Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A - Minutes ApprovalEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: January 10, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2004, Work Session, November 8, 2004, City Council Meeting, November 10, 2004, Work Session, November 15, 2004, City Council Meeting, November 22, 2004, Work Session, November 22, 2004, City Council Meeting, and November 24, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. November 8, 2004, Work Session B. November 8, 2004, City Council Meeting C. November 10, 2004, Work Session D. November 15, 2004, City Council Meeting E. November 22, 2004, Work Session F. November 22, 2004, City Council Meeting G. November 24, 2004, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S0501103A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall November 8, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary PapC Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Taylor said she received a letter from a constituent regarding human waste in the Amazon Park area and requesting that rest room facilities be installed. She noted that the collector street issue in the Crest Drive area continued to be a concern for residents, and thanked City Manager Dennis Taylor for rescheduling the agenda item related to the classification of streets in that neighborhood. She hoped a context-sensitive design could be found, and that residents living outside the neighborhood using the streets would be required to share in the cost of improvements as it was her belief those individuals would benefit more from those improvements than those actually living on the streets in question. She also hoped the installation of more stop signs to slow traffic was considered. Mr. Poling noted an article in that day's edition of The Register-Guard regarding a bicycle bridge over I-5 connecting Eugene and Springfield and a proposed bicycle path access to the proposed bridge through a residential cul-de-sac. He had been in contact with representatives of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding the situation, and those individuals agreed to do an on-site visit, talk to the residents, and consider possible adjustments to the route. He expected to hear more from ODOT in a couple of weeks. Mr. Poling indicated he would be missing some upcoming meetings due to some scheduling conflicts, and he would attempt to attend meetings via speakerphone when possible. He apologized that he might have to miss meetings. Ms. Nathanson referred to the subject of interdepartmental cooperation, and acknowledged and compli- mented the City Manager's efforts in getting the City's executive managers to work better together as a team on issues that affected more than one department. She expressed appreciation for the presence of staff from all impacted departments when the council discussed a particular ordinance or issue. Ms. Nathanson encouraged the manager to continue that practice. She thought it very important to take a multidisciplinary approach to problem-solving. Ms. Nathanson said she had shared her pride about Eugene's experience in working with private telecommunications providers in a team setting during some remarks she made before the recent League of Oregon Cities (LOC) convention. She encouraged that such interdepartmental cooperation continue to be fostered. Mr. Meisner noted that improvements to the 3rd/4th Avenue connector were planned for the upcoming year, and noted the commencement of staging for those improvements, which he was pleased to see. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Meisner said he attended a recent event for retiring Alternatives Modes Coordinator Diane Bishop. He hoped the council could find a way to thank her as a body. He said that the City's nationally recognized bicycle path system was due to the efforts of many, but Ms. Bishop had done much of the actual work involved. Mr. Kelly reported he had attended a press conference for the kickoff of the Oregon Bounty Program earlier that day at the Market of Choice. He said the program was an example of several State agencies working together and focusing on the tourism and economic development aspects of promoting Oregon wines and specialty foods. He commended the Market of Choice for its promotion of local products. Mr. Pap~ congratulated Ms. Nathanson for her receipt of the James C. Richard Memorial from the League of Oregon Cities in recognition of her many years of public service. He said it was a well-deserved honor. City Manager Taylor noted that the award given to Ms. Nathanson was one of three prestigious awards given at the conference annually. He congratulated Ms. Nathanson for the award and acknowledged her work on telecommunications issues locally and at the national level, and her service as a member of the National League of Cities Board of Directors and the league's Information and Telecommunications Committee. City Manager Taylor reported that the City was well-represented at the League of Oregon Cities conference. Representatives included Mayor-elect Kitty Piercy and City Councilor-elect Andrea Ortiz. City Manager Taylor said that it was clear that implementation of Ballot Measure 37 was going to be a challenge for many Oregon cities and counties, which frequently looked to Eugene for leadership in such matters. He said that many cities were also concerned about the possible loss of State shared revenue in the upcoming State legislative session. Such shared revenues enjoyed bipartisan support. Cities and counties had been successful in retaining those funds in the last few sessions. He anticipated that funding would be threatened. City Manager Taylor noted that only two states in the country had been successful in maintaining State shared revenue levels in recent years. Mayor Torrey also congratulated Ms. Nathanson for receiving the LOC award. Mayor Torrey noted a recent constituent contact regarding a personal property loss she suffered from theft, and said he had asked the manager and Police Chief Bob Lehner to follow-up with the victim, which occurred irmnediately. However, he believed there was a problem in that the City was responding after the fact as opposed to providing the public with information about ways to stop such losses. Mayor Torrey thought that although the City had done a good job in reducing crimes against people, it had not done a good job as it related to crimes against property. He said the victim subsequently indicated her willingness to participate in a public service announcement regarding crime prevention, and hoped some follow-up by the manager would occur. He pledged to seek time for such announcements from local broadcasters. Ms. Bettman noted that Tod Schneider of the Eugene Police Department did a great deal of work on crime prevention, and suggested the City's cable television program feature a program with him explaining best practice approaches to victim vulnerability. City Manager Taylor concurred. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Evaluation for City Buildings City Manager Taylor introduced the item, saying staff would like to review the City's efforts in promoting sustainable, effective green practices throughout the organization in existing buildings. Ms. Solomon arrived. Facilities Manager Glen Svendsen said that new buildings receive considerable focus in terms of sustainability, and operation and maintenance practices are more often "under the radar." He said staff would review how the City was applying the United States Green Council's LEED Existing Building (EB) criteria to existing buildings. He called attention to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for the topic, which included a summary of what the City was doing now. Mr. Svendsen noted that Ron Sutton and Lynne Eichner Kelley of the Facilities Division were also present for the item. They had developed the idea of applying LEED-EB criteria on an inventory-wide basis, which the criteria were not designed to do, but they had believed there could be value to the exercise. That led to a request from the International Facility Managers Association to present a paper at the association's October 2004 conference. The presentation the council would hear was a shortened version of that presentation. He said staff would highlight some policy and budget issues for future council direction at the end of the presentation. Mr. Svendsen commended the proactive efforts of Ms. Eichner Kelley and Mr. Sutton. He believed the efforts reflected the extent to which sustainability had become integral to Facility Management's operations. Mr. Sutton provided a PowerPoint presentation on the topic. He emphasized the impact of environmental and budgetary impacts of ongoing operations on existing buildings. He said that the City used LEED-EB as a means of achieving a common standard to use as a benchmark to measure progress against the criteria applied specifically to existing buildings. He hoped that the US Green Building Council developed a LEED organization certification as the City would be interested in pursuing that on a pilot basis. Mr. Sutton said that staff decided to apply the criteria with the realization that operations and maintenance functions were not exclusive to a single building. Consistent standards established across the building inventory were important to efficient operations. Staff wanted to realize the benefits of the criteria in a larger context. While there were likely only five buildings that would be certified and 95 that would not, it did not mean staff could not apply the criteria to the other 95 buildings to maximize their sustainable operations. Mr. Sutton emphasized that the program was not just a facilities management program, but touched all departments in the City. The organization had considerable energy around the topics of green buildings and sustainable, and the LEED-EB gave the City the tool to harness that energy and focus it more productively. Ms. Eichner Kelley discussed how the City was using LEED-EB, reporting that the City first examined the prerequisites, or base requirements, for certifying a building. Staff determined that the organization met two of the prerequisites and assessed the organization against the remaining ten. She referred the council to a list of the prerequisites assessed, noting that they generally fell into two groups; about five were policy- and procedure-based, which staff decided to apply organizationally; the remaining five were operations- and equipment-based. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Eichner Kelley reviewed the six phases of LEED-EB implementation: 1) assess current operations against LEED-EB prerequisites; 2) implement all prerequisites appropriate on organization-wide basis; 3) assess organization-wide credits already being implemented and implement those near to meeting LEED- EB; 4) implement building-specific credits; 5) LEED-EB certification of specific buildings; and 6) maintain certified building status and all ongoing program elements. Mr. Sutton said the results of the process were a comprehensive understanding of current sustainability efforts, immediate improvements to City operations, and an understanding of how the City measured up against the LEED-EB benchmarks. In regard to existing sustainability efforts, Mr. Sutton showed the council slides of solar panels in use at Amazon Pool, native species plantings at the Park Blocks, and a diagram showing direct digital controls used to monitor heating and ventilation system in City buildings. He briefly noted some of the immediate improvements, which included expanded recycling, improved refrigerant monitoring/reporting, and adoption of Green Seal standards. Speaking to how the City measured up against LEED-EB standards, Ms. Eichner Kelley said of the ten prerequisites examined by staff, the City satisfied or had some elements of nine; one, Retrocommission- ing, would be more difficult to achieve. There were 20-25 elective credits that would be relatively simple to achieve. Given the base level of certification for LEED-EB was 32 credits, Ms. Eichner Kelley did not think building certification would be difficult. Mr. Sutton emphasized all work done to this point was included in the work plan, and done in-house with existing staff. He said the City needed to keep working to improve in-house expertise, secure funding for Retrocommissioning services, and secure organizational, staff, and council support for improvements to City sustainability policies and practices. He noted the benefits of the process, which included better interdepartmental communication, added efficiencies, and increased quality of the work place. He believed there was also a benefit to the public using City facilities. Mr. Sutton concluded by saying that staff wanted to move from a traditional maintenance philosophy to a system that embraces and promotes sustainable principles. He offered to make the same presentation to organizations who want to know how to get started on a similar process. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments and questions. Ms. Taylor commended the presentation and determined from Mr. Sutton that staff was willing to offer the presentation to the neighborhood associations. Ms. Bettman concurred with the benefits of certification. She said during the recent LOC conference, participants toured Energy Trust, which was an interesting program. The program had about $15 million annually to distribute to businesses and agencies that wanted to invest in their existing buildings or build new buildings. Energy Trust was currently soliciting projects, but unfortunately, the agency's service area excluded Eugene because of the programs the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) operated. Ms. Eichner Kelley clarified that natural gas projects in Eugene qualified for Energy Trust funding, and the City had worked with the agency on the new fire station. Ms. Bettman encouraged staff to take advantage of those funds if possible. She asked how the City could secure similar benefits for electric power projects, acknowledging EWEB operated some programs but not at the scale the Energy Trust operated on. Ms. Bettman described a retrofitted project that she toured, which included the provision of extra windows and interior walls that were also windows to maximize the ambient light. The energy bill was MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 4 Work Session lessened by the presence of ambient light and workers' performance had been enhanced. Mr. Sutton said the City had some similar energy studies on its existing buildings. He noted that Ms. Eichner Kelley was the City's resident expertise and liaison to EWEB and the Northwest Energy Council. The City had taken advantage of EWEB incentives for both energy studies and reimbursements based on the energy saved. Mr. Sutton said the City had done about as much as it could in terms of energy efficiency and big projects, and now was trying to fine-tune its efforts. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Eichner Kelley overviewed contributions to the library from EWEB, saying the agency had been as generous in its assistance and incentives as she believed the Energy Trust would have been. EWEB helped the City make some informed choices about the building. Ms. Eichner Kelley noted that the Oregon Department of Energy also operated programs such as the Business Energy Tax Credit that nonprofits and government agencies such as Eugene could take advantage of with a pass-through partner. Mr. Svendsen said that the City had an opportunity for a Business Energy Tax Credit in the amount of about $15,000 available now for interested businesses. He invited interested businesses to call him. Mr. Kelly complimented staff on its specific accomplishments and its dedication to the City's sustainabil- ity goals. He asked for more information about Retrocommissioning and its resource implications. Ms. Eichner Kelley characterized Retrocommissioning as a detailed energy study of an existing building with the point of returning the building to its original design intent and finding opportunities for improvement. She said that frequently, equipment changes are involved, and those can be expensive. Mr. Sutton said the City would have to identify funding to meet that prerequisite. Mr. Kelly believed the LEED-EB approach made good environmental sense as well as good economic sense in terms of the life cycle costs of maintaining City buildings. Mr. Kelly did not think the City did a good job of celebrating its own successes, and recommended that it in this case staff go to various local business organizations such as the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce to share the presentation. He suggested the potential of the City providing a train- ing/consulting service on LEED-EB to the private sector. Mr. Sutton indicated staff was more than happy to share the information with others. Mr. Pap6 also congratulated staff for its progress. He thought the approach showed leadership through example. Mr. Pap6 asked if staff would be assisted by the council taking a position on the standards that it hoped the City would strive for. Mr. Svendsen said yes, noting that staff had tentatively recommended designing to a silver standard. Mr. Pap6 wanted to have a work session on the standards that the City would pursue. Mr. Sutton added that would be useful from both a Facilities Management Division and organizational standpoint. Mr. Meisner also commended staff for its effort. He asked to what degree other local public entities were involved in LEED, such as School District 4J. Mr. Sutton was unsure. He said Eugene was happy to share the information it had developed with the school districts. Mr. Meisner thought it critical for consultation, assistance, and education. Mr. Meisner referred to the City's "Working City" cable program and suggested that the information presented by staff could be shared with the public via that route more quickly and more comprehensively that it could be shared through one-on-one presentations. He agreed that the City did not do a good job of MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 5 Work Session talking about what it did well. Mr. Svendsen indicated that the program would be featured on "Working City" during December. C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Real Property Compensation; Adding Sections 2.070, 2.075, 2.080, 2.085, 2.090, and 2.095 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Attorney Glenn Klein joined the council for the item. He said that there continued to be considerable confusion about the impact of the passage of Ballot Measure 37. Discussions at the League of Oregon Cities indicated many cities were unsure about the approach they would take to the implementation of the measure. Mr. Klein reported that the Oregon Attorney General indicated the effective date of the measure was December 2, 2004, rather than December 3. Mr. Klein reviewed the elements of a draft ordinance developed by legal counsel to implement Ballot Measure 37 at the local level. Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey recommended the council consider taking action on the ordinance following the second public hearing. Mr. Meisner commended the mayor's suggestion. Mr. Meisner referred to Section 2.075(2)(a) and (b) on page 3 of the ordinance and asked why the City would request information on all owners in subsection (a) if in subsection (b) it required the property in question to be in the sole ownership of the claimant. He suggested the use of the word "sole" might be inconsistent. Mr. Klein agreed. Referring to Section 2.085(2), Mr. Meisner thought the process made sense but the section in question made no requirement for findings or even a statement of reasons by the City Manager. He asked how the council could figure out the reasons that the City Manager objected to a claim. Mr. Klein indicated there would be a description of the claim, what the investigation revealed, the recommendation, and the rationale behind the denial. Mr. Meisner suggested the ordinance be modified so that a reference was made to the need for a statement of reasons for a denial. Mr. Meisner appreciated the risky nature of subsection 2.090(5), making the waiver personal to the claimant. He asked if Mr. Klein believed that would withstand a constitutional challenge on the basis of restraint of alienation. Mr. Klein said yes, given the manner in which the measure was written and based on the conversations he had with different attorneys. He had not heard anything to convince him it would not survive a challenge. It was possible the courts could rule against it. Mr. Meisner asked if the City had received any notice of potential claims. City Manager Taylor said no. Ms. Bettman commended the City's legal staff for its work. She said it was clear at the League of Oregon Cities conference that Eugene's legal counsel was much more prepared than the counsels of other communities, which were going to wait and see what happened. She believed that defining the provisions in the measure would require litigation to be resolved. Ms. Bettman asked for an example of a transportation ordinance as referred to in Section 2.070(2)(c). Mr. Klein said the measure did not define the term "transportation ordinance." He suggested the measure intended to refer to transportation system plans, transportation systems development charges, transportao MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 6 Work Session tion utility fees, or access regulations. He did not know for sure. The ordinance in question must be related to transportation. He said the term was not used in the State's definitions of land use regulations. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 2.085(b) and asked why the City Manager would recommend the City investigate further given the limited time, as opposed to the City Manager doing further investigation before making a recommendation to the council. Mr. Klein said that the provision was included as a "catch all" to address potentially very unusual claims and very expensive investigations. He said the provision may not be needed. He added he anticipated that after a couple of months' experience in implementing the measure, staff would suggest revisions to the ordinance. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the inclusion of Section 2.085(d), which suggested the potential that a property could be acquired by condemnation. She said if the City was to pay for a claim it might as well leverage that claim for community benefit. She asked how the property in question would be valued, and what provisions of the law would apply to the property, the current provisions or default provisions. Mr. Klein said staff needed to discuss that issue with appraisers, because in a condemnation case, ultimately an appraiser would determine the highest and best use, and how that played out in a Ballot Measure 37 environment was not known. Ms. Bettman expressed interest in having a standardized mechanism to look at all such cases. Mr. Kelly said it was his belief that the passage of Ballot Measure 37 would have a negative impact on Eugene's livability and on farm and forest land across the state. However, it was the law of the land. Mr. Kelly said the ordinance appeared to allow Eugene to implement the measure in a straightforward manner that was fair to the property owner and flexible for the City. He also complimented Mr. Klein for his creative and speedy effort. Mr. Kelly appreciated the provisions of the ordinance related to cost recovery given the difficulty of projecting the cost of processing a claim, as some may be more complex than others. He preferred not to set an arbitrary fee. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Klein to comment on Section 2.090(1), which indicated the council may choose to have a hearing. He suggested the council needed a process to decide whether to have a hearing, and that should be based on the facts of the case. Even if there was no hearing, he wanted a mechanism for notice to be included in the ordinance. He suggested that a mechanism similar to that used for the removal of trees be considered. Mr. Pap6 joined in the council's compliments to legal counsel. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 regarding Section 2.075(1), Mr. Klein suggested that it was unlikely a short-term tenant would submit any claims because by the time their claim was processed they would no longer be a tenant. He said that Ballot Measure 37 stated that one must have ownership or an ownership interest in a property at the time a claim was filed. Mr. Pap6 noted Section 2.090, which stated that waivers were personal to the claimant, and asked about property transfers inside a family. Mr. Klein said as the measure was written, there was no symmetry between the family ownership issue and waiver issue. The ownership issue comes up in the context of whether the owner has a claim and what regulations were in question. In terms of the waiver, the measure indicates that a regulation could be waived to allow the current property owner to use the property in a way that was allowed at the time the individual in question acquired the property, not the family member. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pap6 asked about corporate ownerships. Mr. Klein said the measure was ambiguous in that regard. Mr. Pap6 asked if the City should consider a general fee paid up front versus charging people afterwards. He perceived the City would have difficulty in collecting from those whose claims were denied. Mr. Klein said the City did not know the costs of implementing the measure and needed some experience before it could set a fee amount. The City could establish an upfront fee, but it was unclear whether the City could enforce the fee. He did not interpret the measure as precluding a property owner from going to court if they filed a claim but failed to pay local government a fee. Mr. Pap6 suggested an upfront fee could help the City's cash flow in processing claims. Mr. Klein agreed that was true if the claimant was willing to pay. Mr. Poling also commended legal counsel and encouraged the other councilors to work through the issues so action could be taken as soon as possible. He believed the work done by Mr. Klein and his staff could serve as a model for other communities. He thought more work remained to be done. Referring to Section 2.085(2), Mr. Poling suggested the ordinance be more specific and refer to the City Council rather to "elected officials." Mr. Klein said the use of "City Council" would exclude the mayor, and he was attempting to avoid that, although he acknowledged the mayor did not vote except in the event of a tie. He said it was a policy question for the council whether the mayor should be included. Ms. Nathanson noted there was no cap on the fee and asked what happened when someone called the City for an estimate of what it would cost to file a claim. Mr. Klein said he would advise staff to answer honestly that the City does not know the cost at this time. He anticipated more would be known when claims began to be filed, and at that time staff could begin to give rough estimates based on past experience. City Manager Taylor said that would also encourage the applicant to provide as much information as possible and avoid the cost of City staff doing the needed research. Ms. Nathanson asked if there was a potential problem in not requiring public hearings. Mr. Klein believed it would be a political rather than a legal problem. He said it was possible the council could decide it always wanted to have a public hearing and revise the ordinance in the future accordingly. Ms. Nathanson recalled a time when the council held few executive sessions, even at a time when they may have been appropriate. That had changed over time. She wondered in this case what the council would want to impose on itself in terms of hearings. She said there were legitimate reasons both to hold and not to hold hearings. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Klein clarified that the ballot measure does not apply to conditions of approvals such as those imposed through conditional use permits, subdivisions, etc.; it applied only to land use regulations defined in the measure. Ms. Taylor also thanked legal staff for its work. She asked about the time allowed for the manager and council's decisions. Mr. Klein said the only time limit built in was the 180 days mentioned in the measure. He expected the manager would give the council an actual recommendation far in advance of when a decision was due. He did not want to include a deadline that the City could not meet. City Manager Taylor suggested the council may have to hold special meetings to meet claims deadlines. He acknowledged Ballot Measure 37-related activities would displace other council work due to the timelines imposed by the State. Ms. Taylor asked for more information on Section 2.090(4), which allowed the City to reinstitute the land use regulations in place when the property owner making a claim purchased their property. Mr. Klein said MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 8 Work Session in lieu of compensation, a governing body could modify the regulations to the owner to use the property for a use allowed at the time of purchase. He believed that property owners would probably know what was allowed at that time before they filed a claim. Mayor Torrey suggested the City notify the State that if Ballot Measure 37 caused the City to be outside of State mandates it should be indemnified. Mayor Torrey asked if the actions taken by individual cities in Oregon could set precedents for others. Mr. Klein said not directly, but they could through case law as decisions were appealed to higher courts. Mayor Torrey also complimented Mr. Klein for his firm's work, and determined from Mr. Klein that several members of his firm and several members of City staff had participated in the development of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey said that Eugene was the leader in the State in terms of analyzing and preparing for the passage of the measure. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said there was nothing in the measure to force property owners to consolidate claims. He believed property owners could file separate claims on separate regulations, but he noted the ordinance was structured to allow the council to consider more than the regulation the property owner wished to waive. The ordinance gave the council the ability to modify more than a single restriction back to the use that the property owner could have made of the property before the institution of Oregon's land use system. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the possibility a property owner could "cherry pick" from among the provisions in the code, and she did not think the ordinance a.dequately addressed that. For example, a developer could ask the City to waive code standards for a multiple-unit housing project, but it was the code that gave the developer the ability to up-zone. Ms. Bettman did not think the council could make piecemeal decisions, and thought it fairer that the property in question revert back to its original zoning and code regulations in place at that time in all cases. Ms. Bettman spoke to the effect of the measure on future planning, questioning whether adoption of a cell tower ordinance with a 1,000 foot setback would create claims. Mr. Klein indicated that staff planned to review the City's regulations and attempt to identify where such potential issues existed. City Manager Taylor indicated there would be both work plan and budgetary implications from that review, and he suggested that legislative action could be required to address some of the internal inconsistencies in the measure. Mr. Klein reported that Lane Shetterly of the Department of Land Conservation and Development indicated that the State did not want to place local governments in a difficult position in terms of how they addressed the measure, and the State would be willing to talk to the local jurisdictions about how to address pending work plan items, such as the Goal 5 periodic review work tasks. He deferred further comment to John Van Landingham, chair of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, who indicate he could not discuss details until after the commission's December 4 meeting, but he believed that Mr. Shetterly had the commission's support. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's suggestion that all claims revert back to the land use regulations in place prior to adoption of the State system, Mr. Klein indicated staff could draft the ordinance to include the default, but it meant the council could lose some flexibility. At this point, he preferred to retain the ordinance's flexibility. If a default position were included in the ordinance, the council could only regain flexibility MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 9 Work Session for a particular claim by amending the ordinance before acting on the claim. He agreed the council should be acting consistently, but he feared without any experience in dealing with claims, it would be difficult to have such a policy debate about the issues. He said that additional work sessions would be scheduled with the council to discuss additional policy issues before the council addressed individual claims. Mr. Pap6 asked about the potential an organization such as 1000 Friends of Oregon would sue the City for injunctive relief for not meeting the standards of the current statutes. Mr. Klein did not think the City of Eugene would face that situation as it did not enforce many State statutes. When the City took land use actions, it was generally enforcing its own codes, which it could waive. Counties would have more of a problem because counties enforce many State statutes, which cannot be waived. Mr. Klein was concerned about the possibility that the State would inform the City it must complete its Goal 5, which could result in additional restrictions, which would then result in more Ballot Measure 37 claims. Discussion was occurring at the state level about how to deal with situations where a jurisdiction must administer and enforce a requirement it did not adopt and could not waive. Mr. Pap6 asked what happened if the City Council determined it was in the public interest not to waive a regulation but it had no money to pay the claim. Mr. Klein said that could happen, and if the City did not pay a claim, after two years from the date the claim accrued, the property owner could probably use the property in a way that would have been allowed at the time the property was acquired. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Klein to speculate on whether the costs to claimants would be mostly legal fees. Mr. Klein said yes, as well as costs resulting from appraisal and consultant fees. Ms. Taylor suggested that taking action after two hearings was less onerous than taking action after one hearing, but she still preferred to postpone action until December 1 to allow the council to take advantage of any good ideas that were suggested at the public hearing. Mayor Torrey suggested the ordinance could be amended on November 22. Mr. Klein said the council could put the ordinance in place as planned and amend it on December 6. Mayor Torrey asked if the City had discussed the urban transition area with Lane County. Mr. Klein said some preliminary discussions had occurred. Lane County enacted the City's regulations and would be in the position of waiving them. City Manager Taylor indicated he would soon discuss the issues with County Administrator Bill Van Vactor. Mayor Torrey solicited a third round of council comments and questions. Referring to the urban transition area, Ms. Bettman suggested the "Pottery Barn" rule: "you waive it, you pay for it." Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimbefly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENTB MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall November 8, 2004 7:30 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. Councilor Nancy Nathanson was present via speakerphone. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Mayor Torrey introduced members of thc Irkutsk Sister City Delegation, and asked them to rise for recognition. Mark Schoening, City Engineer, introduced Sue Wolling of the Eugene Bicycle Coalition, who presented Mayor Torrey with Eugene's award for Bicycle Friendly Communities. Ms. Wolling provided an extensive description of the award and encouraged the City to do more to build on its bicycle system. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Jim Hale, 1719 Linnea Street, opposed the construction of a new police headquarters as being a project for the wrong time and place. The project as reconfigured did not accommodate for expansion needs or victims' assistance. He supported consideration of co-location with the Sheriff's Office. He opposed locating the facility on 8th Avenue because the use would create "dead space" after business hours. He called for the facility to be located near the County jail. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, provided the council with information about the United Nations (UN) and its projects around the country. He suggested further community conversation about the UN's plans and "sustainability" was needed. He also called for community discussion on the impact of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Franklin Boulevard. Mr. Vishanoff opposed further development in the area of the Riverfront Research Park, particularly development that was related to field of nanotechnology, and said he had heard nothing in response to his request that a citizen committee be formed to oversee nanotechnology activities at the University of Oregon. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 1 Regular Meeting Lisa Warnes, 5020 Nectar Way, said she spoke on behalf of her neighborhood, which bordered on a development owned by Joe Green of Portland. She supported efforts on the part of the City to purchase a portion of the property. She thought the development proposal being considered was too intense for the area in question and would negatively affect the natural resources on the property. She maintained that the presence of natural resources on the property argued against dense residential development, even at a total of seven lots. She quoted from a letter from Engineer Tom Pogue to Appraiser Richard Duncan, who indicated the best use of the site was development of seven lots with no connection to Nectar Way, and access to be taken from Dillard Road. Ray Wolfe, 1473 Louella Street, said he did not oppose taxation in general but noted that records indicated property owners were in arrears with their taxes and many residents were at poverty levels. He attributed bond measure losses to that state of affairs. He suggested that the City consider progressive income taxes rather than regressive property taxes. He thought that would help to pass bond measures in the future. He suggested that well-paid City employees who design bond measures were detached from the realities facing their fellow residents. Kate Pearle, 4740 Wendover Street, spoke in opposition to the land change proposal intended to facilitate the development of a regional park in Santa Clara, saying that those in opposition to the proposal were opposed to shifting the urban growth boundary on a case-by-case basis because of the potential it would lead to sprawl. She suggested that existing facilities be remodeled as a community center and aquatic facility. She thought it irresponsible to encourage development on Class 1 farmland. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, Friends of Eugene, agreed with the concerns of the previous speaker. He opposed the appointment of Randy Hledik to the Planning Commission as Mr. Hledik was the general manager of Wildish Sand and Gravel. He opined that Mr. Hledik would have to recuse himself frequently from commission business due to his employment. He also averred that there was a "growing community perception" that the commission was "dominated" by business interests. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments and questions in response to the Public Forum. Councilor Taylor hoped the opponents to the proposed Santa Clara regional park continued their opposition. Councilor Taylor hoped the City was working to purchase Mr. Green's property before the cost of the property went up. Councilor Taylor thought Mr. Matthews made some very good points. Because of the number of public hearings and the number of people wishing to offer testimony, Mayor Torrey called on Council President Bettman for a motion regarding Item 7. 7. ACTION: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to reappoint Surendra Subramani to Position 2 on the Human Rights Commission for a MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 2 Regular Meeting three-year term beginning November 1, 2004, and ending on October 31, 2007; to reappoint Dwight Souers to Position 6 on the Human.Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2004, and end- ing on October 31, 2007; to appoint Ibrahim Hamide to Position 1 on the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2004, and ending on October 31, 2007; to appoint Judith Castro to Posi- tion 3 on the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2004, and ending on October 31, 2007; to appoint Elizabeth Ayedelott to Position 12 on the Human Rights Commission, the unex- pired term of Sheila Coats, for a term beginning upon appointment and ending on October 31, 2006; to appoint Juan Monjaras to Position 5 on the Human Rights Commission, the unexpired term of Mary Martinez- Wentzel, for a term beginning upon appointment and ending on October 31, 2005; to appoint Misa Joo to Position 11 on the Human Rights Com- mission, the unexpired term of Mo Young, for a term beginning upon ap- pointment and ending on October 31, 2005; to appoint Andrea Smith to Position 8 on the Human Rights Commission, the unexpired term of An- drea Ortiz, for a term beginning upon appointment and ending on October 31, 2005. Councilor Bettman thanked all the applicants for the position, saying all were qualified, excellent candidates. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes October 11, 2004, Work Session October 11, 2004, City Council October 12, 2004, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews October 13, 2004, Work Session October 13, 2004, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews October 26, 2004, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4814 Approving the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Councilor Pap~ raised a point of order, asking that the council take action on the other pending appoint- ments. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to appoint Randall Hledik to Position 2 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning Novem- MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting ber 1, 2004, and ending on October 31, 2008. Councilor Kelly noted that the council took action on the Human Rights Commission positions unani- mously, and given the number of people waiting to testify, he asked Councilor Pap6 to withdraw the motion. Mayor Torrey determined from City Attorney Glenn Klein that Councilor Bettman's motion had precedence over Councilor Pap6's motion. At the request of Mayor Torrey, Councilor Pap6 withdrew his motion. Councilor Poling withdrew his second. Councilor Bettman and Councilor Meisner noted their submission of corrections to the minutes via e-mail. Mayor Torrey deemed them accepted as submitted. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARNG: An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing; Adding Sections 8.400 Through 8.440, And Sections 8.995 To The Eugene Code, 1971; And Providing For A Delayed Enforcement Data City Manager Taylor called on Building and Permit Services Manager Marsha Miller to review thc changes made since the council last considered the ordinance in August 2004 as a result of council input, staff analysis, and recommendations from the Housing Policy Board (HPB). Ms. Miller reported that most of the changes were simplifications but some were slightly more substantive. Staff added a provision for an oral agreement to be included in the definition of a rental agreement; added a requirement for all non-exempt rental housing to register with the City, even if exempt from the fees; and changed the requirement that repairs must be completed within tens days to "within a reasonable time" to accommo- date the possible need for a building permit. Ms. Miller noted the council's receipt of a memorandum from the HPB proposing recommendations for fee exemptions for low-income housing, which staff supported. She noted that Councilor Poling had requested three amendments to the ordinance, a provision including a sunset clause, a provision providing more specificity about timelines for landlords to do repairs, and a provision providing property owner notice prior to inspection. She noted that staff had envisioned including the last provision in the administrative rules but would prepare motions to allow for its inclusion in the ordinance. Ms. Miller anticipated that over time, the program was anticipated to become self-sufficient, and staff would track all program revenues and expenditures and report back to the council on a regular basis. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, Eugene, supported a housing program based on the Corvallis model. He asked that copies of the ordinance be made widely available, and recommended that the Corvallis City Council and Corvallis landlords be consulted about how that ordinance worked. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 4 Regular Meeting Paul Cauthorn, 2739 University Street, asked the council to Consider all options before moving forward. He opposed the ordinance because his tenants would have to pay the yearly fee. He maintained his property and his tenants would not benefit from the tax. The program would take money out of the pocket of tenants and he questioned what they would receive in exchange. He suggested a landlord-tenant education campaign administered by a local nonprofit be considered instead. If tenants did not know their rights, they had none. Courtney Anglin, 915 West 20th Avenue, chair of the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG), noted her organization's long-time interest in the topic. She said OSPIRG published a renter's handbook but it did not replace local protections she believed the City should provide. She maintained there was a problem with landlords in the community, and her organization did not have the resources to protect all renters. She asked the council to support a local rental housing code and local enforcement. Christa Hansen, 2738 Kismet Way, spoke in support of enforceable local housing standards such as there were in Lawrence, Kansas. She said that program benefited everyone. Violations were easily addressed because all understood the rules. The remainder of the community benefited because adjacent property values were maintained. She spoke of the experience of a friend, who was told by her landlord to go to court when she experienced a mouse infestation. Allison Rajak, 825 West 2nd Avenue, supported the creation of housing standards. She said she had first- hand experience with negligent landlords but her complaints were largely unaddressed by her out-of-town landlord. She was now a landlord herself and thought a housing standards program would be very useful, noting that the Corvallis program received many calls for information from landlords as well as tenants. Corey Harmon, 2141 Hilyard Street, acknowledged the State standards but said they forced tenants to file lawsuits, costing them time and money. He also acknowledged that tenants could withhold their rent in certain circumstances. However, many times the cost of repairs exceeded the withholding limits, and a lawsuit created the threat of eviction. She said the cost of the fee should not stress landlords as it was only $1 more monthly for renters and that was often divided among many people. She thought tenants would be willing to pay those costs for a local enforcement option. Taylour Johnson, 725 East 14th Avenue, a member of the Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards, said her organization met with landlords and property managers over the past years to discuss their concerns. She said one concern was that a local program would create loopholes for tenants to damage their properties to avoid eviction. Tenants would have to cause major damage for that to be a concern, such as damage to a property's structural integrity, broken windows, or a broken furnace. They would then have to wait ten days after contacting their landlord before filing a complaint with the City. In addition, State law already protected landlords in the case of tenant-caused property damage. She asserted that Oregon's eviction process was among the quickest in the country. There were alternatives available to landlords if damages exceeded the security deposit. Scott Lu, 746 East 19th Avenue, #7, a member of the Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards, noted the many members of the coalition present as well as those who endorse its efforts. He thanked the council for holding the hearing and asked it to adopt the standards. Bob Suess Jr., PO Box 456, Springfield, said he owned and operated apartment complexes in Eugene and Springfield. He had been trying to figure out why Eugene needed such standards given the State laws MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 5 Regular Meeting governing landlord-tenant relations. He anticipated that if the proposed standards were adopted, rents in Eugene would be increased. Mr. Suess said that all the stories he heard from the renters' coalition regarded student housing or students' private homes. He said someone had mentioned broken windows as an example of neglect, but he did not understand how a landlord could be responsible for broken windows. That sounded like a tenant problem. He said that landlords' representatives met with the representatives of the coalition and asked to be made aware of worst habitability problems, but no one followed up. Now he was confused as to whether there was a problem in Eugene or the scope of the problem. Mr. Suess questioned whether another government program was needed to oversee rental housing, pointing out that many agencies existed to address the issues that had been brought up in testimony. Building Code violations could be addressed by the Building Official, and Fire Code violations by the Fire Marshal. He had surveyed some of his Eugene tenants, who also questioned what the problem was. Mr. Suess wanted to ensure that if an ordinance was adopted, all rental properties, including apartment complexes and single-family homes, were covered. Ron Kruetz, 5447 Wales Drive, said he was a landlord and opposed standards set only for rental housing. As a contractor, he had to abide by all building codes and standards. He believed the standards under consideration were duplicative of other standards in existing law. Noting that the City's Permit and Information Center was open for only four hours a day because it had to be fee-supported and could collect no money from the General Fund, he asked how the program would be funded. He noted that Eugene had one citation for an unsafe rental unit in 2004 and two fines for habitability issues in Corvallis; he questioned whether that level of activity justified a new program. He suggested that more education about what actually was in place was needed. He was strongly opposed to the program. Paula Roberts, PO Box 1022, Eugene, said she was a long-time renter, rendered homeless once for a short period of time during a dispute with a landlord. She was opposed to the City's standards because the State standards had protected her adequately. The City standards did not supplement the State program but did supplement the City's General Fund. Its limited standards in comparison to State law would not protect tenants or provide recovery for tenants in the event of harassment from landlords, wrongful evictions, vermin infestations, appliance failures, etc. In regard to the issue of avoiding high court fees, under Oregon Revised Statute 190, when a tenant has made good faith request for repairs, that tenant may withhold rent until mediation occurred. She believed that if a tenant could pay rent, that tenant could pay a small court filing fee, and pointed out all filing fees were reimbursed from the loser of claim. She asked the council to compare existing law and Eugene's proposal before making a decision. Sonny Taylor, PO Box 1022, Eugene, said as a renter he had both good and bad experiences and resolved his rental disputes using State law. He believed the proposed housing standards would not serve those they were intended to protect. The proposed ordinance did not supplement State law, failed to offer new protections, and duplicated enforcement of a narrow set of laws already in place. Rather than make restitution to tenants, landlords would make restitution to the City. The ordinance would establish a rental tax to be paid by property owners, who would pass it on to renters in the form of excessive fees. Mr. Taylor believed that renters who attempted to use the code without aggressively pursuing action could put themselves at risk of eviction because they did not file appropriate paperwork. Those who complain about serious habitability issues without taking advantage of State law may find themselves homeless if the City declares their residence uninhabitable. Mr. Taylor criticized the lack of a defined appeals process, the fact the ordinance was largely defined by administrative rules, and the fact on-campus housing was exempt. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 6 Regular Meeting He said that much excellent information was available to renters. He suggested the City instead inform renters of their remedies under State law, with the OSPIRG booklet on renters' rights used as guidelines. He said the City should serve tenants by being a teacher rather than a commissar. Dennis Casady, PO Box 5028, Eugene, was opposed to creating new City bureaucracies as would occur if the housing standards were adopted. He said the proposed code left many questions unanswered, such as the expertise of City inspectors in various areas like plumbing, building, and electric codes. He thought landlords should be notified of inspections so they could be present to answer questions and view the inspection. Mr. Casady called for education to eliminate the problems cited by those in support of housing standards, suggesting that landlords be required to give tenants a brochure explaining Oregon's landlord-tenant act and remedies, eliminating the need for local housing standards. Devin Gates, 447 Maxwell Road, had many misgivings about the proposed housing standards. He was concerned about the absence of a sunset clause in the ordinance and thought it was crucial there be a deadline for review of the ordinance's effectiveness. He was also concerned about the fiscal accountabil- ity of the program as landlords would be being taxed against their wills if it was adopted. He wanted to ensure the funds went to a dedicated fund, not the City's General Fund. Mr. Gates urged the council to reconsider a fine-based system, suggesting that general taxation of landlords who maintain their properties was unfair. He suggested an offender-based system would be more appropriate and just. Donna Turfing, 2305 Snelling Drive, expressed concern that the coalition was disseminating incorrect information about the need for recourse to small claims court when its own materials laid out different information. She challenged the coalition to be more accurate. She was concerned about the proposed ordinance, which was altered from the Corvallis model by deleting the maximum fine amounts; Eugene's were unlimited. The Corvallis program sent notice that fees were due, and Eugene's was voluntary, but there were fines for those who failed to register. Corvallis included a mayor-appointed appeals board; Eugene had an appeal to the manager. She also supported a sunset if an ordinance was to be adopted. Ms. Turring noted that she had been on the Joint Housing Commission in the 1980s when the City Code was in place, and the City staff responsible for the program recommended it be disbanded because the program was receiving nuisance complaints rather than habitability complaints; she understood the same thing was occurring in Corvallis. Patrick Costello, 474 Brookside Drive, said he owned and managed an apartment complex in Eugene. He said he rented units to many low-income people. He was not necessarily opposed to housing standards but he was opposed to the cost of the program. While the amount was not a lot for many people, for people living on very low incomes, such as his tenants living on $500 from Social Security or disability payments, it was a real cost. He was concerned because his tenants had difficulty paying their rents already. Mr. Costello asked the council if the program was necessary. He believed there were other alternatives for the council to consider. Bob Suess, Sr., 260 East 38th Avenue, said he began to provide affordable housing for Eugene residents 40 years ago. He and his tenants respected each other's needs. He believed it was a mistake to spend time on the housing standards when a committee of knowledgeable people could make recommendations for an approach that was fair to all. Mr. Suess commended the audience for its civility. Barry Blanton, 580 West 35th Place, a partner with Lorig Associates, noted his company's familiarity with the Corvallis ordinance, the model on which the proposal was based. He reviewed data provided by MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 7 Regular Meeting the Corvallis program manager for the time period July 2003 - June 2004. That data indicated fewer than two contacts per business day; 267 were from tenants, 100 were from landlords, and 67 were from people from other than tenants or landlords. Of 434 total contacts, none resulted in administrative sanctions from Corvallis or got to the point of a legal notice. The cost of that program was about $90,000 annually. Mr. Blanton asked what the proposed Eugene ordinance would do that the State law did not. He asked the council to review the State landlord-tenant act before it adopted the ordinance. He submitted a copy into the record. He said the State law was strong, and damages were awarded to the tenant, not to government. John Tronrud, 1388 Willamette Street, Rental Association, said the association was not opposed to housing standards but was opposed to the duplication of process. He did not think the proposed code provided anything not found in State law. He discussed the history of the landlord-tenant law, and said those who said the only recourse was small claims court were not correct. Withholding rent was an option, and that got a landlord's attention. He said the local courts were very fair; they were more apt to give the tenant the benefit of the doubt, particularly with regard to habitability issues. He said the housing coalition did not address those issues. The association had offered the coalition the opportunity to give it the worst case scenario and it heard nothing. The coalition did not want to be in the court system; if a landlord had a claim made against them, they would be in the court system. Jaml Sterling-Counard, 825 Mosh Drive, Sterling Management Group, said she was very involved in the Corvallis market and was familiar with that community's program. She said that in three years, Corvallis had experienced three code issues annually and those had regarded plumbing and weather stripping. The few problems that do exist would be subsidized by the landlords who really care about and take care of their properties. She did not think that was fair. Ms. Sterling-Counard asked if the council decided to go forward with housing standards, it include a two-year sunset provision for a meaningful review. Ms. Sterling-Counard emphasized the importance of having knowledgeable inspectors. Corvallis had done well in that regard. She said the program cost should be minimal. She suggested that the council consider discounting the fee for good behavior. She also supported directing revenues into a dedicated fund. Kelly Pearson, 375 Marche Chase Drive, representing Chase Village Apartments, opposed the adoption of local housing standards. She said that the fee being contemplated would realize considerable money from the 536 units she managed alone at a cost of $10 annually. She contrasted that with the cost to a single-family house, where more of the problems discussed by those supporting the housing standards seemed to occur. She said her complexes had permanent maintenance teams and addressed all tenant complaints as they were received. She had heard stories from tenants about bad rental situations and used them as suggestions for improvements. Brooke Hardy, 992-½ West 4th Avenue, represented a landlord unable to appear before the council. He was opposed to the housing standards as they were not needed. He said in his experience, often the problem with a rental was caused by tenants doing damage. He it was very difficult to evict a tenant and it took a court process. Mr. Hardy said he had just inspected one of his properties and was surprised by the damage that had been done. He pointed out that local landlords frequently owned only one or two properties or units. He objected to the fee associated with the housing standards program, which he characterized as a hidden tax and which he did not think was needed. Clark Winston Cox Jr., 1085 Patterson Street, said that his complex had experienced problems until a new management company had assumed responsibility. In the past, management companies had worked MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 8 Regular Meeting slowly to fix things. He was a member of the West University neighborhood association board and did not recall that the organization had signed on in support of the housing standards. While he would not personally benefit from the standards, Mr. Cox supported the housing standards to address landlords who did not do what they should do. He also supported a sunset clause. Brett Roulett, 600 Howard Avenue, staff of the Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards, spoke of his work in support of housing standards and the research he had done in regard to the topic. He termed housing standards a human rights issue. He urged their adoption as being in the best interest of both landlords and tenants. He disagreed that rents would increase to any great degree as a result, particularly when compared with the rental savings that he anticipated tenants would experience from houses that were properly plumbed, weatherproofed, and heated. He maintained that Corvallis has experienced no great increase in rents. Adam Pitkin, 251 West Broadway, President of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon, asked that the council adopt an ordinance so that Eugene was not the last large community in Oregon lacking housing standards. Mr. Pitkin suggested that Corvallis renters had not had many problems because the program acted as a deterrent. Mr. Pitkin asked that a dedicated fund be created for the program and revenues used solely on the program. He also asked that the annual fee be as low as possible, noting that Corvallis had built up sufficient revenues to create a reserve for the program. Scott Smith, 728 Pond Lane, a board member of the Rental Owners Association of Lane County, said most people rented at one time or another and many times tenants and landlords disagreed. However, he questioned how many of the issues raised during testimony were actually in regard to habitability issues. He said cracks in the walls or poorly painted bathrooms were not habitability issues. Mr. Smith said many of those issues were not going to be addressed by the proposed code. He said that the association had sought information about the habitability problems being experienced by coalition members but had received nothing. He believed the information about the Corvallis code was revealing as the majority of calls were not in regard to habitability issues but instead the program acted as a tenant help line. He thought the proposed code a poor value for the residents of the City of Eugene. John Morrison, 803 Armstrong Avenue, agreed with those who spoke in opposition to the housing standards. He questioned the need for the ordinance, saying he had sought specifics about that need from the coalition but had received no information. He did not see the need for a duplicative bureaucracy and pointed out the City had code enforcement capacity now. Mr. Morfison opposed the fact that landlords who behaved well would pay for the program, as opposed to landlords who egregiously violated the law. Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, said since he had last spoken in favor of the housing standards he had heard complaints about the program and now believed more time was needed to help reconcile the differences between parties. He did not think those in opposition wanted the program at all. He welcomed paying another $10 annually on his property to help his neighborhood from falling into degradation. He asked how those in opposition would improve the measure. He did not think small claims court was the answer because of the time it took to get on the docket. Zach Vishanoff, Patterson Street, suggested that the housing standards were an outgrowth of"smart growth" policies that the City would employ to remove needed housing. He complained in general about MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 9 Regular Meeting the fact the University of Oregon was planning for its own property in a way that he did not support. Mr. Vishanoff's remaining connnents regarded his general dissatisfaction with the City's planning processes. John Van Landingham, 335 North Grand Street, thanked the council for its service to the community. He spoke in his capacity as Chair of the Housing Policy Board (HPB), a body which recommended the City apply the ordinance to the City's affordable housing units but not charge a fee for those units. He said the Corvallis City Council made the same policy choice. He said the HPB believed the text used by the Corvallis ordinance was inadequate, and had recommended alternative text. Mr. Van Landingham thanked Councilor Pap6 and Councilor Kelly for their service on the HPB. Speaking as a lawyer for Legal Aid, Mr. Van Landingham said the State law did not provide a safe or affordable option for some tenants to force some landlords to make repairs. He maintained that the ordinance "filled that gap." He indicated he had provided written testimony on that issue. He concluding by saying that he wished the State law was as effective as some maintained. David Itinkley, 1350 Lawrence Street, #1, co-chair of the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors, said the neighborhood association had voted unanimously to support the ordinance at its last meeting. He noted that 48.2 percent of Eugene residents live in rental housing, and that number was growing. He regretted that a small proportion of landlords had created the need for the ordinance, and suggested that it was just a beginning as he believed there were other laws about landlord-tenant relationships that should be considered. David Itansen, 2738 Kismet Way, believed the rental association was sending a mixed message when it argued for education but then suggested the Corvallis program was essentially providing education. He asked what those individuals wanted. In regard to calls for slowing the process, Mr. Hansen said the council had taken its time, given that the issue had been under consideration since 1996. He said Corvallis researched the need for such a program for two years before passing the program. He said the coalition wished to avoid a similarly long adoption process. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, representing the Friends of Eugene, expressed his organization's support for the ordinance. However, given his organization's interest in adequate public processes, Mr. Matthews was concerned about the lack of public testimony from bad landlords. He pointed out that nobody had offered the council testimony to the effect that they were a bad landlord, and questioned whether the council should await that testimony, or whether it would have to represent their needs. Norton Cabell, 1456 West 10t~ Avenue, a property owner and manager, endorsed the inclusion of a sunset clause in the ordinance. He asked that the council amend the ordinance to recognize that not all damage to a property that is a code violation was caused by a landlord's action or inaction. Sometimes damage was caused by a tenant's action. He indicated he had submitted written text that allowed inspection staff to determine the source of the damage when deciding whether to penalize a landlord. Mr. Cabell said he was sure the manager would hire staff that would help protect tenants from those unscrupulous, uncaring, irresponsible landlords absent from the hearing, as well as landlords from the unscrupulous, uncaring, irresponsible tenants attempting to take advantage of a new system, who also had failed to offer testimony. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, a member of the HPB and staff to the Lane County Homebuilders Association, indicated she supported the ordinance as a member of the HPB. The ordinance appeared to MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 10 Regular Meeting work in Corvallis and landlords appeared to benefit from it. She proposed an amendment similar to that proposed by Mr. Cabell, that Section 8.410 be modified to indicate the standards would not apply to any housing damages or defects caused by tenants or by tenants' guests. She asked that the any costs and paperwork associated with the program be kept to a minimum, and advocated for a sunset clause. Alicia Fernandez, 3950 Goodpasture Loop, representing Forest Hills Apartments, said that her complex was fairly new and had three on-site maintenance staff available 24 hours. Her company responded immediately to all service requests. She said if implemented, the ordinance would cost her company $2,480 above the costs it currently spent to maintain the complex. She said people in support of the ordinance do not seem to understand that rents would go up if the ordinance was adopted. She asked that, if adopted, the money collected is directed to a dedicated fund for the purposes of education and that a sunset clause be included. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Mayor Torrey announced that, due to the lateness of the hour, the council would not be conducting the other two public hearings that had been scheduled for that evening. Mayor Torrey called on the council for questions and comments. Councilor Bettman thanked all those who testified. She asked City Manager Taylor to develop text to amend the ordinance to reflect the recommendations of the HPB. She asked how it could be determined that a tenant caused damage, which was a crime of vandalism. Ms. Miller said staff was concerned about that issue but was not sure how the inspector would determine who caused damage. No matter who caused the damage, the landlord would ultimately have to make repairs and she assumed that they had legal recourse to pursue damages from the tenant. She said staff could do more research on what other communities had done in regard to the issue. Councilor Kelly also thanked those who testified and expressed interest in the topic raised by Councilor Bettman. He invited written input from Mr. Cabell and others offering testimony about that issue. Councilor Kelly expressed appreciation for the suggestion that the City employ limited contract employees to administer the program to minimize costs in its initial phases. Councilor Kelly supported the HPB's recommended changes. Councilor Kelly referred to the staff-recommended change from ten days to a "reasonable time" and asked if it was possible to place some upper boundary on what that constituted. Councilor Kelly indicated he would support a sunset provision, suggeSting that three years would be appropriate. Councilor Pap~ suggested that mention of housing standards was unfortunate because no new standards were being considered. Rather, the council was talking about enforcement. If the two existing methods of enforcement were working, he did not think the council would be talking about an ordinance. Councilor Pap~ agreed that some consideration for tenant-caused damage was needed in the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 11 Regular Meeting He thought there were ways for the City to sort that issue and not place a burden on the landlord if the damage was found to be caused by a tenant. Councilor Pap~ asked if a tenant could use both State and City law at the same time in a rental dispute. Mr. Klein said nothing in the ordinance or State law would prevent that. The City program was in addition to the other remedies the tenant had. Councilor Papfi was also interested in a sunset clause, saying his support for the ordinance might depend on the inclusion of such a provision. Councilor Papb indicated support for placing all program revenues in a dedicated fund. Councilor Poling requested that text be prepared to amend the ordinance in a way that allowed the property owner to be present during an inspection. Responding to a question from Councilor Poling about the qualifications the City's inspectors would have, City Manager Taylor said he was unsure at this point of the qualifications, but he anticipated staff could develop an outline of the position's responsibilities prior to implementation of the ordinance. Councilor Poling also supported establishing a dedicated fund for program revenues. He suggested the potential that the fee could be reduced if the program costs were not as high as anticipated. Councilor Poling noted the support expressed by the Harlow Neighbors neighborhood association for the ordinance. Councilor Meisner indicated support for the ordinance. He also supported a sunset or mandated review to ensure the program did not become a "runaway bureaucracy." Councilor Meisner asked legal counsel to prepare a written response related to the issue of retaliation as raised in testimony. Would initiation of a tenant's complaint pursuant to the local ordinance trigger the anti-retaliation provisions in State law? Mr. Klein indicated he would follow-up. Councilor Nathanson expressed concern about the proposed administrative structure and cost. She said she had requested statistical information from the proponents of the program about the scope of the problem and regretted that information was not available. Speaking to the mandated review or sunset issue, Councilor Nathanson hoped that good information was available for an adequate and meaningful review. Mayor Torrey asked staff to incorporate the recommendations of Mr. Cabell and Ms. Cuellar into the ordinance. Mayor Torrey wanted a comparison of what the State program and proposed City program would do. Mayor Torrey supported a sunset clause. He suggested two years of operation would be sufficient for an evaluation. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of council comments and questions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman said her concem about Mr. Cabell's suggestion was how to determine the source of the damage. She wanted to ensure that the inspectors were qualified. She also supported the creation of a dedicated fund. Speaking to concerns raised by those in opposition to the ordinance that no evidence of the living conditions giving rise to the need for the ordinance had been provided, Councilor Bettman maintained that the council had heard very moving testimony in the past from people who had shared their experiences living in substandard housing, the difficulty they had accessing the court system, how much easier a City program would be for them to use, and how much safer they would feel. Councilor Nathanson indicated she supported the ordinance to ensure that residents living in habitable conditions, but she continued to have concerns about the administrative cost of the program. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram to Redesignate Property Identified as Tax Lots 199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-2 3 from Low-Density Residential to Commercial and to Rezone the Property from R-1 Low-Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Due to a lack of time, this item was not addressed. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Real Property Compensation; Adding Sections 2.070, 2.075, 2.080, 2.085, 2.090, and 2.095 to the Eugene Code; 1971; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date Due to a lack of time, this item was not addressed. 7. ACTION: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Due to a lack of time, this item was not completed. The meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 13 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall November 10, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: Appointments to the Planning Commission Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to appoint Randy Hle- dik to Position 2 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term begin- ning November 1, 2004, and ending October 31, 2008. Ms. Bettman opined that appointing Mr. Hledik to the Planning Commission would put it "disturbingly out of balance." She felt his position with Wildish Companies and the company's contracts with the City would hinder his impartiality. She termed Mr. Hledik "very, very one-sided in his approach to issues." She recalled that the council had blocked the president of 1,000 Friends of Eugene and the Southeast Neighbors from being on the commission, someone she felt was well-qualified to fill the position. She preferred appointing Greg Ringer, who she felt would better reflect community values. She noted he had run for a seat on the Lane Board of County Commissioners and had netted 30 percent of the vote. Mr. Kelly, though he felt Mr. Hledik had interviewed well and was a "bright individual with a lot of contact with the planning process," opposed the motion because of Mr. Hledik's employment. He called the development community a critical part of the City and commented that there was nothing wrong with it. However, he asserted that the Planning Commission needed to have representation by a diversity of interests and the appointment of Mr. Hledik would not fill this need. Mr. Kelly indicated his concern also lay with a portion of the Eugene Code which dictated that no more than two members of the Planning Commission should be engaged in the purchase, sale, or development of real property. He opined that while John Lawless and Rick Duncan were both "excellent members" of the commission, both owed their livelihoods to development. He said Mr. Hledik's appointment would not be in keeping with the spirit of the code. Mr. Pap6 believed the code provision indicated that a person should be principally engaged in develop- ment. He pointed out that neither Mr. Duncan nor Mr. Lawless was principally involved with develop- ment as one was an architect and the other was an appraiser. He contended that they would not consider their livelihoods to be directly attributable to development. Mayor Torrey expressed disappointment that in the council sessions devoted to appointments to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Budget Conmaittee and Planning Commission there had been a couple of instances of"character assassination." He felt it appropriate to indicate that one did not think an individual would be the right choice in terms of his or her professional ability to deal with issues. However, he called resorting to that level of dispute a disservice to the individual and to the many citizens out in the community who might consider applying for like positions in the future. He acknowledged that Mr. Hledik held positions that some councilors might not agree with. He shared that he had many contacts with Mr. Hledik. He underscored that Mr. Hledik was an honorable person and would serve well on the Planning Commission should he be selected. Ms. Taylor disagreed that anyone had besmirch{'.d Mr. Hledik's character. She asserted that the issues at hand had only to do with the type of business M r. Hledik conducted and how it would influence his ability to make planning recommendations. She predic Ied the opinions that Mr. Duncan, Mr. Lawless, and Mr. Hledik were likely to have would not be those sl lared by environmentalists. Mayor Torrey urged Ms. Taylor to read the Plar ning Commission minutes. Mr. Kelly urged the Mayor not to engage in the same "character assassination about councilors around the table" as he had alleged the council had done. [e did not agree that anyone had said anything that could be construed as an assault on Mr. Hledik's chin tcter. He expressed disappointment that issues of character had been brought up. He said had he :tnother option he would choose to reopen the application process in hopes of gaining a wider pool from ~ hich to choose. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion pa,, sed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman, s :conded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to appoint Phillip Hud- speth to Positicn 3 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term be- ginning Nover~ ber 1, 2004, and ending on October 31, 2008. Mr. Meisner said he was pleased to see the corn lcil balloting on this appointment. He felt this appoint- ment would provide a true representation on thc: Planning Commission of a regional perspective. He thought this would be valuable to the City Cout.cil in the future. Ms. Taylor conveyed her disappointment that n :ither Greg Ringer nor Dan Herbert were chosen, but indicated she would support the motion. Mr. Pap6 echoed Mr. Meisner's comments. He noted the appointments would provide representation for different areas of the community. He recalled t hat a past council had denied an application of a worthy individual because the area of the City he resid, :d in was already well-represented. He pointed out that the two departing commissioners were from the arc a south of 18th Avenue. Mr. Hudspeth's appointment would, he said, provide a representative from ti Js area. The motion pa sed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Economic Development Committee Recommendations Regarding Business Facilitator/Ombudsman City Manager Taylor introduced the last recommendation from the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. He asked Planning and Development (PDD) Director Tom Coyle to discuss the recommen- dation. Mr. Coyle reiterated that the recommendation was forwarded from the Mayor's committee. He said one element the group looked at was permitting from a broad context of how permits moved through the system. He explained that, in response to this analysis, the committee recommended the appointment of a facilitator/ombudsman to fulfill three functional .purposes: 1) Interdepartmental coordination; 2) Facilitation of permits, especially infill and redevelopment permits; 3) Systems improvements recommendations to senior management and recommendations on indi- vidual permitting that could be assisted. Mr. Meisner conveyed his interest in this recommendation. He recalled that he had argued for the creation of a similar position several years earlier. He asked how it was proposed to be funded. City Manager Taylor said if the position was approved, he would ask Mr. Coyle to create a decision package for consideration by the Budget Committee. He added that since the City was in the early phases of budget building, he did not have a recommendation. Mr. Meisner expressed frustration at this response, adding that he hoped to hear some ideas for how it could be funded. Mr. Kelly echoed Mr. Meisner's sentiments. He recalled that he had asked for a few funding alternatives in August. He felt the council was being asked to make a decision without fundamental information. City Manager Taylor thought it premature as the outcome of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) case was yet unknown as were the fiscal changes resulting from the telecommunications settlement, among others. He said these clements all would change the bottom line of the budget one way or the other. Mr. Kelly suggested a different motion in lieu of these fiscal uncertainties, such as one that would direct the City Manager to return with funding alternatives for a business facilitator in fiscal year 2006. City Manager Taylor reiterated that passing the motion in every case would result in the preparation of a decision package for consideration by the Budget Committee. He said, should the motion not pass, it was unlikely it would be brought up as a recommendation from the committee or from the City Manager. Ms. Taylor said her concern lay with ~ast reductions in the budget. She felt a "sustainability facilitator" should be appointed. She reiterated her support for the hiring of a performance auditor. She listed several areas in which more funding was needed, such as building code enforcement, neighborhood organizations, and the seismic retrofit for City Hall. She did not think another j ob should be created just because the committee recommended it. She indicated she would oppose the recommendation. Ms. Bettman did not understand how PDD established the need for the position, aside from the fact that it had been recommended. She saw redundancies in the services to be provided. It seemed to her the three services provided in the recommendation had been changed to shift the focus from local business. She felt expanding and locating new businesses was a function of the Metro Partnership as well as the PDD director and personnel. She thought there was no evidence that "throwing more money at the problem" MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 3 Work Session would fix it. She alleged that the council had recently passed a motion giving the staff of the Planning Division a "broad ability" to amend the code and to make recommendations for systems changes. She questioned how this new facilitator/ombudsman's authority would interact with the authority of Mr. Coyle. Mr. Coyle stated that the new position had nothing to do with action taken by the council two weeks earlier. He clarified that the previous action related to the committee's recommendations necessitated staff's returning before the council to for approval or denial of modifications to the zoning code. Prior to this, he said actions would be enabled through a series of public hearings, reviews, consideration by the Planning Commission and its public hearing process. Regarding systems changes, he asserted that few such items were submitted to him, adding that he did not think, in a theoretical sense, such systems should be refined in a way that the director did not have to be involved in facilitating a permit. Ms. Bettman declared that the money should be used in a more strategic way by looking at how much could be spent on economic redevelopment and how best this amount of money could be spent for the community. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner that a motion should be brought back in the course of the budget process and the merits of it evaluated at that point. Ms. Solomon, referring to comments made to an alleged lack of evidence demonstrating the need for the position, pointed out that a 2003 community survey had indicated that 88 percent of the community felt the City should provide problem-solving assistance to businesses for siting, development, and permitting issues and 88 percent thought the City should take an active role helping local businesses create and retain jobs. She stressed that this was the context within which the Mayor's committee made its proposal. She thought the City ought to "give it a try." She pointed out that there was no lack of testimony as to how the planning and land use codes did not work. She recommended that to maintain the efficacy of the position, it be kept out of the PDD and placed in the City Manager's Office (CMO). She thought the level of efficacy would be dependent on the outcomes, which she suggested should be very specifically laid out by the council, and should be reviewed after two years. She supported moving forward with the recommen- dation. Ms. Nathanson expressed her support. She called it a "path through bureaucracy" rather than an additional layer, as some had asserted. She agreed with comments made by Ms. Taylor regarding other things that the council was interested in finding money for. She stated that the City had conducted performance audits and had provided reports to the council. She asserted that the facilitator position was not a way to throw more money at a problem, but how the City could rearrange its money to do something better than before. She pointed out that any action taken could be undone by the next council or the Budget Committee. Mayor Torrey called for a motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with a service level adjustment to fund a business facilitator function in fiscal years 2005-06. Regarding Ms. Solomon's comments in reference to the community survey, Ms. Bettman asserted that the City spent its resources on the Community Development Department and the Metro Partnership and if they were not getting the job done, the council needed to ask why. She suggested the City should look at shifting some of those resources to a different position to ensure that this job was done. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman alleged that the motion would take the policy discussion on whether this was a good idea out of the council's purview and placed it in the Budget Committee purview. She did not believe this to be appropriate. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor said, to date, the position had been considered to be part of the PDD, but it could be placed in a different department. He added that his instruction to department heads was to build a budget based on current level assumptions. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion. She cited other areas of the City that were enduring funding cuts and asserted the position would allocate an additional $100,000 to PDD. She also objected to the nomencla- ture employed by staff and opined that the position should be called a "business facilitator." Mr. Meisner conveyed his support for the motion. He expressed some suspicion at staff's inability to suggest ideas for funding mechanisms. He echoed Ms. Solomon's suggestion that the position not be ensconced in the PDD. He averred it was not a "mid-level position" in a department. Additionally, he recalled that ways to pay for this sort of function had been discussed three years earlier. He noted it had been in relation to a discussion on whether to grant an extension of an enterprise zone to a major manufacturer not in compliance with its agreement. He related that he had opposed the extension and that much of the discussion had centered on whether the moneys could be used for economic development activities. He stated that the council at the time had decided "to put all of its eggs in one basket" and to provide no assets and no economic assistance to anyone else. He thought PDD and the CMO could look within their department structures and determine whether service improvement could be focused. Ms. Taylor asserted that should the facilitator be hired, the work assignment for the position should be delineated. She recalled that one suggestion from a symposium on sustainable economic development was to inventory existing businesses and determine how such businesses could be helped or changed. She opined that a recommendation from a committee did not mean the council had to follow through. She called some of the cuts resulting from the previous budget process "shocking." Mr. Kelly shared Mr. Meisner's questions and concerns. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion with a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to return to the City Council with funding alternatives for a business facilitator function in FY06. Mr. Kelly supported placing the position in the CMO. He did not want to support the recommendation until the budget impacts were known. Mr. Meisner suggested a friendly amendment to place the phrase "prior to the draft budget process" between the words "council" and "funding." The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Pap6 preferred the item to be in the proposed budget and highlighted by the City Manager. Mayor Torrey called for a motion to extend the time for discussion. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to extend the discussion by four minutes. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman vot- ing in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Nathanson supported approval of the recommendation. City Manager Taylor preferred the motion as recommended to the council. Ms. Nathanson said this would build redundancy into the process for the Budget Committee. However, she commented that if it made the statement that there was council level interest at this time to look at this it would at least move the recommendation ahead. Mr. Pap6 asked if current staff were fulfilling what this position would do. Mr. Coyle responded that they were not. He added that the new position was interdepartmental. The motion to amend passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. The main motion, as amended, passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: Overview of Approaches to Neighborhood Groups City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that thc City of Eugene was "blessed with an active and engaged citizenry" and with an infrastructure that enabled it. He asked Beth Bridges, Neighborhood Services Manager for thc Community Development Division of the PDD, to review the evolution of Eugene's neighborhood associations. Ms. Bridges introduced three neighborhood leaders in attendance, Charles Biggs of thc Cal Young Neighborhood Association, Rob Handy of the River Road Community Organization, and Mai cska Sccsc- Green of thc Whittaker Community Council. She noted that Mr. Biggs and Ms. Secse-Grecn were the co- chairs of the Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC). Ms. Bridges provided a PowerPoint presentation on thc Neighborhood Program, begun in 1973 with thc adoption of the Neighborhood Organization Recognition Policy Resolution (NORP). Ms. Bettman left the meeting. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the presentation. He remarked that neighborhood associations were important to him, noting his own involvement in such associations. He said there was a recurring challenge in getting additional diversity in participation. He suggested that time be set aside in the council retreat scheduled for February to consider a work plan item that would look at Attachment D, entitled IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum. He opined that neighborhoods felt that the council, at best, consulted with them and if they collaborated more it would bring out a greater diversity of people. Ms. Taylor recommended that mailings be increased. She observed that there was a direct correlation between noticing and attendance. She thought citizen involvement in decision-making made the neighborhoods feel their participation was important. She suggested neighbors would benefit from socializing with one another and time should be allotted for this. Additionally, she recommended that venues for meetings be convenient. Ms. Nathanson commended the presentation. Regarding Attachment D, she thought it would benefit the council to look into it and "break it down." She said, in terms of services the City offered, there were different approached to different service areas. She expressed concern about the relationships of MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 6 Work Session neighborhood associations with other citizen involvement processes, such as the Budget Committee or workshops on parks or the downtown area. For problem-solving, she thought neighborhood associations were a great resource, but diversity in such associations was more difficult to achieve. She added that the social element of the associations was good in that it enabled such programs as Crime Watch and others. She called increasing neighborliness a "laudable goal." Mr. Pap6 concurred with comments made by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Nathanson. He appreciated the presentation and subsequent discussion. Regarding Attachment C, he asked how the City ensured there were four meetings annually with a minimum attendance of ten. Ms. Bridges responded that she placed a request with all neighborhood leaders at the end of the year for attendance records and, additionally, a staff member attended all of the general meetings and a majority of the NLC meetings. In response to another question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Bridges stated that she considered the fourth performance measure under the Definition of an Active Neighborhood, requiring that neighborhood associations submit an annual report to the City, to be met if she knew that the neighborhood had an annual goal-planning session and subsequently met at the end of the year to assess how goals were met. She said there was not a common ability for neighborhoods to achieve the measure because the NLC had stopped doing an annual report. Mr. Papfi recommended that the council "tweak" the language to accurately reflect the council's directives. Mr. Pap~ asked how many neighborhood associations' memberships exceeded the recommended percentage of population. Ms. Bridges replied that three of them had membership greater than eight percent of the neighborhood population. The Active Bethel Citizens and the Cal Young Neighborhood Association were double the recommended level. Ms. Bridges, in response to Mr. Meisner, stated that one way neighborhood residents could find out about meetings was to look at the public meetings schedule on line. She added that a future service enhance- ment staff was researching was a way for residents to sign up for online newsletter delivery. Mr. Meisner thought it unlikely that much of the citizenry was aware that they could participate in the neighborhood associations for neighborhoods they worked in. Mr. Meisner agreed that the council should look at the Public Participation Spectrum. He underscored the importance of maintaining consistency for all associations and not elevating the status of one neighborhood group over another or neighborhoods over other citizen engagement efforts. Mayor Torrey commented that neighborhood associations, when they worked, were great. He observed that neighborhood matching grants brought people together around programs about which they were excited. He remarked that the worst element he had witnessed coming from neighborhood associations were that small portions of such associations had become opportunities for small groups of people to self- select and advocate their personal opinions to the Eugene City Council. He felt such people turned off other members of neighborhoods from attending the meetings. He advised the council and staff to find a way to overcome this. He cited the Cal Young Neighborhood Association as an example of an association whose leadership was not representative of the organization. He said the newsletter paid for by the City of Eugene was used as a personal "bully pulpit" to express one person's point of view and the neighborhood did not know how to address this. He suggested the neighborhood in question be broken into four areas. Mr. Kelly asked the City Manager to consider ways to move the discussion forward. He felt many good ideas had been expressed around the table. He surmised that part of the reason the City did not receive MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 7 Work Session annual reports from such associations was that they felt they were receiving less from the City. He noted that neighborhoods used to be able to submit a list of neighborhood needs for prioritization in the City' s capital budget. Regarding attendance, he asserted that if the percentage of the City's population attending City Council meetings was the same as the percentage of neighborhoods attending neighborhood meetings, 500 people would be at every council meeting. Mr. Pap6 was impressed with the energy and commitment exhibited in the NLC meeting he had attended. He conveyed his congratulations to them. He added that the Public Participation Spectrum merited continued consideration. City Manager Taylor agreed that one of the most important strategic issues was how to get involved in civic engagement activities. He suggested that neighborhood associations should be part of the larger strategy and was linked with the whole strategy of community building. He noted that he and Police Chief Bob Lehner regularly used the 21 neighborhood associations for learning about the community. He thought by engaging the council, staff, and neighborhood groups, the city could come up with a multi-year action plan that would strengthen its civic engagement capacity. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson & Kim Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2004 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT D MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall November 15, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram to Redesignate Property Identified as Tax Lots 199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-2 3 from Low-Density Residential to Commercial and to Rezone the Property from R-1 Low-Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Mayor Torrey called for council declarations of ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest. Councilor Kelly indicated he was contacted by some citizens of the Laurel Hill Valley asking about the applications under consideration; he had indicated to them he could not discuss the subject because of the quasi judicial nature of the applications. He had also met with Mr. Larson, the owner of the property, on another topic months before the application was submitted. Mayor Torrey determined councilors had no information to share based on their visits to the site. City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Patricia Thomas of the Planning Division, who was present to discuss the staff report and criteria of approval. Ms. Thomas reviewed the applications before the council, which were a request for a change in the refinement plan designation (RA 04-01) and zone a change from Low-Density Residential to Commercial. She said the site was 1.38 acres and was located at the northeast comer of the intersection of Moon Mountain Drive and Laurel Hill Drive. The property was now zoned and designated for residential development. However, it was poorly suited for such development due to geographic constraints in the form of steep slopes and manmade constraints in the form of power lines. Ms. Thomas reported that the Eugene Planning Commission supported the staff recommendation to approve the applications by a vote of 4:2. Commissioners and Planning and Public Works staff were available to answer questions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 1 Regular Meeting Ms. Thomas noted the relevant criteria for the refinement plan amendment, found in Eugene Code Section 9.8424, and the relevant code for the zone change, found in Section 9.8865. Further relevant policy language was found in the Laurel Hill Plan, Land Use and Future Urban Design Element Policy 5. Mayor Torrey urged those offering testimony to focus their comments on the approval criteria. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to allow the council to respond precluded that individual's ability to raise the issue on appeal. Mayor Torrey called first on the representatives of the Planning Commission. Jon Belcher, 1240 West 15th Avenue, #4, provided the Eugene Planning Commission's minority report on behalf of himself and Commissioner Mitzi Colbath. He said the applicant did not address the intent and policies in the refinement plan other than meeting the criteria allowing the plan to be modified. The applicant ignored that the plan had designated an area of land for commercial development directly across the street from the property in question. The applicant rejected the neighborhood's request to annex his property into the floating node. Mr. Belcher felt it would totally negate the plan to allow the property to be developed commercially, particularly when no commercial development had occurred in the area zoned for it since the refinement plan was adopted. Mr. Belcher acknowledged that staff believed that the fiflh approval criterion was met, that is a change in circumstances not anticipated when the plan was adopted. He agreed there was a change in that ODOT had established access control limits across the entire northern edge of the undeveloped commercial node, along yet-to-be-built Brackenfern Road, preventing direct access to Glenwood Drive. Now it appeared access to the properties would have to be from Henderson Street to 25th Avenue, a very circuitous route for the residents and even more so for interstate traffic. Mr. Belcher said ODOT's new access control limits bring the viability of the plan's commercial node into significant question, and he recommended that the council direct staff to work with the neighbors and affected property owners to reevaluate the commercial node and modify it if appropriate. That could include the potential of adjusting the node boundaries to include the applicants' property. Mr. Belcher said that no additional part of the East Laurel Hill area was to be designated for commercial purposes until a public need was demonstrated. He did not think the public need had been demonstrated. He called on the City to revise the refinement plan to facilitate the applicants' needs and meet the needs of the neighborhood. John Lawless, 90 East 26th Avenue, Chair of the Eugene Planning Commission, said the commission's recommendation, which was based on the substantial changes in ODOT's access limitation policies and the presence of high voltage power lines on the property were sufficient cause for the commission to find for the applicant in this matter. Mayor Torrey then called on the applicants' representative. Bill Kioos, attorney for the applicant, called the council's attention to a colored aerial photograph of the site in question and the subject property in plan view. He noted the items were in the public record. Mr. Kloos said that little of the property in question was actually usable; only 9,000 square feet of the property was unencumbered by power line easements, and that area was subject to setbacks on both the east and west. He said all parties seemed to be in agreement that the site was not suitable for residential use. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 2 Regular Meeting noted that the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) stated that sites under power lines were unsuitable for residential use. Mr. Kloos said that both the ODOT and City transporta- tion staff agreed that the access to the site can be worked out. He said that ODOT was very concerned about mixing commercial and residential traffic, but the applicant had shown the agency a conceptual way that could occur and ODOT was satisfied. He emphasized that a transportation impact analysis (TIA) would be completed before development occurred. Mr. Kloos said he was sensitive to Mr. Belcher's argument that the refinement plan should be amended, and while he thought that was appropriate, he did not think that process should hold up the application. He pointed out that the applicant had been working with staff for a year on the issue, and the applicant followed staff's direction in filing the application. Staff and the commission supported the application. He asked for the council's support. Mayor Torrey called on those in opposition to the application. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, acknowledged he was unfamiliar with the application in question but was concerned about neighborhood plans. He said revising a refinement plan was serious because neighbors relied on the plans. If a plan was changed in a significant way, he believed that there was reason to deny the application. In regard to the power lines on the property, Mr. Biggs pointed out the Quail Run development was built under power lines. He opposed the application and supported revising the refinement plan. Jan Wostmann, 2645 Riverview Street, representing the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, said the primary issue in dispute regarding the requested amendment to the Laurel Hill Plan was the need for additional commercial land in the area. He said a public need must exist for the application before the criteria in the refinement plan amendment were satisfied (Eugene Code 9.8424(1)(c). He said the application was not consistent with Policy 5 of the Laurel Hill Plan, which stipulated that no additional property in the East Laurel Hill area would be designated for commercial use until a public need was demonstrated. Mr. Wostmann recalled an earlier 1998 rezoning application, which was denied because there was no need for additional commercial zoning at that time since no portion of the development node had been developed. Now new owners were seeking rezoning to allow commercial development, claiming a public need, but the commercial node still had not been developed. Mr. Wostmann noted the three claims for public need identified in the staff notes, suggesting the council evaluate those claims against the "commonsense precedent" set in 1998 and consider how much of the available land supply had been used. He believed the reasons offered were speculative at best. He submitted written testimony. Thomas Gossart, 3055 Floral Hill Drive, representing the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, discussed the public need for commercially zoned land and distinguished local commercial need from the needs of tourists traveling on the freeway. He said it was clear the property owner sought the rezoning in order to sell the land to a developer to develop as a motel. That did not meet the needs of residential development. He believed there was sufficient commercial land available to meet the needs of residents. He disagreed that the ODOT access limits meant the existing commercial node was less desirable as it could still easily be reached by residents. He said that the applicants argued there was a need for immediately developable commercial land. However, he quoted from the September 2 ! testimony of Richard Larson, who suggested that neighborhood commercial development would not occur until the residential development was substantially completed. The need would be met as the need arises. He agreed. Mr. Gossart submitted written testimony. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting Carolyn Cox, 2720 Riverview Street, representing the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, said no public evidence had been presented of the need for more commercially designated land, such as motel vacancy rates. The applicants assert the lack as a fact. All the assertions presented could be interpreted ambign- osly, such as the applicants' reference to the "public." Planning staff defined the public in this case as the traveling public. The applicants assert that the recent removal of a motel in the vicinity argued for the need for more motels along I-5, although it could mean there were too many motels and the motel was removed to make better use of the property. She suggested that the applicants' assertion that two developers expressed interest in the property at a below-market cost indicated such a motel was only profitable if land costs were low. Ms. Cox said that a principle was a stake. If the City's refinement plans were amended every time a developer wanted a change, they would be worthless. She asked the council to honor the plan and its policies. Rich Ilazel, 2603 Moon Mountain Drive, representing the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, did not want the applicants' attorney to suggest what all were in agreement on. He questioned what evidence of public need existed. He thought the applicant was misinterpreting the plan and his arguments did not speak to the policies. He said that Policy 5 was not complex and was not related to changes in economic patterns, land speculation, or the needs of tourists. It addressed the future needs of the area. Since its adoption, development had happened exactly as expected. He said Policy 5 was valid and should be upheld. Mr. Hazel questioned if there was a need for more commercial land when none of the commercially designated land had been developed. He said the need would arise some day, but it was not present now. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, speaking as President of Friends of Eugene and Southeast Neighbors, believed there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the application. He termed the application a case of speculation against the plan. He preferred to see the plan amended through a "normal" process. That might or might not lead to a development opportunity, but it would be fair. He noted his neighborhood organization's 5:1 vote to support the Laurel Hill Neighbors position and the Planning Commission's minority position. Mr. Matthews suggested that the application to "up-zone" the property from residential to commercial had Ballot Measure 37 implications and said the council should proceed slowly. Betty Itelnlningson, no address given, representing the Laurel Hill Neighbors, also addressed the issue of public need. Exhibit A, the findings for the application, stated that land should be developable under the designation given it. She said the property in question was encumbered with power line easements well before the adoption of the refinement plan. She said the current zoning and the power line easements were in place when the applicant purchased the property. She termed him a land speculator who acquired a marginal property and then tried to increase its value by seeking to rezone. Ms. Hemmingsen said the needs of two individuals did not constitute a public need. She did not think that individual property owners should be allowed to seek refinement plan amendments. Ms. Hemmingsen said that did not mean the neighborhood association was opposed to adjusting the commercial node, but the needs of all landowners should be considered in that process. Mayor Torrey called on staff for its response. There was no staff response. Mayor Torrey called on the applicants' representative for rebuttal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 4 Regular Meeting Mr. Kloos said the applicants' rationale for rezoning the property was not based on the need for a motel or the demise of a motel in the area. It was based on the desire that some practical use be made of the property. It could not be developed residentially due to the encumbrances created by the power lines. He reiterated that by policy, the comprehensive land use plan recognized the site was not a good place to put houses. If it was not good for houses, what should be done with it? He did not think it fair to ask the property owner to live with a blighted property indefinitely. Mr. Kloos said that one then needed to look for another use, and another use required a different zone; in this case the commercial zone made sense. He acknowledged the property owners received inquiries from motel developers, but that interest did not drive the request. The need to make use of the property drove the request. Mr. Kloos said that Laurel Hill Plan Policy 5 discusses need and four needs were identified, the most fundamental of which was for the property owner to be able to make some use of the property. He said the references to the balance of the existing commercial property in the node were well-taken, but that node, which was also largely owned by his client, was not being developed because it could not be developed yet. Brackenfern Road needed to be improved before development could take place. In addition, east of Brackenfem Road the topography falls off dramatically, creating service delivery issues. Mr. Kloos believed that development of that property was sometime off in the future. Mayor Torrey closed the public heating. He called on the council for questions and comments. Councilor Pap6 asked if there were Ballot Measure 37 implications to the applications, as asserted in testimony. City Attorney Glenn Klein said no. He indicated he would give the question more thought before the council took action, but could think of no implications now. Councilor Pap6 asked if there were Dolan implications to the issue if the property had no practical economic use. Mr. Klein did not think there was a Dolan takings claim. Nothing had changed since the time the property owners purchased the property, so that implied they were aware of the property's limitations, including the current zoning. He would discuss the issue with Planning staff and let the council know if his opinion changed. Councilor Pap6 asked if development could occur under the power lines on the property or in the power line right-of-way or easement. Ms. Thomas said building construction could occur outside the easement; parking could occur within the easement. Councilor Pap6 asked about the location of other commercial land in the area. Ms. Thomas referred him to a map on page 235 of the meeting packet and used the aerial photograph provided by Mr. Kloos to point out the property in question. Councilor Pap6 determined from Ms. Thomas there were letters from the neighborhood association in opposition to the application in the meeting packet. Councilor Bettman determined from Mr. Klein that in the absence of a request from the public, the record did not need to be left open. Councilor Bettman indicated she wanted to leave the record open as she wished the public to have the benefit of the staff responses. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to leave the record open for two weeks. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon determined from Mr. Klein that the council was scheduled to take action on the application on November 22, and leaving the record open would mean action would be postponed until December 6. Councilor Kelly thought the issues raised by the application were significant and wanted the applicant and neighborhood association to be able to respond to any staff responses. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Klein said the council would not need to hold another public hearing. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:0. Councilor Kelly conceded that the parcel was not suited for residential development, but he believed the issue before the council was the larger principle of whether the council would honor neighborhood refinement plans. The City and neighborhoods had put a "lot of stock" in those plans. While they could be revised, that should be done in the context of a broad public process including all property owners, not just a single applicant. He believed the proposed amendment "made a mockery of the plan" by failing to consider context. Councilor Kelly was "almost a little embarrassed" by the findings' discussion of public need. He pointed out that the City had put aside 20 acres for commercial development in the immediate area of the applicants' property and no commercial development had occurred. Until a public need was demonstrated, no more commercial land should be developed. He thought the findings were "grasping at straws," and noted that while Mr. Kloos said that a motel was not the reason for the application, the findings specifically mentioned the potential of motels on the site, so he concluded "the applicant did talk about a motel." Councilor Kelly could not connect that to public need. If the property owner had owned the property for many years he would feel differently, but the property owner bought the property three years ago knowing its limitations. He agreed that property owners should be able to use their property, but the correct approach was through the refinement plan. Councilor Meisner thanked those offering testimony for their clear and cogent remarks. Given that the record had been held open, he would not state a position on the applications at this time as he did not think it appropriate to go on the record before the public record closed. Councilor Meisner said through its transportation plans and lobbying, the City had made it clear it was seeking new ramps from Franklin Boulevard to 1-5 and wanted to look at that possibility and its relation- ship to other interchanges comprehensively. He asked if Planning or Public Works staff had looked at the future of the interchange in question in light of possible changes and done any analysis whether the commercial node would remain viable if the ramps were built. Mayor Torrey asked what could be located on the property in question if the application was denied. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments and questions for future staff follow-up. Councilor Bettman wanted to know if the property had been encumbered by the prohibition on develop- ment under power lines when the applicant bought the property, and if the residential zoning had been in place at that time.. Ms. Thomas indicated staff would get back to her with an answer. Councilor Bettman said the applicant argued the property was unsuitable for residential use but it was suitable for a regional commercial use. She asked if there was a requirement that one could make the case MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 6 Regular Meeting for a use being more suitable than another. In her visits to Seattle she had noticed the proliferation of pornographic retailers next to motel uses along Interstate 5, and asked if the rezoning of the property would facilitate the development of such a use. Councilor Bettman noted that Lane County Commissioner Bill Dwyer developed a low-income residential property on land encumbered by power lines by locating other activities, such as storm water treatment facilities and parking, under the lines. She questioned the assertion the property in question could not be used for residential purposes. Councilor Kelly asked if the property owners' inability to make use of their property was a criterion for a refinement plan amendment. He recalled that Brackenfern Road was scheduled to be improved in 2006 and asked staff to confirm that detail. Councilor Kelly asked staff to outline how quickly a refinement plan amendment that addressed all property owner interests could be completed. He also asked staff to contrast ODOT's access control and distance at this location to the access control and distances existing along 1-5 already, particularly such as occurred in Wilsonville, where long distances did not seem to matter to the use of the commercially zoned area. Councilor Taylor asked if the City was obligated to find a use for everyone's property. She also asked how a motel could be needed by a neighborhood. Councilor Pap6 asked why the property in question was not included in the commercial node when the refinement plan was adopted. Ms. Thomas indicated she would follow up. Councilor Bettman spoke to information she would like to see regarding the relationship of the application to Ballot Measure 37. She said if the property was purchased before provisions of the Land Use Code Update or other relevant regulations were adopted, she wanted to know what may be eligible for a Ballot Measure 37 claim, and if there was a way to include a applicants' waiver to any Ballot Measure 37 claim as a provision of a zone change approval to provide protection for the City. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Real Property Compensation; Adding Sections 2.070, 2.075, 2.080, 2.085, 2.090, and 2.095 to the Eugene Code; 1971; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Manager Taylor introduced the item, recalling that on November 8 the council reviewed an ordinance for implementing recently passed Ballot Measure 37 as of its effective date of December 2. The public hearing was the first of two scheduled. The second hearing would take place on November 22, 2004. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. C. Robert Suess Sr., 260 East 38th Avenue, said due to a series of frustrating obstacles and his age, his desire to develop his property for affordable residential housing had ended. He suggested the council step into the shoes of offended landowners for a short time. Mr. Suess cited those who had purchased land long ago to subdivide for their children, build on and enjoy in their later years, or to develop to fund their retirement. Those individuals paid taxes for years and then were denied use of their investment. He hoped the City Council would give sincere consideration to offended landowners and not treat them as second-class citizens. He said that information regarding the effect of escalating land costs on the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 7 Regular Meeting community and mutual solutions were being prepared. He asked that the council delay adoption of the ordinance until it could review that information. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, Friends of Eugene, called for a provision of public notice within a reasonable time frame when a Ballot Measure 37 claim was made. He suggested the cost be placed on the applicant making a claim if possible. He thought Councilor Bettman's question on possible waivers for up-zoning should be follow-up on. He referred to Section 2.0901 of the proposed ordinance and asked that it be modified to state the council "shall" have a hearing. He referred to Section 2.0904 of the ordinance and asked that the "either/or" language be clarified. He believed a third option was missing. Jim Trunnell, 2238 Silhouette Road, spoke of the losses he had experienced as the owner of buildings containing a bar and restaurant in Eugene because of the City's smoking ban in restaurants and bars. He said his leases with his tenants had been affected adversely. Sales in the bar had been dramatically affected. He said that many bars and restaurants in Eugene had been forced to close because of the council's smoking ban. He had lost the value of his property because of the City's actions and was unable to collect fair rent because the affected businesses could not pay it. Mr. Trunnell believed that property owners would make Ballot Measure 37 claims against the City because of the ban, and asked the council to do the right thing and repeal the local smoking ban so that bar owners in Eugene were on a legal playing field with other communities. Lauri Sega[ 120 West Broadway, representing 1,000 Friends of Oregon, did not think the ordinance's definition of"owner" went far enough. She suggested adding a definition for the term "claimant" as being the present owner who had also owned the property prior to and since adoption of the regulation at issue. A valid claim needed to come from a person who currently owned the property and owned it at the time the regulation was enacted. That did not seem to be reflected in the ordinance. Ms. Segal discussed the definition of"valid claim," suggesting that text be added that stated "A claim submitted by the lower of real property that is subject to a land use regulation adopted or enforced by the City after the property became the property of the current owner, and that restricts the use of private real property..." Referring to the compensation claim submittal procedure, Ms. Segal suggested that it be modified to read that the claimant must be both the present owner and contiguous owner since the enactment of the regulation. Ms. Segal indicated she would submit her comments in writing. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, supported the application fee being recommended, and endorsed the claims process being proposed. He agreed with Mr. Matthews that public hearings should be mandatory rather than at the discretion of the City Manager. Mr. Monk also suggested that public notice be extended beyond the current 300-foot mailing area. He expressed concern about the provision regarding a private cause of action, questioning whether it was the most effective approach to compensation for property owners living adjacent to a property on which a claim has been filed. There being no more requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed testimony, reiterating that a second hearing and action was scheduled for November 22. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments and questions for staff follow-up. Councilor Kelly recalled that he had requested language related to public notice. Mr. Klein indicated text regarding public notice would be prepared prior to the next hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly asked Mr. Klein to provide comment to the council regarding Ms. Segal's suggested text changes related to the definitions of owner and claimant. Councilor Kelly noted that the ordinance defined "family member" but the term was never used, except in the definition of exempt land use regulation, and the definition of exempt land use regulation was never cited anywhere in the ordinance. He suggested the term be deleted if it was not to be used. Councilor Pap6 determined from Mr. Klein that the City's smoking ban was not a land use regulation and, even if it were, it would fall under the exemption in Ballot Measure 37 related to public health and safety. Councilor Pap6 asked Mr. Klein to comment on testimony regarding the definition of"property owner" and "claimant." Mr. Klein clarified the definitions in the ordinance were taken directly from the text in Ballot Measure 37. He said that staff did not make the definitions very specific because it did not know what the courts would do or what claims would be coming forward. Staff had attempted to provide the council with maximum flexibility as the City began to process Ballot Measure 37 claims. Once the City had more experience implementing the measure, the council would be able to make changes to the ordinance. Councilor Bettman agreed that additional language regarding public notice of hearings was needed. Councilor Bettman asked how the ordinance could be modified to address the fact that some land use ordinance added value to a property rather than detracted from it and allow the City to take that into consideration as it calculated a claim's value. Councilor Bettman suggested that the ordinance to be modified include language that precluded a property owner who successfully sought an up-zoning for their property from making a Ballot Measure 37 claim against the City. Councilor Bettman wanted to know if the time limits for Ballot Measure 37 claims were limited to when the heirs received a property or if the claims time limit went back to when the original family member purchased a property. Councilor Bettman noted the council's receipt of a suggestion that juries, rather than the City Council, decide claims. She found that interesting, and asked for input from legal counsel as to the legality of that approach. Councilor Taylor also supported the inclusion of a provision calling for a required public hearing and she supported broader public notice. She also wanted staff input on a suggestion received by the council that claims be decided by the courts. Mayor Torrey said the ordinance before the council created a set of standards under which all could make claims. He said the fee being proposed was not unreasonable given that the City budget had not anticipated the cost of the measure. He did not believe the City was getting the support it needed from the State in implementing the measure, and thought the council was doing the responsible thing in enacting the ordinance. Mr. Klein concurred with the remarks of the mayor. He said the ordinance laid out a process that was not MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 9 Regular Meeting mandatory; the City could still process applications not following the process. The fee would collect only the actual cost of processing a claim. He said the ordinance included provisions that the proponents of Ballot Measure 37 did not like, and he would address those in the staff notes for the next hearing. Mr. Klein indicated that written comments were being accepted before the next hearing. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 10 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT E MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall November 22, 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 THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling congratulated the City of Springfield on being chosen as the location of Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines' new call center and acknowledged the efforts of Eugene officials and City staff whose work on the project also contributed to the successful outcome. He expressed his appreciation to outgoing councilors Nathanson and Meisner for their assistance to him over the past two years and thanked outgoing Mayor Torrey for his help and guidance, as well as his many contributions to the community. He wished them all well in their future endeavors. Mr. Pap6 reported that he had recently attended the United States Green Building Council's annual conference in Portland and encouraged councilors to participate in the next conference in Atlanta, Georgia. He described some of the workshops that related to development appropriate to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards and said the LEED program would be expanded beyond buildings to encompass certifications of parks, subdivisions, and communities. Ms. Taylor requested copies of any information, particularly about land use issues or projects, that was distributed to neighborhood associations and leaders in her ward. She expressed concern that context- sensitive design for streets such as Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard would be done by administrative order and the council would not be involved. She requested that those actions come before the council. Mr. Kelly said that the Arterial/Collector Street Plan allowed future revisions to design standards to be done administratively. He said that given the level of public interest and input on that topic it would be useful to bring it to the council for discussion, even if ultimately it was adopted administratively. Mr. Meisner requested a memorandum from staff on the status of the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) project and when the City could expect to recover its investment. Mr. Pap6 said he would submit questions on the ORI project that he wanted answered in the staff memorandum. Mayor Torrey related that he attended an event to benefit the arts at the Fifth Street Public Market during which he was asked why the City did not change the name of 5th Avenue to 5th Street and 8th Avenue to 8th Street. He asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to research the implications of calling the streets 5th Street Avenue and 8th Street Avenue inside the downtown area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:40 p.m. B. WORK SESSION: Community Safety Building Next Steps City Manager Taylor introduced thc item and stated that his primary recommendation to the council would bc to take action that would move thc process forward; thc most logical next step would be to make funds that had been set aside available to thc larger project of replacing City Hall and addressing the nccd for a new police facility. He also recommended going forward with a master plan to provide clarity. He asked Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson to review the recommendations and options before the council. Mr. Carlson observed that thc downtown space planning effort and replacement of City Hall had been a topic high on the council's priority list since prior to 2000. He said that concerns about the seismic vulnerability of City Hall had resulted in relocation of the most vulnerable public safety services, including the 911 Call Center and dispatch for fire and police, to a new facility at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street, financed through internal funds. He said a successful bond measure in 2002 supported construction of a new fire station at 13th Avenue and Willamette Street and internal resources were used for a new facility for property control and forensic evidence units on Garfield Street. Thc next steps in thc downtown space plan were to move remaining police functions from City Hall into a new facility and build a new City Hall to consolidate all of thc City's downtown functions, which were currently distributed among several locations. He noted that the ballot measure to add features to a police building that the City already had the resources to build had been defeated in the November 2004 election. Mr. Carlson reviewed the financing plan to pay for a new police facility entirely with internal resources and noted that two, new one-time resources were available: the Qwest back payment of the two percent Telecommunications Tax and the Qwest deferred payment for franchise fees. He referred to a memoran- dum from legal counsel that addressed the status of the litigation that resulted in the one-time payments. He said that moving the Telecommunications Tax and right-of-way fees into the Facility Reserve would result in $23.3 million by the end of the year and $28.3 million by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2008, which was the amount required to build the basic police facility. He said that other resources available for the next phase of the civic center plan, replacement of City Hall, included ongoing allocation of approxi- mately $1 million annually from facility charges, sale of assets in the downtown area, and opportunities to identify other one-time resources such as allocation of marginal beginning working capital. Addressing the issue of locating a police station on 8th Avenue, Mr. Carlson said that staff believed that policing was a civic function, represented the largest use of General Fund money in the City, and was already located on 8th Avenue along with the Lane County Sheriff and all of the courts. He advocated for two separate buildings for police and City Hall because of the different seismic standards applicable to public safety functions, which also precluded using the existing City Hall for a police facility. Referring to the issue of replacement versus remodeling of City Hall, he said that based on previous actions by the council, a conscious choice was made to not make major investments in the current building. He said that once the new fire station was completed and those functions moved from City Hall, the vacated space in the basement would not be used for other employees because of its seismic vulnerability. He concluded by reviewing the options set forth in the agenda information summary. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Carlson that no funds should be invested in the current City Hall beyond the need to keep it serviceable until a replacement was built. He commended the City for systematically MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 2 Work Session saving for a new police station and City Hall but said efforts to educate the public and obtain support for the projects had not been successful. He said that Public Works had done a good j ob of gaining public support for $90 million to maintain and preserve roads. He said the public could question why the one- time payments from Qwest, as well as other funds in the Facility Reserve, were not being applied to roads. Mr. Carlson agreed that most of the Facility Reserve funds had been or could be General Funds. He said the council would need to make some difficult choices about whether to use those funds for new facilities or roads. Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Pap6's comments. She pointed out that the overwhelming majority of voters had said no to the bond measure to partially fund the civic center vision project. She said that given the urgent need for road repairs, the wise action would be to transfer the Facility Reserve funds to the road fund and then discuss how and when to build a new police facility with the involvement of the public. Ms. Nathanson said the need for a new police facility was longstanding and should not be put off. She said that those people who had discussed the bond measure with her had said no to the extras like downtown design improvements and beautification. She did not think it was right to leave public safety in a vulnerable position if providing for public safety was the most important thing to be done for the community and the highest priority. She said waiting another five or six years for completion of another planning process was too long. She said the funds were available and while public information and discussion had not been adequate to gain public support, perhaps the council had not demonstrated sufficient commitment to public safety and building a new police facility. She encouraged the council to move ahead to both complete the master plan and begin planning for using savings to build the needed facility; incremental implementation of projects was a better approach than waiting several years to ask the voters for funds to achieve the entire civic vision. Ms. Bettman disagreed with the suggestion to take internal funds saved for replacement of capital facilities to pay for road improvements; the council was equally responsible for both. She said her position remained unchanged: the City had an obligation to replace City Hall and the police station and should make planning responsibly for those new facilities its highest priority. She said that co-locating police and City Hall functions should be investigated, but it was preferable to build two facilities on the same site. She said that the project should be simple and not mix the civic vision with replacement of a major City facility and if done in two years would allow for additional savings to offset the eventual cost of the project. She commented that the estimated cost of a new facility seemed high compared to similar facilities in other communities. Mr. Meisner remarked that the council and the City had ignored building reserve issues for many decades and consequently had not saved for building replacement prior to 2000. He expressed concern that if the building reserve funds were not "locked down" they would be used for other purposes. He noted that some police functions were housed at the Lincoln Street location and asked if they could be moved back into the space to be vacated at City Hall once the new fire station was completed as much of their space need was for equipment and vehicle storage. He said that would also free the Lincoln Street property for sale. Facility Management Division Manager Glen Svendsen replied that was possible, although the council had indicated in an earlier work session that it did not want to pursue that option. Mr. Meisner said he was suggesting the move as an interim measure. With respect to the sale and acquisition of property, he said the City had a practice of"selling low, buying high" and urged a change. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman's comments about the council's responsibility for both facilities and roads. In contrast to the feedback Ms. Nathanson had heard, he said that he had received two dozen comments and none of them referred to extras; they identified a number of issues related to the police MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 3 Work Session facility as the reason for voting against the measure. He stated that the needs for a police facility and City offices downtown still existed and he was in favor of setting the funds aside for a full City Hall project down payment. He noted that the City Manager's recommendation in the amended agenda document included only Option 2 and Option 5 had been dropped; he was in favor of the combination of both options to lock down the funds and proceed with the master planning process for the full facility and including a public involvement component. He pointed out that while there were two separate buildings involved, it should be referred to as one project, possibly with multiple steps. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Bettman that Facility Reserve funds should not be moved to the Road Fund. He expressed concern with the funds being used for other purposes and supported the combination of options 2 and 5. He said the new seismic standards applicable to public safety functions would make it difficult to relocate police functions anywhere except to a new building but he was not certain that the available funds were sufficient for the entire cost of a new facility. He encouraged the council to continue moving forward on the issue. Ms. Solomon concurred with previous comments that the Facility Reserve funds should be preserved for new buildings. She indicated her support for a new police facility and disagreed with Mr. Kelly's suggestion that the police facility and new City Hall be referred to as one project. She wanted the new police facility project to succeed and was concerned that if it was coupled with a new City Hall it would not. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the City Manager to trans- fer $10.2 million of Telecommunications Tax revenues from the Telecommunica- tions Fund and $5.2 million of previously deferred right-of-way fees from the General Fund to the Facility Reserve on Supplemental Budget #1 on December 6, 2004. Mr. Papb said he was not suggesting that the Facility Reserve funds be used for roads, but it was clear that there was a public relations issue to be addressed when the City was asking voters for $90 million for road improvements and yet had saved $28 million for facilities. He said it was important to do a better job of informing the community of the council's priorities. Ms. Bettman clarified that seismic problems with City Hall affected everyone who used the facility and there was an opportunity to plan for the replacement of the building. She said the Road Fund included dedicated funds from other revenue sources but that was a separate subject. Speaking to the motion, she said she had no objections to earmarking the funds for future facility replacement, but was not willing to authorize $750,000 for a master planning process because it would take consensus and support from the council and the community to move forward with a major reinvestment in City facilities and that effort should start with the new council. She preferred to focus on replacing City Hall and a police facility instead of civic visioning. Mr. Meisner said he supported the motion and preferred to see Option 5 as a separate motion because he had a number of questions regarding it. He asked about the status of negotiations with the federal government on use of the Federal Building following removal of the courts and some other functions from that building. Mr. Carlson said that the official statement was that the building space would continue to be used for federal offices, although the courtroom space may be able to be used for City courts on an interim basis. Mr. Meisner urged the City to remain active in those discussions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor said that given the desperate need for road maintenance funds it was ridiculous not to use the funds for that purpose. She said if the council waited and demonstrated the need for a new police station the voters would support it. She asked if there was an estimate of the cost of a seismic retrofit to City Hall. Mr. Carlson said that seismic analyses had indicated the cost of a retrofit was at least as much as new construction and would still not address the inefficient space and layout of the building. Ms. Taylor asked to see the specific figures and stated she would not support the motion. Mr. Kelly said he would support the motion but not the addition of Option 5. He agreed it was important to move the process forward by looking at the overall facilities needs. He liked aspects of Option 5 that addressed public input and co-location with partner agencies but was reluctant to appropriate $750,000 on the basis of a single paragraph summary. He asked if the City Manager required an amendment to the motion in order to elaborate on the scope of work associated with Option 5 and bring that back to the council in January 2005. City Manager Taylor said his recommendation was to pass the motion currently before the council and make a separate motion for Option 5, then postpone action on it until the first work session in January 2005 in order to maintain momentum and allow staff the opportunity to develop a more detailed scope of work for action by the new council. Mr. Kelly said he would move to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council an expanded scope of work on master planning for development of a new City Hall and Community Safety Building. Ms. Nathanson said the discussion reminded her of why she was impatient to move the process along; the council had been talking about City Hall, civic needs, a police station, and downtown fire station for many years. She said that people in the community appreciated the fact that City government set money aside and determined how to spend it wisely instead of asking voters for money on every project. She said the funds had been set aside for a police building and all of the questions discussed at length. She would support the motion and another motion that would initiate the planning process to keep the work going. Ms. Bettman said that a study provided as part of the Hazard Mitigation Plan estimated the cost to retrofit for minimum seismic standards at $9 per square foot. She said that seismic standards were not the only type of update City Hall needed and retrofitting was not a viable financial option. She supported the motion and would support Mr. Kelly's suggested motion to bring back an expanded scope of work for master planning without specifying an amount of money. She pointed out that Option 5 addressed co- location not of City Hall and police service but of County buildings. She said that a recent study indicated that co-location of county and city services in larger cities was not an efficient use; that only worked with very small communities. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments that the council needed to move forward and he hoped the council would be able to convince voters of the urgency of the need. He asked what type of public relations would be done to convince voters of the need for a new City Hill and police building like they were convinced of the need for repairing and upgrading streets. City Manager Taylor noted that the ballot measure had an undervote of 16,000-17,000 and it was clear that the City needed to do a better j ob of communicating with the public on large facility improvements. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to extend the discussion by five min- utes. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct the City Manager to bring MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 5 Work Session ideas to the City Council in January 2005 for a scope of work for planning the de- velopment of a city government complex. Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion and asked staff to identify in detail the costs associated with a master planning effort. Mr. Kelly observed that the success of the project would depend on public collaboration, not public relations. Mr. Pap6 accepted Mr. Kelly's point and suggested to the City Manager that the scoping include a public collaboration plan. The motion passed 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. C. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing; Adding Sections 8.400 Through 8.440 and Section 8.995 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for a Delayed Enforcement Date Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4881, an ordinance concerning rental housing. City Manager Taylor asked that the measure be adopted and introduced Marsha Miller, Building and Permit Services Division manager, to address any questions regarding the motion and suggested amendments. Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion and would likely support some of the amendments to be offered, including a sunset provision, but was discouraged at what appeared to be creation of a program without providing a service. He expressed concern with over-staffing and a phased approach that began with new multi-family units instead of converted single-family homes that represented the biggest problem. He asked staff to consider the program an opportunity to provide a service that had been identified as a need. He said that in his experience many of the problem dwellings fell under the exemption in Section 8.410(2)(d) "Occupancy of a dwelling by its owner, including one where a portion of the dwelling is rented to another person for occupancy." He asked why that exemption was granted. Ms. Miller said the exemption was modeled on the City of Corvallis' ordinance that exempted any properties that were owner-occupied. She said that the phasing aspect referred more directly to creating the rental properties database and assessing the fees; as soon as the program is established it will respond to single-family dwelling complaints. Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend the Ordinance by add- ing a new Section 5 and amending the caption, to provide as follows: "AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING RENTAL HOUSING; ADDING SECTIONS 8.400 THROUGH 8.440, AND SECTION 8.995 TO THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND PROVIDING A DELAYED ENFORCEMENT DATE AND SUNSET PROVISION. "Section 5. Unless otherwise extended by action of the City Council, this Or- dinance and the provisions of Sections 8.400 through 8.440, and Section 8.995 of the Eugene Code, 1971 added herein are repealed effective midnight, December 31, 2008. Notwithstanding the prior sentence, any enforcement actions corn- MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 6 Work Session menced to enforce those provisions prior to December 31, 2008 may continue to be pursued, and the provisions related to such enforcement actions shall remain in effect with respect to those actions. In addition, any fees owed to the City under the provisions related to those fees and their collection shall remain in effect with respect to those fees." Mr. Poling emphasized the need to review the program at a specific time to determine if it was functioning correctly or requirement changes. Mr. Pap6 moved to amend the sunset date to December 31, 2007. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kelly said that the actions of future councils could be the equivalent of a sunset provision; however, given concerns about the long-term effect of the program in some segments of the community he would support a sunset. He said the length of the sunset provision provided adequate time for program operations to accumulate data upon which to base an evaluation. Ms. Nathanson said she would support the amendment; the council had frequently used mandatory reviews or sunset provisions with new programs and it was a responsible approach. Ms. Bettman said the motion was responsive to comments from the industry and councilors. She asked staff to provide reports and evaluation data in advance of the sunset date, such as September 2008, to allow the council adequate time for review. Ms. Taylor said she preferred a mandatory review to a sunset provision, which suggested that the program would be ended at that point. Ms. Taylor moved to change the words "sunset provision" to "mandatory review." The motion died for lack of a second. The motion to amend the ordinance by adding a new Section 5 passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to amend Section 8.430(4) as set forth in Section 1 of the ordinance, by adding a final sentence thereto, to provide as follows: "The City shall notify the owner or owner's agent not less than 24 hours prior to a scheduled inspection of the premises in order to afford the owner or landlord the opportunity to be present during the inspection." Ms. Nathanson commented that it was important to provide notification but the amendment was problematic; if staff waited until 48 hours to contact the owner and was not able to, then the inspection could not be scheduled and the tenant could not obtain a remedy. She said that seven days seemed too long and many people preferred contact by phone or email to a written notice. Ms. Miller said the intent was to give the owner an opportunity to be present for the inspection, but whatever notice was required did not mean that an inspection would not proceed. Mr. Kelly expressed concern with the original notice of seven days and asked if the new wording would be satisfied by leaving a voicemail message for the owner and if the owner was unavailable, the inspection MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 7 Work Session would still go forward. Ms. Miller agreed that the inspection could proceed. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that eliminating the word "written" would allow for any method of notification, including voicemail, fax, or email. Mr. Pap~ used the example of an owner being out of state and asked if there was a way to require 24-hour actual notice if receipt was 'confirmed or five days' written notice. Mr. Klein said he could provide draft language but his understanding of Mr. Poling's intent was the removal of the additional days from the notice period. He suggested a straw vote to determine if there was interest in Mr. Papa's suggestion. Mayor Torrey called for a show of hands and determined there was not support for Mr. Papa's change to the notice provision. Mr. Pap~ stated his concern with the shortened notice period and reiterated his preference for actual notice that confirmed receipt by the owner. Mr. Pap6 moved to change the notice requirement from 24 to 48 hours. The mo- tion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the notice provision only went into effect if the landlord, owner, or owner's agent had previously been notified of the problem and given ten days to correct it. The motion to amend the ordinance by adding a final sentence to Section 8.430(4) passed unanimously. Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to amend Section 8.430(5)(a)4 as set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance, to provide as follows: "4. A deadline for completing repairs often days, unless the city manager deter- mines that the necessary repairs cannot be completed within the ten-day period. If the city manager makes such a determination, the owner or owner's agent shall submit a compliance schedule acceptable to the city within ten days." Mr. Poling said the addition of wording regarding the deadline for completing repairs provided some flexibility for instances when circumstances beyond an owner's control prevented repairs within the ten day period. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for offering the revised language, which struck a balance between language that was too restrictive or too open-ended; it established an expectation of ten days and allowed flexibility under unusual circumstances as determined by the City Manager. Ms. Solomon asked what would happen if the repairs required the landlord to obtain a permit that could take longer than ten days to obtain. Ms. Miller said that the language would allow a reasonable compli- ance schedule to be established that would accommodate the need for a permit. The motion to amend Section 8.430(5)(a)4 of the ordinance passed unanimously. Speaking to the amended main motion, Ms. Nathanson expressed concern with the scope and cost of the program. She said the council was interested in an enforcement program, not an information program. She pointed out that the Corvallis program had become primarily an information and help program and MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 8 Work Session could be done for less than Eugene's estimated cost. She wished the program cost less and was mostly concerned with enforcement, but would support the motion. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to amend Section 8.440(3) as set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance, to provide as follows: "(3) The following unit types, while subject to the standards, enforcement proce- dures, and other requirements established in sections 8.400 through 8.440 of this code, shall be exempt from the fee payment requirements: (a) Rentals with a recorded deed restriction requiring the units to be rented affordably to households at or below 60 percent of the Area Median income; (b) Rentals that have been approved by the city for an exemption from property taxes pursuant to sections 2.910 to 2.922 and 2.937 to 2.940 of this code or that are recognized by the city as exempt from prop- erty taxes pursuant to ORS 307.092." Ms. Bettman said she understood the language would exempt units that were already publicly subsidized and already had an oversight function from a public body in terms of habitability. Ms. Miller agreed that the language applied to affordable housing units. Ms. Taylor asked why the rentals under part b of the amendment to Section 8.440(3) were exempt from fees. Ms. Miller said that the rentals were exempt from fees because they met certain affordability standards by being exempt from property taxes according to the cited sections of the Eugene Code. The motion to amend Section 8.440(3) of the ordinance passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, speaking to the main motion as amended, said she voted for the amendments because they made the program a better product, but was not convinced that the product was good for Eugene. She appreciated the high energy and coordinated campaign conducted by advocates for the program; however, she still believed that the program was a solution without a problem that was backed up by statistical data. She expressed concern about the cost of the program and the fact that multi-family housing units would be the first phase when problems were most likely concentrated in single-family houses. She said that education would be a better response to the issue and landlords could be required to include educational materials in rental agreements. She said that the best use of City resources was to strengthen State law and her fundamental core belief was that government should not be grown and the program was growing government; she would vote against the motion. Mr. Kelly commented that if growing government was to improve the chances that renters in Eugene would have plumbing that worked, roofs that did not leak, and heating, that was one of the best reasons to grow government. He had some minor concerns with details of program implementation but thought the program was a positive step to assure the 50 percent of the population who were renters were treated fairly in rental housing. He said he would support the motion and thanked everyone involved in bringing the program to fruition. He noted that the database will be built initially from multi-family rather than single family housing, on the first day of the program the City will be able to take and process complaints regarding single-family dwellings. Mr. Pap6 asked if fines from the program would gc~ back into the program. Ms. Miller said that account codes would be established for all of the program's expenses and revenues, including fines, so that they could be tracked even though they were in the General Fund. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Pap6 asked if the fines coming in were restricted to program use. Ms. Miller said they were not. Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to establish a fund to dedicate the fines from the program to the program. Mr. Kelly raised a point of order that the motion was not a properly phrased amendment to the ordinance and should be a stand alone motion. Mr. Klein said that he would need to draft language to amend the code and would have to consult with Finance staffto determine how to establish a dedicated fund. Mr. Pap6 withdrew his motion. Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to amend Section 8.430(3) as set forth in Section 1 of the ordinance, by adding a new subparagraph (e) thereto, to provide as follows: "(e) For purposes of determining whether a complaint is valid, the city manager shall consider whether the violation of the standard in Section 8.425 was the re- sult of damage caused by the tenant." Mr. Pap6 asked how the City Manager would interpret that provision and whether the claim would be withdrawn if it was determined the tenant was responsible. City Manager Taylor replied that the provision required him to consider whether the violation was the result of tenant damage. Ms. Miller added that she had discussed the issue with the cities of Corvallis and Portland because the concern was raised during the public hearing. She said Corvallis indicated it had not experienced tenant-caused damage as a problem for habitability standards, which were the subject of the proposed ordinance. She said Portland indicated that regardless of how the damages were caused, it was still ultimately the owner's responsibility to correct those problems and then resolve the issue with the tenant. Mr. Pap6 asked if the ordinance would prevent the landlord from evicting a tenant because of damage like a broken window and requiring the tenant to repair the damage. City Manager Taylor said the issue for him would be the habitability deficit caused by tenant behavior and what was done to remedy it. He said that there were actions a landlord could take against a tenant causing the damage and it could affect the time limits or other aspects of the ordinance, but the basic habitability deficit was considered the primary basis for adjudicating the claim. Mr. Pap6 posed the scenario in which a tenant causes his or her own problem, does not fix it, the program forces the landlord to do the required repairs, and then the tenant leaves without paying back the landlord. City Manager Taylor said that would be an issue for the landlord and legal counsel; the underlying issue of the housing standard code was the habitability of the rental property. Mr. Pap6 reiterated that tenants should not benefit from their own ill-caused actions and without such a provision, they could. Mr. Kelly said that when the issue of tenant-caused problems was first raised he thought it had some merit, but he was not comfortable with the phrasing of the amendment and could not now see how there was a benefit to the tenant as a landlord would only be restoring the unit to its prior condition, not improving it. He said that some tenant damage could constitute a criminal act and there was likely civil MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 10 Work Session recourse of the landlord; Corvallis had not reported any problems related to tenant damage. He said the language was too "fuzzy" to be included in the code and he could not support the amendment. He pointed out that many units had multiple tenants and if one tenant caused the damage, then the others were faced with a habitability issue. Ms. Bettman said she could not support the amendment as it appeared to put the City in the position of determining criminal culpability and the landlord had other remedies available. The motion to amend Section 8.430(3) of the ordinance failed, 7:1; Mr. Pap6 vot- ing in favor. Mr. Pap6 said that he was concerned about the cost of the program, as were other councilors, and he had not seen a satisfactory response. Mr. Pap6 moved to Section 8.440(2) to read: "For the purpose of offsetting the costs to the City associated with the enforcement of this code, the City Manager, using the process contained in Section 2.020 of this code, shall set an annual fee for each dwelling unit covered by a rental agreement. Such fee shall not be more than five dollars per unit through December 31, 2006." The motion died for lack of a second. Speaking to the main motion as amended, Mr. Meisner said he had asked about the anti-retaliation provisions of State law. He said that housing advocate John Van Landingham confirmed that State law protected against retaliation on the basis of complaint by any local government. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Pap6, to strike Section 8.410(2)(d) that ex- cluded from coverage a single-family home or structure occupied by renters as well as its owner. Mr. Meisner said he first thought that such an exemption should be retained, but realized that an owner was not going to file a complaint against him or herself. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner's point and asked if staff had any concerns. Ms. Miller said she did not object to striking the provision. The motion to amend Section 8.410(2) passed unanimously. Speaking to the main motion as amended, Ms. Bettman said one of the reasons that only anecdotal information was available was the lack of databases and the program would provide substantial data once it was in effect and the issues could be evaluated. She said she had seen the issue from both perspectives and was pleased that a locally enforceable mechanism was being created for minimum habitability standards that would provide a local remedy for the worst cases. On the issue of fees, she said those would be established administratively and the council would have an opportunity to respond or ask for a work session if there were concerns. She said that there already existed in the community databases to create an inventory and entities were willing to provide the information to the City inexpensively and that could be reflected in program fees. She suggested that the City Manager could be directed to pursue those options. City Manager Taylor expressed his willingness to explore those options. Ms. Taylor said she enthusiastically supported the program and it was a good step in the right direction. She thanked the students who initiated the campaign for a program and Mr. Van Landingham for MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 11 Work Session contributing his knowledge and support to the project. Mr. Pap6 commended all those who came forward to either support or change the program. He said the lobbying efforts related to the program represented a good example of community and government work. He said he would support the program, although he had concerns about placing no limits on the growth of government; he preferred a program that was contracted to an outside entity for implementation. He also expressed concern that tenants would not be required to suffer the consequences of their own acts. Ms. Nathanson thanked Mr. Pap6 for his motion regarding the cost of the program. She said she could not support it because she was not certain it was the correct amount and did not want to attach that level of administrative detail to establishing a new ordinance. She acknowledged the efforts of students at the University of Oregon and Lane Community College who worked to establish the program, although the program was not only about student housing; it would benefit the entire community. She hoped that future student leaders would continue the tradition of community involvement. The main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey recognized Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) president Adam Pitkin for his leadership and dedication to the campaign for a housing standards program. Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council a proposed ordinance to ensure that the fines from the rental housing program go back to the rental housing program. Mr. Kelly asked if the action was required to be an ordinance and if not, would a friendly amendment be accepted to direct the City Manager to return with a proposal. Mr. Klein said it did not need to be an ordinance. Mr. Pap6 and Mr. Poling accepted Mr. Kelly's friendly amendment. City Manager Taylor clarified that the proposal would be to ensure that the fines from the program were used to offset the cost of administering the new ordinance. He expressed some concern about a dedicated fund and said if the council wanted full accounting of the costs and revenues that could be done in other ways. Mr. Pap6 said that discussion could be held at the work session on the proposal. Mr. Kelly said he would support the motion in the interests of having language to consider but noted that the full accounting guaranteed that the actual expenses of the program would be closely examined. He expected that fees would be lowered in future years if the program accumulated a surplus. He pointed out that the motion did not specify a dedicated fund. Ms. Bettman said she would support the motion as it was difficult to track funds once they were absorbed into the General Fund. Ms. Nathanson said she generally liked the idea of using the funds in some relationship to the purpose. She hoped the new council would examine the proposal and consider that the language "to offset the cost of the program" might be too narrow because of fluctuations in that type of revenue. She said the council might prefer the flexibility to use funds to support related activities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 12 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she would support discussion of the proposal. Mr. Pap6 commented that because the program was established for a particular purpose and the revenue could be isolated it needed to be held accountable and all revenues used to support the program and no others. Mr. Meisner stated he would support the motion and the new council should look carefully at program revenues and how they were expended. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lyrm Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 13 Work Session ATTACHMENT F MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall November 22, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Patti Duncan, 4270 Hyacinth Street, spoke on behalf of the Santa Clara Committee for Sensible Parks and Open Space (SCCSPOS). She reiterated the neighborhood's concerns regarding the McDougal Brothers' proposal for a land swap. She related that the neighborhood was not opposed to parks, but it objected to the addition of 1,000 homes in the area. She said schools were already overcrowded and a substantial population increase would exacerbate already dense traffic. She added that she had taken her son out of Irving Elementary School because she considered his classroom to be too crowded to provide her son adequate attention. She conveyed the neighborhood's intention to remain a presence before the Planning Commission and the City Council in their continued opposition to the land swap. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, asserted that the Prisoner of War/Missing In Action (POW/MIA) flag should fly atop Skinner's Butte on a year-round basis. Mr. Vishanoff reiterated concerns he had about riverfront redevelopment and nanotechnology research. He urged the council to hold public hearings on it. He felt this development had ramifications for all of the population of Eugene that would be felt into the future. In closing, Mr. Vishanoff conveyed his objections to the new playground being installed at Skinner Butte Park. He called it a "cookie-cutter" park, similar to others built in other states. Ray Wolfe, 1473 Luella Street, asserted the City Council majority would unfairly transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy citizens of Eugene should it grant a ten-year property tax exemption to the 13th Avenue and Olive Street condominium projects. He said some property tax assessment costs were identified in tax bills and others were not and those tax exemptions were not among the identified elements. He averred that one-third of the Lane County taxpayers were financially marginal, at, or below the poverty line income level. He stated that 74 properties were declared delinquent in the previous year and given a one-year notice prior to condemnation proceedings. He felt the proposal to grant the Multi- Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) to the condominium project was tantamount to "reverse Robin Hoodism." He questioned the benefits in comparison to the costs. He suggested that the potential MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 1 Regular Meeting condominium buyers be consulted regarding the MUPT] !. He noted that the Budget Committee often struggled with small allocations and underwent a detailed prioritization while the City Council proposed a "$2 million allocation with relaxed abandon." He alleged the public benefit was to expedite development of land that was certain to be developed anyway. / ! Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, wished to convey hi~ support for retention of the Low-Income Housing Dispersal Policy as written. He thought staff x~as likely going to propose dismantling it. He felt the policy seemed to have positive benefits. He assertecl that the reason staff was discussing this was because the planning process for acquiring land was not working. He alleged that the only land remaining for low-income housing was next to low-income housinl ;. He opined that this was a result of such housing lowering property values. He encouraged the council to expand the dispersal policy and not to abolish it. He said it was to the cormnunity's benefit to have low-i~ tcome housing dispersed throughout the City. Mort Ityman, 3863 Dorchester Lane, circulated a phot~ ~graph of the land that could potentially be developed in the McDougal land swap. He noted he als represented the SCCSPOS. He opposed the land swap because he felt it would hurt the neighborhood ant would not provide the park the area needed, due to a lack of funding for its development. He asked if th~: populace was willing to give up a portion of its ever-decreasing supply of Class 1 soils in order to provi ]e land for another residential development. He questioned the wisdom of allowing the urban growth bo andary (UGB) to be expanded to suit the purposes of one developer. He asked if allowing streets that were already overburdened by traffic to be further clogged would be prudent. He conveyed the committee's agreement that more parks were needed, but reiterated its opposition to this particular land swap. In closing, he stated that more than 800 signatures had been gathered on a petition to express this oppositk n. Mr. Hyman invited councilors to join the committee for one or more meetings of the SCCSPOS, held at 6 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of the month at the Sa: ~ta Clara Grange Hall on Azalea Drive Clark Winston Cox, Jr., 1085 Patterson Street, Apartn lent 9, said his landlord was a partner to the developer of the proPosed MUPTE at 979 Patterson Str,,~et. He stated that the West University Neighbors had submitted a letter and he acknowledged that there ,a'as some opposition to the MUPTE mostly for reasons previously stated by Mr. Wolfe. He thought thc: development at 979 Patterson Street would result in higher quality housing stock than what exists in the a rea. He stated that the exemption for the new building would not raise anyone's tax bill as it would b~', taxed for ten years in its current existing capacity, i.e. a parking lot. He supported granting the 1~ [UPTE for the Patterson Street development. He wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. Mariah Leavitt, 1458 West 10th Avenue, commended the City Council and especially Mayor Torrey for their commitment to listen to Santa Clara residents and for the proposal to conduct a survey. She considered the potential development of farmland to be important enough that the proposal should be rejected on that basis alone. She recalled that the prop¢ sal was to move 197 acres of land within the UGB in order to create 77 acres of park and 120 acres of dew :lopment. She stressed that farmland was an irreplaceable asset to the community. Ms. Leavitt noted that the Lane County Farmers Marke: grossed $1.27 million in 2002 and brought uncounted revenue gains to downtown businesses by at :racting customers to the downtown area on Saturdays and Tuesdays. She cited a study in Dane Col tnty, Wisconsin, that found the average farmers market customer spent $22.47 at other downtown area ! ~usinesses. She stated that such a market could not exist without farmers and the farmers could not farm w: thout quality farmland. She shared that she MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 2 Regular Meeting recently attended a national conference on the role of farmers markets in the nation's food system. She said the one comment heard most frequently was that the country was running out of farmers. Ms. Leavitt expressed concern that rising oil prices would radically increase the price of food. She predicted, based on many years of work in hunger alleviation, that higher prices would increase the number of hungry people in the area. With a strong local farming community, she averred the community could avoid high transportation costs while feeling more secure knowing it had local food sources. Additionally, she noted that local farmers contributed fresh produce to the local food bank. David G. Itinkley, 1350 Lawrence Street, Apartment 7, declared that the City Council did not run Sacred Heart Hospital out of the City of Eugene. He said the hospital made the decision to acquire more land long before the council's actions. He noted that a close examination of the design for the hospital would demonstrate that the new hospital would not have fit on the Hilyard Street site or the Crescent Drive site. He felt this misperception was starting to affect his wallet as the City was "urging" the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to "sell a property on cents on the dollar" and this would cost ratepayers money. He asserted that replacement costs should be the minimum cost that EWEB would consider as a sale price. Noting some dissension among EWEB commissioners, Mr. Hinkley said it seemed this issue may be reconsidered at the board's December 7 meeting. He conveyed his commitment to testify in opposition to the sale and asked the council to stop urging the utility to sell its property for less. He opined that the price should be a premium and not a minimum. Ruth Duemler, 1745 Fircrest Drive, echoed Ms. Leavitt's comments, calling it a crime to do away with Class 1 soils. She felt fortunate to have the Lane County Farmers Market. Ms. Duemler referred to the United Way's State of Caring. She pointed out that Lane County residents were having more difficulty meeting basic needs in almost every category and more than every prior year that this survey had been conducted. She said it was the first year more needs were seen in the metro area than the rural area, with a growing population of poverty in the City of Eugene. She urged the council to think more about how the City spent its money. She asked how the City had "found" $29 million for the police station and another $15 million coming into the City because of utilities. She felt it should be a community effort to make budget decisions. She noted that funding had been cut to after school programs, community television, and neighborhood newsletters. She underscored the necessity for recreation programs for youth, another area in which funding had been drastically cut. She opined that there was no need for further taxation to pay for road repairs as the City already had the money. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, remarked that a healthy economy thrived on healthy neighborhoods. He opined it was better to have good relations with our neighbors than not. He related that the Metro Plan stated that the City should make every reasonable effort to annex county properties into the city limits in a positive way and asked if the City was doing so. He acknowledged that the refinement plans needed updating but felt it to be a priority that the refinement plan for River Road/Santa Clara be completed first. He averred there was no stormwater plan for the area. He predicted that issue would have to be dealt with eventually and the bill would fall on the area residents, which would further feelings of anger and mistrust of the City. Mr. Handy noted the County had handed over land use planning for the area some years back. He commented that, while the City should be a leader on issues of community planning, there did not seem to be funding for it. Regarding communication, he said currently the funding for newsletters and mailings MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting was prorated due to the limited recognition policy and the neighborhood organization recognition policy. He asked how the County could be enjoined as a partner in such communication. He wondered if a moratorium on annexation should be considered until the City had dealt with the stormwater plan equity issues and its relationships with special districts such as the River Road Parks and Recreation District. Dennis Casady, PO Box 5028, Eugene, objected to the two developments proposed to receive a MUPTE. He did not feel it was right to ask property tax payers to pay so that others could forego payment. Doug Newton, 147 Cross Place, pointed out that the Certificate of Need process was created to prevent unnecessary duplication of medical facilities. He opined that the reality was that the process was needed to protect consumers from the "expansionist mindset" of hospital managers, the greed of medical profiteers, and the arrogance of politicians. He asserted that The Register Guard had a conflict of interest which hampered unbiased investigative reporting. He asked what made the City believe that McKenzie- Willamette/Triad would solve its financial problems by moving a few miles downstream. He thought its difficulties were the result of contractual relationships between its competitors and large group plans. He wondered if any doctors had suggested that the number of hospital beds in Eugene needed to be doubled and that the patients should have to pay the bill. He called Triad's history with the State "dubious" and asked what would prevent them from "bankrupting this hospital, too." He wondered how voters could be convinced that new taxes were needed to support the community in the face of providing "$20 million in corporate welfare" to Triad. Mr. Newton stated that EWEB had spent $22.5 million in 1987 to build its headquarters. He surmised that it would cost much more if it were to be built today. He thought the hospital was trying to take advantage of "gullible local politicians." He opposed "giving away" property, stressing that the City did not own the EWEB site. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, commended the City Council for passing "Step 1" in the rental housing standards. He lauded the people who had worked for its passage. He related that he had spoken with Catholic and Jewish leaders regarding the standards. He urged them to "step up to the plate" and advocate for them. Mr. Miller complained that the University of Oregon president was an "obstacle to student progress." Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and called on the council for responses and comments. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for testifying. She reiterated her opposition to the McDougal land swap, as it would take farm land out of production. She said it was bad for the Santa Clara neighborhood and bad for the whole community as agricultural land was an asset the City could not afford to lose. Councilor Pap6 thanked Mr. Handy for testifying regarding issues in the River Road/Santa Clara area. He appreciated the partnership he wanted to forge in dealing with the issues. He said the issues were not solely couched in whether to annex or not to annex, but rather how to provide the services to the area. He noted he had spent some time earlier in the day with County officials discussing how some County funds could be brought to help in the communication process. He hoped Mr. Handy would continue to be involved in the neighborhood organization. Councilor Pap6 said the City was about to commission an inventory on commercial and industrial properties. He asked for information on whether there was a study being conducted on residential land to MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 4 Regular Meeting determine whether the City was in compliance regarding such land supply. City Manager Taylor responded that he would look into it. Councilor Pap6 thought it likely that the City would have to bring more residential land into the UGB regardless of whether the land swap with the McDougal brothers was conducted. Councilor Meisner also thanked Mr. Handy. He commented that relationship-building would be lengthy and time-consuming in the River Road/Santa Clara area. He felt the real question regarding services was how they would be delivered efficiently and effectively. He hoped the transition manager, David Reed, was able to develop a good public process for more than conversation on these issues. Councilor Meisner asked for more information on what was being contemplated regarding the Low- Income Housing Dispersal Policy. Regarding concerns expressed about the MUPTE, Councilor Meisner stated that it was true that a property tax exemption in a tax-base system produced a spread of that lost value to other taxpayers. He underscored that tax bases were abolished for local jurisdictions by Ballot Measures 47 and 50. He stated that school districts had permanent tax rates and if something was exempted it was simply lost revenue and was not made up by other tax payers. He requested that the City Manager make available to the public some of the memoranda to the council regarding the changes that those ballot measures put into effect at the local level. Councilor Kelly reminded the Santa Clara neighbors that a potential way to establish community parkland was through outright acquisition rather than the land swap. He said the 1998 bond measure included money to acquire 40 acres or more for a park in the Santa Clara area in order to provide equity with other areas of the City. He expressed discomfort at some of the feedback he had received that suggested, for instance, that the eight acres at the Santa Clara Elementary School might be an adequate park. He worried about losing the opportunity for park land on the scale that this acquisition presented. He added that funding for development of a park or aquatic facility was not available at present. Councilor Bettman wished to clarify that $10.5 million had been taken from the telecommunications fund and $5 million from right-of-way fees and placed in the City's reserve. She underscored that this was a part of the $28.2 million and was not in addition. She stated that this money had not previously been accounted for in any fund because some of it was still in litigation. Mayor Torrey noted that he had asked earlier in the year for the City Manager to develop an outreach process with the people of Santa Clara in order to determine what they wanted in a park. He understood that this process was underway. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - October 20, 2004, Work Session October 25, 2004, City Council Meeting November 3, 2004, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Appointment to Lane Workforce Partnership Board MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 5 Regular Meeting D. Adoption of Resolution 4815 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property Located at 1375 Olive Street, Eugene, Oregon (1375 Olive, LLC) E. Adoption of Resolution 4816 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property Located at 979 Patterson Street, Eugene, Oregon (Arthur C. Carmichael, Jr. And Larry Von Klein) Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved approval of thc Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor pulled items D and E. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exceptions of items D and E passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey called for discussion on Item D. Councilor Taylor opined it was a wonderful plan for a nice building, adding that she also liked the partners in the development. However, she averred the development did not provide sufficient benefit to the downtown area to grant the tax exemption because of its location at the periphery. She also did not understand how the commercial space would be beneficial. She felt there was too much vacant commercial property in the downtown area to justify increasing retail space. She expressed concern, as well, that people purchasing the condominiums would move from other properties at which they were paying property taxes and, thus, would cause a loss of property tax income. Councilor Taylor noted that one argument given in favor of the MUPTE for the development was the "walkability" in the area, e.g. one could walk home from the Hult Center. She did not think citizens would walk over seven blocks through the downtown area late at night. Councilor Taylor echoed the comments of Mr. Wolfe. She wondered how many people decided not to upgrade because they could not afford the taxes. She thought it would be unfair to build the project with a tax exemption. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved approval of Resolution 4815 approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 1375 Olive Street. Councilor Bettman indicated she supported approval of this MUPTE. However, she did not support the second proposal for a MUPTE couched in Item E. She felt the downtown development provided a demonstrable benefit for the area as it provided opportunities for downtown home ownership. She opined that even with the subsidy, the developers were taking on a risk. She commended Jean Tate for her vision. Councilor Kelly asked if the motion was not already on the table by virtue of being part of the Consent Calendar. City Attorney Glenn Klein affirmed that it was. Councilor Kelly stated that the commercial space, regardless of its merits, would not receive a tax exemption. Regarding comments that suggested the City would lose property tax revenue from the people who choose to reside in the condominiums, he clarified that unless their previous dwellings were razed MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 6 Regular Meeting and all value lost from them, someone else would purchase the property and continue to pay the property taxes. Councilor Kelly commented that he routinely walked eight blocks home from performances at the Hutt Center. Councilor Meisner remarked that he also walked home from the downtown area, though it was a little over a mile. He concurred with Councilor Bettman's reasons for supporting the tax exemption. Councilor Meisner underscored that no one in the City wished to restrict the downtown area to low- income housing. He said the development proposed by Ms. Tate and her partners presented a great opportunity and he commended them for taking the risk. He asserted that one successful example would bring others. He enthusiastically supported the resolution. Councilor Pap6 stressed that the council was not reviewing the MUPTE, as it had already done so and approved the use of it for the downtown area. He agreed with the favorable comments of his colleagues. He cautioned, regarding Item E, against discriminating based on "what we like and what we don't like." He said if someone qualified for the MUPTE the council should grant such an exemption with an even hand. Roll call vote; Consent Calendar Item D passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey reiterated that no motion was necessary on Item E. He called for council comments on the item. Councilor Taylor opposed the item for the same reasons she opposed Item D. She emphasized that the proposed exemption was farther from the downtown area than the previous one and was for rental properties. She opined that housing for students would be built whether there was an exemption or not. Councilor Bettman remarked that her opposition to Item E had nothing to do with personal preference. She averred she made policy based on what she thought was the public good. She felt there was already an abundance of rental housing in the area and adding another one would only serve to compete with the other landlords in the area who did not have a tax exemption. She indicated she would be more apt to support it had it provided opportunities for home ownership. Councilor Kelly was uncertain whether he would support this. He agreed that the way the MUPTE ordinance was set the council was to look at the exemptions on an application-by-application basis. He thought the proposed development was a higher and better use than the surface parking that existed there in the present. He noted the financial analysis on agenda packet page 143, which indicated a negative cash-flow without the ten-year tax exemption, while after ten years of the MUPTE, the property would pay approximately $34,000 in property tax per year. He related that he had been informed by one of the partners in the development that the building would not be built without the exemption. Councilor Kelly commented that when the MUPTE ordinance had been adopted, the majority of the council did not codify quality provisions that had been proposed at one point. He noted that the proposal indicated some quality features, such as a large front porch and balconies on the units, but nothing in the exemption would cause the builder to fulfill the intent of the initial design proposals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly added, for the record, that though he served on the West University Neighborhood board he had abstained from voting on the recommendation the neighborhood association had submitted to the council. Councilor Pap6 asked Mr. Klein to comment on whether conditions could be placed on such an exemption. Mr. Klein asked the council to postpone the vote until the end of the meeting so that he could review the code and give informed advice. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to table the item until the work session scheduled for December 6. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; Councilors Poling and Taylor voting in opposition. 3. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Real' Property Compensation; Adding Sections 2.070, 2.075, 2.080, 2.085, 2.090, and 2.095 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Manager Taylor asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to briefly speak about the ordinance. Mr. Klein recalled that the council held one public hearing and a revised ordinance, with revisions in bold and strike out, was contained in the agenda packet. He indicated the changes sought to address issues that arose either at the work session on Ballot Measure 37 or at the public hearing. Mayor Torrey outlined the procedure for testimony. He opened the public hearing. Mona Linstomberg, 87140 Territorial Road, Veneta, related that real estate ads were now suggesting that homeowners who believe they were affected by Ballot Measure 37 should call for help and information. She commented that the implications of the measure were mind-boggling. She said several aspects of the ordinance could work to level a skewed playing field. She encouraged the City Council to hold public hearings on recommendations from the City Manager related to Ballot Measure 37 issues and claims as often as possible to keep it an open process with public notice and review. She approved of Section 2.095, whereby neighboring property owners could seek redress in State Circuit Court for reduction in the value of their property caused by a waiver of land use regulations on adjacent property. She supported adoption of the ordinance because, while Ballot Measure 37 spoke to the preservation of the public health and safety under exempt land use regulations, the Eugene ordinance spoke to the preservation of public health, safety, and welfare. She felt Measure 37 served certain private property rights possibly to the detriment of the property rights of others and possibly to the detriment of the community's welfare. Jim Welsh, 90050 Killian Lane, Elmira, speaking on behalf of the Eugene Association of Realtors (EAR), pointed out that both the EAR and the Oregon Association of Realtors (OAR) had been silent on Ballot Measure 37 prior to the election. He asked the council to think about the City's response to the measure in the context of the claimant. He conveyed EAR's opposition to the section concerning real property compensation because certain features were felt to be an extreme response. He thought the ordinance to be premature as the Oregon Legislature would convene in January and would apply enacting legislation to help guide local jurisdictions. He speculated that this legislation may apply retroactive or preemptive language that might deem the Eugene ordinance invalid. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 8 Regular Meeting Mr. Welsh called Section 2.080(1) open-ended and intimidating. He recommended that fees be established that were consistent with the cost of doing business for other land-use action process fees. He felt very few individuals would be willing to proceed without knowing what the cost would be. Regarding Section 2.090(1), he asserted that according to the language the claimant could be held responsible for paying for a public hearing and for the subsequent meetings of the City Council. He also found Section 2.090(4) to be intimidating as it allowed for the reintroduction of previous land use regulations in effect at the time the property was acquired. He called out Section 2.090(5) and noted that it required the Measure 37 resolution to be personal to the claimant and not to the property. He suggested that this could make the resolution invalid and void upon transfer of ownership. Lauri Sega[ 120 West Broadway, spoke on behalf of 1,000 Friends of Oregon. She appreciated the council's review of the ordinance but felt the changes for the public good had not been made explicit enough. She recommended that Section 2.075 include a requirement that names and addresses, including residences and mailing addresses, be recorded so that claims submitted by out-of-state owners could be tracked. Regarding Section 2.075(d), she noted the ordinance required an appraiser certificate and licensure for an appraisal by a claimant and requested that the ordinance also specify that the appraiser not be related to or affiliated with the property owner involved in the claim. She related that Section 2.075(4) indicated that the City Manager would post information relating to a claim on the City's Web site. She recommended that the City participate in a statewide claims registry, not yet established. She suggested an additional subsection, the language of which would require that a notice of a pending claim would be sent to any owners or occupants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the subject property and neighborhood groups or community organizations officially recognized by the City Council whose boundaries include the property. She asked that, under Section 2.090, the council not have the discretion to consider a public heating prior to taking final action. Jozef Zdzienicki, 1025 Taylor Street, averred that the notification process should include adjoining houses, houses across the street and behind the property, and the process should be conducted by mail. He thought the notification process would make it fair for everyone and not just the person applying for a permit. David Itinldey, 1350 Lawrence Street, Apartment 7, supported the ordinance, with reservations. He did not think it was premature as the measure went into effect on December 2. He opined that part of the reason the measure passed was the public's sense that faceless bureaucrats were taking away property rights. He felt the measure could be categorized as"'having faceless bureaucrats consider a claim." He noted that in his written testimony he suggested these claims be handled in the Municipal Court rather than administratively through the City Manager's Office. His second reservation had to do with the section governing public heatings as he thought the public hearing should be required. He felt the individual claims could be as controversial as the measure itself had been. Mr. Hinkley approved of the Eugene ordinance sections that instituted the private cause of action. He opined that the purpose of land use regulations was to provide rules to enable people to live in close proximity to one another amenably. He thought the Eugene ordinance balanced out the implications of the ballot measure. He also felt the claim should end when the property owner ceased to own the property and that it was up to a new buyer to determine whether or not to buy a lawful non-conforming use. Terri Harding, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, planning manager for Satre Associates, supported the ordinance before the council with regards to Ballot Measure 37. She especially approved of the City MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 9 Regular Meeting Council's ability to hold a public hearing on a claim if impacts to the public or adjacent neighbors were likely. She noted her preference to continue using the existing land use regulations which were applied equally to different land uses across the City. However, since the voters had approved the measure, she asserted that public notice procedures should be incorporated into the processing of claims to protect a small portion of Oregon's land use system. She supported Ms. Segal's suggestion to expand noticing requirements. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, asked how the need for compensation could be balanced with the commitment to the interests of all of the citizens and the quality of life of neighborhoods in the City. He wondered if the City should consider banking funds from property owners who benefited from upzoning to help offset Ballot Measure 37 claims or whether a fee structure should be established so that local government does not end up footing the bill. He asked if a claims process could be created that would accomplish the ends in a fair process. He supported Ms. Segal's suggestion that Eugene participate in a statewide registry. He also agreed with her recommendation for increased noticing. He hoped the City could insist on a public review process for the measure that ensured fairness and effectiveness and guarded against the enormous potential for abuse in the compensation process. Bob Suess, 260 East 38th Avenue, noted he submitted testimony regarding land values. He related that he bought a lot in 1961 for $600 and built a house on the property for $24,000 in 1962. He said the house was now worth $240,000. He noted that due to the lack of buildable lots, the cost of land had risen precipitously, causing many to be unable to buy land and build. He thought a solution to land use issues would be to have people simply apply with no fee and have the claim reviewed. He suggested that a serious claim could be brought to a higher level before incurring expense. Deborah Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, stressed that a majority of the people in the state had voted for the measure, including a majority within the UGB of the City of Eugene. She averred the City was not required to pass the ordinance prior to the State's consideration of enabling legislation. She felt it looked like the City was going against the sentiments of the majority. She disagreed with disallowing a property to be grandfathered in when ownership of a property previously involved in a claim was transferred. She also thought the fee should be a finn number and not open-ended as currently proposed in the ordinance. She commented that the newspaper was now referring to the metro area as the Springfield/Eugene area. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association, concurred that the fee should be flat and immutable. She noted that Cook County had adopted a flat fee or one percent of the compensation, whichever was greater. She felt there was a lack of consistency with the State statute as both 2.070(2)(b) and (e) in the City ordinance had left out wording from it. She urged the council to include all of the language. Regarding 2.090(4), she stated that the City could propose a change in process but could not make substantive changed from the State statute. She suggested that this subsection allowed the City to go back to the time at which the person acquired the property. She predicted that minor regulations waived in current building that would not be grandfathered in and passed on to the next buyer of a property could, in the most extreme interpretation, cause someone to have to raze a house they had just purchased. She thought subsection 2.095 should specify that the prevailing party should be held responsible for attorney's fees. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, felt the ordinance intended to put a necessary process into place. He thought it was the duty of the City Council to respond to the ballot measure. He concurred with Ms. Segal regarding the noticing. He suggested language about the public hearings be made stronger and more clear. He thought, should the issue ofupzoning be under further consideration, the council should MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 10 Regular Meeting not move forward with such discretionary requests. He supported the council's approach to fees due to the uncertainty of the financial impacts of the measure. Mr. Matthews thought subsection 2.090(4) should put back existing land use regulations and allow some language that would serve the public good. He opposed regulations that would make it possible for current land use regulations to be waived and pose the possibility that a property would have no land use regulations at all. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, averred that people who supported Ballot Measure 37 were fighting against "Smart Growth" measures. He opined that the public no longer felt that the Planning and Development Department knew land use best. He felt the measure would give the State a chance to step back and look at "Smart Growth" plans and talk to the public about who was behind it and what it really was. He thought public awareness of such plans should be raised. Mayor Torrey asked the council if it was willing to take action on this issue. He warned them that comments and questions from the council could preempt further public hearings scheduled for the evening's agenda. The council indicated its willingness to take action. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and opened the floor for council questions and comments. At the council's request, Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute recess at 9:10 p.m. Mayor Torrey reconvened the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Councilor Kelly thanked everyone for testifying. He suggested to the council that it proceed with adoption of the ordinance as written at the present meeting because of the importance of having a process in place prior to Ballot Measure 37 going into effect. He thought it would provide experience that the council could base future amendments on. Councilor Pap6 voiced his opposition to the ordinance as it was currently written. Councilor Pap6 moved to table consideration of the ordinance until the work session scheduled for November 24. The motion died for lack of a second. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Klein stated that whether the City had the ordinance in place before or after December 2, if someone believed a part of the ordinance that affects the individual was unlawful, it would be possible to challenge that part of the ordinance. Councilor Solomon expressed concern about the lack of a cap on fees. She also wondered if it was true that a waiver granted to one person was not transferable and, to this extent, she asked if it was possible for a person who had purchased a dwelling for which a waiver had been granted under previous ownership to be found to be in violation of land use code to the extent that he or she would have to tear down said dwelling. Mr. Klein replied that the answer was yes, assuming that the house could be built in the first place. He referred to the language of the ballot measure which stated that in lieu of compensation the governing body may authorize the current owner of the property to use the property in the way that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 11 Regular Meeting owner could have at the time the owner acquired the property. He related that in discussions with other lawyers it was thought that banks would refuse to finance any uncertainties in a building and a non- transferable waiver of land use regulations would create this sort of uncertainty. Councilor Solomon asked, regarding the private cause of action, if a neighbor would sue the property owner or would sue the City because of the belief that land use waivers on an adjacent property had brought down the value of his or her property. Mr. Klein responded that the property owner would be the subject of the suit. Councilor Solomon felt this violated the spirit of the law and voiced her opposition to the ordinance. Councilor Taylor expressed her willingness to pass the ordinance as it stood and amend it later. Councilor Meisner indicated he agreed with some of the thoughts of Councilor Kelly. He was troubled by the lack of a cap on the fees. He felt there should be a floor or a percentage basis for them. He also was not happy with Section 2.090(5), the restraint on alienation. He thought it possible that the City could be subject to legal claims made by someone who built pursuant to a waiver and then was unable to sell or transfer ownership. He had substantial questions about urban transition areas and, in particular, River Road/Santa Clara, and what would apply and who would apply it. Mayor Torrey ascertained that seven councilors would be present at the work session on November 24. Councilor Bettman acknowledged that the ballot measure brought up many questions. She did not think the ordinance provided for enough public notice. She related that she had heard that some people believe the ballot measure to be constitutionally challengeable as its exclusion of pornographic retail stores could be construed as a violation of 1 st Amendment rights. She asked if this issue would be raised. Mr. Klein did not think Ballot Measure 37 as a whole could be constitutionally challenged, though he did believe some aspects of the measure would be challenged and stricken. He explained that the measure contained a severability clause so that parts of it could be eliminated without eliminating all of it and that voters would have theoretically been aware of this. Councilor Bettman said fees were used to compensate the City for research it would have to conduct. She opined that the claimant should be responsible for the research but the language in the ballot measure did not provide this. She stressed that the council had an obligation to create a process in order to implement the ballot measure. Councilor Poling recognized the measure was passed by a majority vote. He said regardless of how he felt about the measure, he could not support the ordinance. He was primarily concerned with the open-ended fee structure. He felt it would be possible for someone to accrue a $25,000 fee. He averred that people should know the cost of a process prior to embarking on it. He declared that there needed to be language addressing the urban transition area. Regarding 2.090(5), he opined it was ridiculous for someone to be granted a land use waiver that was non-transferable to a new owner. Councilor Poling noted that the Lane Board of County Commissioners would not be having its first public hearing until December 8. He questioned the necessity of rushing this ordinance. Mr. Klein pointed out that the urban transition area was not something the City Council had control over as it was under the jurisdiction of Lane County. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Nathanson agreed that the City should provide a firm amount for fees. She felt the council was in agreement with this and wondered if an amendment should be offered or whether a vote on the ordinance should be considered. She thought it would be prudent to defer the vote until November 24 in order to allow the City Attorney time to craft amendment language. Mayor Torrey supported placing a cap on the fees. He was unprepared to vote on the ordinance as it was an important decision and should not be made "on the rush." He expressed concern about the language that made land use variances non-transferable. He opined that voters, had they completely understood the implications, would not have voted such a clause into law. Mayor Torrey remained convinced that the council had heard heartfelt concerns from two sides of the issue and encouraged the council to listen to both sides. He thought the existence of Ballot Measure 37 was a result of people being unwilling to reason with one another in the Oregon Legislature. City Manager Taylor shared his recommendation to adopt the ordinance and then let staff and the City Attorney return after the first of the year with thoughtful changes guided by research and public input. Councilor Pap6 stated that he was unwilling to proceed without a cap on fees. He asked who would be required to pay the prevailing party fees. Mr. Klein replied that, should the neighbor prevail, the claimant was required to pay the fee in a private cause of action, but that there was no language assigning the responsibility for the fee in the reverse scenario. Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved to table the agenda item until Wednesday, November 24. Councilor Kelly did not think the council would have better information at the work session that it did not already have. He opposed tabling the item. Councilor Bettman called it a fiduciary responsibility to have a process in place to manage the complaints that would likely result from the ballot measure. She predicted that the City would be defenseless against a "rash of claims" on December 2 without the ordinance. Councilor Taylor opined that nothing would be accomplished by delaying the vote until November 24. She foresaw many possible amendments to add to the ordinance as the ramifications of the measure were better understood. Councilor Nathanson agreed that some of the issues that were troubling her colleagues had to do with the language of the ballot measure and would be worked through in the courts. However, while the ordinance could be fixed later, she felt the council should determine a formula for a fee structure in the present. She indicated she would support the motion to table in order to provide staff the chance to come up with some options for fees. Councilor Meisner supported the motion to table. He concurred with Councilor Nathanson that some sort of fee schedule needed to be set forth. Councilor Meisner asked if a potential claimant could completely bypass the process, according to the language, file a claim and go to court. Mr. Klein replied that a property owner must file a claim with the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 13 Regular Meeting City, but the property owner could choose to ignore the City's process. Councilor Meisner stated that the problem with this was that a property owner could do so as aproforma action to get into the court and the City could, meanwhile, rack up fees which would later become a lien. Councilor Bettman requested amendment language for the creation of a mechanism in order to track out- of-state owners. She also asked for amendment language to require that an appraiser have no business or personal relationship with the property owner. She suggested, too, that staff provide amendment language for her that expanded the area required to be noticed. Councilor Pap6 asked if the ordinance prohibited the council from saying that a land use waiver ended with the sale of the property. Mr. Klein replied that the default was that the waiver would go away. Councilor Pap6 surmised that the council could say the waiver should remain with the property. Mr. Klein then responded that the question was whether Ballot Measure 37 actually authorized this. He stated that home rule authority did not apply to override the measure. In response to a question from Councilor P~p6, Mr. Klein stated that a person was not required to hire an appraiser but in the course of litigating a claim in court, it would be difficult for a land owner to prove a loss of value without one. Mayor Torrey recommended that staff bring some language that indicated that a land use waiver should be transferable with a property, unless Ballot Measure 37 did not allow it. He preferred taking that position rather than assuming the court would support such a move. He also agreed that staff should bring a proposal to the Wednesday work session for a fee cap of some kind. Roll call vote; the motion to table passed, 5:3; Councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in opposition. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Establishing the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone; Amending Section 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending the Eugene Zoning Map Mayor Torrey stated that the matter was a quasi-judicial one and asked if councilors had conflicts of interest to disclose. Councilor Bettman disclosed that she had visited the site approximately one year ago and had visited with residents in the area. She did not feel this represented an actual conflict of interest. No other councilors indicated a conflict of interest. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Terri Harding, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, explained that she was representing the Facilities Management Division of the Central Services Department. She said the item before the council was the creation of a special area zone for the Kaufman Senior Center. She stated that no funding had been allocated by the City for programs for senior citizens at that location since 1998. She related that, since July 2003, the Emerald Empire Council on Aging had been operating senior programs at the Kaufman House. The City provided free rent and major maintenance funding for two years, as per a resolution MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 14 Regular Meeting passed in August 2003. She said the resolution mandated that the organization begin paying market-rate rent in July 2005. She stated that one option was to establish it as a Historic Landmark, already completed, and then create a special area zone detailing uses and standards appropriate for the use of it as a senior center. She reiterated that the Planning Commission had voted unanimously to recommend the motion before the council. She underscored that Facilities staff was committed to promoting a reasonable list of uses that fulfill the council's directive and were compatible with the neighborhood. She believed the proposal before the City Council did so. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Cell Towers, and Amending Section 9.9750 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Attorney Glenn Klein recommended the Mayor open the public hearing and continue it until December 6. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing and indicated it would be continued until December 6, 2004. The meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 15 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT G MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall November 24, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. He indicated that Ms. Solomon would be arriving late. Mr. Poling participated via speakerphone. Mayor Torrey noted that the agenda before the council was different than that previously published. He had worked with City Manager Dennis Taylor to restructure the agenda to allow the council to finish its very full schedule prior to the break. If any councilor objected to taking action on an item today, that item would be dropped from the agenda. A. ACTION: Adoption of Resolution 4816 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemp- tion for Residential Property Located at 979 Patterson Street, Eugene, Oregon Mayor Torrey determined that Ms. Taylor objected to dealing with the item at this time, and he dropped it from the agenda, noting the council would consider the issue on December 6, 2004. B. An Ordinance Establishing the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone; Amending Section 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending the Eugene Zoning Map Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to adopt Council Bill 4884, an ordi- nance establishing the S-HK Historic Kaufman House Special Area Zone; amending Sec- tion 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and amending the Eugene Zoning Map. Mr. Kelly recalled that when the process started, the council had agreed that if and when the annex was sold, the proceeds would be directed to the Kaufman Trust Fund. He thanked staff for its work on the issue. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0; Ms. Solomon not yet having arrived at the meeting. C. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Real Property Compensation; Adding Sections 2.070, 2.075, 2.080, 2.085, 2.090, and 2.095 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date The council was joined for the item by City Attorney Glenn Klein and Planning Director Susan Muir. City Manager Dennis Taylor acknowledged the work they had done on the issue prior to the work session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to adopt Council Bill 4887, an ordi- nance concerning real property compensation. Mr. Klein reviewed newly proposed text regarding the hiring of an appraiser. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to adopt the text reviewed by Mr. Klein. Ms. Bettman believed that as a matter of due diligence, it was important to have an independent property appraisal to protect the taxpayers' interests. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Pap6 suggested that "conflict of interest" could be defined as being pursuant to the statutes. Mr. Klein indicated that would not be sufficient because the conflict of interest statutes did not apply to the property owner. Mr. Pap6 wanted to apply those rules. Mr. Klein said that could be done, but he recommended the council adopt the language before it and consider the suggestion when revisions were made to the ordinance in the future. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Klein reviewed the next possible change, Section (4)(2) related to notice, providing three options: When an application was received, the City could: 1) post on the Web site, as-is; 2) post on the Web site, and require City Manager Taylor to e-mail the same information contained on the Web site to neighbor- hood groups; or 3) physically mail information about the claim to owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property and to neighborhood groups and organizations. Mr. Klein noted existing notice provisions did not address what happened when an application was merely received and suggested that such a notice could raise questions at a time when the City had no answers, costing a great deal. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to adopt Option 2. Mr. Kelly said he supported the option because of the negligible cost and because it gave the neighbor- hood organizations a "heads up" at little cost. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly. She believed the situation was different from a land use application as land use applications had associated criteria and an end date for a decision. She requested a friendly amendment that included notice to community organizations outside the boundaries of the area officially recognized by the City Council or those who apply to be on the interested parties list. Mr. Kelly preferred not to include the friendly amendment in the ordinance as he believed the City's Web site design would make it easy for someone to add themselves to the City's interested parties list. City Manager Taylor indicated that was something staff could do in addition to what was required through the ordinance. Ms. Bettman felt it was important to flag her suggestion for the future when further revisions to the ordinance were made. Ms. Nathanson was not entirely comfortable with the option because the claim in question would not yet have been ruled valid. Mr. Klein concurred. The notice would merely be notice of the claim and claim MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 2 Work Session amount. Ms. Nathanson asked how many land use applications were not actually acted upon due to feasibility. Ms. Muir indicated she had no precise number but could confirm there were some such applications. Ms. Nathanson was not entirely comfortable with the option given that fact. She suggested that the option was not sufficiently inclusive in terms of boundaries; for example, what if an organization was across the street? Mr. Klein suggested the council consider that issue in the future. Staff had already started an interested parties list, and could examine other ways of doing the notice in the future. Ms. Nathanson said she would have suggested language to the effect of"whose boundaries include or are immediately adjacent to." Mr. Pap6 asked if there would be a plat map on the Web site so people could see their properties in relationship to the claim. City Manager Taylor was unsure how the page would link with the plat map at this Point in time. Ms. Muir added that the Web page has no map on it at this time, although she anticipated upgrades would be done in the future. The property's address would be listed at this time. Mayor Torrey solicited additional council comments. Ms. Bettman said the option was a low threshold and she did not think it would take much effort for the City to send out an e-mail to the neighborhood organizations. It was her hope the neighborhood organizations would work with residents who were potentially impacted. She pointed out that the difference between the land use process and the Ballot Measure 37 claims process was that the latter process was not dependent on a City decision, as the claimant could go directly to court. Mr. Meisner supported Option 2 as a reasonable alternative. He asked Mr. Klein if a neighborhood organization would have any standing once a claim went to court. Mr. Klein indicated he was unsure and believed at this point it depended to some degree on how the claim got to court. The measure itself did not speak to the issue. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Klein reviewed possible changes to Section 2.080 related to fees. He first discussed what other communities were doing, noting that some communities were proposing to charge a fee based on a resolution adopted in the future. Other communities were requiring upfront deposits and, if that proved to be inadequate, would require more to proceed or charge at the end of the process. Florence had imposed a cap of $1,500 on the fee if the claimant submitted all information requested by the City. Mr. Klein reviewed three options related to this section. He said that Option 1 was to leave the ordinance as drafted; that is, to collect the actual costs of collecting a claim. Under Option 2, if the claimant provides a deposit of $1,500 and submits all requested information, that amount is the fee, even if the cost of processing the application exceeds that amount. If the claimant failed to provide all the information, the $1,500 is the deposit toward the ultimate cost, which would be the lesser of the actual cost or $7,500 plus the cost of an appraisal. He termed Option 3 the Crook County option, $1,500 or one percent of the amount claimed for compensation, which ever is greater. He clarified that was the deposit, not the fee. In Crook County, if the hearings official determined the amount of deposit inadequate to cover costs, he or she could refuse to go forward until the municipality received the difference. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to adopt Option 2. Mr. Pap6 wanted to have a limitation on what the City could charge for the claim applications. He liked Option 2, terming it fair and flexible. MINUTES--Eugene City Cotmcil November 24, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman thought Option 3 was futile because the claimant had the option of going directly to court. Mr. Klein concurred. He indicated he had offered the option because from past discussion, some councilors appeared to like what Crook County was doing. City Manager Taylor noted that exempting the appraisal allowed him to feel comfortable with Option 2. Ms. Bettman did not support going forward with Option 2. She preferred Option 1 as it recovered the actual costs of processing the claim, which she believed was the fairest approach. Under Option 2, taxpayers would subsidize the cost of the largest windfall claims that local governments received. She called for full-cost recovery for claims made. Ms. Taylor agreed that the taxpayer should not subsidize the cost of processing Ballot Measure 37 claims. Mr. Kelly commended staff's creativity but he was not supportive of Option 2 because he did not want the taxpayers and other City services to be "stuck with" a very large charge from a very large claim from a large, longstanding property owner. The proviso did not address the land use regulations in effect when the property was purchased, and that might be necessary to know. If the concept of"family member" came up in the case of a corporate claim, that could require considerable research. He believed that the City's cost could easily reach five figures, and asked where that funding would come from. Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Klein for his research. He supported Option 2 because it was predictable for those seeking to file claims and, as the City developed history with the program, it could return to the ordinance if necessary and make the revisions needed to recover more. Mr. Meisner acknowledged Mr. Kelly's comments but said he wanted some kind of predictability for claimants. While he opposed the measure, it was a fact of life, and he did not want to put forward the message that the "sky was the limit." He agreed that the ordinance could be revisited. He hoped that staff would pay careful attention and in the case of large claims, pay close attention to the cost of claims processing as he believed they would go to court anyway. City Manager Taylor said he was persuaded earlier that staff could track the costs of the ordinance and if it turned out the costs were higher than predicated, return to the council with suggested revisions. Ms. Nathanson thanked staff for developing the options before the council. Mayor Torrey also commended staff for its work. He supported the motion because he thought it demonstrated good faith on the part of the City. Mayor Torrey noted that Eugene had defeated the measure, although it was supported by the remainder of the state. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments on the motion. Mr. Pap~ said he did not want the fees to be set so high that the City would appear to be retaliating against property owners who took advantage of their tights under the measure. Ms. Bettman did not think the City should be penalizing taxpayers by requiting them to subsidize Ballot Measure 37 claims. She said the City's response to the measure with regard to the need for definition was because the ballot measure was skewed in favor of the claimant. It had no built-in balance in terms of protecting the City or taxpayers. That was the council's task. She said there was nothing wrong with charging actual costs, but there was something wrong with capping the cost for the claimant and asking the taxpayer to pick up the difference. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 4 Work Session The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Klein called the council's attention to possible changes to Section 2.090(1) related to a public hearing for claims. Ms. Bettman asked for more information about the possibility of applying the regulations in effect at the time a property was purchased by the owner. Mr. Klein indicated that would be part of the waiver or modification. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the text for Section 2.090(1) reviewed by Mr. Klein. Ms. Solomon clarified with Mr. Klein that the amended ordinance required the City Council to hold a public hearing if it chose to either waive regulations or pay compensation. Mr. Pap6 felt it was reasonable to have a public hearing if the council was going to waive a regulation but thought it should be discretionary for small claims. In those cases, he thought it appropriate for staff to make a determination that compensation should be paid. He was willing to consider a threshold beyond which hearings were held. Mr. Kelly concurred with the remarks of Mr. Pap6, saying he did not see an upside to holding public hearings on very small claims. If a claim had the potential for a negative physical impact on the land he wanted to hold a hearing, and the ordinance as initially drafted provided for that. Ms. Taylor said that the claims involved may be very significant and public hearings should be used to keep the public informed. If a claim was insignificant and the public did not care, the public hearing would be very short. Mr. Poling believed staff would recognize when a claim amount reached a critical point and should be subject to a public hearing. He opposed the amendment. Mayor Torrey indicated that in the case of a tie, he would oppose the amendment. Ms. Bettman argued that if the City was going to have predictability in its fees, it should have predictabil- ity in its processes. She supported the amendment because she believed there was value to having public hearings to address all the issues that would be raised by the measure. She said that people would become more aware of what was going on, and public hearings would have an educational component to them. She did not think the public had heard the last of the measure. Mr. Kelly said he would have supported the amendment if there was no other notice for a claim. He pointed out that claims would be posted on the City's Web site and the relevant neighborhood group notified. He thought that would give even small claims public exposure. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council would spend more time discussing whether to hold a hearing than the hearings would take. She agreed that the public hearings served an educational purpose. She believed many people never consulted the City's Web site and there were many people who watched council meetings. Also, not all residents were covered by neighborhood organizations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 5 Work Session City Manager Taylor agreed with a statement from Mr. Pap6 that the cost of public hearings was not insignificant. Mayor Torrey encouraged the council to allow the process to work. He said that the council should give the staff and the Oregon State Legislature a chance to do their jobs. Mr. Kelly pointed out that when the council held a hearing, the 300-foot notice requirement was triggered, which could cost the City far more in mailing expenses than the claim itself. He preferred for the council to be able to determine whether a hearing was actually needed. Ms. Bettman asked that the issue be flagged for future discussion because a consistent, standardized process was needed, and that included a dollar threshold. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Klein reviewed possible changes to Section 2.090(5), dealing with the question of transferability. He said that essentially, the ordinance was written to mirror the language in Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Bettman said that approach placed the City Council back where it started because the language was ambiguous. Mr. Klein concurred. He believed any modification or waiver was not transferable but others, such as the organization Oregonians in Action, disagreed with him. The issue would be decided by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in the end. He believed the City was protected by the text in question in either case. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said that the modification was transferable to the extent that Ballot Measure 37 said it was. That issue probably will need to be decided before a property owner can secure financing for a development project based on a Measure 37 waiver. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to adopt the text reviewed by Mr. Klein. Mr. Meisner noted his previous concerns about the section in question He felt the option presented by Mr. Klein was a defensible way to handle the issue, and was unsure he could have supported the ordinance with the text that was previously in the ordinance. Ms. Solomon supported the amendment. She asked if anyone had filed a challenge to the issue of transferability yet, and if a challenge was filed, whether it would be expedited. Mr. Klein said nothing had been filed because the measure had not yet taken effect. He did not think that issue would be before a court until there was a set of facts on which a court could rule. A court case must be formulated with transferability as issue before a court could consider the issue. He added that the legislature could expedite resolution of the issue if it wished. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 about the City's ability to facilitate transferability, Mr. Klein indicated he believed that was precluded by Ballot Measure 37. Putting the measure aside, the State has preempted the City's ability to grant these waivers or modifications; one could only do so by the standard process of changing land use regulations or granting variances or adjustments where authorized. Ballot Measure 37 said that notwithstanding the preemption, the measure would allow governments to waive regulations in a way consistent with the measure. To the degree the measure indicated the waiver was transferable, the City had the authority to do so. The City could not do more than the measure allowed. Ballot Measure 37 was not clear, but it still addressed the issue. How it addressed it was not clear until the courts rule. He continued to interpret the measure as precluding transferability. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Klein said he did not know if the Attorney General's Office had been asked to provide an opinion on Ballot Measure 37. At this time, the office was not answering questions of a general nature or stating its opinion of the measure. He anticipated that mini-opinions would be provided to State agencies making inquiries, and those would largely be focused on process rather than the content of the measure. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Klein's interpretation of Ballot Measure 37, which appeared to him to speak to the owner of the property at the time of the purchase. Mr. Kelly opposed the amendment because he supported the original text, which made it clear that the waiver allowed the owner to do what the owner wished to do under the regulations in place at the time of the purchase of the property. Plus, he believed the original text gave the council flexibility. He suggested that the council could adopt a resolution allowing transferability in a single case if the council decided such an action satisfied the public interest. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the legality of allowing for transferability in a single case, Mr. Klein said he did not know because the measure was not clear on the issue. The legal effect of the amendment was the same as the initial language, because ultimately the decision would be made by the courts. He noted that Oregonians in Action believed that transferability was implied because the regulations in place previously would have allowed for transferability. Mayor Torrey indicated support for the amendment, terming it a commonsense approach that took the pressure off the City of Eugene and placed the burden of proof on the proponents of the measure. He said they should pay the legal costs associated with the challenge. He would be unable to support the main motion in the event of a tie if the amendment failed. Ms. Bettman was opposed to the amendment because it would make up for the mistakes made by the proponents of the measure. The ordinance would hand them the language they needed in the first place, and would produce an industry of opportunistic entities seeking out individuals owning property and encouraging them to file a Ballot Measure 37 claim. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Klein to clarify that until the courts addressed the issue of transferability, the text in Ballot Measure 37 gave the City no guidance about the issue, leaving the council to decide what was meant by transferability on a claim-by-claim basis. Mr. Klein said the council could take that approach, but he had envisioned that in a typical situation, a claim would be filed and the council would decide against compensation and agree to waive a standard. The council would then adopt a resolution that included the provision on transferability, which was dependent on further interpretation by the courts. If the property owner making the claim was granted it and then transferred the property to a new owner who sought to develop it on the basis of the waiver, in the absence of further court direction, he would advise the Planning Division that the waiver did not cover the new owner. That would likely get the issue into court. However, Mr. Klein anticipated either legislative or court direction prior to that time. Mayor Torrey indicated his belief the measure would be challenged. In the meantime, he wanted the City to do the right thing. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about a situation in which a property was transferred to a family member, Mr. Klein said that "family" was used in different ways in the measure. Under Ballot Measure 37, by way of example, a senior citizen could transfer her property to family members before any waiver or development. The family member would have a claim for compensation based on that family MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 7 Work Session history. However, the family member's ability to get a waiver would ignore family history, and be based only on the present family member's ownership. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman vot- ing no. Mr. Klein reviewed proposed amendments to Section 2.095, dealing with the private cause of action. He recommended that whoever prevailed between neighbor and claimant would receive attorney fees. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to adopt the text reviewed by Mr. Klein. Mr. Pap6 supported the text as fair. The amendment to the motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Poling referred to Section 2.085(2) and asked if that included any elected official or should it be redefined as any elected "City" official. Mr. Klein interpreted it as a City official because the manager's recommendation was being forwarded to the City Council. He did not object to the amendment, however. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to amend the section with the word "City." The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Nathanson said that the council received testimony expressing frustration that it was taking action to move forward on an ordinance and process. She said that adopting the ordinance was not an end run around the measure, but a way to implement it on a local level through the City of Eugene. Every city would have to address the measure in some way, and Eugene was just trying to set up fair procedures in advance of the measure's effective date. She thought it was important for the council to act, and was the responsible thing to do. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Klein said the measure was not specific to the actual costs incurred by the City. There would be a cost of preparing materials for council meetings, for example. He did not include his time, the council's time, or the manager's time at council meetings because they would be there anyway. Mr. Pap6 was prepared to act on the ordinance at this point. He agreed with the remarks made by Ms. Nathanson. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the main motion. He thanked legal counsel for all the work it had done in preparing the City to address the ramifications of Ballot Measure 37 in what he believed was a wise way. He hoped that the measure would not be as difficult for the City to address as it would be for rural Lane County. He did not expect the same types of problems. Mr. Meisner recalled the amount of time spent addressing the anticipated impact of Year 2000, and hoped the impact of the measure would be similar to that event, which did not turn out to be much. City Manager Taylor believed the ordinance was the responsible response to Ballot Measure 37. He anticipated the council would revisit the ordinance in the future, and that the City would continue to challenge the legislature and courts to provide clarity about the measure. Ms. Bettman wished all those present a Happy Thanksgiving, saying that the council had many things to be thankful for, but Ballot Measure 37 was not one of them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 8 Work Session The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 9 Work Session