Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MInutes - 10/22/01 Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Harris Hall-Lane County Public Service Building October 22, 2001 8 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Bonny Bettman, Gary Rayor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pap8 In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Taylor called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. I.PUBLIC FORUM Vincent Martorello, representing PeaceHealth, requested a public hearing, under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 271.080, for the East 11th Avenue alley vacation for November 25, 2001. He said that PeaceHealth's application stated that the ground to be vacated was the East 11th Avenue alley, the purpose was for use of medical services, and the reason was to allow the applicant greater flexibility in master planning future medical services on the site. He commented that since the applicant had complied with ORS 271.080 there was no reason not to schedule a public hearing. He urged the council to allow the public hearing and allow PeaceHealth to present its entire application. II.CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda B. Call For Public Hearing; Alley Vacation for PeaceHealth (AV 01-1) C. Resolution 4692; A resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale by Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), of Not to Exceed Sixty Million Dollars ($60,000,000) Aggregate Principal Amount of Electric Utility System Revenue Bonds and Interests Therein to Be Sold to Provide Financing for Electric Power Purchase Costs and Providing for Certain Details Regarding the Sale and Delivery of Said Bonds and Interests Therein Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly pulled item B. Roll call vote; the remaining items on the Consent Calendar were approved unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 1 Regular Meeting Referring to Item B, Councilor Meisner expressed a desire to allow a public hearing. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly regarding whether the full application was presented before the public hearing, City Manager Jim Johnson said that usually, an application was presented to the Planning Division, in full, prior to the public hearing. Councilor Kelly raised concern that if the council set a date for the public hearing that evening, the applicant would present new information at the public hearing. He expressed his preference to see all of the information before the meeting. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly regarding whether the council had legal grounds to deny a public hearing for the time being, City Attorney Jerry Lidz cited ORS 271.100, which stated that the city governing body may deny the petition after notice to the petitioners of such proposed action, but if there appeared to be no reason why the petition should not be allowed, the governing body shall fix a time for a formal hearing. He noted that staff had presented the council with reasons for denying a hearing. He cautioned that this was only one statute among a set of statutes, and said that a more detailed response could be given at a later time. Councilor Taylor said that a hearing was premature and she was against setting a date for a hearing at that time. Councilor Bettman urged support of the staff recommendation to deny the hearing at that time. She stressed that the application was not complete and raised concern that there was nothing for staff to provide a recommendation on and nothing for the public to provide testimony on. She suggested setting a date for a public hearing after the completed application was submitted to staff. Councilor Rayor noted that the alley in question was very busy and said he was inclined to allow a public hearing to learn where the displaced traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians would be channeled when the alley was closed. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~ regarding the reason that particular alley vacation needed a development plan, City Manager Johnson noted that a public hearing was always called for and said that it was at the public hearing where the applicant tried to explain compliance with State law. He indicated that staff was having difficulty in seeing how the petition complies with State law. City Manager Johnson noted that PeaceHealth was planning to do a development plan and opined that the impacts on pedestrians and bicycles could be described at that time. Councilor Kelly commented that a master plan took months or years. He said he did not expect to see a fully fleshed out master plan before the hearing but expressed a desire to have a public hearing after the submittal of an application with more information. Councilor Meisner raised concern over denying a public hearing based on a presumption of the merits of the application by staff. He stressed that a public hearing did not guarantee approval or denial of the application request for a vacation. He expressed his preference to have a hearing and make a decision at that time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Nathanson reiterated Councilor Meisner's concerns. She said that a public hearing should be granted so the council could hear what was planned for the area in question. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding whether an additional public hearing could be held at a later date if there were new issues or the proposal change substantially, Mr. Lidz acknowledged that the public hearing could be held and then continued to a later date. Councilor Bettman commented that a public hearing would be premature without a more detailed application. Councilor Meisner, seconded by Councilor Fart, moved to amend the motion by scheduling a public hearing. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. Roll call vote; Item B was approved, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. III.PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Forfeiture, and Amending Sections 4.245, 4.247, 4.251, 4.253, and 4.255 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mayor Torrey said that the council would not take action on the item that evening. He noted that there would be another public hearing on the item on November 13, 2001, and said that action would be taken at that time. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Shannon Thienes, PO Box 25, Walterville, spoke as a representative of the Mental Health Advisory Committee and the Local Alcohol and Drug Planning Committee (LADPC). She said that the LADPC was a group of good people who were concerned with meeting the needs of the community. She noted that funds had been cut and the committee was trying to stabilize treatment service offered to the community. She cited detoxification services, transitional housing, residential treatment as examples of unfunded needs in the community. Ms. Thienes said that the City could not morally and ethically turn kids away from drug treatment. She stressed that she had statistical figures to show that treatment programs worked. Robert Richards, 2893 Timberline Road, spoke representing the Buckley House. He said that the intent of Ballot Measure 3 was to fund treatment centers and the City Council would be taking advantage of a legal loophole if it directed funding away from that purpose. He said that the voters who approved the measure would not be pleased if that happened. He noted that his facility had 24 beds, of which 10 were funded. He said this resulted in having a waiting list for the program while 14 beds stayed empty. He urged the council to comply with the intent of the voters. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Kelly thanked those who testified. Councilor Kelly noted that funds had already been allocated for the current year and any changes that were made to funding would be made in fiscal year 2003. He requested staff to write MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 3 Regular Meeting alternative ordinance language that would provide funds to drug treatment and that could be voted on at the November 13 hearing. Councilor Rayor noted that 4.255(3) stated that funds deposited in the general funds of the city need not be used exclusively for drug treatment. He expressed an interest in how other jurisdictions were handling the issue. Councilor Bettman thanked those who testified. She said she supported the funds being directed into drug treatment. She invited Ms. Thienes to submit her statistical figures into the record so that the council could have access to them. Councilor Nathanson stated her belief in drug treatment. She noted, however, that Eugene spent more money per capita than either of its jurisdictional partners. She stressed the importance of finding the right programs to fund and raised concern over working at cross purposes with other jurisdictions. She stated her agreement with the intent of the voters but acknowledged that the authors of Ballot Measure 3 might have had a different intent. Councilor Meisner reiterated Councilor Nathanson's concern regarding the amount of funding spent by Eugene as opposed to its intergovernmental partners. He noted that the City budget was facing cuts in the near future and said he was not willing to earmark funds for treatment programs without some kind of annual performance review attached as a condition. In response to a question from Councilor Farr regarding the amount of funds being discussed, City Manager Johnson said there was no way to predict the amount but noted that in previous years the amount was approximately $200,000. City Manager Johnson stressed that the wording of Ballot Measure 3 clearly stated that the funding could be used for other legal purposes than funding drug treatment. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Ward Redistricting City Planning and Development Department staff Keli Osborne said staff had prepared five scenarios, (Violet, Red, Green, Indigo, and Orange), for possible redrawing of ward boundaries that were the subject of the evening's public hearing. She noted that the Wednesday work session had time allotted for any additional direction to staff regarding additional work. She said the council was tentatively scheduled for a decision on November 26, 2001. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Judith Shoap, 100 West 38th Avenue, supported the Violet scenario. She said it was the most moderate of the plans and did not gerrymander sitting officials out of office. Janet Calvert, 1062 Woodside Drive, spoke as a representative of the League of Women Voters. She spoke in support of the Indigo scenario. She said that the Indigo scenario kept River Road and Santa Clara together, kept ward 6 contiguous, clustered the University Area and Laurel Hill together, separated the University Area and the downtown districts (as recommended to the House Rules Committee on Legislative Districts), and designed a reasonable division of established and newer parts of the Ferry Street Bridge area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 4 Regular Meeting Ms. Calvert suggested the "jog" in ward 1 ,(19th Avenue and Patterson Street to 24th Avenue and Amazon Parkway), be added to Ward 3. She also suggested placing the area north of Barger Drive and west of Highway 99 to Clear Lake Road into Ward 6. She urged the council to adopt the Indigo proposal. Marlene Colbath, 2230 Churchill Street, supported the Violet scenario. She stated her belief that the River Road/Santa Clara area wanted to stay together. Rob Handy, 455-1/2 River Road, stressed that the river should not be a boundary between wards. He also raised concern that incumbent councilors would not be able to retain their seats. He said this would be a radical and out of step with the voters. He urged support of the Violet scenario. Terry Connolly, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, stressed the importance of equal representation for all citizens. He added that council residences should have no bearing on the redistricting process. He said that the chamber supported the Indigo scenario with the adjustment of restoring the traditional alignment of wards 4 and 5. Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, supported the Indigo scenario. He commented that it was unavoidable for wards to cross over the river but stressed that there would be much greater affinity for this in the northern part of the city. He also called for an adjustment for the boundary between wards 4 and 5 to run north and south. David Sohm, 720 Mountain View Drive, stressed that the river was a boundary between communities of interest. He supported the Green scenario. Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, commented that there was no reason why wards should not cross over the river. He called for wards to cross the river as much as possible so that division was not fostered in the city. He raised concern that the city would be divided into separate "ghettos." Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, urged the council not to "tweak" the maps too much in coming to a decision. She outlined the council criteria used to form each of the redistricting scenarios. She stressed that council incumbency should not be an issue in the redistricting process. Todd Harris, 5285 Saratoga Drive, supported the Indigo scenario with a restoration of a north- south boundary between Wards 4 and 5. He commended the council efforts on redistricting and said its actions would affect future wards as well as existing wards. He commented that it was almost a conflict of interest to ask councilors to redefine their wards. Mr. Harris commented that Criterion #5, as presented by the council for the redistricting process, was contradictory. He said existing ward boundaries had no place in the process. He opined that some interpretations of the criterion would be considered unethical and illegal at the State and national level. Lora Byxbe, 677 West 23rd Avenue, stressed the importance of wards crossing the river and said she was in favor of the Violet scenario. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 5 Regular Meeting Jan Wostman, 2645 Riverview Street, commented that at least one ward had to cross the river. He said he supported the Violet scenario because it had the best distribution of future dwelling units. He urged that the incumbency of councilors should not count in the redistricting process but urged the council to look at how many citizens would be displaced into new wards. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, stressed the importance of incremental change to current ward boundaries. He supported the Violet scenario and spoke against using the river as a ward boundary. Scott Bartlett, 1445 East 21st Avenue, urged conservative and prudent action on the part of the council. He said that the council should take its time and not allow itself to be pushed into action by the press or political groups. He commented that the river could be a unifier rather than a divider of communities of interest. He said that the Violet scenario was the most conservative scenario and was therefore the one he supported. Dave Hauser, 2168 Elkhorn Drive, supported the Indigo scenario. He said that wards should cross the river where there were existing transportation corridors. He urged the council not to do any last minute "tweaking" to the scenarios, commenting that last-minute decisions were rarely the best ones to make. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Councilor Farr regarding what it would take to adjust the boundaries of wards 4 and 5, City Manager Johnson said that staff already had a plan for that contingency. Councilor Pap~ stressed that council had set up five criteria for staff to work with. He said that staff had planned the maps and that the council had not taken part in the planning and had no particular agendas regarding redistricting. Councilor Kelly noted that it was a legal requirement for equal representation of citizens. He noted that some had called for radical changes in wards because of large population shifts but noted that in previous ward planning incremental changes had been achieved with the roughly the same kind of population growth. Councilor Nathanson observed that the river was being used as a political argument for a ward boundary. She said natural features and major highways were often used to define neighborhood boundaries. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding the testimony of Mr. Harris and whether any of the council defined criteria for the redistricting process were illegal, Mr. Lidz noted that Mr. Harris said Criterion #5 was "internally inconsistent" and said there was not a legal problem with that criterion. Councilor Rayor said that all of the wards would have diverse internal differences and stressed the council's will to represent all wards. Councilor Taylor commented that wards were bigger than neighborhoods. She stressed that it was good that they contained a variety of people. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Meisner commented that all of the wards would include new areas. He noted that his ward would cross 6th and 7th avenues, Highway 99, the railroad, and Beltline Highway. He stressed that the ward would not be bounded by those. Mayor Torrey said that there were areas of common interest in the community that should be considered. He suggested a ward boundary commission that would have independent citizens that would plan ward boundaries that would reflect the community. Mayor Torrey stressed the importance of keeping River Road/Santa Clara together so that the area could have adequate representation. Mayor Torrey said that the urban growth boundary was stable and staff knew where future growth would be. He added that if wards had to be adjusted to connect incumbent councilors with their wards so that they could run again, that is what should be done. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 22, 2001 Page 7 Regular Meeting