Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/12/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall October 12, 1998 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Ken Tollenaar, Nancy Nathanson, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Laurie Swanson Gribskov. Mayor James D. Torrey called the council to order. I. CITY COUNCIL DINNER WORK SESSION A. Work Session: Sister Cities Councilor Taylor reviewed the history of the City's sister city relationships with Kakegawa, Japan; Kathmundu, Nepal; Irkutsk, Russia; and Chinju, Korea. She discussed the transition of the Sister City Program to a volunteer, nonprofit agency, the Eugene Sister City Foundation. Ms. Taylor believed the City should reconsider its funding decision about the Sister Cities Program because it contributed to world peace. She said that in addition, the City had entered into agreements with the governments of each of the cities in question, and she thought the City should continue to fulfill its agreements or sever them. Ms. Taylor introduced Nancy Arbogast, President of the Eugene Sister City Foundation, who introduced Galina Groza, President of the Irkutsk Committee, and Tony Lum, vice president of the foundation. Ms. Arbogast presented a brief slide show on Eugene's sister cities and discussed the work of the foundation in supporting the four sister city committees. Ms. Arbogast reported that the foundation was in the last year of its service contract with the City, which expired June 30, 1999. She said that the foundation would like to continue the service contract. Mr. Lum discussed the history of the Sister City Program. Ms. Groza expressed appreciation for the support of City government and noted the interest of other groups to become involved in the program. She said that the committees actively sought other sources of funds to support their activities and had received many contributions from the community. In addition, the committees facilitated and directly supported cultural, charitable, and economic exchanges between Eugene citizens and citizens of the sister cities. The committees provided interpreters for sister city visits. Ms. Groza said that the program contributed to acceptance of diversity at home and abroad. She said a global economy was not possible without global understanding. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Ms. Groza said that the mayor of Irkutsk had likened the relationship between the two cities as a marriage, and she did not know how Eugene "could explain a divorce, particularly since we haven't had a fight." Ms. Taylor said she would like to ask the council to direct staff to return with options for funding and staffing for the Sister City Program. She expressed gratitude to the volunteers of the foundation. Mr. Lee said many Eugene residents were from other countries, such as himself and Mr. Fart, and represented a diverse group of people. Residents' natural origins were part of what they brought to the community, and he believed that should be considered as the council looked at funding options. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee about next steps, Mr. Johnson referred the council to the options included in the agenda packet and indicated staff was seeking direction from the council refining and narrowing those options. He added that the annual budget process was beginning, and the council might wish to consider referring the issue to that process. Mr. Lee indicated his interest in the "backup" and "growth" options (4 and 5). Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, Mr. Johnson confirmed that the City's agreement with the foundation corresponded with the end of the fiscal year. Ms. Nathanson noted her own involvement in sister city activities, including authoring a guidebook for visitors from other countries that she regretted no one had taken greater advantage of. She recollected that funding for the program had been gradually eliminated and transitioned through an agreement between the foundation and City to nonprofit status following the passage of Ballot Measure 5. Ms. Nathanson said she was unaware of any commensurate increase in contributions from other organizations, such as corporations, to replace lost government funding. She had hoped that the agreement between the foundation and the City included a commitment from the foundation to such fund-raising. Ms. Nathanson wished to know how the City could support its commitments to its sister cities while not providing all the funding for the foundation. She said if the point was to increase understanding between peoples, the program's benefits could not be limited to those few people who could travel to the community's sister cities. She asked how the City could assist with news coverage of sister city visits, and questioned if statistical information regarding residents' awareness or participation in program activities was available. Ms. Nathanson said that such information could be used as a benchmark to gauge the effectiveness of the program in future years. She suggested that the City could serve as a facilitator and safety net of support for the program. Ms. Swanson Gribskov valued the work of the foundation and believed that international exchange and understanding was important. She said that the issue facing the council was the City's limited resources and service priorities. Ms. Swanson Gribskov did not favor the growth option discussed in the staff notes but rather supported maintaining the contract at current levels. She supported Mr. Johnson's suggestion to refer the issue to the budget process so the program could be considered with other service priorities. She agreed with Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding other funding sources. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Mr. Meisner indicated his concurrence with many of the remarks made by Ms. Swanson Gribskov and Ms. Nathanson. He noted his own foreign background and said he appreciated the opportunities created by the program for more understanding and openness. Mr. Meisner said that he sometimes wished the community did as well on local civil and human rights issues as it did on the issue of international relations. Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Nathanson that the foundation needed to communicate more with citizens about what the programs actually do and broaden activities beyond trips and ceremonial activities. He also concurred with Mr. Johnson's suggestion that the issue was best referred to the budget process. Mr. Meisner said that there was little the City had funded that was not valuable, but Ballot Measure 47/50 forced the City to put everything "on the chopping block." He said the program must be considered in the context of everything the City does, and in light of the appropriate social and fiscal role for City government in such an effort. He was unprepared to select a funding option at this time, although he concurred with Ms. Swanson Gribskov this was not a time for growth in the City's contribution. He urged the council to "step back from the numbers" and examine the appropriate role for municipal government, noting a previously expressed concern that the City was the funder of first and last resort for social and cultural programs. Mr. Meisner said the council must make funding decisions in a conscious manner, and make conscious policy decisions about the international role of local government. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson's remarks about the lack of private contributions to offset the loss in City dollars, and said given the planned phase-out of City support, he was concerned about the lack of foundation responsiveness. Mr. Tollenaar asked if it was unusual for a municipality to have four sister cities. Ms. Arbogast said no. Ms. Nathanson indicated she had secured information from Sister Cities International about that issue. Mr. Tollenaar suggested that the number of sister cities diluted the media and community's interest in the program. Mr. Laue asked if the revenue from the money market account in the budget was interest. Ms. Arbogast said that figure represented the total of the account. She added that the foundation had made an effort to raise private funds but it was difficult in a volunteer organization with participants primarily interested in the exchange program rather than in administration. She said the foundation had made some attempts to increase its visibility, membership, and funds, but acknowledged that the effort had not gone well. Mr. Laue suggested that it was time for examination of how well the planned five-year program phase out had worked. He observed that the City had rejected two requests for new sister city associations in recent years because it was difficult to support the four existing relationships. Mr. Laue commended the program and concurred it should be considered in the budget process. He noted his disagreement with Mr. Meisner's remarks that the City was the first and last resort for social and cultural programs, pointing to the contributions of organizations such as United Way. Mr. Laue moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to revisit the Sister City Program in the upcoming budget cycle. Mr. Lee believed staff was needed to increase the program's visibility and do fund raising. He indicated support for the motion as a signal to the Budget Committee that the council was interested in revisiting program funding. Mr. Lee said that the council should be aware as volunteers of the effort required for such programs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Ms. Nathanson suggested the foundation members contact other organizations that have undergone similar transitions to nonprofit status for advice on fund-raising. She commended the slide presentation, and indicated interest in discussion with foundation representations of where and how the presentation should be used. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Johnson to assign a staff member to the issue if the motion passed. If the motion passed the program would have to compete with other existing service priorities through the budget process. Mayor Torrey noted his concurrence with Ms. Taylor's remarks, saying it was embarrassing, as the mayor of the city, to be asked to return delegation visits when no funding was available. He said that the City was not in the position to reciprocate and he believed a minimum performance standard should be established if the City was to continue its sister city relationships. Mayor Torrey noted the international connections of the Rotary Club, and suggested that the foundation identify and solicit assistance from a Rotary Club in developing a mutually reciprocal Rotary Club/sister city/City relationship. He further suggested that the foundation consider narrowing its funding focus on those sister city relationships that are most active. Ms. Taylor said that rather than asking the City for money, the foundation was assisting the City in something City government in the past had decided to do, and members were volunteering their time and services to the effort. Mr. Farr concurred with Ms. Taylor. He said that the City of Eugene embarked on the relationships, and the foundation was assisting it. He indicated his intent to support program funding during the upcoming budget review. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey thanked the representatives of the Sister City Foundation. B. Work Session: Year 2000 Problem Mr. Lee referred the council to options for the City government to take in regard to the extent to which it would act as a leader in the community in addressing the Year 2000 problem. He noted the wide range of affected organizations and businesses. Mr. Lee said that the League of Oregon Cities held a call-in discussion on the impacts of the issue on October 7. The league requested that elected officials get involved in educating the public about the problem; to begin looking at Year 2000 solutions to get a sense of the interface between governments, nonprofit organizations, and private businesses; and to participate in regional contingency planning. Mr. Lee asked the council for direction on next steps. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Kurtz clarified that his assignment was to examine what was needed to ensure that City services continued to operate, and that included outside suppliers who provide the City with critical goods and services, such as the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). He said that there was some interest among citizens in having City government take an active role in ensuring the community was Year 2000 compliant, and in particular assisting small businesses that may lack resources to do Year 2000 remediation testing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey believed that local and State government and service providers such as the Metropolitan Waste Water Commission and EWEB should be working together to develop an educational program for the region. He proposed that the City ask its State representatives to go to Salem and ask what should occur to make that happen. Mr. Meisner was not interested in any of the options before the council as presently formulated. He said that before any councilor could take a lead on any issue and represent the council the entire council must have approved what was presented. He pointed out that the City Council's Intergovernmental Relations Committee was responsible for many of the work activities identified in the second alternative/option, and he was not comfortable going outside that venue and designating a single councilor to act on behalf of the City. Mr. Meisner added that he might be more comfortable if a staff person with authority and responsibility for the issue took that role. He had the same reservations for the third alternative/option. Mr. Lee clarified he would not attempt to represent the council without its approval. He said that he would return with a plan of action for council review and concurrence. Mr. Meisner observed that was not discussed in the staff report. Ms. Nathanson suggested that Mr. Lee work with the City Manager on a summit of chief executive officers from local governments and utilities for discussion of the activities outlined in the alternatives/options. She said that at some point that effort should include discussion with private sector umbrella organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, as she anticipated that similar efforts were occurring in the private sector. She agreed that the City needed to take a leadership role in preparing and educating citizens for Year 2000 and in pressuring vendors to comply to avoid putting a disaster plan into action. Ms. Nathanson said that such a disaster plan should be developed. Mr. Johnson said that in working with Mr. Lee on the briefing statement, staff had attempted to focus the City's efforts at a minimum to moderate level, with the first priority ensuring that the organization was compliant. He believed that staff was available to work with Mr. Lee on determining the City's role in working with other local governments and the private sector to develop a community response to the Year 2000 issue. Mr. Johnson added that the level of effort represented in the staff notes was a minimal amount that could change over time, dependent on what happened in the community. He stressed that the City would be involved with other entities in a partnership rather than in a leadership role. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she did not anticipate a disaster occurring because of the Year 2000 issue. She said that private vendors were currently working on the problem and she did not believe others were not attending to the issue. Mr. Tollenaar said that he preferred the City Manager take a lead role in the issue in cooperation with the city manager of Springfield and the County Administrator. He believed there was sufficient time to develop a coordinated, area-wide plan that examined all possibilities related to service delivery, and further that the effort should involve those responsible for emergency services such as police and fire. Mr. Lee could serve as the council's liaison to that effort. Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Tollenaar about the role of the manager and Mr. Lee. He endorsed Mr. Johnson's summary of what was proposed as reasonable. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 5 5:30 p.m. Mr. Lee said that he would work with staff and periodically update the council on the process. Ms. Nathanson said she heard council support for education and coordination, but she questioned whether the council supported the concept of providing direct assistance to others. Mr. Johnson anticipated that any contingency plan developed would include setting aside money for the unforeseen worst case scenario. By consensus, the council directed Mr. Lee to proceed. Mayor Torrey left the meeting. Council President Fart assumed the chair. C. Work Session: Tree Issues Public Works Department Director Christine Andersen introduced Johnny Medlin of the Public Works Maintenance Division, Jerry Jacobson of the Planning Division, and Marsha Miller and Dick Gassman of Building and Permit Services. She reminded the council that it had one work session and one public hearing over the last twelve months on tree issues, primarily focused on the City's private property tree permitting program. Ms. Andersen said that for the discussion tonight, staff had provided background in the staff notes about adopted policies related to the Urban Forestry Program. Ms. Andersen provided background on the development and adoption of the Urban Forest Management Plan. She referred the council to the 19 adopted policies contained in the plan and wall charts highlighting some of the activities related to each policy. Ms. Andersen said the City had focused its limited resources on those areas most crucial to the council. Ms. Andersen reviewed regulatory activity associated with trees and development on private property, and discussed proposed changes to streamline the private property permitting program reestablished in fiscal year 1999 budget. Ms. Andersen noted public concerns expressed in testimony regarding the integrity of the urban forest and in particular areas along the ridge line and in the south hills. She referred the council to a map illustrating the ridge line trail and setback, the city limits, and the urban growth boundary. She said the hatch marked areas reflected already developed areas or areas in the process of being developed. Unshaded areas reflected remaining developable areas containing tree canopy that might be affected by future development activities. Staff had put primary effort into maintaining the integrity of the tree canopy, planting more than 5,000 street trees to date through the auspices of the NeighborWoods Program; she anticipated that in the future 3,000 street trees would be planted annually under Neighborhoods and the Local Street Plan requirement in areas with new development served by underground utilities, reducing the conflict between trees and regular maintenance activities. Ms. Andersen said that there continued to be strong community controversy about a relatively small number of private tree removal activities in Eugene. She said that for staff to make a recommendation to the council, it would be useful for staff to hear from the council what its program goals were. Ms. Taylor believed that the Urban Forest Management Plan was largely advisory rather than enforceable, and suggested that its provisions needed to be codified to be effective. She asked MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 6 5:30 p.m. when the City would hire a new Urban Forester. Ms. Andersen said the City was in the processing of recruiting a new forester, and indicated she would be involved in the hiring process. She confirmed that the Urban Forester also managed parks trees. Ms. Taylor asked about the amount of influence Eugene had on EWEB tree-trimming policies. Ms. Andersen said Eugene had influence and had reached agreement on a policy with EWEB that resulted in several maintenance practice changes. Ms. Taylor asked what the City could do to prevent sequential logging of trees. She suggested instituting a waiting period of five years between development and additional tree removal, and establishing a minimum number of trees on a parcel. Mr. Medlin said the code was altered to ensure that there was a 12-month period between the removal of trees. Ms. Taylor indicated interest in such an ordinance. Ms. Taylor asked if developers could be precluded from cutting until they build. Ms. Andersen said that the code currently required a developer to submit a development plan if they proposed to remove more than ten trees. Mr. Medlin said that developers must have approved development plans to proceed with tree removal; timing of construction after approval was not codified. Ms. Taylor asked staff to identify gaps in tree protection. Ms. Andersen responded that the issue of heritage trees came to mind; other urban forestry programs addressing heritage trees that were surveyed by staff were focused on encouragement of private property owners to retain such trees. The City's program did not have the resources needed to support such a program, which required inventorying trees and doing outreach to those with heritage trees. She added that there were few programs that precluded a private property owner from removing a heritage tree. Ms. Taylor asked if staff agreed with a statement made by a candidate for the position of Urban Forester that the City's ordinances were contradictory and fragmented. Ms. Andersen said that given the fact the City's ordinances related to the Urban Forestry Program were located in several different pads of the code she would have to agree that there is not one section of code covering all tree ordinances. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Andersen for an update on the City's progress in reaching an interagency agreement with Lane County on tree removal between the city limits and urban growth boundary. Ms. Andersen said that Lane County had adopted the City's code for that area, and the City provided service in the area when requested. She added that the sunset provision for the ordinance's application in that area had been removed. Ms. Nathanson said that citizen contacts she had received indicated to her the planned unit development provisions related to tree removal did not work because the process relied in part on a description of what was to occur on the property by a developer. As individual lots were sold, property owners did further tree removal. She suggested that was a disconnect in the process that "needed fixing." Mr. Jacobson concurred with Ms. Nathanson's summary, adding that when lots were sold property owners sought additional tree removal, and the City required them to provide an arborist's statement the tree was unhealthy or was a safety hazard. He said that an arborist could show a tree was a safety hazard if the fall zone included a house. The City was obligated to honor the expertise of the arborist. Ms. Nathanson asked if the individual lot buyer could be held to the original development plan. Mr. Jacobson said that although there may be an approved development plan, it could be modified over time at the request of the property owner. He said that staff was learning it was difficult to ensure the retention of trees on the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 7 5:30 p.m. periphery of the property if those trees were Douglas firs, because they did not survive the development process. Douglas firs belong in a forest setting rather than a residential setting. Mr. Jacobson said that staff was attempting to preserve large stands and allow more tree removal in areas with less significant trees. He noted the impacts created by a site's topography on tree removal and the conflict that created with the proposed density on a site. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to put some thought into how the planned unit development process worked, and what value there was to having a tree removal and preservation plan if it could not be enforced. She said she wished to be fair to those who wished to buy lots and develop them as appropriate while being sympathetic to neighbors who thought something was to be retained and then it was removed. She also expressed concern about the danger created by the retention of large trees such as the Douglas firs discussed by Mr. Jacobson, and said the City must allow for tree removal when there is a hazard. Ms. Swanson Gribskov pointed out the City had several planning documents that reflecting the community's concerns about trees, and much good work was occurring to protect City trees. She thought the issue was one of adequacy of resources. Ms. Swanson Gribskov raised a related issue, saying that the most frequent tree issue brought to her attention by constituents was that of tree roots breaking up sidewalks. Constituents wanted to remove trees because of their impact on sidewalks and yards. She suggested the council examine who was responsible for repairing sidewalks, and how many times an individual could be responsible for those repairs when the damage was caused by a tree they had not planted and could not remove. Ms. Andersen indicated a work session on sidewalks was scheduled for November 23, and the issue raised by Ms. Swanson Gribskov would be addressed at that time. Mr. Farr agreed the community cared about trees and each tree provided a community and global benefit. He believed, however, that the community often lost track of the fact trees grow quite well in Eugene. His own property contained many trees that had matured considerably since they were planted 15 years previously to replace those removed during the development process. Mr. Farr pointed out that tree removal did not mean more trees would not grow on a property. He said that developers do plant trees, and although he acknowledged small replacement trees might not immediately provide a benefit, they had a long-term benefit for future generations. Mr. Farr pointed out that as the City added development regulations, it raised the cost of a single- family house. He said that the cost of housing in Eugene was among the highest in the nation and climbing at an alarming rate, and families were unable to afford what housing that existed. He encouraged the council to do what it could to maintain affordable housing in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Andersen if Eugene had a policy that unsafe trees be replaced with safe trees. Ms. Andersen said yes. She noted a related issue in the City's planned unit development modification (PUD) request process; when staff reviewed the request, it would consider the replacement of trees to be removed as well as requests for additional removal. The process did not address the fact that nearby residents were no longer living next to mature trees when development occurred. Ms. Nathanson asked if there was a way to demonstrate that the City was experiencing a net gain of trees on both private and public land. Ms. Andersen clarified that in private, developing areas, particularly in wooded areas, there was likely a net loss because of the loss of land to buildings. However, the street tree planting program was more than recouping that loss. Over MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 8 5:30 p.m. time, private property owners tended to plant trees, and the City tried to encourage people to do so by offering advice on appropriate trees. She anticipated that the tree canopy would continue to increase, and noted the positive impact of the NeighborWoods Program on the canopy. Ms. Taylor said that the type of trees that would last as street trees take some time to grow and do not reach maturity quickly. Ms. Andersen concurred. Ms. Taylor stressed the nature of mixed plantings to avoid loss to disease. Ms. Andersen agreed, adding that the City planted a variety of different trees; there were approximately 75 species in the adopted list of recommended street trees. Mr. Laue believed the City needed to take a closer look at the PUD process as it related to tree protection. Ms. Andersen said that staff would return to the council with a tree removal permitting program as an alternative to the PUD process. Ms. Taylor believed the City needed to "look at revising everything to do with trees," but suggested that perhaps the Urban Forester needed to be involved in that process. Responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Andersen, Ms. Taylor said that thought all the City's tree policies should be placed in the same part of the code, and that the council should examine the code for loopholes and contradictions. She wanted that process to occur before January 1999. Ms. Taylor moved that staff work toward revising the tree code by sometime early in 1999. Mr. Meisner asked if the time line suggested in the motion would allow the new Urban Forester to be involved in the revisions. Ms. Andersen said no. She noted that differing regulations related to trees were contained in different sections of the code, and that made it difficult for people to merely pick up the code and find the regulations related to trees. Ms. Andersen suggested the regulations could be compiled in a single document, but she continued to believe the PUD process was another, separate issue. The motion died for lack of a second. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Andersen indicated staff had brochures and handouts related to tree protection and removal, and she would make those available to the councilors. Mr. Fart suggested that the array of regulations confused people, and it would be useful to let them know what they could and could not do with the trees on their property in a few shod paragraphs. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City's erosion control ordinances were working well. Ms. Andersen believed the City had gained ground in erosion control. She indicated that staff attempted to gauge the impact of tree removal as well as other factors of development on erosion, but she did not think the City had any evidence that tree removal as a separate issue was contributing to more erosion. Ms. Taylor asked if a councilor could offer an ordinance for discussion. Mr. Farr said yes. Ms. Andersen said staff would attempt to identity the issues related to tree removal and PUDs and consider the best response to some of the issues regarding the lack of certainty created by PUDs in terms of tree removal and protection. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 9 5:30 p.m. Mr. Farr commended Ms. Andersen for the excellent job her department was doing in maintaining Eugene's urban forest. Mr. Meisner requested that staff prepare options for the protection of heritage trees on private property, including whether there should be an associated inventory program. He agreed with Mr. Fart that a simplified guide related to the City's tree ordinances might be appropriate. He added that it was challenging for citizens to understand that tree issues were addressed by more than one department, and questioned whether the City's tree program could be simplified to avoid those cross-department responsibilities. Mr. Lee asked staff to discuss the issue with advocates from the Eugene Tree Foundation. Ms. Andersen said she had discussed the issue several times with the advocates, and staff was working with the foundation representatives on a downtown tree project. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) R:~1998~dm Se~ices~CIS~Councfl~cc981012ml. wpd MINUTES-Eugene City Council October 12, 1998 Page 10 5:30 p.m.