Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MInutes - 07/16/07 Public Hearing M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall July 16, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 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 City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that this was a follow-up to the work session held the previous week. Development Review Manager for the Public Works Department Engineering Division, Peggy Keppler, explained that the hearing solicited testimony regarding the revisions to Chapter 7. She noted that the driveway definition had been changed so that it only reflected driveways on privately owned property. She said the warranty period had been redefined and 7.145 had been changed so that it would read that there would be at least a one-year warranty period. She related that there were also construction standards in place and there were several types of construction activity that might require more than a one-year warranty. Ms. Keppler stated that staff determined that the driveway approach length was not a problem; the curb cut length created issues and the language had been changed accordingly. She recalled that there was a question as to how access ramps would impact the property owner and it had been determined that they would only be required if a sidewalk was being built along the property. She underscored that if there was just an addition it was exempt according to code. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, she closed the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 1 Work Session 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Housing and Urban Development Section 108/Brownfield Economic Development Initiative Individual Project City Manager Taylor said Denny Braud, Senior Development Analyst for the Community Development Division of the Planning and Development Department, was present to introduce the item. Mr. Braud stated that the Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Program available through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was being considered to support the West Broadway Redevelop- ment project. He explained that use of Section 108 funds would allow the City to access the $2 million Brownfield Economic Development Initiative Grant awarded to the City of Eugene from HUD in the previous year. He said the program created opportunities for cities to borrow up to five times the amount of their annual HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation. He recalled that in March, 2006, the council had approved a resolution authorizing submission of a $7.895 million Section 108 application to HUD. He said the application had been approved by HUD and with the $2 million brownfield grant it had established a loan program that could be accessed for specific projects identified after the approval of the loan pool. Mr. Braud clarified that the public hearing was related to a project-specific proposed use of the Section 108 funds, which included acquisition of properties that were part of the West Broadway project by the City. He listed the properties, as follows: the Centre Court building and the adjacent hole, the Washburn Building, the property fronting Broadway on the south side between Olive and Charnelton Streets, the Roberts Building, and the Scan Design building. He said the total cost of the properties would be $10.8 million and urban renewal funds were being proposed to fill the gap between the Section 108 funds and the total cost. Mr. Braud explained that the properties had been selected for purchase because they had proposed redevelopment uses that aligned with HUD national objectives, primarily job creation and that among all of the purchase options negotiated on the West Broadway project the properties listed were offered closest to market value. He stressed that the funds could only be accessed after the council reviewed recommendations made by the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC) and approved a supplemental budget authoriz- ing the use of the funds. He noted that both of those were coming before the council in September. Mr. Braud underscored that the City intended to structure the 108 funds in a manner that would mitigate any risk to future CDBG fund allocations. He said staff was confident that the combined property sale proceeds and the pledge of the existing downtown urban renewal tax revenue would offset any future risk to the program. He added that financing staff demonstrated that the existing urban renewal tax increment was more than sufficient to cover the debt service on the 108 loan. He stated that the CDBG Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal and unanimously recommended that the application be submitted. Mayor Piercy asked if there were any questions from the council. Councilor Bettman opined that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) looked like a binding decision from the City Council. She asked if the council would have to approve the final components of the proposal. Mr. Braud reiterated that there would be two council actions. He underscored that there were no binding aspects in the MOU for either side. City Attorney Glenn Klein further clarified that the council would not delegate approval authority to staff. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Councilor Bettman observed that the HUD loan required that at least 51 percent of the jobs created be for lower income workers and asked if staff considered how many jobs would be displaced by the development and whether the wage range of the displaced jobs had been considered. Mr. Braud replied that it was projected that approximately 1,600 jobs would be created. He explained that HUD required that one job be created for every $35,000 spent, which amounted to a total of 280 jobs. Councilor Bettman asked if staff knew what the wages would be for the lower end jobs that would be created. Mr. Braud responded that this was unknown at this point. He noted that there was no criterion related to wage scales in the HUD requirements. Councilor Bettman asked how the public could evaluate the public benefit if the public had no proposal to look at. Mr. Braud responded that the City would have to demonstrate job creation given that it was the national objective of the funds. He stressed that after the funds had been spent, the City would have to demonstrate that the national objective had been met; it was a fundamental requirement of HUD. Councilor Bettman reiterated that the public did not have that information available. In response to another question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud stated that the purchase price for the Washburn Building was $1.9 million and for the Centre Court Building it was $2.8 million; this included the “pit.” Councilor Taylor surmised that the Beam proposal was no longer being considered separately. Mr. Braud assured her that there were still two separate MOUs. Councilor Taylor asked how the Scan Design building could be considered as “urban blight.” Mr. Braud explained that an area of determination had been made around the West Broadway development area and no specific element had been attributed to the Scan Design building. Councilor Taylor opined that the process of redevelopment would be “destroying perfectly good businesses doing well.” She asked if there were any sites aside from the two holes that would meet the definition of urban blight. Mr. Braud replied that other conditions that met the definition were that land values exceeded improvement values and building conditions. He noted that the definition of urban blight was complex. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud said no public comments had been received since July 6. Councilor Bettman asked what sort of notice of the proposed ordinance had been provided. Mr. Braud responded that the notice had been listed in the Legal Ads section of the newspaper. Councilor Bettman asserted it was “no wonder nobody had seen them.” Councilor Bettman felt there was very little information in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She asked why there were no findings in the AIS. She said there were federal criteria to meet for the CDBG money, City Council motions, City Council policies, and Urban Renewal District policies but no findings were included for people to review to determine whether the proposal was consistent with them. She believed a strong case could be made that the findings should have been published and followed by a 30-day public comment period. Mr. Braud responded that the application was available for the public to view on the Web site. Councilor Clark thanked the Planning Division staff for its hard work on the proposed downtown redevel- opment project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Councilor Bettman asked how the requirement that the project provide permanent full-time employment for low and moderate income individuals could be substantiated. Mr. Braud explained that the projection for job creation had been based on what the developers submitted to-date and was available as part of the application on the Web site. He underscored that at this point in the process, in that the development had yet to occur, the numbers were just projections. He said ultimately the City would have to monitor the jobs created and demonstrate to HUD that it had complied with the standard. Councilor Bettman spoke to the question of how the City could best inform the public so it could comment knowledgeably. She said the public had a responsibility to oversee the expenditure of public funds and if the City had not provided information, how could the public do so? She suggested that the council extend the public comment period for 30 days after the information was made more accessible by staff. Mr. Braud reiterated that the information was in the application and that was available for public view. Councilor Bettman asked where the information was. Mr. Braud said that information was available at The Atrium Building and he thought the application was online. Councilor Bettman said it was not. Considering the amount of money involved, she wanted to make the information readily available to the public for 30 days. She also did no think the public should have to review the application, but should be able to review findings. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules for testimony. David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, President of the Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA), requested that the record be left open. He commented that he read The Register-Guard very carefully and did not see information regarding public access to the application. He felt the number of people wishing to speak to this item was indicative of the level of public awareness of the item. He said the CPA hoped the money would be well-spent and that the City would gain a revitalized downtown. He questioned how “blighted” was defined. He thought it was “a stretch” to term some of the buildings blighted. He supported job creation that benefited low- and middle-income citizens. He felt the CDBG moneys had been well used in the past and the CPA wanted them to continue to be used for projects that would benefit the City. Rob Handy , 455½ River Road, was excited about the downtown area and the Broadway development project. He agreed that information was lacking. He thought the criteria for HUD funds could be delineated more clearly. He wondered how the objective of benefiting low- and moderate-income persons could be met. He felt the City should consider using some of the money to defer costs for City Hall or for the potential development of a hospital in the downtown area. He asserted that there were anomalies in the proposal and he hoped it would catch the attention of “a few more public officials.” Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for questions or comments from councilors. Councilor Clark expressed appreciation for the testimony. He cited a recent citizen survey in which 80 percent of the respondents felt downtown redevelopment was their top issue. He felt it was a huge issue and the City was taking an important step forward. He had mixed feelings regarding leaving the record open at this point. He did not want to create a habit of finding any way possible to slow the process down. He pointed out that the hearing was one of the first steps in a lengthy process. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to leave the record open for 30 days and to post the application and documentation of consistency with the criteria on the Web site. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Councilor Solomon asked what the deadlines were on the options to purchase some of the properties. Mr. Braud responded that the options for purchase of the properties primarily expired in September and October. He said if the record was left open it would delay the process and the submittal of the application. Councilor Solomon opposed the motion. She averred that there had been “plenty of opportunity” for people to participate in the process and to comment on it. Councilor Bettman asked how long the public record could be left open and still allow the council to take action prior to its summer break. Mr. Braud replied that action was scheduled for July 23, which would allow for the record to be left open one week. Councilor Bettman asked if it could be scheduled so that the record could be left open for two weeks. City Manager Taylor responded that there was opportunity to cover this at the work session. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to change her motion to read that the record should be left open for two weeks and that the Planning and Development De- partment should post the application and articulate how the specifics of the proposal fulfill the objectives of the HUD criteria. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion to leave the record open for one week. Councilor Bettman thought a one-week timeline was too short for people to access the information, “digest it,” and then give feedback. She did not feel it was reasonable. She asserted that the City should have initially provided all of the information and made it easily accessible and readily available. She alleged that when the City “wanted to let people know about something,” it purchased advertising space in the newspaper. She opined that this was tantamount to an omission. Councilor Clark felt Councilor Bettman was implying that Planning Division staff was “being sneaky” and “trying to pull one by people.” He asked staff how the present proposal had been advertised differently from typical noticing. Mr. Braud replied that staff had adhered to HUD standards for public hearings and the advertising for them. He reiterated that staff followed HUD’s criteria for submitting an application for Section 108 funds. Councilor Zelenka reviewed the calendar. He did not believe the council could meet the deadline that leaving the record open for two weeks would create. City Manager Taylor agreed that this was a dilemma. He underscored that the redevelopment subject had been part of extraordinary public involvement processes and a key cornerstone of a concept on how the City would move forward. He believed that leaving the record open for two weeks would jeopardize the time allowed for the City to submit the application and for HUD to consider it. He added that letting the options on the property expire could make it a more costly process. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 4:3; councilors Pryor, Zelenka, and Solomon vot- ing in favor. Roll call vote; the main motion failed, 4:3; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, and Taylor voting in favor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 5 Work Session 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District, Formerly the Central Lane Project City Manager Taylor asked Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, Richie Weinman, to present the proposed ordinance. Mr. Weinman recalled that the council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency board of directors, initiated a process to amend the downtown Urban Renewal Plan. He said the plan amendment was critical if the City was to use urban renewal funds to participate in the redevelopment of West Broadway between Willamette and Charnelton streets. He explained that the plan currently allowed $33 million in maximum indebtedness and it had nearly all been spent, much of it on the downtown library. He stated that maximum indebtedness was defined as the spending cap during the life of the plan beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. He said as a result of the council’s action and direction on May 29, 2007, the proposed plan amendments would increase the maximum indebtedness by $40 million, for a total of $73 million. The other amendment to the plan would change the termination date of the district from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2030, which would provide a more adequate timeframe to finance the City’s portion of the West Broadway project. He noted that a more minor amendment would be to officially change the name of the district to the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Mr. Weinman stated that public comment had been solicited in numerous ways and listed them, as follows: ? A postcard was mailed to all property owners in Eugene that advertised the hearing, provided con- tact information, and directed people to a special Eugene Web site; ? An display advertisement for the hearing had been placed in the Register-Guard; ? Letters soliciting comments were mailed to all of the impacted taxing districts; ? Staff met with the Lane County Finance Committee, which included two County Commissioners, and a letter from the County was included in the council packet; ? Staff met with the Eugene Planning Commission to seek comments from them. Councilor Bettman asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of the plan amendments. Mr. Weinman replied that the commission acknowledged receiving it. He noted that the commission did not have to recommend approval. Councilor Bettman asked what the funding source would have been for the parking garage that had been proposed for the east end of downtown. Mr. Weinman replied that the garage would have been located in the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, different from the downtown district. Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department, clarified that the garage would have been built using a combination of urban renewal funds and some General Fund money. Councilor Bettman asked how much the costs that would not be included in the maximum indebtedness would amount to. Councilor Bettman referred to Table 5 on page 93 of the AIS and asked what the private expenditure portion of the $160,000,000 figure listed by Projects Funded from Private Sources and Other Federal, State, and Local Government Resources would amount to. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the table represented the best guess of the overall cost and funding at this point in time. She underscored that the table was not part of the plan; rather, it was a report to help evaluate the plan. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Councilor Bettman asserted that the council would then approve the plan amendments based on the information though the information was “incorrect.” She asked for an errata report. Ms. Cutsogeorge said she would provide one. Councilor Bettman wished to point out to her colleagues that there was a zero under the total estimated cost for pedestrian, bike, and transit improvements and for public parks, public plazas, rest rooms, and open spaces “just in case [they] had not noticed that.” Councilor Bettman asked what the West Broadway Development project was that was referenced in the report. Mr. Weinman replied that it was the same concept shaped in the discussion begun in the spring. He stressed that it was not fully defined at this point, but staff and the citizens on the committee were trying to proceed with improving the downtown per council direction. Councilor Bettman felt having a public hearing and endorsing a concept was confusing. Mr. Weinman explained that the ordinance was an amendment to the plan and the council would have to further approve expenditure of any significant funding before it could be spent. Councilor Bettman asked if that had to occur before the adoption of the ordinance that was subject to the hearing. Mr. Weinman reiterated that the council would not approve money until after the ordinance was adopted. Councilor Bettman asked if the ordinance could be more accurately titled the “West Broadway Redevelop- ment Concept.” Mr. Weinman said language for such an amendment could be substituted. Councilor Bettman acknowledged the letter from Lane County and asked if there was any response from the other taxing districts that had been contacted. Mr. Weinman replied that the only other one that responded verbally was School District 4J. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Weinman reiterated that all of the other taxing districts had been contacted. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Klein affirmed that the public had 90 days to challenge the ordinance according to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). In response to a follow-up question, Mr. Klein explained that challenge in this case referred to a lawsuit and not a referendum. Councilor Taylor averred that if the ordinance was adopted and the expiration was set for 2030, the City of Eugene would have urban renewal districts in effect for 62 years. She said one of the arguments for urban renewal was that after the districts expired, other taxing agencies would benefit from them. She wondered if any other taxing agencies had benefited from urban renewal. Mr. Weinman replied that there had not been a specific analysis conducted on that issue. He said one could argue in terms of urban renewal districts’ benefits to their immediate environs. Councilor Taylor asked if urban renewal districts ever ended. Mr. Weinman responded that Eugene had a district that ended in the 1970s. Councilor Bettman asked what the timeframe would be if the ordinance was challenged. Mr. Klein believed a referral period was 30 days and that a judicial challenge could be made within 90 days. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. She reviewed the rules of the hearing. th Stanley Pewder , 677 West 12 Avenue, related that in his 20s he had gone to a party in New York City that was held in a complex of subsidized apartments for performing artists. He said artists need cheap MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 7 Work Session housing. He calculated that the City could provide $200 per month vouchers to 1,000 people for 10 years with $24 million to lower the cost of apartments downtown. He noted that one of the big issues was that more people were needed downtown. He believed that if the housing was built the number of people in the downtown area would increase. th Drix , 307½ 14 Avenue, said he was proud to be present for the hearing. He believed that Eugene was a connected town. He likened the development project to kids needing to clean up their rooms. He averred that the project created a beautiful opportunity. He specifically thought the “two holes” presented an opportunity to build something better. He thought the City should tap into the many people of Eugene because they were a real creative resource. He volunteered to help clean up the holes. rd Laura Byxbe , 677 West 23 Avenue, believed the City was about to commit a lot of public money that would be borrowed. She acknowledged that the City was expecting future revenues to pay the debt. She believed the project could be done for less. She suggested that local architects be invited to submit proposals for smaller pieces of the project. She felt local businesses could relocate from existing locations into the redeveloped parts of the project. She did not think it was a good idea to let an out of town developer build an “instant downtown.” Greg Bryant , 2173 Alder Street, explained that he ran a non-profit dance center downtown, the Tango Center, at 194 West Broadway. He said they had worked hard to develop the Tango Center and had invested a lot of money. He averred that the Tango Center managed to create “an exciting place after 8 p.m.” He invited people to come down and check it out. He felt that putting more money into an urban renewal district was not a good idea. He asserted that “the more power [one has] the more destruction [one is] capable of.” He alleged that people who were a threat to people “with lots of money and plans and fantasies” without a broad interface with the people they would affect typically disagreed with their own empowerment. He believed this was why “colonialization was such a popular mechanism.” He felt any study of urban renewal literature would primarily be a “study of human rights violations.” He believed that urban renewal had been a “major tool” for such violations over the past 50 years. He urged the council to be careful when expanding and funding the urban renewal district. Carolyn Kranzler , 2660 Cresta De Ruta, supported the increase in the maximum indebtedness and the extension of the termination date. She averred that the City had a tool and it should take “good advantage of it.” She noted that she had been involved with the DIVA since its inception. She said it would be displaced with the development but she was not afraid; she believed it would do better in a new place. She did not think the buildings being considered for the project were worth saving. Lloyd Holtcamp , 24325 Vaughn Road, Veneta, stated that he owned property at 2171 Madison Street. He noted he was responding to the card he had received at the property. He believed that the amount of money the amendment to the plan would allow to be spent on urban renewal was large enough that it should be placed before the voters. He related that an urban renewal project in Lake Oswego had resulted in an initiative petition to have anything over $2 million go before the voters. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, commended Councilor Bettman. He believed that she was adept at recognizing a “sham process.” He opined that Eugene had a “sham process culture.” He said engaging the public could be exciting and would lead to the creation of more popular spaces, such as parks in the downtown area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Vishanoff related that the Arena Transportation Issues Committee, a subcommittee of the Fairmount Area Neighbors, was meeting but it was not advertising the meetings. He took issue with that. He thought the subcommittee needed to be forthright about its meetings so that the public did not have to go through a lot of trouble to find out about “meetings in dark rooms.” He averred that urban renewal had many fronts in Eugene. He wanted a plan that really included the citizens. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, recalled the cities in which he once lived and urban renewal projects that had occurred there. He felt urban renewal had been devastating to all of the cities. He believed it was a deficient process. He averred that people deserved to have a proposal and to engage public input before it was a “done deal.” He asserted that he had correctly projected the low number of jobs that the Riverfront Renewal District had generated. He also predicted the Broadway Place development would not produce the benefits that were hoped. He stressed that 40 percent of the cost of the project had come from public funds. He opined that it was difficult to see concomitant public benefit. Jan Wostmann , 2645 Riverview Street, urged the council to not extend the life of the urban renewal district and also not to increase the maximum indebtedness. He believed it was difficult for the public to become involved with this level of financing when there was no project on the table. He likened this to placing the “cart before the horse.” He felt this type of tax increment financing complicates the citizens’ determination of what the highest use of tax dollars would be. He noted the recent discussion of the need for a new City Hall and the need to maintain streets. He acknowledged the citizens’ desire to improve the downtown area but he felt that if questions were asked regarding how it would be paid for in light of the financial needs in other areas, such as the street maintenance and preservation and new city hall, citizens would have a different response. He asserted that parking structures would be on the bottom of their list of priorities. He suggested that the project be placed before the public and financed with a General Obligation (GO) bond. He supported having a vibrant downtown, but he wanted the City to do it in a publicly accountable way. Russ Brink , 251 West Broadway, said he lived at Broadway Place. He read into the record an email from Sue Prichard, Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) board member. He noted that Ms. Prichard was very knowledgeable about the economy of the downtown and the leasing and sale of real estate in the downtown area. Ms. Prichard supported adoption of the ordinance. She believed that tax increment financing was a good tool that would ultimately improve the values of surrounding businesses. She thought it was sometimes okay to make small sacrifices for the overall gain of the community. David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, declared that all of the citizens would love to see their taxes stay in their neighborhoods. He opined that it was a great deal for the property owners in the downtown area. He wanted to see revitalization in the downtown area but he questioned how the City was going about it. He alleged that Connor and Woolley were largely responsible for the “blight” in the downtown and opined that “getting rid of them” would improve it. Mr. Monk opposed the ordinance until a specific plan had been developed and the WBAC was done with its work. He reiterated Councilor Bettman’s concern regarding the lack of money listed in Table 5 that was slated for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements and other public facilities. He also had not seen money in the plan for relocation and transition costs for the businesses that could be displaced. Rob Handy , 455½ River Road, was excited about bringing more housing to the downtown area. He asked how the public subsidy could be weighed against the public benefit. He suggested that the City should look at some of the buildings other than the two slated to be renovated. He believed that other buildings would have public benefit to the public subsidy that citizens would understand. He likened the City’s involvement MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 9 Work Session with the developers to a younger woman being dazzled by an older man with money. He asked the council to have the courage to stick to its convictions and to remember the past. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Taylor suggested that while the existence of the holes was being prolonged, the community should consider placing community gardens in them. She asserted that the opportunity for housing had been lost for the Charnelton Street site. Councilor Taylor commented that when the City first discussed options to buy the properties she had toured them. She felt there was a lot of life in those buildings. She agreed with Ms. Byxbe’s recommendation not to build an “instant downtown.” She thought it should be incremental and “organic.” She also thought the initiative to require expenditure of more than $2 million in public money to go before a vote of the people was a good idea. She concurred with Mr. Nicholson, adding that some of the best projects were not subsidized and were outside the urban renewal districts. She also agreed with Mr. Wostmann’s suggestion that the project be paid for with a GO bond. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for everyone who testified. She wanted the public to understand that although she opposed the amendments to the plan, it did not mean that she did not support downtown redevelopment of both of the “holes” and the Centre Court and Washburn buildings. She stressed that these projects could be done without amending the plan. She noted that Thomas Kemper had spoken before the City Club and suggested that copies of the recording be provided to her colleagues. She asserted that he could not answer specific questions about the project. She reiterated her feeling that people would not be able to testify about a spending limit increase without knowing the details of the project. She noted that Mr. Kemper indicated that collaborating with Beam Development would decrease the housing units projected to be built by almost half. She asserted that Eugene may end up with as many housing units or “only slightly more” than it would have had if it went with the “original Sears pit site.” Councilor Zelenka agreed that the processes were arcane and difficult to follow. He said in retrospect the processes were not designed well. He hoped that staff would work with people to directly contact them in order to provide the information needed, given the short timeline. He wished to clarify that the housing project across from the library was being rolled into the larger project. He noted that Mr. Kemper was planning on 80 to 100 affordable housing units and that while KWG Development Partners would drop some housing units, Beam Development indicated it would add some. Councilor Clark thanked staff for all of the hard work that went into the project. He also thanked all the people who spoke at the public hearing. He thanked Mr. Nicholson for his former service to the City, Mr. Handy for investing his time in the WBAC, and Mr. Monk for the work he did trying to make the City better. Councilor Clark said he heard from several people that without a plan the City had the “cart before the horse.” He understood that this was an opportunity for the City to have a process whereby it could have a meaningful discussion about aspects of it in order to create a plan that had more broad support. He felt there were a lot of good public processes. He quipped that Eugene had “elevated public process to a full- contact spectator sport.” He enjoyed that the citizens of Eugene had this level of civic passion. Councilor Clark observed that it seemed some were speaking of the money as though it were money that the City could or would spend in another fashion on a higher priority. He commented that if urban renewal MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 10 Work Session money was allowed to be spent on street repair it would be something he could appreciate, but he acknowl- edged that urban renewal moneys borrow against the potential future increase in the value of the properties that the City was “dealing with.” He said without the project, the values were not there and there was no actual money. He underscored that it was not as though General Fund dollars were being spent that might be spent on something else instead. Councilor Taylor said she attended the City Club at which Mr. Kemper had spoken. She shared that she had been alarmed to hear him say the development would be “up-scale” and that existing businesses would have to relocate. She asserted that he referred to “the right kind of tenants.” She felt this did not mean every kind of tenant. Councilor Taylor said the situation had gotten scary as the council had moved past a point at which it had become too late. She opined that it now seemed the City could not get out of the situation, that it was a “done deal.” She recalled that she had initially hoped that the City would only work with Beam Develop- th ment for the larger development and with KWG Partners to develop the Charnelton/10 Avenue site. She asserted that the City could have had housing units built at the latter site by now had the larger development not “waylaid” it. Councilor Zelenka said he had made the motion to form the WBAC in order to garner more public involvement. He reiterated that all of the activities related to the urban renewal plan amendments were at the direction of the City Council. He stressed that the council asked staff to bring back all of the pieces that would put the council in the position where it could “say yes.” He urged anyone who wanted to get involved in the process to attend a WBAC meeting. He added that it was contradictory to criticize the project for being a done deal and simultaneously criticize it for not having enough detail. Mayor Piercy averred that the council was putting into place things that “create possibilities for usage” rather than the inevitability of that use. She also felt that they were working toward a “win-win” situation and trying to find a way to build something “together.” Councilor Bettman opined that there was a very big difference between a public process that said “We have over $50 million in public money to invest in this community, How should it be invested for the greatest possible good?” and the public process that was on the table, which she felt to be a constrained project concept by “1.2 developers.” She asserted that they were saying this is what we are going to do, how do we “put lipstick on this pig.” She felt staff had it both ways. She alleged that when staff wants to say something could change, that it was “still in formation,” staff would say there were no details and it was not a “done deal.” She thought the advisory committee had a “very constrained scope” and it was being asked how it wanted to design the project and there was no legal requirement that its recommendations were reflected in the final project. 4. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Amending Section 2.090 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Declaring an Immediate Effective Date City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to make the Eugene Code consistent with a recent change to State law. He said that following the passage of Ballot Measure 37 the City Council adopted an ordinance beginning a process to implement it. He stated that if a claim is filed and the regulation remained in place 180 days later, then under Measure 37, the property owner could go to MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 11 Work Session court. The recent change to Measure 37 changed this to 540 days. The City Code contained a reference to the 180 day time period. Ballot Measure 37 did not require this. He said the proposed ordinance would change the code by deleting the reference to 180 days and changing it to language that said “consistent with any requirements of State law.” Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules of testimony. John Sihler , 4235 Brae Burn Drive, stated that Mr. Klein had clearly explained the ordinance language. He averred that Mr. Klein was correct. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and asked if there were any questions or comments from the council. Councilor Clark thanked Mr. Sihler for sitting through the meeting to testify on the last item. Mayor Piercy ascertained that Councilor Bettman objected to taking action at the present meeting and no action was taken. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 9:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 12 Work Session