Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 02/09/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 9, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Nathanson noted the recent failure of Ballot Measure 30, and asked the City Manager to prepare a report about the impact of that failure on the City's budget and the City's response. She anticipated ancillary fallout from the loss of State programs on City programs such as 9-1-1, police, parks, and the courts. She asked if the failure of the measure would lead the manager to recommend any additional budget cuts. City Manager Dennis Taylor noted the impact of the measure would be felt most by the State. He said that staff was following the issue closely because of the likely impact the loss of jail beds would have on the City, for example. He said that staff would confer with the State and County as reductions became more firm and report back to the council. Mr. Kelly requested an update on the status of the Mayor's Economic Development Task Force. Mr. Taylor indicated that meeting dates were being arranged and would be provided to the council. Ms. Bettman spoke to projected cuts at the State level for education, health and human services, and public safety, and suggested it would be difficult to quantify those at the local level. She thought the City would see increasing numbers of homeless people, for example, which would have an impact. She called for fiscal prudence and keeping funds for core services. Ms. Bettman announced an Early Education Program fundraiser would occur at South Eugene High School at February 24, at which the Capital Steps would perform for the benefit of the program. She spoke in praise of the program, which operated on a shoe-string budget and needed the support. Mr. Poling said he attended a luncheon for CASA of Lane County the previous week. During the event, the executive director requested community volunteers for the program, which works with youth victims of abuse. The program served 164 children the previous year with case management services; case managers worked with children they were assigned until they were through the court process. He said that volunteers go through training and then average about ten hours of volunteer time each month. Mr. Poling urged community members with time to contact CASA of Lane County. He said that the organization also needed donations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Meisner suggested that the local impact of Ballot Measure 30 had already been felt. He had been asked to serve on an interview panel by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to replace the single person who makes all passenger rail decisions in the state. After the interview process had been completed, Bruce Warner of ODOT indicated the position would not be filled after all. Mr. Meisner anticipated that by the end of the fiscal year, one train would be lost and the other train's funding would be threatened. Mr. Meisner noted that the council received a copy of the 2003 citizen survey in its latest meeting packet. He was discouraged by the fact the council had spent considerable time and energy in the past year on issues of animal control, a service for which the City was not responsible. He said that the first question in the survey asked respondents to rank the following City services, and that included animal control. He thought that was misleading to the public. He noted that the service received a low ranking from respondents. He hoped that was corrected in the future. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Pap~ also was concerned about the impact of the failure of Ballot Measure 30 on the City budget. He urged State legislators to solve the State budget problem. Mr. Pap~ was glad the survey was ready in time for the council's goals session. He encouraged councilors to speak to the facilitator for the session, Julia Novak. Mr. Pap~ requested council consent to move Wednesday meetings to the library. Mayor Torrey suggested that the issue be raised at the two-day goals session. City Manager Taylor endorsed the mayor's suggestion, noting that there were logistical issues involved. Ms. Taylor suggested that the McNutt Room be enlarged when the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department moved out of City Hall. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council was overlooking its goal regarding fair and equitable financing, and advocated for a discussion on the topic. Ms. Taylor continued to be concerned about the impact of development in the south hills, citing logging, overdevelopment, and erosion as specific concerns. She said there was a perception among certain groups that the Planning Division helped developers ~get around regulations" but would not help residents protect their properties. Ms. Taylor also continued to be concerned about the Amazon Headwaters and said it should be part of the City's park system. She said the City sought money for protection of Amazon Creek downstream while allowing its headwaters to be polluted by logging. Ms. Taylor believed the City's tree protection ordinance was inadequate as property owners were still allowed to remove five trees from their properties each year, allowing sequential clearing with impacts on the environment. Ms. Taylor maintained that the council had neglected to discuss the possibility of having a City performance auditor, which was recommended to the council by the Citizen Charter Review Committee. She averred that the council, without discussion, did not put the question of the auditor on the ballot. She said the topic would be discussed at an upcoming City Club meeting and encouraged councilors to attend and learn more. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Solomon said she had recently received several constituent contacts that the City Manager helped her dispose of satisfactorily. She found that exciting as it gave residents a good feeling about the City. Planning and Police staff had been very receptive. City Manager Taylor reminded the council of the joint elected officials meeting at the Library the following day. Mr. Meisner reported that neighbors in the vicinity of 5th Avenue and Lawrence Street recently learned that a residential facility for sex offenders was planned in the area. Neighbors were very concerned. Staff had indicated to him it was a legal use and nothing could be done. He asked how the council's siting policies and good neighbor agreement applied in this situation, noting that neighbors were told nothing about the project. He understood neighbors were to be notified. Mayor Torrey endorsed Mr. Meisner's comments, saying it was not fair to expect one area of the city to have responsibility for housing social services. Mayor Torrey expressed interest in monitoring the State budget picture between now and the special session in June 2004. He said the tax reform committee that had been established would be meeting before that time, and the co-chair had indicated it was highly unlikely the outcome of that process would be actual tax reform. He suggested the council assume that it would live with the budget that it had. It would have to prioritize expenditures as it did not have the dollars to pay for everything that everyone wanted. He anticipated the State legislature would be pressed to go after the revenues the State shared with the cities. B. WORK SESSION: Continued Discussion on Priorities for the Planning Division Work Program City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle and Planning Director Susan Muir, who were present to continue a discussion on the Planning Division's work plan which commenced on December 1, 2003. Mr. Coyle said that the materials before the council had been revised for clarity. He said staff recommended the following as top priorities: 1) the nodal program; 2) minor amendments to the Land Use Code; 3) courthouse and downtown projects; 4) Goal 5 products; and 5) emerging issues. He invited questions and comments. Mr. Pap~ noted his interest in code changes related to the siting of medical clinics. Ms. Muir noted that the item was Item 42 in the list of priorities. Mr. Pap~ indicated his interest in raising the item higher in priority. Ms. Taylor expressed interest in having a higher priority assigned to work on the tree ordinance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to affirm the Planning Divi- sion Work Program in Attachment A. Mayor Torrey called for discussion regarding and amendments to the motion. Ms. Taylor thought cell towers were also an urgent issue that needed to be addressed because they were MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 3 Work Session proliferating. She asked who paid to remove the cell towers when they were no longer needed and who was liable if they were found to cause a health hazard. She thought the current ordinance needed to be updated. She felt the same way about housing standards. Many councilors and citizens were interested in the subject and she thought a discussion was past due. She had used the City's housing program when she lived in an apartment and found it very effective in ensuring that complaints were addressed. She acknowledged fiscal constraints but believed a way could be found to make such a program pay for itself. She wanted cell towers and housing standards higher on the list. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by placing cell towers as a high priority. Mayor Torrey determined that Ms. Taylor was seeking to amend the top five items on the priority list by including cell towers. Mr. Kelly called for a point of order, saying the motion on the table was to adopt the entire work program. While some of the low priority items would not receive as much attention as the high- priority items, he believed the council could move items from one part of the list to another. Mayor Torrey concurred, but said he believed Ms. Taylor was attempting to move the item to the top of the list, where it would receive more effort. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Coyle that staff was asking the council to delete an item from the top priorities if it wished to add an item. City Manager Taylor said the five top priorities would more than absorb the resources set-aside. Staff would work on the other items as time and money allowed. He recommended that if the council wanted an item to be raised in priority, it delete another item from the list. Ms. Taylor suggested that some of the elements of Item 5 on the priority list could be deleted. Mr. Kelly said he would be happy to ~horse-trade items" but lacked sufficient information to do so. He did not know how much staff effort was involved in the items before the staff, and recalled that he had previously requested a scope of work for the items. Mr. Kelly suggested that as motions were offered adding items to the list, they be worded to direct staff to return with a supplemental funding request if necessary. Ms. Taylor accepted Mr. Kelly's suggestion as a friendly amendment to her motion. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly. She did not know, without more information, how to evaluate the magnitude of each item, and said staff had refused to provide the council with the information. Ms. Bettman was supportive of the amendment as she did not think it would take much staff time, given the subject was already scheduled for a work session. She asked how such work sessions impacted the work program. City Manager Taylor said the work session would occur, but because of the prioritized nature of the City's various legal commitments and ongoing work, amendments to the ordinance would be difficult to accomplish. Based on an analysis of what the division was committed to now, the work program items recommended by staff were those the council had resources to accomplish in the next 18 to 24 months. Ms. Bettman suggested that if the University of Oregon had approached the City now with a project such as the Autzen Stadium expansion, the department would not have been able to have spared the staff resources because the expansion project was not on the work program. Mr. Coyle disagreed, pointing out that the cost of processing such project applications was underwritten by fees rather than by the General Fund. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked why minor amendments to the Land Use Code were not an ongoing work program item. Mr. Coyle acknowledged that it was good planning practice, but it was an unfunded work task. He recommended that periodic updates to the code should occur. Ms. Bettman said ~ifthey're minor, they're minor," and should not be raised to the level of a high priority. She reiterated her support for the amend- ment as she believed there was an %asy fix" to be achieved and the impact on the division would be minimal. Ms. Nathanson said that if councilors continued to move their favorite priorities to the top of the priority list, it would create havoc within the organization. Such additions were not without their impact on City resources. While she appreciated the suggestion for a supplemental budget request, she considered the idea of such funding out-of-context with other City funding priorities, such as public safety. She said that the funding competed for resources as well as the council and public's time. Ms. Nathanson said that the problem was not just cell towers, but other devices that were placed in the right-of-way such as telecommu- nication devices. She questioned why cell towers were singled out. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Ms. Bettman that the solution could be a quick fix. She asked Ms. Muir if the solution was so simple it could be considered a minor amendment to the Land Use Code. Was it a matter of changing setbacks, and what about the other protections neighborhoods need? Ms. Muir said that was part of the difficulty in determining the resources required for each project on the list. Without more background on each item, it was unclear to her what issues existed at this point, and taking the subject through the public process helped identify the issues involved. She said staff could start by reviewing the ordinances of other communities. Ms. Nathanson pointed out the City already had protections and setbacks in its current ordinance and questioned whether such review was needed. She suggested that some minor adjustments were required. Ms. Solomon thought the council was attempting to micromanage the division. The Planning Division had presented a reasonable plan into which all councilors had input. The division had recommended that, to be strategic, the council remain flexible in prioritizing and balancing resources. She believed the work program did so, and in addition it left room to address emerging issues. Ms. Solomon did not intend to support any additions to the work program and suggested changes could be made in the future. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the council could identify its top five priorities and then examine the remainder of the list carefully to ensure the next priorities that came to the top of the list were appropriate. He believed the council had fixed the first two priorities through the budget process and thought if any changes were to be the funds involved should be reallocated. Mr. Pap~ encouraged the City Manager to let the council know when staff could not accomplish all the council wished it to. Referring to the Agenda Item Summary, Mr. Meisner found it discouraging to be told that staff could not provide cost estimates or identify funding sources unless the council made that a separate work item. Mr. Meisner disagreed with the manager's statement that work on the other items would occur when time and resources allowed, pointing out that many of the items on the list, such as the Region 2050 study and the College Hill Modem Context Statement, were underway or ongoing. He asked if that meant work was being done on those efforts rather than other high priorities. Ms. Muir said that staff was essentially working without a priority list and was ~all over the list," trying to accomplish many things. Mr. Meisner questioned MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 5 Work Session whether those items should be listed as be ongoing. He was unsure what %ther" meant if the council could not prioritize the list at all. Ms. Muir said that many of the items on the list would be %ack-burnered" while staff focused on the priority list. For example, staff would continue to attend Region 2050 meetings but did not have a large role in those meetings. Mr. Meisner asked if staff was saying that %ther" items would not be done without ~independent time or resources." Ms. Muir was hesitant to say yes, because if a Region 2050 meeting arose with an agenda item important to the City, staff might attend that meeting. Mr. Meisner believed that applied to everything on the list. Ms. Bettman did not understand how issues with dedicated funding could bump other items when the dedicated funding was provided in addition to the General Funds provided to the department. She wanted a list without any items with dedicated funding. Mr. Kelly agreed that the work involved on the cell tower ordinance could be minor and said he would support the amendment. Speaking to the process, Mr. Kelly said he would move to remove items from the top priority list to maintain balance. He said he had looked forward to the meeting because he wanted to help the division set its priorities, but shared the frustration expressed by Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman about the lack of information. Speaking to the concerns expressed by Ms. Solomon and Ms. Nathanson, he pointed out the work session was an opportunity for the council to set direction for the division's activities. Mr. Meisner clarified that Mr. Kelly's friendly amendment related to funding was ~for a funding request if required for the development of the work program item." The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Papd, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Ms. Bettman advocated for additional funding for site-specific planning for nodal development. She recalled the Budget Committee's 2003 discussion about the 29th Avenue and Willamette Street node, and the general agreement that the area had characteristics of a node and needed some site-specific planning to realize nodal development goals. She believed the division had the resources to work on site-specific planning. She said the council already knew there were problems with the overlay zone and had directed staff to rework it prior to allocating the funding for site-specific planning, so that was not relevant to the issue. Staff was now suggesting that the council begin at %quare one" and redefine site-specific planning. That was not what the funding was allocated for. She said staff should be looking at nodes to find which to apply its expertise. Ms. Bettman maintained that there were willing businesses and property owners in the vicinity of 29th and Willamette who were ready to work on a site-specific plan. She was pleased with the priority assigned the item, but believed staff interpretation of the council and committee's direction was incorrect. Mr. Coyle said that over the past year, the definition of %ite-specific planning" had evolved from what he considered a term of art to an exact science. He was hearing people saying they wanted to do site plans for each node. Mr. Coyle said the problems staff encountered with zoning would be magnified by that approach. He had interpreted site-specific planning as issues resolution as it related to ten or twelve different nodes. The City could engage developers and residents in a high-level discussion, but staff would not be ~taking pen to paper" absent a developer. If the council wished staff to do predevelopment site planning on nodes, it would do so, but that would not necessarily result in the nodes being built because the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 6 Work Session expertise needed to tell the City about what would and would not work would not be present, because the property owner or developer would not be there. Ms. Bettman said the community spent more than a decade discussing nodal development and had developed a definition of nodal development. She believed it was the council's intent that staff would put pen to paper and come up with a plan. Mr. Kelly believed the council had, through its discussions, delivered a consistent message that the overlay could not be applied in the abstract, but staff must consider the reality of what was on the ground and work with the property owners and residents on a plan. He believed that many of the issues in the 29th and Willamette area would be related to reducing automobile-pedestrian conflicts, and that could be done with the current property owners in the current environment. Mr. Kelly said if Mr. Coyle or the Planning Commission had new fundamental facts to share with the council about nodal planning, it should share them soon. He did not want the division to spend the money allocated by the council if it was not to be used for the purpose intended. City Manager Taylor recalled the committee allocated $250,000 for two activities, one related to nodal development and one related to the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) amendments, and staff was trying to convey that the council was not going to get eight site-specific plans for that amount. Mr. Kelly acknowl- edged that. He said the funding was merely to get the City started. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to raise Issue 27, housing standards, to the high-priority list, and to direct staff to bring back a fund- ing request if necessary for development of a proposal. Mr. Kelly said that the council had heard about the issue for several years and it was a high-priority recommendation of the City of Eugene-University of Oregon Joint Task Force on the West University Neighborhood. He said the City could use Corvallis program as a model. It was a self-supporting program with small fees. He did not believe that renters should be required to go to court to get heat in their homes. Mr. Meisner agreed that a model existed, and suggested that the question was who performed inspections and provided enforcement. He believed that the lead division was not likely to the Planning Division. He requested a scope of work clarifying that issue as well as information about the cost implications of the motion. Ms. Bettman expressed support for the motion. She recalled that the item had been on the council's post LUCU work program as a high priority. She agreed that good models existed. Ms. Bettman suggested that improved human habitability was more important than improved alleys, which the council had agreed to fund as a result of the joint task force's recommendations. Mr. Poling asked if the work required could be done before the beginning of the new school term. City Manager Taylor described the work that had already occurred and said staff needed clarification, given that it was his impression the joint task force recommendations largely addressed exterior conditions. He asked if the council envisioned a local statute or assistance in enforcing the State statute. He said a work session on housing standards had been scheduled to clarify such issues. He recalled that the City had at one time had a housing code, but dropped it due to cost. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Poling asked if the council was talking about housing standards as they related to living conditions, or exterior beautification. He also wanted clarification about what was intended. Ms. Nathanson said she could not support the motion as offered. If the council was already scheduled to talk about the issue, it needed to see a scope of work and have staff assess the scope of the problem, the problems that exist, how many times problems happened, and where. She questioned the impact of such a program on rents, and if renters were really willing to pay more for the service as had been asserted by some. She asked if the City had consulted the Human Rights Commission or Centro LatinoAmericano, for example, regarding that subject. Ms. Nathanson did not think the City could afford to duplicate what had been done. Ms. Taylor said the council did not have to decide what it wanted in a housing code at this time, but it could determine the item was important enough to place on the priority list. She thought the Corvallis model and former Eugene housing code could be examined as a start. She said that the State statute did not work unless people had money to go to court. Ms. Taylor thought something local was needed. Mr. Pap~ thought the intent of the motion was wonderful, but the community had requested money for other services. He cited the cattery as an example. He said the council needed to prioritize City expenditures. He expressed concern that what was being contemplated would affect several divisions and require additional resources. Mr. Pap~ needed to know more about the scope of what was envisioned before voting for the motion. Mayor Torrey indicated opposition to the motion, but said he supported holding a work session on the topic so the council could hear more about the scope of work required to implement a housing code. He said that there was no need for haste. Mayor Torrey noted he had done some investigation of housing codes and found that most were designed to thwart criminal activity. That was not the focus of those advocating for a housing code. He believed the council was moving too fast on something he had only begun to receive e- mail about in the last two weeks, and that it was not appropriate to push the item to the top of the priority list at this time. Speaking to Mayor Torrey's comments, Mr. Kelly disagreed the council was moving too fast. He said he began to receive e-mails on the topic two years ago. The joint task force took weeks of meetings to discuss the subject. Its final report addressed the Corvallis model, and that was what he wished to accomplish. By way of moving forward, Mr. Kelly withdrew his original amendment and offered another. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the high priority work program with the development and adoption of housing habitability standards similar to the Corvallis model. Mr. Kelly noted that the $10 per unit charge assessed by Corvallis was a yearly, not a monthly charge. Mayor Torrey made the determination that the motion represented a friendly amendment to the prior motion. Ms. Nathanson said the change did not elicit her support. She suggested the council was asking the wrong MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 8 Work Session question. She said if the issue was enforcement, the council could spend considerable time adopting a housing code and still not be able to assist those who needed help. Ms. Nathanson suggested the real question was enforcement and the enforcement mechanism used. She asked if the City would set up a local mechanism, or offer subsidies to those who used the State statute. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to ask the City Manager to prepare a scope of work for the council to be available no later than June 1, 2004, for a council work session, so that the council can assess the infor- mation and decide what to do. Mayor Torrey made the determination that the motion was an amendment to the prior amendment. Mr. Meisner was unsure he understood the distinction between the two motions. He said he would have offered further amendments to Mr. Kelly's motion because it appeared to be more focused on standards and less on enforceability. He said he had reviewed the housing codes of Portland and Salem, and would have also asked that the motion be broadened to those communities as he did not know if the Corvallis model was the best one. Mr. Kelly opposed the amendment. He acknowledged other communities had housing codes, but his motion was an attempt to limit the staff effort and resources needed. He specifically mentioned the Corvallis model in his motion because of his interest in local enforceability. He believed that requesting a scope of work was a way to push the effort off indefinitely. Ms. Nathanson said she included a date in her motion so as not to put off the item indefinitely. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's question, she said her motion called for a scope of work and a work session so the council would discuss the ramifications of the issue. Ms. Nathanson was not willing at this time to add another high-priority item to the work program without more information. She said it was not clear to her how the council could assign simultaneous top priorities to seven items. Ms. Bettman clarified with Ms. Nathanson that her motion did not add the item to the high-priority list at this time. She believed the proposed amendment put the issue on ~life support," so the council could ~pull the plug later" in the same manner in which the living wage ordinance was ~killed." She said the council had discussed the issue before and had a model to work with. She envisioned the issue could be addressed in the minor amendments to the Land Use Code, and more money could be allocated to the issue through the supplemental budget process. She opposed the amendment. Ms. Taylor also opposed the amendment and hoped to be able to support Mr. Kelly's amendment. She suggested the council was wasting time in talking about the details, which were subject for a later time. At this time, the council was merely saying such a program should be a high priority. She said the council had discussed the issue seven years ago, and people were discouraged that nothing had happened, while the need for a housing code continued to exist. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap~, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting yes; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the amendment, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Nathanson returned to the subject of nodal development and said she took seriously the council's most recent communication from the Planning Commission. The issue appeared to be that, even though the City might ultimately have to do site-specific planning, the underlying ordinance did not work correctly. She said that if the council proceeded before the ordinance was revised, it was creating more work for itself and residents. Ms. Nathanson supported the position of the Planning Commission that more work on the ordinance was required. Mr. Papd, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute Item 42 (analyze the code to allow for medical facilities and make the most of hospital re- lated development opportunities) for Item 5(E) (emerging issues, civic cen- ter). Responding to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Coyle indicated his belief that the effort for the two work items was comparable. He suggested the potential it could be folded into the minor code amendments process. Mr. Papd advocated for the motion, saying the council need to plan for the move of the two hospitals and ensure that other medical facilities could be accommodated nearby. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Coyle said that Item 42 addressed the issue of ancillary hospital uses that would develop around a new hospital, but not necessarily on the hospital's property. Mr. Papd said he wanted to know if the existing zoning was adequate for anything from a two-person doctor's office to a 30-person medical clinic and everything in between. Ms. Bettman believed if a clinic wanted to relocate near a hospital, its owners could request a zone change. Zones were in place to create predictability about the future for residents and business owners. She did not think the City should be using planning to make blanket zone changes to accommodate clinics throughout the city in order to facilitate the request of one entity. Ms. Bettman said the item did not rise to the level of the item proposed to be removed, planning for a new civic center, which was a process that had already had begun and one which benefited the entire community. Mr. Kelly said he was interested in seeing how Eugene could better accommodate some proposed clinic uses. He acknowledged that a specific developer with a plan had come forward, and said if that was Mr. Papd's concern, then no wholesale zoning changes were needed. He suggested rather that the council hold a work session to see what accommodations could be made for the development in question. He did not support the switch being proposed. Ms. Nathanson thought the council had already indicated to staff it had interest in studying different combinations of how public safety services could be housed with other agencies or with City Hall in a joint use facility. She thought that item should be included in down town and court-related projects. If that was the case, she was happy to support the motion. Ms. Nathanson endorsed Mr. Coyle's suggestion that the council process the issue through the minor code amendments process. Mr. Meisner said Mr. Coyle's comments about the required scope of work led him to agree with Ms. Nathanson. He thought the description of Item 42 overstated the question. He found the idea the issue MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 10 Work Session could be addressed through the minor amendments process appealing. He was also reluctant to eliminate the civic center proposal. Mr. Coyle said that through the minor amendments process, staff could return with a proposal regarding the location of ancillary medical uses not on a hospital site. Mr. Meisner said in that case, he would not support the amendment on the floor and would trust staff to work the issue through the minor amendments process as described. Mayor Torrey indicated interest in attempting to accomplish the intent of the motion. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that there was also an issue related to timing of a particular development. He wanted to facilitate the development being proposed if possible. He asked staff not to make the process so difficult the development opportunity was lost. Mayor Torrey asked if there was anything the City could do to avoid a long and drawn out land use process. Mr. Coyle said staff would move as quickly as possible. Mr. Pap6 said he wanted to move ahead with a civic center but did not know where the money would come from. He thought it should be planned for but he anticipated nothing would happen for something to 18 to 24 months. Mr. Pap6 said he had been contacted by many doctors and clinic operators who wanted the City to find a site for the hospital so they knew where to relocate. Mr. Poling believed the community need to prepare for the future and perhaps review some of the definitions related to clinics in the Land Use Code because of emerging technologies and advancements in the medical field. Ms. Bettman said the issue was identified in the post-LUCU work program in the form of updating the zoning map. She said the City could not change zoning for clinics without impacting other kinds of zoning. She believed such piecemeal changes bestowed a benefit on one use while possibly creating liabilities for other uses. Ms. Bettman questioned prioritizing this item above housing standards. Mayor Torrey asked whether, given the discussion, the motion provided adequate direction to staff. Mr. Coyle believed the scope of the effort being requested was broader than meeting the needs of a particular development yet narrower than the scope of effort reflected in Item 42. For purposes of clarity, Mr. Pap~ withdrew his motion. Mr. Poling withdrew his second. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct staff to analyze the code to allow for medical facilities through Item 2 (minor code amend- ments). Ms. Nathanson supported the motion. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments, Ms. Nathanson said the council was not prioritizing this item above housing standards given the passage of the previous motion. Her support for the motion was based on her interest in ensuring that medical clinics and doctor's offices were able to locate near a hospital and serve residents in Eugene. Ms. Taylor did not think the issue should take priority over other urgent issues. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to add Item 41 (LUCU re- mand and Chapter 6 tree provisions) to the high-priority list. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Taylor advocated for the motion, saying the items were formerly a high council priority and now had almost disappeared. She maintained that in the meanwhile, logging was occurring where it should not be. She believed the tree provisions were more important than anything else on the list. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Coyle that the River Road/Santa Clara transition project had dedicated funding, and was included as an emerging issue to acknowledge the division's involvement. However, he believed the work and associated contract would be out of the City Manager's Office. Mr. Kelly questioned why the item was on the priority list rather than the ongoing list. Mr. Coyle said that Ms. Muir had to be involved in the item peripherally. Ms. Muir added the funding was not coming to the Planning Division but it would play a supportive role. Mr. Kelly asked the effect of taking the item off the list. Mr. Coyle said that staff would not be involved in the project. The item acknowledged the interdepartmental coordination on such projects. Mr. Kelly asked why the planning element of the project was not included in the original funding proposal. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to Item 5B (buildable lands supply) and Item 5C (special districts) to the %ther list." In support of his motion, Mr. Kelly pointed out the concept of special districts had received lukewarm support from the council. He further noted a proposal to annex Springfield to the Willakenzie Fire District had recently been voted down by the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, and suggested the item could be moved and some staff time freed up. Regarding the buildable lands supply issue, Mr. Kelly said that the City was working through efforts such as nodal development to make better use of the existing land supply. He thought there was, at best, anecdotal evidence about the inadequacy of the buildable lands supply. Mr. Kelly preferred to address the LUCU remand before taking on such a new and large work task. Ms. Bettman supported the motion, saying that the buildable lands supply issue had not been discussed as a high priority by the council, and did not rise to that level. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly about the merits of Item 5C. He said discussions about a possible airport district indicated little interest among the council or staff in pursuing that concept. Mr. Meisner added that the item was stated in an overboard manner, in that the council had not discussed restricting the concept to countywide service districts only; in fact, the council frequently had discussed metropolitan service districts. Regarding Item 5B, Mr. Meisner believed the issue needed to be addressed at some point, and suggested that could be done in the context of the council's growth management policies. He did not think that Eugene had done a good job in achieving acceptable redevelopment or infill development. He recommended that staff consult the community survey in regard to the issue. Mr. Papd asked about the City's legal obligations as they related to the supply ofbuildable lands. Ms. Muir noted that normally, the issue would be addressed through periodic review, but it was not one of the City's periodic review tasks. She said the item was included on the emerging issues list as staff anticipated it would come up in association with other high priority items, such as the Goal 5 item; she expected citizens MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 12 Work Session to question whether the natural resources inventory removed too much land from the buildable lands supply. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Muir said the City was required to evaluate its buildable lands supply through periodic review, which occurred every ten years; the item would be addressed in the next periodic review. Mr. Papd, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to separate the items in the motion. Ms. Solomon supported the separation of the items as she considered the buildable lands issue key to the City's economic development. The motion to separate the items in the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion until the meeting of April 14, 2004, or to an earlier date if staff can adjust the coun- cil schedule. The motion to table to April 14, 2004, passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 13 Work Session