Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/18/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 18, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Metropolitan Public Facilities and Services Plan Jim Croteau of the Planning and Development Department introduced the item. He briefly noted changes recommended to the Metropolitan Public Facilities and Service Plan as a result of public testimony on April 4, 2001, and the input of the elected officials. He said that the input was reflected in the staff notes attached to the meeting packet (Attachment A), which also included recommendations on how to address the input. He asked the council to consider the draft adopting ordinance and provide input on the contents of the ordinance. Mr. Croteau reported on a recent Springfield City Council work session on the topic, saying that the Springfield council approved the recommended plan and related amendments as revised. During the council's discussion, it questioned why existing power generation facilities in the metropolitan area were not shown on the plan map. The utilities supported a recommendation to show their facilities on the map. Mr. Croteau identified the location of those sites. He called attention to a proposed modification to the main motion included in the meeting packet that would allow the recommendation to go forward. Mr. Croteau invited questions. Ms. Bettman called attention to page 17 of the agenda packet (page 11 of 17 of the staff notes) and asked if the refinement to Policy A-8 superseded the council's adoption of a standard of Iow- income housing as opposed to affordable housing. Mr. Croteau responded that the policies adopted by all three jurisdictions in such plans were generally umbrella policies for other, more specific policies the elected body might want to adopt. Ms. Bettman commented that Policy A-8 did not reflect that the subsidies and incentives mentioned were for higher density housing that was served by transit to fulfill the objectives of TransPlan. She said if there was a way to refine that locally, she would not propose a change. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman thanked Mr. Croteau for his work in amending the plan to reflect council comments and public testimony. Mr. Meisner observed that the language in question in Policy A-8 was mandatory, and he was concerned it would require the City to do more than it proposed to do. City Attorney Jerome Lidz pointed out that the policy stated that the City shall examine ways to provide such housing, not that it will do so. He acknowledged that it created a responsibility for the City. Mr. Croteau clarified that staff was not proposing any changes to Policy A-8; its inclusion was merely to show that there were other policies in the Metropolitan Plan supporting proposed Policy G-35. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that, and said it was Mr. Croteau's answer that confused him. Mr. Kelly also thanked the staff for its responsiveness to testimony and the elected officials' comments. He referred to the explanation of why transit was not included in the minimum level of key services, and termed it an unfortunate reality. He said that in some European jurisdictions a new project was not approved for construction until transit was guaranteed to be in place. He wanted to move Eugene in that direction in the long-term. Mr. Kelly asked if there was anything the City could do to give transit some consideration in the urbanization and annexation process. Mr. Croteau said that the City referred annexation proposals to all public service providers, and the planning process for transit and other services was already in place. The establishment of the urban growth boundary informed all providers that they will be responsible to serve properties that are urbanized. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the existing process, but pointed out that Lane Transit District, the provider of transit, did not adopt the Metro Plan and its refinements, so no local jurisdiction was in a legal position to tell the district it must provide service to a certain area. Mr. Croteau said that the plan bound the agency even though it did not adopt it formally. He noted the district's participation in TransPlan, a refinement to the Metro Plan. Mr. Kelly reiterated his interest in a long-term approach that got transit to occur in "lockstep" with new development. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 about the City's involvement in telecommunications, Mr. Croteau said that there was a coordination effort taking place among service providers. He had not been involved in the details but understood the effort would be more coordinated in the future than the past. Mr. Pap8 asked for comment from Ms. Nathanson. Ms. Nathanson responded that because the providers were private businesses, the City was unable to secure specific plans about what networks were planned or what customers would be served. Franchise agreements delineate generally how services would be provided, but the City had no access to private business plans. She said that other communities had the same experience. Mr. Pap8 referred to the section in the staff memorandum on health care and asked if Policy G-5 was a new policy. Mr. Croteau said that it was an existing policy. Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Croteau that the City participated in an ongoing planning process with the University of Oregon through its participation in a campus planning committee. The University also has a campus plan that the City reviewed when changes were proposed. Mr. Pap8 asked if PeaceHealth did the same. Mr. Croteau said no. The hospital went through normal planning and review processes, just like other private property owners. Mr. Pap8 asked why the City only recently became involved with PeaceHealth facility planning if the policy was already in place. Mr. Croteau said that the City had been involved with PeaceHealth's planning efforts in the past. Some of those efforts were successful and some were more controversial. PeaceHealth was involved in various MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 2 Work Session City planning processes and commented on code amendments that affected it. There was no formal consultation board but regular meetings occurred. Mr. Pap~ referred to the school closure policy and asked if the school districts were consulted and agreed with what was being proposed. Mr. Croteau said yes. Mr. Fart asked staff to discuss the difference between "affordable" and "low-income" housing. Mr. Johnson said that it depended to some degree on the speaker and what was in their mind. Some people use the term affordable to refer to Iow-income or subsidized housing. Most planning documents were clear that housing subsidized by the federal or State government was Iow- or moderate-income housing, and there were criteria associated with those definitions. Mr. Fart wanted to be clear that Iow-income housing was included in the definition of affordable housing, but the need for affordable housing should be in forefront of everyone's mind. Responding to Mr. Fart, Ms. Bettman said that the council was governed by the definitions it adopted for Residential Lands Study, which were specific in terms of percentage of median income and housing costs. Policy A-8 referring to affordable housing was from that study. The definition in the plan in question was broader than that definition, and gave each city discretion to determine what it wanted. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to take tentative action on adoption of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public Facilities and Services Plan as a refinement plan to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and related Metro Plan amendments, and as amended through Addenda #1, #2, #3, and #4; and including existing power generation facilities in the metropolitan area owned or operated by the Springfield Utility Board and the Eugene Water & Electric Board on Map 4 of the Public Facilities and Service Plan which shows electrical facilities. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. B. Work Session: Review of Exemption in Smoking Prohibition Ordinance for Establishments Obtaining Building Permits Jan Bohman of the City Manager's Office joined the council for the item. She reported that the implementation of the smoking prohibition ordinance implementation was going well and in many cases businesses complied before the ordinance had become effective on July 1. Ms. Bohman noted testimony was received by the council during a recent Public Forum regarding possible abuse of the six-month extension available to businesses who applied for a building permit before July 1 for an outdoor seating area to accommodate smokers. She emphasized that the ordinance required compliance by the end of the calendar year, whether construction was complete or not. Ms. Bohman said that she had reviewed about half of the 31 building permit applications submitted to the City. Many were for relatively minor improvements. She was exploring with the City Attorney's Office how to enforce the ordinance provision calling for a reasonable pace of construction, noting that the building permit process does not involve any enforcement or monitoring prior to 180 days, which was the outer limit of the City's extension for the smoking prohibition ordinance. Ms. Bohman said that staff was contemplating adopting a temporary administrative rule clarifying the milestones that property owners must achieve to MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 3 Work Session demonstrate good faith in complying with the ordinance. She said that the effort was fairly staff- intensive, and would be targeted toward the 31 businesses or a subset of the 31 with unknown benefits. City Manager Jim Johnson said that staff thought most of the problems that arose could be addressed administratively rather than through changes to the ordinance. Ms. Taylor asked what the City could do administratively. Mr. Johnson said that in some cases it was more clear what was happening with a building permit than with others. Generally, the City had to believe people when they applied for a building permit. The City had to believe that the property owner's intent was to follow through as stated. In some cases nothing could be done, unless that proved to be untrue. Ms. Taylor asked about the penalty for not following through with construction. Mr. Johnson said there was no penalty through the regular permit process; citizens could decide not to proceed with projects and let their permits expire. Ms. Taylor asked if a penalty could be established. Mr. Lidz suggested that the council could establish a time parameter for the completion of such projects for purposes of the no smoking ordinance. Alternatively, he pointed out, under the existing ordinance the City could define through administrative rule what constituted a reasonable pace of construction and penalize those who did not pursue construction in good faith. Ms. Taylor thought it unfortunate the council created such a loophole. She asked if the ordinance exemption could be repealed. Mr. Lidz said the council could do so, but it could have an impact in that, relying on the existing ordinance and its extension, property owners had invested money in a building permit and construction. Ms. Taylor said that the property owners could still use the area constructed later, but for the time being they must comply like all others. Ms. Taylor thought it unfair that those who complied had to be in competition with businesses who did not have to for the time being. She asked what else could be done. Mr. Johnson suggested the issue for the council was how much staff and council time should be spent to catch the very few who might have the wrong intent. He added that he thought the vast majority of those who applied for building permits intended to construct an outdoor seating area. Ms. Taylor was not interested in their intent; she wanted to correct something she thought the council had done wrong. Ms. Taylor asked if the extension time could be reduced. She determined from staff that the ordinance did not prohibit food and beverage service from occurring in the covered area, and asked how that protected employees. Mr. Kelly wanted to be fair to businesses that were complying with the law. He did not think the council erred in developing the extension, but it was being abused by a small minority. He was not seeking a monetary penalty but rather compliance with the ordinance. Responding to Mr. Johnson's comments about the few businesses involved, he thought the issue was significant to businesses who were in compliance, and for that reason justified an expenditure of staff resources. Mr. Kelly supported the administrative approach suggested in the council packet. Referring to the staff memorandum on the topic, he suggested that staff should check to ensure both the owner and manager had given permission for the modifications. He was willing to use contingency funds for enforcement, but suggested to save money the first check of a business could be done by volunteers, such as members of Tobacco Free Lane County. Ms. Nathanson said that City needed to make a good faith effort to both the businesses and the public to stick to what it had set up in establishing the ordinance, and to keep faith with the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 4 Work Session businesses who made suggestions about changes to the ordinance. She said that to the extent the council needed to level the playing field, she favored pursuing an administrative rule approach as described by staff. She did not want to amend the ordinance at this point because it would change the rules, inject uncertainty, and take more time. Ms. Nathanson asked what would happen if a business could not demonstrate that it achieved a milestone by a certain date. Mr. Johnson said that the business would be required to comply with the ordinance, and would be subject to its penalties. Mr. Pap8 thought it unfortunate that there may be some using the building permit process as a cover for extending smoking in their establishments for six more months. He said he would like a level playing field but pointed out other nearby jurisdictions had not passed similar ordinances, so the playing field was inherently not level. Mr. Pap8 asked Ms. Bohman about the complexity of the construction projects involved. Ms. Bohman said that most were fairly straightforward and could be completed in the six-months period. Mr. Pap8 suggested the City establish a date before which construction must commence. Mr. Johnson said the administrative rule would include timelines on some of the steps outlined in the staff notes, such as picking up the building permit, hiring a contractor to perform the work, etc. Ms. Bohman reiterated the complication created by the building permit process, which had its own legal parameters. Mr. Pap8 thought the administrative rule approach a satisfactory one. Ms. Bettman favored the administrative rule approach. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to pursue administrative remedies to noncompliance with the six-month exemption to the smoking ordinance. Mr. Meisner determined from staff that while the building permit might not expire, the exemption will expire on December 31, forcing compliance whether there was a good faith effort or not. Mr. Meisner said he was not interested in amending the ordinance given the end date for the exemption. He was supportive of the administrative approach and was willing to leave the details to the manager's discretion. Mr. Farr supported the motion. He agreed with remarks about the fact the council had created an unfair playing field, and concurred with Mr. Pap8 about the inherently unlevel playing field because of the fact bars that were a few hundred feet apart could be bound by different laws because of jurisdictional boundaries. The council created an unfair business environment for competitors in a market. Mr. Farr said he favored a statewide or countywide approach to prohibiting smoking, but did not support such local laws because of the unfair business advantage. Mr. Kelly questioned whether the word "noncompliance" in the motion should be changed to "abuse." Mr. Johnson indicated that was what staff would be looking for. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 5 Work Session C. Work Session: City Council Meeting Logistics Mr. Johnson referred the council to the agenda item summary related to the issue and said the council had an opportunity to discuss meeting logistics and changes resulting from the Council Chamber renovation. At Mr. Farr's request, Mr. Johnson described the renovations, which included modifications required under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a new carpet, better lighting, an improved sound system, and replacement of all existing seating with moveable chairs. He also described how staff envisioned meetings would occur, noting the room would be all on one level and will afford more arrangements that allow for group meetings. The council briefly discussed the changes proposed. Mr. Meisner appreciated the improvements proposed, particularly the changes to the sound system. While he thought the Council Chamber a good space for much larger meetings, such as the Budget Committee, he was not sure he wanted to move council work sessions to the chamber. He appreciated the council's ability to have more informal discussions in the McNutt Room. On those few occasions where more seating was needed for council work sessions, the overflow had been accommodated in the chamber. He did not want to move all meetings for the sake of two or three occasions. Mr. Johnson noted the overflow crowds at Budget Committee meetings. Mr. Meisner asked why the City had only recently begun enforcing the McNutt Room capacity limitation. Mr. Johnson said it was in recognition of the legal limit and the need for enforcement. Mr. Meisner suggested that the City had created the limitation by its recent enforcement. He asserted that people in the community perceived it as shutting them out. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that the Fire Code dictated the capacity limitation in the McNutt Room. Mr. Pap~ said that the McNutt Room was a terrible venue for most meetings because it was too small and crowded. He thought that other venues, such as Studio One at the Hult Center, should be used more often. Mr. Kelly appreciated the renovations proposed. However, he shared Mr. Meisner's concerns. He endorsed the use of the Council Chamber for Budget Committee meetings. However, he thought the McNutt Room worked well for council work sessions. He liked the informality of the room. He pointed out that on Monday nights people began arriving for the 8 p.m. meeting early and they would be coming in, taking their seats, and milling around while the council was finishing its work session. Mr. Kelly did not want to take a break between meetings because that would make the night longer. In addition, Mr. Kelly said he would hate to have work sessions open to a large audience, because he thought it could impact the tone of the council's discussion. He thought that box lunches would be inadequate, particularly for Monday meetings, suggesting that the result would be "councilors falling over." MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Nathanson thought the display cases in the Council Chamber could be used better and should be illuminated. She said that the open area between the door and seating area was visually, although not physically, separated from the main chamber, and people stood there and talked while the meeting proceeded, which was disruptive. She asked if anything was being done about the situation. Mr. Johnson said that some of the separators were structural and could not be removed. Facilities staff was working on the situation, but had not found any easy solution. He thought work was also occurring on the display cases, and indicated he would follow-up with a note to Ms. Nathanson. Ms. Nathanson said that often there were materials posted on the McNutt Room walls, and they were generally easy to view. She asked how such materials would be displayed in the Council Chamber, and if the upgrade included equipment for projecting images. Mr. Johnson said there would be portable easels for display of materials, and a projector and portable screen were being purchased. He confirmed, in response to a follow-up comment from Ms. Nathanson, that the podiums were being fixed. Ms. Bettman agreed with the comments of Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner. She appreciated the scale of the McNutt Room for work sessions and suggested it be expanded. She agreed that the McNutt Room space was tight, but believed that, particularly in the case of the Budget Committee, it was not nourishing enough to serve a box lunch to members and staff coming to a long meeting after a day at work. She favored keeping work sessions in the McNutt Room and suggested staff consider ways to make the room work better. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Nathanson. She thought work sessions should continue to be held in the McNutt Room, and agreed it could be expanded. She said that people who come to meetings after work deserve a meal when they arrive. She agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the display cases, saying if they were better lit their appearance would be improved. Regarding the open space, she thought it was needed for people to talk to each other as they needed to go somewhere, unless the City choose to install a covered area outside the chamber. Mayor Torrey thought the council should have all meetings in the facility because the McNutt Room was not accessible to many wheelchair users. He had asked the manager to consider the configuration because of conversations he had with people in wheelchairs who pointed out the difficulty of accessing the room. He did not think the City served its citizens when it stopped them from attending meetings and being comfortable. He pointed out that the councilors were frequently forced to move from their seats when PowerPoint presentations were made. He did not understand the argument that the council was uncomfortable talking with people in the audience. Mayor Torrey pointed out that Budget Committee meetings had been fully attended and a seat was difficult to find. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Torrey said that he was prepared to spend more to clean the carpet if the food and drink issue was a critical issue for councilors. He suggested the council try the approach for 90 days. The renovation was occurring in part to accommodate an increased number of meetings. Mr. Pap6 agreed with the remarks of the mayor regarding openness and the need to comfortably accommodate citizens who attended. He preferred a horseshoe seating arrangement that allowed the councilors to see projected information. Mr. Meisner spoke to past meeting locations, noting that locations had moved around. He did not support a 90-day trial but hoped the council and the Budget Committee could meet in other locations. He was impressed with how well the 2nd Avenue & Chambers Street location worked, and liked the Studio One space. He continued to support having work sessions in the McNutt Room. Mr. Meisner said he had no idea the Council Chamber renovations were intended to accommodate council work sessions. Mr. Kelly thought the mayor's points were valid about the McNutt Room but thought they could be addressed inexpensively. For example, the entrance could be made more convenient for wheelchair access. He acknowledged the mayor's points about the Budget Committee meetings but also agreed with Ms. Bettman's remarks about food for members and staff. Mr. Pap6 left the meeting. Mr. Kelly did not want to design a meeting room to address just a few situations. He said that, like Mr. Meisner, he was unaware of the scope of the proposed changes. He wanted to handle the anomalies by exception. He liked the idea of enlarging the McNutt Room. He agreed other good locations were available but noted the additional expense created for Metro TV when meeting locations were changed. Ms. Taylor recollected that the council table used to be in the form of a horseshoe, which enhanced sight lines. She felt it important to have all meetings at the City Hall because that was what people were familiar with. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to continue having work sessions in the McNutt Room. Mr. Kelly determined that Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman would accept the phrase "a great majority of work sessions" as a friendly amendment. Mr. Farr, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion to establish a 90-day trial where the majority of council meetings were held in a newly designed Council Chamber. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Nathanson wanted the council and the public to be able to compare experiences. She shared Mr. Kelly's concerns about the comings and goings between the work session and regular meeting. She thought that too much informality, coming and going, and noise would take away from thoughtful discussion. Ms. Bettman did not support the amendment. She preferred to reconfigure the McNutt Room to be more accessible and usable. She liked the physical separation between the work sessions and regular sessions now, and thought it facilitated discussion. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Farr voting yes. Ms. Nathanson reiterated her concern about the noise in the Council Chamber and encouraged staff to consider solutions. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Johnson said the meeting room changes were not intended only for the council, noting that other City groups and community groups used the Council Chamber. He said the room changes might not be done in time for the September meetings, and the council would meet in Harris Hall in the meantime. Ms. Nathanson thanked Ms. Bettman for attending recent Human Services Commission meetings she had not been able to attend because the day of the meeting continued to change. The meeting adjourned at 1:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 9 Work Session