Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/1978 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 8, 1978 -- e Adjourned meeting from March 1, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 12 noon on March 8, 1978, at King's Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Councilor Ray Bradley was absent. I. Items from Mayor and Council A. Fire Detection Units on Rentals--Mr. Haws requested an agenda item be set as to whether or not the City should require rental units to have some kind of fire protection. B. Air Quality Maintenance Area Advisory Committee--Mr. Delay reported an informal meeting had been held Tuesday evening. He wished to clarify for citizens and Council that the Committee would not be addressing the one-year field burning issue this summer. The Committee's purpose is to develop plans to bring the area into conformance with the clean air standards by 1982. The final product of the Committee will be to make recommendations for the State implementation plan. C. Status Report on Planning Commission Review of T-2000 Plan Memo dated March 3, 1978, distributed. Manager reminded Council of the scheduled meeting Wednesday, March 29, 7:30 p.m., Harris Hall, at which the Springfield and Eugene City Councils and Lane County Commis- sioners would hold a public hearing on this issue. Jim Farah, Planning Department, reviewed the status report for Council. He said the Commission was reviewing policies and intended to look at the projects also. Lane County Planning Commission gave a favorable recommendation of the Plan at its meeting on the 14th. Springfield Planning Commission will be meeting this evening to make its recommendation. He noted the memo outlined what the Planning Commi ssion feel s are the major issues to date. In response to a question from Ms. Smith, Mr. Farah said the neighborhood associations had been involved and their comments had been incorporated in the Plan; he will have a copy of the materials available to any Councilor who wishes. Ms. Smith requested a copy. Mr. Haws requested a summary of the neighborhood gro~ps input, including what the peo~le in particu- lar areas of town feel as to the plan's impact on them. Mr. Farah agreed he would make that summary available. D. Youth Commission Appointment--Recommendation of John Stewart~ 1143 Candlelight Drive, for a term ending 1/1/79. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. - 3/8/78--1 11+1 II. Update Report on Field Burning Memo from City Attorney dated March 1, 1978, distributed. Assistant Manager said it had been unfortunate that the field-burning issue had been characterized as the City of Eugene versus the seed growers. He felt this 4IIt was doing a disservice to the issue, the issue being the finite capacity of the airshed of the Willamette Valley. If field burning continues to exceed particulate limits, then other industry and commerce must reduce their emissions all through the valley. He noted the airshed is a finite resource and the failure of many to see the issue in this broad term is a maj or concern of the City of Eugene. He felt it important to have ci t i zen committee involvement such as the Air Maintenance Quality Committee, and hoped to see the entire valley get involved in dealing with the problem of air pollution in the valley. He also noted that the City is prepared to meet with and to work with others involved in the problem to solve the matter constructively. He also expressed a concern of the City regarding adequate monitoring and data produced from this summer's field burning, as that data will be necessary to determine the level of pollutants in field burning in the future. Stan Long reviewed the background in which the City of Eugene got involved with the State and Federal EPA regarding the State Legislature's intent to increase field burning from 50,000 acres to 180,000 acres in 1978. The EPA had ruled against the State's raising of the number of acres to be burned and gave the state two alternatives: 1) To agree to a one-year interim control strategy; 2) to redo the request for amendments and show offsets of an amount sufficient to make up the difference. He said if the state followed the second procedure, that amount of offset would have an enormous impact on other industries in the state. Because of time constraints, the state was not able to prepare a formal revision with offsets. Thus, the course of action seemed to be a compromise on the amount of field burning allowed. The obstacle to the compromise was a question of who had discretion to authorize an amount of field burning less than 180,000 acres. The City's position is that such discretion exists. To clarify the question, DEQ requested the Attorney General's opinion. The Attorney General initially agreed the EQC had the authority. The EQC held a hearing in Salem on February 24. Subsequently, after further consideration on the position of the growers, the Attorney General revised his opinion to provide that the EQC has no authority to set up an amount lower than 180,000 acres. It was the Attorney General's view that EQC is required to submit a full-scale SIP revision to the EPA proposing to burn 180,000 acres and take the amount of additional pollution thereby created out of the amounts available to other Oregon industries. Such a view of legislative intent has several problems. The State Legislature did not accept the position taken by Eugene during the last session that Federal law set certain limitations. A second problem involves the Attorney General's interpretation and the Stat~ present course of action 3/8/78--2 1'+8 - - - is that the amount of reduction of pollution it will take to submit a full-scale SIP revision could mean the effective curtailing of vital industries in the state. At the February 24 hearing, the EQC decided to proceed with the contract and to seek as many offsets as possible to justify a 180,000 acre burn. The other businesses and industries to be curtailed are to be identified in the next few weeks. e Mr. Long said in summary, Eugene seems to be faced with what is an all-or- nothing position by field burning interests. He said by their present course of action, either 180,000 acres will be improperly approved by the EPA without appropriate offsets, or there will be an appropriate offset and real damage done to Oregon's economy. The third alternative is that field burning will remain at 50,000 acres, which the growers believe will do real damage to their industry. Mr. Long said it appears the State will submit a contract, for 180,000 acres to be burned, and the City feels the EPAwill reject this. In the last few days, it has been hoped by the City that the State will change its course of action and they will, at least, make an SIP revision. If that were to be denied, then the EQC will probably make a determination of burning 50,000 acres. It is hoped by the City that at that time, all parties interested will be able to come to some better solution. He said if not, there will be some turmoil in the spring. In response to a question by Mr. Haws, Mr. Long said he was puzzled as to why other persons in the Willamette Valley were not more concerned, citing the potential damage to be done to industries, as well as the health effects to others outside of the city. The kind of industries to be affected have not yet been designated. Ms. Smith wondered if there was anything more the staff or City Council could do to reaffirm its position. Mr. Long said it could reaffirm that the City is not trying to provoke a confrontation and the course of action taken by the state to date does not seem like a very wise way to approach the problem. If the 180,000 acres are not approved, then the State will be stuck with 50,000 to be burned; then Eugene will have to take some steps about field burning for 1978. He hoped Council would say the City is prepared to meet and exchange information with all inter- ested groups, but the City can only do that if other interested groups are willing to meet. Mr. Hamel said part of the problem was that most people feel the cause of air pollutants is only automobiles. He noted that Eugene is the "toe of the sock" and it is not known how much of the disturbance comes from other areas such as Portland and Salem. He wondered how the State was going to be able to shut down industries in Portland or ask them to cut back their air pollutants, while the State continues field burning. Mr. Delay noted that it was not just a physical health problem, but a long-term economic health problem of the region as it will effect industries. He said Eugene was already operating under an offset rule under which no new industries can be built without creating an equal or more reduction in air pollutants. He said it might result in an absolute moratorium on construction of industries with air particulates. - 3/8/78--3 Iltct Mr. Haws summed up that he felt the City Council had always supported City staff's efforts 100 percent. He felt Council was willing to support staff in going all the way if necessary. However, Council felt the City.s ~ position to be reasonable and they are willing to negotiate. ... Assi stant City Manager sai d the purpose of thi s update was to fore",: warn Council of the problems that may be coming. It is felt the citizens need to know that is not Eugene's choice of course of action that is creating the problem, and the City hopes others involved in the problem will attempt to find a better solution. Mayor Keller noted that recent critism against Eugene had been that this was an emotional issue. He said this last year the City has been able to gather some very technical data and EPA had requested the City to get together with the State people involved. The EPA is aware that the City is prepared to sit down and discuss the problem and try to come to some compromise. It was his hope that the proper State agency would proceed very quickly in making that meeting possible. III. Panhandle Policy Review Panhandle Policy statement distributed. Manager noted Council had taken a tour to see examples of good and bad panhandle situations in the city. He said this was a work session which could be followed by questions for Council. It was hoped that Council could decide on the next steps which might include further consideration of the policy, research further some individual items in the policy, or even call for a public hearing. Jim Saul, Planner, said the purpose of the panhandle tour was an attempt to include at least one example in different areas of the city. He cautioned that Council should keep in mind a distinction of what is a direct causal effect of that sort of land division as opposed to a particular type of structure built on the property. Also, he said Council should consider how significant the panhandle policy is particularly with respect to the City.s policy regarding more compact growth and better use of land. He noted in January 1976, there were 2700 lots in the City that ranged in size from 14,000 to 26,000 square feet; 665 of these lots were vacant while the remainder had single-family dwellings located on them. He said if one assumes all those lots were divided once, it would create a subdivision rate which would represent a two-year inventory of single-family permits. He likened it to two Cone-Breeden annexations. A second factor which Council should look at was ,one of the major objec- tions regarding traffic. He said the City Council should be aware that the standard set in the Code does not relate to whether or not traffic will increase, but whether or not it will result in traffic congestion. A third issue for Council to consider was that in both the General Plan and 3/8/78--4 150 e e e the Community Goals Statement there are a variety of policy statements. Opposing sides could lift various statements out of these general policies to support their stand on panhandle lots. He said it was essential that Council recognize that in the past it has tried to balance these conflict- ing issues. Another question regarded the ownership versus rental occupancy of the structures built on the panhandle lots. He said a panhandle is a land division that creates land that is available for sale and has nothing to do with the occupancy. In that regard, some considerations were outlined by Mr. Saul. He said historically there has been an increasing percentage of city population living in rentals as opposed to owner- occupied homes and that percentage is projected to increase. Also, there is an increasing attractiveness of single-family housing that is acquired by owner-investors as opposed to owner-occupants. He said this relates to the low-vacancy rate in Eugene, which as of yesterday was 0.9 (very low). e Options available to Council regarding the Panhandle Policy were outlined by Mr. Saul as the following: 1) Eliminate the present Panhandle POlicy in its entirety; however, the Planning Commission has strongly recommended that City Council not pursue this direction; 2) to retain the policy and revise certain standards, such as size, setback, and driveway widths. He continued that one standard that probably could not be radically affected was size. The minimum set by the Panhandle Policy was 14,000 square feet, yet the bulk of lots available for panhandling range in size from 16,000 to 18,000 square feet. He also noted regarding any stan- dards, the Planning Commission is pursuing the assessment policy as it relates to a panhandle lot having limited frontage on the street and, consequently, not bearing its fair share in paving costs. In continuing with other options available, Mr. Saul said Council could decide whether or not the range of options for a more efficient use of land should be included. He said the panhandle approach is only one in which to accomplish better use of land. Other options might be to allow duplexes, etc., on larger parcels. He noted the Joint Housing Committee is looking at other options. Finally, Mr. Saul said, if the Council wishes to maintain the existing policy as is or to modify it, it would be better to incorporate that revision into the City Code rather than through its present process. Mr. Haws questioned what were other options regarding use of land. Mr. Saul replied that JHC had a list of 17 or 18 techniques which might be usable for achieving greater utilization. In terms of the panhandle land division, he said the options are very limited as the properties are back-to-back and have only certain footage for depth. Mrs. Niven reported that JHC would be meeting Tuesday, March 14, at 11:30 p.m., and Council members were welcome to attend. She said it would be open to all - 3/8/78--5 151 neighborhood groups and other interested persons to look at what options are available. However, the JHC was not yet studying procedures. They are only looking at ways in which land can be better used. Discussions ~ are scheduled so that neighborhoods will have enough time for input .., and she felt the report would not be ready in less than three months. Ms. Smith felt that Council should probably wait to make its decision and incorporate the JHC findings before its final decision. Mr. Haws felt he was ready to make a decision now, although he was not sure which way Council wished to proceed. If it wished to continue the present policy, he said that decision should be made at this time. Mr. Obie felt that if Council was assuming JHC was going to review the panhandle policies, that was an erroneous assumption. Betty Niven said the JHC would review the standards if the Council so directed. However, its present direction is to present to the Council and Planning Commission the ways in which action could be taken to implement compact urban growth and let the Council and Planning Commission make the determination as to which ways it wishes to go. She said JHC was still continuing on the assumption that the City is committed to the compact urban growth policy. Mr. Obie felt the Panhandle Policy should be continued with adjustment in some of the standards. Also, he wanted to see a subcommittee of those people interested and affected by panhandle lots (such as neighbors) to study what adjustments could be made in standards. Mr. Delay agreed that neighbors would be interested in participating in the decisions to make panhandle lots more attractive. However, he was afraid it was impossible to find a vehicle that would be cost effective ~ and uniformly equitable, objective, and not subjective. In response to Mr. Delay, Mr. Williams said he felt it would never be possible to have uniform standards applied and never unfairly treat anyone. He felt if that were tried, it might end up hurting just as many people as if a value judgment were given. However, he supported the Panhandle Policy in that there is a need for increasing land use in the community. He also sug- gested that perhaps standards could be developed to include architectural assessment of appearance. Mr. Haws summed up the options for Council as being: 1) Eliminate Panhandle Policy; 2) continue with the present policy; and 3) declare a moratorium until a review of standards takes place. Mr. Obie included as another alternative that the Mayor could appoint a committee, subject to Council approval, for a review of standards. Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the City Council request the Mayor to appoint a subcommittee, subject to Council approval, that would be representative of the Council, the Planning Commission, and other interested citizens in the community; the subcommittee would review standards and recommend specific appro- priate changes in the Panhandle Policy; and there would be no moratorium on panhandle lots during the review process. - 3/8/78--6 151. ~ e Ms. Smith expressed disagreement with not including a moratorium, noting it was obvious the Council was not satisfied with the present policy and there would be additional requests for panhandle lots that would be coming in. She felt this would put Council in a difficult position. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend the motion by deleting the word "no" in Mr. Williams motion, thus calling for a moratorium. Mr. Saul cautioned Council that in the past there had been concerns regarding the imposition of moratorium; namely, those were always referred to Planning Commission first. Also, the Council should schedule a public hearing to consider such a moratorium. In addition, he said there are a number of requests already submitted and the question would be raised as to whether these would be covered by the moratorium. Finally, he said the City Attorney has always advised if a moratorium were established, that Council should set some time limit. Assistant Manager said City Attorney's concern regarding the moratorium was a procedural change and people should be given the opportunity to react to that change. Mr. Delay also noted the City Attorney had advised Council earlier that a moratorium should be used only where there was a threat to the public health, welfare, or safety. He was not convinced that this was an appropriate vehicle. e Regarding a pUblic hearing, Mr. Hamel noted in the past the public hear- ings had been on individual panhandle lots; however, this public hearing would be on the entire policy and standards. Mr. Lieuallen said the issue is one of density and it should be addressed to the overall city, not just certain parts. ,He felt perhaps the mora- torium should be on the density issue and the public hearing should be on density and the growth issue in general. He felt it important for all of the city to share the burden. Mr. Haws disagreed with a need for a public hearing and further stated he was against continuing the Panhandle Policy. Mr. Saul said if a Council subcommittee did recommend changes, that might be the appropriate time for a public hearing. The point now was that any change would be a direct modification to the existing City Code. Assistant Manager said regarding moratoriums that it is procedural and does not go to the substance of the issue. Public hearings usually are held for addressing the substance of an issue. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to amend the amendment to call for a public hearing on March 27, regarding whether or not there should be a moratorium on panhandle lot applications during the review process. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to close debate. The motion carried unanimously. - 3/8/78--] 153 .., Vote was taken on the amendment to the amendment, calling for a public hearing on the moratorium, which carried with Smith, Obie, Hamel, and Delay voting aye; Haws, Williams, and Lieuallen, voting no. - Vote was taken on the amendment to delete the word "no" in the main motion which passed with Haws, Smith, Obie, and Hamel voting aye; Williams, Delay, and Lieuallen voting no. .In clarification of the action that Council had just taken, it was noted a moratorium could not be in effect until after the public hearing on March 27, and time limits for the moratorium could be set at that time. Vote was taken on the main motion, which carried with Hamel, Smith, Williams, and Obie voting aye; Haws, Delay, and Lieuallen voting no. IV. Approval of Minutes Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve Council minutes of March 1, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. V. Hearings Scheduled Monday, March 13, 1978 A. Code Amendment re: Alcoholics Facilities (CA 77-5) B. Amendments to Tree Cutti ng Ordi nance C. Amendments to Taxi Deregulation Ordinance D. Appeal on Abatement Order for house located at 2043 Ohio Street e Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned. ~IZ~ Ci ty Manager CTH:DT:jm/CH8b8 - 3/8/78--8 15...