Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 04/14/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 14, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey was excused from the meeting. Council President Bettman convened the work session. A. WORK SESSION: Continued Discussion on Priorities for the Planning Division Work Program City Manager Dennis Taylor explained that much work was waiting until the priorities were clarified and motions were adopted. He called on Planning and Development Department (PDD) Director Tom Coyle, to speak to the item. Mr. Coyle recalled the council's earlier consideration of the item in a February work session, at which it had ranked some items. He said the list of six to eight items was included as Attachment A for reference purposes. Ms. Bettman indicated the council was starting with a motion that had been tabled. Mr. Kelly recapped the work session, stating that he had moved to move items 5(b): Buildable Land Supply and 5(c): Service Provision and Special Districts to the ~Other" list. He explained that he had made the motion regarding the former because there were State requirements regarding buildable land supply that were contained within periodic review, and those requirements had been satisfied during the most recent periodic review. He felt there were other priorities that rose to a higher level. He said he would like to see Growth Management Policy 1, which spoke to increasing density and using existing vacant land, in place of 5(b). He added, in response to concerns that an expanding land supply was needed to ensure adequate housing and/or tax revenue, research indicated that comparable cities that developed expansively and cities that dominantly developed infill did not experience much difference in housing prices or employment levels. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Coyle clarified that the buildable land issue was intended to acknowledge the necessary consultation on project-specific and citywide issues as they relate to buildable lands. He stated that the Planning Commission had formed a subcommittee that was working on infill strategies. He assured Mr. Meisner that the work would not cease should the issue be placed on the ~Other" list. Mr. Meisner asked if there had been a sense from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) regarding how that agency felt about the buildable lands inventory. Susan Muir, Planning Division MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Manager, responded that a caveat in the statute could kick an inventory process into motion with any project. In addition, a Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) policy existed that required an annual update of the residential buildable lands supply. Mr. Meisner indicated his intention to support the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Coyle stated that PDD was undergoing the periodic review process. Ms. Muir added that the department was currently behind in this work. Mr. Poling asked when the assessment of the 2001 residential lands supply would be completed. Ms. Muir replied that it had been completed, but was required to be done every two years. Mr. Poling asked how approval of the motion would affect the discussion held earlier regarding the joint effort on the survey, in that it was being funded by the three governmental bodies. Mr. Coyle thought the buildable land survey issue would stand by itself. He added that staff would be available to answer questions, but not to actually conduct the work. He said approval of the item without approval of the project would represent a misalignment. Mr. Poling conveyed his concern that the City would fall behind in State-mandated work. Ms. Nathanson agreed, stating that the City was several years behind already. She asked when the survey was due to be completed. Ms. Muir replied that ~the clock would not start ticking" until the next year. Ms. Nathanson felt the project should be finished. She opined that when pet projects were prioritized above projects designated by law, it ended up placing the latter on a back burner. She said it was not possible to identify 27 things as top priorities. Mr. Pap~ wondered if there would be adequate staff and budget to meet the needs of the six top priorities. Mr. Coyle affirmed there would be. Ms. Muir clarified that the portion of the survey she had spoken to was a requirement of the Metro Plan and was to be conducted annually. Mr. Pap~ related that Commissioner Worrix of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and Lane Shetterly, department head of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), were aware of the periodic review requirements and that staffing and funding requirements for such reviews were burdensome for all jurisdictions. He added, anecdotally, that the municipality of Brookings was twelve years into its periodic review and expected to work for three more years to complete it. Ms. Taylor favored the motion. She thought there were more urgent items the Planning Division should work on, such as item 41, which prioritized dealing with the Land Use Board of Appeals' remand of the City's Land Use Code Update (LUCU) concerning Goals 9 and 10 and the Chapter 6 tree provisions. She emphasized that this item was once at the top of the list and that it needed to be done. She expressed concern that the discussion referred to what Jack Roberts of the Metro Partnership wanted but did not refer to recommendations made by 1,000 Friends of Oregon. Ms. Bettman felt confused as she thought the council was to reprioritize specific issues that the council directed the organization to pursue. She asserted the list was de facto approval of all items listed. She said MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 2 Work Session some issues were broadly worded, such as suggestions included in the buildable land supply. It sounded to her as though the council was giving the Metro Partnership's proposal de facto approval without adequate discussion. She cited the special districts issue, noting there was no council action when the discussion on the item had been held and yet it was on the list. She also felt that language that suggested other projects would be approved for prioritization along with economic development and the hospital siting was nebulous. She suggested this would leave to the discretion of the Planning Division what major projects would be prioritized. She commented that prioritization of the periodic review need not occur in this process as it was within the parameters of the regular duties the Planning Division performed and, as such, not unlike the issuing of permits which needed no mention in the list. Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to reword 5 (b) to read, as follows: "Buildable Lands Supply issue, not including industrial or commercial land study." Mr. Meisner questioned the phrasing, stating it would bar staff from having anything to do with commercial or industrial lands. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Bettman's concerns regarding the lack of discussion at the council level on such lands. Mr. Coyle responded that adding that phrase to the item provided an additional level of clarification that would acknowledge Mr. Roberts' project if and when it came before the council. Ms. Nathanson remarked that the question of whether there was enough land was key to many other debates and discussions. She said the change did clarify the item but questioned the necessity of such a clarification. She preferred to work with the list as presented. Ms. Bettman said she did not want the prioritization process to circumvent normal work session protocol. She opined that, as stated, this list bypassed council discussion of an important issue. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Coyle explained that item 5(b) intended to acknowledge the %onsultative capacity of the Planning Division as it relates to buildable lands within the City." He said the division would not take from this direction approval or denial of the work project. Mr. Taylor added that is was not included in the current fiscal budget, nor was it proposed for the next one. Mr. Coyle remarked that the item provided the council the opportunity to resolve the issue of the commercial and industrial land survey. Ms. Bettman supported Mr. Kelly's motion. She commented that it seemed that such consulting work occurred anyway and the council would look at such resource issues when the council made the decision to proceed. She felt the item would not take as many resources as nodal development or other items on the list. She thought it should be a function of Planning Division staff to talk to people such as Jack Roberts when they decided they wanted to change the use of, for example, a school site. Mr. Meisner surmised from the discussion that the inclusion of Mr. Kelly's motion would have no ultimate net effect. Mr. Coyle affirmed this. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion. He asked what prospects were for funding the buildable commercial land survey. Mr. Coyle replied that this would be covered in discussions yet to come. Mr. Kelly stated that the amendment indicated what part of the list was not a priority for the council. He commented that the Metro Partnership study was ill-defined and whether he supported it was dependent upon what lands were included in the study. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bett- man voting yes; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Pap6 voting no. Mayor Torrey was not present to cast a deciding vote and the motion failed. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to move item 5(c) regarding the service provi- sion/special district issue to the "Other" list. Mr. Meisner said staff resistance to special districts was so great it was not worth maintaining the item as a priority. Ms. Solomon questioned why the item was on the priority list. She related that, in earlier discussions, compression had weighed heavily on the issue. Mr. Taylor explained that most of the concern regarding special districts seemed to arise from the issue of service provision and declining or capped resources. He said people looked to special district service provision as a way to provide for new revenues. He added that in this situation evidence had been presented that indicated special districts would not provide the same flexibility as other jurisdictions because of the problem with compression due to the ceiling imposed by Ballot Measure 5. Mr. Carlson stated that compression was an issue for local government entities. He related that the reason it was on the list was that a joint meeting of elected officials had directed staff to develop a work program and bring it back to the Metropolitan Policy Committee. He emphasized that the impetus behind it had been the move by the City of Springfield to provide fire and emergency medical services through such a district. Mr. Pap6 hoped revisions to the Metro Plan could occur so that all services did not all have to be provided by municipalities only. He noted that he was working with elected officials in Springfield to try and put forth amendments to the Metro Plan. He asked if this item would only apply to the Metro Plan. Mr. Coyle responded that the item would acknowledge that the Planning Division would have to be consulted in connection with land use decisions that would result from any Metro Plan amendments. Mr. Taylor commented that service delivery was a large question and would take much staff time and resources, even if the work was undertaken by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He noted a similar discussion on what the level of services should be and how this should be addressed in the Metro Plan had been held in 1995. Ms. Bettman asserted that the joint elected officials had determined that it would be beneficial to have a sense of the scope of the work involved to take to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Instead the council was given a specific and expedited timeline. She called this ;~jumping the gun," and questioned the wisdom of prioritizing this issue above many City priorities. She supported the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor remarked that passing the item did not mean it was thrown out ~forever," only that it was not a priority at this time. Ms. Solomon reminded councilors that this item did not only address service districts, but also encompassed service provision. She advocated for allowing the flexibility in the planning schedule to look at service provision. Mr. Coyle said, due to past decisions, the special district issue was embedded in the Land Use Code and would make the item work-intensive to change should that time come. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to extend the discussion by ten minutes. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Nathanson commented that she was unconcerned that the item would affect service provision. Mr. Meisner voiced his support for the motion. He thought it would in no way preclude staff finding efficiencies in City services. He noted that previous items having to do with special service districts ~went nowhere" and had taken staff time. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to raise Item 39, which would prioritize investi- gation of an alternate path review process parallel to the prescriptive code, to a high prior- ity. Mr. Kelly said this was in response to the recent closure of a ~doggy daycare" facility. He wished to provide a more flexible way for such a business to be established through the Land Use Code. He noted it had been a council directive to give this a high priority after LUCU was completed. Mr. Meisner expressed support for the motion. He encouraged staff to look into how other cities handled such items and save themselves some work. Mr. Coyle affirmed, in response to Mr. Pap~, that the Planning Division had the resources to address Item 39 should it be given a high priority. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman asked, regarding Item 5(d), what other major projects were being approved should the list be approved. Mr. Coyle responded that this would acknowledge the consultative work that Planning Division would do with the Development Division. Ms. Bettman asked if this would cover projects given a high priority by the City Council. Mr. Coyle replied that any project having to do with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site or siting a new hospital would be given highest consideration by staff. He said the aim would be to be able to answer any questions regarding a property such as the EWEB property, but not to expend resources to assist with the development of the property. He noted, regarding the latter, that he would have to return to the City Manager for direction in such a situation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor reiterated her concern that Item 41 would not be addressed. Mr. Coyle assured her that it was not ~way down" the list as items 20 to 42 had not been ranked. Ms. Bettman called for the vote to affirm the work program in Attachment A. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Cell Tower Siting Ms. Muir reviewed the purposes of the Telecommunication Ordinance code language, adopted in 1997, that addressed cell tower siting, as follows: - to minimize the number of towers throughout the community; - to encourage collocation facilities; - to encourage the use of existing buildings and poles as opposed to constructing new ones; - to recognize the need of providers to build out their systems; - to ensure that facilities were designed to minimize the visual impacts on the immediate surround- ings and throughout the community, and minimize public inconvenience and disruption. Ms. Muir indicated, with the assistance of tables, there were 27 cell towers permitted to be constructed since the advent of the Telecommunications Ordinance. Ms. Muir referenced a map on display that showed buffers currently in the Lane County code applied to the City. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to initiate amendments to Section 9.5750 of the Eugene Code to 1) extend setbacks for new cell towers to 1,000 feet from the nearest school and 800 feet from the nearest residences; and 2) codify the requirement for independent consultant review and verification; and 3) codify zero tolerance for interference with public safety commu- nications. Ms. Nathanson stated from her experience with this issue at a national level that the key drivers were capacity and coverage. She stressed that more people wanted cellular phone service everywhere. She noted that the city of Eugene posed topographical challenges to the provision of adequate coverage. She recognized there would be new requests to build cell towers as providers sought to keep abreast of demand. She felt more staff analysis was needed on proposed setbacks. Ms. Nathanson said she was a big proponent of the Third Amendment. She warned that there could be extensive legal work due to a lawsuit in another county which had attempted to adopt a zero interference ordinance. She related that the Federal Communi- cations Commission (FCC) had insisted the federal government should be in charge of who should regulate broadcasting. She disagreed, stating that it should be a local matter. Mr. Pap~ said he had not seen evidence that cell towers posed a safety hazard. He suggested that a safety hazard posed by cell towers would also be posed by telephone lines and electro-magnetic fields generated by large power lines. He commented that there was no analysis before the council with regard to the 1996 federal act and without this information it would be difficult to anticipate the legal ramifications of the motion to initiate amendments. Mr. Pap~ noted that there were providers willing to work with the City and the City had yet to work with them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 6 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that the Federal Telecommunica- tions Act would need to be reviewed to ensure any proposed changes would be consistent with it. Courts have rendered a variety of decisions, sometimes conflicting, all over the country. He clarified that acting on the motion it would not adopt anything nor would it open the City to any sort of legal action. He said staff would take direction from the motion and try to develop the changes and analyze whether they could give rise to challenges. Mr. Taylor added that any amendments would have to go before the Planning Commission and at least two public hearings would occur on the matter. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion to include any other code amendments recommended by staff. Ms. Nathanson welcomed the amendment because there were areas of concern such as siting the utility boxes on private property or public rights-of-way. She noted she had not liked what she had seen in other parts of the country. She wanted there to be more adequate safety measures as well as thorough screening prior to installation. Mr. Kelly did not support the amendment, noting there were few resources in the Planning Division to address it. He preferred achieving success on the three items before them before proceeding to broaden the burden on staff. He noted Lane County had passed setback requirements. Ms. Bettman asked how much the amendment would increase the scope of work. Ms. Muir replied that, should the directive require a broad audit, it would be time-consuming. Mr. Meisner indicated he would not support the amendment. He commented that he was unsure about the main motion due to the potential legal ramifications. Ms. Taylor supported the motion and was inclined to support the amendment. Ms. Muir stated that there was a provision in the existing code that may require the posting of an open- ended bond and there was also a requirement that the recovery of fees from the City's cost in retaining consultants for the purposes of verifying applications. She added that the latter had not been consistently enforced, but the division was now enforcing it in all cases. Mr. Pap6 hoped to allow staff the ability to do some research and craft the appropriate language so that it would not need to return for revision in five years. Ms. Nathanson thought it would not take long for staff to do a ';quick literature search" to find out what other cities had done to shore up gaps in their cell tower ordinances. She indicated she intended the research to primarily focus on problems the cities had experienced. Mr. Kelly felt tightening the language could easily fall into minor updates to the Land Use Code, but if it was more substantive, he was concerned the amendment would %pen things up too far." He added that Citizens for Responsible Placement of Cell Phone Towers (CRPCPT) had provided the council with a document in 2002 that could prove to be a good reference. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Klein said, in response to Ms. Bettman, that legal counsel could craft language for such an ordinance within 30 to 45 days. Ms. Bettman called for the vote on the amendment. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Nathanson, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mr. Meisner asked staff to determine how many of the existing cell towers would not have been placed had the proposed requirements already been passed. Mr. Poling commented, regarding the third proposed amendment, that he would not tolerate any interference with public safety employees' radios. He hoped that the legal challenges that had been raised would become clearer in time. He thanked the CRPCPT for its information. Mr. Kelly voiced his support for the main motion. He recalled that in his ward several cell tower placements had generated well over 100 citizen comments. He thought zoning did not adequately influence cell tower siting as it was possible to live on land that was zoned R-1 that was immediately adjacent to land that was zoned I on which a cell tower could more easily be placed. Mr. Meisner recalled the amount of staff time and outside legal counsel required in the development of the Telecommunications Ordinance and expressed hope that the City could approach cell tower citing much more efficiently. Mr. Taylor noted that the mobile data terminals in police cars ran on cell tower technology. Ms. Bettman supported the motion. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 8 Work Session