Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 04/12/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 12, 2004 Noon 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 to order. A. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Pap6 reported that the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) was considering new services to expand membership, including a legal services office. He said the LOC was proposing to develop model ordinances and a model charter. He regretted the council had not had the advantage of the model charter when it considered charter changes in 2001. He said he would share the information with the council. Mr. Meisner had no items. Mr. Poling noted a recent article in The Register-Guard regarding a zoning issue faced by a "doggy day care" that wished to operate in Eugene. It appeared that the use in question did not fit clearly in any particular zoning or use category. He suggested it was time for the council to reconsider some of the zoning code categories and definitions and to consider additional flexibility to accommodate changing technologies and times. Mr. Poling said he recently toured the new Hult Elementary School and looked forward to its opening. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Solomon requested an update on the road funding situation. City Manager Dennis Taylor said the Lane County Board of County Commissioners expressed interest in having further discussion about the issue with Lane County cities sometime in April. He had no staff recommendation or board recommendation to share at this time. Ms. Bettman said the Police Commission was embarking on a review of the police complaints process. The commission would be collecting information to frame the issues. The commission proposed to hold a comprehensive public forum in advance of that effort and wished to do so before the end of the University school year. She asked for permission for the commission to hold the forum in advance of the council's approval of the commission's work program in July. There was no objection. Ms. Bettman said she would request a work session on transportation project priority setting prior to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Metropolitan Policy Committee taking action on the State Transportation Improvement Program. Speaking to Mr. Poling's remarks, Ms. Bettman said the zoning map was identified as an item to be addressed in the post-Land Use Code Update work program item. Unfortunately, because of other priorities, that work was postponed. Ms. Taylor shared Mr. Poling's interest in the doggy day care situation. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about increases in the cost of a pool pass, suggesting the increases would make some people unable to afford to use a City pool. She said that there were many people who did not meet the low-income threshold to qualify for City scholarships. She was concerned about that. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council as quickly as State statutes allow an ordinance to establish a moratorium on accepting or processing applications for retail establishments in ex- cess of 50,000 square feet. Ms. Taylor said she was attempting to protect local businesses and workers. She had heard concerns from those employed at local establishments who feared for their jobs. Ms. Taylor emphasized the motion called for a moratorium, rather than a prohibition, on such establishments. The details could be discussed when the council held its work session. She offered the motion now because it would take a long time to accomplish. She wanted the City to be ready to respond to such development proposals in the future. Mr. Kelly supported the motion because it gave the council time to discuss the issues involved with big box retail uses before a new application was made. He thought it made sense to put a temporary moratorium in place, citing evidence that big box retail establishments hurt local businesses. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Taylor said her focus was on single-use retail establishments. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City would be required to notify property owners potentially affected by such an ordinance. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said 45 days notice would be required, but he was unsure of the scope of the notice without consulting the relevant statutes. Mr. Pap~ wanted to know more about the costs to the City and the impact on existing property rights from such an ordinance if the motion passed Mr. Meisner wanted more information about what the council could regulate or prohibit in terms of nonlocal businesses of a certain size. He questioned the need for an ordinance apart from an ordinance that might arise from the council's upcoming work session, and also wanted information about the impact of the motion on the Planning Division's work program. City Manager Dennis Taylor said State statutes required the City craft findings to accompany any ordinance instituting a moratorium. He noted the time line required for the process, which included a Planning Commission hearing as well as notice to the State, and said it would be difficult for staff to implement without more information about findings and what retail establishments the council proposed to prohibit, and why. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Solomon said the motion felt very anti-business to her. The council had a lot of work to do, and she was not anxious to add more to its workload. She pointed out that people outside Eugene also shopped at Wal-Mart. She believed that Wal-Mart provided a valuable service for many citizens in the community. Mr. Poling was concerned about the legal issues around the issue. He also noted the upcoming work session on the subject of big box retail, and considered the motion a way of circumventing the council's established process. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to table the motion to May 24, 2004. Mr. Poling said without more information, he was unprepared to move forward. He wanted to proceed in a legal and cautious manner. Ms. Nathanson also noted the upcoming work session on the issue. She said such a moratorium would affect any entity wanting to do business in Eugene, not just Wal-Mart. The moratorium would also proceed the council's work session, and she considered that to be premature. She recalled the council's recent discussion of council goals, and said it appeared work on those priorities would have to stop to facilitate work on the ordinance called for in Ms. Taylor's motion. Ms. Bettman believed the council's work session on big box retail uses would stimulate a flurry of applications and if the moratorium was not in place it would send a message that those applications should be made. She noted that other communities had adopted moratoriums, and they were not considered a ~taking." The community spent considerable time on economic development to create jobs, and she thought the council could take action to protect existing jobs. She pointed out the council was not taking action on an ordinance, but rather a proposal to place a moratorium on big box development until a policy was in place. Mayor Torrey supported the motion to table. He noted for the benefit of the public that the motion offered by Ms. Taylor would not affect the Wal-Mart expansion on 11th Avenue, and Wal-Mart would have the right to move forward and expand that store. The moratorium would apply only to future applications. Ms. Taylor said that the process of instituting such an ordinance took time, which was why she offered the motion now. The motion did not commit the council to any action. Mr. Meisner determined from Ms. Taylor the motion did not direct the manager to bring an ordinance back to the council's May work session. Mr. Papd noted that the issue had not made it to the top of the council's priority list for the Planning Division's work program. Mr. Kelly referred to the 45-day notice mandated by the State and determined from Mr. Lidz that it was 45 days from that notice to the public hearing. Mr. Kelly pointed out that time period would expire after the council's May 24 work session, so Ms. Taylor's motion merely %tarted the clock." City Manager Taylor reiterated his concern about the need for findings, and suggested the work session would provide more direction to both the council and staff. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly said by its nature, the moratorium was temporary, and gave the council a chance to look at what other communities had done in terms of regulating big box retail uses. Speaking to Mr. Pap6's remarks, Mr. Kelly pointed out the council had yet to adopt the Planning Division's work program, and the adoption of the motion would inform that discussion. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Lidz if Ms. Taylor's motion provided enough information to "get the clock running" given that the State statute required notice of the kind of findings that would support the moratorium. Mr. Lidz said no. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Lidz if the motion was sufficiently specific to allow him to write a notice of intent to hold a public hearing on accepting or processing applications for a retail establishment in excess of 50,000 feet, and if not, was there something that could be added to the motion. Mr. Lidz did not think the motion was sufficiently specific. He said if the goal was to get such an ordinance in place as soon as possible, beginning to write it now facilitated the goal. The motion to table the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting in support. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion to table, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Speaking to Mr. Poling's comments about the code, Mr. Kelly said there had been considerable work done on definitions during the update process. He believed that there would always be too many types of businesses for a land use code to contain an exhaustive list, meaning there would be judgment calls on the part of staff. He suggested another approach was the alternate path the council had previously expressed interest in. That could encompass performance-based zoning. He hoped to make the alternate path a higher priority for the Planning Division. Mr. Kelly said he understood the mayor's advisory committee on parks planning wanted the council to place a bond measure for parks on an upcoming ballot. He asked how the council could make it clear it wanted to see polling done on such an issue or on the issue of a new police building before it proceeded to take action. City Manager Taylor agreed that a timely assessment of the support for such a measure was important. Mr. Kelly said if there was any question in the manager's mind that he did not possess the authority to proceed with such a survey, he wanted to know. Ms. Nathanson said the motion to table Ms. Taylor's motion regarding a moratorium on big box retail uses did not take the council's work session on the subject off the table. She said the council needed to discuss whether the issue was local ownership, transportation, jobs, or land use; depending on the subject, the focus would be different. Ms. Nathanson noted the motion offered to the mayor's advisory parks planning committee came up two minutes before the meeting was to adjourn and the committee had expressed interest in a survey. She said that such a survey was reliable only when it was specific enough to give good information, and the committee had yet to develop a specific proposal to offer the voters, which would make the results of polling more scientific. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Taylor thanked the councilors for attending the groundbreaking for the new federal courthouse. He recognized the effort of Mike Sullivan and the staff of the Planning and Development Department, who had been working on the issue for five years. Mr. Taylor reported that the signatures for the repeal of the ordinance related to the urban renewal district had been turned over to the Lane County Elections Office for verification. He did not know if the petitioners had been successful in gathering the needed number of signatures. Mr. Taylor noted that he had arrived in Eugene to assume the position of City Manager one year ago and thanked the council for an enjoyable and challenging year. Mr. Meisner requested a background report on the parks planning committee and its analysis of co-relating maintenance costs to such a bond. He did not want to acquire land that the City could not afford to maintain. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Lidz that the appeal of the ballot title did not affect the collection of signatures. Mayor Torrey said the tree planting event on Saturday went very well and the City received compliments for its efforts. B. ACTION: Downtown Plan Update and Related Metro Plan and Code Amendments An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Add the ND Symbol to the Eugene Downtown Plan Area; Redesignating the Federal Court- house Site from Heavy Industrial to Commercial; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Provid- ing an Effective Date; and An Ordinance Adopting a New Eugene Downtown Plan as a Refinement of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 3882 and the Eugene Downtown Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.9540 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date The council was joined by Associate Planner Nan Laurence for the item. She noted the public hearing that had occurred on the item and the testimony heard by the council. She requested approval of the two ordinances that begin to implement the Downtown Plan. Ms. Laurence reported that staff would return on May 10 with a downtown work plan. Ms. Laurence referred the council to the plan, which reflected the changes suggested by councilors in legislative format. She thanked the council for its work on the plan. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Downtown Plan as revised and to direct staff to prepare a graphic copy for publica- tion. Referring to page 19 of the plan, Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the mention of 8th Avenue as the location for a new civic center was too restrictive. Ms. Laurence said the text in question was a project example and it suggested that ~where possible" such buildings should be located on 8th Avenue. She referred Mr. Pap~ to MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Policy 2 on page 18 of the plan, which encouraged the location of significant government buildings along 8th Avenue. She said the text in question was not in the ordinance. Ms. Laurence believed there were reasons to reinforce the idea of a civic street. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the plan by revising it to read ~...along East 8th Avenue and other locations..." Mr. Kelly was somewhat comfortable broadening the language given the recent design charette, which placed a preference on the 8th Avenue location but did not preclude other locations. He indicated he would await the comments of other councilors before deciding his position. Ms. Bettman said the text was aspirational. Though there were specific implementation projects she did not agree with, there were others she would like to see strengthened. However, since the council was only adopting the policies and had the final word on all projects, she thought that calling out such issues was ~word-smithing." For example, she would like to reinforce the Parks Blocks as a location for the Saturday Market and Farmers Market, but declined to do so because of the aspirational nature of the plan. Ms. Bettman characterized the policies as relatively broad and generally positive, and said she would not support the amendment. Mr. Taylor indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. Ms. Taylor agreed. She said there were things in the plan she would like to change, but there were many good things in the plan as well, such as pedestrian amenities. Mr. Pap~ agreed the council should not wordsmith aspirational language, and asked the City Manager how he would interpret the project text and Implementation Strategy 2(D), %eek funding and develop a plan for a new City Hall and police station along East 8th Avenue." Mr. Taylor distinguished between the policy and implementation strategy and said he would interpret the text as general guidance. Ms. Laurence concurred. Mr. Taylor did not interpret the text as restricting his ability to offer the council another site in downtown. He thought it gave him great latitude. The amendment to the motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Ms. Bettman referred to Policy 3(B) on page 30 of the plan, which indicated the Eugene Water & Electric Board's (EWEB) master plan would be processed as a Type II application, which was a Planning Director decision, as opposed to a Type III decision, which was a quasi-judicial decision. She asked staff how that affected the greenway permit process. She wanted to know if a master plan application would trigger a modified permit (Type II application) or a new application (Type III application). Mr. Yeiter said that depended on the interpretation of whether the permit was being modified. Mr. Kelly confirmed with Mr. Yeiter that whether or the text in question was in the plan, the greenway permit rules were applied separately. He questioned whether a decision about the master plan would influence the Planning Director in terms of how he or she interpreted the nature of the greenway permit. Mr. Kelly was convinced a healthy vibrant downtown was a prerequisite for a healthy and vibrant Eugene. He said that the plan contained some things he did not like, but it contained other elements he was pleased with. He supported the plan. He was also pleased to hear the Downtown Plan Action Plan would come MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 6 Work Session back soon as much of the plan's success depended on its implementation. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 regarding the public input that would go into the master plan application, Ms. Laurence said there would not necessarily be a lot of public involvement in the master plan, as the plan was written with the premise that once the council adopted the principles for the master plan, staff would review the application to ensure it was consistent with those principles. Mr. Meisner asked how the policies facilitated the council's interest in siting a hospital on EWEB's property, pointing out one policy required the development to be multi-use. He asked if that prevented the council from negotiating its highest goal. Ms. Laurence said by practice, hospitals were multi-use. Mr. Meisner questioned but accepted that. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Laurence to double-check the spelling of "Eugeneans." Ms. Bettman said she would still support the plan in spite of the fact the Planning Director had review approval for the master plan. The text in question simplified the process. She felt confident there were enough people in the community concerned about the greenway that the master plan would receive scrutiny. She hoped the City moved forward with the plan, and that it did not become so aspirational or broad that it was misinterpreted. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4857, amending the Metro Plan Diagram. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4858, adopting a new Eugene Downtown Plan. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey thanked staff, and the council applauded staff's efforts. C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning the Downtown Area; and Proposed Amendments to Sections 3.344, 4.871, and 4.872 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Police Chief Bob Lehner was present to discuss the ordinance. Chief Lehner reported that, in response to council direction, the Police Department had worked to resolve some of the differences between commercial and noncommercial activities relative to the ordinance passed in November 2003. As part of that effort, Police staff met with a community coalition that included the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union. The text before the council revised the ordinance by removing the "25 person or more" language from the ordinance adopted in December 2003. The goal of the ordinance was to draw a "bright line" between commercial and noncommercial activities. He said he reviewed the council's discussions on the topic and believed the proposed changes addressed the council's concerns. Chief Lehner said that staff and the community coalition discussed the fact that many of the issues that created the confusion between commercial and noncommercial activities were also a concern in regard to MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 7 Work Session another ordinance, the parade ordinance. He said those subjects were more applicable to the noncommercial parade ordinance than to the commercial elements of the downtown ordinance. Staff believed the changes adequately addressed those issues. Chief Lehner said he believed the council would hear support from the community coalition for the changes being proposed. He looked forward to working with the coalition again when the department worked on the parade ordinance. He invited questions. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor said if the council had not passed the ordinance initially, it would not have had to spend time and money revising it. She asked if the lingering prohibition on the plaza past 11 p.m. was discussed by the coalition. Chief Lehner said yes. He said the City had a legitimate interest in regulating park spaces. He said the administrative rules will clearly distinguish between affected areas. Ms. Taylor thought that unfortunate as she thought people should be encouraged to use the space, and she did not consider 11 p.m. to be late. Mr. Kelly was supportive of the revised text and thanked Chief Lehner and other City for addressing the issue and working with the community coalition. He thanked the chief and the coalition for their efforts. Mr. Kelly hoped the department and coalition would be sensitive to free speech issues when working on the parade ordinance. Mr. Kelly thought community ill-will would have been eliminated if the council had adopted the amendments being contemplated at an earlier time. Mr. Pap~ thanked Chief Lehner for his work on the ordinance. He supported moving the ordinance forward to a public hearing. He determined from Ms. Bettman the Police Commission had not reviewed the ordinance. Chief Lehner said the commission received progress reports but did not participate in discussions with the community coalition. He said the more inclusive the drafting process was, the more the City was able to deal upfront with potentially controversial issues. Mr. Pap~ encouraged Chief Lehner to include the commission in the review of the parade ordinance as it was his belief the commission was charged to do such reviews. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Pap~, Ms. Bettman said the Police Commission did not normally review ordinances, and the ordinance in question was the subject of direction from the council to the manager. The commission had been interested in the process. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the work of the department and the community coalition and hoped that members of the coalition would continue to be involved, as well as other community members. Ms. Bettman said she heard about the curfew issue from one person, and looked forward to the public hearing to see how the issue resonated with the community. She said there were good reasons for restricting hours, as well as reasons such restrictions were disliked by the public. She suggested that 11 p.m. might be a little early for downtown, although she would postpone judgment until she heard from the public. Mr. Meisner concurred with the comments of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pap~. He said the changes being suggested MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 8 Work Session made a great deal of sense. Speaking to the issue of involving the Police Commission, he said that he spoke to downtown business owners and residents who objected that they were not included in a review of the ordinance. He suggested that the chief consider forming a subcommittee of commission members to publicly process the parade ordinance. Chief Lehner reminded the council that it had directed the City Manager to revise the ordinance and he had received clear directions about the clarifications being sought. Mr. Kelly suggested Chief Lehner consider involving the downtown neighborhood association in the development of the parade ordinance. Mayor Torrey asked how things were going downtown in general. Chief Lehner said it was his understand- ing that criminal activities downtown were generally weather-dependent. There was a spike in hate speech and hate crime recently in downtown, which created a problem. That appeared to be an emerging trend but could be associated with the weather. With regard to crime levels, he said those issues continued to be a major concern for Downtown Eugene, Incorporated, and for downtown residents. He had met with groups with a downtown presence to discuss those issues, and was meeting soon with the downtown neighborhood association. Chief Lehner said the department's ability to provide policing services downtown was somewhat affected by its definition of service delivery. A conversation about that topic needed to happen. The neighborhoods wanted to discuss appropriate levels of service delivery throughout the community. He promised the council an inclusive process would occur, likely in the context of the next budget. Mayor Torrey said that several people in the Broadway Plaza area indicated to him that they did not feel as comfortable at night downtown recently as they had in the past. Chief Lehner said he heard the same, and passed those comments onto staff. He said that the department needed to work with the downtown in an inclusive way; that process had started and would continue. Mr. Meisner observed that the forums on downtown policing were occurring but they had not been well- advertised. He suggested the department may have to repeat the process to get the public involved. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 9 Work Session