Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2007, City Council Meeting, September 12, 2007, Work Session, September 24, 2007, City Council Meeting, October 8, 2007, Work Session, October 8, 2007, City Council Meeting, October 24, 2007, Work Session, and November 19, 2007, Boards, Commissions, and Committees Interviews. ATTACHMENTS A.August 13, 2007, City Council Meeting B.September 12, 2007, Work Session C.September 24, 2007, City Council Meeting D.October 8, 2007, Work Session E.October 8, 2007, City Council Meeting F.October 24, 2007, Work Session G.November 19, 2007, Boards, Commission, and Commissions Interviews FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S0712102A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall August 13, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. Mayor Piercy recognized Galena Groza of the Sister City Foundation and Natalia Sverdlova, visiting from the City’s sister city of Irkutsk. Galena Groza , 1778 Sullivan Street, thanked the council for providing additional funding for the Sister City Program. She introduced Ms. Sverdlova of the Irkutsk Linguistics University, and expressed gratitude for her visit, which was underwritten by two grants. Natalia Sverdlova discussed her involvement in a project being done in conjunction with the University of Oregon (UO) to deliver classes in Russian in an online format for students. She appreciated the interest expressed in the project by Eugene citizens and their support of the sister city relationship. She thanked the Eugene Irkutsk Sister City Committee and said it was good to see members present. Mayor Piercy noted that Ms. Sverdlova was leaving the next day after a two-week visit and invited her to come back anytime. th Deborah Frisch , 3003 West 11 Avenue, H168, addressed the code provisions that allowed for drinking at the University of Oregon before, during, and after home games, suggesting it was discriminatory to exempt a subsection of the population from the law. She believed the issue was a public safety issue and provided a handout about the members of the symphony who were killed in a drunken driving accident the previous year. She asserted that the code created liability for the City, University, and County and cited two cases from other states in support of her remarks. Ms. Frisch said that she was going to demand that President Dave Frohnmayer take a stand on the issue and asserted that he would be sure to oppose the extension of the ordinance to other areas, forcing the council to “fall in line.” nd Bob Cassidy , 1401 East 22 Avenue, concurred with using urban renewal money to renew the downtown, which had been effective with the library. He quoted the saying “build it and they will come” and suggested it was a huge examined myth in the case of downtown. He did not think a Cineplex would draw students. He was not surprised that Whole Foods did not move downtown and questioned how the City could continue to throw money MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 1 Work Session at an idea that had proved to be a failure. He said the free market was not a reality in this area, saying “location, location, location.” He hoped the council action regarding the West Broadway redevelopment did not threaten the gas tax, which was a tax he supported. Greg Bryrant , 2173 Alder Street, noted his receipt of a general notice regarding the money he could receive for relocating his business, which was for up to $20,000. He averred that he and his volunteers had put more than $1 million in sweat equity in his business, and termed the offer absurd. He said that staff had assured the council no jobs would be lost due to the redevelopment project, but he believed jobs would be lost and people’s lives destroyed. He noted his attendance at his high school reunion, during which people who had moved away had commented about the talent and interesting projects that Eugene had lost. He attributed that to an institutional lack of respect and said that the City should not be bulldozing projects that people put their hearts into. He called the proposed remuneration woefully inadequate and asked the council to pass legislation to require full compensa- tion. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, objected to the course of action the City was contemplating as it had failed in other places as well as in Eugene in the past. He agreed with Mr. Byrant’s remarks, saying there was something fundamentally wrong with a situation where government harmed some and protected others and collected taxes from some while exempting others. He asked the council to rethink the proposal and consider using public funds for truly public purposes for a project that brought the public together instead of dividing it. Zachary Vishanoff , a resident living on Patterson Street, asserted the City was in collusion with the UO and University Foundation to get money from Phil Knight. He hoped to ferret out the many ways that was occurring, and wanted conversations to occur about eminent domain, the Fairmount neighbors’ rights and the ability to appeal the rezoning of the bakery site. He objected to the fact a UO planner sat on the Historic Review Board and participated in historic reviews of “very important” buildings of cultural significance, such as the Joe Romania building. He thought that person should recuse them self from such decisions as they were effectively a “double agent” working for the UO. He said the City should remove the UO’s ability to exercise eminent domain and to influence the Historic Review Board. William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, called for conversion of one-way streets in the city to two-way streets to facilitate travel by visitors unfamiliar with the community. He said such streets created more accidents, some of which he had personally witnessed. They also created anger and frustration for motorists. Drix spoke to the subject of the kids on the mall and said that the kids were always different kids coming from other communities to Eugene because it represented a “new way of thinking.” The kids were learning the street. He did not know what to do about it but thought it was interesting. He expressed pride for the undeveloped holes in downtown Eugene, calling them a metaphor for Eugene as their fate was in the hands of the citizens. He suggested new names for the sites, the ‘A’ hole and ‘S’ hole. Cathy Saranpa , 3015 Friendly Street, chair of the Crest Drive Citizens Association, said the Crest Drive Community Team was working on designs for the streets in the area. The team was seeking permission for nine- foot travel lanes for certain parts of the street system. The association passed a resolution in support of nine-foot travel lanes, which she shared with the council. st Scott Landfield , 29 West 31 Avenue, owner of Tsunami Books, shared a petition with the council signed by 300 people calling for urban renewal funds to be spent on affordable housing, helping local businesses, and building public institutions such as the library. The funds should not be spent to subsidize non-local retailers who would compete with local businesses. Decisions regarding the use of urban renewal should be made with public input for specific proposals. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Paul Moore , 2586 Potter Street, advocated for the inclusion of dedicated bicycle lanes in the area of Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street to encourage bicycling. He did not think the council intended any transportation option to be excluded from the design, but that was occurring. He shared a petition with the council expressing support for his position. Gavin McComas , 2301 Spring Boulevard, the owner of Sundance Natural Food, registered his objection to the plan to increase the indebtedness of the URA to support the City’s contribution to the West Broadway redevelop- ment area. He believed that it was unfair to use his tax dollars to help fund wealthy corporate competitors. He supported the use of urban renewal downtown for responsible projects with public input, such as a new city hall and for low-cost housing. Mr. McComas indicated if the council went ahead and increased the indebtedness level, he would begin an initiative petition to refer the decision. Rob Handy , 455-1/2 River Road, discussed his work on the groundwater pollution issues in the Trainsong neighborhood. He had received a call from a distressed citizen wanting to know what she could do and he had no answers. He said the neighborhoods were asked by City staff to support a brownfield grant to the Environmental Protection Agency and he had worked with staff on the application but failed to realize that the funding would go downtown rather than to other places in the community that really needed it. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Drive, objected to the proposed scale of the West Broadway project and wanted it to be scaled back. He was concerned about the connection between the urban renewal district and Downtown Plan because the plan was not specific enough about density. The land planned for the development was zoned C- 3, which had a height maximum of 150 feet, but the developers were planning for shorter buildings. He recommended that some of the buildings be built to that height and the remaining buildings be built lower as a compromise to make better use of the land. David Gussett , 1611 Lincoln Street, shared photographs of some historic buildings in the West Broadway redevelopment area and urged the council to save those buildings and use other vacant areas in downtown for redevelopment. He asked the council to let the purchase options for downtown properties expire as some of the property owners were not good stewards and let their properties deteriorate to drive down the value of adjacent properties for the purpose of buying them at rock bottom prices. He urged the council to use eminent domain to purchase the properties at market prices. Mr. Gussett then provided some history of the buildings in question. Lynn Reichman , PO Box 3901, Eugene, also discussed the historic buildings discussed by Mr. Gussett. She said that they had been identified by a group she was working with in an attempt to make them part of the West Broadway redevelopment plans. She said that the buildings were listed as historic by the City. She provided some additional history of the buildings. She believed that it was crucial no historic buildings were destroyed as part of the project, suggesting that such buildings, once renovated, would provide affordable space at a lower cost. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She thanked those who spoke and commended the Crest Drive citizens for the work they had done. She also was concerned about the groundwater pollution that residents were facing in the Trainsong Neighborhood and said that such issues were difficult to address given the many parties involved. She had asked staff to determine what the City could do. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Councilor Ortiz also thanked those who testified. She believed she now had council support to make the groundwater pollution issue a City Council goal. She said that she had reached out for assistance to Representa- tive Peter DeFazio. She also expressed appreciation for the media coverage of the issue. Councilor Taylor thanked all those who testified and agreed with Councilor Ortiz about the importance of the groundwater pollution issue. She was particularly grateful for the comments of those who opposed the West Broadway development proposal and suggested that the council was forgetting the mistakes of the past. She feared that the City was about to destroy more historic buildings downtown. Councilor Taylor expressed appreciation for the campaign to be mounted by Mr. McComas. She believed it was an insult to offer only $20,000 to Mr. Bryant to take away the business he took years to build up. Other successful downtown property owners were similarly threatened if the council proceeded. She said a new theater would not take the place of the Bijou Theater, and the development proposal could possibly cause it to go out of business. She did not think the proposal was fair. Councilor Bettman also thanked those who testified. She also expressed concern about the groundwater pollution issue in the Trainsong Neighborhood and requested a legal analysis about the City’s authority in such a situation given its impact on Eugene residents. She also wanted to know what authority the Department of Environmental Quality and Union Pacific Railroad had. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated the City Manager had asked his office for an opinion. Councilor Clark concurred with the remarks of Councilor Ortiz and Councilor Bettman in regard to the Trainsong groundwater pollution situation. He spoke of a proposal contemplated by Coos Bay to accommodate more containers from foreign countries that would be routed through Eugene on rail to reach Interstate 5. He hoped that as the City worked with the railroad on that issue, it also worked on the clean up of the area. Councilor Zelenka also expressed concern about the groundwater pollution issue and said he supported making it a goal. He also expressed appreciation for the media coverage of the issue, which could put pressure on the railroad. Councilor Zelenka said he cared about existing businesses in downtown, which was why he asked the West Broadway Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for a transition and relocation plan for those businesses and nonprofits. He believed they would all find homes in downtown. Councilor Zelenka pointed out that many of the nonprofits and other businesses were in downtown because it was the low rent district and people were paying very little. He did not think the heart of downtown should be the low rent district. He believed that if the project went forward, as many as 600 jobs could be created without the need to raise taxes. Councilor Zelenka was anxious to put the tools in place that would facilitate what the City eventually ended up with, which would be known only when the advisory committee made its recommendation and the developer responded with a real proposal. The council needed the tools in place to accept the proposal. Mayor Piercy said that a petition might not cause the council to change its minds, but the council appreciated the input. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 4 Work Session 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 20, 2007, Work Session - June 25, 2007, City Council Meeting - June 27, 2007, Work Session - July 11, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Appointment of Human Rights Commissioner to Police Commission D. Appointment to Lane Workforce Partnership Councilor Bettman noted her submission of corrections to the minutes. Mayor Piercy deemed them approved without objection. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Public Improvements; Amending Sections 7.010, 7.085, 7.095, 7.100, 7.130, 7.140 7.145, 7.175, 7.190, 7.205, 7.210, 7.220, 7.290, 7.297, 7.302, 7.305, 7.307, 7.360, 7.370, 7.385, 7.405, 7.407, 7.410, 7.415, 7.425, 7.445, 7.720, 7.725, and 7.735 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 7.090, 7.143, 7.350 and 7.365 to that Code; Repealing Section 7.400 of that Code; and Providing an Effective Date Development Review Manager Peggy Keppler of the Public Works Department was present for the item. She said the council was scheduled to take action that evening. She responded to questions from Councilor Bettman. In regard to Councilor Bettman’s question about the required traffic impact analysis, Ms. Keppler said the City had standards in place for such analyses that addressed Councilor Bettman’s concern, and in addition staff proposed to amend 7.410(b) to require the studies to weigh the additional conflicts and congestion for pedestrians, bicycle, and vehicular traffic. She distributed copies of the amended text. In response to Councilor Bettman’s question as to how the changes would affect the cost of the Crest/Storey developments, Ms. Keppler said the proposed changes would not affect the cost of construction. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman about whether the City could recover the difference in the assessment to a residential zone and a commercial zone if a residentially zoned property later rezoned to a commercial use, Ms. Keppler said the City had no mechanism in place to amend assessment costs after the fact, and staff would require more time to evaluate that issue if the council wished to make the change. Councilor Bettman recalled staff recommended a change of street designation for Crest/Storey to collector but that was placed on hold during the design process. She asked if the assessments remained the same if the street was a collector versus a neighborhood collector. Mark Schoening, City Engineer, clarified that the streets would not be above the status of a neighborhood collector and the assessment to residents would not increase. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4949, an ordinance concerning public improvements. Councilor Bettman determined that Councilor Ortiz and Councilor Pryor accepted the following as a friendly MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 5 Work Session amendment to Section 7.410(b): Insert the following language in (b) between the word “study to” and the word “substantiate”: (i) weigh additional conflicts and congestion for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic; and (ii). Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal Dis- trict, Formerly the Central Eugene Project Richie Weinman, Community Development Director, introduced the item. He provided a brief history of the item and its connection to the Downtown Plan. Mr. Weinman reviewed the public involvement that had occurred in conjunction with the ordinance. He said few comments opposed the amendments and there was much enthusiasm about redeveloping downtown. He briefly noted the amendments, to increase the indebtedness, extend the life of the district, and rename the district. Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions. Councilor Bettman asked City Attorney Klein questions about the legal language in the ordinance and findings, clarifying that citizens would be able to challenge projects in the plan in the future, but not whether the provision in the plan that purported to authorize the expenditure was consistent with State law, or the process used to adopt the plan. If a citizen chose to refer the ordinance, they would be referring the plan amendments. Councilor Bettman further clarified with Mr. Klein that the mention of the West Broadway Plan in the findings was to provide background and meet State statutory requirements. The findings expressed the council’s intent but did not preclude it from spending the funding on something other than the plan. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt an ordinance adopting an amended urban renewal plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District, formerly the Central Eugene Project. Councilor Bettman objected to claims of public involvement given the complexity of what was presented to the public. She also objected to the scheduling of the process, through which the council authorized the expenditure of the BEDI/HUD money without a project so that the time elapsed on citizens’ ability to refer that decision to the ballot. People in the community had little understanding of the complexity of the issue and the financing. She said everyone wanted a successful downtown. The council had never explicitly offered the public a conceptual plan and asked what it was worth, or how the money could be spent to maximize the public benefit. Unless that question was asked, public input was constrained by the lack of understanding. The council also did not ask the public if it wanted to demolish two historic buildings. She said the BEDI brownfield grant was introduced to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations as a grant for use on vacant properties, not to displace existing or demolish existing buildings. She did not support subsidizing commercial retail in competition with existing local retailers. She opposed the motion. Councilor Zelenka agreed that the development tools under discussion were complex, which was why he had pressed for a transparent and clear public outreach process. He suggested the question was not whether the City should subsidize the developers, but rather should it invest in downtown to revitalize it without raising anyone’s taxes. Councilor Zelenka asked if the ordinance obligated the City to any particular action. Mr. Weinman said no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Councilor Zelenka asked if the loan proposed would be paid for out of the existing tax base of the district. Mr. Weinman said yes. Councilor Zelenka asked if any of the taxes generated by new development would be used to pay for the loans. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that would depend on the ultimate number, but in the preliminary financing plan the City was not planning on that. Councilor Zelenka confirmed with Ms. Cutsogeorge that any further action would require council approval. He also confirmed with Ms. Cutsogeorge that the HUD loan was a below market-rate loan. He also confirmed that the BEDI grant was contingent on the HUD loan unless the City increased the indebtedness level. Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Cutsogeorge confirmed that the $10 million allocated for administration would be spent for staff and other administrative costs through the year 2030 at a cost of approximately $300,000 annually. Councilor Taylor agreed that all citizens wanted a vital downtown but she thought people needed to think about what would be destroyed because of the project. She asked if Kemper would still build condominiums at the Sears site if the project fell through. Senior Management Analyst Denny Braud said that Mr. Kemper has indicated continuing interest through the process. Councilor Taylor hoped that project happened. Councilor Bettman asked how the current financing situation would affect the developers’ ability to go ahead with the project. Mr. Braud did not know. He said that the construction project could be 12 to 18 months, and it was difficult to forecast finance rates at that time. Councilor Bettman asked staff where the council could reverse directions. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that the council would have to approve the project budget for money to be expended and the council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency, would have to authorize the development agreement. Councilor Bettman believed that the relationship between the BEDI grant and HUD loan was structured in the manner it was because of a council and staff decision. She maintained there had been other ways to access the grant. Councilor Bettman said that talking about spending $25 million was inaccurate as the council was actually talking about upwards of $50 million and there were other things, such as transition and relocation costs, that were not factored into the estimate. The design was not firm and could change, adding more costs. The lack of a firm design also constrained the public’s ability to provide meaningful input. Councilor Bettman said the project might not raise taxes, but it would divert taxes from other units of govern- ment, including schools. Mayor Piercy said nothing was being done for the benefit of the developers. The developers would be implement- ing something the City wanted and the City would be purchasing that from them. She pointed out the West Broadway Advisory Committee would be examining the design elements and what the community wanted in the project, and following the committee’s report to the council, she hoped the community could weigh in on its recommendations before the council adopted it. Councilor Zelenka pointed out that people were objecting to a plan that was not in place. The City did not know if the businesses downtown would be local or non-local in nature. He suggested that people were misinterpreting Table 5 in the packet, which was an example list of what the project could include. The City could still decide to include more public amenities and less parking. Councilor Zelenka agreed that the project goal was not to make the developer rich, and suggested it instead MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 7 Work Session responded to community demand for downtown revitalization. He envisioned a downtown that was a vibrant neighborhood with housing and interesting shops and restaurants that would draw people downtown and create new jobs. He wanted a downtown the community could be proud of. Councilor Clark concurred with the remarks of Councilor Zelenka. He recalled the council’s goal setting session where the council adopted downtown as a goal. He thanked staff for trying to put all the pieces in place to help the council accomplish that goal. Councilor Bettman said that all the public input was gathered before there was a project with a clearly defined cost estimate. She thought that made a sham of the public process. She suggested that the City have a plan and price tag and then ask the community if it was willing to pay for it with the clear understanding the money would be diverted from other taxing districts. Instead, staff and the council majority had its own way in regard to the BEDI grant, the public input took place based on a conceptual plan, and the council was now being asked to approve the spending increase based on that plan. She did not think Councilor Zelenka should criticize those who thought the City lacked a plan. Mayor Piercy said she believed in the good will of all involved and that all wanted a good downtown. People just had different ideas of how to reach that goal. She invited all to be part of the discussion and to work on the issue of downtown together as it is something for the entire community. Councilor Zelenka said he was not criticizing people for criticizing the “plan that’s not a plan”; he was suggesting they “hold their horses” until there was a plan, and he believed the process he initiated would get the City to a plan. He said the City created numerous opportunities for comment. He hoped that those offering comments helped to mold and shape the plan so the eventual plan was reflective of the public input and what Eugene would support. He believed the developers knew what they were doing and would build what people wanted. He hoped the project that was proposed would be supported by the community. Councilor Bettman suggested that if Councilor Zelenka believed that people should wait until there was a plan he would support her substitute motion. Councilor Bettman moved to postpone action on the motion until the council had a plan and an estimate of the actual project costs. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Tay- lor and Bettman voting yes. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Special Meeting Bascom/Tykeson Room—Eugene City Hall September 12, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. 1. WORK SESSION: Meeting with Recruiter for City Manager Position Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the special meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced the upcoming community forum on September 17 on the subject of the qualifications for a new city manager. She noted that City Manager pro tem Angel Jones had yet to make a decision about whether to apply for the position and decided not to attend the meeting. She said that Ms. Solomon was unable to attend. Acting Assistant City Manager Scott Luell was present. Councilors introduced themselves to Bob Neher of Bennett Yarger, the consultant firm hired by the City to assist with the recruitment of a new city manager. Human Resources and Risk Services Director Lauren Chouinard and Recruitment and Selection Director Alana Holmes were also present for the item. Mr. Neher briefly described the brochure that would be produced for the recruitment process identifying successful candidate traits and providing information to candidates about Eugene. The brochure would be mailed out to interested candidates. He noted the types of advertising that would occur and where the advertisements would appear, including professional organizations’ publications and internet sites, and publications and sites aimed at minority candidates. Advertisements would be placed in September and the brochure would be available in early October. He emphasized the role that networking would play in the process. Mr. Neher noted that September 24 was tentatively the end date for input. Responding to a request for direction from Mr. Neher, Mayor Piercy recalled that the council established the community forum as an opportunity for additional public input, and had agreed that the consultant would meet with the members of the Board of County Commissioners, the County Administrator, the Springfield mayor, and the Springfield city manager. Ms. Bettman suggested that Mr. Neher also contact some principals at the University of Oregon (UO) to discuss the manager’s relationship with the UO. Mayor Piercy recommended Mr. Neher talk to UO President David Frohnmayer if possible. There was general concurrence. Ms. Bettman asked that referral sources for candidates be identified and the council alerted if any candidates applied from those referral sources. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 12, 2007 Page 1 Special Meeting Mr. Neher reviewed a process timeline. The council discussed the timeline and councilors noted concerns about the process running into the winter break. After discussion, the council agreed to retain the proposed closing date of November 23, which would allow for the consultant’s progress report to be prepared by December 7 and the final report to be prepared by the week of December 17. The council would meet during the week of December 17 to review the final report. Candidate interviews would occur after the break. Mr. Zelenka joined the meeting via speakerphone. The council and Mr. Neher discussed the elements of the proposed candidate interview process, including a tour, citizen panels, employee panels, and the actual interviews. The council agreed to schedule the interviews over a two-day period, preferably a Friday and Saturday. Councilors briefly discussed residents who could serve as tour leaders. Mr. Neher indicated he would provide the council with some sample interview questions to stimulate thinking. The council agreed to discuss the questions to be asked on September 18. Mr. Neher invited potential questions from the council. Ms. Holmes distributed the list of citizens and organizations proposed by the council for Mr. Neher to contact. She invited councilors to send staff additions to the list by the end of the day. Mr. Neher outlined his schedule of interviews for September 18. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 12, 2007 Page 2 Special Meeting ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall September 24, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Deborah Frisch spoke to the ordinance concerning the consumption of alcohol that the council would vote on later in the evening and anticipated the various actions she believed the council would take in regard to amending the ordinance, which she maintained would not correct the awkward text in the ordinance and would still allow people to drive drunk. She suggested that the time for drinking be reduced from nine hours to seven hours. She then proceeded to imitate Howard Cosell on December 8, 1980, confirming the death of John Lennon. Dan Williams , Assistant to the President of the University of Oregon (UO), suggested all would agree it would be better if there was no alcohol present on game day. He noted the fact the Athletic Department must be self-supporting and so must be sensitive to its audience, who want the tailgating experience. For many, that includes alcohol consumption. Mr. Williams discussed the steps used to control alcohol consumption at Autzen Stadium, noting the limits imposed on time in the parking lot and the number of people who arrive at the stadium via bus, which helps alleviate the problem. Some suggested that the University should prohibit fans from leaving and re-entering the stadium on the basis they are likely leaving to drink, but he questioned how the University could differentiate between the reasons that people left. Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, addressed remarks that Councilor Clark had made to him in September 2007 asking him to refrain from calling Police Chief Robert Lehner’s integrity into question. He did not know the chief but had been told twice that the chief would contact him about problems at his condominium development but he had not. He saw no improvement in the police force since Chief Lehner was hired. People had been killed by the police and no one had been fired because of the Lara/Magana incidents. He speculated that the police could violate department policies without check or oversight. Mr. Collins maintained that Chief Lehner was part of a corrupt justice system overseen by Douglas Harcleroad, who he asserted was loved by the police but feared by attorneys and judges. He perceived the chief as a failure. Daniel Cooler, shared an anecdote about a recent encounter he had with the legal system. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting Zachary Vishanoff , a resident living on Patterson Street, asked that he be allowed to see the materials he was submitting to the council to ensure they received them. He shared several documents with the council to illustrate his remarks about his concerns about the potential of no-bid contracts such as that he anticipated would be issued for the proposed basketball arena. He wanted Nike to have to abide by the existing laws as he considered the arena to be “a Nike annexation of Eugene by dint of eminent domain.” Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called on the council for questions and remarks. Councilor Zelenka clarified that the City of Eugene had nothing to do with the University’s actions in regard to the University’s potential use of eminent domain. He acknowledged his own neighborhood’s concern about the impact of the arena but also noted the neighborhood organization’s tentative support for the arena if its concerns were respected by the University. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 11, 2007, Work Session - July 9, 2007, Work Session - July 16, 2007, City Council Meeting - July 23, 2007, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Request for Contingency Funds for Cost and Expense Associated with Recruitment and Selection of a New City Manager Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar with the exception of the minutes from the work session that was held on May 14, 2007. Councilor Bettman noted minutes corrections she had submitted earlier via e-mail, noting the deletion of the correction she had tentatively proposed to the July 23, 2007, work session minutes as that section had been clarified by minutes staff. Mayor Piercy deemed them approved as submitted. . Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Consumption or Possession of Alcohol in Public Places and Amending Sections 4.190, 4.990, and 4.996 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Ortiz joined the council via speakerphone. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4053, an ordinance concerning consumption or possession of alcohol in public places. Councilor Bettman asked City Attorney Jerome Lidz how the ordinance could be interpreted as creating a special class, a violation of the Oregon Constitution. Mr. Lidz recalled the challenge to Ballot Measure 37 ultimately decided by the Oregon Supreme Court, which ruled there was no special privilege created by Measure 37 that violated the constitution. In this case, he said, the question was what the classification was that constituted a special privilege for one group or lack of privilege for another. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman suggested that a student in the UO parking lot drinking a beer from an open container the day before the game could be cited by the police, but the next day, during a game during tail ating hours, the student would not be cited. The same was true of an individual across town in the park. Mr. Lidz said the constitutional standard was whether there was a reasonable basis for the classification under the law, or whether the law had a negative disparate impact on a protected class of persons. A UO student would not fall under the category of one receiving a special privilege. Mr. Lidz said unless the council was acting with a discriminatory motive, ordinances that distinguished among geographic areas did not violate the constitution. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the ordinance by delet- ing sections 1, 2, and 3 of the ordinance, and replacing them with a section that provides subsection 4 of Section 4.190 is hereby repealed. Councilor Bettman addressed the impact of her substitute motion, saying that the council rarely got to make life and death decisions but she considered the decision on the ordinance in question to be one. She viewed the motion offered by Councilor Pryor as the City creating opportunities for drinking and driving, which was a public health hazard. The code included an exemption for Autzen Stadium to a law that was in place the remainder of the year. She believed that the prohibition on public drinking was a justifiable law for Eugene. It had been enacted by a previous council to preserve the health and safety of the community and she thought it should apply to Duck fans as well as everyone else in the community. Councilor Bettman believed the City should maintain its law against public drinking. If the council did not think that justifiable, it should rescind the prohibition entirely. Responding to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Lidz confirmed that the City could prohibit drinking at the Autzen Stadium lot. He acknowledged that the area of City and University relationships was complex and sometimes theoretical, but generally the two parties avoided bringing issues to a head by agreeing on common purposes and policies. He did not believe the City could regulate the University itself, but that was different from regulating an individual’s behavior on UO property. Responding to a request for clarification from Councilor Solomon, Councilor Bettman said her motion would remove the exemption that the UO currently received. She said if the UO had jurisdiction over its parking lot, it could exercise it, but she was attempting to remove the City-provided exemption from the code. Councilor Bettman said she had not heard that the UO had jurisdiction over its lot but if that was the case the UO could allow drinking on its lot and accept the ramifications of that. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6;2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting yes. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend Section 4.190(2) as fol- lows: “The exemption is provided for the consumption of alcoholic beverages on this prop- erty during the time period commencing four hours before the start of the scheduled colle- giate game at Autzen Stadium and ending at the end of game.” Councilor Ortiz said that those she had asked had supported the four-hour window prior to game start times concept as a compromise. Mayor Piercy said she thought that ceasing activity after the third quarter was acceptable. Councilor Ortiz agreed. Councilor Bettman thought the amendment irrelevant to the issue of drinking and driving and the danger to public health. In addition, drinking at games created a huge enforcement issue for the Eugene Police MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Department, which the amendment that had been offered did not address. The revised ordinance would compound that problem. She did not want to set up an expectation among Duck fans that drinking and driving was condoned by the City because it was willing to make an exception to the existing law. Mayor Piercy reiterated her belief that drinking should be stopped after the third quarter thereby making the situation safer for the community. She invited the council to amend the motion thusly. Mr. Lidz said that Chief Lehner had pointed out that there was another reference to ending drinking two hours after the game was completed within the ordinance itself. He suggested the motion could be amended to amend section 1 of the ordinance by substituting the word “when” for the phrase “two hours after.” That would replace the phrase “two hours after game” in two places; one in the existing ordinance, and one in the proposed amendment. Councilors Ortiz and Poling accepted the amendment. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Zelenka said the wife and children of a dear friend were killed by a drunk driver and he understood what happened to people and their families when people decided to drink and drive. It was a big societal issue that would take more than action by the Eugene City Council to eradicate. He had observed tailgating at Autzen Stadium and believed that most people behaved responsibly. Those that did not created a problem, but he did not want to penalize many people to punish a few people. Councilor Zelenka acknowledged the City’s lack of enforcement capacity in regard to the current law prohibiting such drinking, and suggested the next best thing the council could do was to regulate it. He believed the proposed ordinance was an appropriate regulation and wanted the area regulated to be as small as possible. Councilor Zelenka had asked staff to find out where people were tailgating and it appeared they were divided between Centennial Loop and the Autzen Stadium area. As that was the area where tailgating was happening, he supported the boundaries, despite his initial objection. Councilor Zelenka said he did not think the City’s actions would increase drinking, but rather would regulate it. Councilor Clark offered a friendly amendment to include the businesses immediately adjacent to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to the south, so the boundaries included those lots adjacent to the street not now included in the map. He said it seemed arbitrary to exclude them. Councilor Pryor determined from Sergeant Pete Kerns that there may be tailgating in the area identified by Councilor Clark but an assessment done by the department did not produce any pay for use parking lots, which was the focus of the ordinance. Councilors Pryor and Ortiz declined to accept the friendly amendment. Councilor Clark wanted to treat all businesses in the immediate area in the same manner and said it appeared the ordinance differentiated between those residents who paid and those who did not. He thought the council would face the same problem it faced now in regard to enforcement if it excluded that area. The City would have geographically isolated the issue. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the motion by including the area south of MLK bounded by the Millrace and Coburg Road (Map C amended). MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting Mr. Lidz determined that Councilor Clark was essentially suggesting a closed loop. Councilor Ortiz indicated she did not support the inclusion of the additional properties. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling, and Solomon voting yes. Councilor Bettman said that no one was interested in banning all alcohol consumption on game days, but she was in favor of banning it in the parking lots around the stadium. She did not believe any drinking was allowed inside Autzen Stadium and suggested that was because the UO did not want to manage the problem, and it had been externalized outside the stadium for the EPD to manage. If the City considered it justifiable to prohibit public drinking in the community because it was hazardous, it was even more justifiable on game days when people wanted to get intoxicated. She opposed the motion strenuously and said it sent the wrong message to the public. People could watch sports without the expectation they would be able to drink and become intoxicated and then get into their cars and drive home. She said “we are making a big mistake.” Councilor Zelenka said that tailgating did not equal drinking and people could tailgate without drinking and still have a good time. The City was not supporting a no-holds barred approach to drinking, but instead acknowledging its limitations in regard to enforcement capacity and regulating the problem. If parking lot owners did not follow the regulations, their ability to operate would be taken away. Saturation patrols would continue to take place, but now parking lot owners would be responsible for enforcement. Councilor Taylor said the issue was a difficult one for her. However, she thought parking lots were the last places that drinking should be encouraged because people reached such lots in cars and had to drive away to leave them. She regretted that Councilor Bettman’s first motion had failed. She suggested that forcing people to stop drinking at the end of the game could result in people leaving all at once, thus compounding the problem. She opposed the motion. Councilor Poling endorsed the comments of Councilor Zelenka, saying the City was not creating new places where alcohol use was allowed because the use had been happening for some years. The City would continue to enforce its drinking laws. A prohibition was punishment for 99 percent of the people because of the one percent who could not control themselves. He noted the many people who occupied the area at one time and suggested that problems were similar to those that occurred in the city over a weekend in a more spread out area. He noted that many of the parking lot owners had already established rules and regulations similar to those in the ordinance and had done a good job in managing their lots. He supported the ordinance, pointing out staff indicated 40 more officers would be needed to enforce the prohibition rules on parking lots in and around the stadium in the absence of the exemption, which were officers the City did not have. Mr. Lidz clarified the motion on the floor to ensure the correct map was being discussed; he pointed out the suggested motion under council Option 2 accomplished what was desired, but the ordinance in the packet included the older version of the map. He suggested the council amend the motion to amend the map. Councilor Pryor and Councilor Taylor accepted the friendly amendment adding the phrase “As depicted on the map for 4.190(4)(b) appended to this chapter and amending this provision,” and language offered by Mr. Lidz: “by Coburg Road on the west, the Willamette River on the south, interstate 5 on the east, and Interstate 105 on the north.” Councilor Bettman suggested the council majority was legalizing illegal drinking. She pointed out the administrative civil penalty, which allowed for up to two violations in one year in a three-month period MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting before a third penalty caused the privilege to be rescinded. She suggested a parking lot manager would ask a troublesome person to leave, and they would leave in their vehicle. Councilor Bettman said that the City was not legalizing tailgating; people could still have picnics with juice and water. The City Council was legalizing drinking in parking lots. Councilor Zelenka said that revocation occurred on a third penalty and reinstatement was not automatic. In addition, the ordinance included a provision that allowed citizens to make complaints. Roll call vote; the motion as amended passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to direct the city manager to schedule a work session on the ordinance in spring 2008 in time for modifications to take effect before the football season started. Councilor Poling determined from Mr. Lidz that the ordinance would take effect inside 30 days, and only two home games were scheduled after that. He asked if that would give time for evaluation of the ordinance. Chief Lehner did not believe it made much difference if it was one season or two games. Councilor Zelenka asked if the ordinance could be made effective immediately with an emergency clause. Mr. Lidz responded that two-thirds of the council must vote in the affirmative for the ordinance to be effective immediately. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Poling thought that there would be sufficient information before spring given the City’s past experience. Councilor Zelenka moved to reconsider the passage of the ordinance. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman clarified that drinking was still illegal in the parking lots adjacent to Autzen and asked if the City’s existing ordinance would be enforced. Chief Lehner said the ordinance had been essentially unenforceable because of resource constraints and he did not expect that to change in the next 30 days. Councilor Ortiz left the meeting. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Initiative and Referendum Procedures; and Amending Sections 2.972 and 2.981 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Lidz reminded the council that Section 1 of the ordinance would amend the provision of the Eugene Code defining the number of signatures required for a referendum petition to generate an election, and changed the standard from ten percent of the number of votes cast for all candidates for mayor to ten percent of the number of votes cast for mayor. Section 2 of the ordinance would give the council the option of scheduling an election on a referendum (not initiative measures) at a date different than the election at which it would otherwise be scheduled under current rules. That potentially avoided the cost of a special election. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend Eugene Code Section 2.981(2)(b) to read as follows: An election on legislation referred to the electors by petition shall be held on the next available election date under State law that is not sooner than the th 90 day after certification and acceptance of the referendum petition under Section 2.979, unless the council refers the measures to a later election date at which there are other meas- ures or candidates on the ballot. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy about the effect of the amendment, Mr. Lidz said the primary effect of the amendment to the motion would be to remove the option of holding an earlier election. It would also remove the option already contained in the code as it also affected the last sentence in subsection (2)(b), which stated special elections could not be held earlier than 66 days after certification and acceptance of the petition. . Councilor Bettman believed that the problem with giving the council the added discretion created by the ordinance was that if members of the community decided to challenge an ordinance and went through the rigor of securing the needed signatures, the clock started ticking when they handed in the signatures and they had yet to see the ballot title, which they might wish to challenge. Councilor Bettman perceived the ordinance as tightening the timeline to an unreasonable degree. She pointed out the council did not ask for the amendment and it came from staff. She said if the council wanted economy, this gave it the opportunity to place a measure on a ballot with other issues on it. If the council wanted to expedite a measure, the council could refer such a measure. She perceived the section as unfair and thought it made sense to attempt to amend the ordinance to achieve the economy without creating a grossly unfair situation for the commu- nity. City Recorder Mary Feldman, City Elections Officer, said the ballot title for a referendum petition was prepared within five days of the petitioners filing the initial petition, not when they turned in the signatures. She was required to file the prospective petition before the signature gathering occurred. Councilor Bettman said that made sense, but the residents still had to go through hoops because of the exacting restrictions. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Feldman reviewed the process timelines. Mr. Lidz said neither the ordinance nor Councilor Bettman’s amendment affected the signature gathering process as it addressed the timing of a referendum. Councilor Bettman suggested the complexity of the issue justified a work session. The existing ordinance provided that a special election may not be held earlier than 66 days after certification. Councilor Bettman thought the referendum process sufficiently challenging and said the City should not make it harder. . Councilor Zelenka agreed that the council should have had a work session on the issue. However, he was not convinced having more flexibility to vote earlier had much of an impact. He said the practice the City used to count the signatures for the gas tax was a long-held City practice changed by a judge, and only then did the petroleum operators have enough signatures to challenge the ordinance. He considered the council was fixing a technical error. Speaking to the economy issue, Councilor Zelenka said that the ordinance gave the council an opportunity to save money by avoiding a one-issue election. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting City Manager pro tem Jones reminded the council that she had recommended the council move forward without a work session because the ordinance reflected past practice and because of the economies of scale that were realized. She wanted the council to have the option to decide when something went on the ballot. Councilor Bettman said the council had the ability to schedule a later election, and her amendment did not compromise that. Mr. Lidz concurred. Councilor Bettman said that the economies were achievable with her amendment. Councilor Pryor recalled that the council had intended to fix the problem raised by the last referendum and he wanted to fix that problem without getting into discussions of the other issues without the benefit of a work session. Mayor Piercy asked if Councilor Pryor wished to separate the motion. Mr. Lidz clarified that would be Option B in the Agenda Item Summary. Councilor Bettman indicated willingness to withdraw her motion and defer the related issues to a work session. With the consent of her second, Councilor Taylor, Councilor Bettman withdrew her motion. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to delete the reference to Section 2.981 in the caption, delete Section 2, and renumber Section 3 to Section 2. Councilor Zelenka suggested the economy issue cut both ways. The council might want to have an earlier election that saved more money rather than later. That was why staff included the text “earlier or later.” It made sense and that was why he supported it. He encouraged the council to oppose the amendment as the council could face an election in the near future. He supported Option A. He added that he did not like the process the council went through to get here. Councilor Taylor agreed the council should hold a work session. She suggested that the council take minimal action and then discuss the pros and cons of the issues involved. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Solomon, Pryor, Taylor, and Bettman vot- ing yes; councilors Poling, Clark, and Zelenka voting no. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall September 24, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Deborah Frisch spoke to the ordinance concerning the consumption of alcohol that the council would vote on later in the evening and anticipated the various actions she believed the council would take in regard to amending the ordinance, which she maintained would not correct the awkward text in the ordinance and would still allow people to drive drunk. She suggested that the time for drinking be reduced from nine hours to seven hours. She then proceeded to imitate Howard Cosell on December 8, 1980, confirming the death of John Lennon. Dan Williams , Assistant to the President of the University of Oregon (UO), suggested all would agree it would be better if there was no alcohol present on game day. He noted the fact the Athletic Department must be self-supporting and so must be sensitive to its audience, who want the tailgating experience. For many, that includes alcohol consumption. Mr. Williams discussed the steps used to control alcohol consumption at Autzen Stadium, noting the limits imposed on time in the parking lot and the number of people who arrive at the stadium via bus, which helps alleviate the problem. Some suggested that the University should prohibit fans from leaving and re-entering the stadium on the basis they are likely leaving to drink, but he questioned how the University could differentiate between the reasons that people left. Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, addressed remarks that Councilor Clark had made to him in September 2007 asking him to refrain from calling Police Chief Robert Lehner’s integrity into question. He did not know the chief but had been told twice that the chief would contact him about problems at his condominium development but he had not. He saw no improvement in the police force since Chief Lehner was hired. People had been killed by the police and no one had been fired because of the Lara/Magana incidents. He speculated that the police could violate department policies without check or oversight. Mr. Collins maintained that Chief Lehner was part of a corrupt justice system overseen by Douglas Harcleroad, who he asserted was loved by the police but feared by attorneys and judges. He perceived the chief as a failure. Daniel Cooler, shared an anecdote about a recent encounter he had with the legal system. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting Zachary Vishanoff , a resident living on Patterson Street, asked that he be allowed to see the materials he was submitting to the council to ensure they received them. He shared several documents with the council to illustrate his remarks about his concerns about the potential of no-bid contracts such as that he anticipated would be issued for the proposed basketball arena. He wanted Nike to have to abide by the existing laws as he considered the arena to be “a Nike annexation of Eugene by dint of eminent domain.” Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called on the council for questions and remarks. Councilor Zelenka clarified that the City of Eugene had nothing to do with the University’s actions in regard to the University’s potential use of eminent domain. He acknowledged his own neighborhood’s concern about the impact of the arena but also noted the neighborhood organization’s tentative support for the arena if its concerns were respected by the University. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 11, 2007, Work Session - July 9, 2007, Work Session - July 16, 2007, City Council Meeting - July 23, 2007, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Request for Contingency Funds for Cost and Expense Associated with Recruitment and Selection of a New City Manager Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar with the exception of the minutes from the work session that was held on May 14, 2007. Councilor Bettman noted minutes corrections she had submitted earlier via e-mail, noting the deletion of the correction she had tentatively proposed to the July 23, 2007, work session minutes as that section had been clarified by minutes staff. Mayor Piercy deemed them approved as submitted. . Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Consumption or Possession of Alcohol in Public Places and Amending Sections 4.190, 4.990, and 4.996 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Ortiz joined the council via speakerphone. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4053, an ordinance concerning consumption or possession of alcohol in public places. Councilor Bettman asked City Attorney Jerome Lidz how the ordinance could be interpreted as creating a special class, a violation of the Oregon Constitution. Mr. Lidz recalled the challenge to Ballot Measure 37 ultimately decided by the Oregon Supreme Court, which ruled there was no special privilege created by Measure 37 that violated the constitution. In this case, he said, the question was what the classification was that constituted a special privilege for one group or lack of privilege for another. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman suggested that a student in the UO parking lot drinking a beer from an open container the day before the game could be cited by the police, but the next day, during a game during tail ating hours, the student would not be cited. The same was true of an individual across town in the park. Mr. Lidz said the constitutional standard was whether there was a reasonable basis for the classification under the law, or whether the law had a negative disparate impact on a protected class of persons. A UO student would not fall under the category of one receiving a special privilege. Mr. Lidz said unless the council was acting with a discriminatory motive, ordinances that distinguished among geographic areas did not violate the constitution. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the ordinance by delet- ing sections 1, 2, and 3 of the ordinance, and replacing them with a section that provides subsection 4 of Section 4.190 is hereby repealed. Councilor Bettman addressed the impact of her substitute motion, saying that the council rarely got to make life and death decisions but she considered the decision on the ordinance in question to be one. She viewed the motion offered by Councilor Pryor as the City creating opportunities for drinking and driving, which was a public health hazard. The code included an exemption for Autzen Stadium to a law that was in place the remainder of the year. She believed that the prohibition on public drinking was a justifiable law for Eugene. It had been enacted by a previous council to preserve the health and safety of the community and she thought it should apply to Duck fans as well as everyone else in the community. Councilor Bettman believed the City should maintain its law against public drinking. If the council did not think that justifiable, it should rescind the prohibition entirely. Responding to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Lidz confirmed that the City could prohibit drinking at the Autzen Stadium lot. He acknowledged that the area of City and University relationships was complex and sometimes theoretical, but generally the two parties avoided bringing issues to a head by agreeing on common purposes and policies. He did not believe the City could regulate the University itself, but that was different from regulating an individual’s behavior on UO property. Responding to a request for clarification from Councilor Solomon, Councilor Bettman said her motion would remove the exemption that the UO currently received. She said if the UO had jurisdiction over its parking lot, it could exercise it, but she was attempting to remove the City-provided exemption from the code. Councilor Bettman said she had not heard that the UO had jurisdiction over its lot but if that was the case the UO could allow drinking on its lot and accept the ramifications of that. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6;2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting yes. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend Section 4.190(2) as fol- lows: “The exemption is provided for the consumption of alcoholic beverages on this prop- erty during the time period commencing four hours before the start of the scheduled colle- giate game at Autzen Stadium and ending at the end of game.” Councilor Ortiz said that those she had asked had supported the four-hour window prior to game start times concept as a compromise. Mayor Piercy said she thought that ceasing activity after the third quarter was acceptable. Councilor Ortiz agreed. Councilor Bettman thought the amendment irrelevant to the issue of drinking and driving and the danger to public health. In addition, drinking at games created a huge enforcement issue for the Eugene Police MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Department, which the amendment that had been offered did not address. The revised ordinance would compound that problem. She did not want to set up an expectation among Duck fans that drinking and driving was condoned by the City because it was willing to make an exception to the existing law. Mayor Piercy reiterated her belief that drinking should be stopped after the third quarter thereby making the situation safer for the community. She invited the council to amend the motion thusly. Mr. Lidz said that Chief Lehner had pointed out that there was another reference to ending drinking two hours after the game was completed within the ordinance itself. He suggested the motion could be amended to amend section 1 of the ordinance by substituting the word “when” for the phrase “two hours after.” That would replace the phrase “two hours after game” in two places; one in the existing ordinance, and one in the proposed amendment. Councilors Ortiz and Poling accepted the amendment. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Zelenka said the wife and children of a dear friend were killed by a drunk driver and he understood what happened to people and their families when people decided to drink and drive. It was a big societal issue that would take more than action by the Eugene City Council to eradicate. He had observed tailgating at Autzen Stadium and believed that most people behaved responsibly. Those that did not created a problem, but he did not want to penalize many people to punish a few people. Councilor Zelenka acknowledged the City’s lack of enforcement capacity in regard to the current law prohibiting such drinking, and suggested the next best thing the council could do was to regulate it. He believed the proposed ordinance was an appropriate regulation and wanted the area regulated to be as small as possible. Councilor Zelenka had asked staff to find out where people were tailgating and it appeared they were divided between Centennial Loop and the Autzen Stadium area. As that was the area where tailgating was happening, he supported the boundaries, despite his initial objection. Councilor Zelenka said he did not think the City’s actions would increase drinking, but rather would regulate it. Councilor Clark offered a friendly amendment to include the businesses immediately adjacent to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to the south, so the boundaries included those lots adjacent to the street not now included in the map. He said it seemed arbitrary to exclude them. Councilor Pryor determined from Sergeant Pete Kerns that there may be tailgating in the area identified by Councilor Clark but an assessment done by the department did not produce any pay for use parking lots, which was the focus of the ordinance. Councilors Pryor and Ortiz declined to accept the friendly amendment. Councilor Clark wanted to treat all businesses in the immediate area in the same manner and said it appeared the ordinance differentiated between those residents who paid and those who did not. He thought the council would face the same problem it faced now in regard to enforcement if it excluded that area. The City would have geographically isolated the issue. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the motion by including the area south of MLK bounded by the Millrace and Coburg Road (Map C amended). MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting Mr. Lidz determined that Councilor Clark was essentially suggesting a closed loop. Councilor Ortiz indicated she did not support the inclusion of the additional properties. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling, and Solomon voting yes. Councilor Bettman said that no one was interested in banning all alcohol consumption on game days, but she was in favor of banning it in the parking lots around the stadium. She did not believe any drinking was allowed inside Autzen Stadium and suggested that was because the UO did not want to manage the problem, and it had been externalized outside the stadium for the EPD to manage. If the City considered it justifiable to prohibit public drinking in the community because it was hazardous, it was even more justifiable on game days when people wanted to get intoxicated. She opposed the motion strenuously and said it sent the wrong message to the public. People could watch sports without the expectation they would be able to drink and become intoxicated and then get into their cars and drive home. She said “we are making a big mistake.” Councilor Zelenka said that tailgating did not equal drinking and people could tailgate without drinking and still have a good time. The City was not supporting a no-holds barred approach to drinking, but instead acknowledging its limitations in regard to enforcement capacity and regulating the problem. If parking lot owners did not follow the regulations, their ability to operate would be taken away. Saturation patrols would continue to take place, but now parking lot owners would be responsible for enforcement. Councilor Taylor said the issue was a difficult one for her. However, she thought parking lots were the last places that drinking should be encouraged because people reached such lots in cars and had to drive away to leave them. She regretted that Councilor Bettman’s first motion had failed. She suggested that forcing people to stop drinking at the end of the game could result in people leaving all at once, thus compounding the problem. She opposed the motion. Councilor Poling endorsed the comments of Councilor Zelenka, saying the City was not creating new places where alcohol use was allowed because the use had been happening for some years. The City would continue to enforce its drinking laws. A prohibition was punishment for 99 percent of the people because of the one percent who could not control themselves. He noted the many people who occupied the area at one time and suggested that problems were similar to those that occurred in the city over a weekend in a more spread out area. He noted that many of the parking lot owners had already established rules and regulations similar to those in the ordinance and had done a good job in managing their lots. He supported the ordinance, pointing out staff indicated 40 more officers would be needed to enforce the prohibition rules on parking lots in and around the stadium in the absence of the exemption, which were officers the City did not have. Mr. Lidz clarified the motion on the floor to ensure the correct map was being discussed; he pointed out the suggested motion under council Option 2 accomplished what was desired, but the ordinance in the packet included the older version of the map. He suggested the council amend the motion to amend the map. Councilor Pryor and Councilor Taylor accepted the friendly amendment adding the phrase “As depicted on the map for 4.190(4)(b) appended to this chapter and amending this provision,” and language offered by Mr. Lidz: “by Coburg Road on the west, the Willamette River on the south, interstate 5 on the east, and Interstate 105 on the north.” Councilor Bettman suggested the council majority was legalizing illegal drinking. She pointed out the administrative civil penalty, which allowed for up to two violations in one year in a three-month period MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting before a third penalty caused the privilege to be rescinded. She suggested a parking lot manager would ask a troublesome person to leave, and they would leave in their vehicle. Councilor Bettman said that the City was not legalizing tailgating; people could still have picnics with juice and water. The City Council was legalizing drinking in parking lots. Councilor Zelenka said that revocation occurred on a third penalty and reinstatement was not automatic. In addition, the ordinance included a provision that allowed citizens to make complaints. Roll call vote; the motion as amended passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to direct the city manager to schedule a work session on the ordinance in spring 2008 in time for modifications to take effect before the football season started. Councilor Poling determined from Mr. Lidz that the ordinance would take effect inside 30 days, and only two home games were scheduled after that. He asked if that would give time for evaluation of the ordinance. Chief Lehner did not believe it made much difference if it was one season or two games. Councilor Zelenka asked if the ordinance could be made effective immediately with an emergency clause. Mr. Lidz responded that two-thirds of the council must vote in the affirmative for the ordinance to be effective immediately. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Poling thought that there would be sufficient information before spring given the City’s past experience. Councilor Zelenka moved to reconsider the passage of the ordinance. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman clarified that drinking was still illegal in the parking lots adjacent to Autzen and asked if the City’s existing ordinance would be enforced. Chief Lehner said the ordinance had been essentially unenforceable because of resource constraints and he did not expect that to change in the next 30 days. Councilor Ortiz left the meeting. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Initiative and Referendum Procedures; and Amending Sections 2.972 and 2.981 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Lidz reminded the council that Section 1 of the ordinance would amend the provision of the Eugene Code defining the number of signatures required for a referendum petition to generate an election, and changed the standard from ten percent of the number of votes cast for all candidates for mayor to ten percent of the number of votes cast for mayor. Section 2 of the ordinance would give the council the option of scheduling an election on a referendum (not initiative measures) at a date different than the election at which it would otherwise be scheduled under current rules. That potentially avoided the cost of a special election. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend Eugene Code Section 2.981(2)(b) to read as follows: An election on legislation referred to the electors by petition shall be held on the next available election date under State law that is not sooner than the th 90 day after certification and acceptance of the referendum petition under Section 2.979, unless the council refers the measures to a later election date at which there are other meas- ures or candidates on the ballot. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy about the effect of the amendment, Mr. Lidz said the primary effect of the amendment to the motion would be to remove the option of holding an earlier election. It would also remove the option already contained in the code as it also affected the last sentence in subsection (2)(b), which stated special elections could not be held earlier than 66 days after certification and acceptance of the petition. . Councilor Bettman believed that the problem with giving the council the added discretion created by the ordinance was that if members of the community decided to challenge an ordinance and went through the rigor of securing the needed signatures, the clock started ticking when they handed in the signatures and they had yet to see the ballot title, which they might wish to challenge. Councilor Bettman perceived the ordinance as tightening the timeline to an unreasonable degree. She pointed out the council did not ask for the amendment and it came from staff. She said if the council wanted economy, this gave it the opportunity to place a measure on a ballot with other issues on it. If the council wanted to expedite a measure, the council could refer such a measure. She perceived the section as unfair and thought it made sense to attempt to amend the ordinance to achieve the economy without creating a grossly unfair situation for the commu- nity. City Recorder Mary Feldman, City Elections Officer, said the ballot title for a referendum petition was prepared within five days of the petitioners filing the initial petition, not when they turned in the signatures. She was required to file the prospective petition before the signature gathering occurred. Councilor Bettman said that made sense, but the residents still had to go through hoops because of the exacting restrictions. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Feldman reviewed the process timelines. Mr. Lidz said neither the ordinance nor Councilor Bettman’s amendment affected the signature gathering process as it addressed the timing of a referendum. Councilor Bettman suggested the complexity of the issue justified a work session. The existing ordinance provided that a special election may not be held earlier than 66 days after certification. Councilor Bettman thought the referendum process sufficiently challenging and said the City should not make it harder. . Councilor Zelenka agreed that the council should have had a work session on the issue. However, he was not convinced having more flexibility to vote earlier had much of an impact. He said the practice the City used to count the signatures for the gas tax was a long-held City practice changed by a judge, and only then did the petroleum operators have enough signatures to challenge the ordinance. He considered the council was fixing a technical error. Speaking to the economy issue, Councilor Zelenka said that the ordinance gave the council an opportunity to save money by avoiding a one-issue election. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting City Manager pro tem Jones reminded the council that she had recommended the council move forward without a work session because the ordinance reflected past practice and because of the economies of scale that were realized. She wanted the council to have the option to decide when something went on the ballot. Councilor Bettman said the council had the ability to schedule a later election, and her amendment did not compromise that. Mr. Lidz concurred. Councilor Bettman said that the economies were achievable with her amendment. Councilor Pryor recalled that the council had intended to fix the problem raised by the last referendum and he wanted to fix that problem without getting into discussions of the other issues without the benefit of a work session. Mayor Piercy asked if Councilor Pryor wished to separate the motion. Mr. Lidz clarified that would be Option B in the Agenda Item Summary. Councilor Bettman indicated willingness to withdraw her motion and defer the related issues to a work session. With the consent of her second, Councilor Taylor, Councilor Bettman withdrew her motion. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to delete the reference to Section 2.981 in the caption, delete Section 2, and renumber Section 3 to Section 2. Councilor Zelenka suggested the economy issue cut both ways. The council might want to have an earlier election that saved more money rather than later. That was why staff included the text “earlier or later.” It made sense and that was why he supported it. He encouraged the council to oppose the amendment as the council could face an election in the near future. He supported Option A. He added that he did not like the process the council went through to get here. Councilor Taylor agreed the council should hold a work session. She suggested that the council take minimal action and then discuss the pros and cons of the issues involved. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Solomon, Pryor, Taylor, and Bettman vot- ing yes; councilors Poling, Clark, and Zelenka voting no. The meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 24, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 8, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy stated that renovations in the McNutt Room had been completed. She related that there were more recycling opportunities in the kitchen area. She listed some of the environment-friendly components that had gone into the McNutt Room and noted that the cabinets had all been re-used. nd Mayor Piercy shared a picture of the artwork that had been painted at the intersection of 22 Avenue and Garfield Street. She said it had been paid for by a Neighborhood Matching Grant and funds raised by the neighborhood association. th Additionally, Mayor Piercy discussed the recent celebration of the 25 anniversary of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts. She said the show had been “fabulous.” She averred that Eugene was fortunate to have its eight resident performing arts companies. Mayor Piercy reported that the kickoff for the River Loop bicycle connection had been held the previous week. She thanked State Representative Nancy Nathanson for the work she had done to get money to support signage and mapping along the Ruth Bascom Trail in preparation for the Olympic Trials. She also thanked the rest of the local delegation for their support of this project. th Mr. Pryor echoed Mayor Piercy’s kudos for the 25 anniversary celebration for the Hult Center. He called it a “tremendous event” and felt that the Hult Center was a wonderful place to have. Mr. Pryor also thanked staff for the facility improvements to the McNutt Room. th Mr. Zelenka related that he had gone to the 25 anniversary celebration at the Hult Center. He was amazed at the amount of talent the citizens of the City of Eugene had in the arts. He averred that it made the City a great place to live. Mr. Zelenka also commended the changes to the McNutt Room. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Clark thanked staff for all of the work staff had done on the McNutt Room. He reported that he had attended the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce Emerald Awards, many of which were geared toward recognizing businesses who utilized sustainable practices. He congratulated some of the winners, who th included Bow Tech, Café Yumm, and the Wildish Company. He had also attended the 25 anniversary celebration at the Hult Center. He thanked all of the staff and performers who worked hard on the show. Mr. Clark also wished to thank Representative Nathanson. He related that he had been talking with the representative and County Commissioner Bobby Green about short-term strategies that could be put into place at the intersection of Delta Highway and Beltline Highway. He said Representative Nathanson had begun working on that at the State level and had recently sent him a copy of a letter she sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding short-term safety solutions at the intersection. th Ms. Bettman added her kudos for the Hult Center’s 25 anniversary celebration. She declared the resident companies to be assets to the community. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for the work on the offices for the councilors. She asserted that the council had not had offices before and called the new offices a “great improvement.” Ms. Bettman related that she had received a lot of emails regarding Friendly Park. She recalled working on a master plan for the park which had ultimately been placed in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) nearly a decade ago. She asked for a timeline from staff on when the park improvements had been placed in the CIP and what the delays were attributable to. th Ms. Taylor also had enjoyed the Hult Center’s 25 anniversary celebration. She related that she had also seen the most recent production of the Willamette Repertory Theater and had enjoyed it. She said she planned to attend Lord Leebrick Theater’s current play. She felt fortunate to have such fine theater companies and so much talent in the community. Ms. Taylor said the City was also fortunate to have active neighborhood groups, such as the Crest Drive Neighbors. Ms. Taylor also noted that she had heard State Senator Floyd Prozanski speak at the City Club. She felt he had done a “good job” of addressing the issues involved with Ballot Measure 49. Ms. Taylor reported that the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) would meet on October 9. She said there had been a request to change the wood heating ordinance. She explained that there had been a change in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) standards. Ms. Solomon arrived. th Mr. Poling commended the 25 anniversary celebration for the Hult Center, calling it “extraordinary.” He noted he had been ill and apologized for missing some of his commitments. Ms. Ortiz said she had attended the National Association for Citizen Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conference in San Diego for five days and had missed the Hult Center celebration. She related that the NACOLE gathering had included representatives from Canada, Wales, North Ireland, and Brazil. She noted that the host city had a civilian auditor. She commented that she had come away from the conference with the sense that each community had to design their own oversight process according to their needs. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said she had attended the Golden Gardens tour and thought it was nice. She had also attended the fundraiser for Food for Lane County and had been impressed by the generosity displayed by the people who attended the event. Ms. Ortiz noted that she would be attending the National League of Cities. She requested that the public hearing on the River Road annexation issue be postponed. Continuing, Ms. Ortiz commended the Emergency Medical Services report. She felt that it had been well done and she hoped it was on line for the community to review. She averred that Chief Randy Groves had done a good job of recruiting people to replace those who had retired. Ms. Ortiz reported that the council had conducted interviews for boards, commissions, and committees the previous week and would be interviewing more people. Mayor Piercy noted that City Manager pro tem Angel Jones was absent as she was attending the Interna- tional City Managers Association (ICMA) conference and that Acting Assistant City Manager Scott Luell would be sitting in for her. Mr. Pryor reminded the council of his proposed motion regarding the West Eugene Collaborative and the Mayor asked him to place the motion on the table. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the council: (1) authorize $40,000 from the council contingency fund to support facilitation of and technical studies for the voluntary and advisory group known as West Eugene Collaborative; (2) authorize the city manager to make staff available to provide additional support for the West Eugene Collaborative; and (3) request the West Eugene Collaborative to report back to the council and other governing bodies with recommendations for consideration on the West Eugene Corridor study. Ms. Bettman had hoped that this item would be postponed until the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) had the opportunity to address her concerns. She indicated her opposition to the motion. She took issue with the operating agreements as they indicated some flexibility to evolve with time. She felt this would mean that the agreements could be changed at any time. She averred that the WEC had outlined no parameters for accountability. She alleged that the WEC was “top heavy” with business interests and agency staff. Ms. Ortiz requested staff input. Emily Proudfoot, Landscape Architect for the Public Works Engineering Division, stated that the group had met as the WEC for six months and prior to that they had evolved from the Eugene Round Table, a group of individuals with broad-based interests. She said when the council had given direction to move forward on th the West 11 Corridor Study she had been invited to the group to discuss the study. She related that the group indicated it was interested in this topic and had asked who should be at the table. She explained that the group had solicited individuals from a broad spectrum of groups to participate in the WEC. She reported that at the first meeting the members were asked to look around and see if anyone was missing that should be there. She said since they had begun meeting they had developed a work program that they were on schedule with and were being facilitated by John Highland and Dennis Donald from the Osprey Group, which had been selected out of three recommended facilitators and paid for by $20,000 in seed money contributed by four of the member groups. She noted that an additional $7,200 had been contributed since then. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz thanked her for the information. She felt that not supporting the motion was akin to denying there was a problem. She wanted to see the process move forward as there was a definite transportation problem in the western area of the City. Ms. Solomon was supportive of the motion but she did not recall the second part of the motion, which was to authorize the City Manager to make staff available to the WEC. Ms. Proudfoot responded that one of the gaps in staffing had been in land use. She said the land use/transportation relationship was of great interest to the WEC and they felt they could use help with that element of the discussion. Ms. Solomon reiterated her support. She did not want the City of Eugene to provide the full staffing for the WEC as there were multiple organizations involved in it. Ms. Taylor said she was concerned as she did not feel the council had enough information on the WEC. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to postpone the motion. Ms. Bettman believed the 35 members of the WEC was “heavily weighted” with staff of different agencies who were not officially present as staff from those agencies. She asserted that out of those 35 she had counted only six who could be “loosely defined” as progressive. She did not believe the WEC was a “balanced body.” Ms. Proudfoot pointed out that the Lane Transit District (LTD) had contributed $5,000. Ms. Bettman asserted that the WEC was transitioning from “a self-selected group meeting on their own time as kind of a private club” into a “mantle of credibility.” Mr. Clark commented that balance lay in the eye of the beholder. He related that he had viewed the list and perceived it to consist of five or six business interests with the remainder made up of government agency interests and activists. He thought it had been a little off balance in that regard. He said he was likely to support the motion but he would want to have more frequent reports to the council than had been suggested. Mayor Piercy recalled that when the council majority had decided to not support going forward with the West Eugene Parkway the council had said it would support a collaborative to come up with alternative solutions. She believed the WEC was in keeping with the City Council direction. She underscored that Mr. Pryor had been reporting to the council regarding the meetings on a regular basis so that the council would be informed from the beginning. She averred that the WEC was a broad-based group that came out of an effort to find a different way of bringing people together to work toward a community solution. The motion to postpone failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mr. Zelenka said he appreciated Ms. Bettman’s concern. He felt it was late to weigh in on the issue at this “stage of the game” as the WEC had been going on “for quite a long time.” He had been impressed by the work of the WEC as related to the council in Mr. Pryor’s reports. He stressed the importance of working on West Eugene’s transportation issue. Ms. Bettman reiterated that she would oppose the motion. She had been troubled by the assertion that the WEC had brought “everyone to the table” given that there was no rail advocate participating on the group. She said a rail advocate had not been invited and this meant such an advocate had been “excluded.” She felt the council had not been presented with an adequate amount of information on the WEC and approval of the motion was tantamount to “rushing it through.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Poling spoke to the diversity of the committee. He said Gerry Gaydos, Rob Zako, and Mary O’Brien gave a presentation on the WEC and none of them had complained about the makeup of the committee. He thought the WEC was balanced. He stressed that once the council had voted the WEP down it had to address the transportation issues the WEP sought to address. He said the members of the WEC were people in the community who were willing to come together on their own time and set aside their political differences to try to come up with a solution that would best address the problems at hand. Regarding concern expressed about there not being a rail representative at the table, he said he had heard an open invitation for such a representative to join one of the subcommittees. He favored moving the item forward. Mr. Pryor believed it was a good process and the WEC had a good membership. He averred that the committee was balanced in a way that the City had not previously seen. He said any interests could be accommodated. He underscored that the City was not providing the only source of the money; this money would be used as leverage to garner funding from other sources. He indicated that he would be happy to report more frequently on the progress of the WEC. He stated that the WEC was at the beginning of this process and was committed to working in concert with LTD and the City on their studies to ensure they were working with similar data sources and similar processes. He felt the WEC was “off to a good start.” Mr. Clark pointed out that neighborhood organizations were also self-selected. He said the residents who felt passionate about an issue were the ones that showed up for meetings and the ones that did the work. He believed the City should encourage more of this. He averred that this particular group saw a problem and he was sufficiently comfortable that this was good group of strong leaders trying to solve a problem we all face. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. B. WORK SESSION: Street Design Standards for Crest Drive Neighborhood Acting Assistant City Manager Luell stated that this was a continuation of the discussion begun on September 19. He said Fred Lorish was present to represent the Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT) and that City Engineer Mark Schoening would walk through the changes in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). Mr. Schoening explained that the memorandum from Public Works Director Kurt Corey had been revised to include the additional exception criteria that had pertained to the River Avenue project, which allowed for further input from affected property owners. He said the other change was in the form of a draft resolution that was slated to be the subject of a public hearing that would change the minimum street width in the Crest Drive area from ten feet to nine feet. He reiterated that the reason this exception had come before the council was because City staff could not support it. Mr. Schoening stressed that there had been an open process for the CDCT. The team had weighed all of the information that had come in and had arrived at an agreement on the five individual streets though it had not agreed upon the overall concept and this agreement had not included bicycle lanes or shared sidewalks, as per the request from the Bicycle Coalition. He said that particular solution was not consistent with the themes and values set forth by the process. He noted that from a transportation engineering perspective it would be a dangerous solution because it would put bicyclists and pedestrians in conflict in a narrow space. Mr. Schoening related that the second issue had to do with a letter that had arrived from School District 4J. He said whether the street was 18 feet or 20 feet there would be a curb to separate the vehicles from the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 5 Work Session pedestrians. He stated that a bus would not be able to roll up onto the curb. He said where there were setback sidewalks, there would be bioswales, and the curb was flush with the street so that a bus would not be able to pull onto that. Continuing, Mr. Schoening reiterated that the fundamental difference between City staff and the CDCT was that staff was comfortable that with a 20-foot street width the balance between pedestrian safety and traffic would be met, while the CDCT felt an 18-foot width was adequate and more in line with the neighborhood. Ms. Taylor thanked the staff for allowing the council to consider an 18-foot width. She averred that it was important to listen to citizens that had worked on an issue “for years.” She commended the commitment of the neighborhood residents who worked on it. Mr. Lorish said the thing to do was to slow down traffic. He believed an 18-foot wide street would serve that purpose, while enhancing the neighborhood and keeping bicyclists and pedestrians safe; neighborhood residents wanted to maintain the rural feel of the area. Ms. Taylor asked if there had been discussion of adding stop signs. Mr. Lorish replied that the CDCT had discussed them. He said this issue resided with the traffic engineers. Ms. Taylor asked if the council could ask for additional stop signs to be installed. Mr. Schoening responded that there were standard criteria across the country, but the council could give direction to the traffic engineers to disregard the standard. Ms. Taylor thought that installation of stop signs every two blocks would slow traffic down. Ms. Taylor acknowledged that some people could not afford to pay the assessments for street improvements. She said she understood that some people who lived in the cul de sacs had indicated a willingness to help pay for road improvements. She wondered if there was a mechanism to facilitate that. Mr. Schoening thought there would be such a mechanism. Ms. Bettman said she wished staff could have resolved this issue administratively. She supported allowing the street width to be 18 feet wide. She believed the City should change to “skinny streets.” Ms. Solomon thanked the staff members and community members for working together. She was reminded of Ayres Road when she thought of skinny streets, but had discovered that Ayres Road was actually three feet wider than what was being proposed for Crest Drive. She felt that building a narrower street seemed like trouble. Mr. Clark expressed admiration for the area residents who had worked hard on this issue for a period of years. He said the decision boiled down to the desires of the residents who lived in proximity to the streets versus safety issues. He recalled the accident that resulted in a bicyclist’s fatality that happened on a narrow rural road in 2006. He wanted to be sensitive to the safety issues involved in this. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Schoening said Mr. Corey had indicated that the streets were currently “20 feet and wider.” Neighborhood residents present disputed this. Mr. Clark observed that even “chock full of potholes” he rarely witnessed anyone driving under 25 miles per hour on Crest Drive when he traversed it. He said though it was a “skinny street filled with potholes” people “zoomed down” the street. He was not certain that “just making it skinny” would slow traffic down. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Schoening stated that the concept that was on the table included 15 speed tables, three traffic circles, eight medians, and a choker on a section of Crest Drive that was west of Morse Ranch. Mr. Clark asked if staff had consulted with the Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department. Mr. Schoening affirmed that staff had done so. He related that the difference between 18 feet and 20 feet would be in the traffic circle for a school bus or emergency vehicle. He stated that staff ran the turning templates for the large vehicles in the design software. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Schoening said pedestrians would not have a clear idea of what bicyclists would do. Mr. Lorish averred that this was assuming that the sidewalks were attached to the streets, but most of them were not attached. He said “optical width” was an important element. He asserted that research showed that narrow streets slowed down traffic and this would provide more safety. Mr. Clark asked if the choke points would have to be taken out of the design if the street was narrower. Mr. Schoening responded that with the council’s funding staff had contracted with professional land surveyors to review over 15,000 data points. He said staff knew what the road width was, where the trees were, and where the streams were. All of the trees greater than 12 inches in diameter had been inventoried for health, species, height, and width by an arborist. He stressed that transportation staff had worked with the engineering staff and design teams to design the concepts presented to the council. He reiterated that impacts between 18 feet and 20 feet were essentially the same with regard to trees, properties, and the public right-of-way. Mr. Pryor asked if the infrastructure would be basically the same with an 18 foot road as with a 20 foot road. Mr. Schoening affirmed that it would. Mr. Pryor surmised that the issues were whether a narrower street would serve to slow traffic and that the residents wished to preserve the “country feel” of the road. Regarding the latter, he felt that part of the debate was whether Crest Drive was a country road or a city street. He asked what would happen if a school bus and a garbage truck met on an 18-foot street. Mr. Schoening replied that one of the two would have to go off the road for the other to get by. Mr. Pryor asked if one of the large vehicles having to go off the road onto a bioswale would create a hazard. Mr. Schoening replied that it would as the bioswales would be on a 3:1 slope. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Schoening affirmed that a 20-foot street would make a difference in this situation. Mr. Zelenka observed that with the current plan the bicyclists would either ride on the street or they would ride on the sidewalk and he felt that both of these options would create problems. He said whether the street was 18 feet wide or 20 feet wide would not affect bicyclists. Mr. Schoening confirmed this. Mr. Zelenka averred that all streets should accommodate bicyclists as this would be the mode of transportation citizens would be pushed into as the City grew and traffic issues increased. Mr. Zelenka asked what difference a sloped curb would make as opposed to a regular curb. Mr. Schoening replied that a regular curb would keep the bicycles in the street and a driver and pedestrians would know the bicycle would stay in the street; everyone would have the same expectation. Mr. Lorish said the design was already agreed upon. He averred that the neighborhood was already taking into account the needs of bicyclists because they were working to slow the traffic. He believed that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 7 Work Session concept that a broad street was necessary was not universally agreed upon. He observed that bicyclists in Europe do not have wide bicycle lanes. He also disagreed with the idea that motorists were not willing to wait to go around bicyclists. He declared that everyone had to share the road. He felt a wider optical width would speed traffic up. Mr. Poling suggested that the traffic engineers work on some practical applications of turning radii with “chalk and string.” He had heard that traffic circles in Meridian, Idaho had to be removed after installation because fire trucks could not get around them and he did not want to construct something unworkable. He asked how many school buses drove on the road per day. He thought there would only be one or two in the morning and in the evening. He also did not believe there would be many garbage trucks driving on the road. He felt the conflicts would resolve themselves. He underscored that the decision before the council was whether or not to have a public hearing on the item. Ms. Bettman averred that research data had indicated that narrower streets caused people to drive more slowly. Mr. Pryor favored moving ahead with the public hearing. Ms. Taylor agreed. She believed there were other advantages to having a narrow street, such as that it reduced the amount of impervious surfaces. Mayor Piercy averred that ambiance was important to neighborhoods. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to hold a public hear- ing on street design standards for the Crest Drive Neighborhood. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Rental Housing Program Update Acting Assistant City Manager Luell noted that 49 percent of the residents of Eugene were renters. He said the ordinance the rental housing code program was governed by was slated to sunset in December, 2008. Rachelle Nicholas, Code Enforcement Supervisor for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), provided a power point presentation on the status of the City of Eugene Rental Housing Code. Mr. Clark ascertained from financial statements that expenditures for the first year had been $60,000 but the program still had a net of over $14,000 and that in the second year the program had netted an excess of $76,000. He asked where the excess dollars went. Ms. Nicholas replied that the program had to pay back the loan from the General Fund. In response to a follow-up question, Ms. Nicholas affirmed that the program had some funds in reserve. Mr. Clark commented that he was happy with the program. He noticed that the program had, at current rates, about 25 percent excess over the amount the program cost. He said he would like to cut the fee, but not the late fee, by 20 percent. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman commended the program. She felt the housing stock in the City was slowly being upgraded. She said she would be happy to entertain Mr. Clark’s motion, but she would want to see a spreadsheet of the budget with the lowered $8 per unit fee. Ms. Solomon asked if all of the rental units were in the database at this point. Ms. Nicholas responded that they were working on it. She said the billable addresses changed daily and were hard to track. Ms. Taylor was not in favor of reducing the fees. She suggested that mold be added to the list of hazards that had to be remedied given dangers of living in moldy conditions. She asked if smoke detectors were required. Ms. Nicholas replied that they were required by Oregon Revised Statutes but they were only tracked in multi-family units. Ms. Taylor thought the council should consider making the late fees more reasonable. She concluded by saying that the program had resulted from citizen actions. She commended the people who had undertaken it. Mr. Zelenka called it a “great” ordinance as it protected students and low-income families. With regard to a reduction in fees, he was somewhat troubled given that the number of complaints had increased. He had some concern that the surplus would ultimately disappear. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Nicholas clarified that staff found places that did not have smoke detectors but were not able to enforce the State law. Mr. Zelenka asked what the law was in respect to smoke detectors. Ms. Nicholas replied that the owner was supposed to install smoke detectors. Mr. Zelenka asked how many rental units did not have smoke detectors. Ms. Nicholas responded that the majority of single-family units did not have them. Mr. Zelenka thought the council should consider adding smoke detectors to the ordinance. He also agreed that mold was something that should be looked into. Ms. Nicholas stated, in a follow-up question, that a lack of locking doors and windows was a frequent complaint. Mr. Zelenka asked staff to bring back language for a proposal to include smoke detectors, mold, and locks in the ordinance language. Mr. Pryor echoed Mr. Zelenka. He agreed that mold was an issue as well. He related that there had been a presentation from a fire chief at the National Leagues of Cities conference, the gist of which was that working smoke detectors were a “must.” He did not strongly support a fee reduction. He added that locking doors and windows were absolutely important. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Nicholas clarified that the money was a flat fee and was not based on the number of complaints. Mr. Poling also supported the additions to the language that Mr. Zelenka had requested. Ms. Ortiz concurred. She averred that if it became a hardship for a person to undertake a large smoke detector installation the City should consider a way to help him or her. Mayor Piercy asked if there had been any evidence of tenants experiencing backlash after making a complaint or withholding a complaint out of fear that the landlord would retaliate. Ms. Nicholas replied that she thought it had happened on occasion. She said for the most part having the City come to the rental location with the owner there put the tenant and landlord on a better track for communication. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Mayor Piercy said the councilors needed to “keep their eyes on the ball” as to whether low-income people were experiencing adversity as a result of filing a complaint. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to modify the ordinance with specific enhance- ments or changes and return to the council. Mr. Clark indicated his willingness to withhold his amendment if one of the modifications directed the program to develop a forecasted budget. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall October 8, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. William Ivanoff , 1810 Harris Street, #336, cited two quotes, the first of which was “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.” The second quote was “the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome.” He cited an article by Rachel Weber entitled Equity and Entrepreneurialism: The Impact of Tax Increment Financing on School Finance which examined the case of tax increment financing. Ms. Weber postulated that entrepreneurial policies created conflict between taxing bodies as higher levels of government take on some of the fiscal burden of the redistributed functions. He likened the current debate on the downtown renewal district to the debates that preceded it in the 1980s and earlier. He quoted an article from the newspaper that discussed a developer considering a major retail/theater/restaurant development in the downtown that sought to rejuvenate downtown, printed in 1985. He averred that the only difference between then and now was the date on the calendar and the cast of “characters” involved in the current urban renewal proposals. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, cited Statewide planning goals and guidelines Goal 12 Article 4, which stated that major transportation facilities should avoid dividing neighborhoods. He stated that the thth west side of the City contained an urban social unit. He believed that 6 Avenue and 7 Avenue would be a th good alternative for a westward EmX route. He felt that 13 Avenue was a bad choice. He underscored his feeling that neighborhoods should not be bisected. James R. Seaberry , 1475 Green Acres Road, Space 162, asked the council to consider making a good park for musical performances. He said Springfield’s Island Park had a raised stage and averred that Eugene should have one as well. He felt a stage was needed at Washburne Park for the acoustical and visual benefits of the audience. He related an experience he had while attending a Eugene Symphonic Band concert in a park in which he had difficulty hearing and seeing. He offered to help raise money to build such a stage. He noted that the stage in Island Park cost $55,000 to construct and he anticipated that one could be built today for $75,000. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting David Thor Johnson , 4986 Hunters Glen Drive, suggested that the councilors give themselves a raise. He heard that the City was considering purchasing land for the Ridgeline Trail project outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB). He urged the council not to forget the Beverly/Green properties which could become parks within the UGB. Tom Halferty , 4510 Manzanita Street, echoed Mr. Johnson. He supported the idea of a green “ring around Eugene.” He supported the concept of the Ridges to Rivers and actually acquiring properties. However, he urged the City to acquire the Beverly/Green properties first. He expressed some concern that the properties would be dropped from the slate. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, heard that the City was applying for a Forest Legacy matching grant for land outside of the UGB. She had “worked around the clock” to get people to back the parks bond in 2006. She felt that “many” people voted for it thinking it would be used to purchase the Beverly/Green properties. She averred that it would kill an important funding tool for the Amazon Headwaters acquisition if outside properties were purchased first. She provided pictures of La Jolla, California, landslides to substantiate her belief that building on hillsides was not prudent. Zachary Vishanoff , a resident living on Patterson Street, averred that giving one’s address acted as a deterrent to some people who would otherwise testify. He believed that there would be more citizen engagement now that this requirement had been lifted. He provided the council with copies of an article on historic buildings on the University of Oregon campus, one of which was MacArthur Court. He said there had been discussion of razing that building, which he believed to be very important. He felt that whether the building should be razed should be a “full community decision.” He opined that the University “had a habit” of leaving low-income houses that it owned empty. He declared that it would be “obscene” to leave 25 or 30 homes empty while there would be a need for housing during the 2008 Olympic Trials. He asserted that the University would have to fix them in order to utilize them and that it was unwilling to do so. He called the University a “slum lord” and the retention of vacant housing “strategic degradation.” He wanted to get the council to rethink weighing in on the University’s alleged request for more autonomy from the Oregon university system. Lyndell Wilken , 3065 Whitbeck Boulevard, member of the Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT), stated that her role in the process had been to represent bicyclists in the community with regard to the design concepts for the Crest Drive area roads. She related that she had a good working relationship with the CDCT but she had one concern. She said there had been bicycle lanes included in the design on the uphill sides of Crest Drive by Wayne Morse Ranch and on Friendly Street through the second open house. She felt that when smaller subcommittees composed of “just street-front people” were convened, the bicycle amenities disappeared. She said it was thought that traffic-calming features would be adequate to slow traffic and make it safe for bicyclists. She thought the issues concerning bicyclists had not been adequately addressed. She underscored that both an 18-foot and a 20-foot road looked narrow to a cyclist. She wanted to find a way to get bicycles out of the traffic lane while retaining a “country look.” Robert Newland , 3895 Vine Maple Street, stated that he was the proposed developer of the property at 1360 and 1372 Patterson Street for which action had been scheduled on a Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE). He wished to underscore that he had worked diligently to design an architecturally interesting building with balconies and courtyards that would incorporate sustainability features. He predicted the structure would enable residents and the City Council 50 to 100 years from now to look back and be pleased that it was not just another “big box” that would densify the area. He asked that the council grant the MUPTE as he would not be able to develop the building as he had planned it without the exemption. He indicated he would sell the property in that case. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting Paul Moore , 2586 Potter Street, believed that the streets in the Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard area were city streets and not country streets. He felt the question of bicyclists had to be addressed. He declared that lane widths were of limited concern to bicyclists in the absence of safe and welcoming bicycle facilities. He was concerned about the manner in which the CDCT used bicycle safety as a way to sell “their argument.” He disputed the argument that making roads narrow would increase traffic safety. He related that he reviewed the study the CDCT had cited in defense of its argument for narrow streets and discovered that the study determined the safest streets to be “narrow streets” and defined those streets as 24 feet wide and that as streets were wider, the accidents increased. He stated that 24 feet would provide 18 feet and a 6 foot bicycle lane. He noted that the “functional value” as stated in the study was safety for all modes and all users, including alternative modes. He reiterated that in this case there was no location for a bicycle except in the traffic lane. He asked the council to consider how an 18-foot road could accommodate two sport utility vehicles and a bicycle. He predicted the bicyclist would have to go into the bioswale. Joe Collins , 2233 Hawkins Lane, continued his ongoing testimony regarding his displeasure with the performance of the Eugene Police Department (EPD). Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called on the council for questions and remarks. Councilor Taylor supported Mr. Seaberry’s suggestion that an outdoor stage be constructed in one of the City’s parks. Councilor Zelenka recalled that the idea of building a bandstand had been discussed by the University neighborhood and the Fairmount Neighbors. In response to testimony requesting the City take a stand with the University, he wished to reiterate that the City of Eugene had absolutely no authority over the University of Oregon. He stressed that the University could choose to pursue an eminent domain action and the City could do nothing about it. Councilor Clark welcomed input from Mr. Seaberry. He said he would be pleased to work with him on a project to build an outdoor stage. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - July 23, 2007, City Council Meeting - July 25, 2007, Work Session - August 13, 2007, Work Session - August 15, 2007, Work Session - September 10, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4917 Approving a Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax th Exemption for the Property Located at 1025 West 7 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Property Account Number 0473015). (St. Vincent DePaul Society of County, Inc.) D. Approval of Sale of Surplus Property on Hilyard Street Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman noted she had submitted minutes corrections earlier via e-mail. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy deemed them approved as submitted. She noted that Councilor Poling had submitted a correction as well, also deemed approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. PUBLIC FORUM AND ACTION: Candidate Profile for City Manager Recruitment Acting Assistant City Manager Scott Luell introduced the subject. He said if the council took action at the present meeting, staff would be able to put the candidate profile into the mail the next week and move the process along. Councilor Bettman reiterated her wish to delete the weather report from the document. She also asserted that there were three redundancies and listed them. Additionally, Councilor Bettman expressed concern that some candidates might not apply for the position if the interviews were not conducted in executive session, as their current employers would become aware of the interview. She had noticed that the County conducted two days of hiring completely in executive session. She wondered if the City could conduct its interviews in executive session. Executive Director of the Human Resources Division, Lauren Chouinard, responded that he thought the recruiter the City hired was adept at his job and would communicate to candidates when it reached the point at which they would come for interviews. He noted that the last recruitment had been kept “under wraps” until the City narrowed it to the last candidate, while Springfield had, in its most recent city manager hiring process, profiled the final five candidates in the city newspaper. Mayor Piercy stated that no one had signed up for the public forum. Councilor Bettman recalled that when the council originally looked at the document there had been two parts to it, one of which was the legal portion on which the contract would be based. She asked what part of the current document constituted the legal language that would ultimately translate into the contract itself. Mr. Chouinard stated that there was not much in the current document that would be legally binding and would be placed into the contract. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that, generally, if there were objective qualifications in the position description, the City would be locked into those qualifications. He averred that the City needed to set the qualifications carefully so it did not get a pool so wide that no one would be screened out; but they also did not want to set such strict qualifications that a leading candidate would not meet them. Councilor Bettman asked when the council would see the contract for the City Manager position. She wanted to know if it would be based on the criteria before them. Mr. Chouinard replied that he would look into it. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the candidate profile and job description for the position of City Manager. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: Resolution 4918 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property Located at 1360 and 1372 Patterson Street, Eugene, Oregon (Robert V. Newland, Applicant) Community Development Director Richie Weinman stated that Mr. Newland was a lifelong resident of Eugene and a businessman with no previous experience in housing development. He said Mr. Newland had first contacted the Community Development Division in the spring and had worked closely with staff to “try and do everything right.” He related that Mr. Newland worked with the neighborhood group and had garnered unanimous approval from them for the project. He added that Senior Planner, Ken Guzowski, who was staff liaison for the Historic Review Board indicated to him that the two existing houses on the properties were not of significant historic value. Mr. Weinman reported that staff supported the recommendation. He said that a question was whether the council wished to address the application for the MUPTE at the present meeting or postpone it until after the council work session on the MUPTE program. He underscored that Mr. Newland was concerned about the timing of his project; if he did not complete it in a certain amount of time, it would create financial issues for the project. If the decision on the MUPTE was delayed, Mr. Newland indicated that he would have to decide whether to pursue the project. Councilor Bettman asked what the “discrete subject” of the MUPTE work session was. Mr. Weinman replied that the work session had been requested by the councilors. He said he would review the history of the program at the session. Councilor Bettman asked if there had been a council poll. Mayor Piercy replied that she wanted the council to have this discussion because if different standards were going to be applied for one area then the program needed to be revised to reflect this. Councilor Zelenka recalled that the last MUPTE application that had come before the council was from the campus area and had been voted down. He said this had raised questions about where the boundary for the MUPTE should fall. He felt that without the MUPTE the smaller developers had a difficult time coming up with the equity cash to build the projects, causing them to be pushed out of the marketplace and pushing the development onto larger developers. He was interested in having an indepth discussion of the program at the work session. Councilor Bettman thought it would be prudent for the council to consider whether it should take action on the application before or after the work session first. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve Resolution 4918, a Mul- tiple Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 1360 and 1372 Pat- terson Street. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to postpone the adoption until after the work session. Councilor Solomon believed the applicant had gone through a process and had done “his homework.” It appeared to her that the application met the City’s standards. She felt the development would be the highest and best use of those properties. Additionally, the unanimous support of the West University Neighbors (WUN) for the project carried a lot of weight for her. She did not think that that the timeline should change for Mr. Newland just because the council wished to discuss the MUPTE program in the larger context. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka asked the council to consider having the discussion first. He did not believe that two weeks would make a big difference in Mr. Newland’s timeline. Councilor Poling could not support postponing the item. He underscored that Mr. Newland followed all of the rules the City had set. He said Mr. Newland should not be punished just because the council had changed its collective mind and decided to revisit the MUPTE program. Councilor Clark opposed postponement. He averred that a delay would create a significant burden for Mr. Newland. He reiterated that the applicant had abided by the rules. He added that the opportunity to have something like this project built in the University area alleviated issues the Rental Housing Program dealt with in “a very common sense way.” He said the rental program worked in the City to alleviate rundown student housing and this was an opportunity to build brand new “state-of-the-art” student housing. Councilor Ortiz also could not support postponement. She felt it would be akin to moving the bar for Mr. Newland. She stressed that he had applied for the MUPTE under the current criteria and if the council said the City would begin processing applications for the program differently starting tomorrow and he applied at that time she would feel differently. Councilor Pryor concurred. He averred that the current MUPTE was adequate. He did not think the discussion the council would have should bear on this particular application. Councilor Taylor declared that the MUPTE was never supposed to be automatic; it was a City Council decision. She opined that there would be development whether the City granted a tax break or not. She felt that just because it was going to be a good project did not mean it should receive the tax exemption. Roll call vote; the motion to postpone failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in favor. Councilor Bettman agreed that Mr. Newland was “a nice man” and the project was a good one. She took issue with the notion of subsidizing student housing. She averred that the concentration of students in the area put a burden on the infrastructure. She thought a lot of construction was happening in the campus area and would continue without the exemption. She opposed giving a tax break for student housing as the vacancy rate was low and it was very profitable. She supported granting a MUPTE in certain neighbor- hoods and under certain circumstances. She did not believe it was justifiable to forego tax dollars needed to provide services in this case. Councilor Zelenka complimented Mr. Newland on his proposal and his outreach to councilors and to the neighborhood. He said the notion that Mr. Newland had followed the rules was “not good enough” for him. He projected the exemption to amount to $340,000 over ten years. He underscored that he wished to ensure that granting a MUPTE to this particular project was the right thing to do. He agreed that housing would be built regardless, but he did not believe it would be of the quality of Mr. Newland’s project. He noted that another applicant with a similar project in the same area had been turned down by the council recently. Councilor Solomon stressed that a MUPTE did not mean there were no taxes paid as the property owner continued to pay taxes on the land value. She believed that it was the responsibility of the councilors to partner in this kind of development and that this project would be important to the City. Councilor Clark acknowledged that the City would forego tax revenue on the improvements to the property for ten years but he wanted to underscore that for the useful life of the building which would extend far beyond the ten years, the City would collect substantially more in revenue than the existing tax revenue. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting reiterated that the Rental Housing Program, started in 2006, had arisen because of problems associated with rundown housing predominantly located near campus which “costs $300,000 every year.” He preferred to partner with people who would create new housing that was of a better and higher quality so that the City would retain a higher quality of students at the University and to help build generally better lower-income housing. Councilor Clark said he had heard anecdotally that the market was such that housing was very profitable in the University area and would be built anyway. He had not, however, heard any data to substantiate this. He hoped that for the work session on the MUPTE some research data could be provided to the council for consideration. He understood that the University had conducted this type of housing research and would likely share the resulting data with the City. Councilor Poling pointed out that despite the fact that the project was described as student housing by some, it was located next to Sacred Heart Hospital, commercial areas, and the EmX route. He also noted that the developer planned to build three-bedroom units - units that were more suitable for families. He did not agree that the project was intended specifically for University housing. Councilor Bettman declared that the project was student housing. She asserted that families had been “fleeing” the area “for ages.” She averred that the area was noisy and the population there was transient. She reiterated her opposition to the tax exemption. She said the City would be foregoing taxes it needed for the budget. Councilor Zelenka recounted his personal survey of the University area, in which he perceived that developments were being built in the area regardless of whether they received a tax exemption or not. He questioned how one could know if a development could be built without a MUPTE. He said the answer was difficult to determine because they did not have the metrics. He suggested that the council consider having some standards to ensure that they were getting the kind of development they wanted given that the tax exemption was tantamount to “giving them an enormous amount of money.” He added that it would not “break [his] heart” to see Mr. Newland’s project go forward. Councilor Zelenka asked staff to bring information to the work session on how the council could tell if the market was creating the conditions, the history of the MUPTE program in that neighborhood, how many developments had occurred, and how many of them had been given the exemption. He asked how the council’s denial or approval of a MUPTE affected the nature of development in the area. He also wanted to know what the City could legally require of developers in order to be granted a MUPTE, such as the inclusion of building elements that were sustainable. Mayor Piercy commented that if it was “more of a blah blah blah project” she would be inclined to put off approval. She stated that the larger discussion would be whether or not the council wanted to support the development of more student housing. And, if the council did want to support it, would there be qualitative standards for the development? She said it sounded like the council was still operating under its overarching values, which included encouraging the construction of housing in the University area as well as other areas. But if this was not the case, she thought the council should acknowledge it and change its policies governing the MUPTE. Councilor Taylor remarked that the project sounded great to her. She asked if the council was going to grant all people who were building “something that is nice” a tax exemption. She said the City could not run without taxes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman declared that it was not a question of whether the council supported student housing, it was a question of geography. She reiterated her willingness to support student housing if it was located downtown. Councilor Bettman recalled that there used to be a standard that gave “extra points” on the application if the development included low-income housing but it had been taken out of the program. She reiterated her feeling that just because the development was within the boundary of the tax break did not mean the council should grant it injudiciously. She said one thing that concerned her about the applications was that there was no independent audit to determine if the developer really could not build the project without a MUPTE. She asked if there was a standard of what the building should cost per unit and whether or not the numbers were defensible in comparison with other projects. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Zelenka, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Municipal Court Sentencing Authority for Violations of Chapter 4 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Acting Assistant City Manager Luell introduced Judge Wayne Allen. Judge Allen reminded the council that he had been before it on September 10 and received direction to clarify the intent of some of the language. He said the reference to the court’s ability to suspend the sentence had been stricken as the court already had that ability. He stated that the reason there was a suspended sentence portion in the language was to give the council some level of reassurance that the court would look at a person’s financial ability when ordering treatment. Judge Allen explained that the court may suspend a sentence for a person who had a financial challenge to comply with the treatment or education. He also stated that the court wanted to have the authority to order treatment or education. He related that with the increasing number of violations it seemed inappropriate to only have the ability to impose a fine, specifically for minors in possession of alcohol. He related that he saw an increasingly younger population driving under the influence and, earlier in the day, he had seen 10 cases of people driving under the influence of intoxicants in his courtroom, eight of whom were under the age of 22. Judge Allen commented that this was “not how it used to be.” He believed that some kind of education would be helpful. Councilor Bettman thanked staff for the clarification of the language. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt the ordinance amending Eugene Code 4.990 as reflected in Option B to allow for expanded judicial authority to or- der any treatment as deemed necessary for the rehabilitation of the offender and safety of the community. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Grant Application for Acquisition of Ridgeline Trail Property Acting Assistant City Manager Luell stated that Parks and Open Space Planning Manager, Carolyn Weiss, would introduce the item. Ms. Weiss explained that Parks and Open Space Division (POS) staff had sought approval from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to apply for grant funding from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) to acquire additional properties along the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting Ridgeline Trail Corridor. She said there was not unanimous support for the grant application at the CCIGR so it was brought before the full council. She stated that a grant application had been approved and had been submitted on October 1 for Federal Forest Legacy funding, also for properties along the Ridgeline Trail. She related that at the time of the CCIGR approval, the City’s match for the grant had been proposed to be 25 percent of the total. Subsequent to this, she had been advised that the application would be more competitive if the City could match at the 50 percent rate. In order to do this, staff was proposing the additional grant application to OWEB to offset it and keep Eugene’s match at 25 percent. Ms. Weiss described three potential scenarios: ? The City could gain approval for both grants for approximately $3 million and the City’s match would be approximately $1 million. ? The Forest Legacy grant could be approved and the OWEB grant could not gain approval which would likely increase the City’s level of matching funds or the City would have to try to get funding from another source or the City could withdraw its request for funding from the Forest Legacy. ? The OWEB grant funding could be approved and the Forest Legacy funding could not be approved in which case the City could try to determine if there were other sources for financing available of it could withdraw its request to OWEB for funding. Councilor Ortiz commented that she was puzzled about why this item was coming forward in the face of the council’s direction to pursue the purchase of the Beverly/Green properties. She asked if staff was working on that acquisition. Ms. Weiss responded that the appraisal process was underway to understand the values of those properties. This project was happening simultaneously with the pursuit of acquisition of properties that meet the Ridgeline Trail criteria and with finding ways to leverage bond measure money with other sources as much as possible. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Lidz explained that staff would be before the council with regard to the Beverly/Green properties when the appraisals were complete. He underscored that prior to knowing the cost it was difficult to bring discussion to the table regarding funding sources. Councilor Bettman asked if the three properties for which the grant application was made had been appraised. Ms. Weiss responded that they had not yet been appraised. Councilor Bettman asked if there was documentation to prove that the City’s grant application would be more competitive if there was a 50 percent match. Ms. Weiss replied that the advice had come in conversa- tions staff had been party to after a training staff had attended in Portland. Councilor Bettman ascertained from Ms. Weiss that the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Bond contained $2 million dedicated to the Golden Gardens Park. She asked how much more the additional acreage that was being purchased allegedly for the potential move of the county fairgrounds. Ms. Weiss responded that the POS division was not exceeding the $2 million bond money for the Golden Gardens Park. Councilor Bettman commented that now the City was getting 300 acres for $2 million, whereas before it was purchasing 100 acres for that amount of money. She called that a “huge discrepancy in numbers.” She asked how the City could do this. Ms. Weiss replied that she believed that there were additional funding sources that could be used for that park, such as systems development charges (SDCs). Councilor Bettman ascertained from Ms. Weiss that SDCs were also available for the Beverly/Green properties. She asserted that people voting for the bond did not know that land was being purchased with the money with the thought in mind that the land could eventually be purchased by the County. She opined that this was a misuse of that money. She said she would support the grant application at the 25 percent MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting level, as agreed upon at the CCIGR. She did not support leveraging additional grant money for land outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB) when there was land within the UGB that the City wished to purchase. She feared that money spent on the land outside the UGB would deplete funding and threaten the purchase of the Beverly/Green properties. Councilor Clark said as an effort of good faith he would be willing to not support the item in order to make sure that the council would bear in mind while working on the acquisition of the Beverly/Green properties that a promise of a community park had been made to the people of Santa Clara since 1998. He did not want to see more money spent from the bond funds without this being assured. Councilor Taylor averred that money was already set aside for Santa Clara. She believed that the acquisition of the Beverly/Green properties should be the City’s top priority. She did not think the properties should cost $7 million. She asked if the council could approve the item contingent on receiving the grant. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Taylor, Ms. Weiss affirmed that the City could back out of the funding if the cost of the land proved to be more than $4 million. Councilor Taylor favored the application but felt that the acquisition of the Beverly/Green properties was more important. She observed that there would be approximately $6 million left in the PROS funds and asked if that would be enough to purchase the properties. Ms. Weiss responded that she could not say at this point. Councilor Taylor asked if SDC funds were being diverted from the acquisition of those properties by the Golden Gardens Park project. Ms. Weiss replied that there was approximately $2.5 million available in SDCs at present. Councilor Taylor asked who made the decision to apply SDC funds to that project. Ms. Weiss surmised that it was a staff decision made by executive management. Councilor Pryor thought it would be difficult to get the Forest Legacy grant at the higher level. He wanted the grant request to go through. He underscored that the City had sent a lobbyist to Salem to lobby for Eugene to be able to purchase land outside the UGB. He felt that for the City to “suddenly decide” it was not a good idea was disingenuous. He said part of the reason the City lobbied for this was because of the Ridgeline Trail, as it was important enough that the City was willing to purchase land outside of the UGB for it. He ascertained from Ms. Weiss that the properties that were the subjects of the grant application were located on the ridgeline. He believed everything before the council at present was consistent with what the City indicated it wanted to do. He did not understand how this grant application could be considered to be “outside reasonable or directional or what the City’s established that it wants to do.” He recalled that the 2006 PROS measure said funding was intended to purchase land, preserving natural open places near the Ridgeline Trail, Willamette River, and Gillespie Butte. He underscored that the item before the council fit that description. He said he would love to give staff the opportunity to go for the additional OWEB grant but he was not certain there were the votes to do so. He believed the item was consistent with what the City had said it wanted to do and to decide to pursue another course was not fair or reasonable. He reiterated that this was what the City said it would do in the bond measure; this was what the City said it would do as a matter of policy; and the properties were on the Ridgeline Trail corridor. Ms. Weiss clarified that the Forest Legacy grant had been submitted at the 50 percent level on October 1. Councilor Zelenka complained that the council had not been consulted about the change in the level of the grant. He asked if the OWEB grant could be used to help purchase the Beverly/Green properties. Ms. Weiss replied that the grant money could not be used under a condemnation proceeding. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka asked if the OWEB grant money could be utilized if there were willing sellers. Ms. Weiss responded that this would be possible if the land was being purchased at the appraised value. Councilor Zelenka asserted that the Beverly/Green properties were located on the Ridgeline Trail corridor. He agreed with Councilor Ortiz that it was puzzling that the City was putting effort and creativity into getting money for the Ridgeline Trail properties when there was clear direction from the council to put effort into the purchase of the properties inside the UGB. Councilor Zelenka asked what would happen if the City did not receive the OWEB grant. Ms. Weiss replied that it would not impact the Santa Clara park project because it was in a different category of funding. She noted that there was also funding set aside from the 1998 bond measure for Santa Clara. She stated that it was as yet unknown whether it would affect the Beverly/Green parcels because the cost of the parcels was not known. She reiterated that if the City did not receive the OWEB grant, the City would be faced with the choice of pursuing other sources of funding or deciding not to pursue the acquisition of the Ridgeline parcels. Councilor Zelenka asked what staff would do in the absence of “clear council direction” on how to move forward at that point. Ms. Weiss responded that staff would come before the council for direction. Councilor Zelenka thought the Beverly/Green properties would likely be purchased using moneys designated for parcels near the Ridgeline Trail. He felt the City was somewhat “stuck” because to say no to the OWEB grant would mean the City would have to pay $2 million for the Ridgeline parcels and to say “yes” meant the City would have to pay $1 million. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Weiss confirmed that the money from the 1998 and 2006 bonds that was dedicated for a park in the Santa Clara area may not be used for other projects. She clarified that the legal language of the bond did not attach funding amounts to the different categories of parks, but how it had been communicated to the voters did attach funding amounts to the categories. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Clark, City Attorney Jerome Lidz said he had not reviewed the bond language recently and should not answer the question posed to Ms. Weiss at this time. Councilor Clark surmised that the money was set aside and intended for the purpose of building a park in the Santa Clara area and that it had been sold to the voters with that in mind, but it was within legal parameters for the City to change its collective mind. Councilor Bettman recalled that the CCIGR unanimously approved the application for the Forest Legacy to include a City match of 25 percent. She asked why staff had “unilaterally upped it to 50 percent.” Ms. Weiss explained that staff was trying to put together the most competitive application possible and trying to stay within the spirit of what was determined in the CCIGR. She said staff knew there would be another chance to come before the CCIGR. Councilor Bettman called this a major inconsistency. She wondered what the purpose was of coming before the CCIGR if staff would make a “completely different decision and unilaterally allocate $1 million” in PROS funding. She averred that councilors should stand up and demand “some kind of accountability.” In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Weiss clarified that the amount of money for the City’s match had been reduced from $1.678 million to $1 million because a couple of the properties had been dropped from consideration for acquisition leaving two. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman accused staff of circumventing the direction of CCIGR to go with the 25 percent match. She asked when the results of the grant applications would be known. Ms. Weiss responded that the OWEB grant application result would be known in early spring and the Forest Legacy tended to be known in early March. Councilor Bettman asked how long the City would have to withdraw the Forest Legacy application. Ms. Weiss replied that this could be done at any time. Councilor Bettman asked when it would be known whether the Forest Legacy application was accepted or rejected. Ms. Weiss responded that the City would know whether the application was moved on to the next phase in the next two months. Councilor Pryor suggested that such a change in a grant application after approval be related to the CCIGR in the future, whether by email or otherwise. He said there were two choices: support the grant or withdraw the application. He had no reason not to support the grant. He commented that it was “too bad” the council was faced with this situation but he believed it was still a good purchase and would hate to withdraw the entire application. He added that he favored the Beverly/Green properties but for him the key element was that he wanted to purchase from a willing seller. He was not convinced that the Ridgeline acquisition was related to it. Councilor Zelenka asked what the deadline was for the application for the OWEB grant. Ms. Weiss replied that it was due October 15. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Weiss replied that the land in the Ridgeline acquisition ranged from $10,000 to $15,000 per acre. Councilor Zelenka asked staff to get that information specifically for each property. Councilor Bettman said she wanted to amend the motion so that the City only budgeted for the 25 percent match and if the OWEB grant did not come through the grant application to the Forest Legacy would be withdrawn. She reiterated her unhappiness with staff regarding the change in the grant application. She commented that she was prepared to vote no altogether because she did not want to “reinforce bad behavior.” She said she would try to amend the motion instead. Councilor Ortiz moved to approve the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and associ- ated matching fund plan. Councilor Bettman asked to make a friendly amendment to revise the language to state that the council would approve the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board grant request with a 25 percent local match, budgeted for $1.1 million, and to direct staff to withdraw the Forest Legacy application should the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board grant not be ap- proved. Councilor Pryor provided a second. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 7. ACTION: Oregon MPO Consortium Legislative Policy Concepts and Objectives Mayor Piercy called Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Planning Manager for the Public Works Department, to the podium to explain the Oregon Metropolitan Planning Organization Consortium (OMPOC) legislative policy concepts and objectives document. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 12 Regular Meeting Mr. Inerfeld stated that the OMPOC advanced interests common to Oregon’s designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). He said as the MPO for the Eugene/Springfield Metro area the Metropoli- tan Policy Committee (MPC) was a member of OMPOC. He reported that OMPOC was seeking feedback from the MPC on its draft legislative policy concepts and objectives document and the MPC requested that its member governments provide comment on it. He noted that the CCIGR reviewed “a few versions” of the document. He related that the draft was intended to serve as a guide for the OMPOC legislative agenda. He added that the OMPOC summit scheduled for the following weekend had been postponed until 2008. Councilor Bettman thought the document should reflect the TransPlan policies and the policies that the City adopted into its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) specifically that the City wanted to prioritize and fund preservation and maintenance of the existing road system. She did not think the document reflected that this was the City’s highest priority for funding. She wanted a bullet point that had been taken out of the document to be restored that said a transportation funding package that provided equitable shares to counties and cities should be advocated for and supported. She said she would add “and adequate resources”’ after “equitable shares” to the previous. She suggested that the reference to maintenance and preservation of roads should include local infrastructure because the money came from the gas tax. She averred that the City of Eugene needed to be able to use its gas tax money for maintenance and preservation. Continuing, Councilor Bettman cited a bullet point that said “advocate and support efforts to increase the capacity and efficiency of the public transit system in Oregon” and suggested that the words “and fund” be added after “support.” She stated that there was nothing in the document that discussed access management. She noted that the document said at the top “Oregonians need to strategically invest in all modes of transportation” and suggested that it be changed to include the words “equitably and proportionally” after the word “invest.” She said 20 percent of the population did not drive and predicted the numbers would increase as baby boomers aged. Councilor Taylor stated that she had responded by email. She indicated that she was in agreement with Councilor Bettman. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 8, 2007 Page 13 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall October 24, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor. COUNCILOR ABSENTAlan Zelenka : Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the October 24 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Annual Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Ann Kneeland, John Lawless, Anthony McCown Mr. Duncan convened the October 24 work session of the Eugene Planning Commission. Planning Commissioners introduced themselves City Manager pro tem Angel Jones thanked the Planning Commission for its hard work. She noted that Planning Director Lisa Gardner and City Attorney Emily Jerome were available to help answer questions. Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet with them. He said the Planning Commission felt the face-to-face meetings helped the commission understand what the council expected of the commission. Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:03 p.m. Planning Commissioners offered a review of the July 2006 – June 2007 Annual Report and FY08 Planning Division Work Program, supported by a PowerPoint presentation and documents included in the agenda packet. Mr. Duncan stated the Planning Commission had participated in 60 regular meetings in fiscal year 2007, including 29 meetings that addressed land use applications, half of which dealt with the McKenzie- Willamette Hospital application, and 31 regular meetings. Additionally, the Infill and Opportunity Siting subcommittees each met approximately 15 times since January 2007. The Planning Commission functioned as the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) and members sat on a variety of committees including the Historic Review Board, the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee, the Airport Advisory Committee, the Rasor Park study process, and the Walnut Station steering committee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Hledik reviewed the commission’s 2007 accomplishments. He said code implementation consumed the majority of the commission’s resources, noting that the number of land use applications was increasing, and they were becoming more complex. Mr. Hledik said that with additional resources provided by the City Council, the Opportunity Siting and Infill Compatibility Standards subcommittees began meeting in January 2007. Staff and Planning Commissioners met with neighborhood associations and participated in neighborhood tours for a total of 36 meetings. Draft project goals and other program materials were developed and put on the website for public input. Specifically regarding Infill Compatibility Standards, Mr. Hledik stated the subcommittee created a photo library of neighborhood meetings, coordinated with the Neighborhood Leaders Council subcommittee, began developing an Infill Compatibility Standards tool kit, created a map showing the age of residential structures and how different neighborhoods have evolved over time, and sought input regarding the process and composition of the task team that would study the issue further. Mr. Hledik stated the Opportunity Siting subcommittee conducted public outreach in coordination with neighborhood leaders and created an on-line siting survey, soliciting feedback from the community on barriers to high density development, potential incentives to increase higher density, and to help the Planning Commission identify the attributes of Opportunity Sites. It was significant that 24 potential sites were identified through the on-line survey. Mr. Hledik reported the commission continued to meet with the public on the Walnut Station Mixed Use Center (MUC) on outstanding issues. Additionally, the commission reviewed the multi-way boulevard concept along Franklin Boulevard, and began consideration of using Form Based Code to guide development in the area. Mr. Hledik said that public involvement efforts continued in Rasor Park MUC area, with the recent formation of a citizen advisory committee (CAC), to focus direction of that effort. Additionally, the Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone that went into effect January 1, 2006, was being implemented. The final report for the South Ridgeline Habitat Study was available for review. Mr. Hledik reported Phase 2 of the minor code amendment process was a community-driven process. When asked how the process could be improved, members of the public offered over 200 suggestions, of which 20 potential amendments that were representative of the community’s input and priorities were selected for consideration. A library was formed to serve as a clearing house for future amendment efforts for the remaining issues. Ms. Gardner reviewed the revised FY08 Proposed Planning Division Work Program in the agenda packet, identifying the four major program areas: Land Use Code Implementation; Community Character; Regional Coordination; Support Roles (external projects). Mr. Lawless stated the Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting subcommittees began their work in October 2007, when over 100 people attended a forum, a majority of whom identified Infill Compatibility Standards as their top priority. The Infill Compatibility Standards team, consisting largely of neighbors, agreed to work cooperatively to identify additional resources for the project. The Opportunity Siting group was forming and would identify high priority sites for a pilot project. Ms. Kneeland offered a review of the Planning Commission’s work on MUCs, including Walnut Station and Rasor Park. Work would continue to proceed on forming the recommended vision of the area which would be considered by the Planning Commission in November 2008. Primary tasks included preparation of the development plan, specifically focusing on form based codes, that would allow the commission to focus more on detailed site specific form and the design rather than the use of buildings for integration into MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 2 Work Session the Walnut Station project. Additionally, the Rasor Park MUC CAC vision specifically related to density, including design and plan elements, as well as implementation strategies, would be forwarded to the Planning Commission later this year. Ms. Kneeland stated continued work on the South Ridgeline Habitat Study would provide an opportunity to enhance public involvement programs and develop recommendations for consideration by the City Council in 2008. The Rasor Park and Walnut Station MUCs and the South Ridgeline Habitat Study would give the commission an opportunity to integrate the Growth Management Policies (GMPs) and become more cognizant on how those policies could shape the commission’s work. Additionally, these three projects would support the commission’s efforts in developing a land survey. Ms. Kneeland said the Planning Commission recognized the need to integrate green planning and sustainability into its work to include collaborating with the newly created Sustainability Commission. Two specific items were solar access from the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) and green infrastructure from the City Council. Mr. Carroll stated additions to the work program House Bill (HB) 3337 required the City to study the supply of and demand for buildable residential lands in the urban growth boundary (UGB) by 2010. The commission recommended broadening the scope of that state mandate to include development of a comprehensive data base that would consist of natural resource lands, and the three major types of land use, i.e., residential, commercial and industrial. The commission further recommended creating the data base in a way that would allow assessment of the redevelopment capacity of those lands. The commission felt strongly that this would be an essential tool as it moved forward with many of its integrated land use projects including Infill Compatibility Standards, Opportunity Siting, MUC implementation, corridor redevelopment, and neighborhood planning. Mr. Carroll said that it was clear from the 2007 Neighborhood Summit attended by most members of the Planning Commission that land use issues were foremost on residents’ minds. The Empowerment Initiative implementation provided a framework for better integration of the commission’s work program tasks both within the Planning Division and across all departments. The Neighborhood Services Program currently housed in the Planning Division and the Empowerment Initiative would enable the commission to work more closely with neighborhood leaders to identify appropriate mechanisms to develop the next generation of refinement plans. Mr. Carroll affirmed the need to assess the strengths and shortcomings, as well as update those plans. Mr. Carroll said the code amendment process brought to like a great demand in the community to make changes in the code. Twenty code elements had been identified for review and possible revision. Mr. Duncan summarized the commissioners’ comments, noting priorities had been solicited from the community in developing the FY08 Work Program. Ms. Gardner thanked the Planning Commission for its work and dedication during the past year. Ms. Gardner asked the City Council for specific direction on prioritization of the work program items, noting the City Manager recommended that the City Council approve the FY08 Planning Commission and Planning Division work program contained in the annual report. Mayor Piercy noted the incredible work load of the Planning Commission on very important issues of concern to the council and community. Ms. Bettman thanked the Planning Commission for its presentation. She was not prepared to approve the work program today and hoped approval could be postponed until the City Council could hold a work session to discuss the policy and funding issues imbedded in the work program. She stated the GMPs should be implemented and included in the City Code before replacing them. She asked what had MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 3 Work Session happened to adopting the GMP through the minor and major code amendments. Although the new format was polished, Ms. Bettman said she preferred the old matrix format. Mr. Duncan said the Planning Commission had been working on developing a method for implementing GMP as a measuring tool on all land use issues that went before the commission. He acknowledged unanimous support of the Planning Commission to use the GMPs as a strong measurement tool. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Duncan said the Planning Commission was hoping to look at all 19 GMPs when considering land use decisions to better measure land use issues. Ms. Taylor stated with the current City budget, even if there was a need to revisit the GMPs, there was no funding available to take on such a large project. She noted the CIC had been abolished and its duties and responsibilities had been assumed by the Planning Commission. She asked how much time the Planning Commission devoted to being the CIC. Ms. Gardner opined every project had an expanded citizen involvement component. The commission not only served formally as the CIC, but also met with subcommittees and other groups on an informal basis to solicit feedback from the public. She said the format currently being used enabled the Planning Commission to be nimble in creating the necessary opportunities for public involvement. Ms. Taylor hoped there would be no action taken today, expressing concern about a reference in the work program for new staff. Mr. Clark articulated concern about compliance with HB 3337. He asked Ms. Jerome if the legislation required the City to demonstrate or determine a 20-year supply of land. Ms. Jerome said the legislation required the City to both demonstrate and determine a 20-year supply of land, as well as setting a timeline of two years to accomplish specific benchmarks so that a 20-year supply could be demonstrated when a new Eugene-specific UGB was adopted. She added that demonstration of a 20-year supply was not required for the two-year window. A future joint meeting with other local elected officials would provide an opportunity to decide the timing. The setting of the UGB was a complicated process under the statutes, and would not be changed by the requirements of HB 3337. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Gardner said the Planning Commission recommendation was to broaden the scope of the work beyond the requirements of HB 3337 to include a comprehensive lands assessment to provide a database of natural resources, commercial, residential and industrial, and redevelopment capacity. Mr. Clark stated he was encouraged by the letter in the agenda packet to the Planning Commission from Ms. Gardner encouraging the City Council to assess the capacity because a frank conversation regarding this topic was long overdue. He stressed the importance of identifying all of the areas that needed protection. He expressed a desire that the City of Eugene do its best to create a better relationship with other local government partners, noting there was a very real need to have an honest discussion with those partners to enable appropriate planning. Ms. Ortiz thanked the Planning Commission for all of its work acknowledging the incredible amount of work done by a volunteer group. Although she wanted to support moving on the plan, she was reluctant because of the recommendation to include a commercial and industrial lands supply. As she recalled, the City Council had specifically decided not to so and she was reluctant to move on it if it was not required by HB 3337. Although she wanted to be in compliance with and would support the law, she had not supported the legislation and found the bill “devisive” and “insulting.” She would not support the FY08 Planning Commission and Planning Division work program if it included a commercial and industrial lands supply assessment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Jones said it was up to the City Council to determine the Planning Commission work priorities. Recognizing there was insufficient time to get through all of the Council’s policy issues today, she suggested scheduling additional work sessions as the council deemed necessary. Mayor Piercy suggested that the council consider accepting the Annual Report and scheduling a work session in a timely manner to study the policy issues that needed more consideration by the council. Ms. Bettman offered several examples of instances when the City Council accepted a report because it could not approve everything in it, and then it was later “sold” as having council approval. She was reluctant to approve the report today and appreciated Ms. Jones’ willingness to schedule a work session. Several issues needed further study. She expressed surprise about the staff recommendation to conduct an available lands assessment when the City Council had specifically voted not to pursue a commercial lands study. She supported doing the minimum necessary to be in compliance with State law. While the City was looking at ways to accommodate residential growth within the UGB, it was not considering strategies to increase the capacity for commercial and industrial lands. The council recently reduced the capacity for commercial lands by lowering Floor Area Ration (FAR) and changing the use on commercial properties. Ms. Gardner explained the Planning Commission’s recommendation to complete a comprehensive lands assessment would need the approval of the City Council. The Planning Commission was currently implementing MUCs, as well as studying corridor planning and form based code strategies. Segregating commercial, industrial, and residential land supply did not offer the best opportunity to complete integrated land use planning. A form-based code looked at the form of the development rather than land use designation. Conducting a capacity assessment for an area such as West 11th Avenue had little regard for the land use designation. But, identifying commercial and industrial needs could provide opportunities for future redevelopment of a corridor that could be mixed residential/commercial. Mr. Carroll asserted the issue was inextricably linked to the buildable land supply. However, the Planning Commission needed this tool to enable it to make intelligent recommendations to the City Council. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Jones said no decision had been made regarding a joint meeting with the City of Springfield. However, a letter had been received from the Lane Board of County Commissioners requesting a joint elected officials meeting. Ms. Taylor asked who had decided not to cooperate, asserting it was not the Eugene City Council but rather its neighbors. She said a two-hour work session was needed. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if the City of Eugene did not comply with the adopted legislation within two years. Ms. Jerome stated she did not know what enforcement action would be taken. She iterated the need for the council to discuss HB 3337 in the context of the Planning Commission work program. Ms. Taylor said she was “suspicious” and “it was dangerous” to accept, but not approve, the Planning Commission FY08 work program. Mr. Clark stated he was willing to approve the Planning Commission FY08 work program today. The Planning Commission had a great deal of work to do and the City Council should let it get going. Responding to Ms. Taylor’s comment, he said the Eugene City Council had been very clear that it did not want to work with the City of Springfield. The Springfield City Council had been clear in asking the Eugene City Council to work with it. HB Bill 3337 was not imposed on the City of Eugene by the City of Springfield but rather by the Oregon State Legislature in a nearly unanimous vote in both houses, because of the City of Eugene’s reluctance to do what the spirit of the law suggested. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark about whether HB 3337 required the City of Eugene to do a MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 5 Work Session comprehensive plan adjustment with the City of Springfield, Ms. Jerome said a number of policies needed to be addressed, not the least of which was the text that assumed a single UGB. A number of the policies in the residential lands section implicitly assumed a shared UGB. The necessary amount of text changes was a large project. Additionally, setting the UGB was on the Metro Plan diagram would require a significant amount of work. While some of the amendments required approval by more than one jurisdiction, the bill indicated that others did not. Thus, some of the changes would require collaboration with Lane County and the City of Springfield. There was no date neither imposed by other jurisdictions nor required by the legislation. Mr. Clark understood that the Springfield City Council developed language for the proposed Metro Plan changes, and had asked the Eugene City Council to work with them. He further understood that the Springfield City Council decided that it would disengage if the Eugene City Council was not willing to work cooperatively. He asked if the Eugene City Council was willing to work with the Springfield City Council. He was hopeful that the Eugene City Council would not defer the process but rather work collaboratively. Ms. Ortiz did not consider a bill presented at the State legislature an indication of a willingness to work together. She recalled no invitation to talk with the other jurisdictions nor was there an indication a problem existed around Metro Plan issues. She believed the Planning Commission’s work would move forward if the work program was not approved. She was concerned that commissioners felt they would not be able to do as charged by the City Council without approval of the FY08 work program. Mr. Carroll stated the Commercial Lands Study was outdated. He added that lack of direction on HB 3337 prohibited the Planning Commission from addressing planning comprehensively. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Jones said the City of Springfield contacted the City of Eugene asking what position the Eugene City Council had taken on the HB 3337 issue. Today’s meeting would be the first opportunity to discuss HB 3337. Planning and Development Executive Manager Susan Muir said the City of Springfield sent information to the City of Eugene Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) during the 2007 Legislative Session. Since the bill passed, the City of Springfield had notified the City of Eugene about where it was in the process. Ms. Ortiz preferred to have good “family” relations with the City of Springfield. She would not support putting the motion forward without removal of the recommendation regarding HB 3337. Ms. Gardner suggested that the City Council accept the City Manager-suggested motion to amend the work program and give direction to the City Manager related to specific work program items. Mr. Pryor appreciated the work of the Planning Commission and the enormous amount of work it undertook to provide the underpinnings in the form of collection of information and analysis for City Council decisions. The emotional reaction around the City of Springfield and the legislature obscured some of the other conversations that needed to happen. He suggested that the council talk in terms of what was in the best interest of Eugene. He felt that most of the Planning Commission work program was desirable, while recognizing that some elements made some people uncomfortable. He suggested moving forward with as much as possible, and not including those parts around which more extensive conversations were needed. He opined it was important for the City Council to give as much direction as possible to the Planning Commission to enable it to do its work. Mr. Pryor welcomed a more extensive conversation around those elements for the best interests of Eugene for which there was not agreement on the council. Having information was preferred over not having information, whether it was related to the Planning Commission developing recommendations or the City Council making decisions. It was difficult to try to govern a community when information was specifically excluded because the answer was not MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 6 Work Session what the council wanted to hear. He said the City did not know the answer because the council continued to not want to ask the question. Eugene was best served when both the Planning Commission and City Council had all of the necessary information to make effective decisions. Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments. Mayor Piercy appreciated the work program elements related to sustainability and working with the Sustainability Commission. She opined it would serve the Planning Commission well to allow the City Council to further consider the work program to enable the council to provide the commission with meaningful feedback. She added it did not serve to characterize the City of Eugene nor the City of Springfield in any particular ways. Ms. Bettman said she could not understand what pieces of the work program related to FY08 or FY09. It was interesting that the Planning Commission was looking at form based code in that it had not been discussed by the City Council. She asked for more information on the advantages and disadvantages of form based code. Ms. Bettman said the City had the tools to look at capacity, including the GMPs, which enabled the City to use the available commercial and industrial land more efficiently. Mr. Clark agreed that the State statutes were clear that if there was an insufficient land supply, either the UGB could be expanded or density policies could be adjusted. He was interested in having accurate information to enable the council to have an honest discussion. He was interested in doing the best for the people of Eugene and a part of doing that was to participate in regional planning. He opined the Region 2050 planning effort “fell apart” because the Eugene City Council did not do a good job of collaborating with other jurisdiction. Mr. Clark was concerned that the City of Springfield was interpreting the Eugene City Council’s actions and words as not wanting to work together in a regional way, which would have harmful effects for the people he served in Eugene through HB 3337 due to the nature of Eugene’s relationship with Springfield. Mr. Clark echoed Mr. Pryor’s comments that it was important for the City Council to have the information. The Planning Commission had good and important work to do, and was telling the City Council it needed more information to plan appropriately, and he wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission got that information. Ms. Taylor said although no one objected to having more information, she did not know if this was the correct time to spend all of the council’s time and energy gathering particular information. She was also concerned that there were not enough resources to revise all of the refinement plans. She added it would be good for the City Council to know each time it took action if the proposed action would violate any of the GMPs. Ms. Gardner said the refinement plan update was a concern not only of the Planning Commission, but also identified regularly through public input from neighborhood leaders and the public at-large that the tools were outdated. The Planning Commission found it difficult to make land use recommendations with outdated tools. The scoping project outlined in the work program assumed neighborhood based refinement planning could be done with existing resources. She said the Planning Commission wanted to know if the City Council was interested in finding a mechanism to look at the refinement plans, many of which were 20 years old. Some of those refinements may need only minor adjustments, while others would need to be completely rewritten. Appropriate tools needed to be identified to discover the most effective method for individual neighborhoods. She emphasized including this in the work program was not a request for new funding. Ms. Bettman said code amendments should be consistent with the GMPs. She said she never seen staff recommend not moving forward with a zoning change, land use designation, or variance on the basis of MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 7 Work Session inconsistency with refinement plans. She opined doing refinement plans was a “waste of money” because they were not adhered to. She added the current language regarding opportunity siting had moved away from the original intent and would end up destroying neighborhoods. She asked for more information on transportation planning. Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council on behalf of the Planning Commission for its input on the work program. He asked that the City Council provide more input on the code amendment process, as this was an issue of high interest by the public. Mayor Piercy thanked the Planning Commission for the amazing amount of work it undertook. She thought taking time to further review the FY08 work program would produce a better product. She invited commissioners to send probing questions to the City Council. Ms. Gardner reviewed issues identified by the council for further discussion, including but not limited to HB 3337, refinement planning, code amendments, sequencing of projects, and clarification of resource allocation. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jones envisioned at least two work sessions, one to finalize and provide direction on the Planning Commission work program, and a second one to discuss broad, regional issues in preparation for the joint elected officials meeting in early 2008. Ms. Ortiz said she would support a joint elected officials meeting. Mr. Duncan asked staff to schedule a Planning Commission work session to debrief today’s meeting. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission at 1:25 p.m. Mayor Piercy adjourned the City Council at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Boards and Commissions Interviews Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall November 19, 2007 5 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. Council Vice President Chris Pryor called the meeting of the City Council to order. A. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS The council interviewed applicants for positions on the City’s Planning Commission. Those interviewed were Heidi Beierle and Susannah Meininger. Each applicant was asked the following questions: Ms. Solomon arrived between the interviews. 1. Why did you apply for the Planning Commission and what do you hope to contribute? What key issues would you hope to address as a member of the Planning Commission? 2. What is your experience working with a group effectively and especially with regard to long processes? Have you had prior experience working with groups in a collective manner? 3. How do you believe the Planning Commission can be most effective in their role as an advi- sory body to the City Council? Do you have ideas on how to help the City Council make good planning decisions? 4. The Planning Commission must often balance competing interests when developing planning documents and making land use decisions. In your opinion, what are the most important fac- tors for the Planning Commission to consider in its decision making? 5. Please share your views on how the Planning Commission can foster involvement of the whole community in long-range planning projects. Mr. Pryor thanked each candidate and indicated that the council would be making a decision on which candidate to select on November 26, 2007. He invited candidates to watch the meeting on their computers or televisions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 1 Boards and Commissions Interviews The meeting adjourned at 5:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 2 Boards and Commissions Interviews