Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/25/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall November 25, 1998 11:30 a.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. 1.ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Taylor reported that she attended the Making Cities Liveable Conference the previous week and recommended that all councilors and planners should attend one. Ms. Taylor raised the issue of the tree cutting permit submitted by the owner of the Rest Haven Cemetery and said she hoped there was something the City could do, including reversing the conditional use permit to save the large number of trees proposed for cutting. Ms. Taylor noted her long-time objection to assessing property owners for road improvements necessitated by nearby development and asked if there was something the City could do in the short-term to address the situation on Garden Way. Ms. Taylor said that she had been contacted by constituents who wished the City to increase land use fees more than was anticipated. She asked if the land use application fees could be increased to pay the full cost of processing the application as well as fund enforcement of design standards. Mr. Laue noted that the conditional use permit for Rest Haven Cemetery had a 20-year time line for full development and suggested that staff consider modifying the permit itself to ensure tree cutting incurred incrementally over time. Ms. Swanson Gribskov thanked Public Works Maintenance staff for its work taking care of problems on the streets during the recent bad weather. She wished the councilors a happy Thanksgiving. Mr. Meisner indicated he shared other councilors' concerns regarding the proposed tree cutting at Rest Haven Cemetery and asked for information about the council's ability to affect the situation. He asked City Manager Jim Johnson to examine all options. Mr. Meisner thanked Public Works staff for installing the last section of sidewalk on Adams Street through Sladden Park to the riverbank bicycle path. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 1 11:30 a.m. Mr. Meisner noted the lack of a quorum at the Budget Committee meeting the previous evening and suggested that councilors do a better job of letting staff know when they are unavailable. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to examine areas of the community and identify and photograph locations where there are no sidewalks but where people use unpaved dirt pathways to travel, such as on West 11th Avenue west of Bailey Hill Road. She suggested that criteria for the location of sidewalks could include a well-established pattern of use. Mr. Farr enumerated a list of projects that the City had constructed or implemented in the Bethel- Danebo area over the past four years. He said that the list demonstrated that the City listened to the concerns of Bethel-Danebo citizens. He thanked Mayor Torrey and City staff for visiting State Street Park and discussing residents' concern about park activities with area citizens. Mr. Johnson noted that the City Attorney and Planning staff were preparing a memorandum regarding the Rest Haven Cemetery situation to the council outlining the current situation and options for council involvement. Mr. Johnson concurred with Ms. Swanson Gribskov regarding the performance of Public Works staff during the recent bad weather. He also commended the performance of the City's 9-1-1 staff in handling the many emergency calls it addressed from throughout Lane County. Mr. Tollenaar said that all the good things that have occurred in BetheI-Danebo over the past four years would not have happened without the active representation of Mr. Farr. Mr. Torrey said that he had received inquiries about the way in which the funds from the parks and open space measure would be spent, and asked that a quarterly report be prepared describing what was planned and when it would be implemented. He suggested the same type of report be prepared for the library. Mr. Torrey also suggested that parks projects be signed with information about the source of funds and thanks to the voters for their support. Mr. Torrey said that he had received a complaint that the City was not cutting the grass and brush back from Pre's Trail in East Alton Baker Park. He said that although the trail was located in the passive area of the park, it was his understanding that it was grandfathered. Public Works Department Director Christine Andersen concurred. She indicated she would follow-up on the level of maintenance given the trail to ensure that the level of maintenance was not impeding use of the trail. Mr. Torrey asked Ms. Andersen to follow-up with the Masters Track Club. Mr. Torrey said that he would be assisting at the annual Whiteaker School Thanksgiving dinner the next day and invited the council to join him there and later at the Eugene Mission. He wished the council a happy Thanksgiving. Mr. Meisner said that the recent design charette for the new library was very well-attended. He emphasized the need to keep the public informed about that process. 2.WORK SESSION: INFORMATION RELATED TO SUSPENSION BICYCLE BRIDGE MINUTES-Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 2 11:30 a.m. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to name the new bicycle bridge being constructed within the Ferry Street Bridge project the "DeFazio Bike Bridge." Ms. Taylor said that she had proposed naming the bridge after late long-time resident Alberta Shelton, who lived near the location of the bridge. She believed the name of the bridge should have historical significance. She said that she liked Representative Peter DeFazio but that if anything was named for him it should be after he dies or leaves office. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to name the bridge the "Shelton Bridge." The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Fart emphasized he did not wish to negate Representative DeFazio's many contributions to Eugene, but he could not support the motion because he believed there were other people more responsible for the success of the City's bicycle system. He said that naming the bridge for one individual for their work in getting the bridge built took away from others who could also take credit for the project. He suggested the council name the bridge for someone not directly associated with it. Mr. Meisner indicated tentative support for the motion. He believed that former Mayor Ruth Bascom also needed to be honored for her contribution as an advocate for the City's bicycle system. Regarding Ms. Taylor's proposal, Mr. Meisner indicated his admiration for Ms. Shelton but reminded the council that the Whiteaker Plan called for renaming the "3rd-4th Connector "Shelton-McMurphy Way." He hoped the City could take action on that recommendation at some point. Mr. Lee supported the motion because of Representative DeFazio's active role in securing funding for the project and because of his support for alternative modes of transportation. He spoke of the difficulty of being a United States representative and said that Representative DeFazio deserved the honor. Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Mr. Meisner's statements regarding Ms. Bascom's contributions and pointed out that the suggestion to name the bridge after Representative DeFazio came from Ms. Bascom. She supported the motion as a means to thank Mr. DeFazio for all his efforts in securing funding for the Ferry Street Bridge project. Ms. Swanson Gribskov recognized Representative DeFazio's long-time support for alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Johnson noted that the Bascom Family had contributed funds to construct a memorial tree garden in Alton Baker Park in memory of Ms. Bascom's mother, the Haze Memorial. Mr. Torrey said that it was not like Ms. Bascom "to shine the spotlight on herself" rather than recognize others for what they had done. He said that he did not take Ms. Bascom's recommendation on the matter lightly. In addition, he did not take Representative DeFazio's efforts lightly. He said that if often took considerable effort in Washington to "keep dollars on the plate" for Eugene. When the voters rejected the expanded bridge project, there was a rush on the part of other Oregon cities to try to appropriate those funds for other road projects in other parts of the state. Without the efforts of Representative DeFazio, the funds would likely have MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 3 11:30 a.m. been lost. He did not know where the City could have secured other funds to make the needed corridor improvements. Mr. Torrey said that while it was unpleasant to drive in the corridor now, in a year the community would be glad. Mr. Farr said that after listening to the discussion and considering that Ms. Bascom made the recommendation, he was prepared to support the motion. He acknowledged it was in the back of his mind that the bridge should be named after Ms. Bascom, but he was willing to defer to her and also wished to recognize the congressman's efforts. Mr. Torrey asked the council to take unanimous action on the motion, pointing out that "Ms. Shelton would never know." Ms. Taylor said that she liked Representative DeFazio and knew how hard he worked. She believed Representative DeFazio would continue to work for alternative modes of transportation without the honor of having a bridge named after him. She wanted to postpone the decision to give other people more time to express an opinion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3.WORK SESSION: NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM REVIEW AND MISSION Planning and Development Department Co-Director Lew Bowers referred the council to several mission statements posted on the meeting room wall which were developed as a part of the Neighborhood Program redesign effort. He said that staff was seeking input from the council on those mission statements, with the intent to return to the council in early 1999 with some programmatic options for the program redesign. The posted mission statements included the existing statement, a staff-drafted statement, and a statement developed by involved neighborhood leaders. Mr. Bowers said that, in addition, the council, councilor-elects, and mayor responded to a questionnaire regarding the program. The results were compiled and distributed prior to the meeting in the form of a document entitled Analysis of City Council Survey on Neighborhood Program--November 1998. Staff had grouped statements around emerging themes and then prioritized the themes in terms of level of importance. Mr. Bowers reviewed the analysis of the survey results and noted conflicts between responses where they existed and concurrence between responses where it existed. Regarding the first theme identified by staff, "Input," Mr. Bowers requested direction from the council as to whether the intent of the program was to seek input on citywide issues or neighborhood issues. Regarding the second theme identified by staff, "Neighborhood Improvement," Mr. Bowers requested direction from the council as to whether it perceived a shift in emphasis from input and communication to a new emphasis on neighborhood improvement, or a dual emphasis. Regarding the third theme, "Forums," Mr. Bowers said there was strong agreement that neighborhood organizations were forums to facilitate discussion. Mr. Bowers said that the neighborhood leaders' mission statement included additional program purposes, including 1) educating neighbors on public process, City services, and elections; and 2) identifying and advocating neighbors' position on land use, transportation, public safety, and social services. He asked the council if it thought those were primary program purposes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 4 11:30 a.m. Ms. Nathanson did not favor the term "input," preferring instead "communication and information sharing." Another neighborhood program purpose was problem-solving, she suggested. Beth Bridges of the Service Improvement Team, staff to the redesign process, pointed out that the leaders' mission statement included the statements "Providing a forum to identify, discuss, and resolve neighborhood issues," and "Establishing two-way communication between neighborhoods and the City and/or other external agencies." Mr. Bowers said that resolution of neighborhood issues helped to build communities and was a growing emphasis reflected in the mission statement. Ms. Nathanson said the cross-departmental approach was key to neighborhood improvement as many issues overlapped different department responsibilities. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that for her, the issue boiled down to "what is a neighborhood." She said the process appeared to be "tweaking" what existed, and she did not think the City had a functioning neighborhood system throughout the community. She attributed the lack of a functioning system to geography, neighborhood size, and citizens' ability to attend and interest in attending meetings. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that both the original staff presentation and the presentation today "felt sort of like same old same old." She was looking for something to engage the citizens differently. Ms. Swanson Gribskov noted that her ward contained three different neighborhood groups and she believed the Laurel Hill Neighbors Association worked best because of geographic constraints and a series of issues and activities that reinforced citizens' interest in participation. She noted the area used to contain an elementary school and suggested there was a connection between a successful neighborhood organization and an elementary-school sized jurisdiction. She said that the Harlow Neighbors had recently done some outreach to the defunct Cai Young Neighbors in the belief the two groups could merge to represent the Ferry Street Bridge area. She said that some members of the Harlow Neighbors had begun to feel the organization had been too involved in citywide issues at the expense of neighborhood issues, and had done some outreach to a larger population. However, Ms. Swanson Gribskov was unsure that organization represented what she considered a neighborhood. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said the Fairmount Neighbors was the most special-interest oriented group, and it had some strongly opinionated members but she doubted they represented the neighborhood. She added that, to its credit, the organization had done different things to attempt to generate more participation, but the same people continued to be involved. She feared having the council place a lot of credibility into what those few people said without a broader neighborhood discussion. She reiterated that the system did not work, and she thought the council needed to seek answers "outside the box." Mr. Fart said that while he had some criticisms of the neighborhood organizations in the past, he saw positive things happening with those groups both in Bethel-Danebo and in other areas. He believed the program could be made to work more effectively. At the current time, there was little decision-making happening at the neighborhood organization level. The organizations should be given an incentive for decision-making that ties a certain level of effort to an outcome. Mr. Fart liked the idea of the matching grant program as another means of giving the organizations leverage in the neighborhood and encouraging residents' participation. He believed the reason that many groups did not work was because there were no tangible results. Mr. Farr endorsed the mission statement developed by the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) Neighborhood Redesign Subcommittee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m. Mr. Johnson contrasted the current neighborhood recognition policy and the proposed mission statement and said they were substantially different. He perceived a major change in what was being proposed, suggesting that it was more "outside of the box" than it appeared. Mr. Johnson said the first two bulleted items in the statement, Sponsoring neighborhood improvement projects and social events and Providing a forum to identify, discuss, and resolve neighborhood issues, were key. He said staff was seeking confirmation of the policy direction, and would return with specific proposals for implementation. Ms. Taylor said that newsletters were at the heart of helping the groups to exist and succeed. She believed the more active groups were those that managed to get out a newsletter. Ms. Taylor said that newsletters let residents outside the board know when general membership meetings were happening. She believed neighborhood organizations needed to hold at least four to six general membership meetings each year and that those meetings needed to be held soon after the publication of the proposed citywide newsletter. She said the newsletter should include a description of the issues the council was working on to generate input from the meeting attendees. Ms. Taylor said that the neighborhood organization meetings were a good venue for a discussion of citywide issues as well as neighborhood issues. Mr. Meisner did not think there was a one-size-fits-all solution to the Neighborhood Program redesign. He said neighborhoods differ from each other, and there were sometimes differences between subneighborhoods. He said that the most effective neighborhood effort he had seen during his tenure on the council was that organized around the A&K development proposal. Mr. Meisner suggested that communities could be built at the neighborhood level by empowering neighborhood associations, local businesses, residents, community groups, and other interested people to organize themselves either on a neighborhood basis or around an issue. He noted that on the Whiteaker Community Council, all residents, property owners, business owners and operators were considered members but could not vote unless they had attended at least one meeting in the last year. He suggested that was a problem because not everyone was free to attend meetings. Mr. Meisner was interested in the concept of the matching grant because it would require the neighborhood organizations to put forth an effort to receive the support. He said that if that approach was chosen, he hoped it could be sufficiently flexible to allow small groups of neighbors to take advantage of it. Mr. Meisner was cautious about focusing neighborhood organizations around elementary schools because it would create the potential for many more organizations; however, he believed that many organizations represented neighborhoods so large and disparate that the organizations do not work. Mr. Tollenaar agreed with Ms. Taylor that the newsletters were essential to the success of the neighborhood organizations. Newsletters kept residents "plugged in" even when they could not attend meetings. He said the neighborhoods needed assistance with both production and distribution. Mr. Tollenaar said that in some cases it would not be useful to redraw neighborhood boundaries, but in other areas it was needed. He favored aligning neighborhood boundaries with elementary school attendance area boundaries and urged that the concept be followed up in areas where it would enhance the program, such as in his ward. He said that there were 26 elementary MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 6 11:30 a.m. schools, which would not increase the number of groups by much. Mr. Tollenaar said that some neighborhood organizations covered areas that were far too large for effectiveness. Mr. Tollenaar said that while the City had done a good job of establishing criteria for recognizing neighborhood groups, it had no criteria for maintaining that recognition over time. He suggested that such criteria be devised to address issues such as attendance at meetings, turnover among board members, and frequency of newsletter production and distribution. Failure to meet such basic criteria would disqualify a neighborhood organization from receiving a matching grant or from responding to referrals about land use applications. Mr. Laue also supported the mission statement developed by the Neighborhood Leaders Council Neighborhood Redesign Subcommittee. He suggested the third bullet be revised to read Establishing two-way communication between citizens, the City, and neighborhoods. Mr. Laue said that the neighborhood organizations were struggling and would continue to do so as long as they were underfunded. He said that Eugene did not contribute enough to keep the programs viable, and he termed it remarkable that participants managed to maintain the level of energy they had over the years. Mr. Laue liked the idea of matching grants for neighborhoods and neighbors. He said that those grants would address the many issues that were small in scope in a larger sense but of vital importance to the smaller areas that were affected. He stressed the importance of involving citizens in the organizations, but acknowledged the effort often led participants to "burn out." The same people end up "carrying the ball" because they had no support. Mr. Laue agreed that in many cases current neighborhood boundaries are too large. People do not have a sense of neighborhood in such situations. Mr. Laue said that the City's ability to "get in front" of issues before they create neighborhood controversy and before lines were drawn was critical. He said that neighborhood organizations could assist in that by building community inside the neighborhood and give residents the feeling they had access to their city government. He added that could not be done "on a shoestring and a prayer." Mr. Laue noted his concurrence with the remarks made by Ms. Taylor and Mr. Tollenaar in regard to newsletters. He said that part of the issue was the amount of time it took to assemble a newsletter. He believed more people would be willing to undertake such an effort with support from the City. Mr. Laue said there were times when the neighborhood organizations become political, but that did not mean the council should not be looking for the contributions they could make toward community building. He said residents have a sense of ownership of the place they live, and the council should focus its attention on those people. Mr. Laue said that he supported the shift in emphasis identified by staff under the theme Neighborhood Improvement. Mr. Lee said that each neighborhood was very different and it was impossible to take a "cookie- cutter" approach to the program redesign. He supported the NLC Neighborhood Redesign Subcommittee's draft mission statement. Regarding Mr. Laue's remarks about the political nature of some organizations, Mr. Lee pointed out that people get involved in neighborhood MINUTES-Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m. organizations for a variety of different reasons, and the council could not control that. The council could only adopt a clean mission statement and hope that everyone focused on it. Mr. Lee supported the proposed matching grant program. He said that newsletters were an important tool for the organizations. He acknowledged concerns expressed by participants in the Neighborhood Program about having a single citywide newsletter. Mr. Torrey expressed support for the mission statement drafted by the NLC subcommittee, although he wished to modify the fifth bulleted statement by specifying that organizations would identify and advocate for the neighborhood's position on neighborhood land use, transportation, public safety, and social services. He said that would not preclude residents' right to talk about all sort of City issues, but he wanted, for example, to have the Harlow Neighbors' input on the impact of the Ferry Street Bridge project on their neighborhood rather than their input on the impact of the West 11th Avenue improvement. Mr. Torrey said that such input should be home- based when possible. He recollected that when he ran for mayor and debated before the Harlow Neighbors, no one other than those running the debate got to ask a question. He had spent more time in the parking lot responding to residents' questions about neighborhood issues than he had spent in the debate responding to questions about citywide political issues. Mr. Torrey concurred with Mr. Tollenaar's remarks regarding the ties between neighborhoods and elementary schools and said the council should try that approach for neighborhood organizations where it was appropriate. He clarified that he was not proposing to dismantle existing organizations. Mr. Torrey suggested that the issue of park siting and disposal of unused City-owned property was an appropriate discussion to have with the neighborhood organizations. Mr. Torrey said that he had not always been the strongest proponent of neighborhood groups because he did not think they were truly representative of the community's neighborhoods. Some were well-represented, but the vast majority were not represented at all. Ms. Nathanson said that the budget for neighborhood newsletters should be increased to increase communication with neighborhood residents. Regarding the issue of neighborhood decision-making, Ms. Nathanson asked, what neighborhood? what group? She did not support the inclusion of the fifth bulleted statement as presented. She suggested the following wording: Identify neighborhood opinions and ideas on land use, transportation, public safety, and social services. She did not think for legal and other reasons an organization could identify the official neighborhood position; it would only be the position of those at the meeting. She did not support including the term "advocating the neighborhood's position" because she did not think it was possible for a neighborhood organization to know all those whose views should be considered. Ms. Nathanson identified the following three main themes for neighborhood organizations: 1) building community; 2) neighborhood improvements; and 3) facilitating communication and access between people who live in neighborhoods and the City organization. She added that sometimes it was not the neighborhood organization that sponsored a meeting that resulted in the solution to a problem, and asked if neighborhood organizations were the only official, recognized avenue through which the council received information. Ms. Nathanson asked if, when staff received a neighborhood needs request from a neighborhood organization that was MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 8 11:30 a.m. the result of a small group of participants, did it accept that request as the official neighborhood point of view in developing the Capital Improvement Plan, or did it take into consideration individual citizen requests. She added she believed both should be taken into consideration, not just the organization's requests. Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Johnson to comment on how to increase involvement on the part of both the neighborhood organizations and the self-initiated groups that form around specific issues. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the president or chair of a neighborhood organization represented the position and opinion of an entire neighborhood, or did they serve as meeting facilitator and convenor. She suggested that the roles of members and how they related to each other and the council should be clarified. Mr. Farr agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments. He also agreed with those who supported smaller groups. He said that if the City reduced the size of the groups he believed it would cut down on those self-initiated groups because they would feel closer to their neighborhood organization. He suggested that in some areas the middle schools might be a more appropriate focus. Ms. Swanson Gribskov supported the mission statement and the shift in emphasis identified by staff. She agreed with Mr. Torrey that the fifth bulleted item should be specific to neighborhood issues. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that as a parent she received a newsletter from her child's elementary school twice monthly, and suggested that there might be opportunities for the program to piggyback on those existing newsletters and share costs. Ms. Swanson Gribskov suggested the council consider holding town hall forums, perhaps at the high schools, so that issues of wider scope could be discussed by more people. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Tollenaar about the need for criteria for continued recognition of neighborhood organizations. She agreed with Ms. Nathanson that a neighborhood organization could not identify itself as representing an entire neighborhood's position. She did not believe that neighborhood organizations should establish policy, but they were an avenue for getting new ideas. People should be encouraged to express their opinions in the neighborhood organization setting to facilitate the exchange of ideas. Responding to the concept of focusing neighborhood groups around schools, Mr. Meisner pointed out that the core area lacked elementary schools, which could create awkward boundary lines. Regarding the newsletters, Mr. Meisner said that he was not willing to support more printing of newsletters unless they were disseminated to residents. He noted that he had not received a neighborhood newsletter since his election, nor had he received an invitation to attend an organization meeting. Regarding the mission statements, Mr. Meisner said that the NLC had developed a mission statement for neighborhood organizations, while the staff team's mission statement reflected, and the council had been discussing, a mission statement for a neighborhood program. Those MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 9 11:30 a.m. were different things. He said that his earlier point, reflected in the second sentence of the staff statement, was that neighborhood associations were only one way to accomplish the first statement which, like the NLC subcommittee's statement, read Our mission is to build community at the neighborhood level and improve the fivability of the City's neighborhoods, He said he would like to have some way to combine the two by stating that this is the mission and there are variety of means by which neighbors or residents may combine to accomplish it, with specificity about the activities of neighborhood organizations. Mr. Meisner said he shared Ms. Nathanson's opinion of the fifth bulleted statement. Mr. Lee said it was appropriate to discuss schools as focus for neighborhood organizations while ensuring there are exceptions, such as for the West University Neighborhood Association. Mr. Lee also suggested that ward boundaries could play a role as a criteria for drawing the boundaries. Mr. Johnson said the council had given staff direction both on the neighborhood organizations as well as on the Neighborhood Program. He noted that staff was guided by both the service profile and the Neighborhood Recognition Policy, and the input from the council was relevant to both documents. He indicated staff would refine the work done to this point and modify the mission statement in response to the council's remarks. In addition, staff would do further work on the boundary issue. Mr. Johnson said that he had raised the issue of minimum requirements with the NLC subcommittee members and heard no objections to the concept. 4.WORK SESSION: DISCUSSION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION ON WEST EUGENE WETLANDS PLAN AMENDMENT Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to postpone consideration of the item until February 1999. Ms. Taylor said that the issue was far too important and had too many long-term consequences for hasty action. She said that the council needed to provide some time for the public to get involved after the holidays. Ms. Taylor noted that there would be three new County Commissioners and three new City Councilors taking their seats after January 1, 1999, and she believed they should be involved in the final decision. She added that if the City and County could not reach agreement, the City should act alone as the issue was largely a municipal matter. Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated she wanted to know more about the impact of the motion before voting to support it. Mr. Tollenaar concurred. He had no objection to postponing final action but it had been a long process and he believed the public, staff, and the County Commissioners had the right to the council's initial reaction to what had been proposed. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that public comment on the proposal would be appropriate. Mr. Meisner agreed. He suggested Ms. Taylor amend her motion to postpone action but allow for the staff presentation and council discussion. As currently phrased, he intended to vote against the motion, but hoped Ms. Taylor would offer a motion to postpone action after the presentation and discussion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 10 11:30 a.m. Ms. Taylor indicated she did not object to hearing the staff report. She wanted to postpone consideration of adoption of the changes and said she did not object to substituting "action on" for "consideration of." Mr. Torrey suggested that the council consider the motion to postpone action. He added he hoped the council would defeat the motion, listen to the staff presentation, and proceed from that point. He noted the item was on no council agenda in the remaining time left in 1998. He said he was frustrated that the council was at one time urged to move more quickly earlier in the year, and now was being sent letters by the same people urging it to slow down the process. Mr. Torrey said that the issue was very political. He added that he would feel comfortable having the current council make the final decision but acknowledged that was unlikely to occur. The motion failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Planning Director Jan Childs clarified that staff was not seeking final action but rather direction from the council on alternatives for future ordinances that the council would consider in February or March 1999. Ms. Childs said the threshold question before the council was whether it was interested in pursuing amendments to the criteria. She said that there was agreement between the City and County on all the policy and text amendments except for the changes to the criteria for protection, development, and restoration. Ms. Childs recommended that the council continue to try to reach agreement with the County Board of Commissioners about the criteria. She said that if the council decided it wished to pursue agreement with the County, it was appropriate to hold public comment opportunities before selecting an alternative. She added that the City Council would still have to hold a public hearing on the final ordinance. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the time-sensitive nature of the issue, Ms. Childs suggested that if the council agreed to continue to work with the County on the criteria amendments, it would need to take early action on the planned transportation corridor amendment to allow transportation projects in the area to go forward. Lane Council of Governments Senior Planner Steve Gordon provided the staff presentation, prefacing his remarks by praising the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, the plan partnership, and the mitigation bank as models for the entire country. Mr. Gordon reviewed the process to this point and expressed his hope the council would continue to work toward reaching agreement with the County to ensure the plan continued to be an adopted plan of both the County and the City. He said that the County, while contributing no money to the implementation of the plan, was crucial to the program in terms of how rural lands were addressed and how County Road Funds were expended in the area. He noted concerns expressed by Commissioner Cornacchia that the council had failed to consider or discuss some alternative proposals he had put forth. Mr. Gordon noted that the City and County had reached agreement on 26 of 29 text amendments, and the areas of disagreement were narrowed to key policies in the plan. Those policies addressed restoration, protection, and development of wetlands. MINUTES-Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 11 11:30 a.m. Mr. Gordon said that at the County's request, he had analyzed the amendments and developed two alternatives for the board's consideration. He said that the board indicated that Alternative 2 was a good place to begin discussion. Mr. Gordon reviewed his conclusions, reporting that he had determined that Amendment 62, new Policy 3.17, criteria for protection and development, was not consistent with the intent of the plan. He suggested that the policy was ahead of wetlands science. He referred the council to page 15 of his analysis, where he had paraphrased the introduction to the policy and identified where the criteria actually functioned as standards. Mr. Gordon said that the use of modifiers such as "high value," moderate value," and "low value" were problematic in that they were subjective terms. He did not think the criteria were stated in an easily measurable manner. Mr. Gordon showed the council maps of the plan area and suggested the councilors take a landscape view of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area. He pointed out the wetlands system on the map and showed where sites were being protected. Mr. Gordon emphasized that the wetlands involved were a system with the stream corridors in west Eugene representing the "backbone" of the system. He noted ownership patterns on the map indicating that the West Eugene Wetlands Partnership's acquisitions closely followed the street corridor "backbone." He said that a connected system made sense from a management and maintenance point of view as well and lessened conflicts with adjacent lands. Mr. Gordon said that Alternative 2 allowed the City to consider many of the same factors as were included in the currently adopted plan, but gave the elected officials to step back from the system once individual sites were evaluated and determine if the picture made sense. He said that could occur from both the development and protection points of view. Mr. Torrey believed it would be advantageous to resolve the threshold question by the end of the year, with the understanding hearings and final action would take place in 1999. Mr. Meisner said that he was willing to proceed with the process with reluctance. He said that often citizens accuse the council of not having heard them because the council did not do what they wanted; he felt the situation before the council was similar. Because the council had not taken action on Commissioner Cornacchia's recommendations, it was being told it had not listened. He was not optimistic about continuing the process of joint adoption and said he was inclined to move ahead independently. Mr. Meisner said that the County, in the same manner as in the case of the enterprise zone, appeared to be threatening to veto what action the City Council took. He indicated tentative support for Alternative 2, adding that he wanted to become more knowledgeable about its implications Mr. Farr said that it was essential that the process proceed and that the two bodies maintain a joint plan for the reasons cited by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Farr left the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Tollenaar agreed that the council should move forward with the process. He said that the council should examine the board's proposal closely. He was unsure that the probability criterion was a standard as it was not objective and was not something that could be measured. He was concerned about the elimination of hydrological connections as a criteria for protection and very concerned about the elimination of the preamble to the criteria. Mr. Tollenaar said he would like to hear the rationale for dropping the preamble. He questioned how the balancing Mr. Gordon MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 12 11:30 a.m. referred to in his analysis would be achieved in its absence and in the absence of the initial criteria. He believed that the use of the modifiers high, medium, and Iow forced the decision- makers to be more explicit as to why they were recommending one designation over another. Mr. Tollenaar did not want to eliminate the preamble. Mr. Johnson suggested the council might want to take a subcommittee approach in conjunction with the County as it had to the Glenwood issue in conjunction with Springfield. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the process was an ongoing and iterative one. She said it should proceed and the council should continue to work toward a positive resolution with the County. She favored consideration of Alternative 2. Mr. Laue said the council should continue to try to work toward a mutually satisfying resolution with the County for the sake of the wetlands involved. He urged the council to come to a mutual understanding with the board about the next steps involved. Ms. Taylor was not prepared to give up on joint adoption of the plan but said the council should hold public hearings on the alternatives prepared by Mr. Gordon. She did not favor the approach suggested by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Lee also supported having public input into Alternative 2. He said that continuing to work with the County was important to him, although he shared some of Mr. Meisner's pessimism. Mr. Torrey said that the subcommittee approach used by the City to negotiate the enterprise zone changes with the County cut weeks off the process while allowing each councilor to provide input. He suggested that it would be appropriate to let the County know soon if the council supported that approach so the appropriate representatives could be appointed to the subcommittee to resolve the alternative that would be presented to the public. Mr. Torrey suggested that Ms. Nathanson would be an appropriate representative to that subcommittee because of the wetlands location in her ward. Mr. Tollenaar also agreed to serve on the subcommittee. Mr. Torrey said that the council would be consulted before the subcommittee was formed. Ms. Taylor said that there would be several changes in the composition of the board and she did not think the council should start negotiations with the County prior to 1999. The meeting adjourned at 1:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) R:~RCHIVES~1998~dm Se~ices~CIS~Counc#~cc981~ 25m~. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1998 Page 13 11:30 a.m.