Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 03/10/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall March 10, 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. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan Adopted by Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985 Richie Weinman of the Planning and Development Department recalled that on February 25, 2004, the council reviewed amendments to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, and the motion on the table was in relationship to the added parcels. Four scenarios were provided in the packet. The motion on the table reflected the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor indicated she would vote against the motion because the infrastructure that existed at the riverfront research district did not serve anyone. She called the proposal a tax diversion plan. Ms. Bettman said she would also oppose the motion. She said the plan was not written in a way that allowed the council to dedicate the revenue to projects of a high priority to the community. She feared that the result would be that the council would continue to fund such projects that have other sources of funding, such as the courthouse-related transportation projects, and divert needed tax revenues from the State and school districts. Mr. Kelly said he shared many of Ms. Bettman's concerns about the plan and how the revenues would be used. However, he believed urban renewal in the area could be a positive tool for central city revitalization and redevelopment. He wanted to have the tool available to the council. He pointed to the added policy that every project over $250,000 other than a loan would be reviewed and approved by the council, and at that time he could evaluate each project on its merits. He said the council needed to be vigilant about such projects. Ms. Nathanson said she had wanted to ensure the council's decision was made on the best information and was pleased with the additional staff work that had been done since February 25. She supported the motion. Mr. Meisner indicated his concurrence with Mr. Kelly. He acknowledged Ms. Bettman's concerns. However, he was interested in connecting the two parts of downtown, and thought the proposal accom- plished that. He asked staff to identify what was before the council at this point. Mr. Weinman said the EWEB property was added and the area containing Good Times was removed, as reflected on Map A-1. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap6 said the council discussed the need for tools to help revitalize downtown. He thought urban renewal was such a tool. He said the council would be able to gauge the appropriateness of the projects. He believed that Ms. Bettman's comments about the taxing situation were too simplistic. At Mr. Pap6's request, Mr. Weinman reviewed the details of the four scenarios before the council. Ms. Bettman thought the tax issue before the council was simple. She said the urban renewal district would pay for the courthouse-related transportation improvements if the federal government did not. She said other funding sources had not been sought. She did not think that was a fiscally responsible approach. The council had already spent money in the district for a purpose for which she thought other funding could be sought, calling it "unconscionable." Mr. Meisner asked if a new parking garage assisted with urban renewal funds could be located on the site of the State motor pool if the property was not in the district. Mr. Klein said the council would have to adopt specific findings to demonstrate such a project benefited the district. The motion passed, 6:2, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. B. WORK SESSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date Kurt Yeiter of the Planning and Development Department reported that the item involved several periodic review work tasks, which required the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and Diagram to be amended. He said most of the amendments were what he termed "housekeeping" in nature. Chapter lll- C of the plan, regarding Natural Resources, was more extensively updated to reflect current conditions and science. He said the three jurisdictions coordinated on the draft document and the joint elected officials held a public hearing in February 2004. Springfield and Lane County were scheduled to take action at a later date. Mr. Yeiter said the council's actions would inform the deliberations of the other adopting bodies. He noted that Project Coordinator Carol Heinkel of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) was present, as well as Eugene Senior Planner Neil Bj6rklund and Eugene Planning Director Susan Muir. Mr. Kelly disagreed with the staff characterization of the amendments as "housekeeping," saying such a characterization marginalized the role of the council. Mr. Kelly said the elected officials requested the objectives to be included in the document but they were not in the materials before the council. Ms. Heinkel called attention to the replacement pages distributed to the joint elected officials on February 10. Mr. Kelly indicated he had not received the pages. He expressed concern that the council did not have the necessary exhibits before it. He said that although it was announced the document would undergo legal review, the council had received no change pages. Mr. Kelly preferred not to take action at this time, and suggested the council act on the amendments suggested by councilors to provide direction to the other adopting jurisdictions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman referred to Policy 13 on page II-C-5 of the Metro Plan. She asked staff to discuss how the policy impacted the issue of Springfield's interest in joining a fire service district. Mr. Yeiter said the policy was not amended in response to that situation. Ms. Heinkel said the policy was reworded to make it clear how it had been interpreted in the past. Ms. Bettman referred to testimony submitted by 1,000 Friends of Oregon suggesting the Goal 3 amendments were inconsistent with State law. Several of the staff responses in the council packet stated that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) authorized the local approach, which made it consistent with State law. She asked if LCDC approval made the policies legal, and if legal counsel had reviewed the text in question. She asked if staff had distinguished between policies with LCDC approval and those without that approval. Mr. Bj6rklund said because the forest rules referred to applied only outside the urban growth boundary (UGB), in both cases staff had relied on Lane County staff documentation and interpretation. Mr. Yeiter said some legal review had occurred, but he could not say if the City's legal counsel had reviewed the text in question. Ms. Taylor said that the council should not take action at this time. She thought the amendments repre- sented far more than housekeeping. The testimony indicated the public had many questions about the amendments. She had several amendments to offer to the main motion. She wanted staff comment about what she believed to be well-informed and valid objections that people had voiced to the amendments. She said the council should listen to the experts in the community. Mr. Papd said he had wanted to see amendments that would have allowed Eugene to facilitate the actions that Springfield wanted to take with regard to fire districts. He was not prepared to act until he saw amendments related to that issue. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to acknowledge it is the City Council's position to keep Policy J-1 in the Metro Plan, and that this intent be conveyed to the other jurisdictions. Mr. Kelly said the policy called for an energy management plan to be developed, and the draft before the council deleted the policy. He thought that energy was a critical resource that was needed in the community. Given the volatility of the energy situation, he wanted to work on proactive planning. He acknowledged such a plan would require funding, but preferred to retain the policy and seek the needed funding. Mr. Meisner asked if the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) or the other utility providers were subject to the Metro Plan, and if they participated in its adoption. He questioned if the effect of the motion was to direct those providers to develop such a plan. Mr. Yeiter confirmed that EWEB and the Springfield Utility Board abided by Metro Plan policies. Mr. Meisner asked if EWEB had the opportunity to comment on or react to the motion. Mr. Yeiter said no. Mr. Meisner wanted to consult the providers. Ms. Heinkel said the recommendation that the policy be deleted was considered by staff to be a housekeep- ing measure. She did not think the other jurisdictions would object to its continued inclusion, and the project could be prioritized for implementation. Mr. Meisner wanted a memorandum from EWEB in regard to the motion. Ms. Bettman also wanted to retain the policy. She thought it should be a community goal. It was a responsible policy, and the community needed to look at its energy needs in a comprehensive way. She said MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 3 Work Session the materials indicated the providers had met and decided not to pursue it; she maintained that action circumvented the public process. It was not the energy providers' role to make such decisions for the elected officials and the community. She thought it was the elected officials' responsibility to make such planning decisions for the providers and the community. Ms. Solomon asked what would happen if the council passed the motion and the providers did not want to do the planning involved. Ms. Heinkel said if the policy was retained, it would be up to the jurisdictions to take the lead in effort, establish a work program, and then invite the utilities to participate. She said that there was a chance the providers might to talk about such a plan now as the last time the subject had been discussed was seven years ago. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She thought the task should be accomplished. Ms. Nathanson said energy encompassed more than electricity. The public utilities that provided electric power had elected boards and their own goals. She asked in what venue such planning could occur. Ms. Heinkel said that the utility providers, public and private, had met seven years ago in a facilitated process. There had been some interest but not enough to fund the effort at that time. She believed that it was likely LCOG would facilitate such a group to revisit the issue if a work plan was established. Ms. Nathanson suggested that policy's absence from the plan would not preclude such energy planning. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner about involving the utility providers. He suggested that those providers be given notice and allowed to comment about the motion. Mr. Kelly said ideally, it would be great if the providers took the lead on the plan. He acknowledged the public providers had elected boards, but said that they generally looked to their own domain, and it was the job of the elected officials responsible for the overall well-being of the community to see such planning was done. He agreed the providers should be consulted. He suggested that the providers might be willing to fund such an effort. If LCOG was in charge of the project, he believed the providers would be willing to provide raw data and the results of their own planning efforts. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Yeiter said that Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe was present to address Ms. Bettman's earlier questions. Mr. Howe responded that the changes to the policies referred to as inconsistent by 1,000 Friends of Oregon were not inconsistent; the elected officials had added language to the existing State- adopted rules and regulations, which were reviewed and acknowledged by the LCDC. They were existing policies in place today. The policy regarding marginal lands (C-4-0) originally referenced only exclusive farm use. That was a new policy, and the provisions for marginal land would apply to exclusive farm-use zoned lands as well as marginal lands. All the policies had been reviewed by legal counsel. Ms. Bettman asked for information about the designation of the 4J school sites. She thought the City should retain the existing designations on the site because changing them was not within the scope of periodic review, in her opinion. In regard to the Westmoreland site, it was her contention that if this was passed, the appeal of the neighborhood group would be prejudiced. Mr. Kelly asked for more information about the local work program, who adopted it, and if the council could influence it. Ms. Heinkel said that LCOG maintained an annual work program for metropolitan MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 4 Work Session planning. For the last several years, the work was dictated by the State mandate for periodic review. From here on, it would be driven by local needs. She said that the items needed to be balanced and prioritized. Mr. Kelly asked who did the balancing and prioritization, and who adopted the program. Ms. Heinkel said that the work on the program would begin with the planning directors, and she assumed the council would have input into the process. Ms. Muir said the discussion had not occurred yet, and she was not aware of the process involved. Mr. Kelly asked that staff return to the council and consult it or update it, whatever was appropriate. Ms. Taylor noted that she had prepared three amendments to the work program. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to revise Metro Plan Section III-C, Policy C 25 to read as follows: %pringfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts on water quality when planning for urbanization, flood control, urban runoff, and recreational needs in near proximity to the Willamette and McKenzie rivers." Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of water quality and the need to address the impacts of activities proximate to the river. Ms. Solomon pointed out the motion as stated by Ms. Taylor had the result of limiting the policy to impacts on water quality only, and the issue of water quality was already addressed in the existing policy. Staff recommended no change to the policy. She did not support the motion. Ms. Bettman asked what other impacts were considered at this time. Mr. Bj6rklund said the existing, more broadly stated policy addressed biological habitat, any kinds of impact to the downstream system. If the intent was to highlight water quality, the text proposed in the motion was not what was wanted. Ms. Bettman suggested the motion be revised to read ~water quality and other impacts." Mr. Bj6rklund agreed that would highlight the issue and not limit the text. Ms. Taylor accepted the revision as a friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the revision suggested by Ms. Bettman. He asked Mr. Bj6rklund to comment on the meaning of the word ~along" the river as it was reflected in the existing policies. He believed that testimony suggesting the policy be changed reflected concern the policy would be interpreted to apply only to the bank of the river. Mr. Bj6rklund said that ~near proximity" was redundant and he would interpret it to main essentially the same thing as ~along." Neither term was defined anywhere and neither gave real direction to the reader. Mr. Kelly did not like either term, but thought that ~proximate" defined an area, where ~along" could ~literally be the interface." He supported the amended motion. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman accepted the deletion of ~near" from the motion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Nathanson thought the language changes were creating additional confusion. ~Proximate" could leave out the banks of the river itself. She thought the amendment lacked clarity and did not represent an improvement to the policy. Mr. Poling agreed with the staff analysis. He thought the existing policy was adequate. Ms. Taylor thought the discussion pointed out the need for the council to take more time. She thought that MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 5 Work Session "proximate" encompassed enough for one to argue it was an improvement over the text. Ms. Bettman agreed the revision was an improvement in the absence of more precise distances. She pointed out that no one had objected to the word "along." Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Poling. He said proximate could mean near the river but not including it. Mayor Torrey said he would oppose the motion in the event of a tie. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Yeiter determined from Ms. Bettman that she wanted to retain the existing designation for the Westmoreland property. Ms. Heinkel indicated the issue related to UGB amendments would be addressed through the Metropolitan Policy Committee. C. ACTION: Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Materials Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Starting July 1, 2004 Fire and EMS Management Analyst Glen Potter joined the council for the item. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4867, an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees. Mr. Poling said he would support the motion at this time to honor the voters' will in regard to the charter amendment. However, due to court rulings and legislative action, he thought the fee schedule should be referred to the Toxics Board for further action. He wanted the board to examine the charter amendment and make a recommendation preserving the intent of the voters. Mr. Pap6 concurred with Mr. Poling's remarks. He hoped the community had learned a lesson about what it included in the charter and what was included in an ordinance to avoid the litigation and expense that had occurred. The intent could have been included in the charter, and its implementation left to the legislative process. He believed the Toxics Board needed to make a recommendation to the council regarding how the City could be more equitable in assessing the costs of the program. Ms. Taylor said the board had already given the council its recommendation. She preferred to expand the number of businesses that were covered by the program, and to reduce the employee threshold. She said the charter amendment was proposed because the program's proponents feared that the program would be eliminated if not in the charter. Ms. Solomon did not support the fee increase. She said the program was not what the voters envisioned and it was not fair to the companies being assessed or to the voters. Ms. Bettman agreed the program was not fair to the voters, but that was due to the fact that industry sought MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 6 Work Session changes to the rules from the State Legislature. The fee cap was %ad news" for 44 companies and ~good news" for the 11 largest industries that were responsible for creating the cap. The charter amendment stipulated the program would be supported by users of hazardous substances, not necessarily the reporters of hazardous substances, so that some users of such substances who fall below the quantity threshold were not reporting. She thought there was a good argument to be made that those users should also be supporting the program. That would reduce the cost to the average business by a great deal and make it more affordable. She hoped the board would look at that approach. With regard to what should be in the charter, Ms. Nathanson said the problem was putting administrative details in the charter; that made it difficult to address changes or problems that arose. She hoped further charter proposals could be implemented through existing administrative processes as had been done in other instances. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He said that such details should not be in the charter, pointing out that part of the amendment was found to be unconstitutional The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the Toxics Board to return to the council in time for implementation by the 2005 billing cycle, a proposal to address the fee inequity and concerns caused by legislative ac- tions and court decisions, while preserving the general intent of the voters in adopting the program. Mr. Poling said the fee schedule needed to be cleaned up. He wanted to avoid possible lawsuits or petitions from the citizens to remove the program from the charter. He was not opposed to the program as long as it was administered fairly and equitably. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Poling if he wanted the board to look at the charter amendment, taking into considera- tion legislative actions and court rulings related to the fee schedule and the inequity in the fees that resulted, and make a recommendation to the council. Mr. Poling confirmed that the review could include a recommendation for an amendment to the charter. Mr. Kelly said charter changes would result in an expensive political campaign. If he thought that such changes were necessary, he would support that. However, the testimony the council heard about ways to broaden the fee base would not require charter changes to implement. Mr. Kelly said that if examination of the charter amendment was not a part of the motion, he would be able to support it. Ms. Bettman thought the discussion, if not the actual language in the motion, made it implicit the intent was to get the program back on the ballot, and she considered that a political maneuver. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to ex- plicitly preclude putting the amendment back on the ballot. Ms. Bettman reiterated her previous remark about the intent of the motion. She thought there were ways to manage what the State legislature had done to the program. She said the Toxics Right-to-Know Program was necessary because toxics affected people personally, and people had a right to know what the chemicals in use in their community were. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Speaking to Ms. Bettman's remarks about the intent of the motion, Mr. Meisner said he helped Mr. Poling to craft the motion. It was his intent that the board would take a broad look at the program, and if the board suggested a charter amendment, the voters had the choice to amend the charter or leave the charter amendment in place. There would be no advisory ballot question suggesting ~repeal, amend, or preserve." He wanted the charter amendment to work and it clearly did not. Mr. Meisner said annually the council heard from upset citizens who fear the council would exceed or violate the intent of the charter amendment. He wanted the intent of the amendment carried out. Mr. Kelly thought the intent of the motion could be carried out without the need to modify the charter amendment. He did not want to open up the issue further than necessary. Mr. Kelly said he felt as though the council was being played as puppets. He found it ironic that the businesses objecting to the fee schedule lobbied the legislature to institute a fee cap. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the revised fee schedule meant a 50- employee company would pay $1,500 annually. He said that was ;real money' but not in itself a real burden. He said the board should do something about the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and the State legislature should repeal the fee caps. Mr. Pap6 left the meeting at 1:22 p.m. Mr. Poling pointed out the motion referred the issue to the board and did not refer the charter amendment to the voters. The motion did not reflect any opposition to the program. He said that unless Ms. Bettman ~was in my head knowing how I'm thinking," she could not know his intent. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Poling's summary of the motion. She did not want to preclude the Toxics Board from any action it thought needed. She pointed out the Toxics Board was well-balanced and she thought it appropriate to let it discuss issues such as the SIC codes. Ms. Bettman agreed the motion did not explicitly call for referring the amendment to the voters, but in his e- mail communication regarding his intent to offer the motion Mr. Poling had mentioned his interest in %leaning the current charter amendment up a little bit," which meant taking it back to the ballot. Her motion merely precluded that. Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. Poling that among the items he envisioned the board discussing were broadening the range of business types, reducing the employee threshold, and reducing the quantity threshold. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Taylor was astounded that any councilors would oppose Ms. Bettman's amendment unless they wanted to put the charter amendment on the ballot. In response, Mr. Meisner said he did not want to tie the hands of the Toxics Board by limiting its scope of examination. The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 8 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 9 Work Session