Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: July 28, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the. April 23, 2008, Work Session, May 21, 2008, Work Session, May 27, 2008, City Council Meeting, and June 4, 2008, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.April 23, 2008, Work Session B.May 21, 2008, Work Session C.May 27, 2008, City Council Meeting D.June 4, 2008, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080728\S0807282A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 23, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Sustainability Commission Work Plan Sustainability Manager, Felicity Fahy, introduced Will Shaver and Tim Laue, the chair and vice-chair of the Sustainability Commission respectively, who would present the work plan. She averred that sustainability would not be achieved by problem-solving in a “linear way,” rather there was a need to look at the system holistically. Mr. Shaver outlined the Sustainability Work Commission work plan. He related that the commission had met for a number of months and had established its mission statement, bylaws, and a work plan for May 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. He read the mission statement into the record: “The Sustainability Commission works to create a healthy community now and in the future by proposing measurable solutions to pressing environmental, social, and economic concerns to the City of Eugene, its partners, and its people.” He stated that the main focus of the work plan was to tackle topical issues upon which sustainability focused. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Shaver said the commission had been considering issues and possible resolutions, including: ? Climate change ? Transportation ? Triple bottom line ? Land use ? Green building ? Sustainable business development ? Food ? Waste He related that for each item the commission intended to research what had already been done in the community-at- large and within the City. He stated that the commission would partner with non-profits, businesses, and households to determine what they were already doing in terms of sustainability and to find areas to enhance. He said the commission would consider actions ranging from public outreach to potential ordinances for the council to MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 23, 2008 Page 1 Work Session consider for enactment, and then consider some level of measurement to determine whether the actions were effective. Mr. Shaver requested one-time funding for a staff support position, on behalf of the commission, in order to help move the work forward. Mr. Laue offered the other Sustainability Commissioners the opportunity to comment. Sean Boles, commissioner, thanked the council for having sustainability on its goals list. He believed that sustainability was the overarching issue of the present time. He averred that society had been good about meeting its pressing economic, environmental, and social needs but had been poor about compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. He said a substantial change would be required at a household level and at a larger level. He asked the council to listen to the proposals that would be made by the Sustainability Commission and to be “brave enough to act.” Mr. Laue said as the commission had considered its work plan, commissioners had been struck by the breadth, scope, and magnitude of the issues involved. He averred that for the commission to be successful it would have to collaborate with all parts of the community. He stated that the commission had designed the framework of its work plan so that it could work with its intergovernmental partners, non-profit agencies, and businesses and not duplicate work that had already been done. Regarding the request for one-time funding, Mr. Laue explained that the commission felt that it could not reasonably ask for ongoing funding for a staff position at this time. He said there was a lot of education and outreach that needed to be done along with a lot of coordination and collaboration with others in the community in the initial phases of the commission. Mr. Clark thanked the commissioners for their work. He had been impressed with the work plan. He felt the commission was doing important and difficult work but the commission was made up of “an all-star team of people.” He had been a little troubled by the request for one-time funding for a full time equivalent (FTE) employee. While he agreed the work was important, he believed it needed to be considered within the larger scope of what was happening in the community and the level of devastation that the County’s public safety system faced. He felt it would be irresponsible to add to this program in the face of the potential loss of other important programs. Ms. Ortiz thanked the commissioners for coming and presenting the work plan. She believed the commission was doing important work of which the community could be proud. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Fahy affirmed that she was the only staff person working for the Sustainability Commission. Mr. Laue clarified that the commission was proposing hiring a staff person to assist during the life of the work plan. He did not expect to gain a decision from the council on the proposal at this point in time nor did they anticipate that they would be able to go outside of the budget process. He reiterated that they were seeking an “infusion of staff” to get the commission’s work off the ground given its breadth and scope. He acknowledged Mr. Clark’s concern and noted that the County’s “huge problem” affected the triple bottom line. Mr. Pryor appreciated that the request was for one-time funding, given the difficulties that were ahead. He noted that having a safe community was also of primary importance. He commended the commission for doing its work in the most thoughtful way possible and for not asking the council to “jump” the budget process. He commented that even if the County’s budget woes were taken out of consideration, the City still faced significant budget issues including transportation and public safety. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 23, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman recalled that she had not been inclined to support the original initiative to create the Sustainability Commission. She declared that she could not support “spending scarce resources on creating illusions of doing something.” She was sensitive to whether they were making a difference or just “talking [and] outreaching it to death” and doing nothing. She asserted that many communities had studied sustainability and the City already knew what the options were; it was a matter of picking and choosing to determine how to implement them. She felt they should look at a gap analysis of the operations that were already provided, such as the public relations arms of the different City departments. She averred that those were roles that existing staff already addressed and that Ms. Fahy should continue to serve as the staff person for the Sustainability Commission. Ms. Taylor recalled that Mr. Boles had often discussed stewardship when he had served on the City Council. She added that there were talented people on the commission who could do a great deal of the work. She did not feel comfortable giving a job to someone for only one year. She did not think the commission would be able to hire a competent person if the job was temporary. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Shaver explained that the person in the one-year position would primarily focus on education and outreach. Mr. Laue observed that a person could use a one-year position as a step in career advancement. In response to the suggestion that commissioners be asked to volunteer more time to do the sort of staff work needed to successfully advance the sustainability initiative, he said he did not think this was a realistic expectation given that most of them had full-time jobs outside of their volunteer commitment to the commission. Mr. Shaver related that a number of people had expressed concern about not just going to meetings, but serving to bring about positive action. Ms. Taylor opined that there was no work that was more important. Mayor Piercy reiterated that sustainability was a priority for the City of Eugene. She averred that the commission’s job was to keep the community focused and working on the things that needed to happen. She said people working within departments were feeling “maxed out” and could not take on additional work for sustainability. She agreed, however, that sustainability should be infused into the work of every department. She noted that there were still some funds allocated to the Sustainability Commission that were available. Mr. Clark had confidence in the commissioners’ skill and ability to accomplish the work and to educate the public. He underscored that the City of Eugene would be faced with substantial problems as a result of County funding cuts. He listed some of the agencies that would be cut that would impact the City. He said he would approve the framework of the work plan as long as the motion was clear that it did not contain a budgetary component. Mr. Ruiz said he would look at whether Ms. Fahy had enough support in order to implement the plan. He thought it possible to find an existing position within the City that could be channeled into the Sustainability Commission efforts. Ms. Bettman declared that if the City was not willing to make hard decisions then the sustainability efforts were “an utter waste of money.” She averred that a policy piece was missing. The work plan included internal City operations, the community, businesses, households, and education, but it was not integrated into the policy of the City and the sorts of things the City supported in Salem and “on down the line.” She wanted to look at options that would move the City as far forward as possible with existing resources. She opined that the City should make a policy that required all City employees to reside within city limits. She asserted that this would reduce carbon emissions. She thought the City could take the money it would spend on the Sustainability Commission and spend it on free transit within the City of Eugene, including neighborhood shuttles. She also wanted to focus on “relocalization.” She thought the task of looking at sustainability had been broadened to the point that it would take the community time and resources to return to a more specific focus. She called this a “mushy approach.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 23, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the Sustainability Commission first work plan framework (which does not assume an allocation of resources or funding at this time). The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. B. WORK SESSION Rental Housing Code Update Mr. Ruiz asked Rachelle Nicholas, code enforcement supervisor for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), to provide an overview of the code update. Ms. Nicholas highlighted the program overview and the funding of the rental housing code, which was provided in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She underscored that the money the annual assessment on rental owners had generated was mandated by the ordinance to remain with the program. She said the options included a reduction in the assessment from $10 per unit to $8 per unit and potentially scheduling a public hearing on the ordinance. Ms. Taylor supported the ordinance and supported scheduling a public hearing on it. She suggested that the late fees be dropped, though she did not favor reducing the fees. Mayor Piercy asked if there was an appeal process for the late fee in case, for example, a rental owner had been out of town when the assessment was due. Ms. Nicholas replied that there was not a formal appeal process but anyone could telephone staff and request that the late fee be waived. Mr. Clark thanked staff for its hard work. He observed that the City had fielded 106 legitimate complaints. He wondered if those complaints had also been submitted to state agencies and whether the City was duplicating state efforts. He asked if the complainants were receiving any relief from another agency. Ms. Nicholas replied that there was not another agency. She explained that while rental housing complaints were covered by the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), a complainant would have to hire an attorney and go through a court process. Mr. Clark was troubled by this “make work” item in the face of current constraints the City would face. He commented that when looking at the additional sorts of priority items the City would have to address, this had a lower priority than other things. He asked how the $60,000 estimated to be brought in by adding the mold, security, and smoke detectors would be spent. Ms. Nicholas responded that the sum was based on an estimate of how many complaints had been made which staff had been unable to handle the previous year. She felt it could become necessary to hire another person. Mr. Clark could not support the ordinance as it was presented. Ms. Bettman supported the recommendation to hold a public hearing. She also supported the habitability standards. She added that it was good that the program was paying for itself. She asked why the ordinance limited mold only to what would be visible. She also wanted to know how many of the 103 mold requests had been in regard to visible mold. Ms. Nicholas replied that the majority called about visible mold. She surmised that anything but visible mold would be difficult to respond to without the aid of someone who specialized in this. Mr. Pryor appreciated that staff had followed through on previous discussions. He supported the ordinance as it stood. He saw it as a health and safety issue. Ms. Solomon understood that mold was difficult to determine in the State of Oregon. She observed that people identify it differently. Ms. Nicholas responded that she did not have a personal interest in adding mold to the ordinance; the addition had arisen from council interest in doing so. She related that what staff saw in the field was mold that had a cause that was not being addressed, such as leaky plumbing or a leaky roof. She stated that at this time the ordinance language required landlords to correct faults such as leaks. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 23, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Solomon understood that the program generated $10 per year per unit for a total of $278,000 per year. She asked how many people were employed by the program. Ms. Nicholas responded that for budget purposes it paid for approximately 2 FTEs and some administration costs. She explained that Planning staff who responded to rental complaints would then code corresponding time on their timesheets to the rental housing code program. Ms. Solomon felt this was a lot of money. She thought there was enough money in the program as it stood. Ms. Nicholas underscored that they were not asking for another FTE. Ms. Taylor opined that there was no higher priority than protecting the health and safety of residents, especially low-income people who could not protect themselves. She stressed that the program paid for itself. Ms. Ortiz indicated her support for a motion to send the ordinance forward with the addition of smoke detectors, mold, and security. Mayor Piercy asked if the program had received any complaints. Ms. Nicholas responded that no one had complained about the program itself, but some renters had asked for more to be included in it. Mr. Clark wanted to clarify that he supported the program from the standpoint of health and safety. He agreed that the community had a duty to protect renters if the program was not duplicated elsewhere. He was concerned that the inclusion might be difficult to support. He wanted to be as specific as humanly possible regarding what the City would enforce. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 23, 2008 Page 5 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 21, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka. Jennifer Solomon participated by telephone. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency to order at 11:58 a.m. A. WORK SESSION: Beam Development City Manager Jon Ruiz explained that the primary goal for Beam Development would be to secure private tenants, but at present the City was considering the facility for potential City uses. He said this would provide the City with the opportunity to rent existing City-owned properties to other tenants. He under- scored the City’s goal to seek the maximum financial efficiency and effectiveness. He believed those offsets should be considered. He said staff was seeking action on the purchase sale agreement being presented. Mayor Piercy called for a moment of silence to commemorate the anniversary of the Thurston High School shootings. Ms. Taylor thought everyone had agreed that the City should not vacate properties it owned. Mr. Ruiz responded that the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) included examples of revenues which could be accrued from City properties. He said staff intended to come back to the council with a full plan based on what was known and the finances at a later date. He emphasized that the purpose of the AIS was to provide examples of other factors for consideration when looking at the proposal. Ms. Taylor expressed alarm that this was even being included as an example. She averred that there were many offices “spread all over the place.” She added that she was ready to approve the project but she hoped that if the City was considering giving up other properties it owned, the council would be able to make a decision on that. Mr. Ruiz assured her that staff would return to the council for a discussion of that type. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for the information. She appreciated the examples that were provided. She added that she expected the City Manager to know that however this proposal proceeded, it should be at the least cost to the City. Mr. Zelenka asked what offices might be moved. Mr. Ruiz replied that the discussion had not proceeded to that point. He did not know if the City would move offices to the Beam site, but the intention was to MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 21, 2008 Page 1 Work Session continue working with Beam Development on the possibilities with the intention of moving the project forward. Mr. Zelenka noted that the City owned the 858 Pearl Street building but rented space from the Eugene Hotel building. Mike Sullivan, division manager for the Community Development Division, offered to provide the council with a grid of the leased spaces in the downtown area. Mr. Zelenka reiterated that the City Manager’s job was to ensure the project was done effectively, efficiently, and cost-effectively. Mr. Sullivan related that the City rented small spaces for the Human Rights Commission, the Risk Services Division, and the Police Auditor’s Office, among others. Mr. Zelenka asked if staff thought someone would be interested in purchasing the Atrium Building. Mr. Ruiz responded that had value, noting that Beam had called it an interesting space. He thought it could be used for something other than office spaces. Mr. Sullivan noted that both Opus Development and the KWG Development Partners had expressed interest in it. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that City code laid out several different processes for selling real property. He said it either involved giving notice to the council and allowing the council to “call it up” or it required a proposal to sell to come before the council. He stressed that the City Manager and staff did not have the authority to sell property belonging to the City. Mr. Zelenka noted that the suggested space rental was $1.89 per square foot and asked the average for the downtown area. Mr. Sullivan responded that it was difficult to generalize about the downtown area. He related that staff had conferred with several brokers. He said the spaces the City currently rented had an average ambient value of approximately $1.25 per square foot, for Class B space. He stated that the U.S. Bank building and the Citizen’s Building leased for approximately $1.80 per square foot. He noted that outside of the city core some of the nicer new Class A spaces approached $2 per square foot. Mr. Zelenka was concerned that the City would commit to renting spaces in the Beam building and would only be provided a “blank shell” for which it would then spend a lot of money to make the space into offices. Mr. Sullivan responded that the agreements included a tenant improvement allowance of $25 per square foot. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Sullivan stated that the tenant improvement allowance for 50,000 square feet of space would be $1.2 million. Mr. Clark observed that the City of Eugene offices were largely in older Class B and the Beam Development project would build Class A spaces. He asked if the building across High Street from City Hall was Class A space. Mr. Sullivan was not familiar with that building. He had been in it, but not recently, and recalled that the spaces were somewhat small and were in an odd configuration. He said it was not an open format that could be configured into flexible work spaces. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to authorize the Agency Director to sign a purchase and sale agreement between the Urban Renewal Agency and Beam Development consistent with the terms provided in Attachment A. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 21, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman indicated her intention to support the motion. She asked the rental cost for space at the Wells Fargo building. Denny Braud, senior development analyst for the Community Development Division, responded that he thought it was a little over $1 per square foot. Ms. Bettman asked if the City was assuming the lease for the Wells Fargo location. Mr. Sullivan replied that the City would be signing a replacement lease and not subletting the space. Ms. Bettman hoped that the City would not be a tenant. She felt it was a potential and not a “given.” She thought the development would increase interest in developing other sites in the downtown and would be beneficial to everyone. Mr. Clark said he was eager to see the project succeed. He expressed appreciation for the creativity that had been applied to make the project go forward successfully. He indicated he would oppose the motion at this time because of the unpredictability of future costs and some of the unknowns related to the project. He was concerned about cost increases due to increased construction costs as it would fall back on the City if the City were the main tenant in the building. Ms. Solomon wanted the project to move forward but was concerned about how quickly the City was pursuing the project. She wished the council could have held another work session to try to reconcile the discussion on City Hall and City office renovation, and the Beam Development project. She said she could not vote for the project at this time because she would have a difficult time explaining to people why the City was choosing this course. Ms. Taylor congratulated Mr. Ruiz on the idea of having the City serve as a “back-up tenant.” She felt the project would be great news for the community. Mr. Zelenka also complimented Mr. Ruiz and staff for getting this in motion quickly. He felt it was understandable given the timeline. He underscored that the City had no subsidy going to the property. Given that the Centre Court building and the hole next to it would finally be developed, he thought serving as a back-up tenant to ensure the project would go forward was prudent. He pointed out that the reason that Beam had been brought in was the company’s prior development record. He added that if Beam Develop- ment had not “stepped up to the plate” and guaranteed the monies he would have been more reluctant to move forward. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Clark voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 12:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 21, 2008 Page 3 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall May 27, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Bill Kievith , 3277 Onyx Place, wished to speak about potholes. He pointed out that the City of Eugene was built on clay soil that expanded and contracted with the weather. He averred that it took a better than average road to last for a long time. He felt the City did not invest the amount of money in roads that was needed. He asserted that the City had its General Fund but did not prioritize fixing roads. He found this difficult to accept. He recalled that the director of Public Works had indicated that the “level of service” for a pothole was three inches. He also had heard that 75 percent of potholes were located on unimproved streets. He did not want to spend large amounts of money to fix potholes on unimproved roads which he thought might need fixing on a monthly basis. He encouraged the council to get citizens involved and to educate them about the pothole problem and what it needed for resolution prior to placing something on the ballot. th Sarah Dailey , 650 West 12 Avenue, #209, wished to address Eugene Code 5.450 regarding skateboarding. She declared that she was a working person who regularly made the environmentally friendly and conscien- tious decision to skateboard to and from work. She also enjoyed skateboarding as a recreational pastime. She recently had become aware of the confusing nature of the skateboarding code due to the way it was being enforced. She related that recently her partner had been pulled over and ticketed for skateboarding on the sidewalk on Olive Street and Broadway. She said three weeks earlier she and her partner had been riding their skateboards in the street and had been stopped by a Eugene policeman, who explained that skateboarding was to be done on the sidewalk and was not allowed in the street. She explained the recent ticket for riding the skateboard on the sidewalk but the officer had insisted that skateboarding should only occur on the sidewalk. She related that she moved onto the sidewalk and saw a stencil on the concrete that indicated that skateboarding there was forbidden. She said it became clear that skateboarding laws were being interpreted and enforced unevenly and that there remained confusion even among police officers whether or not skateboarding was allowed on the street or the sidewalk. She referred to Section 2(d) of the code. She found it confusing as it indicated that no person should skateboard in the portion of the street designated for automobile traffic. She thought it could be interpreted to mean that a skateboard should not be ridden in the street at all or that it should be restricted to the portion of the street designated for bicycles. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting She stated that Sections 2(a) and 2(e) specified which areas of the City of Eugene disallowed skateboards on the sidewalks. She felt it was clear that those sections protected the pedestrians in the downtown and campus areas. However, she averred that many community members who choose skateboarding as an alternative form of transportation commute during nighttime hours and are negatively impacted by these restrictions. She said skateboarders were at risk when boarding in the streets at night because of drunk or erratic drivers. She urged the City to change the code to indicate where skateboarding was permitted, to specify that they should be allowed in bicycle lanes, and that travel by skateboard should be allowed on sidewalks during the nighttime hours in the campus and downtown areas. She underscored her interest in continuing to be a law-abiding citizen. Zachary Vishanoff , somewhere on Patterson Street, provided handouts for the council. He asserted that Mac Court was seismically sturdy. He said one of the reasons the University of Oregon had listed for razing the structure had been that it did not meet seismic standards. He asked the councilors to look at a report online by using the key words: Oregon faculty senate seismic report arena subcommittee. He also requested that the City hold a public hearing to determine whether the people of Eugene truly wanted to host the Olympic Trials of 2012. th Tom Bode , 1414 East 18 Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Association of Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) Housing Liaison. He urged the council to pass the rental housing standards that included language regarding smoke detectors, housing security, and mold. He believed those things should not be controversial because they should be considered necessities. He underscored that those requirements were already included in state law. He said he did not support inclusion of a sunset clause. He believed that while property owners had the resources to return to repeat their case for discontinuing the program or portions of the program, renters did not. He pointed out that renters made up more than 50 percent of the population of Eugene. th Sam Dotters-Katz , 965 West 12 Alley, related that many landowners and renters had complained at the meeting held one week earlier about a lack of outreach and a lack of effective methods of bringing them to the table. He wished to underscore that the coalition of student renters who had attended the meeting to speak on behalf of the underrepresented population of renters had come of their own will and because they had figured out by themselves that the meeting was scheduled. He supported exclusion of the sunset clause because he felt that portions of the code could be revisited at any time by the council. He said interest had been expressed in forming a committee to speak on behalf of the mold issue. He encouraged the council to facilitate student and renter participation on it. th Norton Cabell , 1456 West 10 Avenue, legislative director of the Oregon Rental Housing Association (ORHA), conveyed the association’s support for inclusion of smoke alarms and exterior door locks for security in the rental housing code. However, he was concerned about inclusion of mold in the code because mold was not a simple issue to resolve with laws and ordinances. He said some mold was caused by tenant behavior, some mold was caused by landlord action or inaction, and some required effort by both sides. He averred that such complex issues could only be resolved by involving all of the stakeholders. He noted that the City of Portland had decided to revisit its housing code for the first time in 20 years. He related that instead of directing staff to come up with proposals, Portland created a work group comprised of tenant advocates, representatives of landlord trade groups, and public health officials. He said the City of Portland provided staff and hired facilitators for the work group. He had participated in the group. He felt that working together over the course of the year had led the two sides to greater understanding of the other side’s concerns. He related that they had explored the topics of mold, lead-based paint, and retaliation. He believed that whatever recommendation the group made to the Portland City Council would be multi-faceted and complex due to the nature of the concerns involved. He noted that Oregon was unique, at the state level, MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting for having a general landlord/tenant coalition for almost 30 years that presented changes to the land- lord/tenant law every two years with the support of both sides. He stated that the goal of the coalition was to protect good tenants from bad landlords and good landlords from bad tenants. He urged the council to convene a forum, such as an advisory committee or a task force, comprised of the interest groups. He averred that the results that would come from such an entity would be most likely to garner support. Heather Hannah , 6044 Avalon Street, represented the local chapter of ORHA. She was glad that the issue of mold was being deferred for the time-being. She added her support for the formation of a committee to discuss mold and other ongoing issues. She also wished to convey the support of the ORHA for retaining the sunset provision in the code. She averred that it did not harm the code; it merely mandated that it be reviewed after a period of years. Michael Steffan , 3709 Pine Canyon Drive, member of the ORHA, supported retaining the sunset clause. He felt they needed to revisit the funding and how the program was implemented. He did not see another mechanism that would cause people to consider those things at a future point. Natalie Perrin , 460 Monroe Street, Apt. A, stated that she was a graduate student at the University of Oregon. She related that she had submitted a National Registry nomination for the Eugene Civic Stadium, which unanimously passed both state and local review before being sent to Washington, D.C. She said School District 4J had expressed concern about the proposed boundary line, but this had since been clarified, and the nomination would be reviewed again by the Oregon State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation at a meeting scheduled for June 5. She averred that with the clarifications that had been made, the nomination should be passed by the end of the summer. She noted that she had written her thesis on the stadium. She felt the preservation of Civic Stadium would provide benefits to the City of Eugene. She cited language in Goal 5 and correlated the preservation of the stadium to it. She thought preservation of the stadium as a heritage site along with successful promotion as a tourist destination could be “exceptionally beneficial” to the community. She noted that heritage tourism was a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States. She related that the restoration of Brickwood Fields in Birmingham, Alabama, had brought more than 20,000 visitors per year and had served as a catalyst for reinvestment and redevelopment of surrounding areas. She agreed that the six acres surrounding Civic Stadium were underutilized and preservation of the historic resource should not restrict the rest of the property. She thought preservation of Civic Stadium in conjunction with redevelopment of the site could serve to “place Eugene on the map” as a model city committed to preservation and progress. th Dennis Hebert , 850 East 38 Avenue, provided a petition signed by 3,500 people in support of saving Civic Stadium. He declared that everyone loved the Eugene Emeralds and loved Civic Stadium. He averred that there was “nothing greater than a good baseball game on a summer night in Eugene.” He said what needed to happen, given that the Ems had not sealed the deal with the University of Oregon for the use of its planned baseball stadium yet, was that the City Council and Mayor should get in touch with Mr. Elmore of the Elmore Sports Group which was the primary owner of the Ems, School District 4J, the University of Oregon, and the Chamber of Commerce along with the baseball fans of the stadium. He felt the people should be allowed to say how they felt about this landmark and “icon” of baseball. He pointed out that Civic Stadium was one of the last timber-built stadiums in the country, made out of old growth Douglas fir which was the state tree. He urged the council, the press, and the people of Eugene to unite in order to keep Civic Stadium as a valuable resource. Tom Halferty , 4510 Manzanita Street, stated that he was a member of the Save Civic Stadium organiza- tion, as was Mr. Hebert. He thought it would be fairly easy to gather a groundswell of support for retaining the stadium. He felt the stadium would be worth saving even if the Ems no longer played there, though most MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting people wanted to see some kind of baseball venue there. He envisioned many other sports organizations utilizing the stadium, such as the Babe Ruth League and Pop Warner Football. He thought it could be used for concerts as well. He said one opportunity that could present itself if the Ems moved into the University stadium lay in the Golden Baseball League, which was not associated with major league baseball. He explained that the league had eight teams on the west coast and wished to expand to 24 teams. He hoped the City would participate in the effort to preserve the stadium. He added that the group that had formed on behalf of the stadium was a non-profit and was currently raising money for a new roof. Scott Landfield , 2585 Willamette Street, provided the councilors with a packet that included minutes from the Save Civic Stadium group, portions of the report written by Ms. Perrin, and the sign-up sheet for the group. He averred that Save Civic Stadium was a community-wide movement. He could not imagine a person opposing its preservation. He noted that he had support from councilors Clark and Taylor and both Mayor Piercy and former Mayor Jim Torrey. He said the community needed examples of issues that everyone could “get behind.” He likened the situation with the Ems as being in the “bottom of the ninth.” He requested that Mayor Piercy and City Manager Ruiz discuss this with the Elmore Group. He also suggested that representatives of Save Civic Stadium be introduced to Kevin Costner, who was scheduled to provide two benefit concerts for the University baseball stadium at the Hult Center. th Jim Crabbe , 2080 East 27 Avenue, said he had been working to save Civic Stadium for a while. He stated that the land had been deeded to School District 4J and had been a civic project built by a number of local people, but now the school district wanted $4 million for it. He expressed disappointment in how the court case between the school district and the City had been handled. He did not agree that the City should have given up its right to appeal as part of the settlement. He had attended the hearing and did not feel the city attorney had been adequately prepared. He said it was clear that the stadium was built for the people and had been deeded to the school district for athletic purposes. th Sara Brandt , 57 West 20 Avenue, declared that she was a “YIMBY,” a “yes, in my backyard” person. She averred that Civic Stadium should be saved for the following reasons: historic preservation and the economic development that would occur because of historic tourism, sustainability – continued use of an existing facility, and because it is centrally located and accessible by all modes of transportation. She related that she had worked in fundraising for 20 years and during that time there had never been a major fundraising campaign for the stadium. She believed it was possible to raise the money needed. She urged the council to “be bold” and take concrete steps to explore the acquisition of Civic Stadium from School District 4J. Isha Lerner , 1975 Harris Street, felt it was her civic duty to stand up on behalf of Civic Stadium. She considered it to be a community treasure. She noted that it employed teens over the summer and provided the community with the opportunity to share a ball game. She believed that the Ems should remain in the stadium. She urged the councilors to listen “with all your hearts” to the call to save Civic Stadium, a “treasure” of the City of Eugene. Fred Fawbush , 2000 Scott Road, Springfield, stated that he and his wife were season ticket holders for Ems games. He said they had attended games in other stadiums in the league. He considered all of the others to be sterile and hot. He pointed out that Civic Stadium had shelter from the heat. He related that they had met parents of some of the players and had met the players as well, all of whom expressed a preference for Civic Stadium over any other stadium in the league. He also noted that Lois Youngen, who had played for the team that had been the subject of the movie A League of Their Own, had been to Civic Stadium and liked it. He related that Tim Katzman, the director of corporate communications for the San Diego Padres, MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 4 Regular Meeting sometimes visited Civic Stadium and considered it to be his favorite stadium. He averred that one could not go anywhere in the league and find a more comfortable stadium than Civic. Dianne Fawbush , 2000 Scott Road, Springfield, related that she worked at the Blood Bank next to the stadium. She had heard many of the people who have recently given blood express concern about losing Civic Stadium and how this could be prevented. She underscored that tickets for Civic Stadium were reasonable for nearly everyone, unlike tickets to get into Autzen Stadium. She reiterated that the stadium was also within walking distance for many people. She remarked that she had become very attached to baseball since arriving in this country from Australia. She said she had started cooking for members of the Ems when there had been three Australians on the team and a tradition had begun. She felt that losing the Ems to a new baseball stadium would cause the Ems to lose their personal touch. She related that Civic Stadium was set up so that fans could interact with the players; other stadiums removed the fans from players and were more “sterile.” She underscored her love for Civic Stadium. Trey Imfeld , 1964 Villard Street, related that he had taken his son to his first ballgame at Civic Stadium when he was three or four. He said his son had such a good time that a Register Guard photographer had put a picture of him on the front page of the sports section the next day. He stated that his son was now 23 and had recently written a letter to the editor expressing how sad he would be if he was never able to take his son to Civic Stadium. He stressed that there were many reasons for Civic Stadium to be considered a historic resource; it was part of the history of the families of Eugene for generations. He emphasized that baseball and Civic Stadium were about tradition and history and urged the council not to “discard that casually.” He led the members of the public in the Council Chamber in a rendition of Take Me Out to the Ballgame. John Brown , 101 East Broadway, remarked that the people who supported saving Civic Stadium had a great idea. He stated that he was representing himself to make the council aware of the annual River Clean- up, scheduled for June 14. He underscored that being a steward of the rivers was his passion. He commended the City parks staff for the outstanding job they had done in working with the event. He noted that Willamalane Parks and Recreation District and the event’s corporate sponsor, REI, had also done great work to make the event happen. Mr. Brown cited a few examples of things that added to the pollution of the river, such as the cigarette butts on the street that were washed into the river through storm drains and transmission fluid that leaked from Lane Transit District (LTD). Regarding the former, he said there were hundreds of cigarette butts every morning on the zero to 100 block of West Broadway; City staff would then come with leaf blowers and blow them into the street. He suggested putting bio-bags before the storm drains to block these types of pollution. He also was concerned about the emergency flares that were left behind after an emergency situation. He stated that as soon as it rained the flares that were left went into the water harming sensitive habitat for pond turtles and other species. He suggested that volunteers be asked to collect flares after an incident. He acknowledged that emergency personnel were too busy to do so. Additionally, Mr. Brown wished to share an observation regarding the City’s clean-up services. He explained that the park blocks were cleaned every day, and after the Saturday Market closed, the market crew did a “wonderful job” of cleaning up the area. He noted that his office was in this area and that on Sunday morning parks staff would come and clean it again which he considered to be wasteful. Mr. Brown closed by thanking the City for allowing staff to help in the River Clean-Up. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 5 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She said the presentations had been amazing and were appreciated by all. Councilor Clark thanked Mr. Brown. He said he looked forward to helping with the annual River Clean-Up. He encouraged anyone watching the proceeding to join the event. He expressed appreciation for the manner in which Ms. Dailey had presented her concerns regarding the skateboarding ordinance. He hoped that staff would follow up on it. He also agreed with the supporters of Civic Stadium, adding that there was no better place to be at 7:05 p.m. on a summer evening. He said he would consider forming a committee but he felt that the group that was already formed would do a better job as it was a grassroots effort. Councilor Zelenka indicated he would support the rental housing code as it was presented in the packet. Regarding the mold issue, he felt university students should be involved in the conversation. He also averred that preserving Civic Stadium was incumbent upon all of the citizens of Eugene. He noted that a work session on saving the stadium was scheduled for later in June. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for providing testimony. She said she would send an email regarding the skateboarding enforcement policies to the Police Commission as that body was charged with policy review. She also appreciated Mr. Brown’s testimony regarding the river. She related that the new River Bend hospital facility had instituted stringent rules about what could and could not be put down the drain and suggested that the City adopt similar rules. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - November 28, 2007, Work Session - February 25, 2008, Work Session - April 21, 2008, Work Session - April 28, 2008, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of April 23, 2008 D. Approval of Fairmount Neighbors Eugene 08 Neighborhood Grant Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Con- sent Calendar. Councilor Bettman noted she had submitted corrections to the minutes. Mayor Piercy deemed them, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Public Contracting Provisions; Repealing Section 2.150 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Sections 2.1420 and 2.1430 of that Code; and Adding a New Section 2.1447 to That Code Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City adopt Council Bill 4977, an ordinance concerning public contracting provisions. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to amend the motion to insert the following sentence in Eugene Code 2.1430(7) after the end of the first sentence: MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 6 Regular Meeting “The purchasing agent shall notify the City Council of the declaration of emergency, if made, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the emergency execution of the con- tract, as soon as possible, in light of the emergency circumstances.” Councilor Bettman averred that her amendment would restore a provision that was in the original version. Jeff Perry, Financial Operations Supervisor for the Central Services Department, stated that the provision in the amendment would modify the existing code to include not only public improvements and emergency contracts, but all emergency contracts. He said it would be an additional requirement. He noted that there had been four such situations in the past 15 years. Councilor Clark observed that the amendment did not seem to create a potential impact and asked Mr. Perry if he shared this perception. Mr. Perry responded that it was just notification and he did not believe it would create an additional impact. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing Standards; Amending Section 8.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Repealing Section 5 of Ordinance No. 20239 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4978, an ordinance concerning rental housing standards. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the ordinance to in- clude a sunset clause of 2011. Councilor Solomon wanted the council to have at least one more sunset clause. She said it seemed that some sort of advisory mechanism was going to be established to “tweak” the program into a more useful tool than it had become. She believed that having a sunset clause would force the council back to the table to discuss the program, the management and administration of the program in order to make sure it was going well, and to talk about the accounting of the program. She averred that this would ensure the program was doing what it was supposed to do, which was to serve as a tool for both landlords and tenants. Councilor Clark said the original intent of the sunset clause in the Rental Housing Program was to ensure the policy and its effect could be reviewed over time. He did not think anyone had anticipated the amount of money the program had collected above what was necessary to administer the program. He felt this was an unintended reality and the potential existed for more unintended situations. He supported inclusion of the sunset clause. Councilor Poling pointed out that one speaker had opposed the sunset clause but had said that all a sunset clause would do would be to mandate that the program be revisited. He believed the council should mandate a review and should set a timeline to ensure the council revisited the program. He felt three years would be long enough. He added that he was somewhat perplexed about the conversation on mold. He shared the concern expressed by others about who should take responsibility for the mold. He felt further discussion was needed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor commented that a sunset clause created something of an inconvenience but in this case one more would not hurt. He averred that mold was a complex issue and whatever decision was made on it should be monitored and revisited. He preferred to say that the council was making changes to the program that ought to be reviewed to ensure it was working effectively. Councilor Taylor opined that the sunset clause would require people who did not have the time to keep watching what was going on. She averred that renters were poor and disempowered. She believed that the “people with the power” would be watching the situation. She also hoped the council would include language regarding mold. Councilor Zelenka did not think sunsetting the entire ordinance was appropriate. He thought the program had worked so well that it was being expanded. He agreed that mold presented a tricky issue. He thought a review clause regarding the mold issue was appropriate but that the whole program did not need review. Councilor Bettman opposed the amendment. She averred that the council approves and modifies dozens of ordinances and a councilor could bring up an issue of an ordinance modification at any time for a work session. She opined that inclusion of a sunset clause would be tantamount to putting the renters who were “the most vulnerable” on probation. She felt it would require the additional burden of making the renters come back to make their case. She asserted that the industry had an advantage because it had money and people who were willing to attend hearings. City Attorney Jerry Lidz clarified that the amendment would only amend Section 3 of the proposed ordinance to delete the last three words and to change the sunset date to December 31, 2011. Roll call vote; the vote to amend was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Solomon, Clark, and Pol- ing voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Taylor, Zelenka, and Ortiz voting in opposition. The Mayor voted in favor of the amendment and the amendment passed. Mayor Piercy supported inclusion of a sunset date in order to require the program to be reviewed, given that there would be an advisory group for the program that would include both renters and landlords. Councilor Poling noted his intention to make a motion but indicated he would wait until the discussion on mold. He said based on that discussion he might place a motion on the table to amend the ordinance to lower the fee from $10 to $8 per unit per year. Mayor Piercy stressed the importance of moving forward with the formation of an advisory group in order to have stakeholders at the table. Councilor Solomon asked if the work session on mold would also include discussion of the advisory group. Councilor Pryor surmised that the council would decide on the group’s structure. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 8 Regular Meeting Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 9 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 4, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. She explained Councilors Pryor and Poling had been excused from today’s meeting. COMMUNITY PROCLAMATION Mayor Piercy explained a , A Joint Proclamation Denouncing Acts of Hate Speech and Other Behaviors and Activities Which are Intentionally Meant to Demean and Intimidate, was being brought to the City Council. The proclamation was a result of recent incidents at Spencer Butte Middle School and César E. Chávez Elementary School. The proclamation was a joint endeavor between the City of Eugene and the Eugene 4-J School District, and would be presented to the school district board that night. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved for adoption of the COMMUNITY PROCLAMATION . Mayor Piercy stated that Councilors Poling and Pryor had communicated their support for the proclama- tion. Councilor Clark shared an incident that recently occurred in which a drunk driver hit a woman’s vehicle from behind at 8:00 a.m., while she was dropping her children off at a local school. The drunken man used racially derogatory language in an attempt to intimidate her. The Municipal Court had dealt with the issue that week. Councilor Clark was proud of the people who attended the hearing in support of the woman. He said some acts were beyond what was seen in the schools and everyone should say, “Not in our commu- nity.” Councilor Solomon arrived at 12:05 p.m. Councilor Bettman thanked Mayor Piercy and the school district administration for their leadership on this issue. It was essential to speak up. Hate speech was a precursor to violence. Councilor Zelenka also thanked Mayor Piercy and the school district leadership for entertaining this motion. It was incumbent upon everyone to stand up and say, “That’s not OK.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 1 Work Session City Manager Ruiz thanked Mayor Piercy and the school district leadership, as well as others who would want to join in supporting the proclamation. Mayor Piercy stated that the response to the graffiti of students and staff at Spencer Butte Middle School was remarkable. They had worked together to make something that was awful, a good learning experience. It raised their level of knowledge and reaffirmed their commitment on this important issue. Councilor Ortiz was proud to be part of a group that took these issues seriously. It was important for our leaders to make their voices heard. She had spent some time at Spencer Butte Middle School, and was amazed at the level of knowledge and commitment. Mayor Piercy called for the vote on the motion. The motion passed 6:0 of those present and 2 votes in favor of the motion from Councilors Pryor and Poling in their absence. Mayor Piercy invited the councilors to attend the school district board meeting with her that evening. A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Code Amendments City Manager Ruiz said the purpose of the Downtown Code Amendments was to facilitate downtown development called for in the Downtown Plan. There had been a significant amount of public participation in development of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments were limited in scope and would be followed by a more comprehensive review. He introduced Nan Laurence, Planning and Development Department (PDD) staff. Ms. Laurence stated the City Council would hold a public hearing on an ordinance to amend sections of the Eugene Land Use Code on June 16, 2008. The purpose of the amendments was to facilitate desired downtown development and redevelopment. The work session was intended to provide the council with background on this matter prior to the public hearing. Council action on the ordinance was scheduled for July 14, 2008. Staff distributed the following documents that had been inadvertently omitted from the meeting agenda packet: Map 9.4510 Transit Overlay Development Overlay Zone; Floor Area Ratio Calculation; Downtown Eugene Zoning. The project had been split into two phases. Phase I contained code amendments that were limited in scope, not necessarily in terms of their impact but in terms of an actual change that was required in the code. Phase II, would begin immediately after adoption of the proposed Phase I code amendments, and consisted of more extensive changes to the code. Ms. Laurence reviewed the key code amendment provisions in Phase I as they were detailed in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS): 1. /TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone Standards 2. C-2 Community Commercial Zone 3. C-3 Major Commercial Zone Ms. Laurence said on April 28, 2008, the Planning Commission considered an ordinance enacting the proposed code amendments for Phase I, voting six to one to recommend approval of the ordinance. The draft ordinance was included in the AIS. Councilor Taylor would have liked to have seen the minutes to be able to know how Planning Commission- ers voted on the issues. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Responding to a question from Councilor Taylor, Ms. Laurence said Planning Commissioner Anne Kneeland voted against the proposed changes because she was concerned that reducing the floor area ratio (FAR) in the area outside of the core from 1.0 to .65 would have two negative effects: the types of buildings built would no longer be of a size that met assumptions about the number of employees in the Downtown Plan area, and the environment would be impacted by additional cars that might be driving downtown. Other Planning Commissioners shared those concerns but there was testimony at the public hearing from a member of the Sustainability Commission that brought up the point that trips to downtown and people parking downtown actually reduced trips around the community, noting density downtown was a part of our sustainability goals. One commissioner was concerned specifically about the employment issue. Councilor Taylor liked the idea of allowing housing on the first floor. Councilor Bettman recalled that when the council adopted the 20-space limit and FAR in 2001 following public hearings and council debate, it was determined these changes met the objectives of the City and the Growth Management Policies (GMPs). Reducing the FAR in the downtown core was counter to City policies. Some requirements allowed for flexibility and discretionary review including basement and underground parking that also diluted density. Creating less of a FAR and allowing for surface parking would lead to more suburban development in the urban core where half of the lot was surface parking. Referring to C-2, Councilor Solomon said this issue arose at the Housing Policy Board (HPB) on which th she served as a City Council representative. The issue came up at the HPB regarding WestTown on 8. Inclusion of commercial requirements on the ground floor made the project more difficult. As a result, live- work units had been integrated making the project more difficult. Of the nine live-work units, one had been sold. She was happy to see the proposed changes. Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said the minutes that included the Planning Commission discussion on this issue were not yet available. She would provide them as soon as possible. In response to Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said any qualifiers about basements had been removed in response to public feedback. The expense of developing a basement should be reflected in some easing in the regulatory process because using a basement was a more efficient use of land, especially in the downtown core area, when looking for density and multiple stories. Citing examples where parking was imbedded in the building’s footprint, Ms. Laurence said Broadway Place had commercial uses on Broadway in which parking accessible from Charnelton Street, was hidden from view. The Jean Tate Building had parking under the building as well as surface parking. Parking in those examples had been counted as part of the density of the building, but the code was confusing and the goal was to clarify that provision. She offered a definition of structured parking as one or more tiers of parking within the building’s footprint, adding adjacent surface parking was not part of that definition. Councilor Bettman supported removal of the requirement that residential and C-2 had to have commercial use on the ground floor. Responding to her question of what was the difference between the terms development site and lot, Ms. Laurence said there were examples in which development had benefitted and in which development might be more difficult. The public input strongly supported the change. She explained that if a developer wanted to construct a building that sat on two adjacent lots, a bigger building would be required to meet the density standards. If a developer built on one lot, only that lot would be part MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 3 Work Session of the density calculation. Councilor Bettman could not support eroding density, and said the proposed provision was a step backwards. Code changes needed to benefit the community, not the developers. Mayor Piercy understood the City was attempting to be more transit-oriented and encourage people to live downtown, noting those downtown residents often owned vehicles. These competing factors needed to be part of the discussion, so that a thriving downtown area would be welcoming for people to live, work and play. She asked if encouraging people to put vehicles outside of the downtown core to foster a car-free environment had been considered. She asked if downtown residents paid less for their housing units if they did not require parking. Ms. Laurence argued the concept was to encourage downtown residents to park their vehicles downtown and take public transit or walk when possible. Likewise people from the community were encouraged to either take public transit to downtown, or drive to and park downtown and then walk or use public transit, as opposed to the suburban model in which people used their vehicles for every trip. It was a balance between facilitating development and holding onto our goals. The Lane Transit District (LTD) EmX Park and Ride had been successful for people who wished to park outside of downtown but travel to the downtown area. In residential development, people were looking for secure parking very close to where they lived. Ms. Laurence did not have information on whether housing developments charged less for units that did not include parking. Councilor Clark appreciated staff work on trying to strike a balanced approach. He was trying to understand the bigger picture of the historical perspective on actions that had occurred prior to his election to the council. He averred it was a goal of everyone to revitalize downtown and he saw this as a part of the effort to do what was necessary to make it possible. He asked how much redevelopment had occurred in the downtown core since the 2001 code amendments, and how much had occurred prior to that under different FAR conditions, to enable the council to take a reasonable look at the effect the changes had on actual redevelopment in the core. Ms. Laurence said the Planning Commission had the same question and staff was researching it. Staff had been working with a University of Oregon (University) economics class to track how the development pattern had changed as a result of the adoption of the Land Use Code Update (LUCU). She stated this was not the only indicator, noting other economic changes across the country, such as developer confidence and the cost of concrete. It was not fair to single out density as the only factor influencing redevelopment. Councilor Zelenka commented that development patterns were complex and it was difficult to isolate specific, individual factors. He liked the change from development site to lot. He was concerned that by removing the language that would allow basement areas to be calculated as part of the gross square footage of the building for the purposes of calculating FAR, basements designed and constructed as permanent office or retail use was contrary to increasing density. Ms. Laurence asked if including language that would indicate a basement could also be used for parking would be acceptable noting the initial thought was allowing basement parking to be included in the FAR calculation. She suggested including qualifiers for basement use since that would represent more efficient land use, adding that basement storage would mean it would not be needed on above ground floors. Councilor Zelenka concurred with the suggestion. Responding to Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said the intent in C-3 was to remove the limit on how many surface spaces were allowed, thus eliminating the need to have additional spaces in structured MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 4 Work Session parking. Additionally, the intent was to allow surface parking only when associated with a building, allowing one space for every 1,000 square feet of building. Councilor Bettman said under the proposed changes the Heron Building would allow for a shorter building. She asked if under the proposed standards the square footage of basement garages would be included in the surface parking calculation. Ms. Laurence said the proposed language had been carefully developed to indicate basements could be used for the purposes of calculating the square footage for density, but that did not apply to calculating the square footage for the amount of building and therefore surface parking. Ms. Jerome stated that the provision had been moved into the definition of floor area, and the only area that referenced counting basement areas was in the definition of floor area, which described how FAR was determined. Clarifying language indicating basements shall not be counted could be added. Councilor Bettman did not support it either way. A FAR of 1.0 was modest for a downtown area and .65 was the wrong direction. When LUCU was adopted in 2001, a 20-parking spaces lot was considered generous, with anything more needing to go into a parking structure. If people drove downtown they could park once in a parking structure embedded in a building. Nothing was stopping development—it was occurring. Responding to the statement that development was happening, Councilor Clark asserted downtown was not developing appropriately. While it was true that FAR and other code issues were not the only issues about what was developed or not developed downtown, it was also true that while the council could create rules about what was and was not built, it could not dictate to people how they would be comfortable about how use their downtown. Giving consideration to what encouraged people to use the downtown area needed to be considered. He opined a majority of the community did not use the downtown, and what the council did was not working. He was happy to see adjustments made to create more balance. Mayor Piercy said it was a “chicken and egg” situation, because East Broadway was a successful model under the current code. West Broadway had been problematic but the City seemed to be moving forward with the Beam development. Hopefully the Centre Court building and the pit behind it, as well as the pit across from the Eugene Public Library, would be redeveloped, indicating activity. Councilor Zelenka said the map included in the AIS showed two downtowns, with one area being successful, and the other less so. He asked why Eugene Code 9.4530(7) “Adjustments” was proposed, noting it opened a door for many adjustments. Ms. Laurence responded the adjustment review process was difficult. It had not been used since it was a land use application requiring more time than the discretionary review process with a less certain outcome. It was thought that the adjustment review process would allow the City and the developer to have a chance to work out any issues that could be a win-win for both and encourage higher quality design. She noted that the Eugene Public Library barely met the core area 2.0 FAR requirement and the U.S. Bank building at eight stories was 2.0 FAR. Staff wanted an opportunity for discussion if a building met the intent but not the exact technical language in the code which the adjustment review process would provide. The requirement was only for the regulations within the /TD overlay. The 20-space surface in the C-3 limit was totally separate. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Laurence said the standards in the /TD overlay included: a maximum setback of 15 feet from the public right-of-way (R-O-W), no parking between the building and the street, and, if there was structured parking, it needed to be wrapped at least 50 percent with another use. The regulations were geared to making buildings pedestrian-friendly to encourage people to walk along them and use transit. Some of the regulations were in conflict with other areas of the code, such as density requirements being in conflict with setback requirements. Adding this discretion to existing code language would make it possible for people to move forward with downtown development that did not meet the exact regulations but met the intent and purpose of the code. In response to Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Hansen said the adjustment review was a Type II land use application process, approved by the Planning Director. There was a public notice requirement and an opportunity for appeal of the Planning Director’s decision. Ms. Jerome stated a decision that went to the City Council would not be a Type II application review process, in response to Councilor Taylor’s query, but it could be done. B. WORK SESSION: Minor Code Amendments City Manager Ruiz introduced the agenda item, noting the Minor Code Amendment project was the second phase of a two-phase project to address minor issues in the land use code. The first phase addressed gaffs, ambiguities and conflicts raised by staff. The second phase consisted of code changes suggested by the community to the City Council. He introduced Alissa Hansen of Planning and Development. Ms. Hansen said June 16, 2008, the City Council would hold a public hearing on an ordinance addressing potential minor land use code amendments to Eugene Code Chapter 9. The purpose of the work session was to provide the council with background prior to the public hearing. Following the conclusion of Phase I, the City Council directed staff to focus the next phase on amendments that were raised by community members. The amendments addressed 18 topics, and were the result of an extensive public outreach process over the past year consisting of numerous workshops, forums and other public meetings to solicit amendments, refine the list and define the code language. The majority of the proposed amendments were proposed by the community with the remaining proposals added by the council. The 20 potential amendments were brought to the City Council at a work session in October 2007, after which the project team created white papers which framed specific options for each code amendment and related considera- tions. Staff coordinated with community members and neighborhood representatives on more complex issues to craft or refine conceptual alternatives and code language for inclusion in the white papers. The Planning Commission evaluated the white papers, considered public testimony and public comments on the white papers, and ultimately determined the amendments to move forward to the City Council for the approval process. Following a well attended May 21, 2008, public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a majority of the amendments suggested by the community, some with minor revisions or clarifications at a June 2, 2008, work session. However, Minor Code Amendments 5 and 7 were found to have broader policy implications, and the Planning Commission voted 7:0 not to support them at this time. These included amendments related to building height transitions and parking require- ments in multi-family developments in the West and South University areas. A revised ordinance including the changes made by the Planning Commission as well as their deliberations would be provided to the council prior to the June 16 public hearing. Ms. Hansen reviewed the proposed amendments included in the AIS. Councilor Clark thanked staff for their work. He had received much input from constituents regarding notification requirements. He asked what the cost to the City would be to increase the level of notification MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 6 Work Session to 500 feet for notification for Type 2 and 4 applications, adding that he was in favor of as much notification as possible and ensuring that the process was a transparent as possible. Ms. Hansen pointed out that notification requirements were not part of the suggested changes, adding that some of the emails she had received referred to increased notification for neighborhood developer meetings that would require the developer or applicant to send out public notice in advance of those meetings. The current requirement was notification within 300 feet for Type 2 and 4 applications, and within 500 feet for Type 3 applications. She would need to research the increased costs for increasing the notification distance to 500 feet for Type 2 and 4 applications. Responding to a question from Councilor Clark, Planning Director Lisa Gardner, clarified comments made by planning commissioners during the June 2 deliberations. It was the belief of the majority of the commissioners that proposed Amendment 5, Building Height Transitions within South University Neighborhood Association and Amendment 7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South University Neighborhood Associations were not minor in nature. Because there were ongoing City processes with the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) process to look at those issues, the commission felt they warranted a more comprehensive look. As part of their motion, the commission said it did not support adopting those amendments because they were not minor in nature, and were policy level decisions that should be made at the policy table. However, if the council chose to act, the commis- sion recommended that Amendment 5, Building Height Transitions, the amendment developed and supported by the neighbors, be adopted by the City Council. Responding to Councilor Taylor, Ms. Hansen affirmed the Planning Commission’s recommendation was that the City Council not adopt proposed Amendments 5 and 7, adding the ultimate decision was that of the council. Councilor Taylor stated the council should definitely adopt proposed Amendment 5. She asked if the height of the building as described in proposed Amendment 4, Building Height Measurements in Residential Zones, included the foundation or was measured above the foundation, and if language about comparable height could be added to the amendment. Ms. Hansen said the measurement started at the lowest grade level and comparable height was not part of the community suggestions. Their concern was that how building height was measured should be more transparent, and the Planning Commission agreed that was within the scope of the minor code amendments. Referring to proposed Amendment 9, Flag Lots Definition and Development Standards, Councilor Taylor thought a height requirement should be added, saying that building height should be compatible with the neighborhood. She asked what the time requirement for mail notification was. Reading from the ordinance, Ms. Hansen said the applicant had to mail notice of the meeting at least 14 days, but no more than 28, prior to the meeting. Before mailing the notice, the applicant was required to work with the neighborhood association to determine an acceptable date. Councilor Solomon thanked staff for including allowances for dogs in the proposed amendments. She reminded councilors that they had received an email from Norton Cabell, Chair of the HPB, regarding HPB’s concerns with several specific amendments. The board would be forwarding additional concerns to the council for consideration. Responding to a question from Councilor Solomon, Ms. Hansen said proposed Amendment 8, Stormwater Destination: Encourage On-site Infiltration as a Preferred Approach and Restrict Fill and Disturbance MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 7 Work Session of Drainage Ways came from community members living in the River Road/Santa Clara (RR/SC) area. There were two components, the first being indication of a preference for on-site filtration rather than a mechanical device in the RR/SC area. The second part of the amendment was an existing regulation from the Stormwater Management Manual that would be inserted into the code and apply city-wide. Councilor Bettman said the Growth Management Policies (GMPs) included a statement that they should be used when considering changes to the land use code. She asked staff to explain the statement. Ms. Hansen responded the language came directly from the resolution that adopted the policies and staff felt it important to provide clarification on the purpose of GMPs. Councilor Bettman asked for a copy of the resolution. She asked if the resolution was adopted before LUCU, because she thought it was included to apply to the LUCU changes. Ms. Jerome recalled they were embedded in the 1998 resolution, before LUCU. Ms. Hansen, reading from a copy of the resolution signed in 1998, said, “These policies shall not be used in determining whether the City shall approve or deny individual land use applications.” Councilor Bettman stated that was not what the proposed amendment language said. The resolution was signed when the City Council was ramping up for the LUCU and she thought the purpose of the resolution was to see to it that the GMPs were used in the LUCU. Now that they had been adopted, they were policy, and the caveat was no longer necessary. The purpose of the provision should be the same as any provision listed under purpose in the code and she wanted the caveat removed. Ms. Jerome said she would look into the issue as there might be additional factors. Councilor Bettman said she could not understand what the definition of residential charactermeant. Ms. Hansen recognized there was a previous definition in the motion. After working with the Planning Commission and the community, the proposed definition was developed. She agreed to get back to Councilor Bettman on the definition. Councilor Bettman asked if in the provision added that required the applicant to meet with the neighbor- hood was there any provision requiring the content of the meeting to resemble the application. Ms. Hansen responded there was a provision that all of the materials provided at the meeting needed to be submitted as well as submission of a land use application within a certain timeframe of holding the meeting. Councilor Bettman said it was a waste of time to go through the exercise if the project discussed at the neighborhood did not end up going through the City. She asked if there was a way to make rounding up and rounding down applicable for infill and not new development. Ms. Hansen said one of the intents of having a split of lot sizes of 13,500 or greater, was the assumption that larger lots could be subdivided. Councilor Zelenka asked staff to follow up on his previous request for a status report on the GMPs, and which ones had been included in ordinance and if so where, and which ones had not. In response to Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Hansen read the motions passed by the Planning Commission on proposed Amendments 5 and 7. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Amendment 7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments. The Planning Commission voted 7:0 to recommend that the City Council not adopt the proposed amendment at this time, and refer the topic to the ICS project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehen- sive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices as well as an identification of long term solutions. Ms. Hansen said a very similar motion was made on Amendment 5, Building Height Transitions. There was a caveat at the end that said, However, in the event the City Council decided to adopt an amendment related to this topic, the Planning Commission would recommend the adoption of a revised proposal put forth by the neighborhood. Councilor Zelenka thought the Planning Commission’s recommendations were vague in that they did not say no, but rather referred them to the ICS project. He asked what that would mean in terms of process and timing. Ms. Gardner said putting the amendments into the ICS process would have to be prioritized with the other elements of the ICS work program. The Planning Commission felt it did not have sufficient information to make a recommendation on what the impacts would be because they felt the proposed amendments were not minor, and the impacts on density calculation and other issues were not clear. It was felt there was a good process in place with the ICS that the committee should be working on long term solutions that had been analyzed and vetted, and then a long term recommendation from the ICS. The process was moving ahead, and was not an indefinite process but rather an on-going process. The City would always be working on ICS issues to ensure the Code reflected the community character and concerns being voiced by residents. Ms. Gardner said the resident-based task teams chaired by residents, were working through the public process and prioritization. An update could be provided for the council on the status of the task teams’ work. She concurred with Councilor Zelenka that the council could communicate it’s priorities to the task teams. Councilor Ortiz had received a letter from Susan Ban regarding concerns about minor code amendments which Ms. Hansen had not had an opportunity to review. Referring to stormwater provisions, Councilor Ortiz asked if those provisions referred to bioswales. These were important to the RR/SC area, which was part of the neighborhood character in which the residents had a sense of a rural feel and wanted to keep that feeling. She too was glad to see provisions for dogs included in the amendments. Councilor Clark asked how the stormwater issue came forward, and if it was brought forward by the neighborhood association. Ms. Hansen said the issue came from the residents of RR/SC. Councilor Clark asked if the reference to resident-based task teams referred to City of Eugene residents. Ms. Gardner said the ICS process consisted of community members from a broad base including the business community, the design field, and realtors, with a stress on resident participation. The Planning Commission worked with key stakeholders who had been active in the process. Councilor Clark asked how much of the policy change the council was considering was being driven by City of Eugene residents and how much of it was driven by Lane County residents? If the council was MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 9 Work Session opening up the process of modifying City Codes to County residents, a broad range of County residents should be involved. Ms. Hansen agreed to research the issue and bring it back to the council. Councilor Bettman said staff should also look at the percentage of the members of those organizations who were not City residents. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation of the Planning Commission’s work. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 4, 2008 Page 10 Work Session