Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/1980 Meeting '" , M I NUT E S Eugene City Council . September 3, 1980 Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:30 a.m., September 3, 1980, in the City Council Chamber, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor D. W. Hamel was absent. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. L-COG Appreciation Night Dinner Ms. Schue stated that an L-COG Appreciation Night Dinner would be held Friday. L-COG staff need to know today which councilors will be attending. Ms. Miller suggested that Ms. Schue relay the City.s appreciation for work performed by L-COG. B. 8th/10th Contra-flow System Ms. Miller stated that there would be an Urban Initiatives Grant e application meeting at 10 a.m., September 8, to discuss with consul- tants what the requirements are, what changes are needed, and fundinq avail abil ity. If councilors are planning to attend, they should contact Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineering, or Charles Kupper, HCC. C. Flood Plain Insurance Study Meeting Ms. Smith stated that she would like an update on this subject. Mr. Henry stated that a meeting would be held on Friday, September 5, at 9 a.m. in Harris Hall which he will attend along with staff from Planning and Public Works. They would like at least one councilor to also attend. In regard to Ms. Smith's question about a consultant, Mr. Henry responded that the City may have to fund their own consultant. Mr. Obie volunteered to attend the meeting. Mr. Delay wondered whether the City could be reimbursed for monies spent on consulting if the first report proves inaccurate. D. Follow-up to Keith Parks Presentation Mr. Obie stated that the letter from Keith Parks, EWEB, requires follow-up from the council. Mr. Henry stated he would be meeting with Mr. Parks a week from Friday on other matters and would pursue at that time how the council can be of assistance. Mayor Keller stated that this should be scheduled on a future agenda for discussion/consideration. e 9/3/80--1 . , , Mr. Delay stated that he would be out of town the majority of the month of September but people could call his office and leave messages. E. Eugene Arts Foundation Letter . Mr. Obie stated that he would like to see staff follow through with the suggestions in the Eugene Arts Foundation letter in regard to cost reductions for the Performing Arts Center. Ms. Smith asked if this item is on the Civic Center Commission agenda for its next meeting. Mr. Obie responded that it is not now but he will bring it up at the meeting. Mayor Keller noted that the information should be conveyed to them for consideration. Mr. Obie stated that the staff can explore these ideas between now and the meeting and perhaps some resolution can be made at the meetinq. Timeliness is an issue in this matter. Ms. Miller indicated agreement. Mr. Obie indicated that he would like a report back from the Civic Center Commission in two weeks. Mayor Keller noted that the commission should be aware that the council would like these suggestions strongly pursued. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the council request the Civic Center Commission and staff to pursue ideas/proposals expressed in the letter from the Eugene Arts Foundation. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. F. Dog Control Task Force Ms. Smi~h moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that Ms. Schue and Ms. Miller be appointed to the Dog Control Task Force. Ro 11 call e vote; motion carried unanimously. G. Budget Status Mr. Henry.indicated that he had received a budget status report as of June 30, 1980, from Bill McGuire, Management Services. He said that the cuts in various programs have worked and the report shows that the City is close to the carryover estimates, although these are still unaudited figures. H. Budget Flier Mr. Henry indicated distribution of a budget circular and said there would be a press conference tomorrow regardinq the budget. I. Meetings Mr. Henry stated that the firm dates for the goal-setting session will be October 23-25. Don Murray will be the facilitator and it will be held at the University of Oregon President's house. e 9/3/80--2 II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL e A. Approval of Council Minutes of July 30, August 6, and Special and Regular Meetings of August 11, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, to approve council minutes of July 30, August 6, and special and regular meetings of August 11, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Payment of Bills, Claims, and Progress Payments (distributed) Res. No. 3414--A resolution authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period August 13, 1980, through August 29, 1980. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Easement Vacation for Jack and Opal Batchelor (EV 80-2) (map distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this easement vacation was recommended by a 5:0 vote of the Planning Commission on June 9, 1980'. This easement is being recommended for a vacation while others are being retained. Jim e Croteau, Planning, is available to answer questions. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2186--An ordinance authorizing vacation of a 14-foot-wide public utility easement located off a cul-de-sac on the east side of Dillard Road, north of Fox Hollow Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2186 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, that the bill be approved and given final passage. All councilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18693. e 9/3/80--3 IV. CONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS RELATIVE TO LCDC LETTER OF AUGUST 25, 1980, ON METRO PLAN UPDATE (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that there are technical problems with the Cityls sub- e mittal which are indicated in the memo and these would be discussed by Jim Croteau, Planning. Craig Greenleaf, LCDC, will discuss the recommenda- tions. Mr. Henry stated that the County has requested that the council meet with them to discuss this issue and the Chamber of Commerce has indicated that they would like to see the matter resolved. Mr. Croteau stated that following adoption of the Metro Plan Update on July 28, the City forwarded its request for acknowledgment with State goals to LCDC which is required to do a completeness check within two weeks. The letter is their response to that completeness check. ~. Croteau stated that LCDC noted several technical deficiencies in that submittal. They are: 1) Lane County plan and map for the area outside the city limits, including evidence of County adoption; 2) Lane County zoning ordinance and map for the area outside the city limits inside the urban growth boundary, including evidence of adoption; 3) County subdivision regulations applicable to the area outside the city limits inside the urban growth boundary; and 4) a City-County management agree- ment which explains~ a) how implementation of the plan will be coordi- nated between the City and County, b) how the provision of services will be coordinated between the City and County, c) annexation policies, and d) amendment procedures for the plan and urban growth boundary. Mr. Haws arrived at the meeting. Mr. Croteau said that the County will submit the first three items. e The use of Chapter 4 in the plan as the management agreement would be acceptable to LCDC, but Lane County has not yet submitted their plan indicating they will use that approach. The second portion of the letter goes beyond a description of the deficiencies and includes suggestions to help resolve the disagreement between the cities and Lane County. Mr. Delay asked if in Lane County's plan, the County is requesting that Chapter 4 be used as the management agreement. Mr. Croteau responded that that is correct. Ms. Miller questioned using Chapter 4 as an agreement of jurisdictional boundaries. She asked if this cooperative aqreement is still in existence. ~. Croteau responded that we do not have any accept- able agreement if the boundaries cannot be agreed upon but the best approach is to have agreement in the plan rather than a separate agreement. The City is still offering our adopted plan as the one it hopes Lane County will adopt. Ms. Miller noted that at the last Elected Officials Coordinating Committee meeting, the County eliminated one section of the plan. She asked if that was Chapter 4. Mr. Croteau responded that the section that had been eliminated was regarding jurisdictional boundaries, and the County replaced it with what they call an "area of influence.11 Ms. Miller stated that that would affect point 4 of the LCDC letter. She asked if two procedures would go into effect if the County proceeds with this. Mr. Croteau responded affirmatively. _. ~~ 9/3/80--4 Mr. Greenleaf stated that LCDC hopes there will be a single submission from the metro area. Since this is not yet the situation, they are - looking at ways to promote reconciliation on the remaining issues. One approach was stated in this letter and it was presented to the County last week. He said there are two phases of review--the first is a completeness check, and the second is to acknowledge the plan as being in accordance with the Statewide Planning Goals. The letter from LCDC states what else needs to be submitted before they can proceed with the review process. The urban growth boundary must be agreed upon by the cities and the County. This letter went beyond the completeness check in hopes of helping to resolve this issue. Mr. Greenleaf said that if Lane County would adopt the plan which Eugene and Springfield have adopted and would then file formal objections before LCDC, this would be the best method. This would allow LCDC to move forward with review of the plan. Or, agreement could be reached locally. Another option would be mediation which would be handled by LCDC and would be advisory rather than binding. With mediation there is no set of administrative rules and it is not the most suitable approach. This approach singles out the issue whereas it is really part of the total plan. Mediation does not provide for much agency participation. The final option is that of an enforcement order which puts pressure on the local jurisdictions to resolve the issue. He does not feel this is the best device to use. Mr. Obie asked if an enforcement order would follow if nothing is done. Mr. Greenleaf responded that it would. Mr. Obie asked what the mechanism e would be. Mr. Greenleaf stated that staff would prepare an enforcement order which would constrain a certain area's development. They could. restrict rezonings, subdivisions, building permits, etc., in either the contested area or the total area, depending upon the circumstances. ~. Obie asked how long this type of order would take to become effective. Mr. Greenleaf stated it could be between 30 and 60 days. Mr. Obie asked how long it would be from now until something like this would happen. ~. Greenleaf stated that it would probably not be issued until at least the October commission meeting. Mr. Obie asked him, if it would be 90 to 120 days from now, what would happen in the meantime. Mr. Greenleaf stated that in the meantime, one would still operate under the old plan, but since Eugene has adopted their version, it is unclear what would happen. Mr. Delay thanked LCDC for proposing a simple resolution and stated that many people appreciate their help. Regarding a moratorium on development, he asked if enforcement orders are punitive in nature or designed to inhibit development in contested areas. Mr. Greenleaf stated that they have been used both ways--the intent of the enforcement order is to inhibit development but it has a punitive effect. Mr. Delay asked if the commission will design the enforcement order around those contested areas. Mr. Greenleaf responded that that is the intent and to try to reconcile the issue. Mr. Delay asked if it would be likely that an enforcement order would inhibit development in areas that are not contested as within - 9/3/80--5 the city's limits. Mr. Greenleaf responded that it could and is sometimes used as a leverage in securing resolution and is a way of directing City resources. Mr. Delay asked if that would be termed punitive. Mr. Green- leaf responded that it would. Mr. Delay asked if staff work has been done . yet as to the type of enforcement order. Mr. Greenleaf responded that it has not. Mr. Delay asked if this order could be directed at only the areas of di sagreement. Mr. Greenleaf responded that this has been done. Mr. De 1 ay asked what kind of notice would be given to jurisdictions if a punitive action were to be considered. Mr. Greenleaf stated that our staff would receive copies of the enforcement order being considered by the commission, a public hearing would be held, and then the commission would decide if that were appropriate. Mr. Delay asked if it would be effective for the building season next spring. Mr. Greenleaf stated that building goes on throughout the year so that might not be a fair statement to make. It probably would go into effect 120 days from the time the order was prepared, but it could be done faster. Mr. Haws expressed concern that if this process would reach the punitive stage, it sounds as though it would only apply to the cities and not the county. Mr. Greenleaf stated that this could apply county-wide, but that is unlikely. Mr. Haws said it sounds as if this would occur within the urban service boundary but not outside it. Mr. Greenleaf stated that it depends upon the conflict. There has not been a situation like this before. Mr. Haws suggested that the process, if it reached the punitive step, be applied to the complete geographical district involved. Mayor Keller said that if there is a moratorium it seems that development e within presently approved areas could continue. Mr. Greenleaf stated that the City is operating under a plan not approved by LCDC. They woul d take into account that Eugene has an acknowledged plan but that does not prohibit an enforcement order. Mayor Keller stated that if a moratorium were declared, that he would like to know how the City could continue to operate. He noted that they would need to contact the City's legal staff. Mr. Greenleaf reminded him that these are hypothetical situations so responses are vague. Ms. Smith stated that if the approved plan were not to be recognized, the council might object. Mr. Greenleaf stated that he had thought that they might. Ms. Smith asked what kind of communication LCDC has had with the County reg~rding their adoption of the plan and then later objecting. Mr. Greenleaf stated they have discussed this with the County Commis- sioners, who stated that Eugene and Springfield might concur with Lane County's version and then object to portions they disliked. Mayor Keller asked if the urban growth boundary normally applies to cities. Mr. Greenleaf stated that it would apply to all urbanizable areas. 9/3/80--6 e ......." Ms. Smith asked Mr. Greenleaf to expand on the mediation process. ~. Greenleaf stated that all three jurisdictions would have to agree that . that was the technique to be used. All versions would be presented, and the mediator would present which versions are acceptable under the State- wide goals. This would be given back to the jurisdictions as advisory opinions. Ms. Smith asked if there are other plans having such disagree- ments. Mr. Greenleaf responded that there are not. Of 65 mid-Willamette Valley jurisdictions, 61 have been submitted. Mr. Lieuallen arrived at the meeting. Ms. Smith asked if the mediation process could take longer than 120 days. Mr. Greenleaf responded that it could, recognizing that this is a major metropolitan area. In response to Mr. Lieuallen's question about the City's concurrence with Lane County's version of the plan, or theirs with ours, Mr. Greenleaf responded that it could be done either way. Mr. Lieuallen asked what the process would be if we were to agree with the County and then object. Mr. Greenleaf responded that the commission would normally handle these themselves and try to review the actions as soon as possible. They are, however, on a six-week commission meeting schedule due to budget constraints and may need to rely on subcommittee review. Mr. Lieuallen expressed concern that this type of mediation could be risky for the City. Mr. Greenleaf resoonded that the local jurisdictions could reach an agreement on an interim policy until the mediation process was completed. Ms. Miller asked if the City's plan is on the October agenda. Mr. Green- e leaf responded that it is not but that a status report would probably be given at that time. It would not be complete b~cause Lane County has not yet submitted their version of the plan. It could be placed on the March agenda for a complete review of the plan if the County submits soon. Ms. Miller asked if staff reports would be available prior to the meeting. Mr. Greenleaf stated that they would be available at least two weeks prior. Ms. Miller asked how long the process would take if first reviewed in March. ~. Greenleaf responded that the review is usually done in one meeting. Ms. Miller asked if there will be a staff recommendation at the time of review. Mr. Greenleaf responded that there would be if the parties agree to an urban growth boundary. Mr. Greenleaf, clarifying the situation, said that the review would take place in March if a complete submission is received soon. If nothing happens in October, they would look at proceeding with an enforcement action. Ms. Schue expressed curiosity about the mediation process. She asked if there is any responsibility or requirement that jurisdictions accept the mediation report. Mr. Greenleaf responded that some jurisdictions have agreed ahead of time to accept the mediation as a compromise but this would be a voluntary agreement. Ms. Schue asked what would happen if the mediation were not successful. Mr. Greenleaf responded that it would lengthen the time as review would not occur until July or later and eliminate an option. Ms. Schue asked if reconcilation must occur before the review can be held. Mr. Greenleaf responded that that was accurate. e 9/3/80--7 -, For clarification, Mr. Delay stated that if the City chose to use media- tion, and there was no agreement to accept the results, then it could be a waste of money. Mr. Greenleaf stated that it could be as it is an infor- . mal, non-binding process at this point. Mr. Delay asked what is the mechanism if the City agreed with the County urban growth boundaries and then objected. Mr. Greenleaf stated that commission mediation is not binding but that enforcement action and the review are binding. Mr. De 1 ay asked, in regard to contesting the urban growth boundary, if there would be a binding decision. Mr. Greenleaf stated that it would not be, that instructions would be sent back for the local jurisdictions to deal with. Mr. Delay asked if this could be similar to a mediator and if it, too, could prove to be a fruitless process. Mr. Greenleaf responded that it could be. Mr. Delay asked if enforcement actions could be inhibitive to geographical areas or punitive. Mr. Greenleaf responded that that is correct, but that distinguishing between the two is not always easy. Mr. Delay stated that he would presume that if actions were punitive, more substantial findings must be made; that is, lack of good faith. Mr. Greenleaf responded that there is a high standard of requirement for findings in either case. Ms. Miller stated that location of the urban growth boundary is part of the completeness report while other items of disagreement come up as part of the acknowledgment review. Mr. Greenleaf stated that the location of urban growth boundaries was made part of the completeness review three years ago. Ms. Miller noted that the boundaries must be agreed upon before agreement can be reached on some other issues. Mr. Greenleaf stated that it could have been done differently. Ms. Miller asked how the boundary issue could be separated from the other issues. Mr. Greenleaf stated that e it has become a separate issue due to how it has been submitted. Mayor Keller asked if any of the other jurisdictions could not agree where three or more jurisdictions were involved. Mr. Greenleaf stated that it is not unusual to have problems resolving boundary issues. Some s i tua- tions are handled by mediation, local compromise, an enforcement order, and some situations have not been resolved yet. Mr. Lieuallen stated that the alternatives in the letter are not good. The City could agree ahead of time to have LCDC make the decision. That seems to be the only alternative but more should be known about it before this would be done. He noted this seems like the same proposal stated differently. Mr. Obie stated that there is an alternative solution. The City should be willing to reassess its position. The plan required thousands of deci- sions and perhaps some things were overlooked. He would urge the councils of Springfield and Eugene as well as the commissioners to reopen their minds. He would like to hear the best possible pro and con presentations on the industrial triangle area. He would like to hear what-the County heard that the council did not hear. He would like for the three bodies to meet again,' have a public hearing, and hear the best arguments presented by staff. Then each body could deliberate, redetermine their position, . 9/3/80--8 - and direct a committee of the jurisdictions to see if they could reach resolution. The City would be better off if this matter could be resolved e locally rather than at the State level. He agrees with Mr. Lieuallen and is not excited about the proposals presented in the memo. Mr. Delay stated he feels that the City has dealt with this item with an open mind. He feels that staff should prepare information as to why the City has done what it has done but to proceed cautiously. The City has compromised time after time, but in the absence of binding agreement, other jurisdictions took unilateral actions. He noted agreement with Mr. Lieuallen and Mr. Obie. He feels this jurisdiction has done everything it can to try to resolve these problems. If the City is going to consider further compromises, there should be written agreement for operating in good faith on all sides. Ms. Miller stated she does not think additional public hearings would be the most productive use of time as she is not aware of any significant new information. Written material should be pulled together by staff and this should be discussed as a council. Mr. Obie stated that that could be true, but that he was interested in rebuttal and why the other jurisdiction feels as it does. The discrep- ancies concern him because the business public is crying for industrial acreage but staff does not see the need. Mr. Lieuallen noted that he would not like to see the discussion focus on any single issue. He feels it important to decide on the process. He does not think it is necessary to make a decision right now, but it is paramount that all leaders be able e to re-examine their positions. Ms. Smith stated that she would like to encourage the council to meet with Eugene and Springfield as Mr. Obie suggested. She would not recommend mediation as a first step. She would like staff to set up a procedure. She feels they should determine at the next council meeting if the three jurisdictions can sit together, have a public hearing, and discuss the matter. Mr. Delay stated that, before the City meets jointly with other jurisdictions, they should have a work session with staff as they did in the update process regarding major outstanding disagreements, then deter- mine how to proceed. Mayor Keller noted agreement with Mr. Delay but feels that there should be a new arena in which to discuss these issues. There are no resolutions when the vote is always 4:2. Perhaps it should be decided by majority rule. They will need to discuss the process before scheduling a meeting with the other jurisdictions. It is an achievement for Eugene and Spring- field to adopt the same plan. The urban growth boundary may be the most important factor, but if that is being reopened, many other issues will have to be included. The County is taking formal action one week from today, and the City could request that the County approve the City's urban growth boundary. e 9/3/80--9 , Ms. Miller stated agreement that she is ready for a work session on this - topic as well as some others. She does not feel the council is ready for a joint meeting. In the work session, sne would like to include a rebrief- ing on the definition of "urban growth boundary" and to pursue with the County an agreement for voluntary non-development of that area until agreement is reached. Ms. Schue noted agreement that the joint meeting might not be productive at this time. She is willing to be open and to discuss the issues. She does not think another public hearing would be helpful unless there is new material. She would like a briefing such as Ms. Miller suggested. She is willing to let the County struggle with the State on their position. Mr. Farah clarified the work session agenda. He said he understands that council is requesting information on: 1) the urban growth boundary, 2) the industrial triangle, and 3) other jurisdictional differences within the plan. After these topics were covered, they would discuss how the City might proceed at this time. Mr. Haws left the meeting. Mr. Obie stated that he is comfortable with this process but would prefer to have everyone hear the same thing at the same time. He stressed the importance of the council being open to change. He encouraged Mayor Keller to speak with the Mayor of Springfield and the Chairman of the Lane County Commissioners to learn how they feel the jurisdictions should e proceed in resolving this issue. Mr. Delay stated that the council is open and may need to articulate to the County why the City feels the way it does. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to have staff prepare a letter to the Lane County Commissioners to encourage them to consider the suggestion from LCDC to adopt the City's urban growth boundaries and then object to the boundary before LCDC. Mr. Delay said he feels that the City should continue to pursue the issue before it goes to LCDC so that time and money will not be wasted. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Obie questioned whether the purpose of the work session is to "solidify" or "re-exami ne" our pos it ion. Mr. Lieuallen indicated one could use the term "review." Ms. Miller agreed that the work session would be a time to re-examine the issues. Mayor Keller asked when the work session would be scheduled. Mr. Farah noted that it would be held following the council meeting on Wednesday, September 10. The meeting was adjourned to September 10, 1980. Respect lly submi tted, Ie ) Charles T. Henry 9/3/80--10 City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) CTH:LN:db/CM27bl --...... --" -_.-~