Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/16/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall August 16, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Abatement of Noise Pollution City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Land Use Supervisor Mike McKerrow to discuss noise pollution. He said the issue was raised by Ms. Taylor. Mr. McKerrow stated that noise standards were mainly found in Chapter 4 of the Eugene Code (EC) and were enforced by the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He said current requirements prohibit noise from amplified music, construction, lawn mowers and other sources during certain hours and the standards include an exemption provision and variance process, which is used primarily for large construction projects. He said that regulation of noise varied widely in other communities and standards could ban products or activities altogether, limit hours of operation or duration or establish maximum decibel limits or use a combination of those strategies. He related that research found few outright bans of mulch blowers and leaf blowers. He noted that restricting the use of mulch and leaf blowers would have an impact on City operations in parks, the downtown mall and elsewhere in the community. He said that Public Works and Facilities Management had upgraded equipment and reduced noise levels from leaf blowers in recent years and preliminary information on that was available to the council. He identified the special challenges associated with enforcing noise standards, including the usual limited duration of the noise, availability of staff and the inconsistent volume of the noise source. Ms. Taylor agreed with the difficulty of enforcement when the source of the noise might be gone before staff arrived, but she felt there was good cause for banning things such as leaf and mulch blowers that did bother people. She said the ban on noise between certain hours did not recognize that people’s lives could be disrupted by noise at times other than those for sleeping. She said that ever since a constituent initially raised the issue she had heard similar concerns from many people. She questioned the usefulness of leaf blowers and cited the problems created when leaves ended up in storm drains or neighboring property. She did not feel it was necessary to inflict noise on people simply for the comfort or convenience of another person. She said just because a law was difficult to enforce was not a reason to abandon it. Ms. Ortiz said the issue for her represented a bigger picture because there were many things in the community that made noise. She lived in an industrial area where residents would regard a leaf blower as a minor noise source. She commented that many noise sources could not be stopped and she would not support a ban on mulch and leaf blowers, but would support limiting the time of use. She said that leaf and mulch blowers were part of today’s culture because people had less time; they were modern conveniences that also represented businesses and jobs. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Ortiz that there were many sources of noise pollution and they were not all created by leaf and mulch blowers. She would not support a ban but would consider expansion of EC 4.083(h), which listed pile drivers, hammers and lawn mowers, to include leaf blowers and mulch blowers in order to limit operations to a reasonable timeframe. She did not want to drastically impact landscaping businesses, gardeners and people’s ability to care for their property. Mr. Kelly observed that city dwellers should expect some noise although that did not mean residents should have to tolerate unlimited noise. He said there was a balance point in government regulation and he hoped that most noise problems were resolved through neighbor-to-neighbor conversation and courtesy. He acknowledged that was not always the case. He received complaints from constituents about loud music from parties or car stereos and, in particular, leaf blowers. He asked how other communities enforced decibel-based codes. City Manager Taylor replied that the code was primarily decibel-based in the three communities he lived in prior to Eugene and it required that enforcement officers responding to a complaint use a device to measure the decibel level. He said it was easier to enforce time limits. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman’s suggestion for expanding the number and type of devices restricted to specific times. He said an issue with respect to leaf and mulch blowers was frequency; leaf blowers might be used once a week and mulch blowers once or twice a season. He was not interested in imposing restrictions on mulch blowers beyond prohibiting use between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. He was interested in considering leaf blowers in greater detail both in terms of noise and the pollution from the fuel consumed by inefficient engines. He asked for more details about the Davis, California ordinance. Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly. He noted that noise concerns were greater in the summer when people had their windows open and lawn equipment was used and as the City densified, those problems would be exacerbated. He would support adding leaf blowers to the code as well as Mr. Kelly’s suggestion to expand the current list, but would not support a ban. Mr. Poling stated he would not support banning mulch and leaf blowers. He said there were standards in place that seemed to be working. He questioned the need for more regulations when the City had difficulty enforcing those it now had. He was in favor of perhaps expanding the current ordinance to include devices such as leaf blowers and power washers in restricted times. He would not support a ban because some people were unable to perform manual labor on their own property and the cost to hire someone would be prohibitive. He said mulch blowers actually did the community a service by distributing mulch efficiently and reducing waste and runoff. Ms. Piercy said she was in favor of expanding the list instead of banning. She encouraged businesses that used those devices to find ways to lower the noise level. Mr. Pryor declared that he owned an electric leaf blower and a power washer. He acknowledged the devices made noise and operators wore hearing protection, although noise dissipated quickly over distance. He agreed that the level of noise that was acceptable was an extremely subjective issue; however, a limitation on hours of operation was not subjective. He agreed with previous speakers that there should not be a ban but would favor a public hearing to determine what could be done to mitigate or control noise pollution. Ms. Taylor said a ban on operation of leaf and mulch blowers from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. was ridiculous as people were not mowing their lawns or using leaf blowers at 11 o’clock at night. She said there was more to quality of life than sleeping. She said she was less bothered by noise when sleeping than when she was having a cookout on the deck. She agreed that noise in an urban environment was unavoidable but reiterated that leaf blowers did not seem to serve an obvious purpose as the leaves just went elsewhere. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly affirmed his interest in considering language regarding leaf blowers and similar devices that was comparable to the Davis, California ordinance, which combined several strategies. He understood the desire for a certain amount of convenience but had a problem with both the noise and pollution of leaf blowers relative to other devices. He suggested staff develop proposed language that would address times of day, broadening the list of devices and perhaps incorporating the Davis language related to leaf blowers and similar power tools. Mr. Poling asked if the larger landscaping businesses could be surveyed to determine the current decibel ratings of their equipment. City Manager Taylor said the City’s devices could be evaluated. Mr. McKer- row commented that the leaf blowers used downtown to maintain the mall were the quietest models available when purchased and operated at a maximum of 65 decibels, while older models operated at 80 decibels. Mr. Papé said he would agree to looking at a range of devices and decibel levels, but not to singling out leaf blowers. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor about City operations, Mr. McKerrow said that he understood most of the leaves were blown into piles and collected by vacuum, although he doubted that homeowners vacuumed leaves. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back language that expanded the noise ordinance to include leaf blowers as well as some of the elements of the Davis, California ordinance. Ms. Bettman asked if mulch blowers would be included. Ms. Solomon said the discussion seemed to indicate that mulch blowers provided a service and would not be included. Mr. Kelly agreed there had not been as much discussion about restricting mulch blowers. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to add the following sentence: “Staff will review the current noise ordinance to see if significant noise sources are missing. Ms. Solomon accepted the amendment. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to include mulch blowers. Ms. Bettman provided a second for purposes of discussion. Ms. Bettman said her intent was to add mulch blowers only to EC 4.083 that prohibited operation from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as that would not have a significant impact on responsible businesses that provided that service. Ms. Taylor said that was not the intent of her motion. Ms. Bettman withdrew her second and the motion to amend died for lack of a sec- ond. Ms. Solomon confirmed that any proposed language would be subject to a public hearing before action. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 3 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Jefferson/Westside Options for Immediate Protection City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Susan Muir to present the options for addressing concerns raised by the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood. Ms. Muir explained that the purpose of the work session was to consider short-term options to pause or mitigate the R-2 zoning in a portion of what was known as Area 15 of the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan as illustrated in Attachment A of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She related the history of the issue and described staff’s research and work with residents of the neighborhood. She said many options were brainstormed with the neighborhood to address inappropriate infill and those were set forth in the AIS. She said that additional discussions narrowed the options down to two for further consideration and those would provide a process that would ratify an opinion about the meaning of Low-Medium Residential density. She noted an email from the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood co-chairs with suggestions for action and indicated that those were discussed in the AIS along with a recommendation from the city manager and staff that the actions were not necessary. She discussed the impact on Planning and Development Department resources, the Planning Commission’s and department’s work programs and high priority tasks, as well as the difficulty of responding quickly if the council initiated plan amendments. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for working with the neighborhood. She remarked that one of the council’s high priority goals was protecting neighborhood livability and a component of that was preventing the negative effect of inappropriate infill. She said that Area 15 was a very small area of established, historic single- family housing in a larger neighborhood adjacent to downtown that had a significant amount of density, including several high-rise buildings. She said action was necessary to protect the Area 15 enclave if the council wanted to promote a diversity of housing in the neighborhood. She said if low density zoning was at risk in that area it would remove any incentive for opportunity siting in the neighborhood. Mr. Pryor appreciated Ms. Muir’s candidness regarding the department’s workload as it was essential to know the impact of the proposal on department resources. He said he was comfortable devoting resources to the task and acting swiftly on the matter to resolve the situation as expeditiously as possible. He was impressed by the character of the neighborhood and did not want to see it move in a direction undesirable to the neighborhood and the council. He recognized that reducing densities also reduced residential develop- ment opportunities, but in this case he was willing to accept the trade-off. He fully supported a move to initiate the recommendations related to interpretation and reaching agreement and was in favor of making whatever resources were necessary available to accomplish that quickly. Mr. Papé said he would support protection of the area but was concerned about the precedent being set. He said that similar situations existed in neighborhoods throughout the community. He was concerned that there were inadequate resources to address all of those situations and questioned how neighborhoods would be prioritized for attention. He was also concerned about the impact on density requirements several years in the future. He was willing to move the issue ahead with reservations and hoped that a community-wide solution to preserve certain areas while encouraging opportunity siting could be developed. Ms. Ortiz said she understood the desire to protect neighborhood character, but the issue was a challenge for her because of its effect on the ability of lower income people to find affordable housing. She asked how the goal to protect the urban growth boundary and agricultural land could be achieved if density did not increase. She emphasized the importance of encouraging economic diversity of residents in neighborhoods and said the less development was allowed to happen in better neighborhoods, the harder it would be for people with diverse backgrounds and lower incomes to integrate into the community. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly commented that density was either done well or done poorly and many communities had established processes for accommodating density without destroying the neighborhood. He agreed with Ms. Ortiz regarding the need for affordable housing and neighborhood diversity. He agreed with Mr. Papé’s concern about establishing a precedent and the cumulative effect of restricting density an acre at a time; however, he perceived a specific technical problem in the subject neighborhood and would be willing to consider a code change or refinement plan change that would define an overlay to enable low to medium density in combination with site review, consistent with the refinement plan. Ms. Piercy expressed her appreciation for the discussion about how to live more densely while preserving the character of neighborhoods. She thought another council goal should be to ensure the economic diversity of residents within neighborhoods. She was interested in a tool to accomplish density while preserving neighborhood character that could be applied broadly instead of taking a piecemeal approach. Mr. Pryor said the challenge was to find a unified approach that addressed the problem of density and neighborhood character across the community. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the neighborhood in question was the densest neighborhood in the entire city and included a variety of housing types. She said it was important to the health of the entire neighborhood that Area 15 remain a stable section of single-family homes. She hoped that the solution could be simple and not require an extraordinary amount of resources. Ms. Taylor said the neighborhood was not wealthy or sparsely populated and urgent attention was needed to protect it. Regarding mixed housing, she referred to her previous discussions of inclusionary zoning, which she thought should happen but was currently prohibited by the State. She hoped that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations could take the matter up during the next legislative session. Mr. Papé agreed that while the neighborhood was more densely developed than the south hills or other areas in the community, it still did not match the planned for density. He was not certain that the neighborhood would be opposed to appropriate densifying of the area. He asked which of the two options under consideration was the most legally defensible. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that while the options were procedurally different, each of them was legally defensible. Mr. Papé asked if the two options were short of a Metro Plan amendment. Ms. Jerome replied that the proposed process was two-step. She said the neighborhood and staff agreed to present to the council the possibility of a Metro Plan amendment process to identify the neighborhood as low density which could take some time, and an interpretation process to address the neighborhood’s concerns in the interim. The neighborhood hoped the interpretation would be consistent with the way they viewed the intent of the neighborhood refinement plan and provide a basis for arguing against an upzone in the area until the Metro Plan amendment took effect. She noted that, this two-step strategy was viewed by the neighborhood as an interim measure and infill standards were regarded as the best way to address concerns about density. She clarified that the neighborhood’s intent is to support a return to a medium density Metro Plan designation once the Council has adopted infill standards. Ms. Muir added that staff was committed to making an administrative interpretation decision initially and, if appealed, the interpretation would move through the appeal process. Mr. Papé asked if the decision would apply to other neighborhoods. Ms. Muir said the decision would only apply to the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan but clarified that anyone could request an interpretation by the Planning Director by filing a form and paying a fee. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to low-density Residential development. In addition, to direct the City Manager to make this task priority #1 on the Planning Commission work plan and pull resources from the other high priority work program items to accomplish this as quickly as possible within the parameters of the amendment process. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the motion by deleting the sec- ond sentence of the motion entirely and rewording the end of the first sentence as follows: “Move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to low-density residential development low- to medium-density residential as described in the re- finement plan. In addition, to direct the City Manager to make this task priority #1 on the Planning Commission work plan and pull resources from the other high pri- ority work program items to accomplish this as quickly as possible within the pa- rameters of the amendment process. Mr. Kelly explained that he was not interested in allowing upzonings to 28 units per acre in the area but was interested in allowing selective increased density under site review and as described in the refinement plan to a middle ground above 10 units per acre. He deleted the second sentence because the work plan has been developed in great detail and opportunity siting was identified as a high priority. He said there were numerous tasks in the work plan on which the council would expect to see progress. Referring to statements that the neighborhood was very dense, he noted that the refinement plan stated that in Area 15 the average lot size was 8,200 square feet, which was a density of five units per acre. Ms. Bettman reminded the council that the refinement plan was developed in 1983. She said she would not support the amendment because it increased density without the infill standards and cited a section of the refinement plan relating to encouraging and increasing residential density while maintaining the character of the neighborhood. She said a commitment by the City to rehabilitate existing housing stock through public and private investment had not occurred. She said the motion would accomplish half of the opportunity siting strategy to increase density as high as possible in certain appropriate sites and at the same time downzoning and preserving existing residential neighborhoods. Mr. Kelly revised the language of his motion to amend as follows: Move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to low-density residential development low- to medium-density residential as described in the refinement plan to be consistent with the policies of the refinement plan for Area 15. Mr. Papé, as the second, ac- cepted the revised language. Ms. Jerome clarified that the motion would require a text amendment to the Metro Plan, not just a diagram amendment, and did not address the neighborhood’s concern about interpretation of the meaning of low to medium density as the refinement plan policy itself was the issue. Mr. Kelly further clarified his amendment as follows: Move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to low-density residential development low- to medium- density residential as described in the refinement plan to be consistent with the policies of the refinement plan for Area 15 and with maximum densities higher MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 6 Work Session than R-1 but lower than R-2. Mr. Papé, as the second, accepted the revised lan- guage. Mr. Papé reiterated his concern about other neighborhoods having the same problems and the need for a consistent approach. Ms. Bettman pointed out that there were a number of high-density developments adjacent to Area 15, which made the area the highest density with the highest threat of any neighborhood in the community. She noted that the petition requesting a remedy was signed by 286 residents, including many who lived outside of Area 15. She thought that Mr. Kelly’s amendment would perpetuate the issue of disparity between the original meaning of low to medium residential and the current understanding that it meant upzoning to R-2 was acceptable. Ms. Muir said the motion before the council considered some of the options in the May 24, 2006, memoran- dum from staff, including work on site review and design standards. She said that changing the language from “low to medium” to “low” was identified in discussions with the neighborhood as part of a future action that might implement opportunity siting. She said that was not emphasized in the staff report because there was never a guarantee unless there was a sunset date. She did not want to rely on that until there was something concrete to consider. She thought the work associated with the proposed motion would require a little more time and effort to present a product to the council. City Manager Taylor clarified that the proposed motion would require more staff time than the motion suggested in the AIS. Mr. Pryor observed that just designating an area low density would not address the issue of neighborhood character or inappropriate infill. He understood that there was no expectation an area would remain low density; that was an interim measure while other strategies were developed. He preferred to make it a priority task. Regarding the hope that low density was an interim solution while other strategies were developed, Mr. Kelly noted that there was great enthusiasm in 1993 for nodal development, also known as mixed-use centers, and 13 years later, that effort was barely started. He said his amendment would not allow four to eight more units per lot as that was based on blanket R-2 and his amendment specified density lower than the maximum R-2. Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the amendment as the matter of protection required some urgency. She said that increasing rentals in a neighborhood created a transitory effect and reduced the number of residents with a long-term interest in the stability of the neighborhood. Mr. Papé asked if the motion would require moving to a density of four to eight units per acre. Ms. Jerome replied that Mr. Kelly’s motion limited density to something below the maximum allowed in R-2 but an interpretation would still be necessary to determine what that number would be. Mr. Kelly said the number would be defined by staff during the process. Mr. Papé asked if the council’s action could be sunsetted in two or three years to ensure that long-term strategies were developed. Ms. Muir said a sunset provision would not be part of the council’s current action but, if an amendment was initiated, staff would work with the city attorney to draft that type of language. Ms. Jerome encouraged a sunset provision to establish a specific sunset date instead of indicating it would happen when the City adopted infill standards. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 7 Work Session The vote on the motion to amend the main motion was tied, 4:4; Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Poling voting in opposition, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Papé voting in favor. Ms. Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion to amend and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Papé suggested including a sunset provision. City Manager Taylor said that staff would include a recommended timeframe for a sunset provision in its report to the council. Ms. Muir clarified that her reference to a sunset clause related only to redesignation from low-medium to low density as an interim step before opportunity siting was implemented. Ms. Piercy stated that she voted in favor of the amendment in part because there were many priorities and she was not comfortable with it being number one, although it was important. The vote on the main motion as amended was tied, 4:4, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Poling voting in opposition, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solo- mon and Mr. Papé voting in favor. Ms. Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion as amended and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to request that the City Manager di- rect staff to begin the process of issuing an official interpretation pursuant to EC 9.0040(1) or (3) to interpret the Area 15 policy of the Jefferson-Far West Refine- ment Plan, which is incorporated into the Land Use Code at EC 9.9580(17). The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 8 Work Session