Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/09/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall August 9, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, David Kelley, Bobby Lee, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pape, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Rayor. I. CALL TO ORDER The August 9, 1999, Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.; His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. ,. ACTION: DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF CITY OF EUGENE AND SCHOOL DISTRICT 4J YOUTH SPORTS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS Public Works Executive Director Chris Andersen introduced the item and indicated there had been no additional work with neighborhoods on the design concepts since the last council work session. Staff have instead been working with Eugene School District 4J in developing the intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Should the council move forward with the IGA, staff will further its work with neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed development plans to produce a refined version of the plans. She reviewed the meeting packet material and distributed a copy of the measure for the school district that addressed the language for the ballot titles. Mr. Meisner expressed concern with the use matrix, saying he wanted to make sure that the fields were available to Eugene residents at any time given the expenditure of City funds. Ms. Andersen referred the council to the Schedule and Users and Campus Security portions of the document. Mr. Meisner said he wanted to be guaranteed that the passive and other spaces would be accessible to the public. He objected to the language: "the district reserves the right to, without prior notice, restrict partial or all use, for a short period of time (i.e., days or weeks)..." Ms. Anderson ascertained that Mr. Meisner's concern would be addressed if the City participated in decisions to close any areas for extended periods of time. Ms. Nathanson corrected information on the item summary, noting that the idea for a sports complex was initially discussed several years ago and a June 27, 1998, committee report makes final recommendations to the council for such a facility. She clarified that the City's intent was to invest a total of $4 million on the project and the phrase "initial investment" on page 12 of the packet is misleading. She added that clarification was also needed under Schedule and Users. Ms. Andersen said a definitions section might be helpful. Ms. Nathanson wondered if park rules should be adopted for these neighborhood-type facilities on school property. David Piercy, School District 4J, said the district would work with the City on developing rules. Minutes--Eugene City Council August 9, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelley said he was not prepared to approve the proposal until the following concerns were addressed: 1) page 12--nothing in the agreement addresses cost overruns (Ms. Andersen reiterated that the City's participation has been limited to $4 million, although there would be some participation in the sports complex components and playing fields but not in any additional amenities); 2) clarification needed on what the use matrix applies to; 3) set maximum 4J usage in the IGA beyond which discussion at the policy level is triggered; 4) rental rates--softball not mentioned; 5) advertising should not be left up to the User Committee--advertising should be eliminated altogether; 6) the City should participate in closure decisions; and, 7) "instructional days" needs to be clarified. Mr. Kelly said he was still waiting for responses to his e-mail messages about working with neighborhoods on fencing. Ms. Andersen said that fell into the refinement of the plans that staff would follow-up on with neighborhoods once given direction from the council. Mr. Kelly also asked for information on the net gain in the number of fields in the community. In response to a question from Mr. Farr, Andrea Riner, Public Works, indicated that the City had participated with the Bethel School District in the following projects: Shasta ballfields; bond measure projects at Malabon School and Danebo Elementary; and the Bethel Community Park. Bond park money spent in the Bethel area without the district's participation are: Irwin Park (next spring); a skateboard facility adjacent to Meadow View School; about five projects total. Mr. Farr said he was satisfied that Bethel was getting a fair share of the school bond and also of the City's parks expenditures. He lauded the joint effort and called it an excellent investment but pointed out that not all children are involved in sports. He asked that more consideration be given to performing arts-- something as simple as a few steps and a locked box for electricity. Ms. Taylor said she shared the already mentioned concerns about fencing, scheduling, and turf maintenance costs. She suggested installing graffiti walls in some of the areas. Ms. Taylor said her biggest concern was that people do not think this was what they voted for so a public hearing should be held before council approval of any project. Mr. Lee said the issue was not highly controversial but a public hearing was in order nonetheless. He asked for clarification on the number of existing playing fields in the four high schools. Ms. Andersen explained that in some cases existing fields will be improved. Mr. Lee expressed concern with a constituent's assessment that it was "dishonest to use tax money in this way." Mr. Johnson responded that site improvements include such things as skateboard bowls, shelters, rest rooms, spectator seating, parking, etc. Ms. Andersen explained that by "piggy- backing" on existing and mutually developable athletic facilities with the school district, the City was able to find the same benefit at two sites for the same amount of money. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Johnson said that a portion of future dollars in the budget have been reserved for future maintenance. Mr. Pap8 said he was extremely excited about the partnership, indicating that his goal was to get more game time, more practice time, and more playing time for community youth. He shared Ms. Taylor's concern with being truthful about the use of the funds and said the IGA should segregate the City's responsibilities clearly in paragraph two. Mr. Pap8 said the User Committee was critical, with two representatives each from City and district and the rest of the seats filled by community members for a maximum of 10 on the committee. He referred the council to Page 12 and asked to change Development to "in an area as close as possible to the high school and parking" rather that "just to the north and west of the community center at Sheldon High School." Mr. Pap8 said the agreement should run for 30 years, with a difficult out at 10 and 20 years. He said it should be made clear that youth groups are exempt from user fees. Ms. Riner confirmed Minutes--Eugene City Council August 9, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. that rental fees do not apply to recognized kids' groups. Mr. Pap8 raised the question of fall scheduling times, i.e., an 8 p.m. starting time for evening use. Ms. Andersen said the expectation is that there will be more fields that will be available for use more frequently than currently exists. Finally, Mr. Pap8 questioned the need for a public hearing and wondered if the council expected to hold public hearings on every project under the bond. Mayor Torrey pointed out that the election document from the district last May specifically indicated "athletic facilities" not "one" field. If the City was not participating in this project, he asked, would the school district continue to try to fund the four fields instead of one. Mr. Piercy responded that the school board decided that if only one field could be built, it would be built at Churchill-Kennedy High School. The other option was four fields if they could work with members of the community to raise sufficient funds without any additional expenditure of school district bond money. He said if the City decided not to participate, the school board would revisit the issue. Mayor Torrey said it was important for the neighborhoods to understand that it was possible to play in the existing fields at the four high schools and the effect to the neighborhoods is the same. He said both the City and the school district must "mitigate, in any way possible," the parking impacts on those neighborhoods. Mr. Piercy said if only one field is built and located at Churchill, other schools were likely to figure out a way to play on their own fields to eliminate a home court advantage for Churchill. He acknowledged the parking problem at Sheldon High School and said the district was committed to work with the neighborhood on solving it. Mayor Torrey wondered if a surcharge could be added to the price of tickets and be used for clean-up. Mr. Piercy said that option had not been explored. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve joint development of youth-oriented recreation facilities at five 4J schools and instruct the City Manager to execute the intergovernmental agreement with 4J that includes the elements of an intergovernmental agreement with 4J, as described in the attached document labeled "Discussion Outline for Joint Development and Use of 4J/City of Eugene Youth Sports/Athletic Fields;" and as discussed in the August 9, 1999, City Council meeting. Mr. Farr said he did not have a concern that the action being taken was not what was voted on, adding that he would disseminate information about this joint effort for the public's benefit. Ms. Nathanson said she did not wish to "ditch" a program that would benefit the entire community for specific neighborhood concerns that can be adequately addressed. She pointed out that the council was spending the money exactly as it advertised it would do and the balance of how the money would be distributed could not be altered at this point. She described the types of improvements and indicated that they would serve kids of all ages and interests. Ms. Nathanson said she agreed with 4J's decision to build four facilities because it was consistent with the council's goals of establishing neighborhood-based activities and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Finally, she concluded, the City was not diverting money from parks to stadiums. Minutes--Eugene City Council August 9, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. In response to a question from Mr. Lee about the impact of delaying council action, Mr. Piercy said the district had a fairly "tight and aggressive" schedule but it could absorb about a month's delay without jeopardizing completion scheduled for August 1, 2000. Ms. Andersen reviewed the changes generated by this evening's discussion as follows: · Page 1, paragraph 2: clarify the City's participation and the elements of the youth sports complex that will be the City's contribution to the project. · Page 2: delete the term "initial" as it applies to investment. · Identify a roster of fields (softball, baseball, football, soccer) developed through the final design process and incorporate the schedule into the agreement. · Clarify areas that will be covered by charges under Rental Rates. · Page 3: clarify and describe behaviors that would trigger the need for the school district to restrict access. · Maximize community use of the facilities. · Clarify spring and fall schedules (evening availability). · Eliminate north/west references in describing the location for the Sheldon facility. · Extend the term of the agreement to 30 years, with difficult outs in 10 and 20 years. Ms. Taylor said she could not support the motion unless a public hearing was held. The motion passed, 5:2; with Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Farr left the meeting. III. WORK SESSION: REVIEW OF THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE Mark Snyder, Urban Forester, Public Works, provided a ten-minute Powerpoint presentation on the Tree Preservation Ordinance and an overview of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Mr. Snyder said that one of the main questions for the council was: Given the goals established by the Urban Forest Management Plan, are current regulations and programs effective in implementing these goals? Mr. Kelly said that one of the community goals he most often heard was to minimize the loss of trees on both public and private land when reasonable alternatives exist. He commented that since its implementation of the plan in 1992, there had been good progress on public lands but not on private lands. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the work of the Tree Foundation, particularly its research on tree ordinances from around the country that revealed that Eugene's was one of the weakest among those studied. He asked staff to review the enforcement aspect of the current ordinance. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Taylor, that the council direct staff to draft a revised tree ordinance that addresses the seven areas described in the Eugene Tree Foundation recommendations; and that a work session and tentative public hearing on the ordinance be scheduled to occur before year's end. Mr. Kelly said a departmental advisory committee (DAC) was unnecessary given the amount of information already available. Minutes--Eugene City Council August 9, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor agreed that a DAC was unnecessary. She supported stiffer penalties and more protection for street trees. She expressed concern about the current provision allowing five trees to be cut per year, saying it amounted to allowing "sequential logging." Ms. Andersen said staff brought back the entire program because it encompasses the whole set of tree ordinances. She asked the council to clarify the issues of concern. She indicated that staff had included the foundation's proposals within the private property program; however, its focus was on adjustment of the existing code and refinement of language without describing outcomes or gaps. Ms. Andersen expressed concern that if the council was overly concerned with the process, staff may find it difficult to know if they are "hitting the mark" with what the council wishes to achieve with the program. Mr. Kelly said it was impossible to have a broad discussion of goals for the urban forest in 20 minutes, suggesting that the council use the foundation's recommendations as a starting point to discuss goals. He identified the absence of any reference to planned unit developments in the tree ordinance as a gap. Ms. Nathanson said the packet information was helpful but the foundation's recommendations were strategies and not goals; and there might be other strategies. She agreed that there needed to be a broader discussion about goals, noting that the Forest Management Plan did not identify any. She said it was difficult to answer Mr. Snyder's question at the end of the presentation without knowing what the desired outcomes are. Ms. Nathanson supported using a DAC to facilitate the council's discussion. Mr. Lee wondered why some opposed a DAC. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that a DAC would delay any action and implementation of the ordinance. Ms. Nathanson said would address the time line rather than eliminate the public process. Ms. Andersen said it may be possible to shorten the time line if the DAC was given a clear direction. She identified private land/tree preservation issues as the council's focus, with heritage trees also being important. Mr. Lee described the presentation as "excellent." He agreed that the council needed to talk about desired outcomes and drew the correlation between outcomes and quantification. Ms. Andersen said the council may wish to describe its focus geographically, e.g., Bethel development, south hills, etc. Other focus areas might be preservation, long-term health and sustainability. Once a focus was identified, she said, staff could develop outcomes tied to those areas for the council's review. Ms. Anderson said the discussion revealed that penalties and tree removal were issues for some. Mr. Meisner agreed that the council needed to identify the outcomes it wished. He said he was not in favor of delegating that responsibility to a DAC and there was insufficient time for the council to make a decision this evening without a more comprehensive discussion. Mr. Meisner criticized the Forest Management Plan for its lack of goals and a history of the area. Mr. Pap8 commended staff for the packet material and the presentation. He said that if the foundation's second recommendation was adopted, it would require moving the jurisdiction of trees from the Public Works Department to the Planning and Development Department. He asked staff to address fruit trees in the plan (encourage them). Mr. Pap8 noted that trees may be Minutes--Eugene City Council August 9, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. a source of revenue for some private land owner and if the City restricts the use of this resource, compensation may be in order. Mayor Torrey asked staff to report back to him on the process for planting trees in the middle of streets capable of accommodating them. He agreed that input should be solicited from members of community, noting examples of DAC that worked quickly and effectively. Mr. Kelly said his motion was intended to "move us toward an improvement." He said nothing in the motion suggests that trees should never be cut. He added that he did not wish to circumvent a public process and even a "fast" DAC was unnecessary. He suggested holding a couple of public workshops prior to a public hearing. Ms. Taylor said she also did not want to avoid a public input, noting there was ample opportunity for public input within the ordinance process. She said the issue had been in the public eye for a long time and urged the council to take action. Mr. Kelly proposed a friendly amendment by substituting the phrase "public involvement" for "tentative public hearing." The second agreed to the change. The motion passed, 5:1; with Mr. Pap~ voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) Minutes--Eugene City Council August 9, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m.