Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 12/06/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall December 6, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Meisner said that he, Mr. Kelly, and Mayor Torrey attended the Artists and Authors event at the Library on December 3. The event was well-attended. Mr. Meisner thanked staff and the Eugene Library Foundation for doing all they had to make the building and events possible. The foundation became more successful every year. He said it was nice to enter a building such as the library and see everyone smiling. Ms. Nathanson noted the old saying that the wheels of democracy mm slowly, adding that was often to ensure that everyone was included. She said that sometimes progress was so slow the council became impatient with staff and the organization. She said she often looked at the council's work plan and objectives and wondered where the checkmarks were to indicate completion. Ms. Nathanson said she was pleased to have been involved with an organization as fine as the City of Eugene. She was proud of her association with the City. She had recently returned from the National League of Cities (NLC) conference and it was her perception that Eugene was admired for its accomplish- ments. Ms. Nathanson said every week and every month staff worked on projects to accomplish the council's goals in service delivery with little recognition from the council or public. She had seen fantastic examples in of innovation in every department. Ms. Nathanson congratulated the City organization and all departments for all the excellent work she had seen. Ms. Bettman discussed the issue of racial profiling, saying the community needed to be more aware of the problem. Those community leaders participating in a recent press conference believed that profiling was a long-term police practice and there was systematic bias occurring. Ms. Bettman acknowledged that it was very difficult to know the criteria for an individual officer's decision, but over the decades it seemed that the City had demonstrated a pattern and practice of profiling. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Bettman said she had never been concerned when sending her two children to school that they would be stopped by police, but children of color have been stopped repeatedly and their parents constantly worry about the potential for it to happen. Ms. Bettman said that one of the community leaders who spoke at the MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 1 Work Session press conference acknowledged the lack of violence, but the type of profiling people were experiencing was chronic and destructive. Students who were stopped regularly were stigmatized by their fellow students and teachers and it affected their self-esteem Those individuals have every right to feel as safe and welcomed in the community as her children. Ms. Bettman urged the council to be aware of the issue and read Police Chief Bob Lehner's report on the profiling case that gave rise to the press conference. She also asked the council to consider the types of civilian oversight that could be effective in the community so that when the time came to institute such a body, it could be done quickly. Mr. Pap6 asked if the council would see a report on the disposition of the Sears site prior to the break. City Manager Dennis Taylor believed so. Mr. Pap~ expressed his thanks to outgoing councilors Nathanson and Meisner and Mayor Torrey for all the work they had done for the community. Ms. Taylor advocated for an external police review board, regardless of the merits of a particular case. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Nathanson that there was considerable good work done by staff although the council often discussed what was wrong, which she thought natural. Ms. Taylor wanted Public Works Department staff to stop saying that stop signs do not work because drivers would not obey them. If staff said that about everything that was illegal, the City could simply abolish all its regulations. She did not think it was a good argument to use against stop signs, which she continued to advocate for as the cheapest form of traffic control. Ms. Taylor said she was a member of the NLC task force charged to review the No Child Left Behind Act, and invited ideas from the council. Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Bettman's comments about racial profiling. He said that issue and larger ones were something the council needed to pay more attention to. Mr. Kelly asked about the status of the scope of work for the commercial and industrial lands study promised by Lane County. City Manager Taylor indicated he would follow up. Mr. Kelly also thanked Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mayor Torrey for their many years of dedicated service to the City of Eugene. Mr. Meisner reported that the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) had been charged by the governor with the task of examining intercity alternative modes. He had agreed to testify before the OTC in Portland on the subject of freight passenger rail, and invited comments from other councilors before December 13. City Manager Taylor also recognized the many years of service that Mr. Meisner, Ms. Nathanson, and Mayor Torrey had given to Eugene. He commended Mayor Torrey for his efforts around education and children, Ms. Nathanson for her efforts around parks planning and telecommunications, and Mr. Meisner for his efforts around the library, the arts, passenger rail, and the restoration of the train depot. On behalf of the organization, he thanked them for their service. City Manager Taylor acknowledged the emotion and feeling expressed by the community leaders at the recent press conference. He recognized the courage of City employee Jordan Cortez in bringing forth his charge of racial profiling and thanked him for coming forward. He apologized to Mr. Cortez for his bad MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 2 Work Session experiences. He said that he had also been struck by the emotion and uncertainty expressed by the officer involved as the investigation progressed. City Manager Taylor agreed that the City needed to pay close attention to the issue. He believed that the work of Police Commission would provide the council with information on models for complaint management and civilian review that could be useful to Eugene. City Manager Taylor noted that the International City/County Management Association Team would be in Eugene after January 1. The organization had sent letters to hundreds of citizens and would hold focus group discussions and provide the public with an avenue for anonymous comment. Mayor Torrey noted his past opposition to an external review board because he believed such issues should be addressed internally, but because that did not happen he was now convinced that a custom method should be developed to address such issues for Eugene. It was time to move forward with a civilian review effort. He supported the efforts of the Police Commission and believed it would do a good job. He urged the council to allow the commission to complete its work before it moved forward in that area. Mayor Torrey said if a civilian review board was established, he recommended that Lane County and the City of Springfield be involved. Mayor Torrey explained the rose he always had sitting in front of him when he presided over council meetings, was given to him by a group of disabled young adults and represented rules to live by: R = Respect, O = Others, S = Self, and E = Environment. B. WORK SESSION: Hospital Update City Manager Taylor provided background information on a later agenda item during which the council would be asked to authorize budget authority for a $500,000 loan to be provided by McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center to the City to facilitate the design work for the Patterson Street underpass that would serve the new hospital to be located on the current site of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) headquar- ters. He emphasized the importance of access, time, and money to the question of siting a new hospital in the central city area. City Manager Taylor said the attachments to the agenda item summary reflected the elements of the agreement between the hospital, EWEB, and the City. He requested direction to complete the agreement. City Manager Taylor noted that Public Works Director Kurt Corey and City Engineer Mark Schoening were also present for the item. City Manager Taylor indicated that to purchase the riparian area abutting the site, McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center needed to develop a site plan, and to do so it had to have more certainty about the access point for the underpass. Mayor Torrey asked if there were any implications from the underpass on the 8th Avenue improvements serving the courthouse area. Mr. Schoening said that the underpass would not affect the first phase of improvements intended to serve the courthouse, but it would affect the design of the second phase. Because of the limited clearance under the railroad tracks, 8th Avenue would have to decline in elevation until it intersected with Patterson Street, and Patterson Street would decline until it reached the railroad tracks. A structure would be built on the new Highway 99 westbound lane where it crossed over Patterson Street. Mayor Torrey asked how the historic building on the courthouse site would be affected by the improve- ments. Mr. Schoening indicated the courthouse transportation improvements could be put in place without the need to move or demolish the building. Whoever purchased the property in question would have to MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 3 Work Session rehabilitate the building or seek removal of the historic designation. Responding to a follow-up question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Schoening said that to this point, the City had been dealing with willing sellers. The City had not yet approached the property owners affected by the Patterson Street underpass. If the council adopted the supplemental budget and the agreement with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center was completed, the City would begin discussion with those property owners. Mayor Torrey said regardless of what happened on the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site, planning for access to the site was extremely important, and he hoped the council would support the proposal. He did not think EWEB's location on the site represented the property's highest and best use. Mayor Torrey called for council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly commended the staff materials. He acknowledged the complexity of the issue and suggested that the hospital relocation could help both EWEB and the community accomplish their long-term goals. He expressed appreciation for the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center's willingness to make the investment, and liked that the funding for the access was tied to revenues from the hospital. He emphasized the importance of pedestrian and bicycle access through the area. Mr. Kelly agreed with the mayor that the funding represented a planning opportunity. He believed it premature to suggest what, if anything, the City would do in terms of construction if the hospital did not locate on the site, as the access might not be suitable for another use on the site. Mr. Kelly asked for a memorandum on the status of the triangle next to the courthouse property. City Manager Taylor pointed out that the fate of the property in question was dependent to some degree on the alignment of the road. The eventual location of the steam plant was another complicating factor. Mr. Kelly said a paragraph or two would be sufficient. Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor's comments and agreed with Mr. Kelly that the subject was very complex. However, she emphasized the council's goal of having a downtown hospital so that Eugene had life-saving emergency services for the highest concentration of the City's population without the need for a bridge crossing. She appreciated the efforts of all those who had brought the proposal forward, especially the council because of its continuing support. Ms. Bettman highlighted issues of concern to her, including whether the riparian area would be transferred or purchased, and its location. She asked if there was a buffer from the river's edge, and if it was measured from the top of the riverbank or the river's edge. She suggested that area might be protected already because of the Willamette Greenway. City Manager Taylor said the riparian area was not protected by setbacks in the area that the EWEB headquarters were currently located. The City's examination would focus on which edge to purchase. He believed that the property would be purchased, although it could be protected with a conservation easement. Ms. Bettman supported buying the widest possible easement. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the vote of the EWEB commissioners in support of the sale of the property, and acknowledged they still needed to do due diligence. She thought the City's actions facilitated making the sale an easier transaction. She supported the proposal. Mr. Meisner also commended the staff materials, and thanked McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center and EWEB for their efforts as well. He acknowledged that the EWEB commissioners were in a difficult position given the many unknowns. He appreciated the hospital's willingness to advance the needed money, and agreed it was difficult to do a site plan without more information about access to the site. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Meisner suggested that the City and EWEB would have made more progress with regard to the property purchase had the utility fully participated in the downtown visioning and courthouse planning processes. He regretted that, because it would have been an opportunity for the community to address some of the questions that had come up in the current process. Mr. Meisner anticipated that he would support the supplemental budget request. Ms. Taylor expressed appreciation to EWEB Commissioner Dorothy Anderson for her concern about the impact of the sale on EWEB's ratepayers, who were also City taxpayers. She said that while McKenzie- Willamette Medical Center was taking a risk, the council was also taking a risk with taxpayer money. Ms. Taylor questioned why Eugene had to buy the riparian area, suggesting that the City could instead protect it through regulation. Mr. Schoening said that purchasing the property gave the City the opportunity to enhance it through a partnership with a party such as the Army Corps of Engineers. City Manager Taylor added that ownership would facilitate the City's ability to do such things as the realignment of the bicycle-pedestrian path and improved access to the riverfront. He thought the City would be the best steward of the area. Ms. Taylor did not think EWEB should be located on the Willamette River banks but she was unsure if a hospital would be a better use. She did not think the City should assume the property would be sold until EWEB made a final decision. She determined from City Manager Taylor that McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center was willing to take the risk involved in providing the funding at this time without knowing whether the project would come to fruition. City Manager Taylor said that much work had been done to bring the process to this point, and he believed that the involved parties could make the relocation of the hospital work. As work progressed, the final costs of EWEB's relocation would become clearer. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, City Manager Taylor said the source of funding for acquisition of the riparian area was yet to be determined. He anticipated storm water revenues or park systems develop- ment charge revenues could be used, and reminded Mr. Pap~ of the $500,000 in General Fund money that was set aside but not allocated to any particular element of the hospital relocation. Mr. Pap~ indicated his support for the proposal. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, City Manager Taylor said the first real estate transaction would be the City's purchase of the riparian area; McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center would purchase the remainder of the site. He hoped the transactions and costs needed to be budgeted in fiscal year 2006 would be identified in time to be included in the budget the Budget Committee would consider in spring 2005. Mr. Pap~ indicated his support for the proposal and thanked the EWEB commissioners for moving it forward. He also expressed appreciation for the good work done by staff, suggesting that it "flowed" from the "great" council work done in identifying a downtown hospital as its number one goal. He hoped the council found another goal that all could agree upon. Mayor Torrey noted that the transportation improvements would be paid for by the tax increment dollars generated by McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center. A public sector entity would pay not taxes and thus could not support the needed transportation improvements. Mayor Torrey said that he had heard members of the community suggest there were plenty of people willing MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 5 Work Session to pay more for the EWEB site. He pointed out that EWEB's interest in selling the property and moving was not a secret. Those interested in acquiring the property could have approached EWEB. To his knowledge, no other party had done so. He further pointed out that interest rates were beginning to rise, which had the effect of depressing land prices. In the absence of another buyer willing to pay more, he believed EWEB should proceed with the sale. Mayor Torrey believed that EWEB was fulfilling its fiduciary obligations to the community by taking due diligence. Mayor Torrey commended the City Manager for his work on the issue. C. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram to Redesignate Property Identified as Tax Lots 199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-2 3 from Low-Density Residential to Commercial and to Rezone the Property from R-1 Low-Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date The council was joined for the item by Planner Patricia Thomas of the Planning Division. Councilors declared no conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Mayor Torrey opened the floor to discussion. Mr. Kelly asked the council to focus on the approval criteria and findings for the redesignation and rezoning. In his opinion, the issue was not about the best and highest use for a particular parcel, but about whether neighborhood refinement plans would be respected or changed when there was inconvenience to a single developer. He quoted testimony from Laurel Hill Valley Citizens co-chair Jan Wostmann, who asked that the proposal be denied because it was inconsistent with the remaining portions of the refinement plan. Mr. Wostmann cited Policy 5 for the East Laurel Hill area, which stated no additional sector of the area should be designated for commercial purposes until a public need can be demonstrated. Mr. Wostmann did not believe the findings indicated a public need. Mr. Kelly said the neighborhood association was not arguing for the entire refinement plan to be reopened, but for a specific amendment to the plan related to this area (East Laurel Hill area) in light of changed circumstances. He pointed out that the majority of the commercially designated property in the area was in the same ownership as the property in question, and he believed that the property owners would appreciate a comprehensive look at all their holdings through that amendment process. He thought a solution that met all needs could be reached in a short time. Ms. Bettman did not see any public benefit or public need met by the proposal. The property owners knew the zoning of the property when they purchased it and what it could be used for. She maintained that the proposal was about one property owner maximizing a property's profit potential. However, the area residents had made a decision to invest in their homes based on what was in place in the refinement plan. She thought approval of the proposal would negatively impact those residents. Ms. Bettman suggested that a change of zoning to C-2 would allow a wide range of uses that included pornographic retail uses. If the property owner was contemplating developing the property with a motel serving travelers on the interstate highway, it would be possible that, as in other locations along 1-5, it would spur development of an adult bookstore adjacent to the motel, creating a further negative impact on the neighborhood. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman noted staff's comment that the City had no resources to process a refinement plan amendment, and if that was the case, she questioned why the City had invested money on the refinement plan to begin with. If the City did not have the resources to change the plan, she questioned why it would circumvent it, which she perceived as a waste of the tax money invested in the refinement plan. She reiterated that the property owner was aware of the zoning when the property was purchased. Mr. Meisner indicated he would likely oppose the proposal because he also concluded it did not meet the criterion of demonstrated public need. However, he had some discomfort with the neighborhood associa- tion's recommendation for a limited study. The association recommended that ;;the scope of the task be defined as reexamining the geographic area included in the commercial node." He said that language presented only an opportunity to reduce the node in size, rather than the commercial applications in the area of the node. He urged that any study look at the best possible location for a commercial node, not how to reduce the size of the existing commercial node. Mr. Pap~ thought it presumptive of the council at best to suggest what the property owners want to do with their property. He believed they understood their situation and had gone through considerable expense to seek the redesignation and rezoning. He was persuaded by the Planning Commission's recommendation that the council approve the proposal. He quoted from the October 25, 2004, Planning Commission meeting minutes, where retiring commission Adell McMillan recommended the commission use the process before it rather than attempt to amend the refinement plan due to the length of time involved and because it was not practical to amend a refinement plan each time such a situation arose. Mr. Pap~ determined from City Attorney Jerome Lidz that the process and action before the council was legal. Mr. Pap~ thought the council did the community a disservice by refusing to recognize that things change. Things were changing in the area in question. Unless the council could guarantee that the refinement plan could be readily amended in a reasonable time, he thought the proposal should be approved. Ms. Taylor objected to making a change for the benefit of a single developer. She did not think the council should even be considering the issue. Ms. Nathanson said she attempted to consider the issue from a common sense perspective, and had been struck by her examination of the map of the area. The area of the request was oriented toward the freeway, not the residential part of the neighborhood. It was adjacent to commercially zoned property. Ms. Nathanson did not understand why the property in question was designated as it was because it was almost isolated. She regretted staff was unable to track the history of the designation decision as it was difficult to tell whether it was unintentional or somewhat of an oversight due to the property's isolated nature. Ms. Nathanson asked the City Attorney to what degree the council's decision had to be based on the criterion of need. Katheryn Brotherton of the City Attorney's Office indicated it was one of several criteria that the council must find were satisfied by the application. Ms. Nathanson said that several neighborhood leaders had expressed concern that the City was not proposing to amend the refinement plan. She pointed out that most refinement plans were developed when the City had money, and the City no longer had the funding for that purpose. In practical terms, it was not feasible to amend either small parts of a plan or do major updates. Ms. Solomon was also struck by the marginal nature of the property and questioned what could be done MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 7 Work Session with it given that it could not be developed residentially due to the power lines on the property. She supported the proposal so the property owners could do something with the property. Ms. Solomon said she would like to see the City take another look at the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan while the development proposal moved forward. Mayor Torrey noted Ms. Bettman's concern about adult bookstores, and asked if defeat of the proposal opened the City up to a legal challenge based on freedom of speech. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said no. Mayor Torrey thought the neighborhood leaders were making a mistake in saying refinement plans could not be challenged. If that was so, refinement plans should state so. They do not. There was nothing wrong with the proposal or the property owner bringing it forward. He believed the council's decision should be based on the findings. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the City Council a resolution to deny the applications to amend the Laurel Hill Refine- ment Plan Land Use Map to change the designation of the subject site, Assessor's Map 18- 03-03-23, Tax Lots 199, 200, and 300, from Low-Density Residential to Commercial, and to deny the application to change the subject site on the Eugene Zoning Map from R-1 Low- Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial. Mayor Torrey called for comments on the motion. Ms. Bettman maintained that a portion of the property could be developed with residential if it was done carefully. She was aware of a similarly constrained property that had been developed residentially. Ms. Bettman said it was not the City Council's job to ensure that residents make a profit or could maximize the value of their investment. If the property was remote or marginal, it was that way when it was bought. She did not want to set a precedent by approving a request to amend a refinement plan when it did not fill a public need only to provide a financial windfall for a property owner. The proposal did not fill a public need, it was not justified, and it would negatively impact the neighbors. Ms. Bettman said that neighbor- hoods should be able to have the predictability created by refinement plans. Mr. Kelly noted the staff statement that the City had processed site-specific refinement plan amendments over the years, but he maintained they were different from this one. In the case of the Arlie Crescent Village development, the developer worked closely with the neighborhood, and residents had subsequently supported his proposal. He did not think the comparison was good. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly agreed any study should look beyond the area in question. He believed that residents were not opposed to commercial uses but were concerned about how they were laid out. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Pap~, Mr. Kelly said the action the council might take if the City approved the development could be legal but it would not necessarily be right or doing the best thing for the citizens. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's comments, Mr. Kelly acknowledged the parcel's orientation, but the decision must be made on the criteria, and one among many was Laurel Hill Valley Policy 5. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Solomon, Mr. Kelly did not think the examination of the refinement plan could occur in parallel with the development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Speaking to the remarks of Mayor Torrey, Mr. Kelly did not interpret the neighborhood leaders' statements as saying the City should not change the refinement plans, but that they should not be changed in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion. While he agreed there may be both a private and public benefit to the proposal, neither met the test of public need. He could not find that need was demonstrated anywhere in the proposal, and could not find a credible way to make that finding at this time. Mr. Meisner suggested the council be fair, equitable, and consistent when it came to the topic of refinement plans. He said if plans were to be respected for one neighborhood, they should be respected for all. Ms. Nathanson said it was not practical to conclude that a refinement plan amendment was needed for every development proposal. The City could not afford it. She had been inclined to support the proposal because she believed it was the practical way to accomplish what was ultimately the right thing to do. Ms. Nathanson said she had begun to be persuaded that the process could have gone differently, and perhaps approval of the motion would be a message to the community that private parties with good ideas needed to do a better job on their own of reaching out to neighborhoods. The City could help facilitate the process as it had done in other situations. She said she would like to support the Planning Commission's recommenda- tion, but perhaps now was the time to send a signal to the community that because of a lack of resources, business would be done differently in the future. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Thomas that the Laurel Hill Valley refinement plan was last updated in 1982. He asked about the cost of updating a refinement plan. Ms. Thomas had no cost figures at hand, but estimated a six-month time period at minimum. Planning Director Susan Muir concurred. Mr. Pap~ asked how often the City attempted to update its refinement plans. Ms. Muir said the City had not done an update in a long time. Ms. Muir added that other than the South Hills Study, no refinement plan was envisioned in the division's fiscal year 2005 work plan. Mr. Pap~ said that Ms. Nathanson's comments about the practical impediments to amending refinement plans were well-taken. He did not think that there had to be a public benefit for the City to take affirmative action on the proposal. He said private property owners have rights and the City should respect those and deal with such proposals in an expedient way. Mr. Pap~ disagreed with Ms. Bettman that the proposal would negatively impact residents, saying that was speculative. He believed that any development would benefit the public through additional tax revenues. Mr. Pap~ said if the case before the council was a watershed case, the council needed to consider it carefully, as refinement plans were not keeping pace with the City's growth. He asked what the process for recognizing the realities of real estate dynamics was, if not this one. Mayor Torrey questioned if the council's passage of the motion had Ballot Measure 37 implications. Mr. Lidz said no. Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments. Mr. Kelly supported the motion but did not want it to be the end of the matter. He hoped the neighborhood association would collaborate with the property owners and the City to work through the issues. The change he envisioned would be an amendment to the refinement plan similar to this, but in a broader context. Addressing Mr. Papa's remarks, Mr. Kelly said that many residents believe the proposal would negatively MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 9 Work Session impact them, as demonstrated by the unanimous opposition of the neighborhood association to the proposal. Ms. Bettman said that there was a refinement plan amendment process in place. She did not think the age of a refinement plan negated its value. Some neighborhoods had none at all, and the residents of those areas would like one. She said as long as the refinement plan was in place, it should be respected. Regarding the subject of refinement plan updates, she recalled that she had discussed the issue with former City Manager Jim Johnson, who had suggested targeted updates of small neighborhood areas on an as-needed basis, which would be more cost-effective that a full update. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Pap~ voting no. D. ACTION: Resolution 4816 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property Located at 979 Patterson Street, Eugene, Oregon (Arthur C. Carmichael, Jr. and Larry Von Klein) Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to adopt Resolution 4816 approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 979 Patterson Street, Eugene. Mr. Lidz briefly noted changes in Attachment A of the agenda item summary made since the public hearing. Ms. Bettman, with the concurrence of Ms. Nathanson, the second to the motion, incorporated new Attachment A into the motion. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments. Ms. Bettman asked if the numbers provided by the developer were verified independently. Mr. Weinman said yes. He said the numbers provided were very reasonable and corresponded both to the City's own experience and to a survey released that day by the local firm of Duncan & Brown. Ms. Bettman referred to the information provided by Mr. von Klein regarding Hilyard House and asked Mr. Weinman for more information about his assertion that the structure was built to the original specifications. Mr. Weinman said changes were made as a result of City regulations but those were largely interior. Ms. Bettman indicated her opposition to the motion. She said that the City has plenty of rental housing in the area and she did not see a public need to give tax forgiveness to such a project. She said the Consoli- dated Plan for Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield identified the need to increase the rental supply of permanent affordable housing enhancing shelter support services for homeless households and increasing the supply of transitional and permanent housing for specialized populations. The proposed tax exemption before the council would not accomplish any of those goals. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion, pointing out the proposal involved the conversion and development of a surface parking lot in downtown Eugene into quality housing, which was precisely what the City's Growth Management Study policies encouraged. He said that the City's policies called for it to assist such development as well. He thought the proposal a perfect use for the area and noted the neighbor- hood residents worked with the developer on certain design elements, which was important to him. Mr. Meisner appreciated the fact the City's legal counsel deemed the conditions of development were enforce- able. He was pleased to see the proposal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Kelly thanked legal counsel for his efforts in making the changes now before the council. It was important to him that the design elements were included. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments about the Growth Management Study policies, Mr. Kelly said certain areas within each neighborhood are more amenable and less amenable to higher densities. He thought the site in question was very much amenable to higher densities as it was not surrounded by single-family houses and was located off a major street. Mr. Kelly agreed that affordable housing was a City goal, but he pointed out the City had approved property tax exemptions for housing that was not low-income to meet various other goals. Ms. Solomon expressed support for the motion. She expressed concern about the council ;;picking and choosing" design features on an application-by-application basis and asked if that was allowed. However, she was supportive of what was before the council given that the developer had presented it. City Manager Taylor said that the materials clarified what the developer proposed and the resolution codified the proposal. Mr. Lidz said it would be legal for the council to impose the condition as a condition of the benefit. Mr. Pap~ concurred with the remarks of other councilors in support of the motion. He said the resolution guaranteed the City would get what the developer applied to build. He noted the risk that accompanies development of apartment units, as no return was guaranteed and the developer could face substantial personal liability. Ms. Taylor saw no benefit to the community from the development. She thought it could be a perfectly good development but questioned why the City should support it or guarantee the developers a profit. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Noting that there was time remaining in the work session and a full agenda for the regular meeting, Mayor Torrey called on the Council President for a motion regarding the Consent Calendar. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Mayor Torrey noted that Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly had submitted corrections to the minutes earlier, and deemed them accepted as submitted. Ms. Bettman pulled Item D, the Legislative Policies Document. Mr. Pap6 pulled Item C, a resolution authorizing the sale of electric utility bonds. The remainder of the Consent Calendar, with the exception of items C and D, passed unanimously. Speaking to Item C, Mr. Pap6 determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that the money would be used for the Carmen Smith facility reauthorization. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Taylor objected to addressing the pulled items at this time and moved to table the remaining items. Her motion received no second. Item C passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table Item D until January 10, 2005. Mr. Kelly pointed out the document needed to get to the legislature and its staff before it convened early in January 2005. He opposed the motion to table, and did not think there were many issues for the council to work through. Mr. Pap6 concurred. Ms. Bettman was willing to move forward on the entire document if the council tabled her concern, which was Item C(4) and the recommendation related to urban growth boundary exchanges. City Manager Taylor suggested that the council delete the areas of concern and move forward with the document. Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion to table. Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to delete the proposed policy and recommen- dation on urban growth boundary swaps on page 234 of the document. Mr. Kelly said there had been some e-mail discussion of the issue earlier that day, and while he tended to support the language in question he was willing to strike it at this time. Mr. Meisner agreed. He said the statement in question was a limited statement of policy. It might well address an issue that might not come up, and if it did, the committee could address it. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Meisner commended the work of Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser on the document. Item D passed as amended, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 12 Work Session