Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/24/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall May 24, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Bobby Lee, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr. Mayor James D. Torrey called the council to order at 5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mr. Rayor read a statement in support of Bicycle Commute Week, citing reasons for bicycling. He encouraged the council and citizens to bicycle that week. A.Action: Appointment to Human Rights Commission Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to nominate Robert Zenuch, 3214 Coraly Avenue, Eugene, 94024, to Position 3 to complete the term of Favore Miller, who resigned; the terms ends of May 31, 2001. Mr. Meisner observed that the council had recently made five appointments to the Human Rights Commission; following those appointments, Ms. Miller resigned from the commission. The council was able to take advantage of the pool of applicants from that recent appointment process. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 5:0, Mr. Pap8 not yet having arrived at the meeting. B.Work Session: Graffiti Removal Program Jeff Lankston, Public Works Department, reminded the council of its recent work session and direction to staff to prepare an ordinance related to graffiti removal. He defined graffiti, and reviewed the details of the ordinance prepared by staff and the proposed abatement procedure associated with the ordinance. Mr. Lankston reviewed graffiti programs operated by other cities. Mr. Lankston reviewed three options for action for the council to consider: 1) maintain the existing City-paid abatement program; 2) make revisions to the proposed ordinance and conduct a public hearing; and 3) forward the proposed ordinance to the public hearing process. He recommended the third option. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Mr. Pap8 arrived at the meeting at 5:38 p.m. Mr. Torrey called on councilors and staff in turn to comment on the ordinance and ask questions. Mr. Meisner was pleased with the penalty element of the ordinance and the possibility of restitution. He asked if transgression of the ordinance constituted a violation or a misdemeanor. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated it would constitute a violation. Mr. Kelly stated his belief that the majority of graffiti was an eyesore and he favored prevention and prosecution of those defacing others' properties. He said that if graffiti was not quickly abated, it increased. However, he was concerned about the ordinance. Mr. Kelly wondered whether the City was trading one cost for another. Instead of having a City employee abating actual graffiti, Public Works Department employees would instead be enforcing the ordinance by sending out notices, following up on those notices, and abating the problem. Mr. Lankston said that the program as proposed would be self-funding. The administrative overhead would cover the cost of notices and/or inspections. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that at the current time the City abated graffiti within four days, and the ordinance gave property owners ten days, and beyond that there was the potential of further delay. Mr. Lankston said the City's experience with the vegetation removal program was that the problems were often addressed before the City had an opportunity to act. He said that once property owners have gone through the abatement process and know it was their responsibility to remove graffiti, he believed that they take care of the problem without the need for notice. Mr. Kelly was unsure if the vegetation removal program was analogous to the graffiti abatement program, as it was his experience that property owners abated the problem just before the City came out and mowed, and further that the property owners received annual notice. In this case, property owners would not have an annual notice. Mr. Kelly questioned the definition of graffiti, asking if it could refer to handbills. Mr. Kelly said that page 2 of the ordinance indicated that enforcement of the ordinance may result in the imposition of an administrative penalty, and asked if that was a penalty over and above the cost of abatement. Mr. Lankston said that currently, Chapter 6 provides for an administrative penalty that was beyond the fine. That was included as a possibility in the notice provided to property owners. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the amount of the proposed penalty. He said that the current code identified tagging as criminal mischief in the first or second degree, depending on the value of damage. He asked why the City needed a new penalty for such offenses. He said that the only difference he could perceive was the addition of the restitution and community service language, and suggested that language instead be added to the current criminal mischief laws. Mr. Lankston said it was staff's intention to bring such offenses into the Municipal Court system, as the restitution and community service penalties must be imposed through that venue. Mr. Kelly liked the concept of adding the concepts of community service and restitution to the existing code to provide judges with greater flexibility. Mr. Kelly said he would like input from the Neighborhood Leaders Council, John Brown, and the Rotary Club. He acknowledged a letter to the council from Richard Crawford regarding the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. penalty-free graffiti wall in Corvallis. He suggested that staff talk to Corvallis City staff about its experience with the graffiti wall. Mr. Pap8 asked how the City would approach property owners located out of state or out of the community. He said that often property owners were unaware of such situations, which he believed should be the responsibility of the tenant. Mr. Lankston responded that notice to the property owner was done through certified mail. Mr. Pap8 asked what would happen if the property owner did not receive the notice. Mr. Lankston said that the property will also be posted, so the tenant would see the notice. Mr. Pap8 suggested that the tenant may not feel responsible for the graffiti. Mr. Lankston acknowledged that possibility. Mr. Pap8 said that situation needed to be addressed. Mr. Klein said that the certified letter should reach the property owner unless they failed to notify the County Tax Assessor of their correct address. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mr. Meisner about the restitution penalties. He also agreed with Mr. Kelly about creating a new offense if the current code could be modified. He was concerned about placing responsibility for what could be considered a public problem on property owners. He said that the potential costs of mitigating etched glass, for example, could be hard for some property owners to afford. Mr. Rayor asked staff to define "person responsible." Mr. Klein defined the "person responsible" as the person violating the code, which would include the violator and owner of the property, with the idea that for most situations the owner has responsibility because he or she brought the violator onto the property. The concept was to ensure the problem was corrected by the violator or by the owner so the City was not left with that responsibility. Mr. Lankston clarified that the first part of the ordinance referred to the property owner, and the last section referred to the person who actually painted the graffiti. Mr. Rayor asked what penalty the property owner faced. Mr. Lankston said the property owner would be required to pay the City for the costs of abatement and any administrative costs incurred by the City in abating the graffiti. Mr. Rayor believed that the letter regarding the Corvallis graffiti wall was timely. He said that many people at the downtown summit agreed that the City needed to provide opportunities for all people downtown. A graffiti wall had been suggested by participants, and he thought it was a great idea the City should pursue in conjunction with the ordinance. Ms. Taylor supported the creation of a graffiti wall in Eugene. She preferred prevention over punishment, and suggested that the City enlist the help of those who might enjoy such a wall to help paint out unwelcome graffiti. She was disturbed that the City would be penalizing a property owner who had already been victimized by someone tagging their property, particularly when there was the potential the tagging could happen over and over. Ms. Taylor asked how often those leaving graffiti were caught. Mr. Lankston did not know, adding he could check with the Police Department on statistics. Ms. Taylor believed that the ordinance merely penalized the property owner, who was the one person the City could catch. She believed that those caught tagging property should do community service that included painting over graffiti. She did not support jail time for such individuals because the jails were too crowded. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Mr. Lee agreed with Ms. Taylor. He questioned the rationale for the ordinance. He did not understand penalizing a property owner, who had no control over tagging. Mr. Lankston said that the rationale behind the ordinance was that the public should not pay the cost of graffiti abatement on private property. Property owners have been using the program to abate graffiti on their property because they knew there was no charge. Mr. Lee suggested that the City should control the cost of the program rather than establish a one-size-fits all policy. Mr. Lankston said that was one reason staff exempted residential property from the ordinance. Commercial properties were included under the assumption that those property owners with the resources to abate their own graffiti should be covered by the ordinance. The City would continue to abate graffiti on residential property without cost to the property owner. Mr. Lee asked if cities with similar programs had experienced a decrease in graffiti activity. Mr. Lankston said that he did not have any information from Portland, which had recently instituted a similar program. He indicated he would research other programs for information about results. Mr. Lee said that the council and staff did not disagree on the desirable outcome, which was to decrease graffiti, but if he was a small business owner he might have a different impression of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson pointed out that victims often have to pay. For example, when a person's car was vandalized, that person, not the City, paid for the cost of repairs. Mr. Meisner suggested that the repeated use of the term "a person responsible" in both the abatement and penalty sections of the ordinance could confuse those who were not attorneys and should be revised. He shared Mr. Kelly's concern regarding the possibility the ordinance could lengthen the period of time between notice and graffiti abatement, and asked staff to look into that likelihood. Regarding the cost of abatement, Mr. Meisner said that everything the City did for the public's benefit imposed costs on someone; he cited the council's contemplation of imposing design standards on development as an example. He said that the ordinance did not impose a cost on the property owner unless the owner failed to abate the graffiti. He liked the idea of a graffiti wall, but did not think it would solve the problem as the tagging that was occurring had nothing to do with art or making a statement on a sanctioned wall. Mr. Meisner supported forwarding something similar to the ordinance under consideration to a public hearing. Mr. Klein said that the council could amend the draft ordinance by shortening the time period for property owner to abate graffiti. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Lankston confirmed that the City typically abated graffiti within four days of being noticed by the property owner. Mr. Kelly suggested that any time period for property owner response less than ten days would be unworkable given the need for notice to out-of-town owners. Regarding direction to staff, Mr. Kelly said he would like attorney and staff to consider the council's comments and return with another draft ordinance. He believed the council had enough questions to justify postponing the scheduled public hearing. Regarding the exemption of single-family residential development from the ordinance, Mr. Kelly said it did not necessarily follow that a small business owner operating on a slim profit margin was in any different situation, and he questioned how well the ordinance addressed the issue of ability to pay. Mr. Pap8 agreed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mr. Pap~ said that the council should remove the penalties related to the property owner and reinforce the penalties for perpetrators, with the goal of not abating graffiti but of avoiding it altogether. Ms. Taylor said that people do not have to repair their car if it was vandalized, and there was no penalty if they do not. She pointed out that some businesses were repeatedly tagged, and she did not think abating graffiti was as simple as vegetation removal. Painting requires special clothing, equipment, and time, and the time abatement required could be difficult for a small business owner to handle. Mr. Lee said he would like to get public input on the ordinance as currently drafted. Mr. Rayor asked if Corvallis had experienced a reduction in graffiti because of the wall. He said that he was disturbed by the issue of etched windows, as those repairs were quite costly and he believed property owners should be offered alternatives. Mr. Rayor asked that Public Works make available to property owners information about graffiti-resistant paints. Mr. Lankston said that the City currently did so and would continue to do so in the future. Mr. Rayor said that the ordinance should reinforce what was currently in place and not be another penalty for owning property. Mr. Johnson said that the public policy before the council was who paid for graffiti abatement. Was it the City's proper role to pay for graffiti abatement, or should the owner do it? He asked if those councilors reluctant to assess property owners for abatement would support the ordinance if the City tracked abatement and it became the owner's responsibility after the first two abatements on the same property within a set period of time. Ms. Taylor said that would make sense if the owner could stop the graffiti. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the property owner controlled the property. Mr. Torrey encouraged the council to forward the ordinance to the public for a hearing. He believed that most people would oppose being charged, but if the City wanted to get the eyes of the community on the perpetrators of graffiti, one of the ways to do that was to make it something people needed to pay attention to. He suggested that now people do not pay attention because they do not have to. Mr. Torrey said that if the City continued to fund abatement at the cost of $50,000, there were fewer dollars for other important General Fund services. Mr. Meisner agreed that the policy question facing the council was who pays, and the money involved was real. He suggested that council frame the question to the public by asking if abatement should occur as called for in the ordinance, or if the City should expend $50,000 out of the General Fund that would otherwise be available for City services. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Torrey that there was value to making property owners aware of their responsibilities, but suggested that the issue was the time of day in which graffiti incidents occurred, which was largely at night when no one was around. He believed Mr. Johnson's suggestion that the City track abatements and abate the first two incidents on a single property at no charge was worthy of follow-up. He said that if the City's primary motivation was financial savings, there should be some way to separate the occasional program users from the habitual program abusers. Mr. Pap~ reiterated his opposition to the ordinance in its current form. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to forward three options to the public for consideration: 1) an option to increase the penalty and restitution for perpetrators of graffiti; 2) an option for property owner abatement that excluded single-family residences; and 3) an option that included public responsibility for graffiti abatement up to a certain number of incidents or dollar amount, with property owner responsibility after that point. Mr. Lee indicated support for the motion because it would elicit public comment. Mr. Meisner supported the motion with the understanding that the council may choose to mix and match elements of the different options at the time it considered adoption. Responding to a request for direction from Mr. Johnson, the council agreed that the hearing would be focused on the three approaches outlined by Mr. Pap~ rather than on three separate ordinances. Responding to Mr. Meisner's comments about the possibility the council could choose to use elements of the different options, Ms. Taylor said she would object to bringing up something new after the hearing that people did not know about. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Torrey said that Ms. Taylor had requested that the council not adopt the budget the same night that it held the public hearing on the budget, June 21. However, because of a meeting conflict and the fact a number of hearings had been held regarding the budget, he did not think it was unreasonable to adopt the budget that evening. Mr. Meisner clarified that there would be an hour available for discussion. Mr. Lee asked that the public notice be clear the council intended to take action that night. By a straw vote of those present, the council agreed to adopt the budget on June 21, with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Rayor noting their opposition. C.Work Session: Amending the Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a New "Residential Land Use and Housing" Element and Related Changes to the Plan Text and Glossary Mr. Torrey said that the council was being asked to give preliminary approval to the proposed changes to the Metropolitan Plan. Any changes proposed by the council would also be considered by the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, and the three bodies would have to ultimately reach agreement on the document. Jim Croteau, Planning and Development Department, reminded the council of the public hearing it held with Springfield and Lane County on April 14. The meeting packet included all the public testimony received, as well as the minutes of the April 14 meeting. Mr. Croteau referred the council to Attachment 2, which included the staff analysis of testimony and recommended changes to the document in response to the testimony. He noted that the legal counsels for the three jurisdictions had also reviewed the document and recommended changes, which were also incorporated into the document. Mr. Kelly commended Attachment 2 as being very clear and understandable. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to take conditional action to adopt Metro Plan amendments as presented in Attachment 3 and as MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. amended in Attachment 2 of the staff notes for the item. This action is subject to approval by the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners. Referring to page 77 of the meeting packet (Attachment 3), Mr. Kelly disagreed with the proposed revision calling for a five- to ten-year supply of serviced, buildable residential land. He noted that the planning commissions had recommended a five-year supply. He supported that recommendation because such forecasting demand was a challenging process due to ever- changing dynamics such as the economy, land use changes, changes to the systems development charges, and changes in density that might over time begin to have an effect on the way development occurred in Eugene. He feared that there could be public money expended to extend services to land that might not be needed. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to amend the motion by eliminating the change to Policy 6 as shown on page 77. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Kelly said that he would like to modify Finding 12 on page 76 to indicate that currently, State law does not aflow, rather than does not include, local systems development charges for fire and emergency medical service facilities and schools. Mr. Klein said that most people believed that the State statutes prohibit a city from enacting a systems development charge other than as allowed by State statute. He did not interpret the statute as including such a preemption. The City had home rule power to adopt any systems development charge it wished. He said that the statutes indicate local governments may authorize systems development charges for identified systems without expressly preempting local jurisdictions from charging for other systems. Mr. Klein said that the use of the word "allow" suggests that there is a preemption when there is not. Mr. Kelly withdrew his request to modify the text. Mr. Kelly referred to the new finding requested by the Homebuilders Association of Lane County on page 74, and said he had trouble with the phrase "making calculation of buildable land impossible." He suggested instead "making calculation of buildable land difficult." Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend the motion by revising the new finding on page 74 to replacing the phrase "making calculation of buildable land impossible" with "making calculation of buildable land difficult." Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Torrey referred to Policy 7 on page 77 and suggested that it be modified to indicate that development would pay its share of the cost of extending public services rather than a greater share of the cost of extending such services. Mr. Kelly said that Mr. Torrey made a good point, and asked for the source of the language. Mr. Croteau said that the issue was debated at the planning commissions level. He said that because the document was intended to cover the entire metropolitan area, the commissions selected the phrase "greater share" to acknowledge Eugene's Growth Management Study; the text was intentionally vague and intended to accommodate the goals and interests of all three jurisdictions. Mr. Pap8 suggested the council substitute "appropriate" or "fair" for "greater share" in Policy 7. Mr. Meisner also had some concerns about the use of "greater share," although he believed "the cost" was just as vague. He pointed out that the cost was not always greater, noting the recent MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. recommendation from the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee to reduce the local wastewater systems development charge. However, Mr. Meisner did not have what he believed to be an appropriate substitute for "greater share." Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, Mr. Klein said that "greater share" means people will pay more. Ms. Taylor said that the policy should refer to "the cost." Ms. Childs suggested that the council consider using the term "the cost as determined by the local government jurisdiction," noting past precedent in use of the phrase in other policies with a metropolitan impact. Mr. Croteau believed that would be acceptable to Springfield and Lane County. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend the motion by substituting "the cost of extending public services and infrastructure as determined by the local jurisdiction" for "greater share of the cost of extending public services and infrastructure" in Policy 7 on page 77. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously as amended, 6:0. Mr. Croteau reported that the Springfield City Council would hold a work session on the document in early June, and staff would request council review of any changes suggested by that body prior before going to the Board of County Commissioners. Once all three bodies were in agreement, staff would return with an adopting ordinance. Mr. Torrey recognized Troop Leader Charles Brubash. Mr. Brubash introduced the troop, working on its merit badge for citizenship: John Cutter, Nick Georgia, Jason Gangle, Kel, Andy Potter, Jason Peters, David Morrow, students from Kelly Middle School, Willamette, North, and Roosevelt. He introduced Carol Georger, troop mother. Mr. Lee asked how the citizenship badge was earned. Mr. Brubash reviewed the requirements of the badge, which required the troop to observe local government at work and to write a letter about an issue of community concern to an elected official. Mr. Torrey gave Mr. Brubash a letter from Corvallis regarding the graffiti wall to the troop and asked for its thoughts. The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m.