Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A - Minutes ApprovalEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: January 24, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 2A 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 17, 2004, Work Session, December 6, 2004, Work Session, December 6, 2004, City Council Meeting, and December 8, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. November 17, 2004, Work Session B. December 6, 2004, Work Session C. December 6, 2004, City Council Meeting D. December 8, 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\M050124\S0501242A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall November 17, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. As Mayor James D. Torrey had not yet arrived, Council President Bonny Bettman called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Torrey arrived. A. WORK SESSION: Statewide Freight Route Analysis Project As City Manager Dennis Taylor had not yet arrived, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson introduced the item, noting that thc council was holding the work session prior to providing comments on the project to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). Ms. Solomon arrived. Chris Henry of the Public Works Department introduced Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff members Anna Russo and Robin Washburn, who were present to discuss the State's freight route designation process. He reported that in the Eugene-Springfield area, new freight route designations were proposed for thc Beltlinc Highway, Highway 99 north of Bcltline, and Highway 126 to the west of Beltline. The effect on the Eugene street system would be a higher standard for mobility to reduce congestion on those routes. The designation could affect land development reviews, facility design, and access approach permits. Mr. Henry noted that at the request of the Metropolitan Policy Committee, the OTC had extended thc comment period for thc project to January 7, 2005. He said that the Lane Board of County Commission- ers had also considered the issue and had corresponded with the OTC about several issues related to the designations in Lane County. Ms. Russo and Mr. Washburn provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Freight Route Analysis Project. The presentation provided information on thc analysis' origin as a result of a review of Oregon Highway Plan Policy lB, the scope of the analysis, and who was involved. Ms. Russo briefly overviewed thc process used to develop the final analysis. She called attention to the timeline for thc project, included in the meeting packet. Mr. Washburn called attention to thc significance of thc freight route designation with regard to highway segment designations, mobility standards, highway design, and funding. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Washburn shared a map showing the various recommended freight route designations in Oregon. He noted that the recommendations, if adopted by the OTC, would result in an additional 919 miles of highway designated as freight routes. Ms. Russo concluded the presentation by encouraging the council and public to offer comment on the analysis to the OTC. Mayor Torrey solicited council questions and comments. Ms. Taylor asked if a community's opposition to a freight route designation would be sufficient to stop a highway from receiving the designation, citing the McKenzie Highway as an example where such opposition existed. Ms. Russo assured Ms. Taylor that public comment would influence the OTC's decisions and possibly result in changes to the recommendations. Ms. Taylor observed that West 11th Avenue (Highway 126) was already heavily congested, and it seemed the designation could worsen the situation. Ms. Russo said that was true of many highways in many places around Oregon, particularly in urban areas. She believed that in terms of tonnage and volume of trucks, the highway met the threshold criteria for the designation. Ms. Taylor inquired as to the purpose of the analysis; was it to help truckers? Ms. Russo said that a designation was partly a line on a map but it was accompanied by policies. The policies directed ODOT to manage such roadways in certain ways. That was the main reason for the designation. Mr. Washburn added that a primary purpose of the designation was to recognize the importance of the highway as a facility for carrying freight. When a project was proposed, such as an intersection project, freight concerns would be taken into consideration, along with other considerations related to local needs. He said that it was simply recognition of what existed. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Henry, a member of the local interjurisdictional Transportation Planning Committee, to discuss the committee's examination of the subject. Mr. Henry said that the committee discussed the issue but had not yet reached a recommendation. Staff had raised concerns about the potential impact of the designation on interchange spacing, whether projects such as intersection improvements could actually be constructed meeting the higher mobility standards, and the impact on the system from an access management perspective, primarily with regard to West 11 th Avenue. Ms. Bettman requested the committee's recommendations in memorandum form so the council could discuss them if it wished. Ms. Bettman said that the designation might give more weight to improvements in the designated corridor. The consequences of the designation could be good in terms of improving mobility in a corridor. With regard to access issues, she suggested that those would be of more concern on routes containing lots of residents and small businesses than on routes such as Beltline. She thought the designation could have benefits for one section of a corridor and downsides for another section, depending on how it was currently developed. Ms. Bettman questioned the impact of the designation on the funding or status of other projects in the Regional Transportation Plan. Speaking to the issue of access management, Mr. Henry said that the ODOT staff report was rather vague in that area. Staff had the same questions as Ms. Bettman, and would be asking ODOT for responses to those questions before forwarding a recommendation to the elected officials. Ms. Russo agreed that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 2 Work Session designation would have an impact on access management, although she could not say precisely what that impact would be. Speaking to the issue of funding, Ms. Russo said that State law required that ODOT give priority to projects that assist with freight mobility. She said funding was limited and doubted there would be enough funding to give priority to all routes designated for freight. Mr. Washburn said that the designa- tion could add points to a project when competing for funds. Mr. Pap~ asked if the State ever removed the designation from a highway. Ms. Russo said that the designation was only recently created and the State was .revisiting it for the first time. She anticipated that the designation could be removed if a highway did not continue to meet the criteria. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 about the nature of the council's comments, Ms. Russo suggested that the council could comment as a body and as individuals. Ms. Nathanson observed that one way to increase mobility was to limit access, such as through limiting driveways. She said that in other cities and in other states she had noticed a great deal more use of internal circulation systems, such as frontage roads. She asked what the State was doing to encourage cities to figure out better internal circulation systems, which would help with the State's mobility concerns. She acknowledged the amount of right-of-way needed for such systems, which could be a problem. Ms. Nathanson said many people living in cities used State and federal highways to commute to work and to carry out errands. She asked if that was likely to change over time or if it would continue to be a problem because of a lack of funding. City Manager Taylor arrived. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that a more rigorous review of land use applications would require the City to say "no" to everything because of opposition from both residents and ODOT. Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Nathanson's concern about the connection between land use and the freight route designation. He expressed interest in what had not been proposed for designation, noting that there had been considerable discussion over the years regarding the need to improve West 11 th Avenue west of Beltline and Beltline as a means of connecting western Lane County to Interstate 5. He acknowledged the bottlenecks that existed on those routes now. Mr. Meisner asked whether funding for other projects in that area of the city would be affected if West 11th Avenue to Beltline was designated as a freight route. Ms. Russo did not know. She said that freight was one consideration in prioritization, but she did not know what other projects would be competing for funds. Mr. Meisner asked if it was likely that, once routes were redesignated, ODOT would become more stringent about designating truck routes. He asked if, for example, once routes were redesignated as freight routes, it would be possible to also make them truck routes and remove the truck route designation from West 114 Avenue east of Beltline or 6th and 7th avenues running through downtown. Ms. Russo thought that approach could be explored. Mr. Washburn noted that a recent court decision allowed municipalities to designate truck routes and remove trucks from their main streets. ODOT would be examining that issue soon, and he anticipated that a procedure would be established to ensure such changes were done safely. Ms. Russo clarified that the court decision allowed the State the ability to grant such authority to a city. She anticipated ODOT would soon be doing some rule-making for that process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly believed that because of the mobility and land use issues, it was important for the council to comment on the analysis. He determined from Ms. Russo that local governments would not be involved in approving freight route designations. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the potential impact of the designation to the access that businesses located in the community' s industrial area needed to have, and asked ODOT and City staff to consider the concerns expressed by the council in that regard. He said that access management could work, but it needed to be accomplished through a cooperative planning process between ODOT and the City. Mayor Torrey believed that the OTC did the right thing in focusing on the issue given the importance of freight to Oregon and its communities. Speaking to the comments of Mr. Meisner, Mayor Torrey said that the lack of a truck route designation would not preclude trucks from using a particular road. Truckers would choose the best possible route to their destination and use it. Mayor Torrey expressed concern about the designation of the Beltline Highway because of the difficulty of access at the intersection of the highway and West 11 th Avenue. He supported the designation of West 11 th Avenue because of the congestion that currently existed there, and the need for improvements. He thought the designation's added points would help secure funding for such improvements. Mayor Torrey asked if the freight route designation could be used as a limitation on development because West 11th Avenue had not been upgraded. Ms. Russo did not know. Tom Boyatt, Area 5 planner for ODOT, indicated that the designation would have no impact on lands already planned and zoned. The designation could come up during a plan amendment or zone change. He noted that ODOT had already done improvements on the section of West 11 th Avenue ending at Terry Street, and was working to consolidate driveways. Congestion levels on that roadway were not as severe as those on Beltline Highway to the east. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to direct the City Manager to return to the City Council at the earliest possible date with a staff recommendation on the proposed freight route designations for review and forwarding to the OTC, ODOT, and the Freight Route Analysis Project Committee. Ms. Bettman believed the City Council needed an opportunity to take a position on the analysis. She was also concerned about the access issue, and called for the establishment of a process that involved local govemtnents in such decisions. Ms. Bettman suggested the council consider applying to the State for status as a Special Transportation Area (STA) or Urban Business Area (UBA). She thought some opportunities existed. Mr. Henry noted that the City had STAs designated on 6th/7th avenues between Washington and Lincoln streets. Ms. Bettman indicated interest in hearing more about the subject. Mr. Pap~ asked if the State's actions had Ballot Measure 37 implications and, if so, who would pay. Mr. Klein did not know if there were Ballot Measure 37 implications or who would pay. The State and local governments were in discussion about how to address claims that involved State or local liability or a combination of the two. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 4 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Grade-Separated Ramp Connections for the I-5/Willamette River Bridge City Engineer Mark Schoening joined the council for the item. He noted that Lane County Area Manager Bob Pirrie, Mr. Boyatt, Project Leader Ann Sanders, and Project Environmental Manager Susan Vickers of ODOT were also present for the item. Mr. Schoening referred to the planned Interstate 5 Willamette River Bridge replacement project and the proposal made by Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken and Mayor Torrey to include ramp connections from Franklin Boulevard. He said that in such projects, ODOT had an expectation of local resources from local governments for transportation system planning and engineering support. ODOT would do most of the technical work needed to implement the project. The City's Public Works Department had some flexibility to adjust its work plan to shift the project to a higher priority and the Planning Division had some funding to address emerging issues. Mr. Schoening noted the letter provided to the council from ODOT Planning Manager Jack Lee to mayors Torrey and Leiken. The letter was to clarify ODOT's commitment to consider grade-separated ramp connections between the planned I-5 replacement bridge and Franklin Boulevard. Mr. Pirrie emphasized ODOT's directive to complete land use planning for projects prior to engaging in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. He offered several examples of ODOT projects that implemented the directive. Mr. Boyatt added that ODOT had experienced challenges back loading land use and planning at the end of a NEPA process. The directive ensured that ODOT had a technically legitimate project from a transportation system operations standpoint. All environmental red flags were identified in the process, and ODOT ensured that it had local support for the project prior to making the investment in the technical project development phase. Mr. Boyatt distributed the first two pages of a work order contract for the I-5 Willamette River Crossing developed by ODOT in consultation with its consultant, CH2M Hill, to ensure the systems planning work was addressed to demonstrate how the process worked. Mr. Boyatt acknowledged the commitment made by ODOT to the local community in regard to the project. He said that ODOT had moved the project to the "front burner" and had managed to identify about $180,000 in available funding to spend between now and June 30, 2005, with another $200,000 proposed for the upcoming biennium to complete the work needed. He said that ODOT needed the elected and appointed officials as well as local staff to be "on board" for the project. Mayor Torrey solicited questions. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see a price tag for the local systems planning effort. She endorsed ODOT's decision to complete land use and planning prior to going through the NEPA process. She asked what the City's public involvement process for the project would look like and how it would be funded. Ms. Bettman wanted to see a proposal come back in a form the council could endorse. Ms. Bettman asked if separated grade connections referred to flyovers. Mr. Pirrie said that could be an alternative considered. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor indicated the council would have several opportunities to discuss the project. Mr. Kelly was supportive of the concept of a full interchange at the location in question. However, he was concerned by the letter from Mr. Lee because it lacked detail about the public process envisioned during the "non-NEPA" phase of the project. Mr. Kelly recommended the use of a stakeholders group similar to that used for the Beltline/I-5 project to ensure a project design that worked from a transportation MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 5 Work Session standpoint and was accepted by the public. He thought that a "united front" would help to secure funding for the project. He encouraged ODOT staff to provide details to the council in the near future about the nature of the first phase of public involvement. Mr. Kelly noted that the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens were promised a stakeholders group that included Laurel Hill representation would be formed in May 2003 by Dean Fuller of ODOT in regard to the temporary bridge. He said the Fairmount Neighbors were also concerned about the need for early public involvement. Mr. Meisner noted the long-time interest on the part of many residents in a full interchange at the location in question, but they did not know how to get one. The failure of the bridge was good news in that it presented ODOT and the community with an opportunity to see how the bridge could work better for both Eugene and Springfield. He expressed appreciation to ODOT for its willingness to consider a full interchange. Mr. Meisner was interested in knowing more about the City's response to ODOT and stressed the need for Eugene to be a partner in the project. He agreed public involvement was needed. He was concerned about the budgetary impacts of the project and expressed dismay about past council decisions to cut funding for the Planning Division, which would have a role to play in the project. He hoped the City Manager considered the lack of capacity in the division and propose a way to address it in the budget. City Manager Taylor also was pleased to see ODOT's change in approach and the fact that it was not confined to the local area. He acknowledged the budgetary implications of the project and anticipated the City would work with ODOT on how best to meet the timelines, and then staff could consider how to adjust the organization's capacity to meet the need. Ms. Nathanson was pleased to see the planning process start. She wanted an actual project to be the result, not merely a study. She agreed with Mr. Meisner that the subject had been under discussion for years. She said that such an opportunity rarely comes along. The need and interest had existed for some time. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that beginning system planning so early would result in a situation where people would come in during the middle or at the end of the process and object that they were not involved in earlier discussions and call for the process to begin again. She asked how the City would preclude that from happening. Mr. Boyatt suggested that Ms. Nathanson was talking about how to be successful. He believed there were ways to do that, and it started at the council level. The quicker ODOT could go through the analysis level, the more efficiently it could get through the planning process and to a level of agreement among parties. He agreed that the bridge replacement represented a real opportunity for the community, and ODOT's director recognized that fact. Ms. Nathanson said that while she wanted the project to be completed, she was concerned about the cost. She suggested that "quicker was better" in this case because the City would have residents' attention to the solutions recommended. Mr. Pap~ thanked ODOT staff for the presentation. Mr. Pap~ concurred with the remarks of other councilors in regard to the change in ODOT's approach. He suggested that Eugene work with Lane County and Springfield to divide the needed work and develop and fund a public involvement process. He suggested the University of Oregon was also likely to be interested in the project, although he was unsure how it could be involved. Mr. Pap~ also concurred with Ms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Nathanson about the need to move quickly. Mr. Meisner suggested that the Lane Transit District should be involved as well. Mr. Pap6 concurred. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Boyatt said he did not perceive the temporary bridge as being a constraint to the inclusion of ramps on the replacement structure. Ms. Taylor asked if there were negative aspects to the project. Mr. Boyatt indicated he was approaching the project with an open mind as he believed that negative aspects would be identified through the land use and planning process. Ms. Taylor asked about public involvement. Mr. Boyatt said it was central to the process. Mr. Pirhe emphasized the collaborative nature of the public involvement process. Fatal flaws could lead to an alternative being discarded. Ms. Taylor asked if ODOT had heard any objections to the project. Mr. Boyatt said that ODOT had a letter from University of Oregon President David Frohnmeyer supporting the project. Ms. Taylor thought the City should know whether the public supported the project before a great deal of money was spent on technical work. Mayor Torrey expressed pleasure that the discussion was occurring. He agreed the bridge replacement was an opportunity that should be taken advantage of. He believed that the ramps needed to be considered now or they would be precluded in the future. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments and questions. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's comments, Ms. Bettman suggested that community support for the project would depend on how it looked and how it was designed. She believed there were advantages to the project, and believed that ODOT must think there was value to the concept as well or it would not elevate the project's priority. Ms. Bettman noted the lack of mention of Lane County in the materials before the council and suggested the County should be involved. Ms. Bettman said the community did not have the luxury of time as it related to the project. She referred to the letter from Mr. Lee, which indicated it would be necessary to amend the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) financially constrained project list to include the project and the cost. She noted that the RTP would be amended soon, and suggested that the system planning element be placed in the RTP to make it eligible for funding. Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments indicated that as new STP-U funds were allocated, some could be allocated to the process. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about whether the council should direct staff to prepare an amendment to the RTP to include the system planning for the project in the document, Mr. Schoening said that in his discussions with ODOT, it was his understanding that the commitment from the local jurisdictions was in the form of existing staff resources. Most of the work would be done by ODOT's consultant. He said all the STP-U funding available had been allocated for the planning period anticipated for the project. Mr. Kelly reiterated his earlier remarks about the importance of assembling a stakeholders group similar to that used for the Beltline/I-5 project. He said the way to achieve success was to involve everyone early in the process. Mr. Kelly believed the project would only happen if there was enough of a collaborative sense among the various stakeholders that the project was a good thing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 7 Work Session City Manager Taylor indicated he would prepare a proposal for the council to consider, based on the input he heard during the discussion. Mayor Torrey solicited a third round of council questions and comments. Ms. Bettman suggested the project was the "quintessential regional planning process." She noted the Beltline/I-5 stakeholders group received outside funding from different sources to complete its work. She did not want to have to adjust City budgets to pay for the process when it could be placed into the RTP and planning money could be solicited for it from other sources. Ms. Bettman wanted to see an amend- ment to the RTP to accommodate the project. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall December 6, 2004 5:30 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. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Meisner said that he, Mr. Kelly, and Mayor Torrey attended the Artists and Authors event at the Library on December 3. The event was well-attended. Mr. Meisner thanked staff and the Eugene Library Foundation for doing all they had to make the building and events possible. The foundation became more successful every year. He said it was nice to enter a building such as the library and see everyone smiling. Ms. Nathanson noted the old saying that the wheels of democracy turn slowly, adding that was often to ensure that everyone was included. She said that sometimes progress was so slow the council became impatient with staff and the organization. She said she often looked at the council's work plan and objectives and wondered where the checkmarks were to indicate completion. Ms. Nathanson said she was pleased to have been involved with an organization as fine as the City of Eugene. She was proud of her association with the City. She had recently returned from the National League of Cities (NLC) conference and it was her perception that Eugene was admired for its accom- plishments. Ms. Nathanson said every week and every month staff worked on projects to accomplish the council's goals in service delivery with little recognition from the council or public. She had seen fantastic examples in of innovation in every department. Ms. Nathanson congratulated the City organiza- tion and all departments for all the excellent work she had seen. Ms. Bettman discussed the issue of racial profiling, saying the community needed to be more aware of the problem. Those community leaders participating in a recent press conference believed that profiling was a long-term police practice and there Was systematic bias occurring. Ms. Bettman acknowledged that it was very difficult to know the criteria for an individual officer's decision, but over the decades it seemed that the City had demonstrated a pattern and practice of profiling. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Bettman said she had never been concerned when sending her two children to school that they would be stopped by police, but children of color have been stopped repeatedly and their parents constantly worry about the potential for it to happen. Ms. Bettman said that one of the community leaders who spoke at the press conference acknowledged the lack of violence, but the type of profiling people were MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 1 · Work Session experiencing was chronic and destructive. Students who were stopped regularly were stigmatized by their fellow students and teachers and it affected their self-esteem. Those individuals have every right to feel as safe and welcomed in the community as her children. Ms. Bettman urged the council to be aware of the issue and read Police Chief Bob Lehner's report on the profiling case that gave rise to the press confer- ence. She also asked the council to consider the types of civilian oversight that could be effective in the community so that when the time came to institute such a body, it could be done quickly. Mr. Pap~ asked if the council would see a report on the disposition of the Sears site prior to the break. City Manager Dennis Taylor believed so. Mr. Pap6 expressed his thanks to outgoing councilors Nathanson and Meisner and Mayor Torrey for all the work they had done for the community. Ms. Taylor advocated for an external police review board, regardless of the merits of a particular case. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Nathanson that there was considerable good work done by staff although the council often discussed what was wrong, which she thought natural. Ms. Taylor wanted Public Works Department staff to stop saying that stop signs do not work because drivers would not obey them. If staff said that about everything that was illegal, the City could simply abolish all its regulations. She did not think it was a good argument to use against stop signs, which she continued to advocate for as the cheapest form of traffic control. Ms. Taylor said she was a member of the NLC task force charged to review the No Child Left Behind Act, and invited ideas from the council. Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Bettman's comments about racial profiling. He said that issue and larger ones were something the council needed to pay more attention to. Mr. Kelly asked about the status of the scope of work for the commercial and industrial lands study promised by Lane County. City Manager Taylor indicated he would follow up. Mr. Kelly also thanked Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mayor Torrey for their many years of dedicated service to the City of Eugene. Mr. Meisner reported that the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) had been charged by the governor with the task of examining intercity alternative modes. He had agreed to testify before the OTC in Portland on the subject of freight passenger rail, and invited comments from other councilors before December 13. City Manager Taylor also recognized the many years of service that Mr. Meisner, Ms. Nathanson, and Mayor Torrey had given to Eugene. He commended Mayor Torrey for his efforts around education and children, Ms. Nathanson for her efforts around parks planning and telecommunications, and Mr. Meisner for his efforts around the library, the arts, passenger rail, and the restoration of the train depot. On behalf of the organization, he thanked them for their service. City Manager Taylor acknowledged the emotion and feeling expressed by the community leaders at the recent press conference. He recognized the courage of City employee Jordan Cortez in bringing forth his charge of racial profiling and thanked him for coming forward. He apologized to Mr. Cortez for his bad experiences. He said that he had also been struck by the emotion and uncertainty expressed by the officer MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 2 Work Session involved as the investigation progressed. City Manager Taylor agreed that the City needed to pay close attention to the issue. He believed that the work of Police Commission would provide the council with information on models for complaint management and civilian review that could be useful to Eugene. City Manager Taylor noted that the International City/County Management Association Team would be in Eugene after January 1. The organization had sent letters to hundreds of citizens and would hold focus group discussions and provide the public with an avenue for anonymous comment. Mayor Torrey noted his past opposition to an external review board because he believed such issues should be addressed internally, but because that did not happen he was now convinced that a custom method should be developed to address such issues for Eugene. It was time to move forward with a civilian review effort. He supported the efforts of the Police Commission and believed it would do a good job. He urged the council to allow the commission to complete its work before it moved forward in that area. Mayor Torrey said if a civilian review board was established, he recommended that Lane County and the City of Springfield be involved. Mayor Torrey explained the rose he always had sitting in front of him when he presided over council meetings, was given to him by a group of disabled young adults and represented rules to live by: R = Respect, O = Others, S = Self, and E = Environment. B. WORK SESSION: Hospital Update City Manager Taylor provided background information on a later agenda item during which the council would be asked to authorize budget authority for a $500,000 loan to be provided by McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center to the City to facilitate the design work for the Patterson Street underpass that would serve the new hospital to be located on the current site of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) headquarters. He emphasized the importance of access, time, and money to the question of siting a new hospital in the central city area. City Manager Taylor said the attachments to the agenda item summary reflected the elements of the agreement between the hospital, EWEB, and the City. He requested direction to complete the agreement. City Manager Taylor noted that Public Works Director Kurt Corey and City Engineer Mark Schoening were also present for the item. City Manager Taylor indicated that to purchase the riparian area abutting the site, McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center needed to develop a site plan, and to do so it had to have more certainty about the access point for the underpass. Mayor Torrey asked if there were any implications from the underpass on the 8th Avenue improvements serving the courthouse area. Mr. Schoening said that the underpass would not affect the first phase of improvements intended to serve the courthouse, but it would affect the design of the second phase. Because of the limited clearance under the railroad tracks, 8th Avenue would have to decline in elevation until it intersected with Patterson Street, and Patterson Street would decline until it reached the railroad tracks. A structure would be built on the new Highway 99 westbound lane where it crossed over Patterson Street. Mayor Torrey asked how the historic building on the courthouse site would be affected by the improve- ments. Mr. Schoening indicated the courthouse transportation improvements could be put in place without the need to move or demolish the building. Whoever purchased the property in question would have to rehabilitate the building or seek removal of the historic designation. Responding to a follow-up MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 3 Work Session question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Schoening said that to this point, the City had been dealing with willing sellers. The City had not yet approached the property owners affected by the Patterson Street underpass. If the council adopted the supplemental budget and the agreement with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center was completed, the City would begin discussion with those property owners. Mayor Torrey said regardless of what happened on the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site, planning for access to the site was extremely important, and he hoped the council would support the proposal. He did not think EWEB's location on the site represented the property's highest and best use. Mayor Torrey called for council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly commended the staff materials. He acknowledged the complexity of the issue and suggested that the hospital relocation could help both EWEB and the community accomplish their long-term goals. He expressed appreciation for the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center's willingness to make the investment, and liked that the funding for the access was tied to revenues from the hospital. He empha- sized the importance of pedestrian and bicycle access through the area. Mr. Kelly agreed with the mayor that the funding represented a planning opportunity. He believed it premature to suggest what, if anything, the City would do in terms of construction if the hospital did not locate on the site, as the access might not be suitable for another use on the site. Mr. Kelly asked for a memorandum on the status of the triangle next to the courthouse property. City Manager Taylor pointed out that the fate of the property in question was dependent to some degree on the alignment of the road. The eventual location of the steam plant was another complicating factor. Mr. Kelly said a paragraph or two would be sufficient. Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor's comments and agreed with Mr. Kelly that the subject was very complex. However, she emphasized the council's goal of having a downtown hospital so that Eugene had life-saving emergency services for the highest concentration of the City's population without the need for a bridge crossing. She appreciated the efforts of all those who had brought the proposal forward, especially the council because of its continuing support. Ms. Bettman highlighted issues of concern to her, including whether the riparian area would be transferred or purchased, and its location. She asked if there was a buffer from the river's edge, and if was the riverbank or river's edge. She suggested that area might be protected already because of the Willamette Greenway. City Manager Taylor said the riparian area was not protected by setbacks in the area that the EWEB headquarters were currently located. The City's examination would focus on which edge to purchase. He believed that the property would be purchased, although it could be protected with a conservation easement. Ms. Bettman supported buying the widest possible easement. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the vote of the EWEB commissioners in support of the sale of the property, and acknowledged they still needed to do due diligence. She thought the City's actions facilitated making the sale an easier transaction. She supported the proposal. Mr. Meisner also commended the staff materials, and thanked McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center and EWEB for their efforts as well. He acknowledged that the EWEB commissioners were in a difficult position given the many unknowns. He appreciated the hospital's willingness to advance the needed money, and agreed it was difficult to do a site plan without more information about access to the site. Mr. Meisner suggested that the City and EWEB would have made more progress with regard to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 4 Work Session property purchase had the utility fully participated in the downtown visioning and courthouse planning processes. He regretted that, because it would have been an opportunity for the community to address some of the questions that had come up in the current process. Mr. Meisner anticipated that he would support the supplemental budget request. Ms. Taylor expressed appreciation to EWEB Commissioner Dorothy Anderson for her concern about the impact of the sale on EWEB's ratepayers, who were also City taxpayers. She said that while McKenzie- Willamette Medical Center was taking a risk, the council was also taking a risk with taxpayer money. Ms. Taylor questioned why Eugene had to buy the riparian area, suggesting that the City could instead protect it through regulation. Mr. Schoening said that purchasing the property gave the City the opportunity to enhance it through a partnership with a party such as the Army Corps of Engineers. City Manager Taylor added that ownership would facilitate the City's ability to do such things as the realignment of the bicycle-pedestrian path and improved access to the riverfront. He thought the City would be the best steward of the area. Ms. Taylor did not think EWEB should be located on the Willamette River banks but she was unsure if a hospital would be a better use. She did not think the City should assume the property would be sold until EWEB made a final decision. She determined from City Manager Taylor that McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center was willing to take the risk involved in providing the funding at this time without knowing whether the project would come to fruition. City Manager Taylor said that much work had been done to bring the process to this point, and he believed that the involved parties could make the relocation of the hospital work. As work progressed, the final costs of EWEB's relocation would become clearer. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, City Manager Taylor said the source of funding for acquisition of the riparian area was yet to be determined. He anticipated storm water revenues or park systems development charge revenues could be used, and reminded Mr. Pap6 of the $500,000 in General Fund money that was set aside but not allocated to any particular element of the hospital relocation. Mr. Pap6 indicated his support for the proposal. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, City Manager Taylor said the first real estate transaction would be the City's purchase of the riparian area; McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center would purchase the remainder of the site. He hoped the transactions and costs needed to be budgeted in fiscal year 2006 would be identified in time to be included in the budget the Budget Committee would consider in spring 2005. Mr. Pap6 indicated his support for the proposal and thanked the EWEB commissioners for moving it forward. He also expressed appreciation for the good work done by staff, suggesting that it "flowed" from the "great" council work done in identifying a downtown hospital as its number one goal. He hoped the council found another goal that all could agree upon. Mayor Torrey noted that the transportation improvements would be paid for by the tax increment dollars generated by McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center. A public sector entity would pay not taxes and thus could not support the needed transportation improvements. Mayor Torrey said that he had heard members of the community suggest there were plenty of people willing to pay more for the EWEB site. He pointed out that EWEB's interest in selling the property and moving was not a secret. Those interested in acquiring the property could have approached EWEB. To MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 5 Work Session his knowledge, no other party had done so. He further pointed out that interest rates were beginning to rise, which had the effect of depressing land prices. In the absence of another buyer willing to pay more, he believed EWEB should proceed with the sale. Mayor Torrey believed that EWEB was fulfilling its fiduciary obligations to the community by taking due diligence. Mayor Torrey commended the City Manager for his work on the issue. C. ACTION: 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 The council was joined for the item by Planner Patricia Thomas of the Planning Division. Councilors declared no conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Mayor Torrey opened the floor to discussion. Mr. Kelly asked the council to focus on the approval criteria and findings for the redesignation and rezoning. In his opinion, the issue was not about the best and highest use for a particular parcel, but about whether neighborhood refinement plans would be respected or changed when there was inconvenience to a single developer. He quoted testimony from Laurel Hill Valley Citizens co-chair Jan Wostmann, who asked that the proposal be denied because it was inconsistent with the remaining portions of the refinement plan. Mr. Wostmann cited Policy 5 for the East Laurel Hill area, which stated no additional sector of the area should be designated for commercial purposes until a public need can be demonstrated. Mr. Wostmann did not believe the findings indicated a public need. Mr. Kelly said the neighborhood association was not arguing for the entire refinement plan to be reopened, but for a specific amendment to the plan related to this area (East Laurel Hill area) in light of changed circumstances. He pointed out that the majority of the commercially designated property in the area was in the same ownership as the property in question, and he believed that the property owners would appreciate a comprehensive look at all their holdings through that amendment process. He thought a solution that met all needs could be reached in a short time. Ms. Bettman did not see any public benefit or public need met by the proposal. The property owners knew the zoning of the property when they purchased it and what it could be used for. She maintained that the proposal was about one property owner maximizing a property's profit potential. However, the area residents had made a decision to invest in their homes based on what was in place in the refinement plan. She thought approval of the proposal would negatively impact those residents. Ms. Bettman suggested that a change of zoning to C-2 would allow a wide range of uses that included pornographic retail uses. If the property owner was contemplating developing the property with a motel serving travelers on the interstate highway, it was likely that, as in other locations along 1-5, it would spur development of an adult bookstore adjacent to the motel, creating a further negative impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman noted staff's comment that the City had no resources to process a refinement plan amend- ment, and if that was the case, she questioned why the City had invested money on the refinement plan to begin with. If the City did not have the resources to change the plan, she questioned why it would MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 6 Work Session circumvent it, which she perceived as a waste of the tax money invested in the refinement plan. She reiterated that the property owner was aware of the zoning when the property was purchased. Mr. Meisner indicated he would likely oppose the proposal because he also concluded it did not meet the criterion of demonstrated public need. However, he had some discomfort with the neighborhood association's recommendation for a limited study. The association recommended that "the scope of the task be defined as reexamining the geographic area included in the commercial node." He said that language presented only an opportunity to reduce the node in size, rather than the commercial applications in the area of the node. He urged that any study look at the best possible location for a commercial node, not how to reduce the size of the existing commercial node. Mr. Pap~ thought it presumptive of the council at best to suggest what the property owners want to do with their property. He believed they understood their situation and had gone through considerable expense to seek the redesignation and rezoning. He was persuaded by the Planning Commission's recommendation that the council approve the proposal. He quoted from the October 25, 2004, Planning Commission meeting minutes, where retiring commission Adell McMillan recommended the commission use the process before it rather than attempt to amend the refinement plan due to the length of time involved and because it was not practical to amend a refinement plan each time such a situation arose. Mr. Pap~ determined from City Attorney Jerome Lidz that the process and action before the council was legal. Mr. Pap~ thought the council did the community a disservice by refusing to recognize that things change. Things were changing in the area in question. Unless the council could guarantee that the refinement plan could be readily amended in a reasonable time, he thought the proposal should be approved. Ms. Taylor objected to making a change for the benefit of a single developer. She did not think the council should even be considering the issue. Ms. Nathanson said she attempted to consider the issue from a common sense perspective, and had been struck by her examination of the map of the area. The area of the request was oriented toward the freeway, not the residential part of the neighborhood. It was adjacent to commercially zoned property. Ms. Nathanson did not understand why the property in question was designated as it was because it was almost isolated. She regretted staff was unable to track the history of the designation decision as it was difficult to tell whether it was unintentional or somewhat of an oversight due to the property's isolated nature. Ms. Nathanson asked the City Attorney to what degree the council's decision had to be based on the criterion of need. Katheryn Brotherton of the City Attorney's Office indicated it was one of several criteria that the council must find were satisfied by the application. Ms. Nathanson said that several neighborhood leaders had expressed concern that the City was not proposing to amend the refinement plan. She pointed out that most refinement plans were developed when the City had money, and the City no longer had the funding for that purpose. In practical terms, it was not feasible to amend either small parts of a plan or do major updates. Ms. Solomon was also struck by the marginal nature of the property and questioned what could be done with it given that it could not be developed residentially due to the power lines on the property. She supported the proposal so the property owners could do something with the property. Ms. Solomon said she would like to see the City take another look at the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan while the development MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 7 Work Session proposal moved forward. Mayor Torrey noted Ms. Bettman's concern about adult bookstores, and asked if defeat of the proposal opened the City up to a legal challenge based on freedom of speech. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said no. Mayor Torrey thought the neighborhood leaders were making a mistake in saying refinement plans could not be challenged. If that was so, refinement plans should state so. They do not. There was nothing wrong with the proposal or the property owner bringing it forward. He believed the council's decision should be based on the findings. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the City Council a resolution to deny the applications to amend the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Land Use Map to change the designation of the subject site, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-23, Tax Lots 199, 200, and 300, from Low-Density Residential to Com- mercial, and to deny the application to change the subject site on the Eugene Zoning Map from R-1 Low-Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial. Mayor Torrey called for comments on the motion. Ms. Bettman maintained that a portion of the property could be developed with residential if it was done carefully. She was aware of a similarly constrained property that had been developed residentially. Ms. Bettman said it was not the City Council's job to ensure that residents make a profit or could maximize the value of their investment. If the property was remote or marginal, it was that way when it was bought. She did not want to set a precedent by approving a request to amend a refinement plan when it did not fill a public need only to provide a financial windfall for a property owner. The proposal did not fill a public need, it was not justified, and it would negatively impact the neighbors. Ms. Bettman said that neighbor- hoods should be able to have the predictability created by refinement plans. Mr. Kelly noted the staff statement that the City had processed site-specific refinement plan amendments over the years, but he maintained they were different from this one. In the case of the Arlie Crescent Village development, the developer worked closely with the neighborhood, and residents had subse- quently supported his proposal. He did not think the comparison was good. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly agreed any study should look beyond the area in question. He believed that residents were not opposed to commercial uses but were concerned about how they were laid out. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Pap6, Mr. Kelly said the action the council might take could be legal but it would not necessarily be right or doing the best thing for the citizens. Speaking to. Ms. Nathanson's comments, Mr. Kelly acknowledged the parcel's orientation, but the decision must be made on the criteria, and one among many was Laurel Hill Valley Policy 5. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Solomon, Mr. Kelly did not think the examination of the refinement plan could occur in parallel with the development. Speaking to the remarks of Mayor Torrey, Mr. Kelly did not interpret the neighborhood leaders' statements as saying the City should not change the refinement plans, but that they should not be changed in a piecemeal fashion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion. While he agreed there may be both a private and public benefit to the proposal, neither met the test of public need. He could not find that need was demonstrated anywhere in the proposal, and could not find a credible way to make that finding at this time. Mr. Meisner suggested the council be fair, equitable, and consistent when it came to the topic of refinement plans. He said if plans were to be respected for one neighborhood, they should be respected for all. Ms. Nathanson said it was not practical to conclude that a refinement plan amendment was needed for every development proposal. The City could not afford it. She had been inclined to support the proposal because she believed it was the practical way to accomplish what was ultimately the right thing to do. Ms. Nathanson said she had begun to be persuaded that the process could have gone differently, and perhaps approval of the motion would be a message to the community that private parties with good ideas needed to do a better j ob on their own of reaching out to neighborhoods. The City could help facilitate the process as it had done in other situations. She said she would like to support the Planning Commission's recommendation, but perhaps now was the time to send a signal to the community that because of a lack of resources, business would be done differently in the future. Mr. Pap6 determined from Ms. Thomas that the Laurel Hill Valley refinement plan was last updated in 1982. He asked about the cost of updating a refinement plan. Ms. Thomas had no cost figures at hand, but estimated a six-month time period at minimum. Planning Director Susan Muir concurred. Mr. Pap6 asked how often the City attempted to update its refinement plans. Ms. Muir said the City had not done an update in a long time. Ms. Muir added that other than the South Hills Study, no refinement plan was envisioned in the division's fiscal year 2005 work plan. Mr. Pap6 said that Ms. Nathanson's comments about the practical impediments to amending refinement plans were well-taken. He did not think that there had to be a public benefit for the City to take affirmative action on the proposal. He said private property owners have rights and the City should respect those and deal with such proposals in an expedient way. Mr. Pap6 disagreed with Ms. Bettman that the proposal would negatively impact residents, saying that was speculative. He believed that any development would benefit the public through additional tax revenues. Mr. Pap6 said if the case before the council was a watershed case, the council needed to consider it carefully, as refinement plans were not keeping pace with the City's growth. He asked what the process for recognizing the realities of real estate dynamics was, if not this one. Mayor Torrey questioned if the council's passage of the motion had Ballot Measure 37 implications. Mr. Lidz said no. Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments. Mr. Kelly supported the motion but did not want it to be the end of the matter. He hoped the neighbor- hood association would collaborate with the property owners and the City to work through the issues. The change he envisioned would be an amendment to the refinement plan similar to this, but in a broader context. Addressing Mr. Papb's remarks, Mr. Kelly said that many residents believe the proposal would negatively impact them, as demonstrated by the unanimous opposition of the neighborhood association to the proposal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman said that there was a refinement plan amendment process in place. She did not think the age of a refinement plan negated its value. Some neighborhoods had none at all, and the residents of those areas would like one. She said as long as the refinement plan was in place, it should be respected. Regarding the subject of refinement plan updates, she recalled that she had discussed the issue with former City Manager Jim Johnson, who had suggested targeted updates of small neighborhood areas on an as-needed basis, which would be more cost-effective that a full update. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Pap6 voting no. D. ACTION: 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) Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to adopt Resolution 4816 approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 979 Patterson Street, Eugene. Mr. Lidz briefly noted changes in Attachment A of the agenda item summary made since the public hearing. Ms. Bettman, with the concurrence of Ms. Nathanson, the second to the motion, incorporated new Attachment A into the motion. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments. Ms. Bettman asked if the numbers provided by the developer were verified independently. Mr. Weinman said yes. He said the numbers provided were very reasonable and corresponded both to the City's own experience and to a survey released that day by the local firm of Duncan & Brown. Ms. Bettman referred to the information provided by Mr. von Klein regarding Hilyard House and asked Mr. Weinman for more information about his assertion that the structure was built to the original specifications. Mr. Weinman said changes were made as a result of City regulations but those were largely interior. Ms. Bettman indicated her opposition to the motion. She said that the City has plenty of rental housing in the area and she did not see a public need to give tax forgiveness to such a project. She said the Consolidated Plan for Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield identified the need to increase the rental supply of permanent affordable housing enhancing shelter support services for homeless households and increasing the supply of transitional and permanent housing for specialized populations. The tax exemption would not accomplish any of those goals. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion, pointing out the proposal involved the conversion and development of a surface parking lot in downtown Eugene into quality housing, which was precisely what the City's Growth Management Study policies encouraged. He said that the City's policies called for it to assist such development as well. He thought the proposal a perfect use for the area and noted the neighborhood residents worked with the developer on certain design elements, which was important to him. Mr. Meisner appreciated the fact the City's legal counsel deemed the conditions of development were enforceable. He was pleased to see the proposal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Kelly thanked legal counsel for his efforts in making the changes now before the council. It was important to him that the design elements were included. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments about the Growth Management Study policies, Mr. Kelly said certain areas within each neighborhood are more amenable and less amenable to higher densities. He thought the site in question was very much amenable to higher densities as it was not surrounded by single-family houses and was located off a major street. Mr. Kelly agreed that affordable housing was a City goal, but he pointed out the City had approved property tax exemptions for housing that was not low-income to meet various other goals. Ms. Solomon expressed support for the motion. She expressed concern about the council "picking and choosing" design features on an application-by-application basis and asked if that was allowed. However, she was supportive of what was before the council given that the developer had presented it. City Manager Taylor said that the materials clarified what the developer proposed and the resolution codified the proposal. Mr. Lidz said it would be legal for the council to impose the condition as a condition of the benefit. Mr. Pap6 concurred with the remarks of other councilors in support of the motion. He said the resolution guaranteed the City would get what the developer applied to build. He noted the risk that accompanies development of apartment units, as no return was guaranteed and the developer could face substantial personal liability. Ms. Taylor saw no benefit to the community from the development. She thought it could be a perfectly good development but questioned why the City should support it or guarantee the developers a profit. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Noting that there was time remaining in the work session and a full agenda for the regular meeting, Mayor Torrey called on the Council President for a motion regarding the Consent Calendar. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calen- dar. Mayor Torrey noted that Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly had submitted corrections to the minutes earlier, and deemed them accepted as submitted. Ms. Bettman pulled Item D, the Legislative Policies Document. Mr. Pap6 pulled Item C, a resolution authorizing the sale of electric utility bonds. The remainder of the Consent Calendar, with the exception of items C and D, passed unanimously. Speaking to Item C, Mr. Pap6 determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that the money would be used for thc Carmen Smith facility reauthorization. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Taylor objected to addressing the pulled items at this time and moved to table the remaining items. Her motion received no second. Item C passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table Item D until January 10, 2005. Mr. Kelly pointed out the document needed to get to the legislature and its staff before it convened early in January 2005. He opposed the motion to table, and did not think there were many issues for the council to work through. Mr. Pap~ concurred. Ms. Bettman was willing to move forward on the entire document if the council tabled her concern, which was Item C(4) and the recommendation related to urban growth boundary exchanges. City Manager Taylor suggested that the council delete the areas of concern and move forward with the document. Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion to table. Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to delete the proposed policy and recom- mendation on urban growth boundary swaps on page 234 of the document. Mr. Kelly said there had been some e-mail discussion of the issue earlier that day, and while he tended to support the language in question he was willing to strike it at this time. Mr. Meisner agreed. He said the statement in question was a limited statement of policy. It might well address an issue that might not come up, and if it did, the committee could address it. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Meisner commended the work of Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser on the document. Item D passed as amended, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 12 Work Session ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall December 6, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner, Gary Pap6, Nancy Nathanson. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He explained that the agenda had been adjusted to ensure that all of the public hearings would be held. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. John Brown, 1260 Charnelton Street, speaking on behalf of himself, thanked the outgoing Mayor and councilors for all of their work. He stressed that people speaking in the Public Forum were testifying because they cared about the community. He said people live in Eugene because it was a great place through "no small result of the efforts" of the City Council. He conveyed his gratitude to those who were leaving and for those who agreed to continue conducting the affairs of City government. Gary Nauta, 2300 Oakmont Way, President of the Eugene Fire Fighters' Association, wished to remind the council as it proceeded into the next budget cycle that the Valley River fire station remained without an engine company. He called the situation an "unacceptable risk" to the taxpayers of Eugene. He recalled that Fire Chief Tom Tallon presented a memorandum to the City Council on December 3, 2003, which conveyed the findings of the Standards of Coverage Document and unambiguously stated that elimination of the engine company at that station increased response time in that area to an unacceptable level. He reiterated the fire union's concurrence with the findings. He noted that Councilor Pap6 had moved to instruct staff to bring funding options for the engine company for the fiscal year (FY) 20005 budget process and the motion had passed unanimously, 8:0, at the same December 3 meeting. He said he was curious as to what those options were, given that the budget cycle for FY06 was about to begin. He underscored that restoration of funding for the Valley River engine company was the number one priority for both the Eugene Fire and Emergency Services Department and the union. David Itelton, 878 Glory Street, a member of the Community Center for the Performing Arts (CCPA) which operates the WOW Hall, reiterated the CCPA's desire to purchase the gravel lot behind the WOW Hall from the City. He noted that the City received one proposal, among others, that would use two parking spots in that lot. He said this proposal would eliminate the WOW Hall's ability to bring in busses and trucks belonging to performing artists and would threaten the viability of the hall as an entertainment venue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 1 Regular Session Mr. Helton repeated CCPA concerns regarding potential noise conflicts that could arise between a residential structure and the hall. He encouraged the City to work with the hall, as it was an existing use. Ellen Ityman, 3863 Dorchester Lane, spoke regarding the proposed land swap in Santa Clara. She said she assumed that the intention of the urban growth boundary (UGB) was to encourage smart growth and to control urban sprawl. She asserted that having the boundary forced officials, developers, and citizens to carefully consider decisions that could have irreversible repercussions. She understood changes to the UGB in the Santa Clara area were not slated to be considered until 2017. As such, she was deeply concerned that changing the UGB to benefit developers and city coffers at the expense of area residents set a bad precedent. She referred to an Eco-Northwest report, which alleged that the City would lose the ability to regulate development at the Laurel Hill site with the land swap. Ms. Hyman said it took 500 years to make one inch of top soil. She questioned the wisdom of sacrificing good farmland. Ms. Hyman remarked that it seemed the McDougal land swap was a "done deal" and had been in the works for years. She thought it looked "underhanded." She suggested the City purchase the Santa Clara Elementary School site for park development instead. She noted that, should the land swap go through, there would be no funding for park amenities. Additionally, she questioned the wisdom of having staff create a parks survey for area residents. She submitted her testimony in writing. Vanessa Fadjo, 26904 High Pass Road, spoke on behalf of the Santa Clara Committee for Sensible Parks and Open Spaces (SCCSPOS). She acknowledged that she did not live by the land proposed to be swapped for land in the City and developed, but felt it was a move "in the wrong direction." She explained that she was working to become a local, small-scale farmer, having chosen this area of the country because of rich agricultural land and the strength of the locally grown food movement. She had been shocked to learn that the UGB would be altered 12 years earlier than scheduled in order to allow development on Class 1 soils. She thought the loss of this much farm land would set a "scary precedent." She had personally experienced the frustration of coaxing fertility out of lesser soils. She opined that covering prime soils with a housing development outside the UGB would circumvent State planning goals. She referred to Goal 14, which determined that no development should occur on Class 1 soils unless less desirable soil was not available. Ms. Fadjo added that, although she could not speak to the proposed 77-acre park personally, she had met with many Santa Clara residents through her work in the SCCSPOS and none were willing to agree to such a park if it included a 1,000 home development. She stated that the committee's petition now had over 900 signatures in opposition to the development. Randall J. Collis, 2176 Prestwich Place, stated that he had been chairman of the Board of the Oregon Festival of American Music (OFAM) for six years. He related that the OFAM Board had been discussing the potential outright purchase of the Shedd Auditorium, formerly the Baptist Church. He said the purchase would include the parking lot on 8th Avenue and High Street. It had been brought to the attention of the OFAM Board that the City had indicated interest in developing the parking lot as part of its Great Streets project. He stressed the importance of the parking lot to the purchase as OFAM wished to expand its Oregon Music Institute. He noted that the board and City staff had discussed possible alternatives and had not found one that was mutually agreeable at this point. He conveyed that the OFAM Board would only be open to contiguous land swaps. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 2 Regular Session Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, expressed his unhappiness in the City's decision to use tax dollars to "subsidize the profit-making hospital." He felt a move to the Eugene Water & Electric Board site would ultimately result in the ratepayers subsidizing the move. He opined that the EWEB headquarters would be better used for a City Hall. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, thought the Prisoner Of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) flag should fly year-round on top of Skinner's Butte and not just on holidays. Mr. Vishanoff shared that he had participated in planning sessions regarding the EWEB site and no one had suggested locating a large hospital at the site. He thought the hospital move would benefit from more citizen input. Mr. Vishanoff suggested the City inventory Eugene's empty storefronts. Mr. Vishanoff opposed razing either the Civic Stadium or the old Agate School. He recommended the new University of Oregon (UO) arena should include design input from students and members of the public. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, related that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had produced its West Eugene Parkway (WEP) evaluation report. He said the report indicated that the cost had nearly doubled to $169 million. He averred that the report also indicated that nearly twice the original estimate of wetlands acreage would have to be mitigated, that an interchange would be built instead of an intersection, and that maintenance of the WEP east of the Beltline Road would fall onto the shoulders of the City. He opined that little remained the same from the old plan. He felt it merited a new discussion, especially given that the parkway was "$152 million short." He noted that Mayor Torrey had called Beltline Road the City's #1 transportation funding need at a council meeting in September. He asked the councilors to consider how their constituents felt about transportation needs. He commended the Mayor for the good deeds he had done for the children of the City. He asked the Mayor if his legacy would be that of"saddling the community with a $169 million boondoggle." Dave Hunt, 6208 North Ensign Street, Portland, spoke regarding the proposal to deepen the Columbia River Channel. He acknowledged that it was not an immediate concern of the City, though Lane County was the third largest user of the channel in the State of Oregon. He reported that every $1 invested in deepening the channel from 40 to 43 feet deep would result in a $1.66 savings to local farmers. He underscored that the project had passed all of its environmental reviews and State funding from both Oregon and Washington had been appropriated. He said the last piece to fall into place was the federal funding and expressed hope that the City Council would join many cities in passing a resolution in support of the project. He averred the project would help to keep the local economy viable in a world market. Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and called on the council for responses and comments. Councilor Pap6 thanked everyone for testifying, especially given that it was a wet night. He agreed with comments made by Councilor Kelly regarding the need for park parity in the Santa Clara area. Noting that a community park would need approximately 40 acres, he welcomed proposals from those opposed to the current proposal. He said the Santa Clam Elementary School property was not large enough to meet the needs of the community for a park. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 3 Regular Session Councilor Pap6 supported reestablishment of the engine company for Station 9. Councilor Taylor concurred with the remarks of Councilor Pap& Regarding the request from the OFAM Board, Councilor Taylor asked if staff was working on the item. Additionally, she conveyed her hope that the City would work to protect the cultural asset to the community that the WOW Hall represented. She commented that such cultural assets were part of a good downtown. Councilor Taylor supported protection of the farmland outside of Santa Clara as it was important to the future of the community. Councilor Kelly thanked everyone for taking the time to speak to the council. Regarding the requests by OFAM and the WOW Hall, he said he was nervous that the City would be faced with the situation wherein one community good won out over another community good. As he had served on the Housing Policy Board (HPB), he recognized the need for low-income housing. He asked staff to look into ways to meet the needs of both the City's projects and the needs of the performing arts organizations. Councilor Kelly conveyed his distress that no funding alternatives had been found for Station 9. Continuing, Councilor Kelly requested copies of the ODOT report on the WEP. Councilor Solomon asked for more details on the OFAM issue. Regarding the WEP, Councilor Solomon noted that her ward, Ward 6, and the City had voted in support of the WEP twice. She asked opponents to respect that vote and redirect their energies to other issues in the City of which there was no shortage. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for coming down and providing input. She opined that staff was working at cross-purposes regarding the WOW Hall. She had thought that the council had provided direction that the WOW Hall should not be impacted. Regarding the OFAM request, she thought another site should be found for courthouse parking. Councilor Bettman asked that copies of the WEP reevaluation report be provided prior to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting scheduled for December 9. Councilor Bettman agreed that Santa Clara needed a park, but opined that this goal could be met without the proposed land swap. She asserted that 30 percent of the j ob growth in the region had been attributed to agriculture. Mayor Torrey recommended to the City Manager that fimding be found for the engine company at Station 9. Regarding comments about the EWEB site, Mayor Torrey clarified that EWEB paid no property taxes. He thought a hospital would pay taxes that would be used for transportation improvements that the hospital needed. He noted that using the EWEB site for a new City Hall would mean that the property would continue to pay no taxes. He remained convinced that the highest and best use of the property was not as EWEB's manufacturing or industrial site. He thought the building could be used for any number of MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 4 Regular Session reasons, but hoped that unanimous support of the City Council and the agreement of the EWEB Board meant the hospital project would move forward. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes October 25, 2004, Work Session October 27, 2004, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Resolution 4817 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Electric Utility System Revenue Bonds in the Aggregate Principal Amount Not to Exceed $15,400,000 for the Purposes of Financing Electric Utility D. Adoption of 2005 Legislative Policies Document E. Appointment to the Police Commission The City Council approved the Consent Calendar during the earlier work session. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Cell Towers, and Amending Section 9.9750 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mayor Torrey explained that this was a continuation of a public hearing opened on November 22, 2004. City Manager Dennis Taylor asked City Attorney Jerry Lidz to provide a brief overview of the topic. Mr. Lidz stated that in April 2004, the City Council asked staff to come back with amendments to the Cell Tower Citing Ordinance. He highlighted the amendments, noting they were delineated in the agenda packet. Mayor Torrey outlined the procedure for testimony. He opened the public hearing. Dave Barta, 1244 Walnut Street, director of Telecommunications Services for the University of Oregon, conveyed the University's concern that setback provisions in the ordinance, could inadvertently have a negative impact on Wi-Fi and WiMax wireless technologies that were "about to burst on the scene." He explained that Wi-Fi was the short-range wireless internet connectivity service found in airports, some coffee shops, some 4J School District classrooms, and in some areas of the UO campus. He noted that all new laptop computers come with Wi-Fi installed. He further explained that WiMax was the "outside" version of Wi-Fi. He said a density of one or two per block could blanket an area with Broadband and any subscriber with a laptop could easily access it. He underscored the importance of this use to the University as it allowed students and faculty to access course management systems, streaming video, and online research and email, which had fast become an important component of the higher education teaching model at the UO and its competitor institutions. Mr. Barta noted that more than 80 percent of the students lived off campus. He thought Wi-Fi and WiMax technologies would provide internet connectivity to all students. He explained that the code as proposed would dictate that every installation of Wi-Fi and WiMax facilities that could not be located on an MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 5 Regular Session existing pole would require a variance. He predicted the additional process and expense could delay or prevent entirely the implementation of this technology in significant parts of the community. In closing, Mr. Barta stressed that RF radiation issues were related to placement of antennae and not cell towers. He said attempting to take this into account would require a more comprehensive change in the code than presented in the ordinance. He conveyed the general support of the University for the City's assessment of sufficient fees to evaluate the coverage needs of applicants and said it would welcome a review of the city's overarching wireless coverage needs. Douglas P. Evans, 1500 Northeast Irving Street, Portland, director of development for Team Mobile Wireless, submitted a letter to the City Council outlining the reasons he thought the proposed changes to the ordinance were fundamentally flawed. He stated that industry representatives would favor the proposal that was forwarded by the Planning Commission. He called the ordinance before the council a "continuation of the piecemeal approach" and predicted that it would cause further problems in time. He felt the wireless industry had been singled out for onerous, expensive, and time-consuming regulation that was not applied to similarly situated providers, though it had invested over $5 million in the community. He commented that the wireless industry was required to pay to prove no harm every time it needed to make a change. Ron Fowler, 6940 Southwest Dale Avenue, Beaverton, consultant for Cingular Wireless, expressed support for the recommendation from the Planning Commission and support for postponement of further amendments. He thought the ordinance as currently presented was difficult for staff to apply and difficult for the industry to comply with. He conveyed the willingness on the part of industry representatives to participate on a task force with concerned neighbors and Planning staff to review it and come up with a good and workable code. He asserted that wireless phones were rapidly replacing home phones and with this change would come the need for more neighborhood cell facilities. He noted that many cities embraced the location of communication sites on school grounds and home properties. He did not agree with the setbacks as proposed. He opined that everyone would win with a good code, but that the code as proposed was a "bad one." He remarked that wireless representatives were not the "villains" but were merely representing the communication method of the future. Michael Smith, 685 Trail Avenue, of Silke Communications, asked the council to take into consideration the recommendation that came from the Planning Commission. He recommended a "total rewrite" of the ordinance as proposed. He also suggested the ordinance be closely scrutinized in order to avoid possible invocation of any Measure 37 claims. Ed Fournier, 25977 Southwest Canyon Creek Road, Wilsonville, consultant for Verizon Wireless, concurred with previous testimony. He supported a full rewrite of the code, specifically with regard to setbacks, as proposed setbacks would effectively prohibit most providers from expanding. He averred that the underlying concems upon which the proposed setbacks were founded had never been outlined. As such, he surmised the setbacks resulted from concerns for health. He reiterated that the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act had prohibited this concern from being included in part of the basis for denial. He also concurred that putting a variance procedure into place would lead to the variance procedure becoming the rule and not the exception. He stated that Oregon did not have a State Radio Frequency Engineer. He thought the best action for the community, the industry, and citizens would be the formation of a task force. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 6 Regular Session Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, thought passage of the ordinance would not succeed in keeping the telecommunications situation under control. He felt the hospital building alone would deploy "all sorts of state of the art equipment." He thought the community had provided input. He supported getting an independent expert to provide input. He opined that the City was doing "way too little" and that "electro- smog" was an emerging issue. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, averred that a healthy economy arose from healthy neighborhoods. He said often a property owner's only investment was in his or her home. He suggested deploying a less stringent setback and eliminating the variance procedure. He supported having an independent technical review of applications. He said, in all fairness, the impact on the livability of neighborhoods, potential impacts on health, and the potential burden to taxpayers and their investments must be considered. Mona Lindstromberg, 87140 Territorial Road, Veneta, recalled that she and Martha Johnson had submitted a comprehensive review of the current cell tower code on October 2, 2002, including their suggestion for a model ordinance. She said after reviewing the minutes from the hearing on the Planning Commission she looked back in her own research to determine the genesis of the 1,000 foot setback for cell towers from schools. She provided an email to staff from the Planning Director from Concord, Massachusetts as well as its current telecommunications bylaws. She thought the bylaws did much to lay the foundation for process and rationale for its regulations. Ms. Lindstromberg felt the setbacks from homes and schools and meaningful use of the independent technical review provision would provide a "quick fix" to the ordinances governing cell tower placement that the City Council sought. However, she said the proposed variance procedure would require due diligence by Planning staff to ensure the needs of neighbors most impacted would be served. She related that she asked the City to approve the change from 'may' to 'shall' regarding independent review and to incorporate a section similar to that of Concord, Massachusetts, regarding documentation needed for technical review of an application. She asserted that there were independent radio frequency engineers available via the internet. She noted that the 4J School District already had a setback rule. She submitted testimony in writing. Ms. Lindstromberg cited a court case from Hillsboro, Oregon, in which the City had been able to write stringent rules regarding cell tower placement. Martha Johnson, 110 East Hilliard Lane, related that she and her neighbors had spent more than two years and several thousand dollars fighting the placement of a cell tower in their River Road neighborhood. She said she had a 100-foot tower within 150 feet of her house. She did not want other homeowners to face the same fight with the same outcome. She asserted that the current code left homeowners in mixed-use areas vulnerable to property devaluation, which was why she sought setbacks in the code. She felt allowing a variance rendered the setbacks meaningless. She noted that the City Attorney and the Planning Commission concurred that the variance would likely become a standard path taken to place a cell tower. She had thought the 800-foot number for a setback would be negotiated down. She sought to have a meaningful setback without a variance provision that gave the industry the green light to site towers anywhere in town. She wished the telecommunications industry would work as hard to be a good neighbor as it did to maximize its profits. Ms. Johnson approved of the independent technical review. She felt a lack of independent review would present conflicts of interest. She supported returning the ordinance to the Planning Commission for a comprehensive rewrite. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 7 Regular Session Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, president of Friends of Eugene, said he was a customer of the wireless industry. He felt one could look around the City of Eugene and see the negative visual impacts of cell towers. He recommended passage of a version of these amendments with strict setbacks and requirements for independent review that would "hold the fort" and maintain the interests of the community while the ordinance was reviewed and comprehensively revised. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and opened the floor for council questions and comments. Councilor Nathanson said she was most concerned that there was not specific evidence indicating that citizens opposed wireless services. In fact, she observed, residents of the City of Eugene wanted the services. She indicated she would have liked to have seen a concise summary as to what the shortcomings of local wireless coverage were if such evidence was available. She noted there were "dead zones" in the city. Mr. Lidz responded that such shortcomings were unknown. Councilor Nathanson said the existing ordinance worked to encourage collocation of wireless services on cell towers. She asked if there had been any disagreement that the ordinance had worked in this capacity. Planning Division Manager, Susan Muir, replied that it had worked. , Councilor Papfi asked if cell towers presented health and safety issues. Councilor Nathanson reiterated that municipal governments were barred from considering health and safety concerns in regulations as it was the specific domain of the FCC. Councilor Pap~ surmised that the real issue was the esthetic degradation of neighborhoods. He wondered if the ordinance would force antennae to observe the setback. He could not support the ordinance as it was written. Councilor Pap~ asked if the ordinance would raise issues related to Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Lidz responded that it was possible, depending on circumstances. Councilor Kelly suggested the council explore a shorter setback with no variances. He did not think adequate consideration could be given to defining the setback prior to December 8. He clarified, for Councilor Pap~, that the ordinance was specific to cell towers and did not apply to antennae. Councilor Kelly did not interpret the code as mandating technical review. He stated that the council had asked for this requirement and asked for clarification. To him, it seemed the ordinance only directed who should pay for such review. He supported a broader review of the ordinances governing cell towers. In closing, Councilor Kelly said he had not previously heard that the ordinance would affect Wi-Fi and WiMax services. He asked staff to speak to this at a later date. Councilor Bettman echoed Councilor Kelly's comments. She requested staff to reword Section 11 so that it was clear that the technical review was a requirement in every case. She also asked that a motion be crafted to circumscribe the changes that should be made. She thought Councilor Nathanson's comments were succinct, especially regarding the identification of capacity gaps. She averred that the council did not speak of the cell towers in terms of health issues, but rather focused largely on the effects that cell towers would have on property values. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 8 Regular Session Councilor Meisner, responding to comments made that suggested drive-through fast food restaurants and gas stations were not subject to the same regulations as cell towers, said many neighborhoods would likely support regulating the location of such businesses. Councilor Meisner noted that the council had discussed the Planning Division work plan and the staff limitations of that division. He pointed out that Option 3 included a high-priority work program on this issue with full funding and asked for a sense of what was being proposed. He wanted to know what the work program was comprised of and what it would cost. Councilor Meisner remarked that he had spent time in Concord, Massachusetts, and observed that Concord was geographically compact and surrounded by other communities and should it ban outright the placement of cell towers if would not likely lose any coverage. He asked staff to look into the comparability of the cities of Eugene and Concord. Councilor Nathanson commented that some public agencies and cities actively encourage the placement of towers on public property as it was a revenue source. Councilor Bettman asked, regarding the regulation of interference for public safety purposes, if the federal government did a "good j ob" and whether there were problems with interference with public safety radios. Mr. Lidz said he was relatively certain there were no problems. City Manager Taylor added that there were no complaints from the Police and Fire departments during his tenure. Councilor Bettman opined that it would have been better to have another work session on the item in order for the council to be apprised of the issues and allow for better discussion in order to provide staff better direction to modify the provisions. City Manager Taylor responded that the council had given specific directions for what information was needed and this was the information before the council. Mayor Torrey commented that the people who own the airways were protective of that right and were vociferous to the FCC when encroached upon. He did not think it merited concern on the part of the council. Mayor Torrey called for a break at 9:02 p.m. The council reconvened at 9:10 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer's Business Licenses; and Amending Sections 3.467, 3.474, 3.480, 3.483, and 3.484 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Taylor explained this was a subject that had been under considerable discussion and staff would be available to respond to questions after thc hearing. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Jeff Green, 2111 West 12th Avenue, Apartment 12, provided neutral testimony. He instructed the councilors, should they ultimately approve thc ordinance, to spend the money well by testing the soils and base rock underneath roads and building roads that would endure for longer. Hc explained that he had been a laboratory technician working with soils who had tested many of thc local streets of Eugene and Springfield. He said Eugene streets were built for a 15-year life, using T-99, while Springfield used the T- MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 9 Regular Session 180 process which provided a 20-year life. He related that he spoke with a City of Eugene engineer and the engineer indicated he did not know why the T-99 process was being employed. He opposed "throwing money" into building streets for the shorter term. He suggested the City use concrete, which provided streets with a 50-year life. He admonished the City to fix the streets properly. Murphy McHugh, 1848 Russet Drive, explained that he was a gasoline station owner. He related that the last gas tax caused him to lose 10 to 15 percent of his business, which resulted in loss of employment and reductions in hours for his employees. He pointed out that many people from rural communities came to the City of Eugene to shop and would fill their gas tanks up prior to leaving. He predicted the increase in gas tax would force those people to purchase gasoline in Springfield and other communities. He suggested charging. 1 percent to all of the businesses in Eugene, rather than singling out the gas stations. He projected that another increase in the gas tax would force him to let another employee go. Jozef Zdzienicki, 1025 Taylor Street, submitted a letter of testimony from his "mate." He provided three examples of alleged misuse of public money for council consideration, as follows: 1) In July 2002, four Public Works employees poured 100 square feet of concrete for four hours for the owner of the Chambers house. He shared that he and his boss had poured 600 square feet of slab with two sets of stairs in it on that same day. 2) In September, 2002, while relandscaping a yard at 23rd Avenue and Agate Street, two employees of the Division of Parks and Open Space would visit for 45-minutes and then would utilize leaf blowers for 10 minutes at the park across the street. He witnessed this twice a week for the three and a half weeks he worked on the landscaping project. 3) In February 2004, nine Public Works employees with seven vehicles poured 60 feet of sidewalk near East Amazon Street and were present for an entire morning. He asked the council to "set its house in order" prior to taxing the public more. Aaron Johnson, 2672 Canterbury Street, opined that a government that stopped working for its people was no longer a government for the people but a government that "enslaved its people" for its own benefit and growth. He felt the City continued to ask for money though people keep saying no to taxes. He said, as a manager, he was bound by a budget and the City should be, too. Mr. Johnson stated that only three independent gas stations were left. He related that he employed 22 people in 2003, but had to lay off three in 2004. Should the ordinance be approved, he predicted he would be forced to lay off more employees. He opined that excessive fees were killing the small station operators. He felt the City provided tax breaks to developers for a "failed downtown" and managed to find $28 million to be spent on a police station. He said the current taxes took $300 per day from his business. He felt this drove 10 percent of his business away. He agreed the fee had a "noble cause" attached to it, but opined it would be a burden that would result in the death of unskilled j obs. Steve O'Toole, 7070 Southwest Fir Loop, Suite 150, Tigard, executive director of the Petroleum Association of Oregon, primarily representing small, independent Oregon businesses involved in commercial and retail petroleum sales, conveyed the organization's opposition to the gas taxes. He stated that the association would support an equitable system on the State level that would provide continuous jurisdiction between local entities. He underscored that local competitive factors affected the purchasing habits of the motoring public. He predicted that Eugene drivers would go elsewhere to purchase gasoline should the ordinance be passed and would hurt not only the local gasoline proprietors, but the city and its residents. He thought the ordinance was not a solution and would only set up a perpetual vicious cycle of ever-increasing tax needs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 10 Regular Session Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce's conditional support of the ordinance. He agreed the City needed to address its backlog of maintenance projects. However, he acknowledged that finding consensus on how to pay for the $94 million backlog had presented a challenge. He stated that the chamber, faced with a choice of standing aside and doing nothing or supporting an increase in the local motor vehicle fuel tax, would offer its tepid support for the ordinance. The chamber felt it imperative that the City ordinance have an 80-percent refund for diesel users consistent with that of the City of Springfield~ that the revenue from the tax be restricted to street maintenance and preservation between the curbs and nothing else~ and third, street maintenance must be contracted out to the private sector to insure the best use of the money. Additionally, he said the chamber's support was conditioned on City leaders demonstrating their commitment to addressing the backlog problem by redirecting resources from lower priority services and lobbying Congress for the reauthorization of Lane County's federal forest payments. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, did not think the tax was needed. He pointed out that the gas tax would be incorporated into the cost of food, as people would use motorized vehicles to transport it. He predicted poor families would be forced to spend more on gasoline for their cars and less on food. Mr. Vishanoff expressed concern that the University of Oregon's proposed arena project would greatly increase wear on local streets. He also suggested that Lane Transit District (LTD) buses damaged roads and should spend more money to preserve them. Mr. Vishanoff reiterated his concerns regarding smart growth and suggested that local roads would be governed by a "super surveillance system." E. W. Walton, 2427 Adams Street, said the last increase in fuel costs forced his wife and him to plan their travel and also to purchase an electric scooter. He testified that should this tax be enacted he would shop in the city of Springfield to save money. He predicted the tax would place the approximately 30 service stations of Eugene in jeopardy. He suggested the City use some of the $28 million earmarked for a new police station for road maintenance. In closing, he provided a list of current fuel prices for the cities of Eugene and Springfield. David G. Hinkley, 1350 Lawrence Street, Apartment 1, opposed the ordinance. He said Eugene service stations would no longer be competitive with the outlying communities. He agreed that transportation maintenance was a problem and recommended the council revisit the transportation system maintenance fee. He reminded the council that it had adopted such a fee but repealed it prior to collecting any of the revenue because of opposition from the business community. He felt the fee should be established at approximately $1 per trip for both businesses and residents. Rick Mikesell, 3015 Salem Avenue Southeast, Albany, a regional distributor of petroleum products, registered his opposition to the ordinance as it would place Eugene service stations at a competitive disadvantage compared to the other communities in the area. He predicted the City would drive such small businesses outside of the city limits. He pointed out that the ordinance also asked service stations to be a tax collector and said taxes, when paid with a credit card, would cost the service stations to collect. He estimated that this ordinance would cost the average service station owner one-third of his or her gross profit. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 11 Regular Session Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, president of the Friends of Eugene, said his organization supported funding mechanisms that connected transportation to its users. He felt the City was pressing ahead with the West Eugene Parkway although the State had indicated that some of the maintenance costs would be assigned to the City. He said the Friends of Eugene could not accept a gas tax as part of a rational transportation funding process. Ron Tyree, 4000 Spring Boulevard, was owner of Tyree Oil, a local company that provided over 50 jobs. He objected to the inclusion of diesel fuel in the ordinance, although he appreciated the need to improve roads. He said his company was the only oil distributor located within the City limits of Eugene. He related that he paid $100,000 per year in Public Utility Commission road mile taxes for his trucks, which equated to 58 cents per gallon for State taxes alone on top of the 24-cent federal tax. He felt this was his fair share. He stated that while his trucks did five percent of the driving in Eugene, 95 percent of the fuel was purchased there and he was paying the three-cent-per-gallon City gas tax on it. He thought more tax could potentially drive his business to relocate or, at the very least, to purchase fuel in Springfield. He opined that taxes to fund road improvements should not overburden one type of business. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and called for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Kelly asked staff to clarify whether the existing code exempted bio-diesel fuel. He was also unclear as to whether Mr. Tyree was referring to the fuel he was transporting or to the fuel the trucks themselves burned. He was a little confused by the requests for exemption for diesel fuel. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Green's testimony and asked staff for a memorandum regarding paving standards. He also appreciated Mr. Mikesell's testimony regarding competitors in the two different cities but within close proximity of one another. He emphasized the need to find a way to improve the roads. Councilor Bettman opposed the ordinance. She underscored her sense that what was needed was fiscal discipline. She reiterated that systems development charges (SDCs) were "artificially low" causing road tax money to be spent on new roads. Councilor Bettman asked if the subcommittee looked at concrete road construction and its maintenance and also what it would cost to restore such a road after tearing it up for repairs. Noting that the chamber representative had suggested the City take funding from its lower priority services to fund road maintenance, Councilor Bettman said she would like to see a list of the services the chamber thought to be low priority. Councilor Bettman requested that staff verify the 80-percent figure cited by Mr. Connolly in his testimony regarding the City of Springfield's reimbursement for diesel fuels. Additionally, Councilor Bettman asked staff to provide a "ballpark estimate" of what portion of the list of road projects the council was slated to approve on December 8 included "flexible" funding. She averred the Monroe/Friendly bike path project was funded by "flexible" funding that could have been channeled into maintenance and preservation. Mayor Torrey conveyed his opposition to the elimination of the transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF), rescinded earlier in the year. He felt it should have been put to a vote of the people in order to provide the citizens with the opportunity to discuss the importance of the transportation backlog. He said the council had pulled the TSMF with the understanding that the County and the Eugene Area Chamber of MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 12 Regular Session Commerce were going to work with the City of Eugene to "fill the whole." He opined that the proposed gas tax would not accomplish much. He recommended the City "go back to the drawing board" and ask the County for some of its Road Fund money. He underscored that the City had gone to Congress every year and asked for support for road funding and asked that it be shared equitably between the City and the County. He averred that the road quality within the City limits should be as good as the roads outside of the City limits were. He reiterated that, should transportation truly be a high priority, the Budget Committee and the City Council should be willing to take money from the General Fund in order to backfill the gap. He said roads must be kept moving for the citizens of Eugene, but the gas tax would only serve to make service stations in Eugene unable to compete with those of Springfield. Mayor Torrey closed the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 9:54 p.m. Mayor Torrey opened the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency of Eugene. 5. ACTION: Resolution 1032 Authorizing Execution of a Design Finance Agreement Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to adopt Resolution 1032 authorizing execution of a Design Finance Agreement. City Manager Taylor stated that the resolution created the ability for the City to move forward with the loan to expedite the design work on the Patterson Street underpass. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Cutsogeorge assured him that any changes in the criteria would be brought before the council. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 1033 Adopting a Supplemental Budget: Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004, and Ending June 30, 2005 Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, president of the Friends of Eugene, spoke in opposition to the resolution as he felt there had been a lack of transparency in the process. He opined that the appropriations were potential subsidies for a private institution on "prime land." He commented that citizen input had indicated opposition to such development on the riverfront. Mayor Torrey, noting it was 9:59 p.m., asked the Council President to provide a motion to extend the time. Councilor Bcttman, seconded by Councilor Pap6, moved to extend the time long enough to complete the present agenda item. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 13 Regular Session David G. Hinkley, 1350 Lawrence Street, Apartment 1, objected to the Mayor Torrey's earlier comment that EWEB paid no property taxes. He pointed out that EWEB paid a six-percent contribution in lieu of tax (CILT) to the City. He felt that, should the City feel this was insignificant, he would prefer as a ratepayer not to pay it. He opined that spending money on design work prior to the certificate of need process was "putting the cart before the horse." He recommended the City wait until there was a proposal on the table. He said there was no guarantee at this point that there would be a hospital. He averred that the hospital should pay for such improvements and should not be subsidized by the City. He thought it contradictory that the City had money for this project but was seeking an increase in the gas tax to pay for road maintenance. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, felt that the council had time to discuss urban renewal with the public. He felt it was linked to "smart growth" like the gentrification of the City of Portland. He called the project "corporate welfare." City Manager Taylor clarified that the supplemental budget had simple transactions: $400,000 to demolish the Sears building, $245,000 for eligible projects in the urban renewal district, and a loan from McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center which would not be repaid if there was no project and would simply result in that entity funding the preliminary design and engineering work. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to approve Resolution 1033 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning Julyl, 2004 and ending June 30, 2005. Councilor Kelly underscored that the proposed agreement was that the initial design work would not use taxpayer dollars and only in the case that the hospital was then built at the site would the City have to repay the money from tax increment dollars from the hospital. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~, City Manager Taylor affirmed that the money for the razing of the Sears building would only be used if there was a signed sales agreement and the City did not have such an agreement yet. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Murdoch said the $245,000 was for initiating capital projects in the downtown area. City Manager Taylor clarified that it provided authority for the Urban Renewal Advisory Council to move forward with projects within the district. Councilor Bettman requested a list of projects as they were known. Councilor Bettman stated, for the public record, that the hospital had to have a site prior to being able to obtain a certificate of need. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 14 Regular Session Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to extend the meeting by three minutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 10:11 p.m. 7. PUBLIC HEARING and ACTION: Resolution 4818 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004, and Ending June 30, 2005 Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, President of the Friends of Eugene, opined that the public involvement had been insufficient to meet the standard with other elements of the City budget process. He opposed the resolution. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 15 Regular Session M I N U T E S ATTACHMENT D Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Halt December 8, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: Resolution 4819 Denying a Request to Amend the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram to Re-designate Property Identified As Tax Lots 199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18-03- 03-23 from Low-Density Residential to Commercial and Denying a Request to Rezone the Prop- erty from R-1 Low Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt Resolution 4819 denying a request to amend the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram to re- designate property identified as tax lots 199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-23 from Low-Density Residential to Commercial and denying a request to rezone the property from R-1 Low-Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial. Mr. Pap6 noted that the council had discussed the neighborhood recommendation regarding a limited review at its meeting two days earlier. He said, based on the City's current inability to review its refinement plans, "holding landowners hostage" to such plans that could not be regularly updated was inappropriate. He asked if it would be possible to amend the motion so that it accepted the neighbor- hood's recommendation to conduct a limited review of the applicable refinement plan. Mayor Torrey asked legal counsel to respond. City Attorney Jerry Lidz recommended making a separate motion in this case. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to ask the Planning and Development Department to conduct a limited review of the refinement plan with regards to this property and commercial designations in this area and to provide a recommendation to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, by July 1, 2005. Mr. Meisner said he would want to know the cost of such a review prior to voting upon it. He disputed that developers and landowners were being held hostage. He underscored that the applicant had sought an amendment to the refinement plan and it was subsequently denied. He averred this particular amendment had not met the criteria and this was not tantamount to holding anyone hostage. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly liked the idea of going forward with such a study. He wished to see it considered within the context of the work program, noting that the council would be reviewing land use regulations regarding cell tower placement after January 1, 2005. He asked Mr. Pap6 if he would be amenable to tabling the item, noting that he would vote in opposition if the question was called at the present meeting. Mr. Pap6 disagreed, stating that the City was putting property owners and neighborhoods in conflict by not amending its refinement plans for 20 years. He wished to move things forward. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. B. ACTION: Resolution 4818 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004, and Ending June 30, 2005 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve Resolution 4818 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning Julyl, 2004, and ending June 30, 2005. City Manager Dennis Taylor said he and Budget Manager Kitty Murdoch would be available to review the material and answer questions. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Torrey affirmed that a public hearing had been held on this item. He said one speaker provided testimony. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for responding to his questions. He said they were answered well. Ms. Bettman opined that, given it was an $8 million budget, some summary for the public record should be necessary. She also thanked staff for answering her questions. Ms. Murdoch explained that the primary purpose of the first Supplemental Budget of every year was to reconcile all of the carry-over amounts from the previous year through several processes: the reserve for encumbrance, the capital carryover, and the audited beginning working capital reconciliation. She said funding for new programs and projects that were not completed in prior years was also reappropriated and new revenues such as grants and, in the case of capital, revenues expected to be received from inter- governmental agreements (IGAs) were recognized in the budget. She stated that in the General Fund the marginal beginning working capital reconciliation was exceptionally high, $7.8 million, because of the settlement of the Qwest lawsuit and all of the deferred revenues it entailed. She outlined the components of the reconciliation and reappropriations. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Cell Towers, and amending Section 9.9750 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4886, an ordinance concerning cell towers specifically the version of the ordinance that amends Eugene Code 9.5750 subsection 11 MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 2 Work Session to require the City Manager to retain a consultant to verify statements in applications and to charge a fee sufficient to cover the cost of retaining the consultant. Mr. Lidz clarified that he had placed a slightly modified version of the ordinance that simply corrected a typographical error in the caption referring to the Eugene Code number. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the quick turnaround. He called it a very technical evaluation process and averred it would benefit from analysis by a knowledgeable consultant. He thought it important to put this into place at the present meeting and suggested it could be modified when revisited. Mr. Meisner indicated he would likely support the motion. He asked if there were many choices for consultants in the area. Planning Division Manager Susan Muir replied that there were no such consult- ants in the Eugene area. She stated that the Planning and Development Department (PDD) had found one consultant in North Carolina and this was the one being employed on the current application. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to recommend to the City Council additional amendments to Eugene Code 9.5750 regarding increased setbacks, more specific criteria for granting a variance if a variance was legally required, and minimum re- quirements and conditions for a provider to meet in order to be eligible to construct a cell tower in the City. Mr. Meisner asked what cost was involved in the motion. City Manager Taylor said the first thing that staff would do would be to return with a PDD work plan and discuss how this item weighed against the other items in the work plan. Ms. Nathanson was not inclined to support the motion. She supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission, which she felt looked at the complexity of the situation and the inter-relationships between the different parts of the code and its relationship with federal and State law and understood it. She averred there would be significant costs to reviewing the code. She advised against picking out a few sections of the code for revision as they might not meld with the code in its entirety and all of the different elements of the technology it governed. She commended the information provided by staff, stating that it was excellent. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Muir explained that no time had been scheduled on the tentative agenda for the PDD work program because staff was waiting for more clarity on the periodic review from the State. City Manager Taylor added that he would like to have the benefit of the Council Goals retreat so that could be reflected in the specifics of the proposal for PDD. He projected that it would be scheduled in March 2005. Mr. Kelly asked the City Manager if he could commit to that date. City Manager Taylor stated that he could. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment that would re-craft the motion to say "include this in the list when the Planning Division work plan was re- viewed." Ms. Bettman did not accept the friendly amendment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Solomon echoed the comments of Ms. Nathanson. She felt a piecemeal review would make the ordinance vulnerable to unintended consequences. She thought the message was clear from the Planning Commission because the issue had been clearly identified as needing to be comprehensively reviewed. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Ms. Nathanson as well. He recommended that if there would be a review, it should be a comprehensive review of it in its entirety. Ms. Bettman thought the council had asked for such a review. She asserted that staff had responded to many questions by indicating they did not know the answer or did not have the resources to find it. She felt, in terms of what she had heard at the December 6 meeting, people were concerned about the resources involved in a comprehensive review and decided to pull those items that seemed to be of greatest concern out of the ordinance and review them. She said she would be happy to add on language that would indicate that it would include recommendations from staff for areas of further review. She also was amenable to changing the motion to call for a comprehensive review of the ordinance. Ms. Muir reiterated that staff had tried to meet the assignment as best it could, given existing resources. She reported that the City Attorney's office had indicated that a quick surgical fix to address setback issues and a limited review would be workable. She said the City Attorney's office had prepared most of the technical work on the item because they had the resources to do so. Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to undertake a comprehen- sive review that included these issues and any other issues recommended by staff and that the City Manager return to the council with the scope of this work. Mayor Torrey asked how this motion differed from the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ms. Muir replied that it was the same as that recommendation. Mr. Kelly said he was inclined to oppose the motion. He thought, on balance, the ordinance was reasonable in many areas. He supported taking a more surgical approach. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, City Manager Taylor said the council, should it not pass this motion, would pass the minor surgical items in the code and then they would be an item for consideration in the PDD priority setting within the context of its work plan. Ms. Taylor preferred the first motion, but said she would support the one on the table. She thought it important to take care of the more urgent elements of the cell tower ordinance. Ms. Nathanson opined that a better order of events would be to return with a scope of work and then to undertake a comprehensive review of the ordinance. She did not perceive the urgency as towers were not being built every month and, in fact, were being constructed very infrequently. She averred the ordinance was working to discourage the placement of new cell towers. Ms. Nathanson stated that the motion sought to propose solutions when the problems were unclear. She thought the experts, the Planning Commissioners, the professionals in the field, and the planners in the PDD, should determine what solutions were needed to achieve the City's objectives. She felt the council was reacting to a particular solution presented to it, while evidence on paper indicated there was not a problem. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman restated the motion. She indicated that she moved to direct the City Manager to move forward with scoping a comprehensive review of the cell tower ordinance to include the three aforementioned issues and any other issues staff identified as needing to be reviewed. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Meisner voting in opposition. D. WORK SESSION: Draft Parks, Recreation, And Open Space Comprehensive Plan Mayor Torrey thanked Ms. Nathanson and the committee for diligently working over the past few months on the plan. He wished to particularly thank Ms. Nathanson for the effort she put forward on behalf of the City of Eugene with regard to Parks and Open Space. Ms. Nathanson asked committee members who were present to identify themselves with a show of hands. She thanked them for coming to the meeting. Ms. Nathanson stated that there were hundreds of line items in the report representing millions of dollars in the draft document. She said the committee had no illusion that the council would "wave a magic wand" and implement the entire report, but rather, consider the document to represent a vision for the next 20 years. Regarding the draft, Ms. Nathanson called particular attention to the variety of public involvement methods utilized over a period of two years, noted in Chapter 1 of the document. She commended staff for providing the "most comprehensive review of funding sources" she had ever seen. She pointed out that it would be difficult to absolutely follow a priority list and encouraged the council to be open to flexibility in funding and in project order because the City should be prepared to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. She also recommended the City be open to collaboration. Ms. Nathanson noted that the committee had met on December 7 and had agreed upon several editorial changes which would be incorporated in the final version, including revised language referring to systems development charges (SDCs) to ensure it was consistent with current rules, some numbers clean up, and some work on parallel phrasing and jargon. She added that there would be information to help interpret Map 3, which showed a lack of access to parks, explaining that it was not just a lack of parks but access issues having to do with parks. Ms. Nathanson said a legal review of the plan would be conducted prior to adoption, specifically in regard to the area covered by the plan as it went beyond the city limits of Eugene. Continuing, Ms. Nathanson compared this plan with the previous one. She underscored that the draft plan held new concepts such as diversity, inclusiveness, partnerships, volunteers, consideration of maintenance and operating costs, sustainability, restoring the environment, new ways of classifying, counting and planning parks, and connectivity. Ms. Nathanson thanked the committee for coming together for two years and commended the staff for the breadth of knowledge and the dedication they demonstrated to their work. She felt the entire committee had worked with dedication and creativity. She related that many members of the committee indicated their wish to continue working with the City as the plan moved through additional public review and implementation. Ms. Nathanson said the committee tried to come up with a plan to meet the needs of the individuals and live up to the aspirations of the community as a healthy, active and beautiful place to live, work, and play. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Andrea Riner, Parks and Open Space Division Planning Manager, provided a brief overview of the plan. She explained that Priority 1 indicated a project that would be tackled soon, Priority 2 indicated a project to be considered within the next 10 years, and Priority 3 indicated a project to be considered within the next 20 years. She noted that only the Priority 1 projects had been "costed out." Ren6e Grube, Recreation Services Director for the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, called the document a tremendous community involvement process that reemphasized the importance of parks and programs to the community. She added that the plan was different from the 1989 document in that it included recreation programs and services. Mr. Kelly complimented staff and the committee and, in particular, the public that was involved. He said the document was thorough and well-organized. He liked that it began with goals and values and looked at levels of service. He stated that the community's residents often indicated that parks and open spaces were very important. Mr. Kelly wanted to begin developing next steps, as the plan was a "huge undertaking." He noted that the total projected cost for the Priority 1 projects was $128 million. He thought it likely that more prioritiza- tion of that list would have to occur. He added that acquisition was his first priority. Ms. Taylor agreed that acquisition should be a priority. She hoped that the plan would be brought to every neighborhood for input. She also hoped that land that needed "to be saved" was also part of the plan. Ms. Riner stated that the committee analyzed the existing inventory of natural areas and discussed the criteria for land acquisition. She said natural resource values and connectivity for wildlife were a part of the criteria. Mr. Pap6 complimented the work of Ms. Nathanson and the committee. He questioned the City's ability to acquire more park lands when the City could not afford to maintain what it already owned. He noted that maintenance costs were still paid out of the General Fund. Ms. Nathanson responded that finding such funding would be a challenge for the City Council to face. She emphasized that the plan looked at installation and construction of parks from the perspective of needing less maintenance once a park was established. Ms. Grube added that maintenance and operations costs were included with cost projections for each capital project. Ms. Bettman also lauded the committee and the plan. She said it would be necessary to come up with "some kind of a filter" so that staff and the council could determine what was doable. She commented that every time the City built a new road it was saddled with the maintenance and operation costs for it. She asked how the committee looked at SDCs and wondered if there was any interaction with the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee (RAC). Ms. Riner responded that the list of prioritized projects would be submitted to the RAC so that it could review those issues. She stressed that when looking at the $128 million cost it was important to recognize that it was not expected that the City of Eugene would pay the entire cost. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend the discussion by ten minutes. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Tay- lor voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling thanked everyone who was involved in developing the plan. He noted that he was particularly concerned with the areas of the City that were underserved by parks, such as his and Mr. Pap6's wards. Ms. Solomon thanked the committee and Ms. Nathanson. She stated that while she was not opposed to the acquisition of park lands, it was important to remember that when land was taken from the private sector and placed into the public sector, the property tax revenue from the land was lost. Mr. Meisner remarked that, though his education and career included graduate degrees in Law and Library Science and involved planning, he sometimes hated plans. He observed that the City of Eugene did a lot of planning but not a lot of doing. He hoped this plan would not be relegated to a shelf. Mr. Meisner said he was happy to see maintenance costs included. He hoped that the City Manager would look at the artificial division between Parks and Open Space and Recreation at some point. As an example, he commented that it was never clear who to talk to in regard to the Washington/Jefferson Park because of that division. Additionally, Mr. Meisner hoped attention would be paid to this document and its planning and other elements such as the Goal 5 study and stormwater acquisition for stream corridors. Mayor Torrey reiterated the council's gratitude for the work done to create the draft. He underscored the necessity of partnerships to bring the plan to fruition and suggested such partners could include school districts, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the United Front lobbying effort. He noted that the City had been able to expand its ability to provide services as a result of what it had done with the Bethel and 4J School Districts. He pointed out the partnerships that had been forged in the creation of the West Eugene Wetlands Project. He underscored the importance of getting the Rachel Carson Education Center in a funding pattern when members of the City Council went to Washington, DC, as part of the United Front lobby, as it was a park-like setting, tourist and education-oriented, and a place where a person who was not necessarily activity-oriented would feel welcome. Mayor Torrey said, from an efficiency standpoint, it was important to look at such things as all-weather surface facilities. He stressed that such facilities at the high schools offered the opportunity to get 2-1/2 times more use than a grass field because of how affected the latter was by the weather. He called attention to the fact that the City was going to lose seven full-sized soccer fields by the end of March 2005. He expressed concern that there would be no place for local youth to play soccer. Mr. Pap6 concurred. Noting he was surprised that the planned area took in land outside of the UGB, Mr. Pap6 asked how this was to be accomplished. Ms. Riner replied that such parks were included as a result of the Rivers to Ridges recommendations, which had been approved by all of the jurisdictions. E. WORK SESSION AND ACTION: Draft Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Project List Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve the Eugene's project list in the draft FY2005-2007 Metropolitan Transportation Im- provement Program. Mr. Kelly opined that because of the difference between State and federal regulations, the TransPlan had been bifurcated into the federally required Regional Transportation Plan and the State-required Transpor- MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 7 Work Session tation System Plan (TSP). He felt the impact of it was that the federally required Regional Transportation Plan was being amended without any discussion or advisory votes by the individual elected governments. He disagreed with the assertion that what was being considered at the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) was a minor amendment. He said as he was reading through the material, he had difficulty understanding it, though he felt "close to the transportation process." He noted that a letter from an attorney had been submitted indicating concern that some of the federally required public involvement was not followed in this process. Additionally, he thought the City Council should have had more of an opportunity to review it. Mr. Kelly asked if any of the funding for the 3rd/4th Connector was flexible and able to be shifted to street preservation. Public Works Department Engineer Mark Schoening, explained that it was a project approved by the City Council with the adoption of the capital budget, funded with systems development charges (SDCs) and assessments. As such, he stated that it was dedicated funding. Mr. Kelly asked if any of the funding for the proposed Chad Drive extension project was flexible. Mr. Schoening replied that it was being funded with assessments, SDCs, and STIP-U funds that were allocated and approved by the MPC. Ms. Bettman interjected that it the STIP-U allocation was $900,000. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the Chad Drive pro- ject from the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Ms. Bettman indicated she would support the motion. She called it a "small piece of the iceberg." She asserted that there was $2,231,000 in STIP-U money that could all be legally used for maintenance and preservation. She said the council was on record as indicating that all flexible funding that came through the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) and the MPC would be prioritized for maintenance and preservation. Mr. Pap6 asked who participated in putting the matrix together. Mr. Schoening explained that the MPO and the MPC allocated the federal funds that came to the region. He said the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) had put together a process and categories of funding that were reviewed and approved by the MPC. He stated that each jurisdiction competed and submitted projects and the projects were scored in a competitive process. He clarified that there were four categories of funding, such as modernization. He said the funds were already allocated and, should the council choose not to accept those funds, the funds would go back to the MPC to reallocate to the next modernization project in priority order and this would not necessarily be a Eugene project. In response to another question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Schoening stated that a project made it on the list as a result of careful review of available projects and the priority system and set forth the projects staff felt would score the highest in the competitive process. Ms. Nathanson said she had intended to ask what placed the project as a priority on the list but she now understood that the money was not Eugene's money and the area could just lose the funding. She felt unsure what the purpose of supporting the motion would be other than to say that the City of Eugene did not want any road improvements. Mr. Meisner indicated he would be unlikely to support the motion. He recalled that when the Transporta- tion System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) had been repealed, the council had clearly directed staff to work with the County on a more equitable way of sharing its Road Fund and, though it had not gone anywhere, the County had indicated it would be open to funding projects. He suggested the City be more aggressive and submit almost all of its needed preservation and maintenance projects to the County. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Solomon also wished to approach the County with five high priority projects involving the preserva- tion and maintenance of local streets. She indicated she would be willing to testify at public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and participate in the process however she was needed. She opposed the motion because the money would be returned to the general pool. Ms. Taylor remarked that losing the funding was not a good enough reason to go through with the project. Mayor Torrey said he would vote against the motion in the event of a tie. He stated that the Chad Drive extension was a good project from the perspectives of the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County. He acknowledged there was a backlog of maintenance issues but averred that to stop traffic from flowing appropriately through different venues in north Eugene, an area with the highest level of congestion of any part of the City, just to make a political statement was "foolish." He advised against supporting the motion and expressed that he hoped the new Mayor would maintain her independence. He stressed the importance of working together as partners in the MPC and underscored that we are a system and not just a city. Mr. Kelly felt the motion was hardly a political statement. Rather, he thought it was a policy statement about what the priority needs of maintenance and preservation were. He disagreed that the money would be lost to another transportation project should the Chad Drive project be rejected. He related that he had spoken with MPC Chair Bettman and she had indicated that the MPC could redirect that funding "anywhere they wanted with a vote." Mr. Meisner hoped that the council would look carefully at the connection between some kinds of improvements and maintenance needs. He noted the work on the Ferry Street Bridge which, though an improvement, would help preserve the bridge for decades. He thought the Chad Drive project was in that category. Ms. Bettman reiterated that while the MPC dealt with approximately $185 million, the flexible funding amounted to $2,231,000. She said this was the only money that could be spent on maintenance and preservation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute a motion that the City of Eugene re-submit all of the City's projects that were compet- ing for STIP-U money under a category of maintenance and preservation so that the City could still compete for this money but it would be allo- cated to maintenance and preservation projects. Mr. Pap6 opined that 20 minutes was not enough time to adequately consider the MTIP. He recommended the City Council include it as an additional agenda item at another work session. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table the item until January 19, 2005. Ms. Bettman felt that the council lacked much of the information it needed. She reiterated her opposition to the bikeway project. Ms. Taylor supported tabling the item. She said more time was needed to consider the MTIP. Mr. Schoening requested the opportunity to speak. He stated that the two projects the council had been MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 9 Work Session discussing, the Chad Drive extension and the Monroe Street/Friendly Street Bikeway, were projects that were already in the MTIP and had already been approved for funding by the MPC as well as projects that had been in the CIP and moved forward. The motion passed 6:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Pap6 voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 10 Work Session