Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/19/08 Public Hearing M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber—City Hall February 19, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Diagram; Amending the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram and Text; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map; and Adopting a Severability Clause (Oregon West Management, LLC) Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing, noting it was a quasi-judicial hearing. Mayor Piercy called for ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest. Councilor Clark stated he had attended a number of Santa Clara neighborhood organization meetings where the application was discussed and he had conversations with the residents about the substance of those presentations. He had heard considerable input both in favor and against the proposal and believed he could make a fair, impartial, unbiased decision. Associate Planner Heather O’Donnell provided the staff presentation, which regarded an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Land Use Diagram, an amendment to the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Diagram and Text, and an amendment to the Eugene Zoning Map. Therequests involved 7.3 acres on the west side of Green Lane, the former Santa Clara Elementary School, and 1.3 acres on the south side of Green Lane. She clarified that the applications did not include a development proposal. Ms. O’Donnell entered testimony into the record from Marilyn Spriggs of 85 Hunsaker Lane in support of the proposal, which was received after the meeting packet was printed. Ms. O’Donnell reported that staff evaluated the application against relevant criteria found in code sections 9.7730, 9.8424, and 9.8865. The Planning Commission considered the amendments and recommended approval of the application with two conditions to mitigate traffic and limits on building size and uses, pedestrian connections, and commemoration of the former school use on the site. The conditions were included in the ordinance (Attachment A). The council’s action on the item was scheduled for March 10. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the hearing. She called for testimony from those in support of the application. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing Candy McAndrews , 4159 Victoria Lane, favored the applications. She was pleased to hear of the plans for the shopping center because Santa Clara lacked many services, such as restaurants, cafes, and other retail shopping, forcing her to regularly drive out of the area to other locations. The applicant had been working with many potential tenants. The Santa Clara area currently lacked restaurant, retail, and banking services, and increasing the selection of such services would lessen the need to drive. She said the development would save her time, gas, and money. She asked the council to approve the application to give residents better and closer services on their side of the river. Susan Hutchinson , 2262 Wisconsin Street, favored the application. She shopped in the area frequently. She said that Eugene was both a city and group of neighborhoods tied together by a sense of pride. She found Eugene to be diverse and progressive and devoted to community, and she supported community development as the need dictated. She said most of the development in the area was housing. She believed that the City’s effort to intensify development was being taken to heart in the community. More services for that level of density was needed so people could shop closer to home. She wanted more choices for shopping that she could reach easily without the need to drive. Ms. Hutchinson called for more retail choices in the area and cited several example businesses. She believed the development would beautify the area and improve the street network and sidewalks. The development being proposed was a mix of uses with an environmentally friendly design. It would help preserve land within the urban growth boundary (UGB). She felt the plan was an excellent design to meet future needs. Councilor Zelenka arrived during Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony. Debbi Tomely , 585 Chestnut Drive, spoke in favor of the application. She said the proposal was for the development of shops and restaurants currently lacking in the Santa Clara area. She was forced to travel to shop and dine out and called for nearby retail opportunities she could bicycle to with her family. The design proposal appeared very user friendly, pedestrian-friendly, and more inviting than the typical mall. She asked the council to approve the application for her family and the many residents of Santa Clara who needed the type of retail village being provided by the development. Gary Meili , 3040 Duckhorn Drive, a Santa Clara resident, spoke in support of the application. He felt the application met Eugene’s goals of using infill sites for redevelopment. It addressed both commercial and residential needs by providing close-in shopping opportunities and residential opportunities. The develop- ment would add much needed commercial development in the Santa Clara area in the right place. It would put less pressure on the community to sprawl along River Road. Those living close to the development in his neighborhood would be able to reach it by bike or on foot, avoiding automobile use. His family routinely bicycled in the area and the development would give them another place to go. He pointed out the development would include high-density residential that would help preserve existing farmland. Gary Martin , 2244 Lasiter Street, reviewed and submitted written testimony that supported the findings of the Planning Commission. Brenda Payne , 535 River Loop 1, spoke in support of the application. She said she and her husband and their two children had all attended Santa Clara Elementary School and lived in close proximity to the property in question. She said after the building moratorium was lifted there were many new residential developments built but the area lacked sufficient commercial development to preclude people having to travel out of the neighborhood for dining and shopping. She hoped to see retail development similar to that occurring on Coburg Road. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing Sue Prichard , 2671 Emerald Street, said she had represented School District 4J in its sale of the site and several other surplus district properties. She supported the application as a good and appropriate project for the area. She had received calls from 47 neighborhood residents interested in the property; three wanted the school to remain in place or hoped the school would be purchased to be used as a city park, and the remaining calls were interested in a quality commercial development that allowed people to go shopping without driving into Eugene. People wanted to see the school commemorated in some way. She had also received many calls from potential developers who wanted to buy land to meet the demand for commercial land lacking in Santa Clara and Eugene generally, and with a desire to buy a sufficiently large piece of land to allow for the creation of a neighborhood center to serve the neighborhood. She thought the plan being proposed satisfied many desires and it would be well-planned and walkable. Ms. Prichard thought the project was the right project for the site. Lindsey Eichner , 2860 Federal Place, supported the application. She said the proposed development would provide close-in urban services that would allow her family to walk or bicycle rather than drive to reach a restaurant and other services. She like the proposed plan because she thought it provided the neighborhood with a sense of community with amenities such as the community plaza and the space provided for a farmers market. She thought the concepts being contemplated would be a benefit to her and her friends who lived in the area. Lowell Eichner , 2728 Calla Street, said there had been five new housing developments in his immediate neighborhood. Santa Clara Square was built in 1983 and since that time not much commercial development had happened. He believed the proposed development would be attractive and would provide many opportunities for businesses and jobs. The development would also include housing and he thought such housing was needed in the area. He characterized the area in question as somewhat run down and thought the development would improve the appearance of the area. Will Eicchen , 406 Meredith Court, supported the applications. He had reviewed the plans and was pleased to see the site would not be another grocery store or strip mall, but instead a mixed-use development with stores of limited size. The plans represented a quality development with reasonable access, a good level of parking, and wide pedestrian walkways that created a good neighbor feel. He thought the development would be an asset to the Santa Clara community. Rick Satre , Satre & Associates, representing the applicant, said the applicant was seeking approval to construct a mixed-use development that the applicant believed would contribute to both the Santa Clara area and the community in general. He expressed appreciation to staff for its assistance and to the Planning Commission for its favorable support. Mr. Satre emphasized that the applicant had worked closely with staff and reached out to the neighborhood organization for its input. The applicant had presented the emerging design vision to the community organization in January and the graphics shown that night were included in Attachment M in the packet. He entered copies of the comments received from neighbors presented that evening into the record. Mr. Satre characterized the proposed development as “C-2 Lite.” Jerry Finnegan , 1250 Irvington Drive, said the Santa Clara community organization had not taken a position on the issue as its membership was split. He said that the property owner had come to three meetings to listen to residents’ ideas. The residents wanted the heritage of the area preserved. The property owner had subsequently met with the residents to discuss how to achieve what the residents would like to see. Mr. Finnegan said the plans included many of the architectural features of the old school, and the owner recently incorporated the farmer’s market concept. He did not think another developer would have MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing bent over backward so far to meet the desires of the residents. He felt badly about losing the school, but thought the development might help rebuild the heart of the Santa Clara community. Mayor Piercy called on those testifying in opposition in opposition to the ordinance. Ellen Hyman , 3863 Dorchester Lane, submitted her written testimony in opposition to the ordinance. Her opposition was based on her belief approval of the application would mean there was a surplus of C-2 commercial development in the area. She acknowledged the plans looked perfect but “it was just a plan.” She advocated instead for the site to be designated for community use. Lou Davis , 1220 Rislen Place, believed current policies called for maintaining the current stock of residential land, but if the proposal was approved, 7.3 acres of residential land would be rezoned to C-2 and 1.3 acres would be designated for medium-density residential (MDR). She asserted the following policies did not support the request: Metro Plan Policy A-13, TransPlan Land Use Policy 1, and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.2 Residential Land Use Finding 11. Ms. Davis said those documents encouraged increasing residential densities in mixed use areas and areas adjacent to existing commercial centers. She asserted that the applicant could build 100 units on the school site alone if he followed existing policies. Instead, the proposal down-zoned an area that could support additional residential density. She asked the council to deny the application, and requested the record remain open for two weeks. Kay Prather , 3883 Dorchester Lane, submitted testimony that opposed the application because it removed a “public accessible recreation/education area” with significance to the community and replaced it with shopping and parking. She cited and read several policies in support of her contention, including River Road/Santa Clara Facilities Plan, Parks Subarea Policy 3; Metro Plan Goal 8, Recreational Needs; the City of Eugene pamphlet, Mixed Use Development in Eugene; and the City of Eugene’s Park and Recreational and Open Space Project and Priority Plan. She called on the City to maintain the property as open space and suggested that would facilitate the remainder of the development by serving as a stormwater facility. Maggie Yocum , 4174 Lancaster Drive, opposed the zone change because of the commercial corridor that already existed along River Road and because she did not believe there was a demonstrated need for more C-2 parcels in the area. She considered that there were already plenty of such sites and more were in the process of being rezoned. She further maintained that many C-2 developments in the area were not successful. She noted several pending rezoning applications in the area and rumors of other developments. In support of her remarks, Ms. Yocum cited Eugene Commercial Lands Study Subarea Policy 22; Metro Plan Economic Element Policy 6; and River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.3. She also requested that the record remain open. Lee Rodenbacker , 4174 Lancaster Drive, opposed the proposal because the uses were not commingled on the site. He said the site lent itself to a true mix of uses and could be developed in a way that enhanced the neighborhood. He acknowledged the area was identified as a node in TransPlan but the City had not identified it as a node. However, the applicant asserted the proposal met the intentions of nodal develop- ment. He did not agree as he did not think it achieved a balance between commercial and residential uses. The refinement plan expressly prohibited the expansion of commercial land fronting River Road, and it directed the City to adopt zoning consistent with the urban facilities plan. He also cited the City’s mixed use pamphlet in support of his remarks that the development was not true mixed use. He also referred to Metro Plan Policy A-13, TransPlan Land Use Policy 1, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan 2.2 Residential Land Use Findings 11, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan General Land Use Policy 2, River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Commercial and Industrial Land Use Policy 3.0, River MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Commercial and Industrial Land Use Action 3.1. He too asked that the record remain open. Lauri Segal , 642 Charnelton Street, #100, representing the Goal One Coalition, submitted her written testimony in opposition to the application. Kate Perle , 4740 Wendover Street, submitted written testimony in opposition to the application based on her belief the proposal did not meet definitions of mixed use. Catherine Lesiak , 1600 East Beacon Drive, concurred with the remarks of others in opposition to the application. She submitted written testimony in opposition to the application suggesting there was already too much commercial in the area and the proposal was not mixed use and did not include either residential density or a commitment to public space. She said the developer had not committed to the design proposed. Assistant City Manager Scott Luell indicated staff would respond to the testimony provided at the March 10 work session scheduled on the item. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to close the record on March 7, 2008. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Councilor Bettman asked for information about the maximum and minimum housing units to be expected at the current zoning, on average, with the requested changes. She said that the medium-density residential (MDR) zone allowed for some commercial, so staff would have to factor that in. She asked if the council could condition its approval on maximizing the housing units to be built. She also requested information about pending re-zonings as she questioned removing that much residential land from the inventory, which took away from the community’s ability to support residential. Ms. Ortiz asked that deliberation on the item be rescheduled to give the council adequate time to review the materials. Councilor Clark asked if the council could consider pending re-zonings as a criterion in decision-making. City Attorney Lidz indicated the decision must be based on applicable codes and plans; he would provide more information about whether the pending re-zonings could be considered at a later time. Councilor Bettman said the zoning must be consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Councilor Bettman said a portion of the property was in a node; she understood they were a means to absorb population growth. Much of that effort had stalled, and she questioned how much of the land use measures task force work had been achieved in regard to residential densities projected for the nodes as a means to accommodate growth. The same was true of commercial. Mayor Piercy requested applicant rebuttal. Mr. Satre responded to comments regarding the residential lands supply. He said the property in question was not included in the Residential Lands Study because it had been in use as an educational facility. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 5 Public Hearing also pointed out that the staff report noted the proposal met the definition of Mixed Use. With respect to parks and open space, the record indicated staff had found, and the Planning Commission concurred, that the City complied with State planning goals in that regard and the Parks and Open Space Division was not interested in the site as it was too small and too close to a dangerous thoroughfare. He understood that property was in escrow near Madison Middle School for a community park. With respect to Policy 22, the Planning Commission addressed, and found the proposal to be in compliance with, the cited policies. Councilor Bettman asked that the council be provided with a definition of mixed use and the section of the code in which it was found. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and noted the record would remain open until March 7, 2008. 2. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Elections Procedures; Amending Sections 2.960, 2.964, 2.965, 2.966, 2.968, 2.970, 2.971, 2.973, 2.977, 2.979, 2.980, 2.981, 2.993, 2.994, 2.996, 2.997, 2.1000, and 2.1990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 2.961 and 2.975 to that Code; Amend- ing Section 2.976 and Renumbering Section 2.976 to Section 2.974; Amending Section 2.990 and Renumbering Section 2.990 to Section 2.984; Amending Section 2.985 and Renumbering Section 2.985 to Section 2.986; Amending Section 2.986 and Re-numbering Section 2.986 to Section 2.987; Amending Section 2.988 and Re-numbering Section 2.988 to Section 2.989; Re- numbering Section 2.984 to Section 2.985, Section 2.987 to Section 2.988; and Repealing Sec- tion 2.992 of that Code City Recorder Mary Feldman introduced the item. She reminded the council of the work session it held on the item on February 11, and reviewed the changes being proposed. The council would deliberate on the item on March 10, and the changes mentioned by the council would be presented as amendments at that time. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, thought some of the changes seemed sensible but he was concerned that the City Attorney was ‘widely regarded as biased” in regard to past initiatives and he thought it a mistake to rely on the attorney for any discretionary decisions such as the legal sufficiency of a referendum petition. He thought it should be referred to an unbiased party, such as a judge. He objected to sending ballot title appeals to Circuit Court because of the cost of going to that court. He preferred to keep the existing appeal, which was to the City Council. Regarding Section 2.993(2), he said it appeared to allow the council to ignore the voters’ pamphlet, which he thought a mistake as it was a useful informational tool and created the risk of making the public feel the process was biased. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 6 Public Hearing 3. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2008 Management Analyst Glen Potter was present to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Zelenka averred that the current fee cap skewed “who pays what” in regard to the fees. He noted that program costs rose by four percent while the fee increased by 43 percent. Employers with 43 employees paid the same amount as an employer with 500 employees. Councilor Zelenka thought the cap a disservice to the smaller companies, and asked if there was a different way to assess fees to avoid the consequences of the action taken by the Oregon State Legislature. He acknowledged that the City had attempted to change the law for a long time. Mr. Potter was unaware of anything but a change in State law that could allow the City to change the fee formula now in place. He acknowledged that smaller employees paid more per FTE than larger employers. Councilor Zelenka hoped the law could be changed. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4967, an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water District and the River Road Parks and Recreation District; and from the Santa Clara Water District Assistant Manager Luell indicated that Senior Planner Kurt Yeiter was present to answer questions, and the council would take action on February 25. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Ronald Bush , 441 Fairfield, a resident with an ownership stake in some of the properties subject to the withdrawal request, indicated his support of the withdrawal of the identified properties from the special districts. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. 5. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Offenses and State Traffic Laws; Amending Sections 4.115, 4.990, and 5.005 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date Kristie Hammitt of the Eugene Municipal Court indicated the purpose of the hearing was to hear input on the proposed readopting of the State Traffic Code and a change to Chapter 4, Offense 44115, regarding minors in possession of alcohol while driving a motor vehicle. She characterized the changes to the traffic code as largely ‘housekeeping’ without an impact to the City’s baseline fee schedule. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 7 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Poling referred to 44115(2) and asked if minors would be able to take advantage of the City’s diversion program. Ms. Hammitt indicated she believed that was the case, and would confirm it with Judge Allen. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4969, an ordinance concerning offenses and State traffic laws. Councilor Poling requested that the vote be postponed pending an answer to his question. Mayor Piercy called for a brief meeting break. 6. PUBLIC HEARING Crest Drive Community Team Recommended Design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street Jenifer Willer of the Public Works Department was present to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Julie Redner , 2899 Friendly Street, expressed concern about the assessed cost of the road improvement project being contemplated on her street. She had about 100 street of frontage and would be assessed the maximum costs, about $20,000 or more. She did not think she used the street anymore or any less than those on narrow or panhandled lots. She did not qualify for a senior deferral or income subsidy but was a single head of household working for a small nonprofit, and the amount involved was huge to her. She asked the council to reduce the assessment, change the formula to be fairer, or explore alternative funding strategies. Paul Moore advocated the inclusion of safe and inviting bicycle paths in the street improvement project, particularly uphill bicycle lanes, to attract riders. He said the lanes would not add costs to the property owners or increase the costs of the project substantially, but the design committee would not investigate the question. He said if cost were to become an issue, it would be reasonable to consider alternate funding sources for the bicycle lanes, not to eliminate them. Speaking to concerns such lanes would take too much space, he pointed out the City owned a 60-foot easement on each of the streets and it had not been proved such lanes would not fit. Mr. Moore suggested that bicycle lanes could be narrowed where necessary because of terrain. In regard to safety, he said that concerns had been expressed about speeds from wider lanes but concerns about speed seem to be dismissed when considering bicyclists traveling on a 23-foot road width. Mr. Moore said another argument was that no one used bicycle lanes in that area but that was not the case. He acknowledged that many people did not ride but that was to be expected given the condition of the streets and speeds at which cars travel. He asked the council to include uphill bicycle lanes on all roads in the project area. Kathy Saranpa , Friendly Street, spoke of the work done by the Crest Drive Community Team and staff in designing the project. She said the team, which worked very hard for a long time, had included bicyclists. She suggested there were differences about what constituted bicycle safety, and she suggested that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 8 Public Hearing addition of such lanes gave a false sense of security to those using them. The team worked hard to weigh all values and needs and all members had to compromise for the good of the whole. She was convinced that slowing traffic would be an adequate accommodation for bicyclists. She urged the council to vote yes on the proposed design. Charles Quinn , 375 Mary Lane, a bicycle commuter and vice chair of the Crest Drive Citizens Organiza- tion, said he had been under the impression that by not supporting the previous approval of nine foot lanes he would be allowing more space for bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Now it appeared sidewalks would be narrowed and intended to accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians. He said it should be clear that an 80- foot bus and two-foot bicycle could not fit into a nine foot lane, much less a two-foot sidewalk. He said that context sensitive design was a way of accommodating for unique situations, and not intended to disregard all logic and safety standards to save money. Mr. Quinn acknowledged that he funding system was not perfect or fair, but it was what was in place. He maintained that bicycle lanes and sidewalks should be standard widths and be consistently placed on the same side of the street. He asked if the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, children, and pets, were worth less than the cost of installing an adequate and uniform street. There was no safe way for his child to travel to Crest School via bicycle from his house. He asked the council to keep safety in the forefront of its thinking. Robert Hutchins , 575 Fulvue Street, said the street plan was a “Trojan Horse” presented by a committee made up of property owners who were designing a street to reduce their own costs. A miniscule percentage of the people were affected by the changes on the road. He drove down Crest Drive every day and had passed numerous bicyclists traveling the road on Saturday. Crest Drive was a major thoroughfare that th served more than the residents who lived on it. People living south of 30 Avenue and east of Willamette Street used the street to reach the southwest portion of the county, and those living in the southwest portion of the county also used Crest Drive. It needed to be small and slow because it was residential, but he could not allow his small daughter to ride on Crest Drive because it was so scary. He thought at least one bicycle lane should be included for all residents who used the road. Teresa Dingman , 575 Fulvue Street, thanked the design team and staff for all their work but expressed concern the design could not provide for safe passage for bicycles and pedestrians. The current design would jeopardize her ability to use alternative modes of transportation. She asked the council to reject any proposal that did not encourage alternative transportation and which posed risk to those choosing to walk or bicycle in the area. th Fred Lorish, 907 West 36 Avenue, said the design team had to take into account many factors, including stormwater runoff. The team discussed all the topics and balanced them against five sets of values it had created. The design team could not, and should not, take one value and raise it above the rest. Because of the discussions that occurred and the research that had gone on, the result before the council was an innovative, balanced design. He asked the council to approve it as submitted because he thought the design team had done what the council asked it to do. th David Cole , 841 West 36 Avenue, chair of the Crest Drive Citizens Association, shared a measure passed by the association recommending the council approve the preliminary street design. Laura Bailey , 2932 Friendly Street, a member of the design team, said she would be assessed $20,000 for the street improvement project. She noted the long process that preceded the design. She said the design team realized it was impossible to please every user and resident, and everyone had to compromise during the process. She felt the preliminary designs met the residents’ desire to retain the neighborhood’s character MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 9 Public Hearing and feel, and most importantly, to create safe streets for all users, which was a primary concern in the process. She said all should realize the designs were preliminary and were only about 60 percent completed; a neighborhood team had been formed to continue to work with the staff on the design. She asked the council to approve the design. Len Bailey , 2932 Friendly Street, found the assessment he would pay to be a princely sum that those speaking in opposition to the plan would not be required to pay. He spoke in support of the process, saying affected property owners worked long and hard and made many compromises. The streets and sidewalks being proposed would help retain the neighborhood character while slowing traffic, improving the safety of all users. He said the streets were not heavily used by bicyclists because they were so steep. Bicyclists prefer to use Lorane Highway. He asserted that residents rarely saw bicyclists on Friendly, Storey, or Crest unless they lived there. Those who wanted to cycle on the streets would find the design made them safer. He said the design was well thought-out and reflected the values of the neighborhood. He asked the council to support the homeowners and residents of the streets and support the design. Meg Stuart Smith , 346 Crest Drive, a member of the design team, thanked the members of the design team who were present for sharing their testimony. She supported bicyclists and pedestrians in the lower Crest th Drive area. She noted a bicycle connection through Morse Ranch that ended at 38 and Crest Drive that was mapped on the draft TransPlan as a discontinuous road and intended for a bicycle route in the future. It was a beautiful route that traveled through a variety of neighborhoods. Her daughter had discovered the path and used it frequently. Lyndell Wilken , 346 Crest Drive, a member of the Community Design Team who represented bicycle interests, said she had voted against the plan as not being acceptable to the bicycle community. She said the community’s vision for sustainability included bicycle access from neighborhoods coming to the core as a priority. She had questioned whether the design for Crest Drive satisfied that vision, and had reservations about that. She had been unable to completely support the plan because there was no evidence the plan would work and that traffic calming would occur. However, there was no evidence bicyclists would be safe in a nine-foot travel lane. Ms. Wilkins noted that lower Crest Drive was a public destination that served Crest Elementary School and deserved better access; at the present time, the sidewalk was on the opposite side of the ranch on the downhill side. She said she had tried to bridge the divide between bicyclists, pedestrians, neighbors, pedestrians, the environment, and aesthetics and continued to hope for a solution. She suggested that an uphill bicycle connection to Friendly Street would tie into Lorane Highway and continue the existing system. Ms. Wilkins submitted a proposal developed by Eugene resident Gary Rayor to the council. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, suggested that the local streets were part of the street system and most residents had paid for a street compatible with past standards. He was concerned because he did not think the City should have a completely new and uninformed process creating an arbitrary set of exceptions. He thought there was no evidence that streets that were smaller than 28 feet were adequate given the current size of cars and the City’s commitment to alternative modes. He agreed with those who felt the assessment system was unfair and indicated he would provide the council with a more equitable system. He said that the City Council proposed to overrule its engineers and those who had studied the issue in the past. He was sympathetic about the cost issue and suggested the council compromise to the degree possible within existing standards. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 10 Public Hearing John Rude , 1207 Courtney, a member of the Community Design Team, said that Mr. Moore had not shared that the CDT had a design team in place that included a bicycle coalition member that helped with the trail design. He did not mention that CDT members did due diligence in regard to bicyclists. He felt all effected groups had to compromise. He said that Mr. Moore did not share with others the entire process; he merely asked people if they wanted bicycle lanes. He did not mention that Chambers Street was not desirable for bicyclists due to the steep grade, similar to Crest, Storey, and Friendly. Mr. Moore failed to mention that none of the Bicycle Coalition advocates lived on affected streets. None of the coalition members had offered to share in the costs of the assessments. th Howie Bonnett , 325 East 28 Avenue, thought the proposal before the council was unsustainable. He shared information from Portland about its infrastructure investments in alternative modes due to peak oil. The project was neither bicycle- or pedestrian-friendly. The streets involved served a school and accommo- dated school buses. He described his own attempt to ride his bicycle in the area, noting the current lack of bicycle facilities and sidewalks. He said he currently bicycled part of the way and walked part of the way to his house, but it did not work as well as it would if there were facilities in place. When he inquired about improvements to his street, he was told he must have a 20-foot street and five-foot sidewalk, but the council was being asked to approve an 18-foot street and four-foot sidewalk. He asked the council to envision how that would work with a bus on the road. Mr. Bonnett said that a bicycle lane helped protect pedestrians by placing space between them and vehicles. He said the City needed to start again. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. 7. PUBLIC HEARING Resolution 4927 Concerning Sidewalk Widths in the Crest Drive Area, and Amending the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Access ways, the Eugene Arterial and Collector Street Plan, and the Eugene Local Street Plan Assistant City Manager Luell noted the council was scheduled to take action on the item on March 14. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Charles Quinn , 375 Mary Lane, asked that if the council approved the project, it include the bicycle and sidewalk consistently on the same side for the entire route for the sake of pedestrian and bicycle safety and so that motorists knew what to expect. Robert Hutchins , 575 Fulvue Street, said he had two small dogs that easily took up two feet when he walked them on their leash; if there was anyone else on the sidewalk, someone would have to move off. Teresa Dingman , 575 Fulvue Street, opposed the four-foot sidewalks being proposed because they resulted in inadequate bicycle facilities and because she wanted the project to be as pedestrian-friendly as possible. th Fred Lorish , 907 West 36 Avenue, suggested the item should have been incorporated into the earlier item. He said the sidewalks in the plan reached from the top to the bottom and were connected. The team made a conscious effort to separate the sidewalks from the streets whenever possible. There were sections of the street where that was not possible. The team envisioned a sidewalk that meandered down the road He said where the sidewalk was connected to the street, the team worried about “optical width;” that meant that as a driver looked down the street, the more spaces that opened up created an image of something that allowed MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 11 Public Hearing for faster speeds. Mr. Loresch said that was one of the reasons the team requested the four-foot sidewalks and narrower streets. Virginia Starling , 3302 Storey Boulevard, reminded the council to consider the safety of all users of the streets in question. That included automobiles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. She thought the four-foot sidewalk being requested was reasonable. Rolled curbs would make it possible for bicyclists to use the sidewalks when necessary. She did not think bicycle lanes were necessary. She said residents’ trust was the crux of the matter. th David Cole , 841 West 36 Avenue, shared a motion passed by the Crest Drive Citizens Association supporting the proposed exception to the standard five-foot sidewalk width within the Crest Drive area. Marlene Barry requested mountable sidewalks in front of the Crest Massage Center, saying it was a destination point for many people. She also expressed concern about the assessments, and proposed that the City issue a bond to help pay for the improvements. She said many people were not in a position to pay for the assessments contemplated. Ms. Barry pointed out the many people living above the streets that would use them to reach other places, and asked why those people were helping to pay for the road improvements. Paul Moore anticipated a bicycle lane on the uphill side or an extra wide lane on the uphill side. If that did not happen, he was concerned the sidewalks might be too wide and perhaps should be reduced in size to avoid pedestrian-bicycle conflicts. He urged the council to consider three-foot sidewalks to make it safe for the cyclists who would use the sidewalks. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called on the council for questions and comments. Councilor Bettman asked about the requirement that 50 percent of residents petition the City for street improvements. Ms. Willard said that the question related to the formation of a local improvement district (LID) and she did not know the answer. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman about her assumption that the City must secure the approval of 51 percent of the residents if the City decided to change the design, City Attorney Lidz indicated he would follow up on the question. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 19, 2008 Page 12 Public Hearing