber June 22, 1992 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Bobby Green, Debra Ehrman, Randy MacDonald, Kaye Robinette, Paul Nicholson. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan, Ruth Bascom. The regular meeting of June 22, 1992, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Miller. Mr. Miller recognized a friend of Mr. Nicholson's from Tienjian, China in attendance at the meeting, Liang Shen. Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Miller presented Mr. Liang Shen with a gift on behalf of the City of Eugene. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 6, 1992, Dinner e Work Session; April 15, 1992, Lunch Work Session; April 27, 1992, Dinner Work Session; April 29, 1992, Lunch Work Session; and May 11, 1992, Dinner Work Session B. Approval of Findings and Recommendations of Hearings Official and Adoption of Resolution Forming a Local Improvement District for Paving, Curb and Gutter, Storm and Sanitary Sewers in Chad Drive From 1,400 Feet West of Old Coburg Road to 300 Feet West of Old Coburg Road (Job No. 2801) Res. No. 4332--A resolution forming a local improvement district for paving, curb and gutter, storm and sanitary sewers in Chad Drive from 1,400 feet west of Old Coburg Road to 300 west of Old Coburg Road. C. Approval of Findings and Recommendations of Hearings Official and Adoption of Resolution Forming a Local Improvement District for Paving, Sidewalks, and Storm Sewers on Bogart Lane and Bailey Lane From Willekenzie Road to Luella Street (Job No. 2895) Res. No. 4333--A resolution forming a local improvement district for paving, sidewalks, and storm sewers on Bogart Lane and Bailey Lane from Willakenzie Road to Luella Street. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 1 7:30 p.m. e D. Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Withdrawal of Recently Annexed Properties from Special Districts Res. No. 4334--A resolution calling for a public hearing to consider proposed withdrawal of territories (Paddock Masonry, EC EU 92-5; Eastman, EC EU 92-11; Prondzinski, EC EU 92-17; Hammond, EC EU 92-16; Merritt Truax/Pride, C EU 92-9; Eugene Mission, EC EU 92-7; Singer, EC EU 92-8) from the River Road Water District and River Road Park and Recreation District. E. Resolution Concerning State Shared Revenues: Res. No. 4335--A resolution certifying that the City of Eugene provides the specified municipal services in order to receive State Shared Revenues pursuant to 221.760 of Oregon Revised Statutes. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the items on the consent calendar. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the items on the consent calendar carried unanimously, 6:0. e II. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF EUGENE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET NO. 3 Administrative Services Director Warren Wong provided the staff report. He noted that the supplemental budget in question was the last of the fiscal year and included a number of contingency items. Mr. Wong said that, were the council to adopt the budget, the adopting motion should include an amendment allocating $150,000 to the Department of Public Safety from General Fund Contingency for the south hills fire safety costs. Mr. Miller opened the public hearing. Bill Mason, expressed concern about the budget for the Eugene Decisions process. He said that the Eugene Decisions budget did not include the costs of renting the Hoffman Building. He believed that the source of funds was different from the Eugene Decisions budget. Mr. Mason said that by November, rental on the building will total $51,000. Mr. Mason said that the cost should be included in the cost of Eugene Decisions. City Manager Micheal Gleason indicated to the council that he would research Mr. Mason's question. Mr. Miller closed the public hearing. CB 4393--An ordinance adopting a Supplemental Budget; making e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 2 7:30 p.m. -- ------- e appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1992; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to amend Council Bill 4393 to include a transfer of $150,000 from General Fund Contingency to the Department of Public Safety. Mr. Boles said that it would be very helpful when such amendments are required to have the procedure documented for the benefit of the council. Mr. Boles indicated his intent to vote against the motion without more information about the long-range plan for addressing fire issues in the south hills. He pointed out that the current dry season was not unique and could recur, and asked if the council would continue to respond to such situations without a comprehensive examination of the the City's response to such an emergency. In response to Mr. Boles' remarks, Mr. MacDonald said that previous council discussion included agreement that there was a need for a comprehensive plan. He said staff had not been given further direction by council at that time, and indicated he would be willing to make a motion directing staff to bring back long-term issues for council discussion and resolution. Mr. MacDonald said that he believed it was too soon to expect to have a comprehensive plan in hand and expressed his satisfaction with the council's commitment. e Mr. Nicholson agreed with Mr. MacDonald that the council had committed to further discussion of the issue and asked Councilor Boles for more specificity about his objection to the motion. Ms. Ehrman said she would support the motion but had concerns regarding the City's ability to continue to meet service demands with state-of-the-art equipment. She suggested that the cost of addressing fire issues in the south hills was approximately the same as opening a new fire station, and said that it was difficult to justify such an expenditure to her constituents. In response to Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Boles said it was his hope that the council would have at this point a set of issues prepared by staff regarding the long-term response to fire hazard in the south hills. He suggested that, given the hazard, the council might wish to consider a moratorium on development or a change in standards for development in high-risk areas. The long-term operations and maintenance costs of state-of-the-art equipment referred to by Ms. Ehrman was another issue for the council to consider. Additionally, Mr. Boles said the council should discuss whether the cost of addressing such hazards should be borne by all citizens, or those responsible for creating the potential hazard. In response to Ms. Ehrman's remarks regarding the cost of equipment, Mr. Robinette pointed out that the equipment cost was a one-time expenditure, while the cost of a fire station was an ongoing expense. He said that for e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 3 7:30 p.m. e the amount proposed for a new fire station, the City cannot meet that ongoing expense. Regarding Ms. Ehrman's comments regarding the cost of state-of-the-art equipment, Mr. Robinette suggested that the council would not wish to be in the position after a major fire in the south hills to say that it could have spent the money on state-of-the-art equipment but had decided against it. Mr. Nicholson observed that south hills development has occurred in somewhat "willy-nilly" fashion without regard for the effect on the community's infrastructure or the hazard to building in the woods represented by such development. He said he would vote for the motion if the council was committed to avoiding the inequity between parts of the community in the future, represented by the council's action regarding the south hills emergency response. Mr. Green endorsed Ms. Ehrman's remarks regarding the City's ability to support state-of-the-art equipment for service delivery, noting that there were areas in his ward that could use state-of-the-art equipment and services. Mr. Green said that the issues raised by Mr. Boles were relevant and deserved further discussion. Mr. Boles asked the council to indicate that it intended to link further work on the south hills emergency response to examination of those issues cited by him previously, as well as other related issues. The council indicated its willingness to create the link desired by Mr. Boles. e Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the amended bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Council Bill 4393 as amended was read the second time by number only. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance 19859. III. PUBLIC HEARING: URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET NO. 3 Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the the City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. Mr. Wong reported that the Urban Renewal Agency's Supplemental Budget No.3 included the transaction appropriating the funds to open Olive Street. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 4 7:30 p.m. e Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Res. No. 961--A resolution adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1992; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to adopt the resolution. Ms. Ehrman cited the importance of a point previously raised by Councilor Ruth Bascom regarding the need to remain within the allocated budget. Mr. Nicholson indicated his intent to vote against the motion due to his belief that the decision to open the street should not have taken place outside the Eugene Decisions process. He said that the council was using funds that could have been used for the library on a project of lower priority, adding that his vote was not a statement against the street project. Roll call vote; the motion was passed 5:1, Mr. Nicholson voting nay. Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened e the meeting of the City Council. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF EUGENE FY93 ANNUAL BUDGET City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. He said that the council will be considering final adoption of the FY93 budget. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. CB 4394--An ordinance adopting the budget; making appropriations; determining and levying the annual ad valorem property tax for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992, and ending June 30, 1993; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to adopt Council Bill 4394. Ms. Ehrman observed that the budget in question was a "placeholder" budget, designed to carryon City services while awaiting the council's decision in response to the Eugene Decisions process. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 5 7:30 p.m. e Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, City Attorney Bill Gary confirmed that the council bill needed to be read twice. Mr. Boles withdrew his motion. Mr. Green withdrew his second. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Council Bill 4394 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance 19860. V. PUBLIC HEARING: URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY FY93 BUDGET Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the the City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. e Russ Brink, 160 East Broadway, spoke on behalf of Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEI) in favor of the budget. He reminded the council of its commitment to replacing the rest rooms on the mall. Noting that he had received several calls from the public asking that something be done about the central plaza area, Mr. Brink said that DEI favored removal of the fountain and enhancement of the area for public gatherings. Bill Mason, 1803 West 34th Avenue, objected to the light in which the public regards urban rewnewal funds. He said that the perception that the urban renewal fund has a surplus built up by the proceeds resulting from a special downtown taxing district is incorrect. Mr. Mason said that every taxpayer in the community had contributed an extra amount in taxes to the fund. Mr. Mason maintained that urban renewal represented special treatment for one part of the community over another. Mr. Mason said that over the last 24 years, more than $52 million had been "dumped" into downtown, and the taxpayers were promised a relief from taxes in the form of a new tax base. That had not occurred. Mr. Mason believed that the $2 million in urban renewal funds that accumulates each year could be used to address the City's budgetary shortfalls without a tax increase were the district to close and pay its debts. Mr. Mason claimed that taxpayers were paying five times as much for the renewal agency's bills as for school District 4J's bonded debt. He said that taxpayers are interested in the total tax bill, not the General Fund focus of Eugene Decisions. Mr. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 6 7:30 p.m. e Mason said that there would be $2 million "up for grabs" were the taxpayers to realize it. Bob Cassidy, representing the Midtown Merchants Association, said that the association approves of the concept of enhancing the core of the city in an effort to halt the decay of downtown. Mr. Cassidy said that south of the core there are more than 100 small businesses thriving and the addition of trees and shrubs would enhance that area considerably. Mr. Cassidy said that he believed that the public would accept the removal of the fountain at Broadway and Willamette Street were it to be replaced with trees and benches. Mary Bentsen, 950 West 16th Avenue, testified in opposition to the proposed East Broadway improvements and 8th Avenue and Willamette Street site improvements. Ms. Bentsen said that the area is doing well and does not need enhancement. Ms. Bentsen said that economic development is the responsibility of the private sector. Regarding the 8th Avenue and Willamette Street improvements, Ms. Bentsen urged caution on the part of the council until the anticipated construction project is firmly agreed upon. Ms. Bentsen said she was concerned by the mixed message sent to voters by the proposed budget. She said that the council would lose credibility with the public by expending tax dollars on projects she termed of dubious value. Ms. Bentsen said that the urban renewal district should be closed and remaining indebtedness repaid. She said that were the council to oppose that action, e she requested that it start to accumulate a fund to build a new public library. Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Res. No. 962--A resolution of the Urban Renewal Agency adopting the budget and making appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992, and ending June 30, 1993; and declaring an emergency. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Gleason said that the East Broadway improvements were discussed at the jOint meeting between the council and Downtown Commission, and none of the projects would go forward without council approval. Mr. Gleason likened the urban renewal budget to the Capital Improvement Program in that the council authorized the categories for expenditure and then reviewed each project on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Robinette observed that the council would have an opportunity to review specific projects at future meetings, adding that he was not committed to any particular project at this time. Mr. Nicholson said he understood that the City collects urban renewal moneys above the tax base. In order to accomplish Mr. Mason's goal, the City would be required to pass a serial levy or bond issue to collect the funds above e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 7 7:30 p.m. - - -- - e the base. Mr. Gleason agreed, saying that it would require a general obligation bond of a magnitude similar to that raised by urban renewal. Mr. Nicholson asked if closing the district would reduce property tax rates citywide. Mr. Gleason said that taxes would go down on both a citywide and countywide basis. Mr. Miller asked if closing the district would affect taxes received by the City. Mr. Wong said that the City would not receive any additional money were the urban renewal district to be dissolved today. The only way that the City could capture the margin was through a voter-approved tax base, serial levy, or approval of a general obligation bond. Elimination of the district would reduce the tax rates of the respective jurisdictions. Mr. Wong reminded the council that even were it to curtail urban rewewal district operations now and use remaining cash on debt, there would still be the certificates of participation to pay, which would require several years. Mr. Nicholson asked if it would be possible to present the voters with a tax base that would capture the same taxes as that achieved by the tax base plus the urban renewal district. Mr. Wong clarified that the council could present the total dollar amount equivalent yield for a vote to the community. Ms. Ehrman asked when the council would review the projects mentioned in testimony. Bob Hibschman, Planning and Development Department, said that the Downtown Commission had the projects in its work program and would forward those projects for council consideration during the course of the coming year. e Ms. Ehrman said she found it troublesome that the council would "sign off" on the dollars for the projects before approving the projects themselves, and asked if the council could deduct the anticipated amounts for the projects from the budget. Mr. Wong said that the council could reduce the amount budgeted for capital projects and put an equivalent amount into reserves. As projects were approved, the council would fund them through supplemental budgets. Mr. Boles pointed out that the council had discussed the commission's work program with the commission extensively. The commission had indicated that the construction of rest rooms and East Broadway improvements met the goals and scope of its work program. Further, Mr. Boles termed the East Broadway improvements the first real test of the results of the Retail Task Force's final, council-adopted report. Mr. Boles questioned why Mr. Nicholson was raising concerns about the projects at this time and not at the Downtown Commission level as representative from the council before the council was asked to approve the commission's work program. Mr. Nicholson said that he had believed that the commission would bring concrete proposals to the council for approval and funding. Mr. Nicholson maintained that he had always objected to the process used in the past in that the council created preemptive priorities for the funds. Mr. Nicholson maintained that the council made a commitment through the Eugene Decisions process to place urban renewal dollars in the pool with e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 8 7:30 p.m. e other dollars available and set priorities on a broader scale. He indicated his general support for the projects on the work program, but said that they were better addressed through the supplemental budget process. Mr. MacDonald said he did not realize that approving the commission's work plan was approving a budget. He supported holding the dollars intended for the projects in reserve and funding the projects through supplemental budgets. He said that such a course would address the issue of public perception. Mr. Green said that the issues raised by the council were better processed at the council's work session with the Downtown Commission. He said that allocating the funds does not mean that the projects are approved. Mr. Green questioned why the arguments presented by Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Nicholson, and Mr. MacDonald were not raised at the work session. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Nicholson said that the budget includes an expenditure for the Riverfront Research Park, and the council is still not aware of the affect of bonded indebtedness in the park on the tax cap. Mr. Nicholson suggested that there are issues to be resolved before such projects are funded. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Gary said that the district's budget allocates $2.5 million to capital projects. The budget e document describes the projects and amounts that make up that total. He said that were the council to remove from the capital project line item the amount attributed to any particular project, the resolution should be amended to reduce the line item by that amount and allocate it to "Other Requirements-- Reserve." Proceeding with a project will require a supplemental budget. Ms. Ehrman said that she would support an amended motion. She reiterated the point of the need to consider public perception and understanding in the council's decision. Mr. Nicholson agreed. Mr. Boles indicated his opposition to modifying the budget by placing the capital project funds in reserve. He did not agree that approval of the budget would reduce the council's control over how the funds were expended. He pointed out that the budget had been managed in the same manner in the past without detriment. Mr. Boles said that the council was making a decision without providing staff with clear direction on how to manage the issue. Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to delete $1.8 million in funds allocated for capital projects and place those funds in "Other Requirements--Reserve" category. There was discussion regarding the amount that should be deleted from the budget for capital projects. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 9 7:30 p.m. e Mr. Boles said that the amount to delete would not be $1.8 million; rather, that would be the amount left in the account after funds for the East Broadway improvements and rest room construction were deleted. Mr. Wong concurred. He said that $700,000 had been approved in Supplemental Budget No.3. He reviewed the dollars allocated in the budget: $1 million set-aside for the library, $350,000 for site development at 8th Avenue and Willamette Street and 11th Avenue and Willamette Street; $700,000 for Olive Street reconstruction authorized earlier that evening; $250,000 for plaza improvements, rest rooms, and art; and $200,000 for the East Broadway street improvements and enhancements. Mr. Wong suggested that were the council to follow the course suggested in the motion, it would delete the entire capital projects budget. Mr. MacDonald moved to amend the motion to delete $2.5 million from the capital budget. Mr. Nicholson agreed to the amendment. Mr. Boles endorsed the recommendation made by Mr. Wong. Mr. MacDonald withdrew his motion. He said his intent was to remove the East Broadway project and rest room construction from the budget and he did not believe he had the votes to pass the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Gary said that the maker of the motion can withdraw the motion given that the motion has never been wholly stated: the motion does not belong to the body, but rather to the maker of e the motion. Mr. Nicholson moved to withdraw $2.5 million in capital projects and allocate the dollars to "Other Requirements-- Reserves." The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Ehrman proposed that the item be tabled until June 24, 1992. The council agreed to Ms. Ehrman's proposal. Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the City Council. VI. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE CONCERNING FY93 STATE REVENUE SHARING City Manager Mike Gleason noted that Mr. Wong was present to answer questions. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. CB 4395--An ordinance electing to receive State Revenue e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 10 7:30 p.m. e Sharing funds pursuant to Section 221.770 of Oregon Revised Statutes, and declaring an emergency. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. MacDonald expressed the hope that the State would continue to share revenues with the City in the future. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Council Bill 4395 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance 19861. VII. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE RIVER ROAD AREA (AZ 92-5, HALVORSON) Cathy Czerniak, Planning and Development Department, introduced the topic. She reviewed annexation criteria. Ms. Czerniak said that the request was e submitted by the property owners in order to develop the property. She noted that several other parcels on the block have been annexed. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Res. No. 4336--A resolution furthering annexation to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Service District for property located on the north side of Elkay Drive, west of Hoover Lane. Final Order AZ 92-5--A final order rezoning the property from County RA/UL to City R-l. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to adopt the resolution and final order. Roll call vote; the motion passed 5:1, Mr. Nicholson voting no. VII I. PUBLIC HEARING: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON REMAND, GOOD NEIGHBOR CARE CENTER, INC., METRO PLAN AMENDMENT (MPA 91-A) Jan Childs, Planning and Development Department, introduced the topic, saying that the hearing was limited to testimony on the additional findings resulting from the remand. She noted that Springfield Planning Division e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Jwle 22, 1992 Page 11 7:30 p.m. . staff member Greg Mott was present in the audience to answer questions, and indicated that there would be no action taken on the item tonight. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. IX. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE DISCHARGE AND REMOVAL ORDINANCE Fire Marshal David Nuss introduced the agenda item. He said that the ordinance in question dealt specifically with remediation of abandonment, discharge, and dumping of hazardous materials and included provision for holding building permits in the case of site contamination. The ordinance also provides for fines of violators. Mr. Nuss noted that the ordinance had been redrafted following council discussion of a previously submitted ordinance. Mr. MacDonald asked Mr. Nuss if the City had discussed the narrowed scope of the ordinance with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or similar authorities for more information about the DEQ response to spills or discharges not threatening to life. Mr. Nuss said that DEQ has the authority and responsibility to respond to such situations, although not necessarily the staff or financial resources. He said that DEQ may act slowly, but is aware of the scope of the City's response and knows the City is not attempting to supplant DEQ. e Mr. MacDonald asked if DEQ commented on its ability to respond to such incidents. Mr. Nuss responded that DEQ staff contended that the agency is aware of its responsibility under State law and indicated the agency's willingness to respond to such incidents. Mr. Green asked how the City would respond in those cases where DEQ was working with a violator who was slow to mitigate spills or discharges: were the City to act locally, would DEQ reimburse it for its costs, and what response time did staff expect for such incidents. Mr. Nuss said that were a responsible party under orders to clean up from DEQ or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the City's ordinance had no effect. He said were the responsible party to have applied for a loan for clean-up assistance but was not under a clean-up order, the City would have the authority to require the cleanup. The City could clean the spill or discharge and find and fine the responsible party, or require the responsible party to clean up. Mr. Nuss added that, under the ordinance, the responsible party would have the ability to use an appellate process if it believed the clean-up order was unjustified. Mr. Robinette asked City Attorney Bill Gary if the term "welfare" should be removed from the phrase in the ordinance, "public health, safety, and welfare" due to the possibility the word would broaden the scope of the ordinance beyond the council's intent. Mr. Gary said that the phrase was a "catch phrase" used to describe the general public good. Public health and safety was a concept distinct from public health, safety, and welfare. Mr. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 12 7:30 p.m. -- . Gary recommended deletion of the word "welfare," but said retaining the word would make no difference in terms of ordinance substance or enforceability. He recommended that adoption of the ordinance include deletion of the word where it appears in the phrase in the ordinance. Mr. Green asked how the City would address situations where the suspected offender claimed inability to pay for testing. Mr. Nuss said that the City could test and bill the responsible party. He added that, in general, the City would require testing before remediation. Mr. Gleason said that the City had the ability to test for hazardous substances and would do so in the case of public risk. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Nuss said that were a test to be negative for hazardous substances, the property owner would still be required to pay for the cost of testing. However, the ordinance includes a provision for appeal. Mr. Boles suggested that it would be more equitable if property owners were not compelled to pay for negative tests. Mr. Gleason said that as a practical matter, the City would only act when staff considered the threat to be serious. If the test was benign, the City would pay for the test. CB 4381--An ordinance concerning hazardous substance discharge and removal; adding Sections 6.340, 6.345, 6.350, 6.355, 6.360, 6.365, 6.370, 6.375, and 6.380 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and amending Section 6.990 of that code. e Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Robinette moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to delete the word "welfare" where it appeared in the ordinance in the phrase, "public health, safety, and welfare." Responding to a question from Mr. Green regarding his rationale for deleting the word "welfare," Mr. Robinette explained that the council was attempting to address public health and safety situations. The use of the word "welfare" broadened the scope of the ordinance beyond that intent. Mr. MacDonald said that the council would be taking the wrong direction if it constrained its authority to respond to hazardous spills and discharges. He supported retention of the word "welfare" to give the City the broadest possible discretion in such situations. Mr. Robinette observed that the costs involved in such spills and discharges was considerable. He wished to limit the City's costs and involvement in such instances while retaining the ability to deal with imminent threats. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 13 7:30 p.m. e Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 4:2; Mr. Robinette and Mr. Green voting yes. Mr. MacDonald said that the City had a responsibility to respond to spills and discharges threatening the environment and not just people. He said that no people would die from a diesel spill in the Amazon Channel, but such a spill would kill fish and animals as well as spoil habitat. He encouraged the council to reconsider the original ordinance. Ms. Ehrman pointed out that the ordinance was revised as a result of public testimony expressing concern about cost of implementing the ordinance and duplication of service by other layers of government. She said that the City was the responder of last resort to spills and discharges and she preferred that posture. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to reconsider CB 4381. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Council Bill 4381 was read the second time by number only. e Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed 4:2, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Nicholson voting no. The bill was declared passed and became Ordinance 19862. X. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EUGENE COMMERCIAL LANDS STUDY Teresa Bishow, Planning and Development Department, introduced the topic. She said that when the Lane Board of County Commissioners had reviewed Policy 21 in the Commercial lands Study, it had been unsure of the council's intent. Subsequently, following testimony, the board had adopted a footnote to clarify the policy. Ms. Bishow said that, were the council to disagree with the board's suggested clarification, staff requested further direction and would return to lane County to once again solicit study adoption. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the footnote added by the board did not preclude the conversion of a series of residential dwellings to commercial use across a period of time. Mr. Boles asked how the study could prevent that contiguous commercial space from being razed and converted to another kind of commercial use. Ms. Bishow said that the study would not prevent such a conversion. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. MacDonald, Ms. Bishow said that Policy 21 allowed additional commercial land in south Eugene. The e Page 14 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 7:30 p.m. e limiting factor in the policy was the amount of land to be converted: were conversion to affect five or more dwelling units, provision for additional housing was required. Ms. Bishow said that the C-l zone change that would allow a "mom and pop" store was permitted under the policy. The policy, as clarified by lane County, increased the likelihood of such changes by removing small projects from the requirement of providing new housing. In response to Mr. MacDonald, Ms. Ehrman said that she had been concerned about the possibility of further strip commercial development on Willamette Street when she had suggested the change to Policy 21. Ms. Ehrman said that Willamette Street serves as both a buffer and transportation corridor. She had been attempting to address traffic levels on the street. Her focus had been on retail uses. She suggested tabling the item to the following meeting. Mr. Boles said that the council had been attempting to preclude the conversion of residential space to commercial space without further provision for housing. Ms. Bishow said that the board had been trying to develop a statement that the council and those offering testimony could support. She suggested that removal of the last sentence in the footnote might bring the two jurisdictions to concurrence on the study. Mr. Boles suggested that Ms. Bishow return to the board to informally gauge support for the removal of the sentence. The council agreed to Mr. Boles' suggestion. Ms. Ehrman requested that staff prepare a list of the projects considered for funding through urban renewal at the June 24 meeting. She expressed concern e about the length of the agenda for that meeting. Mr. MacDonald noted that he would be absent from the meeting on June 24. He expressed concern that the Urban Forest Management Plan, included on the agenda for adoption, failed to address fire safety issues in the south hills. Mr. MacDonald urged the council to consider the staff recommendation to revise the study to address long-term issues regarding south hills development and fire safety. Mr. Boles suggested that the council postpone action on the item until all councilors were present. The council concurred with Mr. Boles. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ~~. Micheal Gleason, City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) mncc 062292-730 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 15 7:30 p.m.