Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/12/09 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 12, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. John Duerscheidt , 1295 Arthur Street, said he wanted to find out information regarding the potential Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) EmX route. He was concerned about the route option along the Amazon Creek. He asked if Lane Transit District (LTD) intended to use eminent domain to take land for a new route. Cindy Clarke , 1621 Calistoga Street, stated that she lived in Ward 6, Councilor Solomon’s ward. She declared that she stood before the council as a taxpayer, a community member, a voter, and a City employee disturbed by recent decisions made by City leadership. She noted that a coworker had come before council previously to share frustrations over the recent mandatory reduction of hours. She averred that words could not express her disappoint- ment in the City’s lack of leadership in willingness to work toward long-term sustainable solutions. She underscored that they did not feel that all of the City’s employees were “in this together” as the “current mantra would lead you to believe.” She stated that after ten months of negotiations utilizing Interest Based Bargaining, a cooperative approach focused on joint interests rather than divisions, the City’s American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) local, representing approximately 680 employees, had entered into a binding employment contract. She underscored that this contract had been made with full knowledge of the budget shortfall and the imminent closure of Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. She said the City had contacted AFSCME and the other unions in March to ask them to give up their negotiated Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs). AFSCME had voluntarily met with the City to discuss sustainable options to stabilize the budget without taking away from the employees that kept the City working and functioning. She noted that she had sat at the table. She related that AFSCME offered to work with the City by using the competitive services assessment tool identified in the contract as a successful tool, and one that the City had a substantial financial investment in. She said the local also offered to take six days of unpaid furlough back to its membership for a vote of approval, but the local had been denied. She stated that the local had received notice of the intent to implement an across-the-board hour’s reduction, in violation of the contract. She added that the media had received notice before the local had received it. She explained that the only option was to issue a demand to bargain, which provided 90 days to negotiate with the City, but it had taken the City more than 50 days to meet with the local. Again the local offered to use the tools that were identified in the contract for service delivery and had offered ideas for cost savings. She related that while the suggestions were appreciated, they would not be applied to “AFSCME’s piece of the pie.” She said the local had offered alternative proposals, using the financial information provided by the City that would result in immediate and long-term savings. She noted that the City’s attorney had referred to the implementation as a “crap shoot” at the final meeting because a decision could go either way in arbitration. She remarked that she was not a gambling person and, as a taxpayer, she expressed outrage that the City’s money was being spent on something an attorney would describe in that way and something MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting that also resulted in an immediate loss of service and could wind up costing taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars. She emphasized AFSCME’s willingness to work with management to come up with solutions. She said working toward a sustainable solution could not be achieved by violating the trust and integrity of the employees that “keep Eugene a great place to live,” nor could it be achieved by gambling tax dollars. Troy Kreger , 95 Alberta Lane, President of AFSCME Local 1724, stated that the Local had 680 members and was the largest union local in the City of Eugene. He understood that councilors could not engage directly in bargaining, but he wanted to make them aware of the mandatory furloughs being imposed on City employees. He noted that, like the councilors, he was elected to represent others. He found it unfortunate that AFSCME had been portrayed as unreasonable and uncooperative in the process. He disputed this and pointed out that AFSCME had been the first of the City’s unions to come to the table to discuss proposals. He said the members wanted to help the City find savings and had participated in the “Think Tank” and “Victory Garden” exercises and had offered input to their supervisors. He felt the City Manager was only focused on getting the money out of the members’ household incomes. He stated that AFSCME offered to conduct a mutual review of all City work operations in order to find more cost efficiencies, but had been turned down. He underscored that a contract was a contract. He averred that the City apparently thought the current economic situation constituted an emergency and that they could disregard the contract they had just negotiated in the previous November. He was concerned that City management was making decisions that would lead everyone in the City into a costly legal battle that would ultimately be a greater cost to the citizens that the AFSCME employees served and to the taxpayers the councilors were elected to serve. He asserted that decisions like the one made by the City had cost other communities millions of dollars and that the federal court system had found such actions to be violations of bargaining contracts and had been ordering agencies to repay furloughed employees. He considered it unfortunate that the City had chosen to pursue this path. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, Councilor Zelenka’s ward, asserted that a $75 million dormitory that was proposed for the Fairmount Neighborhood would likely undermine the Walnut Station visioning process. He said a public hearing would be held on November 10 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the University of Oregon Longhouse. He felt the University failed to have a full conversation with the public about construction of such buildings. He had read an article in the newspaper that indicated that the University would have to find 300 parking places that the dormitory would displace. He opined that the Fairmount Neighborhood association had “failed” to adequately notify the public about the hearing. He said he was at the council meeting to give the Fairmount residents “fair warning.” He suggested that the Fairmount Neighborhood could become a historic district. He also suggested that the dormitory could be built on the old Joe Romania property, which he believed would create a “win-win” for the neighborhood. He listed a couple of other suggestions for locations for the dormitory. Sally Nunn , 1026 Jackson Street, Ward 1, Councilor Brown’s ward, said she represented the Sierra Club. She related that the board had recently approved a motion to adopt Amazon Creek because they believed that more needed to be done to protect the urban waterways. She stated that the group had planned in engaging the public about the Amazon corridor in order to encourage people to engage in greater participation in all that the urban waterways did for the community in terms of wildlife corridors and stormwater retention. She related that the Sierra Club had been especially concerned about LTD’s “plan” to establish an EmX route along the Amazon channel. She said they believed it ran counter to the City’s original plans to enhance the channel. She considered the option to be a poorly considered idea. She stressed that the club was not against mass transit, only the possibility of developing a thth route in that location. She conveyed the club’s preference for the other two options, along 11 Avenue or along 6 th and 7 Avenues. She said they hoped the corridor could be extended park status to protect it into perpetuity. Lisa Anderson , 1230 Arthur Street, Ward 1, Councilor Brown’s ward, related that LTD had met with the neighborhood in September. She remarked that there had “been fireworks” at the meeting because the neighborhood was furious about plans. She said it was the first that many neighbors had heard about these plans. She stated that neighbors were also angry about the possibility of losing portions of the greenway and/or bicycle path to the Amazon thth Corridor option. She hoped that the council would choose the 6 and 7 Avenue option. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting th Hannah Torres , 2123 West 12 Avenue, #1, stated that she lived in the Fernwood Apartments. She did not want a bus route ten feet from her bedroom. She said she and her daughter grew peas along the fence at the edge of the property and did not want a bus driving through there. She added that many of her neighbors had not known about the Amazon Corridor EmX option until the previous week and, though they wanted to weigh in on the issue, they were unable to come because of work obligations. Kenneth Glenn , 1340 Arthur Street, Ward 1, Councilor Brown’s ward, commented that he walked by Ms. Torres yard every day and could smell the peas. He considered it a pretty place, commenting that the people who lived in the apartments were “struggling” to make an environment for themselves. He had tried to imagine having a bus come through that area and for him it was unfathomable. He had bought his house 14 years earlier and, because of the “greener Eugene concept,” he had begun planting more trees and other things. He said there was a lot of wildlife in the area that he would not want to be affected, noting that he had recently seen river otters. He had canvassed neighbors and most had no idea that LTD was considering an EmX route through that area. Kimberly Gladen , 361 West Broadway, #4, stated that she lived and worked in the downtown core. She did not own a car and walked everywhere she needed to go. She averred that her safety downtown was everyone’s safety. She did not feel that the City and the Eugene Police Department (EPD) had listened to the public. She opined that the problem was systemic and the reason things escalated, resulting in lawsuits, was because the police were not listening to the public. She believed that the downtown needed community policing, which meant the police should be talking to the people. She said it was nice that efforts to clear the area in front of the library and Kesey Square had worked, but unfortunately that traffic had moved into the parking lots. Additionally, she had noticed a lot of feces in the downtown area lately. She had also noticed people by the tree by the WOW Hall and an increase in men bringing young girls behind the building she resided in. She felt like the problems were just getting pushed around, which did not “get to the core issue.” She asserted that part of the reason for this was that the City kept getting like-minded people on their task forces instead of listening to people who were different. She believed that the women, the poor, the homeless, and people who appeared a little different were not being listened to. She felt like it was “easy to blow off” someone like her and it was easy to “blow off” someone who was homeless. She added that the sidewalk between the tavern, John Henry’s, and the corner of Charnelton Street had a rancid oil smell that needed to be attended to. She did not think Ward 7 served the downtown area; the downtown needed to be its own ward, represented by its own councilor. She declared that most democracies fail when some of the people are forgotten. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She thanked the AFSCME employees for coming and talking with the council. In response to Mr. Vishanoff’s concerns, she said they were challenged by the need for more dormitories in the campus area so that the student population did not impact neighborhoods, but trying to balance having those buildings in the neighborhood also presented challenges. Regarding the potential EmX route in west Eugene, she stressed that three options were being examined and one had not been chosen at this point. She underscored that they would try to determine the best option. She believed that having a successful transit system throughout the entire city was a citywide goal. She wanted to find the transit route that had the most positive impacts and the least negative impacts. She thanked Ms. Torres for speaking on behalf of her neighbors and also thanked Ms. Gladen for coming before the council. She noted that she was not in the downtown area late at night. She appreciated Ms. Gladen’s suggestions. She intended to pass them along. Councilor Taylor declared that everyone was important. She thought there should be a way to have some of the people who soil the downtown area clean it up. She suggested that people who committed infractions could be made to do the cleaning. She was glad many people from the Amazon Creek area had testified regarding the EmX corridor option. She believed both that area of the Amazon Creek and the Amazon headwaters were important and noted that the acquisition of the headwaters had not been completed. She thanked everyone for coming. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz appreciated the comments provided by staff and community members. Regarding the EmX corridor, she felt that LTD had done a good job of doing some outreach, but they were working on doing a better job. She hoped that people who were aware of meetings would pass the word along to those who did not know about them, in order to reach as many people as possible. She supported mass transit, adding that it had “to go somewhere.” 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - August 12, 2009, Work Session - September 15, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4988 Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (484 and 490 River Loop #1/Heather Lintz (A 08-6)) D. Adoption of Resolution 4987 Supporting and Encouraging ODOT to Construct a Retaining Wall on the West-Facing Fill Slope Between the Willamette River and Alton Baker Park Canoe Canal for the Protection of Trees E. Appointment to the Wilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Councilor Clark pulled Item C. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item C passed un- animously, 8:0. Councilor Clark said he wanted to pull Item C, an item having to do with annexation of property in the River Road/Santa Clara area, in order to gain the greatest possible clarity. Steve Ochs, Associate Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), stated that the annexation involved a single property that was contiguous to an existing right-of-way. He said the parcel consisted of a little over half an acre. Councilor Clark ascertained that no parts of the annexation involved any public rights-of-way that were not currently annexed. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item C, adoption of Resolution 4988, a resolution to annex land to the City of Eugene, passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose Section of the Eugene-Springfield Metro- politan Area General Plan by Adding Separate Population Forecasts for the Cities of Springfield and Eugene for the Period 2010-2030 and Including the Years 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, and 2035; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date (Eugene City File MA 09-6) Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5006, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan by adding separate population forecasts for the cities of Springfield and Eugene for the period 2010-2030 and including the period 2030-2035. City Manager Jon Ruiz recapped the motion. He said the population forecasts were critical for use in ongoing planning efforts, such as the Comprehensive Lands Assessments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark understood that the numbers in the population forecast had come from Portland State University and were not the previously used statistics, which had been safe harbor numbers. City Attorney Emily Jerome affirmed this. She said once the County had adopted its own numbers, the City had no longer been in a position to use the safe harbor numbers. Councilor Clark asked the reason for the council action, given that there was no choice in the matter. Ms. Jerome responded that state law required it. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text, Chapter III, Section D, Policy #11; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5007, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text, Chapter III, Section D, Policy #11; adopting an exception to statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway. City Manager Ruiz explained that the ordinance was in regard to the South Bank bicycle project and would allow some fill to be placed within the Willamette Greenway boundary. He noted that the decision was intra-jurisdictional. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. ACTION: Minor Code Amendment Project (Remand) An Ordinance Concerning Parking in the University Area; Readopting Provisions from Ordinance No. 20418 in Response to Remand; Amending Section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date; and An Ordinance Concerning Building Height in the University Area; Readopting Provisions from ordinance No. 20418 in Response to Remand; Amending Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5009, an ordinance concerning building height in the University area. Councilor Zelenka was interested in moving this forward immediately in order to protect the neighborhood and to strike a balance between the neighborhood and development interests. With regard to parking, he preferred to defer the item to the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Committee so they could develop a more comprehensive proposal, planned to come before the council prior to its winter break. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the motion so that it would delete the text in Section 4 of Council Bill 5009 (the ordinance concerning building height) and replace that text with the following: “An immediate effective date of this Ordinance is necessary in order to serve the important public purpose of ensuring that infill development in the affected area is compatible with the surroundings. Therefore, this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its pas- MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting sage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, retention by the Mayor for more than ten days, or re-adoption over a mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members of the City Council.” Councilor Clark asked if this amendment would be characterized as an emergency clause. Ms. Jerome confirmed this. She stated that it would require a council majority vote of six to pass. Councilor Clark ascertained from Ms. Jerome that if the council did nothing, the parking ordinance would come back automatically as a part of the ICS work that would be coming before the council. Councilor Zelenka encouraged his colleagues to vote for the amendment. He averred that if it did not go into effect immediately, it would leave the neighborhood unprotected while they were working out the details regarding building heights. Councilor Ortiz asked Ms. Jerome to clarify the motion before the council. Ms. Jerome explained that the motion only affected the height provisions. She stated that the ordinance had findings that addressed the issues that had been raised in the appeal that had gone before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). She said the amended motion would make it go into effect immediately and, without the amendment, the provision would only go into effect after another appeal had occurred, should there be one. Councilor Ortiz had thought that what was coming before the council was a height limit that had been negotiated between the South University Neighborhood and the Homebuilders Association. Ms. Jerome clarified that this was not part of the motion; what Councilor Ortiz referred to was part of what was forthcoming from the ICS Committee. She said the expectation would be that the ICS proposal, if passed by the council, would take the place of the provisions that were before them at the present meeting. Councilor Ortiz asked Councilor Zelenka to explain “what the hurry” was. Councilor Zelenka responded that his concern was that if the ordinance was adopted without his amendment, it could take months for the height limit to go into effect. He said his amendment would provide the neighborhood the protection he believed they were seeking until the ICS ordinance came before the council. When that ordinance passed, it would become the language that everyone agreed to in the ICS process. He believed that without the amended language, there could be “zero protections” for the neighborhood should someone want to develop a tall building there. Councilor Pryor understood that the limits would be adopted either way. He surmised that the question before the council was whether they wanted to pursue the standard process for adoption or did they want to declare an emergency and have it in effect in anticipation that there might be an appeal. He asked staff if there was any indication that anyone was inclined to file an appeal. Senior Planner Alissa Hansen responded that the testimony given at the public hearing had been pretty divided, but most of it had centered on the parking issue. Councilor Pryor had not heard anyone indicating intent to appeal. He asked how long the standard adoption would take and what would be in effect. Ms. Jerome wished to clarify that the only people who could appeal the issue were those who had participated in the original LUBA appeal. She said as the ordinance was currently drafted, the minor code amendment provisions would not go back into place until they were acknowledged. She explained that if no one appealed, it would take 30 days according to charter, but if it was appealed it would not go into effect until they received a ruling from the appellate body. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Pryor, Ms. Jerome stated that what would be in effect during the appeal period would be current code. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor had reason to believe that no one would appeal. He was less concerned about declaring an emergency, given that. He could appreciate the desire to ensure the height restrictions were upheld and to prevent someone from attempting to “sneak in the back door.” He did not feel a compelling need to declare an emergency, however. Mayor Piercy surmised that the amendment would allow the neighborhood to feel that they were being protected from someone developing a building that was taller than the restrictions would allow, once in place. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Jerome explained that the charter provided that an ordinance would go into effect after 30 days. She was not certain why that number of days was required, though it was a common practice across the state for resolutions to go into effect immediately and ordinances to go into effect after 30 days. Councilor Clark asked if there were any potential negative consequences of immediate adoption from an economic standpoint. Ms. Hansen replied that if someone was prepared to submit a building permit that met current code and the amendment was passed, they would have to change the application. She was not aware of any plans to submit a building permit in that area at this time. Councilor Clark said he agreed with Councilor Pryor; this was a valid thing to do but he did not feel compelled to pass the amendment on an emergency basis. Councilor Zelenka reiterated that the intent behind the amendment was to prevent someone from trying to submit an application for a building permit for a building that would exceed the height restrictions desired by the neighborhood during the 30-day waiting period. He believed that a ten-story, 120-foot high building across the street from single family neighborhoods would cause irreparable harm. He said if someone was to appeal the height restrictions, then there would be no restrictions until the LUBA process had reached its culmination. He noted that the area was the only one in the City that had land that was zoned Residential, R-1, next to land that was zoned Residential, R-4. He considered the amendment to be an interim “band-aid” to protect the neighbors in that area. Councilor Taylor supported protecting the neighbors immediately. She saw no reason not to pass the emergency clause. She felt it was crucial. Councilor Pryor asked Ms. Jerome if the main difference between the two actions was 30 days. Ms. Jerome responded that there were three options and the council was discussing the two extremes: declaring an emergency which would make it effective immediately and what was already in the ordinance, which was that it would not go into effect until it was acknowledged. She explained that this could mean that it would not go into effect until after an appeal. She said the middle ground would be to move to delete the text in Section 4 and nothing more, putting the ordinance into effect after 30 days. Councilor Pryor thought the end result would be the same either way. He felt that if it was in the interest of the neighborhood and the neighborhood wanted something done immediately, he could support it. Councilor Zelenka was concerned that someone could put in for a building permit within 30 days for a building that would violate the code change they intended to implement. He felt that they were going to enact it anyway, so they should make it in effect immediately. Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment providing for the immediate effective date was 5:3 and, therefore, did not pass. Councilors Solomon, Poling, and Clark voted in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to delete the text in Section 4 of Council Bill 5009. Councilor Zelenka ascertained from the City Attorney that the amendment would make the ordinance go into effect regardless of acknowledgement, in 30 days. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Jerome clarified that it could still be appealed, but the ordinance would go into effect in the interim. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule the parking recommendations from the Infill Compatibility Project for public hearing and action by the City Council prior to the council’s winter break. Councilor Clark ascertained from Ms. Hansen that the item was scheduled for a public hearing on November 16, with a council work session scheduled for November 9. She stated that the item was scheduled for action on December 14. Councilor Clark asked for clarification on the purpose of the motion. Councilor Zelenka responded that the purpose was to direct staff to take on the work in a timeframe other than the one specified on the Tentative Agenda. Councilor Solomon was not opposed to the motion, but she did not want to be compelled to take action on December 14 if the council was not ready to do so. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Senior Planner Terri Harding, project manager for the Infill Compatibility Standards, stated that the Planning Commission intended to hold its public hearing on the first three items, which were parking, a revision to building height, and a special area zone for the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood, on October 20. Councilor Poling asked if staff had everything ready for the public meetings and council work session. Ms. Harding affirmed that staff was prepared. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Poling and Clark voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting