HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 05/24/04 WS MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room--City Hall
May 24, 2004
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David
Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon.
His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
Mr. Pap6 thanked the Fire Department for its recognition of a University of Oregon student who had rescued
two people from a burning house and commended the student for quick action. He announced that he and
John Brown were sponsoring a river cleanup through the Delta Rotary Club and the Southtown Rotary Club
on June 5, 2004, and invited members to contact him if they were interested in participating.
Ms. Bettman commented that she had received several inquiries regarding the proposed expansion of a
church at 15th Avenue and Polk Street. She requested a background memorandum on the project describing
the application and requirements. She said of particular concern was the removal of trees prior to the
application process. She reported that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) had decided to alternate
the meeting venue between Eugene and Springfield and every other meeting would be held in the Bascom-
Tykeson Room at the Eugene Public Library. She asked the city manager to check its availability for the
June 10, 2004, MPC meeting.
Ms. Taylor expressed concern with conditions on Whitbeck Boulevard. She said that the Planning
Divisions's decision to permit development had been appealed and the council had denied the appeal. She
said that appellants had been assured that the City would provide oversight and there would be no damage;
however, there were problems with water runoff, erosion and destruction of the roadway. She asked for a
response from the city manager.
Ms. Taylor noted that the subject of "big box" stores was being discussed later in the meeting and asked if
the current application for the Wal-Mart superstore could be halted on the grounds of environmental effects
and transportation. She stated she had not yet received an accounting of expenditures from the parks bond
issue. She noted that the City would be receiving $9 million and asked that citizens be consuked about use
of the funds for projects such as purchase of the Amazon Creek headwaters.
Mr. Kelly asked for a moment to remember Henny Willis of The Register-Guard who died on May 21,
2004. He noted that Mr. Willis was a kind man and an insightful observer of state and local government.
Ms. Nathanson arrived at 5:35 p.m.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 1
Work Session
B. WORK SESSION: Housing Standards
City Manager Dennis Taylor noted that renewed interest in the issue of housing standards emerged from the
work of the West University Neighborhood Task Force and he introduced Marsha Miller of the Planning and
Development Department's Building and Permits Services Division to present the subject.
Ms. Miller used a slide presentation to highlight components of the agenda packet materials. She provided a
brief history of the Eugene Housing Code and listed the policy questions to be considered by the council:
· Should the City adopt local housing standards for rental properties?
· How would the program be funded?
· What would the scope of the housing code be?
· What properties would be exempted, if any?
Ms. Miller reported that there were between 30,000 and 33,000 total rental units in Eugene with a 5.3
percent vacancy rate. She said there were a number of existing state and local regulations that applied to
housing, as well as existing services related to housing. She provided an overview of the City of Corvallis
Housing Code and enforcement program, noting that all Oregon State University housing was provided on
campus, while that was not the case with the University of Oregon. She compared housing codes from
Portland, Medford, Corvallis, and Salem.
Ms. Miller described options available to the council, which included directing staff to develop a housing
code and program modeled on Corvallis, directing staff not to pursue a housing code in Eugene, or providing
direction on alternatives. She said that if the council decided to go forward with a code similar to that of
Corvallis, the estimated timeline was 45 to 60 days using existing staff with a cost for attorney fees of
between $1,000 and $2,000. She projected an implementation timeline of up to 12 months, staffing
requirements of 1.0 FTE (full-time equivalent), and a cost of $240,000 that included start-up expenses. She
estimated the cost of an ongoing program with two or three FTEs at $200,000 to $290,000. She also
provided the option of a phased implementation that could be initiated as soon as January 2005.
Mr. Kelly thanked Ms. Miller for the overview and budget projections. He said that the State law related to
housing standards was not accessible to many renters because of the lack of a local enforcement mechanism
for those who could not afford an attorney. He referred to recent comments by John VanLandingham of the
Lane County Law and Advocacy Center that none of the State law's enforcement mechanisms were as good
as what was proposed in a Corvallis-style program. He said that using civil penalties instead of municipal
courts as the enforcement mechanism made sense. He supported housing standards in the Eugene Code and
a local enforcement mechanism that was funded on an ongoing basis by a small fee to owners.
Mr. Meisner stated his support for implementation of a housing program covering the four basic habitability
standards and liked the use of civil penalties rather than Municipal Court. He also supported a complaint-
driven program that was fee-based and hoped that staff would carefully review what fees should be assessed
based on program costs. He asked how rooms rented in owner-occupied homes with all residents sharing
bathroom and kitchen facilities would be classified. He said another situation was a single-family home that
was not owner-occupied and not rented as a single-family home; rather individual rooms were rented and
tenants were expected to share kitchen and bath facilities.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 2
Work Session
Ms. Nathanson expressed some concern with a phased implementation because neither the problem nor the
type of units to be covered had been clearly defined. She said the proposed phased approach would address
multi-family units first and she was not certain that those presented the greatest problem, which meant
assistance for tenants who needed it the most would be postponed until the second phase.
Ms. Nathanson questioned how the estimated start-up costs would be funded and asked about exemptions
for owner-occupied units, noting that other communities provided that exemption. Referring to Mr.
Meisner's example, she said that other programs levied a fee for the unit and an additional small fee per
bedroom. She encouraged councilors to read the informative report from a group that studied the issue of a
Eugene housing program five years earlier. Given that Eugene had three times the number of rental units,
she asked if Eugene's situation was comparable to or worse than Corvallis' situation. Ms. Miller replied
that she had no way to assess that and the lack of reliable data presented challenges to the discussion of a
housing code.
Mr. Pap~ said that he had contacted Corvallis Mayor Helen Berg to discuss the Corvallis program. He said
that Mayor Berg was supportive of the program and had estimated that of the 150 complaints processed
annually, one-half were resolved once the landlord was contacted about the problem. He said that Corvallis
left issues related to rental contract disputes to the court system. He suggested that Small Claims Court
could be used to process complaints under State law without the need to hire an attorney.
Mr. Pap~ expressed concern about the two to three FTEs needed to operate an ongoing program. He said
the Corvallis program was handled through the Housing Department and functions were split among staff
and not assigned to a specific individual. Ms. Miller said that her understanding, based on discussions with
the Corvallis staff person who managed the program, was that three-quarters of his time was spent
answering calls, which numbered about 400 per year, resolving complaints and investigating those
complaints that could not be resolved in the early stages.
Mr. Pap~ suggested that instead of establishing positions to handle the program, complaints could be
addressed through contracted private dispute-resolution services, with the City collecting fees and providing
oversight.
Mr. Poling expressed concern with the start-up costs, establishing two to three FTEs, and classification of
owner-occupied units. He asked what types of costs were incurred by landlords and tenants through the
existing housing services such as Lane County Law and Advocacy Center and Associated Students of the
University of Oregon. Ms. Miller replied that those organizations did not charge for their services.
Mr. Poling asked if individual complainants would have to pay costs up front if a suit in Circuit Court was
instigated. He asked if arbitration and mediation for contract dispute resolution could be included to avoid
filing a court case. Ms. Miller replied that she would research how court costs were covered and that
arbitration and mediation services were options that the council could direct staff to explore.
Mr. Poling referred to form letters he had received from the Rental Owners Association of Lane County
voicing concerns that fees assessed to owners would increase the cost of housing and advocating that the
program be funded through fines and assessments, which he felt would leave the program in an unstable
funding position. He was in favor of moving the issue forward to the next step but was concerned about
how the start-up costs would be funded.
Ms. Bettman commented that without an enforcement mechanism, there was no way to inventory complaints
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 3
Work Session
and problems. She related that her first experience with the issue was during her first campaign for office
and she heard from many people during door-to-door visits that housing concerns were a top priority and
tenants felt helpless to deal with substandard housing. She said she supported moving the issue forward and
the ongoing costs attributable to the two or three FTEs could be minimized by eliminating outreach and
education and focusing on enforcement. She expressed concern that mediation was not an appropriate tool
to address habitability issues, using the example of defective plumbing that was either repaired or was not.
She appreciated the option of a phased implementation approach and noted that the six-month period
between the first and second phases was relatively short and should not be an issue. She asked how use of
civil penalties for enforcement of nuisance and unsafe building codes was functioning. Ms. Miller said the
civil penalty process worked well because it could be done administratively, a penalty could be assessed on a
daily basis when a condition continued, and it was a flexible and effective enforcement tool.
Ms. Taylor stated she was in favor of moving forward with an ordinance. She said a combination of fees
plus fines could support the program and just having the possibility of enforcement would reduce the
necessity. She did not feel the State law was adequate because of the enforcement difficulties and she would
support a phased approach.
Mayor Torrey said he was in favor of not using the Municipal Court for enforcement. He suggested that
staff contact the Corvallis program and ask what they would change if drafting an ordinance again; what
worked well and what should be done differently. He asked the city manager where he proposed to obtain
the start-up funding and said that the program should be initially understaffed and the need for additional
staff demonstrated.
Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the city manager to create draft
ordinance language to create housing standards similar to Corvallis addressing
habitability needs; the ordinance language to include funding mechanisms and an
enforcement mechanism. Language should be brought, along with next steps, to the
council in a work session prior to summer break.
Mr. Kelly commented it would be desirable to have solid data to support the need for a housing ordinance,
but having only anecdotal information did not mean the problem was not real. He said that surveying
tenants could be problematic because they feared speaking out in any way that did not protect anonymity.
He related that the manager of the Corvallis housing program confirmed Ms. Taylor's point about less need
for enforcement once the possibility of enforcement existed. He asked staff to obtain feedback from the
Human Rights Commission staff on ordinance language before it advanced to public hearings.
Mr. Poling asked if the motion would give staff sufficient time to prepare the ordinance. Ms. Miller said
that if the code was modeled on the Corvallis code there would be enough time.
Mr. Poling agreed with a phased approach starting with multi-family units because of the time involved in
identifying single-family units. He referred to a letter from the chair of the Harlow Neighbors Association
reporting that the association had passed a motion on May 19, 2004, supporting the concept of City
enforcement for minimum housing standards similar to those proposed by the Eugene Citizens for Housing
Standards Coalition.
Mr. Pap~ asked if Corvallis used State law in the four areas of habitability. Ms. Miller said that was
correct.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 4
Work Session
Mr. Pap~ expressed the opinion that State law was sufficient and it was not necessary to attempt to improve
upon it. He asked that the draft ordinance language also be reviewed by the Housing Policy Board. He
commented that the program would usurp fees from the 90 to 95 percent of landlords who took care of their
units and considered habitability to be important and hoped that as the program was ongoing a lower fee per
unit and higher enforcement fines would be considered to target those landlords who were the perpetrators.
Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Pap6's suggestion that the program eventually become a complaint-driven,
fine-driven program. He said he would support the motion and appreciated the Mayor's suggestion to
contact Corvallis to determine what changes might be recommended. He concurred with Ms. Bettman's
remarks that mediation was not an appropriate enforcement tool. He asked if the City could enforce through
the courts if civil penalties were not effective in resolving a complaint. Ms. Miller said that currently the
City could place liens on properties when civil penalties reached a certain threshold. City Attorney Glenn
Klein said the ordinance could grant the City authority to do both an administrative civil penalty, as well as
go to Municipal Court.
Mr. Meisner asked that such language regarding enforcement authority be included in the ordinance.
Ms. Nathanson observed that the motion did not include a request for alternatives for the council to consider
regarding exemption. She said there were exemptions that would be appropriate for Eugene, such as
educational institutions that provided housing and owner-occupied shared housing. She asked staff to
provide more information on the program in East Lansing, Michigan, which offered the opportunity for
exemptions by neighborhood. She also asked for information on whether multi-year licenses would make the
program simpler and more efficient to administer and reduce costs and fees.
Ms. Bettman stated that she would support the motion and thanked the community coalition for their work
on the project.
Mayor Torrey thanked staff for their work and noted that the council's action would not adopt an ordinance,
only request that draft ordinance language be developed.
Mr. Kelly said he had suggested a work session before summer break because he did not anticipate a public
hearing until the fall and school was back in session.
Mr. Taylor said that the schedule and tasks would allow for a work session before summer break, reviews
and comments by all appropriate bodies, and conduct of the regular ordinance process in the fall.
The motion passed unanimously.
C. WORK SESSION: Banning/Controlling Location of"Big Box" Stores
Mr. Taylor introduced Planning and Development Executive Director Tom Coyle to outline the issues raised
in Background on "Big Box" Retailing provided as Attachment A to the agenda item summary.
Mr. Coyle emphasized that the document was a summary of the issues and not a scientific analysis or
economic study of the retail market in Eugene. He directed the council's attention to the section of the
document that addressed terminology and stressed the critical need to use consistent language when
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 5
Work Session
discussing regulation. He said that the discussion of Wal-Mart referred to a super center, which was
traditionally a mass merchandiser that expanded to add food service to its use. He said that a typical Wal-
Mart or Target would include 150,000 to 160,000 square feet and the recent application received from Wal-
Mart was for the addition of 60,000 square feet to the existing center. He said that summary included a
breakdown of public comments received on the Wal-Mart expansion sorted by areas of complaint:
competition with local business, wages and business practices, and land use-related issues of traffic and
aesthetics.
Mr. Coyle pointed out the potential consequences that should be considered if the solution to the issue was a
code amendment:
· The effect of creating a non-conformity for all retail buildings over 50,000 square feet.
· The effect of a size limitation associated with nodal development on a city-wide application.
· An absence of competition for uses and development in current in place as a result of a size limita-
tion.
· The precluding of redevelopment of existing sites if there is a size limitation.
· The relationship of a square footage limitation to the use of internal retail space.
Mr. Coyle concluded his remarks with the comment that staff recommended no action unless there were
compelling reasons why a size limitation would respond to the concerns associated with ;;big box" retailing.
Ms. Taylor expressed her disappointment that information was not provided about ordinances that existed in
other cities relating to ;;big box" retail. She said her intent in raising the issue was to protect local business,
local workers, and downtown and to address issues such as transportation. She said a moratorium on ;;big
box" stores was a starting point while the City considered options such as imposing conditions relating to
environment, transportation, living wage, local ownership and decision-makers, and the consequences of
abandoning a facility. She said the present application would have negative effects on the transportation
infrastructure and wetlands and hoped it could be stopped while the council examined regulation options.
Mr. Kelly said that while the problem had land use aspects, it was ultimately an economic development
policy and economic health issue. He stated that it was necessary to develop mechanisms for what type of
economic development would provide the most net positive gain to the community and noted that studies had
identified a net negative effect on local businesses of many ;;big box" stores; for example, the percent of
dollars spent that left the community immediately. He said other issues were the impact on the local labor
pool, public subsidies for employees, and efficient or inefficient use of commercial land. He commented that
many other communities had either banned or restricted ;;big box" retail. He did not think that a square
footage limitation was the only solution and gave as examples regulations that applied only to chains or
formula business and an impact analysis review of certain types of businesses.
Mr. Meisner said that ultimately residents made the difference by where they shopped and agreed that the
council needed to address the issue. He asked for additional information on how other communities had
approached the problem as well as a legal analysis of how those approaches and the ones discussed by the
council would work under Oregon law and judicial system. He said the issue was not one of land use and
size.
Mr. Pap6 remarked that land use and aesthetics issues should be separated from business operational issues,
which were much more complex. He expressed concern with the idea of the City trying to manipulate the
marketplace and agreed with Mr. Meisner that shoppers would ultimately make the decision. He said that if
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 6
Work Session
wages, benefits, and union labor were the issues, they were more appropriately addressed at the State or
national level instead of by the City of Eugene.
Ms. Nathanson agreed that the issue was bigger than Eugene and said that in studies of the fiscal impact of
large retail stores it appeared a major factor was some cities' pursuit of retail because they were dependent
on sales tax revenue and provided subsidies through land or tax incentives. She said those were not an issue
in Eugene and wondered whether preventing or limiting large-volume retailers in Eugene would result in
people driving farther to shop at that retailer in a neighboring community. She was dubious that restrictions
would accomplish what was intended, either to influence the ownership of businesses or reverse the trend of
consumerism.
Ms. Solomon concurred with comments from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Nathanson, particularly
about people voting with their pocketbooks. She stated she was a Wal-Mart shopper and had a right to
choose and shop for the lowest prices, including going to Wal-Mart, and it was not the role of the council to
take those choices away from citizens. Referring to earlier comments about %ig box" stores causing blight,
she noted that the Wal-Mart/Target complex on West 11th Avenue had generated a number of additional
local commercial and retail services in the vicinity.
Ms. Bettman said that there were two distinct and overlapping issues: the economic security and develop-
ment issue and the land use and growth issue. She said that over-commercialization did impact local
businesses. She indicated that the City's policies relating to densification and infill should also applied to
businesses with respect to commercial property and parking. She stated that the City's efforts to attract jobs
should include a look at the type of development that actually reduced jobs and wages. She said that public
safety was impacted by a rise in shoplifting-related calls attributed to "big box" stores and when land was
used for commercial development that included a large amount of surface parking, it was taken out of the
inventory but not taxed in a way that created optimum revenue.
Referring to the issue of choice, Ms. Bettman said that a formula chain entity represented a false economy
because of the hidden costs related to subsidies. She said when a large regional attractor was created at the
edge of the city limits, the municipality paid for costs such as transportation, public safety, and planning and
subsidized the low-wage jobs through social services.
Mayor Torrey asked if the real reason was for the proposed restrictions was the low wage and benefits jobs
and if Wal-Mart agreed to pay a wage acceptable to the council, would objections to the expansion be
dropped. He questioned whether the same rules would be applied to local businesses and if not, there would
be legal ramifications. He said he did not believe that the Wal-Mart application already submitted could be
stopped and if there were potential negative impacts to transportation or wetlands, residents could file legal
challenges. He said preventing "big box" retail development in the community would simply result in that
development being located at the edge of the urban growth boundary (UGB) north of Eugene along Highway
99 and Eugene would still have to deal with transportation impacts. He said he was not opposed to a
council decision to address the issue as an ordinance, but was opposed to action that would stop the current
process, such as a moratorium, and would veto such action.
Ms. Taylor commented that "big box" retail sometimes caused the loss of other jobs, requiring a subsidy of
employees through social services. She said that efforts to improve downtown were affected by what
happened on the edge of town. She requested a moratorium to allow the council time to think about options.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 7
Work Session
Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct the city manager to bring
back to the City Council as quickly as State statutes allow an ordinance to impose a
moratorium on accepting or processing applications for retail establishments in ex-
cess of 50,000 square feet.
Ms. Taylor said her purpose was to give the council time to think and discuss possibilities and the reasons
were to protect local jobs, local businesses, and downtown and to encourage businesses that kept money in
the community rather than businesses that caused more social service expenditures.
Mr. Kelly remarked that he would support the motion. He pointed out that a moratorium would not stop the
current Wal-Mart application as the law that applied was the law in effect the day the application was
submitted; its purpose was to prevent for a short period a potential mistake that could cost the community
economically and environmentally for 20 or 30 years while the alternatives were considered. He said the
reasons were threefold: 1) economic development and how the local economy was supported; 2) wage and
benefits issues; and 3) land use issues. He said that it might not be legally possible to distinguish between
national and local ownership, but other municipalities had been able to distinguish by using formula
business or chain business. He noted that other cities had agreed that preventing, limiting, or reviewing
further ;;big box" development was valuable, just as anti-trust laws existed to provide additional regulation
of businesses with dominant market power.
Mr. Meisner commented that he had supported the motion at the previous meeting, but was not going to
support it currently because the moratorium was based solely on square footage in excess of 50,000 square
feet and did not give notice to the city manager to prepare anything on any other grounds.
Ms. Bettman acknowledged that the moratorium was problematic and restrictive, but when the land use code
was updated there was not the political will to address issues related to %ig box" retail. She agreed with the
Mayor's comments regarding the many issues involved and said if the council wanted to fulfill its underlying
value of protecting local businesses and jobs and providing living wage jobs with benefits, that's what it
should be negotiating. She said it was important to see how chain stores functioned in and impacted the
community and she wanted the community to have a positive influence on the matter. She stated she would
support the motion because it would expedite the council's ability to look at the issue and suggested
referring it to the Mayor's Economic Development Committee for recommendations on criteria.
Ms. Nathanson stated she would not support a moratorium because it could prevent the expansion of local
businesses as well as %ig box" retail, which was the wrong message to send when the City was trying to
encourage economic recovery. She expressed concern about characterization of ~those jobs" and said
economic development should encourage manufacturing, not retail. She said that not all %ig box" stores
paid the same wage and had the same benefit structure and asked how those compared to the communities'
very small retailer and food service employers. She wondered whether the concerns were about wages,
ownership, or square footage and transportation and said too many things were being addressed with the
wrong solution.
Mr. Pap~ said that before a decision was made, more specific information on the actual impact of %ig box"
stores on the local should be obtained. He said that it was important to encourage the growth of existing
smaller businesses but he was not a protectionist and did not think they should be protected from competi-
tion. He said that minimum wage jobs offered employment opportunities to young people and students. He
stated he would not support the motion and requested more information that was empirically-based, not
attitudinally-based.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 8
Work Session
Mayor Torrey said that a survey conducted of local businesses last year regarding perceptions of the
business climate in Eugene listed the top four issues as:
· Simplify the permit process and dealings
· Relax, revise local government regulations
· Adopt pro-business policies
· Employ economic development strategies
Mayor Torrey said that implementing a moratorium without providing an opportunity for a legitimate
process that included a work session and public hearing was wrong and referred to previous action on
housing standards as the appropriate approach. He observed that the pressure appeared to be to stop Wal-
Mart and not pressure to stop 50,000 square foot buildings.
Mr. Kelly explained that Ms. Taylor's motion did direct the city manager to bring back an ordinance to
impose a moratorium and the ordinance would be subject to the usual public input and public hearing
process, which was the same approach the council had taken with housing standards.
Mr. Kelly proposed a friendly amendment to add the language %taff should begin
investigation of possible long-term techniques related to economic issues, such as
impact analysis or formula business regulation, used in other cities." Ms. Taylor
accepted the amendment as the maker of the motion. Ms. Bettman accepted the
motion as the second.
Continuing, Mr. Kelly said a moratorium was a blunt, short-term and temporary solution that allowed time
for a more permanent solution to be crafted. He expressed discomfort with quoting the business climate
survey because of the 15 percent response rate.
Ms. Taylor remarked that her motion was the same as the one she had made at a previous meeting and was
prepared by Mr. Klein. She said all the moratorium did was to provide the council time to think, and if it
was possible to stop the current application, she would want to do that.
Ms. Nathanson declared that if the issue was fundamentally about economic development and concern for
local business, then the council should ask the Mayor's Economic Development Committee to discuss ways
to support local businesses, the possible impacts and unintended consequences.
Ms. Bettman said that she had raised aspects of the issue during economic development and land use
discussions and was responsible for the 50,000 square foot limitation in nodes and the 35,000 square foot
limitation of a footprint. She said whether the motion passed or failed, it was her intent to move to ask the
Mayor's Economic Development Committee to consider not just the economic development issues embedded
in %ig box" chain store development, but consider the land use issues as well with respect to efficient use of
land within the UGB and impacts on transportation, tax base, and service provision. She said that
neighboring communities also had small businesses to protect and grow.
Mr. Meisner thanked Mr. Kelly for his amendment to the motion and pointed out that the motion did direct
staff to develop an ordinance for a moratorium on accepting or processing application for retail establish-
ments in excess of 50,000 square feet. He asked to what extent such a moratorium, if enacted, would
restrict the council or tie its hands during the moratorium period. Mr. Klein responded that the moratorium
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 9
Work Session
would not tie the council's hand in any way; it would tie the Planning and Development Department's hands
with respect to accepting applications for a store proposed for more than 50,000 square feet.
Mr. Meisner asked if work on a permanent ordinance would need to be related to the problem identified in
the moratorium. Mr. Klein replied that the moratorium ordinance, when it returned to the council, would
have to identify the need and specify that the City was working on responding to the need.
Mr. Meisner asked whether size limitation based on square footage could be discarded in favor of other
factors if it was determined to be the wrong solution. Mr. Klein replied that it could be discarded during
deliberations that occur after passing the moratorium.
Mayor Torrey inquired whether a store that was 48,000 square feet would become non-conforming if it was
remodeled to 55,000 square feet. Mr. Coyle said that level of specificity would have to be called out in the
ordinance and under a permanent ordinance the store would be rendered non-conforming in that scenario.
He noted that some local grocery stores were engaged in expansions similar to the hypothetical figures.
Mayor Torrey requested that if the motion passed, the moratorium ordinance contain all of the implications,
positive and negative, so the public would be aware of the consequences.
Mr. Coyle raised the point that a supercenter of Wal-Mart's size would require a piece of property 18 to 20
acres and zoned commercially and he was not aware that such a parcel existed. He said the net effect of a
moratorium would be focused on redevelopment of existing sites and the project at 29th Avenue and
Willamette Street would be stopped.
Mr. Taylor commented that under Oregon law special notice was required to the Land Conservation and
Development Department as well as a specific ordinance outlining the rationale for the moratorium in
specific detail. Mr. Klein added that the ordinance would contain findings that responded to the require-
ments of State law, which included need and adverse effects, and the moratorium would be time-limited to
four or six months.
Mr. Pap~ asked if the moratorium would affect expansion of a manufacturer that also had retail in its
facility. Mr. Klein said the effect would depend on the definition of %ig box" retail.
The amended motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in
favor.
Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the city manager to include
in the charge of the Mayor's Economic Development Committee the specific tasks
of identifying the economic and land use transportation impacts of chain or volume
retailers in excess of 50,000 square feet and providing recommendations and crite-
ria to mitigate the impact to the council.
Mayor Torrey asked about the committee's current status. Mr. Coyle replied that the committee had held its
fourth meeting and was running somewhat behind schedule. He said the scope of the analysis requested in
Ms. Bettman's motion was complex and would require significant resources to compile the data necessary
for the committee to make an objective assessment.
Ms. Bettman commented that the committee was already examining overlapping issues such as the land
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 10
Work Session
inventory and jobs and a significant amount of research on the "big box" issue had been done in other
communities. She hoped that the committee would explore the usefulness of a community benefits
agreement that gave the City the ability to regulate development so it was consistent with community
standards.
Mr. Kelly said the council did not need to craft a solution immediately and the committee was an appropriate
body to assume the task.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Meisner requested permission to change his vote to aye on Ms. Taylor's
amended motion relating to the moratorium. There were no objections. The vote
on the motion was tied.
Mayor Torrey broke the tie by voting nay. The motion failed, 5:4; Ms. Taylor, Mr.
Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Meisner voting in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 11
Work Session