The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-10-16 Agenda Packet EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA October 10, 2016 5:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 7:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILMEETING HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 MeetingofOctober10,2016; HerHonorMayorKittyPiercyPresiding Councilors 5:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th A.WORKSESSION SouthWillametteNextSteps J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\A161010S.doc 7:30p.m.MEETINGOFTHEEUGENECITYCOUNCIL HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th 1.CEREMONIALMATTERS 2.PUBLICFORUM - ¸®±Ȁ ThePublicForumisanopportunityforindividualstospeaktotheCity Councilonanycityrelatedissuesexceptforthoseitemswhichhavealreadybeen heardbyaHearingsOfficialorareon³®¨¦§³Ȍ²agendaasapublichearing. Eachpersonwillhavethreeminutestospeak.Whenyoucometothepodium, pleasegiveyourname,cityofresidence,and,forEugeneresidents,yourwardif known.Thetimerandlightsindicatethetimeyouhavetospeak.Theredlight indicatestheendofthreeminutes. - ¸®±¢«®²¤²³§¤0´¡«¨¢&®±´¬ £ ²ª²¥®±¢®¬¬¤³²¥±®¬³§¤#¨³¸#®´¢¨«ȁ 3.CONSENTCALENDAR (Note:Timepermitting,actionontheConsentCalendarmaybetakenatthe5:30 p.m.worksession.) A.ApprovalofCityCouncilMinutes B.ApprovalofTentativeWorkingAgenda C.ApprovalofHOMEFundingforTransitionalHousingforHomelessHigh SchoolStudents #¨³¸#®´¢¨«0±¤²¨£¤³Ȁ ImovetoapprovetheitemsontheConsentCalendar. # ««¥®±µ®³¤ȁ Adjourn. J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\A161010S.doc ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤¤®±ȁ¦®µȁ J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\A161010S.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S161010A.docx NEXTSTEPS COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTIONS ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S161010A.docx ATTACHMENTA · · · · · · · · · · · · · o o o · · · · · · · · · o o o ATTACHMENTB Collaborative Community Objective Setting Frequently Asked Questions WHAT'S CHANGED? This document may be considered "notes," capturing the status of the discussion regarding this idea. As more individuals and groups have the opportunity to weigh in, elements will evolve. For easy reference, this section will highlight any elements that have changed based on continued community input, after 9/27/16. If you have thoughts, feedback, concerns, suggestions, please let us know! 10/2/16 Changed name to "Collaborative Community Objective Setting" to o further clarify the distinction between the broad Envision Eugene Goals and Pillars, and the more detailed objectives that would be an outcome of this process. Based on community conversation, simplified the proposed outcomes of o the process- moved specific area determinations and infrastructure needs into localized planning phase, and separated the lexicon into a separate process, leaving the two expected outcomes for the CCOS process as identifying the share of homeless/low-income sites for each area, and determining the parameters of growth in each area. Added section on what comes after CCOS. Added more information on o Team selection and composition. Added more information on the proposed timeline. Added more information on who is considered "affected." Added information on the lexicon. WHAT IS COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE SETTING? "Collaborative Community Objective Setting" (CCOS) is a community process that provides a bridge between the broad Envision Eugene Pillars and goals, and the specific, on-the-ground strategies that will be developed in localized planning efforts, such as refinement plans or area plans. It would provide a common understanding of terms and concepts across neighborhoods and other interested parties, and would provide enough specific information to ensure that the benefits and burdens of growth are distributed among different areas fairly. It would also help different areas are able to work collaboratively towards city-wide and cross-neighborhood goals, while also providing flexibility for them to develop specific, localized solutions and policies that meet their neighborhood needs. WHY IS THIS BEING SUGGESTED? For some time now, our city has struggled with how to conduct constructive, positive discussions that lead to plans that achieve broad support within our community, and lead to tangible actions to achieve the widely-supported goals. This difficulty has become most obvious recently with the controversy surrounding the South Willamette Special Area Zone. A key lesson learned from the proposed SWSAZ and associated process is that the City of Eugene needs to back up and develop a bridge between Envision Eugene’s broad goals and objectives, and the more specific plans and complex zoning needed to achieve those goals. Without such a community-supported bridging process, and without clarity regarding common goals, concepts and terminology, neighborhood residents living in affected areas will feel left out and threatened, will lack information needed for productive informed engagement, and will likely strongly oppose proposed changes. The result, as we have seen, will be continued stalemate and a loss of public trust. Through Collaborative Community Objective Setting, we hop to ensure neighborhood livability and economic vibrancy while also accomplishing broader city-wide goals, thus maintaining the integrity of Envision Eugene’s seven pillars. WHAT WOULD THE OUTCOMES BE? The outcome of the Collaborative Community Objective Setting process would be a specific recommendation to City Council, for City Council to vote on, from the community Team that answers the following two questions: 1.For each of the six key transit corridors and downtown, what are the parameters of new development of each type (multi-family, single family, missing middle, etc.) that reflects each area's "share" to accomplish broader community goals and appropriately manage growth? 2.How many sites for homeless and very-low-income housing are needed in each region to ensure that these needed facilities are distributed fairly and not concentrated in one area. WHO WOULD PARTICIPATE? The specific details will still need to be determined, as part of an ongoing discussion. However, several different types of groups would have roles in the process: City Council and the Planning Commission will have their established governmental roles-- City Council will both initiate the process and be the final decision making body. The Planning Commission to review citizen involvement processes, review the Team's recommendation, and vote on whether to forward that recommendation to City Council. The Team is made up of citizens of various backgrounds, charged with working collaborative and constructively to create a recommendation to City Council that answer the above questions. The Team is also responsible for both soliciting and incorporating feedback from citizens into their thinking, and for explaining the rationale for their decisions to citizens. The Team will be large enough to represent diverse interests, yet small enough to allow for productive, collaborative discussion and true multi-directional conversation While the specific configuration and selection process of the Team still need to be determined, participants could include: Representatives from relevant neighborhood associations o Residents (including both homeowners and renters) from the relevant o areas Property owners and landlords from the relevant areas o Business owners and employees who work in the relevant areas o Representatives of local development and real estate interests o Representatives of transportation interests o Experts in relevant topic areas (climate recovery, architecture, services o to low-income individuals, etc.) Representatives of city commissions, including Planning, Human Rights, o and Sustainability Representatives of other key stakeholders (for example, the University) o Representatives from the city- staff and council o All citizens will be able to provide input to members of the Team, staff, Planning Commission, and Council, and a wide variety of tools will be used to ensure that any interested citizen is able to have clear information and provide feedback. A facilitator --a neutral expert in collaborative decision making and land use processes without a specific interest in the outcome of the discussions--will have a responsibility to ensure that a code of conduct and civility is being followed by members of the Team, will assist with logistics (times and locations for meeting, coordinating between Team and City Staff, ensuring that requested data is gathered and presented clearly), will keep the conversation stays on track towards achieving the goal, will ensure that all decisions reflect the collaboration of the entire Team, and the Team's discussion is balanced so that no particular interests or points of view are drowned out. City Staff provide technical expertise, supply information/data and context, do the technical work to translate of translating the decisions into official language (including checking back with the Team to ensure the decision was captured correctly), shepherd the recommendation through the official approval process, and in conjunction with the Team, facilitator, and City Council, conducts public outreach. HOW IS THE TEAM SELECTED? The specifics of how the team would be selected is an area that still needs substantial discussion, to ensure that different interests and areas are represented fairly. Simply selecting one representative from each of the potential interests above would not only clearly create a team that is too large for productive discussion, but would also not necessarily create a balanced team-- for example, just asking that each neighborhood association appoint one member to the team would not take into account the fact that the Bethel neighborhood includes a population similar in size to the FAN, SEN, SHiNA, and Amazon neighborhoods combined, nor that not all neighborhoods have functioning or robust neighborhood associations. As the community conversation regarding CCOS continues, identifying a constructive solution to this tricky topic will need to be a key focus. HOW DOES THIS CONNECT TO OTHER PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED, SUCH AS REFINEMENT PLANS? Collaborative Community Objective Setting is a complementary process that would precede, but not replace, localized planning efforts such as refinement plans or area plans. Areas and neighborhoods should still to work to create a refinement plan or other localized plans. Since all refinement plans must be consistent with the city-wide plan, the Collaborative Community Objective Setting process helps to ensure that refinement plans are successfully aligned and help achieve both local and city-wide goals. The process can also help resolve conflicting interests or needs among different neighborhoods. After Collaborative Community Objective Setting and localized/refinement planning, there will need to be a third step of implementation, where projects and initiatives identified in the localized planning efforts are scoped and added to the work plans of relevant departments and refinement plan policies are translated into code language and added to the City land use code. HOW DOES THIS CONNECT TO ENVISION EUGENE? The Collaborative Community Objective Setting process is not a reworking of Envision Eugene. The Seven Pillars of Envision Eugene, including concepts such as focusing growth along key transit corridors and promoting twenty minute neighborhoods, are widely supported by the community. Collaborative Community Objective Setting is a process to involve citizens in implementing the vision Envision Eugene outlines. HOW ARE CITIZENS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS? Citizens in Eugene are involved in many ways. First, all citizens will have multiple opportunities at all stages of the process to become informed about what is being recommended and provide input and feedback. Outreach will occur throughout the Team's work to develop their recommendation, and upon release of the recommendation before it goes to the Planning Commission. The Team will share the reasoning behind the recommendation and incorporate additional comments. Once the recommendation is presented to the Planning Commission, public notification and opportunity for public comment would follow established city procedures (i.e. Hearings and comment sessions prior to both Planning Commission and City Council decisions.) WHAT ARE THE STEPS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN? After City Council approves the CCOS concept as the next step, they will need to select a facilitator, a method for appointing the Team determined and the Team appointed, and begin initial citizen outreach. The Team would meet multiple times over several months to develop consensus recommendations and develop the lexicon. After the recommendation has been drafted, there would be additional public outreach and revision in order to verify the recommendation captures the community consensus. Finally, the recommendation would go through the established Planning Commission and City Council approval processes. This would probably take about a year to a year and a half. Once the Collaborative Community Objective Setting Process has been completed, individual areas could create their own localized plans, such as refinement plans. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER CCOS? After the City Council has approved the outcomes of the CCOS, more work still needs to be done. Individual areas would need to do localized planning to determine what specific locations along the key transit corridors should be the focus of initial planning, what kind of infrastructure investments (parks, transportation, incentives, etc.) are necessary in that area to create true 20-minute neighborhoods, how to coordinate with other areas on decisions or recommendations that have a broader impact, and the specifics of how to balance changes with preserving neighborhood character. This would involve refinement planning or another localized planning process for the individual areas. After the localized planning has been completed, the plans would need to be implemented. This would include both modifying city land use code and comprehensive plan designations as needed to reflect the outcomes of the process, and as well identifying, prioritizing and incorporating into city workplans the projects necessary to accomplish identified infrastructure improvements and other changes. HOW LONG WILL THIS TAKE? The expectation is that the actual meetings of the Team to develop the recommendation would take approximately two months. However, prior to the Team meeting, there would need to be some time devoted to gathering information and data, communicating with the larger community, and selecting a facilitator and Team members. After the Team has produced a recommendation, there would need to be some additional time devoted to community discussion and outreach. Ideally, the full time from the time Council initiates the process until a recommendation is ready to go through the established approval processes through the Planning Commission and City Council would be approximately six months. By clarifying the objectives of local plans and creating a more robust framework for localized planning, the localized planning that would follow would be able to be accomplished more efficiently. HOW ARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS INVOLVED? For those neighborhoods that have active Neighborhood Associations, the Neighborhood Association would play an important part in helping to provide a forum for gathering input and discussion with the community at large. The specifics of how the Team is selected still require work, but given that this is a city-wide process, the method would have to be fair and equitable for both citizens who are well represented by their Neighborhood Associations as well as those who live in places where neighborhood associations don't exist or don't have the resources to provide representation. WHO IS "AFFECTED"? Oregon's Goal One for Citizen Involvement in Land Use Planning indicates that planning shall include a "cross-section of affected citizens." In addition, citizen is defined broadly, to include not just residents or homeowners, but also businesses, non-profits, property owners, and others who would be impacted by the decisions. The CCOS process continues the Envision Eugene goal to focus growth along key transit corridors, but recognizes that it is not just properties that directly front the key road that are affected. The current thinking is that for the broader objected setting process, "affected" areas would include both the road itself and areas within half a mile of the road itself, barring major features (such as the river) that would prevent access to the key road. As half a mile is the typical distance that someone can walk in 10 minutes, this would mean that those who are part of the "20-minute neighborhood" centered on the corridors would be represented in the initial process. This does not mean that zoning or land use would necessarily change for that entire area; the later localized processes would need to examine the specific characteristics of each corridor to help determine what kind of growth makes sense in each area. WHAT IS THE "LEXICON" AND HOW IS IT CONNECTED TO THIS PROCESS? In addition to clearer objectives, another area that has been identified as important to support successful localized planning efforts is greater consistency and understanding of terms and concepts related to the topics under consideration. Some concepts have specific meaning in Eugene code, but these are not well-understood or always used consistently. Other concepts and terms are frequently used as part of the discussion, but are not well defined or understood the same way between different individuals and groups. Examples include both concepts like "affordability," "low-income housing," and "workforce housing," as well as specific terms for housing types and concepts-- for example, when we discuss missing middle housing, what are we talking about? Creating a lexicon, so that concepts and terms are more clearly defined and used consistently between different plans and groups, as well as allowing reporting on outcomes (for example, reports from the permitting department on units added) would be a key tool to help ensure both the success of localized planning efforts and a clear ability to determine if the plans created are successful at accomplishing their goals. However, the process for creating the lexicon may need to be different than that for determining the community objectives, given the different nature of the task. HOW WAS THIS PROCESS CREATED? Removing the South Willamette Special Area Zone from consideration lead to the question "what comes next?" Discussions among many groups and individuals-- those who opposed the SWSAZ, those who supported it, and those who had no strong opinion about the SWSAZ but cared about the broader community goals-- indicated that a step had been missed between the broad Envision Eugene process and the specific South Willamette process. The concept of Collaborative Community Objective Setting was developed in active collaboration with many different groups and individuals, reflecting a multitude of perspectives and interests. What they shared was a desire for a solution that would move us towards a truly community supported outcome. rd *Pulledfromwww.wecaneugene.orgonOctober3,2016 ATTACHMENTC /ƚǒƓĭźƌƚƩ.ƩƚǞƓ͸ƭ{ƷğƷĻƒĻƓƷƚƓğ{ƚǒƷŷźƌƌğƒĻƷƷĻtƌğƓƓźƓŭtƩƚĭĻƭƭ wĻğķƚƓ{ĻƦƷĻƒĬĻƩЋЏ Ʒŷ ͲЋЉЊЏΛaƚƷźƚƓƓƚƷƒğķĻΜ TheCityManagerisdirectedtoprepare,inconsultationwiththeappropriateCitystaffandtheelected boardsofthefourCitycharteredsouthEugeneneighborsFriendlyAreaNeighbors(FAN),Southwest HillsNeighborhoodAssociation(SHiNA),SoutheastNeighbors(SEN)andAmazonNeighborhood Association(Amazon),aproposalforaplanningprocessthatisbasedontheSouthWillametteStreet Initiative(AttachmentAofSeptember26,2016worksessionAIS). TheCityManager'sproposalshallembodythebasicstructureandelementsoftheSouthWillamette Initiative;however,theproposalmaymakelimitedadjustmentstothegeographicboundaries,the compositionoftheplanningteamandotherdetails.Theproposalmayalsoincluderecommendations foradditionalguidelinesfortherefinementplanprocesstobeestablishedbyCityCouncil. ApreliminarydraftproposalshallbepresentedforCouncilandpublicreviewnolaterthanNovember1, 2016. AfinaldraftproposalshallbepresentedforCouncilandpublicreviewnolaterthanDecember1,2016. Council'sinitialdiscussionandfurtherdirectiontotheCityManagerontheproposalshallbescheduled fortheDecember14,2016Councilworksession. Council'sdeliberationandactionontheproposalshallbescheduledassoonaspracticablefollowing swearinginofthenewCouncil. ATTACHMENTD Memorandum 1.Currentplansandzoninginplace 2.Planningoptionsforthefuture /ƚƒƦğƩźƭƚƓƚŅbĻźŭŷĬƚƩŷƚƚķtƌğƓƭ ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610101.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT SUGGESTEDMOTION FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610102.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610103A.doc ATTACHMENTA MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil SouthEugeneHighSchoolCafeteria 400East19Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 September19,2016 6:00p.m. CouncilorsPresent: CouncilorsAbsent: 1.PublicForumonSouthWillamettePlanning MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 19, 2016 Page 1 Public Forum MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 19, 2016 Page 2 Public Forum ATTACHMENTB MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 September21,2016 12:00p.m. CouncilorsPresent: CouncilorsAbsent: 1.EXECUTIVESESSION:PursuanttoORS192.660(2)(i) 2.WORKSESSION:PoliceAuditorAnnualPerformanceReview MOTIONANDVOTE: PASSED6:1, MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 21, 2016 Page 1 Work Session 3.WORKSESSION:CityHallProjectUpdate MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 21, 2016 Page 2 Work Session ATTACHMENTC MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 September26,2016 5:30p.m. CouncilorsPresent:-¨ª¤#« ±ªµ¨ ¯§®¤ CouncilorsAbsent: WORK SESSION: South Willamette Public Forum Next Steps 1. Council discussion: Proposed motion will affirm a community planning team with ultimate goal of a refinement plan. Need a good sense of what types of plans are out there, impacts, and interactions of each plan. Forming a community planning team is just the first step. Would like to know when the other area refinement plans were last updated and cost to do it again. If a refinement plan is initiated, equal representation of people affected within area needed. This a good example of how public process should work. Certain areas in our community are likely places for development and will need a plan. It’s time to dedicate resources to land use planning in Bethel area, especially considering its recent growth. Build on the work staff has already done and incorporate into new efforts moving forward. One size does not fit all for refinement plans; important to involve neighbors. More clarity, certainty, and consistency is needed on what the process is and who it affects. MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 26, 2016 Page 1 Work Session and Meeting MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 September26,2016 7:30p.m. CouncilorsPresent:-¨ª¤#« ±ªµ¨ ¯§®¤ CouncilorsAbsent: 1. PUBLIC FORUM: 1. Jennifer Frenzer-Knowlton – conveyed HRC support for resolution opposing Dakota Access Pipeline. 2. Laurie Powell – Supported the climate recovery ordinance and a community wide plan. 3. Jim Neu – Supported climate recovery ordinance; concerned about rail cars and hazardous materials. 4. Ellen Wischnowski – Supported an updated pedestrian-traffic plan for Roosevelt school area. th 5. Phil Schoenherr – Said property at 7 Avenue and Monroe Street needs to be condemned. 6. David Lemmon – Concerned about inappropriate and illegal behaviors in parks. 7. Lisa Vertulfo – Said water polo is important for community; supported more year-round pools. 8. Sophia Lauf - Supported increasing access to pools year-round including a cover for Amazon Pool. 9. Lottie Rae Steward – Supported increasing access to more pools and more aquatic activities. 10. Richard Sundt – Supported the Brown-Clark initiative for the South Willamette area plan. 11. Vic Hariton – Supported protecting homeowners; encouraged by work on South Willamette. 12. Christine Sundt – Supported neighborhood refinement plan and Brown-Clark proposal. 13. Sandra Shotridge – Supported resolution supporting the Standing Rock Tribe against the DAPL. 14. Sue Sierralupé – Gave an update on Occupy Medical and new building they will have access to. 15. Ada Ball – Supported resolution supporting the Standing Rock Tribe against the DAPL. 16. Leslie Robnett – Supported more resources and a shelter for the homeless. 17. Jenette Kime – Supported bringing back the Eugene Celebration Parade with support from the City. 18. Cindy Allen – Supported neighborhood-led refinement plans. 19. Jane Coverdell – Supported resolution supporting the Standing Rock Tribe against the DAPL. Council discussion: Concerned about traffic safety issues surrounding new Roosevelt Middle School. Fire department is notified when hazardous or flammable materials are transported by rail through Eugene. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Evans, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items . PASSED 6:0 on the consent calendar MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 26, 2016 Page 2 Work Session and Meeting 3. ACTION: A Resolution Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (Cowan, Doug; A 16-6) MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Evans, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 5168, which approves the proposed annexation request consistent with the applicable approval criteria. PASSED 6:0 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Extending the Rental Housing Code Sunset Date and Providing for an Effective Date MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Evans, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Council Bill PASSED 6:0 5158, and ordinance extending the Rental Housing Code sunset date. Council discussion: More information/options on reducing $10 fee and other recommendations requested. 5. ACTION: A Resolution Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent Domain for the Acquisition of Property Interests for the Commerce Street Connector Path and Bridges Project MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Evans, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 5170, authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition of property interests for the Commerce Street Connector Path and Bridge project. PASSED 5:1 Councilor Clark opposed. Council discussion: Support project; however, grant timeline is driving this action. Timing is real critical on this. Willing sellers; money is fair and reasonable; only condemning a fraction of property. 6. ACTION: A Resolution Declaring the City of Eugene’s Support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Opposition to the Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Brown, seconded by Councilor Evans, moved to adopt Resolution 5171, declaring the City of Eugene’s support of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s opposition to the PASSED 6:0 construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Council discussion: Definition of pipeline leaks is ambiguous; crossing sacred tribal grounds is offensive. In favor of generating domestic energy sources, but not at expense of tribal rights. 7. WORK SESSION: Use of Marijuana Tax Funds and Retail Cannabis Regulations City Attorney Kathryn Brotherton led the council in a discussion on use of marijuana tax funds and retail cannabis regulations. Council discussion: MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 26, 2016 Page 3 Work Session and Meeting The funds generated by the tax should be directed to human services, housing, community courts, and park safety. Would like to keep the list simple and straight forward. Community is supportive of maintenance and security of parks. Money for human services should be used within Eugene. Should not earmark money for specific things; money should go into the General Fund. MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that if the marijuana tax passes, the money be dedicated for use in the community courts, the Human Services Commission in such a way as we have done in the past that we insure services delivered with this money be delivered to the city of Eugene, and increases in security and safety in our parks. PASSED 4:2 Councilors Taylor and Clark opposed. MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 26, 2016 Page 4 Work Session and Meeting ATTACHMENTD MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 September28,2016 12:00p.m. CouncilorsPresent: CouncilorsAbsent: 1.COMMITTEEREPORTSANDITEMSOFINTEREST 2.WORKSESSION:ZoneofBenefit/ReimbursementDistrictforPrivatelyFundedPublic ImprovementsandEquivalentAssessmentsforStreetImprovements. MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 28, 2016 Page 1 Work Session 3.WORKSESSION:DowntownHighSpeedFiberProjectUpdate MOTIONANDVOTE: PASSED6:0 MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 28, 2016 Page 2 Work Session ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND RELATEDCITYPOLICIES COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610103B.doc ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610103B.doc ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 6, 2016 OCTOBER 10 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: South Willamette Next Steps PDD/Harding 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Ceremonial Matters (Oregon Urban and Community Forestry Award; Eugene Ems, Judge Mori) 2. Public Forum 3. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest c. Approval of Funding Low-Income Housing – Homeless High School Students PDD/Meyi-Galloway OCTOBER 12 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Executive Session – pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e) B. WS: City Hall Update CS/Penwell OCTOBER 17 MONDAY * NOTE: 5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION ADDED * 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: Poling A. WS: Sustainability Commission Annual Report and Work Plan CS/Nelson B. WS: Project for Public Spaces Update PDD/Braud OCTOBER 19 WEDNESDAY Noon Joint Work Session w/Lane County Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. JEO WS: Downtown Planning and Development OCTOBER 24 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Envision Eugene 90 mins – PDD/Harding 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest c. Approval of Stadter Annexation, 4075 Gilham Rd (A 16-7) PDD/Berg-Johansen 3. PH: Ordinance Concerning Annual Maintenance of Land Use Code PDD/Hansen 4. Committee Reports and Items of Interest OCTOBER 26 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: OVE and Rest Stop Pilot Programs 90 mins – CS/Cariaga A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 6, 2016 NOVEMBER 9 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Downtown Update 90 mins – CS/Medary NOVEMBER 14 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Joint Work Session w/Lane County Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. JEO WS: Downtown Planning and Development 90 mins - CS 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag 2. Public Forum 3. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest 4. PH and Action: Resolution on Measure 49 Claim PDD/CAO 5. Action: Ordinance Concerning Annual Maintenance of Land Use Code PDD/Hansen 6. WS: Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan 30 mins – CS/Vanderhaeghen NOVEMBER 16 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: Evans, Taylor A. WS: City Hall Update 90 mins –CS/Penwell NOVEMBER 21 MONDAY NOTE: 5:30 P.M. WORK SESSION ADDED * 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: Poling A. WS: B. WS 7:30 p.m. Council Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. PH: Enterprise Zone Revised Public Benefit Criteria PDD/Nobel NOVEMBER 23 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Contracting Equity Program Update 45 mins – CS/Silvers B. WS: Council Communications 45 mins – CS/Ruiz NOVEMBER 28 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Downtown Update 45 mins – CS/Medary B. WS: Parks and Recreation System Plan 45 mins – PW/Burke 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 6, 2016 NOVEMBER 30 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: Fireworks Ban 45 mins – Fire B. WS: Renter Protection 45 mins PDD/Jennings DECEMBER 12 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Committee Reports: PC, South Willamette EDC, LTD/EmX, OMPOC, McKenzie Watershed B. WS: $15 Minimum Wage for City and Contract Employees 45 mins – CS/Hammitt 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest c. Adoption of Resolution Acknowledging Receipt of CAFR CS/Lauderbach 3. URA Action: Resolution Acknowledging Receipt of Annual Financial Report CS/Lauderbach 4. URA PH and Action: Supplemental Budget CS/Miller 5. PH and Action: Supplemental Budget CS/Miller DECEMBER 14 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: COUNCIL BREAK: DECEMBER 15, 2016 – JANUARY 4, 2017 JANUARY 4 WEDNESDAY 5:30 p.m. State of the City Hult Center Lobby Expected Absences: A. State of the City JANUARY 11 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Election of 2017 Council Officers B. WS: C. WS: JANUARY 17 TUESDAY 7:30 p.m. Council Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. PH: JANUARY 18 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 6, 2016 JANUARY 23 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest: HRC, SC, HSC, LCOG, MPC, PSCC 30 mins B. WS: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest JANUARY 25 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: FEBRUARY 8 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: 45 mins – B. WS: 45 mins – FEBRUARY 13 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest B. WS: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest FEBRUARY 15 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: FEBRUARY 21 TUESDAY 7:30 p.m. Council Public Hearing Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. PH: FEBRUARY 22 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENEITYOUNCIL TWA ENTATIVE ORKINGGENDA October 6, 2016 FEBRUARY 27 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager 30 mins B. WS: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest MARCH 8 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: MARCH 13 MONDAY 5:30 p.m. Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. Committee Reports: PC, South Willamette EDC, LTD/EmX, OMPOC, McKenzie Watershed B. WS: 7:30 p.m. Council Meeting Harris Hall Expected Absences: 1. Public Forum 2. Consent Calendar a. Approval of City Council Minutes CS/Forrest b. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda CS/Forrest 3. PH and Action: Capital Improvement Program CS/Streepey MARCH 15 WEDNESDAY Noon Council Work Session Harris Hall Expected Absences: A. WS: B. WS: COUNCIL BREAK: MARCH 16, 2017 – APRIL 10, 2017 ON THE RADAR Work Session Polls/Council Requests Status 1. Inclusionary Zoning (Taylor) ............................................................................................................................. TBD 2. Commercial Setback Code Requirement (Zelenka) ......................................................................................... TBD A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610103C .docx %µ «´ ³¨® £2¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨® RELATEDCITYPOLICIES J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610103C.docx COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610103C .docx ATTACHMENT A J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610103C .docx ATTACHMENT B J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610103C.docx ATTACHMENT C Summary of Approved Proposals from the 2016 Housing RFP J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161010\\S1610103C .docx