Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: September 11, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting, July 17, 2006, Work Session, July 24, 2006, Work Session, August 9, 2006, Workshop, and August 14, 2006, City Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting B. July 17, 2006, Work Session C. July 24, 2006, Work Session D. August 9, 2006, Workshop E. August 14, 2006, City Council Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060911\S0609113A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 10, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Council\cc060710m2.doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 8/1/06rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 9/5 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 9/6 ky Returned to Staff __ ____ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall July 10, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Papé. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Stephen L. Riley , 2212 Onyx Street, spoke in regard to the West Eugene Parkway issue. He read the job description of the Mayor and City Council members into the record. He underscored that councilors had taken an oath to uphold the office, something he considered to be solemn and sacred. He cited Title 18, United States Code 16.21, in which violation of an oath of office by members of government was a form of perjury. He felt the councilors who had tried to stop the parkway project had violated their oath. He quoted Grover Cleveland, who said “Public officers are the servants and agents of the people, to execute the laws which people have made.” He contended that once the vote of the people had been taken, even if it was not to pass a particular ordinance, it would carry the same weight in law as if it were. He also quoted Henry Clay, who said “The government is a trust and the officers of the government are the trustees, and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.” He said in our form of govern- ment, the councilors’ authority came from the people. He stressed that the people had not authorized the council to override the vote of the people. He stated that the purpose of the vote was for the people to express their desires and the elected officials were expected to carry out the will of the people. He declared that authorization of the project had been voted upon and approved twice and there had been a vote of the people to not authorize a look at any alternatives. He felt that members of the council had chosen to ignore this and called it an affront to the people of Eugene. Jim Hale , 1715 Linnea Avenue, averred that the State could punish the City of Eugene for its decisions regarding the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). He said “they can, they have, and they will.” He recalled working on the committee that wrote the Metropolitan General Plan and the Transportation Plan in the 1980s. He felt that, at that time, the State did punish Eugene for being what it considered a “poor planning partner.” He predicted that abandonment of the WEP would cause the City to have to fend for itself in west Eugene. He thought the City would have to “wait forever” for a solution to the transportation problems experienced on the Delta and Beltline highways. He likened watching the City Council over the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting last 25 years to watching the World Cup Soccer games: two sides evenly matched most of the time, too many narrow votes, too many games decided by the referee, too little action, too much kicking the same thing back and forth all over the field. He was persuaded that the City needed a City Council “for all of the City.” He maintained that the Mayor’s tie vote would never constitute consensus and would never make the community one team. He believed the rules should be changed so the City was divided into five wards with two council representatives from each ward and a Mayor that voted on every issue. He thought there should be two committees of five councilors and the Mayor, one councilor from each ward, to divide up the affairs of the City. He suggested that issues should be decided by a four-vote majority in the committees and only difficult issues should come before the full council. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, questioned the legality of getting rid of a public park without a public hearing. Mr. Vishanoff had been pleased to read an article tying in mixed-use development, the basketball arena, and the alumni center with the sale of the Westmoreland Student Housing. He felt those projects would be public-private partnerships. He thought sustainability could be a “Pandora’s box” as it could preclude open bidding on contracts. He suggested the councilors were being silent on the issue of the Westmoreland sale because they felt they had to be quiet and let things happen for the sake of Bus Rapid Transit and other projects as they were interconnected. He said the City could recommit to public process around eminent domain in the Fairmount neighborhood or it could continue its “crazy new urbanist plan” to tear up his old neighborhood. D. H. Andrews , 2362 Shields Avenue, stated that his warehouse on Bertelson Road was underleased because it was undervalued. He attributed this to the WEP decision. He decided to close the business, put 16 employees out of work, and move from Eugene and “leave it all behind.” He reiterated that the issue had been voted on three times and the council “fought us and fought us and fought us.” He commented that if a dictator were going to run the City there did not need to be any more votes of the public. He alleged that the property was not worth as much today as it was 20 years ago because of the traffic congestion in the area. Mats White , 1424 Washington Street, said he was a member of the Jefferson-Westside Residents for Healthy Neighborhoods (J-WRHN), an independent group that formed earlier in the year because of residents’ concerns for the negative impacts that incompatible infill was having on their neighborhood. He stated that while J-WRHN was independent of the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors, it intended to work cooperatively with it. He related that J-WRHN had been conducting outreach to involve residents for the past month and the tremendous participation in the petition they submitted demonstrated the success of their efforts. J-WRHN had been educating residents about land use policies, zoning rules and processes, and the essential elements of effective development standards. He conveyed J-WRHN’s commitment to constructive approaches to change. He said it was doing the necessary legwork to make sure that, when submitting recommendations to the council, facts had been thoroughly researched and that J-WRHN had done its best to work with the City and its staff and officials. He stated that the larger goal was for the council to adopt flexible effective zoning standards and processes that allowed additional dwellings to be built in neighborhoods while ensuring those developments were compatible with the character of the neighborhood. He said J-WRHN intended to come to the council and the Planning Commission to present ongoing research on the essential characteristics that defined their neighborhood and specific proposals for development standards. He reported that a portion of their neighborhood had recently been redesignated and this was cause for a great deal of concern. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting Ginny Osteen , 1540 Jefferson Street, a member of J-WRHN, related that she and her husband had lived in the Jefferson neighborhood since 1980 because they considered it to be charming, diverse, and close to downtown. She commented that when they moved to the neighborhood it was already a well-established, mostly single-family neighborhood consisting primarily of modest bungalows that were oriented to the street. People visited with their neighbors as they took walks or worked in the yard. She felt living there seemed uncrowded, even though houses were close together, because of the small private backyards. She asserted that families tended to stay once they had moved in. This long-term commitment of the residents made it a safe, stable, and attractive area to live in. She and her neighbors had never envisioned the type of development that would be permitted by R-2 zoning, rather they supported low-intensity appropriately scaled infill, such as the secondary dwellings R-1 zoning already allowed. She alleged that neighbors had been “stunned” to hear that the Planning Division had “slipped through” a Metro Plan amendment that would allow “intense. . .infill that was highly incompatible” with the neighborhood. She thought some neighbors were considering moving. She was fearful that a three-story four-plex would be built only feet from her yard under the new plan amendment. She wanted an informed public involvement in land use decisions for her neighborhood. th Angela Rooney , 520 West 15 Avenue, a resident of the Jefferson neighborhood for many years, said she and her neighbors had never before heard about plans to allow duplexes and triplexes to be built in backyards the way she alleged they were being built on the eastern side of the Jefferson neighborhood. She related that there were quite a few rental properties in the area and some of them were poorly maintained by absentee landlords. She averred that some landlords seemed to care very little about the neighborhood. She was bothered most by Planning staff, who she felt had not listened nor were listening now to the concerns of the neighborhood. She and neighbors spent over $1,000 on attorneys and many hours writing letters in order to prevent a lot from being rezoned to R-2. They were not opposed to the development of “granny cottages” in peoples’ backyards but did not wish to see a higher density of development as it would bring about a loss of privacy, an increase in traffic, and a change in the character of the neighborhood. At the time, she and her neighbors had won the land use appeal because it conflicted with the Metro Plan. She said now the neighborhood no longer had that kind of protection. She and a group of neighbors met with Planning and Development Department (PDD) staff to express concerns and to find out what they could do. She did not feel staff acknowledged the seriousness of the problem. Rather they discussed bureaucratic processes. She relayed her neighborhood’s anxiety about what was going to happen and urged the council to understand that this was a neighborhood and not just “lines on a map.” th Rene Kane , 254 West 14 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors (JWN), reported that the neighborhood association voted 48:0 to request adoption of a temporary moratorium on zone changes in the Jefferson neighborhood until effective infill standards could be implemented. She said the JWN Board explored various means to accomplish the intent of the motion. The JWN submitted a letter to the council in the previous week with two alternatives to consider: a simple council motion or a narrowly focused amendment to Eugene’s R-2 zoning code. She thought either approach could establish a temporary prohibition on R-2 zone changes without delay. She recalled council action taken through the past year that indicated the council recognized how damaging inappropriate infill had been to some of the established neighborhoods. She felt it was urgent that compatibility standards be implemented. She conveyed the appreciation of the JWN for the council’s efforts and its belief that the council’s leadership was essential in ensuring the continued health of the two close-in “heritage neighborhoods.” She thought opportunity siting, if done thoughtfully, could achieve density increases that she asserted unplanned infill had failed to produce “to any significant degree.” th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, co-chair of the JWN, said the problems caused by the redesignation of 15 blocks of the Jefferson Neighborhood affect only a small area, but to the families that live there it was MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting the part of Eugene that mattered most. He postulated that the councilors and Mayor held attachments to their neighborhoods’ health and vitality. He averred that in neighborhoods in which incompatible infill had degraded livability and jeopardized stability, one also found a strong desire among neighbors to stop this “senseless kind of development.” He reported that this desire was the foundation of two motions adopted by the Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC) urging prioritization of funding for rapid development of infill compatibility standards. He conferred with neighborhood leaders from all areas of town and it seemed the councilors did “get it.” He believed one of the key principles the majority of the council now supported was that numerical density targets should not be used as a justification to destabilize neighborhoods while preventing sprawl. He asserted that allowing speculators to “tear apart the fabric” of neighborhoods behind a façade of anti-sprawl rhetoric was both unfair to residents and proved ineffective as families with a choice abandoned declining neighborhoods. He called the Jefferson redesignation a “small but important icon” of what was wrong with the City of Eugene’s past infill practices. Peg Kehrer , 1510 Lincoln Street, related that when she moved into the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood there were families all around her house. Now she had a duplex next to her and a storage shed on her property line; the amount of sunshine to her yard was reduced and people smoked on the patios that faced her backyard. She lived on a corner lot and had three landlords for neighbors. She thought increasing population around the downtown area, as a goal, was a euphemism for the placement of landlords all around the existing single-family homes. She said if she had a lot of money she probably would have moved by now. She asked the council to seriously consider a moratorium on development. She expressed concern that houses abutting the Catholic grade school that were for sale would be purchased and developed. She recalled that when the duplex next door to her was built, her children were able to watch pornography on a tenant’s television from a second-story bathroom window. Jim Greig , 145 Ruby Street, thanked the council for its support for the Hinchey Rohrabacher Medical Marijuana Amendment vote in the United States Congress. He reported that the amendment had not passed, but as patients, Oregonians, and Americans, he and other medical marijuana users would continue to seek their right to life with dignity. He commented that he was one of the healthier medical marijuana patients, but he suffered with arthritis, glaucoma, muscle spasms, chronic pain, as well as sleep and eating issues. He expressed appreciation to the councilors for hearing his testimony at the previous meeting even if they had not signed the letter to Congress. He said medical marijuana users had been on the receiving end of “70-plus years of bad press on cannabis.” He averred they would have to conduct a broader educational effort on “this important ancient agricultural product.” He commented that for him it was an effective natural medicine. He stated that the council would be hearing more from medical marijuana users on issues related to the subject. He noted that while Oregon voted for the use of medical marijuana in 1988, patients still did not have access to it. He opined that the sickest “one half of one percent” should be allowed to live their final days with dignity and not as criminals. He invited the councilors to attend the Hempfest in Washington Park on July 15 and 16. Allan Erickson , 29559 Clear Lake Road, thanked the council for listening. He stated that there had been an absence of studies on medical marijuana use in the United States, but there had been studies in other countries that had shown that cannabis reduced the need for opiates for post-operative pain and it helped people with appetite loss and weight loss in cancer and chemotherapy, among others. David Sonnichsen , 2435 Skyline Boulevard, stated that he had worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on a local project and he had seen ODOT respond with sensitivity to environ- mental concerns when planning and construction was underway for the Interstate 5 temporary replacement bridge through the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park. He thought it was unfortunate that at a higher level, ODOT had chosen not to support a continuing process to work on modern transportation MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting solutions for west Eugene. He called the proposed WEP a “dinosaur.” He felt ODOT was attempting to “offload blame” on the City of Eugene. He found it unfortunate that some were predicting that ODOT would never be able to trust or cooperate with the City of Eugene again. He advised the City Councilors not to engage in finger-pointing and encouraged them to move forward and recognize that transportation remedies were plentiful. He felt those solutions did not have to involve rewarding speculators or the destruction of wetland habitat. He said if “we keep listening and talking,” the City would move forward. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for their testimony. Regarding testimony from the residents of the Jefferson Neighborhood who lived in the redesignated area, she agreed that the R-2 designation was now a very high-density designation. She had taken a walk with the map that showed the number of units that would be allowed per lot. She thought all of the councilors would be astounded to see the kind of density that was now permitted with this “upzone.” She said she had forwarded the motions submitted by J- WRHN to the City Manager but had not heard any acknowledgement that there would be a response forthcoming. City Manager Dennis Taylor believed there was a staff response to the questions that had been raised and that it would be in the Thursday packet. Councilor Bettman thanked the neighbors in that area for the work they were doing. She thought they were on the right track to say they were willing to absorb some density but that they needed to do it in a way that supported the neighborhood. She asserted that blanket upzoning removed the incentive and the City’s leverage for opportunity siting. She thought this undermined a strategy the council was working hard to achieve. Councilor Taylor admired the neighbors who united to protect their neighborhood. She expressed some disappointment that the councilors had not yet heard from staff what measures the council could take to “prevent further deterioration” of neighborhoods. She acknowledged the receipt of a memorandum saying why the upzoning happened. She did not think they needed an explanation; rather they needed an idea of what to do. She wanted to continue encouraging people to live in central neighborhoods. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 12, 2006, Work Session - June 12, 2006, City Council Meeting - June 14, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4883 Adopting an Inflationary Adjustment of Systems Development Charge Rates for Regional Wastewater System Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly said he had previously submitted minutes corrections. Mayor Piercy noted the corrections and deemed them, without objection, approved. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman ascertained from the City Manager that the PDD and the City Attorney would have a memorandum to the council regarding a potential Ballot Measure 37 compensation fund and a discussion on it would be forthcoming in the Tentative Working Agenda. She added that she had submitted corrections to the minutes electronically. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections to the minutes, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING POSSIBLE ACTION: and An Ordinance Concerning Regulation of Payday Loans and Adding Sections 3.550 through 3.560 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date Jason Heuser, Intergovernmental Relations Manager for the City Manager’s Office, reviewed the discussion thus far; that staff and the council had discussed the approach that at least four and potentially five Oregon cities had taken to regulate the payday loan industry at the local level. He said the approach was uniform with the ordinance that was before the City Council for consideration at the present meeting. He underscored that the local ordinances did not overlap in any way with what the State Legislature had enacted during its special session at which it passed the interest rates cap. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Pat Farr , 1929 Praslin Street, thanked the council for holding this public hearing on the payday loan ordinance. He thought it appalling that people would get stuck in the situation of being indebted to the payday loan industry. As the director of a local food bank, he could state that many of the thousands of Lane County residents that were in need of free food found themselves using this industry and compound- ing their need for food boxes for their families. He found it interesting that many of his clients used the services of others who happened to prey upon them to make excessive profits. He asserted that the profits of the payday loan industry did not stay in Eugene as most of the payday loan businesses had out-of-town owners. He said his wife, State Representative Debi Farr, chaired the committee that presented the legislation to the Oregon State House which was then ratified by the State Senate and signed into law by the Governor. He stated that this legislation provided some control on payday loan interest rates and some of the repayment requirements. He averred that though it was good legislation and had been backed up by “mountains of testimony,” a stronger message was needed Gary Gillespie , 2644 Kincaid Street, supported the payday loan ordinance. He said there was a direct cause and effect relationship between the huge number of payday loan operations in Oregon and the lack of effective regulation of the industry’s practices. He stated that Oregon was one of the least regulated states for payday loans. He underscored that there were more payday loan operations in Oregon than there were McDonald’s fast food establishments. He remarked that the rates charged by payday loan companies would “make a mafia don blush with embarrassment.” He said it was imperative that this ordinance and the effective sections be added to the Eugene Code because of the lack of regulation of the industry. He hoped this ordinance would help to bring the payday loan organizations into the light of the vision of the citizens of Eugene and the payday loan companies would be forced to “check into justice.” Betty Snowden , P.O. Box 5166, Eugene, 97405, spoke as a business owner and a concerned citizen. She related the story of a family who became involved with a payday loan organization. The family lost their food stamps and took a $700 payday loan for a term of two weeks at a fee of $140 and an annual interest MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting rate of 521 percent. The family had written a postdated check for $840 but the check had not cleared the bank after two weeks. The family was assessed a $25 check return fee and an offer to roll over the loan for $140 was made. This cycle repeated itself and the family took out two additional payday loans and a car title loan. She related that this family became caught in a financial trap until they finally sought the services of a local credit union, which helped them finance the repayment of what had become a debt of over $2,000. She said most of the customers of payday loan businesses were already cash-strapped and barely had their heads above water. She observed that when people were desperate they did desperate things. She declared that no one should be gouged with outrageous interest rates in loan terms that trap them in more debt. She said people get payday loans to help pay rent, buy groceries and medicine, but then end up in an even worse position because of them. She underscored that steps had to be taken to help the citizens of our community and the City could start with this payday loan ordinance. She thanked the council for its time and commended the councilors for their good work. Laurie Trieger , 2710 Polk Street, submitted testimony in writing on behalf of Dan Bryant. Ms. Trieger reported that the State Legislature had passed payday loan reform legislation in April that would not go into effect until July 2007. She said with over 700,000 payday loans being made in Oregon each year, tens of thousands of unregulated loans could be undertaken between now and then. She said the council had the power to offer people taking payday loans out in Eugene a modest bit of consumer protection almost immediately. Eugene would be joining seven other city governments in sending this message to the payday loan industry. She stated that the provisions in the ordinance were complementary to and not a duplication of the statewide law. She added that the ordinance was a perfect fit with the council’s initiative to address homelessness in Eugene. She stressed that in order to help families stabilize economically the City must do all it can to ensure their meager resources were not further watered down. She related that as Advocacy and Outreach Coordinator for Food for Lane County she had seen many changes in shifting trends but one thing remained constant: people who seek food boxes do so because they do not have the financial wherewithal to meet their basic human needs of safe secure shelter, adequate health care, and food. She averred that hunger persisted even in the face of news of a recovering economy and that for far too many Oregonians, wages were simply not keeping pace with the costs of providing basics. She said thousands of Oregon workers were losing ground. Many attempt to bridge the gaps created by poverty wages with short-term, high-interest payday loans and end up in a “debt trap.” She underscored that Food for Lane County’s mission was to eliminate hunger in the community and it was committed to providing emergency food programs and developing creative responses to the problem of hunger. She declared that in order to achieve that mission, a climate that honored families in their efforts to create healthy whole financially stable lives was required. She said the ordinance would provide modest protections for low- and middle-waged consumers of payday loans, many of whom also need food boxes. She added that she was also speaking on behalf of a local coalition that included members of the faith community, business owners, payday loan consumers, social service providers, labor representatives and concerned citizens. She urged the City Council to approve adoption and prompt enactment of the ordinance. Claire Syrett , 363 Adams Street, supported the ordinance. She thanked the Mayor and City Council for adopting the local wage and benefit standards for the West Eugene Enterprise Zone, making Eugene one of the only cities in the United States with community standards of this kind. She felt that in setting the standards, the City sent a clear message that good wages and benefits matter and are the key to fostering a healthy local economy. She said passage of the ordinance would protect the City’s most vulnerable citizens from economic exploitation. She stated that by addressing the economic pressures facing workers from both sides, encouraging higher wages, and protecting those in economic hardship, the council would show great leadership and strengthen the City’s economy and its community. She thanked the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Ortiz thanked Mr. Heuser for working so closely with the contingency of people that had brought this ordinance forward. She encouraged the council to take action at the present meeting. Councilor Taylor supported the ordinance. She felt it was a small way to alleviate poverty. Councilor Poling asked how soon the ordinance would go into effect if it was approved at the present meeting. City Manager Taylor replied that it would be 30 days. Councilor Poling asked if there was a way to put the ordinance into effect immediately. City Attorney Jerry Lidz responded that there would have to be findings describing the nature of the emergency and the way in which the ordinance would address it specifically in accordance with the City Charter. Councilor Poling asked if this would be difficult at this point. City Manager Taylor surmised that staff and the council would have trouble maintaining that they had made thoughtful findings by doing it “right on the stump” after the hearing. He thought they could come back before the council in two weeks with the necessary findings in order to enact the ordinance sooner. Mr. Lidz stated that the council would need to make the finding that an earlier effective date was necessary to serve an important public purpose and a separate section would have to be added to the ordinance stating specifically why the earlier effective date was necessary. He thought it was possible to amend the ordinance so that this could be accomplished. Councilor Poling thought the issue was urgent enough that the council did need to set forth immediate protection for poor people who he felt were being taken advantage of. He liked that the ordinance was simple and did not go beyond what the State had laid out to go into effect in July 2007. Councilor Kelly supported the ordinance. He felt it provided a modest level of consumer protection. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Heuser affirmed that there were some elements of discretion, such as setting the amount of the fee and where the enforcement within the City would be, that would be carried out by administrative rule. He asked Mr. Lidz to elaborate. Mr. Lidz confirmed that there were portions of the ordinance that would be implemented by administrative rule, but there were other portions that would apply immediately when the ordinance went into effect. Mayor Piercy ascertained that there were no objections to taking action at the present meeting. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4929, an ordinance concerning regulation of payday loans. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend Section 4 of the ordi- nance to provide for an immediate effective date and to add a Section 5 to the ordinance that would provide that an immediate effective date was necessary to serve the important public purpose of protecting the citizens of Eugene from unscrupulous practices of payday loan companies. Mayor Piercy indicated her support for the amendment and the amended motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 7:0. Roll call vote; the amended motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. ACTION: Transfer of Water Pollution Control Facility Property from the City of Eugene to the Metropoli- tan Wastewater Management Commission Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to take the necessary steps to proceed with the transfer of approximately 95.56 acres of City- owned land to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), contin- gent upon MWMC’s agreement to convey to the City the right-of-way needed to complete the improvements abutting the MWMC site on River Avenue. Councilor Bettman indicated her support for the goal of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), which was to transfer the sewerage facilities. She felt some factors were complicated, however, as some of the property was acquired with mixed funds and some of the property was originally owned locally or federally. She wished to transfer what was needed in order to take care of the right-of-way and assessment issue and to create the amount of property needed to facilitate the sewer treatment and the conditional use permit (CUP) projected expansion, while retaining the amount of property that she did not believe was necessary to transfer to “make it even.” Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to transfer only that portion of the 95.56 acres site that was bounded by River Avenue and the existing fence surrounding the water pollution control facilities on the other three sides. Councilor Bettman asserted that the riparian area outside of the fence was not necessary for the facility to expand or operate. She felt it was in the public benefit to retain the property. She acknowledged comments from staff that indicated there was a proportional benefit as two-thirds of the property was “strictly City property” and the larger proportion of ratepayers resided in Eugene. She felt those comments to be misleading. She asserted that the new capacity that a portion of rates was allocated for was not propor- tionally distributed as the communities that were growing faster were receiving a higher proportion of that benefit. Councilor Kelly asked why, from the MWMC staff perspective, the City of Eugene would not want to keep the excess property in its ownership or, if the MWMC wanted to keep it as a buffer, why would it not want the MWMC to pay a fee for it. Wastewater Division Director, Peter Ruffier, responded that in the 1977 IGA the partners agreed to transfer the existing wastewater facilities to the MWMC to complete the regional facilities and that a portion of the property that was contemplated being retained in the motion had been purchased with regional or non-City funds. He clarified that the portion to the east and a portion to the northeast had never originally been part of the Eugene wastewater treatment plant. Councilor Kelly asked if the 1977 IGA did not address a smaller transfer of property. Mr. Ruffier affirmed that it did not. He clarified that when the council had last revised the IGA, it revised the section that said it sought to facilitate completion of the process of transferring ownership of the existing facilities to complete the regional facilities. He related that over time, the City purchased or condemned the properties necessary MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting to complete the regional facility and it was because the process had not been completed all at one time that the titles were not all transferred at the time of each individual purchase. Councilor Kelly asked why the MWMC purchased some of the land to the northeast if it had not needed it for current or future sewerage. Mr. Ruffier was uncertain. He conjectured that it had been purchased because it was contiguous. Councilor Kelly commented that it was unfortunate that no members of the MWMC were present. It was noted that Councilor Poling served on the board of the MWMC. Councilor Poling understood that the additional land had been purchased as a buffer between the actual working facility and the surrounding area. Mr. Ruffier affirmed that it served that purpose. He added that when the facility was originally designed there were expectations for expansion and enough land was purchased to double the capacity of the existing plant, given the design capabilities at the time. Councilor Poling asked if any of the land would be used if the plant was doubled in size or if it would remain a buffer and a dedicated bicycle path. Mr. Ruffier replied that under the 2004 Facilities Plan, which had been approved by the council, that property would stay as open space and a buffer area and the expanded facilities would all fit within the existing fence line, with one small exception. Councilor Poling noted that there had been some question regarding an island in the river raised at the last meeting. He wanted to point out that the island was not always accessible and usable given that it was often underwater during the winter. He also understood that if additional open space was needed, the City could come to the MWMC and request it. Mr. Ruffier said this was true. Councilor Poling said he could not support the amendment. He wanted to honor the original IGA as well as the one that had been reapproved in May. Councilor Bettman said she conferred with Mr. Lidz regarding the wording and she understood that some of the property had been purchased with mixed funds. However, she wished to note that some of the property that was being transferred had been purchased with local funds. She asserted that the property had been worth $1 million in 1991. Mr. Ruffier clarified that the original wastewater treatment plant had been listed as an asset worth $774,000 at that time. Councilor Bettman responded that it had not been appraised. She felt that given it was riverside property, it had likely increased in value. She said in the absence of appraisals, she thought it safe to assume that the City of Eugene was making a contribution above and beyond what was proportional to the City of Springfield and that it was “obviously above and beyond” what the MWMC needed. She opined it would be “wise stewardship” to retain the property. City Manager Taylor asked the City Council to resist the amendment for the following reasons: 1. It would require an additional partition; 2. It would renege on the City’s initial commitment to the MWMC; 3. It would add more cost, both for the cost of the partition and for what the City would be assessed as part of the Local Improvement District (LID) for River Avenue, given that this would give MWMC a smaller footprint. Councilor Pryor said while he could appreciate the desire to retain property that might not be needed by the MWMC, he was also aware that this was part of the original deal, and this deal involved a variety of MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting funding sources. He questioned the notion of MWMC doing something with the property that the City of Eugene would not do with it, such as developing it. Mr. Ruffier assured the council that the property outside the fence line was planned to be open space and there were no plans to develop it. In fact, he pointed out that the site currently operated under a CUP that specified that this land would be maintained as open space. Councilor Pryor was not persuaded that the City needed to preserve this land in order to protect it. Mr. Ruffier reminded the council that the options before it included the transfer of easements necessary to maintain the bikeway. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, City Manager Taylor stated that the change would not affect the properties that were not abutting the road. Councilor Bettman said that as she researched one of the zoning land use code updates, she learned that no CUPs had been denied in over ten years. She alleged that whatever the applicant wanted could be provided for or permitted with some conditions and the conditions were flexible. She asked if Mr. Ruffier could guarantee that the property would not be developed and that it would be preserved in open space in perpetuity. Mr. Ruffier replied that he could not. Councilor Bettman opined that the amendment was a “good compromise.” Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 4:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Ortiz voting in favor. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, City Manager Taylor affirmed that the motion could include language that would indicate that the City was retaining its easements for bicycle paths and City facilities. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the motion that would add language indicating that the City would retain easements for bicycle paths and City facilities. Councilor Solomon accepted the friendly amendment, as did the second. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the main motion to add the following words to the end: “. . .and the transfer of property by the City of Springfield to the MWMC consistent with the Intergovern- mental Agreement.” The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment, as did the second. The motion, with friendly amendments, passed 6:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposi- tion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 11 Regular Meeting 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Condominiums; Amending Section 2.160, 2.1064, 2.1070, and 2.0174 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Declaring an Immediate Effective Date Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4928, an ordinance concerning condominiums. City Manager Taylor clarified that this ordinance would require six affirmative votes for the immediate effective date. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for the addition of language including the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Councilor Kelly echoed her appreciation. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 10, 2006 Page 12 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 17, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Linda Henry MINUTES FILE NAME: c:\documents and settings\cemnllh\desktop\linda\2006\07 july 06\cc060716.doc BACKUP STORAGE: = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 07/25/06 llh Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) _8/7 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 8/7 bf___ Returned to Minutes Recording _8/9 ky__ Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 8/9 ky___ Returned to Staff ________________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 17, 2006 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, COUNCILOR ABSENTChris Pryor. : Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the July 17 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Joint Meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission The council was joined by Eugene Planning Commissioners Jon Belcher, Rick Duncan, John Lawless, Randy Hledik, Phillip Carroll, and Phillip Hudspeth. Commissioner Mitzi Colbath was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Duncan convened the July 17 work session of the Eugene Planning Commission. Ms. Piercy stated she hoped the meeting would be an informal discussion and she did not plan to use the timer. She received a request from the commissioners that they be able to respond to the councilor’s comments. Mr. Lawless arrived at 11:32 a.m. City Manager Taylor said this was a long-awaited opportunity to gain some clarity regarding the evolving understanding about opportunity siting, mixed-use centers (MUC) and infill, and to provide some context to the discussions councilors and commissioners had had individually. City Manager Taylor introduced Principle Planners Kurt Yeiter and Steve Nystrom, from the Planning and Development Department. (PDD) Mr. Yeiter stated this was an opportunity for the Planning Commission and staff to receive direction from the City Council on how to proceed with development of a work program. He said three topics, Opportunity Siting, Infill Standards for Compatibility, and Population Allocations, had been outlined in the Agenda Item Summary. He said commissioners Belcher, Duncan and Lawless had been designated by the Planning Commission to facilitate the discussion. Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet with them. He said the Planning Commission had discovered the face-to-face meetings with councilors helped the commission understand what the council expected of the commission. He thanked the council for the additional funding and staffing allocated in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget that would help the commission accomplish some of the important programs, issues and work plans it was undertaking. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Opportunity Siting Mr. Lawless thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet. He expressed his hope that the work session would be an open conversation and exchange of ideas. He said the items were not intended to be a full work plan, but rather an outline of ways for the commission to move forward with staff and constituents to ensure everyone was on the same page. At the same time, it was important to move forward with identifying, preparing and working with potential options for opportunity sites to reach Eugene’s projected density goals. He added that the commission received good input from citizens who clarified issues and raised new points of discussion about what Opportunity Siting could be and what it would do. Mr. Lawless said the process would an iterative one that would need to move forward a little bit at a time. Ms. Bettman previously suggested that one or two specific sites be identified for a pilot project. Mr. Lawless asked if the concept of targeting City-owned or City-controlled property for one of the first test cases would uncover opportunities from the private sector or neighborhoods. City-owned or City- controlled sites could have more limitations, thus making them more difficult to work with. Ms. Taylor arrived at 11:42 a.m. Mr. Kelly said Opportunity Siting, in combination with infill standards, could support the idea that growing more densely was desirable. Density needed to be selective, noting one size did not fit all parcels, every R-2 zone, or every neighborhood. Mr. Kelly said his biggest concern about Opportunity Siting was the timidity of starting with one or two test sites. He would like to see the Planning Commission develop specific criteria with specific input from neighborhoods and the development community and move ahead on a broad number of sites. He asserted the City Council should not be involved in picking the sites, and the sites should not be restricted to City- owned or City-controlled sites. Ms. Bettman said the context of where Opportunity Siting originated had gotten lost in the year since the first motion passed. Nodal development originated with the Land Use Measures Task Force for the TransPlan update as part of the regional transportation plan to accommodate growth using land use measures and had reached a dead end. It destroyed neighborhoods and degraded property values. Ms. Bettman asserted this needed to be a phased implementation and the first phase should be a demonstration site. Phase 2 should review identified MUCs, and Phase 3 should look for broader applications. The concept of Opportunity Siting was getting broadened when it was strictly housing density, not mixed-use density. Mr. Poling concurred with most of Mr. Kelly’s comments about the integrity of the neighborhood and the density. However, he preferred a limited number of sites as proposed by Ms. Bettman. He was not certain if the site selection should be approved by the City Council. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Poling responded the City Council would not need to be more involved at the selection level if it was involved in identifying the approval criteria. Mr. Belcher saw the challenge as bringing together City staff, the neighborhoods and a developer willing to collaborate. He averred that the more restrictions were placed upon the physical location of proposed sites, the less likely it would be that the magic mix of all three willing partners would occur. Mr. Papé felt Mr. Belcher’s points were good ones, with the most difficult challenge being getting the private development community to see the vision. Making the numbers work would bring private MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 2 Work Session developers into the process, but making numbers work in this community was very hard. He cited two th examples, 29 and Willamette and Garden Way, where the City clamped down so strictly on standards that it led to the loss of potential diversity of development. Mr. Papé supported the idea of a pilot project because it brought focus and initiated the process. Unfortunately, he said, the City did not have the resources to jump in like it should to assemble sites unless it was funded by the Budget Committee next year or existing resources were redirected. Ms. Taylor said the process should start slowly. She liked the pilot project concept and felt the council should be involved. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Kelly for his comments in clarifying the written material. She liked the idea of a test site because unless the City facilitated development, the private sector would not step up. She concurred with Ms. Bettman’s comment that nodal development never actually happened in the Royal Avenue node. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Papé for his questions because they echoed her thoughts. She maintained that it was important to identify incentives for private development to encourage participation before going forward. Mr. Lawless agreed that incentives were an important part of the equation. If the market was going to drive development projects, the City needed to provide an environment for the development community to be successful. He asserted that if the council wanted a pilot project, it needed to assist the development community in making the first couple of projects happen. In response to Ms. Bettman’s preference, Mr. Hledik said it was important to establish a dialogue among the neighborhoods, the developers, and the City to identify what the incentives might be and what the stumbling blocks currently were. For that reason, the commission suggested starting with A. Start with public outreach to explain programs and identify possible opportunity sites before B. Develop strategy to determine how to proceed and where to proceed. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Lawless if he had seen any models for how this was done in other places. Mr. Lawless replied the Portland Development Commission had been used as a resource in identifying, funding, and shepherding desired projects that were ultimately done by private development. He noted that the City of Eugene did not have the resources or the mechanisms in place to support what gets these things off the starting block quickly. Mayor Piercy stated that the City has to develop a model to match the capacity it has. Mr. Lawless said it was important to have mechanisms and protocols in place to evaluate potential sites to ensure that they fit in the neighborhood. He echoed Ms. Solomon’s assertion that it was in the community’s health interest and economic interest to bring some incentives to the table. He added that criteria needed to protect neighborhoods, but should not be so restrictive as to discourage good development. Ms. Bettman expressed difficulty with doing broad public outreach before the strategy was defined. It was important to have a framework to which people can respond. The strategy and the definition needed to be developed before soliciting ideas for sites. She asserted that upzoning to R-2 had resulted in very high densities in some neighborhoods, adding that downzoning could be an incentive in some situations. Ms. Bettman said the problem she had with the demonstration project being developer-oriented was lack of control on the part of the City over the balance between incentives and the standards. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Duncan asked for a straw vote to determine if the City Council favored doing a pilot project first. Mr. Kelly replied that, at the very least, a vote should be taken by a show of hands. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the strategy development portion of the AIS which is now B but hopefully after the next amendment will be A, to add development of the purpose, definition and strategy for Opportunity Siting shall include the following components: ? It was a primary strategy for achieving residential density in MUCs. ? It focused density on targeted parcels of vacant or redevelopable property. ? It required a process that includes formal participation by neighborhood residents/resident businesses and neighborhood associations in site identification and selection, and the development of design standards for neighborhood compatibility. (Did not require evaluation of all potential sites.) ? It articulated design standards for infill. ? It provided for residential density upzoning as an incentive for compliance with design standards. The strategy also could provide other incentives to achieve outcomes of density and compatibility. ? It protected established residential areas by maintaining R-1 zones or downzoning for consistency with current built single family use. ? It provided other protections where appropriate such as exclusions from the MUC boundaries as was done in Walnut MUC, and limiting conversion of residential to non-residential uses. In response to Mr. Kelly’s question about the meaning of “primary,” Ms. Bettman said rather than blanket upzoning of residential densities in entire neighborhoods those densities would primarily be achieved on opportunity sites. Mr. Kelly maintained that participation by neighborhood residents, businesses, and neighborhood associations in development of design standards did not mean approval. He noted some cities conducted formal predevelopment conferences with neighborhood associations before projects could move forward. Responding to Mr. Kelly’s question if there was any reason why design standards couldn’t say “and/or design review,” Ms. Bettman said her intention was to set up a situation where there could be an alternate site review in which the City might approve a project without neighborhood involvement. Mr. Kelly asserted his intent was to give the Planning Commission and staff the ability to think of design review as one of the tools in the tool kit. Mr. Kelly expressed his discomfort with using downzoning to achieve desired densities, but did not want to exclude it. He noted the City’s second Ballot Measure 37 claim was a direct response to the downzoning that took place in the Chambers’ mixed-use area. Ms. Bettman maintained the City had the ability to change the zoning in residential neighborhoods for very high densities without protection for the rest of the neighborhood. She said in order for the City to grow, it needed to create a compensation fund to address Ballot Measure 37 claims or it would need to waive restrictions. Mr. Hledik asserted that design review or the design standards could ameliorate some of the Ballot Measure 37 concerns as long as they were done satisfactorily. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Solomon preferred public outreach first followed by strategy development. She felt the public could help clarify some of the issues related to opportunity siting. She strongly opposed to amending the strategy development on the fly, asserting it was bad government to do so. She suggested having a work session to address the issues raised. She said she would not support the proposed amendment. Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Solomon and expressed concern about discarding design review and design standards previously discussed by the council. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Bettman said her amendment did not necessarily mean that a good opportunity site could not be considered outside of a MUC. Mr. Belcher asked if Ms. Bettman’s proposed amendment language, “It articulates design standards for infill” meant that progress on Opportunity Siting could not be achieved until infill standards were developed. Ms. Bettman stated a phased implementation could occur. Development of design standards at a demonstration site could be part of the project, while infill standards development could occur concurrently. She added she did not intend to lock identification of an opportunity site and development of infill standards for other locations. Mr. Belcher asked if the proposed amendment language “by maintaining R-1 zones” would restrict Opportunity Siting from R-1 zones. Ms. Bettman speculated there could be some very underdeveloped R- th 1 zones, citing an area of Amazon Park and 29 and Willamette and noting the cost of redevelopment could be very high. She asked if Mr. Belcher was referring to vacant R-1 land. Mr. Belcher responded he was wondering about vacant R-1 land. In response to Mayor Piercy, Mr. Belcher said he had not received an answer to his question. Mayor Piercy indicated she was too uncomfortable with the unknown. She was concerned about restrictions that did not allow the freedom to move forward. She added she would be more comfortable with a straw vote that would give an indication of specific opposition. Mr. Kelly asserted this discussion had been taking place in one form or another for somewhere between twelve years and two years, depending on the definition. At some point, as the decision-makers, the City Council needed to make some decisions. He feared the motion would die a death from both sides of the aisle, which he thought would be unfortunate. He thought Mr. Belcher brought up a critical question that had not previously been raised. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Bettman if, given the confusion around the last bullet, she would be comfortable with revising the last bullet in her motion to read “It protects established residential areas,” leaving identification of specific conditions for staff and the Planning Commission to resolve and bring back to the City Council. Ms. Bettman replied she would not accept that as a friendly amendment as it would remove protections from existing neighborhoods. She would be willing to revise the language that would not exclude the possibility that R-1 sites existed. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the last bullet to read It protects established residential areas. The motion passed, 5:2, with Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman stated she would not support the motion to amend because it was now meaningless and reinforced all of the ways in which density would be increased and neighborhoods destroyed without addressing how the neighborhoods would be protected The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Poling voting yes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 5 Work Session In response to Ms. Piercy, Mr. Yeiter expressed optimism that that the Planning Commission could move forward to develop one or two test case sites. He added the discussion on the original motion reflected the Planning Commission’s conversations for years. City Manager Taylor added there was consensus to move forward with the public engagement process and return to the City Council with the strategy. While the process was oriented towards MUCs, it did not preclude other sites from being involved in Opportunity Siting. City Manager Taylor maintained that while there was opportunity in City-owned and City-controlled property, there was still opportunity to seek other parcels that could be designated opportunity sites within an MUC or where there may be opportunity in adjacencies. Infill Standards for Compatibility Mr. Belcher stated the Planning Commission had developed a goal to develop a tool kit to do appropriate infill, determine what the problems were, and provide the basis for developing a work program that would allow the infill standards to be adapted to the neighborhood character with the involvement of the neighbors, City staff, and developers. Referring to Mr. Papé’s comment regarding the alternate path being a separate work program, Mr. Kelly said it was time to get back to the visual preference surveys. He added the coordinated work program was essential to look at close-in neighborhoods and at least part of River Road/Santa Clara, where immediate pressures existed. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Jerome replied that as the new standards would apply to privately owned properties, the question was whether or not the infill standards actually would diminish the market value. This would be an issue the Planning Commission would need to consider as it developed those standards. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the proposed language to include a scoping process to define the problems and impact of current infill, and to prioritize ensuing strategies in order of the easiest fixes that had the biggest impact to the more complex and expensive. Responding to Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman said this specifically called out doing the scoping in one of the neighborhoods, such as River Road/Santa Clara or Jefferson/Westside, to determine what could be done to mitigate undesirable infill. She clarified that her intent was for the amendment to apply to the entire process, not simply the neighborhoods cited as examples. Mr. Papé asked how this would apply in an actual application. Mr. Yeiter responded that the priorities would come back to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Belcher said it was ambiguous as to whether the “fixes” referred to areas or processes, or both, adding that he would have a problem if it meant both. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Population Allocations Mr. Belcher said this was the area where the Planning Commission held the least cohesive position. Some members felt it was time to implement the growth management policies while others felt this was a futile exercise. The lack of cohesion resulted in two suggested strategies: 1) Determine where we are now; and 2) Start looking at what the impacts or damages or improvements that Opportunity Siting and infill gives, MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 6 Work Session and then come back and discuss what’s been learned. Mr. Duncan asked if the housing goal should be more large, single-family homes, or more European with higher apartment buildings and more density. Ms. Bettman asserted that looking at population expansion was not necessary. She said population allocations were a mistake and housing units should be the focus. This assertion was supported by a study done by the Housing Policy Board that was a strategy for increasing density. She proposed postponing action on Population Allocations. Mr. Kelly disagreed. Although he agreed it was right to step back from the neighborhood-by- neighborhood target at this time, it was not feasible to intelligently ask a neighborhood how it could absorb more people if they did not know what resources were available. He stated that the Region 2050 study that was out for public review included projection population data from Portland State University. If the estimates were not accurate, the worst result would be that the City was ahead of the game. Mr. Belcher proposed getting a base to start with. This would be an iterative process in which estimates could be adjusted over time. He opined the first iteration could be available in 12 to 18 months. Mr. Kelly maintained the issue was not counting either housing units or population, but counting both, and evaluating changing demographics as they would impact the mix of housing types. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Planning Commission’s strategy for Opportunity Siting, infill standards, and population allocations, as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary, and as amended through the discussion. In response to Mr. Papé, Mr. Yeiter explained that what was missing from the GIS process was housing projections that were required by the State to complete a buildable lands inventory. It would be easy to find out through the GIS system what vacant land was available, or what developed sites were eligible for redevelopment. Mayor Piercy felt there was a difference between the population expected and the demographics desired for the community. She asserted that if the City continued down the current path, families would continue to move outside of Eugene. It was important to make decisions based on providing housing families could afford. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against the motion because direct protection for neighborhoods had been removed from the motion. Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the motion for the same reason as Ms. Bettman, and she was totally opposed to population allocations. The motion passed 5:2, Ms. Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy expressed the City Council’s appreciation for the amount of effort and time the Planning Commission gave on behalf of the community. Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council for its direction. Mr. Duncan adjourned the meeting of the Planning Commission at 1 p.m. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 1 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 8 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: July 24, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060724m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 7/25/06 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 9/5 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 9/6 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 24, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Pryor would not be able to attend the work session. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy noted that the Princess of Thailand visited the City and donated 1,700 books to local libraries. She attended a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Fairmount rowhouses, which was a good example of a green building project. She said the council was interviewing police auditor applicants, a delegation from Dublin would visit during the week, and she would attend the Oregon Mayors’ Conference on July 27, 2006. Ms. Solomon reported that she and Mayor Piercy attended the 10th anniversary celebration for St. Vincent de Paul’s Service Station. She commented that it was a wonderful program for the community and represented effective partnerships; the City of Eugene was recognized for its contributions. Ms. Taylor questioned how the city manager could participate in finding traffic solutions for the new hospital since the council was prohibited from expressing an opinion on the project and the manager was an agent of the council. City Attorney Jerome Lidz explained that the council could not prejudge an application that would come before it, not that it could say nothing about the subject. Ms. Taylor asked if helping find traffic solutions would imply that the council made a judgment. Mr. Lidz said he would not characterize it that way. City Manager Dennis Taylor added that his involvement was consistent with the memorandum of understanding on working with McKenzie-Willamette Hospital that the council adopted. He said he was not directly involved but rather associated with seeking traffic solutions through the involvement of the City’s public works and engineering staff who worked with applicants to address traffic issues. Mr. Kelly read a statement in reference to an email on immigration from Springfield City Councilor Dave Ralston. He acknowledged the right of Councilor Ralston and others in the community to speak. He thanked the Latino and broader immigrant community for being valuable residents of the area and expressed regret that they often had to contend with being marginalized, insulted, or worse. He was proud that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Eugene City Council recently reaffirmed the rights and fair and human treatment of all residents, regardless of immigration status. He said the legal and philosophical aspects of immigration had been complex and controversial for decades and hoped that discussions about immigration could be conducted with nuance, respect, reality, and appreciation of the complexities. Mr. Kelly reported that the Metropolitan Policy Committee met on July 13 and unanimously adopted a transportation improvement program for FY2006-09 without the West Eugene Parkway. He looked forward to focusing on transportation projects for west and north Eugene in the near- and long-term. He said the Human Right Commission commended the Communities of Color meeting and asked what the next steps would be. He asked the City Manager to consider a follow-up work session with the council. He praised the Fairmount rowhouses as a perfect example of well-designed infill. Mr. Poling reported that on July 10 he attended the Oregon Economic Development Association conference where a number of topics were showcased, including a presentation by Lane Workforce Partnership on the RV (recreational vehicle) consortium. At its July 20 meeting, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) voted unanimously to accept a settlement that was reached regarding problems with the initial pumps installed at the biocycle farm. He said that the second phase of the biocycle farm would include planting approximately 120 acres of poplars. He announced that the Cal Young Neighborhood Association would conduct a candidate forum at its July 27 meeting and encouraged everyone to visit the Science Factory and become acquainted with Jerry Yu, its new executive director. Mr. Papé thanked REI, Inc. for sponsoring the recent river clean-up event and John Brown for his organizing efforts. He remarked that transient camps along the river contributed to water pollution and hoped that Eugene and Springfield cooperated to prevent camps from being located along the river. He hoped that bike trails would also be maintained well in anticipation of the 2008 Olympic Trials. He said that the River Road/Santa Clara community park project was moving forward and might require the City to consider condemnation, depending on site location and acquisition issues. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly that Councilor Ralston was entitled to his opinion and voiced her support for everyone who lived and worked in the community, regardless of whether they were born here or moved here. She believed that everybody deserved the same respect, dignity and opportunities. She appreciated the leadership of the Latino community in responding to the issue. Ms. Ortiz thanked allies that were involved in the gathering at Springfield City Hall. In response to Councilor Ralston’s email, she read a statement indicating she was saddened by his comments regarding illegal immigrants. She agreed he had a right to his opinion but, as elected officials and community leaders, she believed that councilors should not make such comments. She cited a section of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) related to prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from using resources to detect or apprehend persons whose only violation of law was related to federal immigration laws. She thanked Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken for his quick response to Councilor Ralston’s email and the Communities of Color for their efforts. She appreciated the opportunity to participate in events related to the Princess of Thailand’s visit. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to schedule a work session for August 14, 2006, as part of the 7:30 p.m. meeting, to consider what close-in neighborhoods and River Road are currently threatened by inappropriate infill and what can the City can do in the short term to pause or mitigate this negative effect. As part of the preparation for this work session, staff will work with the Jefferson Westside Neighbors to consider approaches to their situation with R-1 to R-2 upzonings. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated the issue had been a concern since adoption of Metro Plan housekeeping amendments resulted in vulnerability of a 15-block section in the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood along with areas in River Road and Santa Clara. She reminded councilors that they had received a petition signed by 286 people distributed throughout the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood. She said the motion was sufficiently flexible for staff to work with knowledgeable and interested people to develop options for the council’s consideration at its August 14 meeting. She pointed out that the refinement plan, which dictated approval of zoning changes that allowed high density on already-developed single family sites, did not include any criteria for approval. Mr. Papé appreciated the issue being raised by the Jefferson-Westside neighborhoods and suggested it could be addressed by a moratorium. He noted that an earlier process with the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAHFN) involved the Planning Commission. He felt there was a process already in place and if the motion included River Road it should be done in a more systematic manner that included the Planning Commission. He could not support the motion unless it was narrowed to only address Jefferson-Westside. He relayed comments from River Road community organization people who thought the process should not move forward as quickly as the motion would require. Ms. Taylor said she would support a motion to separate the areas for consideration. She said Jefferson- Westside was the most urgent and she did not understand how the amendment process had happened so quickly and quietly. She said it was important to protect neighborhoods close in to downtown and inappropriate infill, which was happening all over town, was detrimental to neighborhoods. She said visitors were surprised that Eugene had no slums and she was concerned that slums could occur if the council did not move to protect the most vulnerable areas. Mr. Kelly felt that the concerns would be addressed in the long term through the work program and resources provided to develop infill standards and opportunity siting and the issue being raised was whether there were short-term measures that might mitigate some of the harm while those long term solutions were developed. He was not certain there were short-term solutions and noted that even a moratorium would require a minimum of 60 days. He said he would not support the motion if it focused only on Jefferson- Westside because the need for short-term help was broader than just that area and sometimes the council reacted according to which neighborhood was best politically organized at a particular time. Ms. Solomon asked the City Manager to comment on the motion. City Manager Taylor replied that he would be happy to assign staff to work on options short of a moratorium, although providing the material for an August 14 meeting would be challenging. He asked if the council would consider shifting the item to the August 16 meeting. Ms. Bettman agreed to shift the item to the August 16, 2006, meeting agenda. Mr. Poling offered a friendly amendment to eliminate the phrase “and River Road” from the motion. Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman explained that she was originally focused only of the 15-block section of the Jefferson- Westside neighborhood and received feedback that other areas also had emergent issues with infill. She hoped the focus of expertise on a short-term solution would be applicable to River Road and other areas and that was the wish of other council members as well. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly clarified that feedback from people in River Road and Santa Clara was only from the chairs of those neighborhood associations. He felt the discussion needed to focus on all areas where there was a short-term concern. Mr. Papé was concerned that the process would skip over the Planning Commission to develop solutions for the council. Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to limit it to Jef- ferson-Westside. Ms. Bettman said that leadership from River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods recognized the emergent issue in Jefferson-Westside and believed the council should consider a short-term solution for that area. She still believed that a focus on Jefferson-Westside would result in options that would be applicable in other neighborhoods; the difference in Jefferson-Westside was the density that was permitted while the issue with River Road related more to the character of the infill. She wanted the broadest support from the council and would support Mr. Papé’s amendment. Mr. Kelly said a solution requiring a code amendment would have to go through the Planning Commission and require public hearings. He said the motion simply requested a work session and asked staff to discuss a specific problem in the meantime. He was concerned that the motion to amend would establish a precedent that gave priority to those neighborhoods that were well-organized and that was inappropriate from a planning perspective. He said there were issues in many other parts of the community and he did not want to see some neighborhoods treated differently than others. He could not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman said protecting the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood was good for the city. She said there were chronic and acute problems and disagreed that the motion was a reaction to a neighborhood that was politically organized. She believed the reason the neighborhood was organized was because it was facing a threat to the largest investment most people would ever have: their home. People should not be faulted for responding to a threat rather than just moving. Mayor Piercy asked if there was a difference between the friendly amendment from Mr. Poling and Mr. Papé’s proposed amendment. Mr. Papé said there were different problems in different neighborhoods; it was not homogeneous. He did not want to see an “end run” around normal processes. Mr. Kelly clarified that he was not faulting the neighbors in Jefferson-Westside for being organized; he was merely concerned about the other areas that did not have the means or expertise to organize. He said the friendly amendment focused on close-in neighborhoods, while Mr. Papé’s amendment would focus on Jefferson-Westside only. The motion to amend passed, 6:1; Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. The main motion as amended passed, 6:1; Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 4 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Transportation System Maintenance Fee City Manager Taylor introduced Public Works Director Kurt Corey to discuss the challenge of pavement preservation. Mr. Corey provided a brief overview of the issue and stated that five years ago a $67 million backlog of pavement preservation projects was identified and a Budget Subcommittee recommended a new $9 million annual revenue source to address the issue. Subsequently, the council adopted a $0.03 per gallon and $0.02 per gallon local option gas tax. Mr. Corey said despite those efforts and progress made in pavement preservation, the backlog was now approximately $100 million and revenue estimates were short by about $5 million per year for the forecast period. He said operations and maintenance would also experience an approximately $1.5 million shortfall through the forecast period and, consistent with the council’s direction, would be included as part of a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). Mr. Corey said the proposed ordinance included in the agenda packet was similar but not identical to a previous ordinance adopted and then repealed in 2003. He said the proposed ordinance had been expanded to identify the use of some portion of the revenues for operations and maintenance and, in addition, the types and numbers of property classifications had been revised and a modified rate methodology broke rates into three components. Mr. Corey said that rates took into account updated information from the International Transportation Engineer Trip Generation Manual and an updated review of pass-by trip calculations. The revised rate methodology more closely mimicked the structure used for wastewater and stormwater fees in terms of its component parts. The variable trip rate component was proposed as a revenue means for capital preserva- tion as there was a reasonable scientific nexus between vehicle trips and pavement deterioration. He said the flat-based rate component was recommended as a means for filling the operations and maintenance gap; projects in that category were not particularly driven by the volume of vehicle traffic and were perhaps more relevant to a per account or per dwelling basis. He said the final component in the proposal was a flat administrative account. Mr. Corey said the proposed rate methodology provided the City an opportunity to manage an account for pavement preservation dollars separately from other operations and maintenance costs and the trip-based and per account rates were intuitively more equitable in terms of the fairness of the charges. He referred to sample monthly fees included in the agenda packet that were offered, with the caveat they were estimates and based on a number of assumptions, which were enumerated in his memorandum of July 24, 2006. He said the next steps included moving ahead with the public communications plan over the next three months and holding a public hearing to obtain formal public input in October 2006. Mayor Piercy asked if there was a response from schools to the education category. Mr. Corey replied that establishing the category for education was a direct response to discussions with the University of Oregon where it became extremely difficult to rationalize a monthly fee based on the types and sizes of buildings and uses; a per student basis was more understandable and easier to administer. He said rate collection could also take into account that public schools were not in session in the summer. Mr. Kelly referred to a statement in the agenda packet that an additional $6 million per year would stabilize the preservation backlog but noted $4.75 million was budgeted. Mr. Corey said the $6 million figure reflected past discussions related to the forecast that took into account elimination of the $0.02 component of the gas tax. He said the assumption was now that the $0.02 would be renewed in 2008 and the $4.75 MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 5 Work Session million was a point in time for what the FY08 budget would be with a revenue target offset by various sources, leaving $4.75 million. He said that the forecast for future years had that figure at between $5 and $5.5 million. Mr. Kelly asked why $5 to $5.5 million was not budgeted initially. Mr. Corey replied it was based on modeling to achieve the FY08 budget revenue target. Mr. Kelly said that the single residence fee was about 80 percent higher than two years ago, which made sense with the higher revenue target. He asked why the 100,000 square foot retail use had gone from approximately $900 per month to under $700 per month. Mr. Corey explained there was a more sophisti- cated pass-by trip calculation than in the past and, together with fewer categories, the 100,000 square foot supermarket was slightly less in the proposed methodology than in the 2004 methodology; similar changes increasing or decreasing rates had occurred in some of the other categories under the current proposal. Mr. Kelly asked what percentage of the $6.75 million would come from residential accounts and what percentage from nonresidential accounts. Mr. Corey stated that as the program stabilized, it would be split about equally between the two types of accounts. Mr. Kelly supposed that the actual load on the road system would have a much different split between residential and nonresidential. He commented that there was a place in the ordinance where the word “may” was used instead of “shall” and asked for staff feedback. Mr. Corey said the City Attorney built flexibility into the language to allow for differing conditions over time. Mr. Kelly observed that it was politically challenging to establish a TSMF and acknowledge that the public cared about wording; flexibility in wording could present problems and if circumstances changed, the council could always amend the ordinance. Mr. Papé remarked that a TSMF had been under consideration for a number of years and he was ready to move forward on a proposal. He noted that the original ordinance was rescinded on the basis of a promise from the County to work with the City on a solution, but there was no solution yet except the gas tax. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that the public wanted specificity in the ordinance in terms of rates and uses and language should not suggest the revenue could be used for other purposes besides curb-to-curb road maintenance. He was interested in whether the subject of a sunset provision would be raised during public hearings. He suggested omitting subsections b and c of Section 7.755 of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Bettman said there had been slippage in the proposed ordinance and agenda item summary in terms of dedicating the funding specifically to maintenance and preservation. She pointed out that the proposed revenue source was based on revenue targets determined by the City Manager at the beginning of the fiscal year; any reductions or discounts meant the money would still be collected, shifting the burden to average homeowners. She emphasized the need to update the household survey that produced trip generations and was surprised that a 100,000 square foot retail building was considered a pass-by instead of a destination. She asked what data was used to modify pass-bys. Mr. Corey said pass-by calculations used the collective experiences of other Oregon cities that have dealt with the same issue; the factor used to generate numbers was an average of other Oregon cities that had developed pass-by rate calculations. Ms. Bettman said that current funding sources such as the Road Fund were dedicated to maintenance and preservation and asked what would happen to that money. Mr. Corey said in terms of budgeting and the forecast, those revenues continued to be used in the same manner and there was a gap in capital preservation MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 6 Work Session and operations and maintenance components. He said nothing would change with regard to existing revenues. Ms. Taylor continued to oppose a TSMF. She noted that the rate of $5.22 per month could apply to a single family home with no cars as well as a home with six expensive cars. She felt that was unfair. She thought a 30-unit motel would generate more trips than a home. She said streets should be maintained but there were fairer ways to do that and maintenance should be paid for from the General Fund. She urged tax reform and new sources of revenue for the General Fund and, barring that, a County vehicle registration fee should be considered in cooperation with other jurisdictions. She felt it would be very difficult for some households to pay $5.22 per month and asked why the same amount was charged to every residence. Mr. Corey said it had been a theme of the concept from the beginning that everyone benefited from the transportation system—even those who did not own or drive a car—by virtue of the goods and services received as a result of having a transportation system in place. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with a public outreach and education effort and to schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance establishing a transportation system maintenance fee. Mayor Piercy called for a motion to extend the time for discussion. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend discussion time by ten minutes. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon echoed Mr. Papé’s comments about the importance of maintenance being curb-to-curb to demonstrate effective use of the funds generated by the TSMF. She asked if the split between residential and nonresidential accounts would shift from 50:50, as more homes were developed and more residential accounts paid the fee. Mr. Corey said it was possible but he did not think there would be a significant change in the split between account types. Ms. Solomon expressed concern with the $465,000 cost for EWEB to administer the TSMF. Mr. Corey said that amount was based on an assumption that the cost to collect the TSMF would be about the same as the cost to collect wastewater and stormwater fees; the figure represented payment to a vendor to collect the fee and in-house administrative costs. Mr. Kelly commented that he supported the 2002 version of the TSMF but not the 2004 version and was not certain whether he would support the proposed ordinance. He agreed with Mr. Papé’s suggestion to strike two subsections in the ordinance but pointed out the ordinance as written did provide for maintenance and preservation of sidewalks and off-street bike paths. He said there was no other obvious revenue source for the off-street bike paths. Regarding Ms. Bettman’s question about updated trip generation data, he said that new information was being developed in Portland based on several cities and would be available sometime in 2007. Ms. Bettman asked if it was correct that nothing in the proposed ordinance maintained the dedication of existing funds to the purposes for which they were currently being used, such as the dedication of Road Fund reimbursement fee for operations, maintenance, and some preservation. Mr. Corey responded that dedicated revenues that were only available for certain purposes without the ordinance would have no change in status based on passage of the ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman felt there was a risk that a new revenue source would result in administrative movement in the budget over the years of Road Fund money and other resources out and increasing the TSMF piece. She noted that projections were based on FY08 and would change in terms of single-family accounts if some of the discounts or waivers were enacted. She said the inequity was also reflected in a flat-based component of $1.90 per month and flat administrative component which assessed a big-box store the same as a single- family home. She said those components should be based on use of the system. She felt the City should increase its efforts with the legislature so when there was money available it could be used for maintenance and preservation of the existing system. Ms. Solomon said using a percentage for bike paths was a point of deliberation at the subcommittee level as there was recognition of the need to dedicate a small percentage, preferably less than five percent, for bike paths. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Corey said there was no other funding source for maintenance of off-street bike paths except some grant funds. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: Sign Code Enforcement City Manager Taylor introduced Land Use Supervisor Mike McKerrow to discuss Sign Code enforcement. He said the issue was raised by Ms. Ortiz. Mr. McKerrow presented an overview of the Sign Code since its adoption in 1968. He said the Sign Code did not regulate sign content but did regulate the number, size and location of signs based on the district in which they were located. He said enforcement was done on a complaint basis unless there was a safety issue and complaints had to be submitted in writing. He said about 30 sign complaints were received each year, with many of those from competing businesses hoping for a level playing field. He explained enforcement procedures and used photographs to illustrate examples of prohibited portable signs and approved directional signs for businesses that did not have street frontage. He said an exemption for portable signs in general was within the Downtown Activity Zone if certain size and location standards were met. Mr. Kelly said he wanted a change to the Sign Code to allow portable signs with some restrictions because he was concerned both about supporting small businesses and by the fact that enforcement was complaint- driven and often based on an antagonistic situation between two businesses. He said a small business would not have the resources to go through the variance process required for directional signs and suggested that portable signs could be allowed with restrictions such as reasonable size, no blocking of sidewalks, and removal during nonbusiness hours. He noted that one option was to include Sign Code issues for prioritiza- tion in the next code update process and asked if that process would allow the council to see all suggestions, not just those recommended to move forward. Mr. McKerrow said the Planning Division would need to answer that question. Ms. Taylor asked why complaints had to be in writing. Mr. McKerrow said that was a policy decision based on availability of staff resources, need for consistent enforcement, barrier to frivolous or vindictive complaints, and need for complete information. Ms. Taylor said it seemed that if an illegal sign was noticed the code should be enforced. She noted that Sign Code enforcement was cut from the budget after Measure 47 and she did not approve at the time. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 8 Work Session asked if complaints had to be in writing prior to the budget cuts. Mr. McKerrow said the policy was changed to require a written complaint after the budget cuts. Ms. Taylor said she wanted to see the policy change reversed. Ms. Ortiz felt that enforcement that was complaint-driven was somewhat inequitable and she would be interested in exploring ways to expand opportunities for small businesses to have portable signs. Ms. Bettman said she was in favor of having a process for examining the issues, but saw some areas of concern. She said if a business with a large sign decided to also have a portable sign by the street the situation could become unmanageable. She pointed out that the portable signs in the photograph were distracting drivers’ attention from a traffic sign warning of the presence of children and a proliferation of sidewalk signs could create traffic and pedestrian hazards. She said there should be very clearly defined criteria for allowing portable signs and that would also require enforcement. Mr. Poling suggested that any approval of portable signs should include sight distance from driveways and intersections to avoid blocking the view of oncoming traffic. Mr. Papé asked if real estate signs were currently permitted. Mr. McKerrow replied that the Sign Code included exceptions for real estate signs; however, the exception was for the sign to be placed on the property for sale or lease. He said enforcement of real estate sign regulations was also complaint-driven and recent surveys of two arterials indicated about 15 percent of businesses were currently using illegal portable signs. Mr. Papé said the real estate industry should be involved in discussions of the Sign Code and well informed about its provisions. He felt the Sign Code should be enforced. Mayor Piercy said the City was proud of its Sign Code, which related to the livability of the community and how it looked and functioned. She was sympathetic to small businesses but felt that portable signs should be the exception instead of the rule. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to include considering allowing portable signs, with reasonable restrictions, during the next code update process to begin this summer. That will mean this issue will be included in the Planning and City Coun- cil discussion for prioritization along with other issues raised during the public out- reach. Mr. Kelly suggested looking at how other jurisdiction had addressed restrictions on portable signs. He felt the signs would be used primarily in strip mall areas. Ms. Bettman observed that businesses could build near the sidewalk if they wished to have a street and sidewalk presence. Mayor Piercy remarked that if it was too easy, businesses could have both large and small signs. Mr. Papé said the code could be revised to allow reasonable, enforceable use of portable signs or there would continue to be a proliferation of illegal signs. The motion passed, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 9 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 10 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: August 9, 2006–Workshop TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060809m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 8/15/06 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 9/5 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 9/6 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Workshop Bascom/Tykeson Room – Eugene Public Library August 9, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORKSHOP: City Council Priority Issue – City Hall Complex City Manager Dennis Taylor said the purpose of the workshop was to refine ideas associated with the City Hall complex in preparation for a community meeting on August 24, 2006. He said the focus of discussion would be the site evaluation criteria. He introduced consultant Jonah Cohen to provide an overview of the workshop. Introduction and Objectives Mr. Cohen said the objective of the workshop was to begin the process of finding the appropriate site or sites for the new City Hall complex. He referred to the draft list of site criteria provided in the agenda packet and said the design team had identified over 30 possible sites for consideration, although both criteria and site options could be modified during the workshop. He said following the August 24 community forum, the design team would meet with the council on September 20 in a work session format with the hope that one or two site choices could be identified to be carried forward into the conceptual design phase. Mr. Cohen reviewed the agenda for the meeting and said the design team would make recommendations to eliminate some sites because they did not conform to the site evaluation criteria. A discussion of site evaluation criteria issues raised by council members would be followed by an interactive process to discuss sites by applying criteria. He hoped that three to five sites could be identified for further study and asked the council to also identify any additional information required to make a final site selection decision, as well as what specific feedback should be solicited at the community forum. Mr. Kelly said that narrowing the number of sites for consideration was not indicated in the agenda item summary (AIS) as an outcome of the workshop, nor was any motion suggested. He said Ms. Bettman opted not to participate by phone because no sites would be eliminated. Mr. Cohen replied that it was not necessary to eliminate sites but the discussion should commence. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 1 Work Shop Site Analysis Presentation Consultant Doug Macy said that the boundary of the study of potential sites was the Downtown Plan boundary. He said Eugene’s downtown was compact and nicely scaled and orientation of the City with Willamette Street running between Spencer Butte and Skinner Butte was a major organizing element for the community. He introduced consultant Ken Pirie to present findings of the study. Mr. Pirie used a map of the downtown area to illustrate all major open spaces, public roadway rights-of- way, building footprints and parcels. He said that all buildings in downtown were identified and key landmarks named. He referred to the revised site criteria provided in the agenda packet and said they would be used to inform the future site selection decision. He reviewed the following criteria and provided examples of how they might be applied to sites: ? Appropriate site size to accommodate space needs ? Ability to accommodate future expansion space ? High potential to integrate sustainable design ? Proximity to and beneficial relationship with other governmental services ? Compatibility with adjacent land uses ? Easy accessibility via multiple modes of transportation: auto, walking, transit, bicycle ? Easy access to transportation corridors for public safety vehicles ? Costs related to existing improvements and site preparation ? Site availability and willing seller/s ? Contribute to civic pride and vitality downtown ? Support downtown planning efforts ? Consider impact of displacing prime private development opportunities Mr. Macy remarked that a master planning process for the Park Blocks was in progress and recommenda- tions at a public forum last week called for preserving the historic integrity of the east and west blocks and th reestablishing of the traditional Park Blocks and improving 8 Avenue. He said the plan would be published in the near future. Mr. Kelly asked why a two- to three-block strip on each side of the railroad tracks was identified as high impact for noise. Mr. Pirie replied that the width of the area was arbitrarily chosen as likely to be most affected by the noise of passing trains. Mr. Macy added that noise could be mitigated and that factor was only noted as something to contribute to the discussion, not necessarily to use to eliminate a site. Mr. Papé asked if there were any examples of a public/private partnership to create a city hall building where commercial activities co-existed with government functions. Consultant Thomas Hacker replied that there were good examples of city halls that had been developed with areas for rental to private enterprises but he was unaware of any public/private enterprise to actually develop a building. Mr. Pirie reviewed a selection of policies approved as core elements of the Downtown Plan that were most relevant to siting of a new City Hall complex. He said an assessment of current zoning in downtown concluded that it supported a new City Hall complex in most of the Downtown Plan area with the exception of some residential areas south of Broadway and east of downtown. He said other considerations were key elements of overlay zoning and related to urban design. He noted the current City Hall site, as well as several other sites, were outside the boundaries of both urban renewal districts. He reviewed a map of MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 2 Work Shop potential sites owned by the City, other government agencies and by private single or multiple owners. He noted that sites could be added to the map. Status of Other Agency Sites and Existing City Hall Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell provided an update on the status and availability of properties owned by other governmental agencies: ? Existing federal building – General Services Administration (GSA) confirmed the building would be used for federal agencies for the next 10 to 15 years, although a small area would be available to rent, possibly to Municipal Court ? Butterfly parking lot – owned by Lane County and any transfer of ownership to the City would involve extensive negotiations; the County would entertain proposals, but the lot generated revenue and that would be a consideration Mayor Piercy pointed out that recommendations from the Park Blocks master planning effort were to return the lot to use as a park rather than a building site. Mr. Hacker said that those uses were not mutually exclusive and a civic building would a good companion to the Park Blocks. Mr. Penwell continued his review of properties: ? Former Lane County Elections site – possible compensation to County for market value or exchange of property ?th Lane County parking garage on 6 Avenue – heavily used garage with tunnel access to the Court- house and Public Service Building, would require significant compensation ? State Office Building – State is interested in surplusing the building ? EWEB site – recent decision by EWEB to move operations to west Eugene makes most of site available Mr. Penwell said there were three approaches to determining the value of the existing City Hall: 1) value in use – the value of the building as City Hall; 2) principle substitution – purchase by another organization; and 3) value exchange – analyzing the market value for rehabilitation and reuse. He said the third approach was the primary approach used to estimate market value and a quick analysis indicated the existing building might actually decrease the value of the land. He said other factors that affected income potential were the high costs associated with rehabilitating and operating the building, relatively limited leasable space and space that was low- to mid-quality. He said a more formal appraisal that included the full range of approaches to value would be done to confirm that the building value was low with little likelihood the market would rehabilitate it. He commented that the proposal from the Downtown Initiative for the Visual Arts (DIVA) to use the building for a visual arts center might be feasible it the building was donated or sold for $1. Mr. Papé asked if the City would continue to have any liability with respect to building defects if it was donated or sold. Mr. Penwell said that sale would transfer liability to the new owner. He added that there was a small amount of asbestos in the building and drilling beneath the building had not found any contaminants; the environmental risk of the building was low. Mr. Kelly agreed that the current City Hall site could be worth more as bare ground, but the intent of the council was to determine if the building had community value as a long-standing downtown structure. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 3 Work Shop said the issue was not economic but rather community value and there should be some type of outreach to private for-profit and nonprofit organizations, such as a request for interest (RFI), to determine if there would be any interest should the building become available. He would not be willing to support the current City Hall site as the new City Hall site without some feedback from the community. Ms. Taylor declared that the current City Hall building had won prizes when it was built and was considered one of the best buildings in the country. She said the council should be cautious about demolishing the building and later regretting it. Consultant Ellen Teninty said use of the current building and its value to the community would be discussed in more detail later in the meeting. City Manager Taylor agreed that an assessment of community value could be done; however, he felt that it could be difficult for organizations to respond to an RFI without more information about the site and its potential use. Mr. Kelly asked that community feedback be made available by the council’s September 20, 2006, meeting, particularly if the expectation was that a decision would be made about whether the current site would be selected as one of the two sites for further analysis. Mr. Papé wanted clarification about the type of information on the current site’s community value that would satisfy other councilors. He was uncertain that issuing an RFI to for-profit and nonprofit organiza- tions would be effective. Ms. Ortiz echoed Mr. Kelly’s remarks about community value, but said she would also need information about the monetary value. Mr. Penwell said that a more formal analysis would provide that information for the September 20 meeting. Ms. Ortiz also requested seismic information on the current building. Criteria Discussion Mr. Macy demonstrated the consequences of applying evaluation criteria to various sites and the design teams’ recommendations with regard to eliminating some sites from further consideration because of factors such as flood plain, adjacency to or across railroad tracks, remoteness from the downtown core and incompatibility with sustainable design principles. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hacker explained the challenges of designing to LEED standards for a building facing south and north on its long facades and the importance of orientation as a consideration in site choice. Mr. Macy also pointed out sites that could be developed for commercial use to reinforce Broadway as a commercial street. Ms. Teninty asked for further discussion and direction on the following evaluation criteria: ? Consideration of sites prime for private development ? Affirmation of downtown planning policies and application to site selection ? Relevance of consolidation of police patrol function with the City Hall complex to the question of site size MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 4 Work Shop Mayor Piercy said the question of whether locating the City Hall complex in an area the City had been considering for private development and how that might influence surrounding development should be a part of the discussion. Mr. Kelly said he was somewhat concerned about the addition of examples to the list of site criteria and found them confusing. He preferred that the examples were not included in public workshop materials. Regarding easy access to transportation corridors for public safety vehicles as a criterion to be considered, he pointed out that typically patrol cars were only exiting the building at shift change and he was not certain that access should be a strong consideration. Ms. Taylor said she felt strongly that the criterion related to displacing prime private development opportunities should be eliminated. She said her preference was to retain the current City Hall, but if a new th complex was developed, she felt the former Sears building site at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street was ideal because of its proximity to public transportation and accessibility of public services. She did not think train noise was a factor, nor was proximity to arts and cultural activities. She did like the idea of having the Library nearby. She said police patrol was a different function and should be located in a police station, not in City Hall, and that proximity to the County was important because people often needed to be redirected from City Hall to County services and it was convenient for the public if the buildings were close. In response to a question from Ms. Teninty, Ms. Taylor said she did not want to even consider impact on prime development opportunities. In response to questions from Mr. Papé regarding sustainability and building in a flood plain, Consultant Galen Ohmart illustrated the effect of sunrise and sunset in different seasons on the ability to control direct sunlight and increase occupant comfort while reducing the HVAC cooling load. He said that building orientation also affected energy conservation and use of wind for cross ventilation and cooling. Mr. Macy added that building in a flood plain was a poor practice, requiring consideration of the upstream impact of water displaced in a flood event and mitigation. Mr. Cohen pointed out that inclusion of the police function would present further complications. Mr. Papé said he would not eliminate the EWEB site and he had no concern with railroad noise. Ms. Solomon said she felt strongly that the Downtown Plan should be followed; it represented a significant investment by citizens and the City and presented a vision for the downtown. She said selection of a site for a new City Hall complex should remain faithful to that vision, particularly a civic street with civic-oriented activities along it. She urged that the Downtown Plan be supported by the decision-making process. Mr. Pryor said that he approached the issue as a 50- to 100-year decision and criteria should be considered from both long-term and short-term perspectives. He said some features of downtown, such as the street grid, river and Park Blocks would likely be there in 50 years, but other features like the train, commercial activities and buildings could be in a drastically modified form. He urged the council to consider what would be a suitable site for City Hall in 50 years. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Pryor regarding the long-term implications of a decision. The council took a break from 1:20 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Criteria Discussion (continued) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 5 Work Shop Ms. Teninty solicited additional comments on the three criteria she identified earlier. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Taylor’s suggestion to eliminate the criterion to consider the impact of displacing prime private development opportunities. He said while it was a factor to consider, sites should not be ranked on that basis, particularly from a long-range perspective. He was in favor of retaining the criterion to support downtown planning efforts as it did not require strict adherence to each Downtown Plan policy. He said the issue of police consolidation was not on the table as options were still being considered. Ms. Teninty said the intent was to discuss the relevance of police consolidation to site selection so the design team would understand councilors’ points of view, but not to reach a decision on the matter. Mr. Kelly asked if patrol vehicle access other than at shift change was vital to Police Department operations. Rick Siel, Eugene Police Department, replied that access was less of an issue than originally stated; however, crossing railroad tracks was a problem. Ms. Ortiz questioned the need to integrate the police patrol function into a new City Hall complex as it could be done less expensively offsite. She did not think it was necessary to wait for a bond measure to address police needs as the City had other properties available that could be used to provide a much better facility for police personnel. She said that police functions did not necessarily need to be located downtown but acknowledged that the police chief preferred to have some of the administrative functions remain in City Hall. Mayor Piercy suggested a broader criterion that would consider both the development potential of the property as well as the community value aspect. She agreed with Ms. Teninty’s suggested wording: Consider impact of private and community development opportunities. Mr. Kelly supported Mayor Piercy’s suggestion and the revised wording. Ms. Taylor said she could support a criterion that considered whether a City Hall was the best use of a site. Mr. Papé said he also supported Mayor Piercy’s suggestion. He noted that the City currently lacked the capacity to analyze private development and suggested inclusion of private developers on a committee to assist the City with the analysis if that became a consideration. He said that including examples of criteria application with the list of evaluation criteria was confusing. Ms. Teninty said the examples were provided to facilitate the council’s discussion and would not be included in materials for the public workshop. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Solomon’s comments regarding support for the Downtown Plan. He was pleased that revised language was suggested for the criterion related to impact on private development opportunities, as that needed to be considered in the site selection process. He had an opinion regarding consolidation of police patrol but preferred to hear feedback from the public on that issue. Ms. Teninty said that consolidation had been discussed in the first public forum and could be discussed again with respect to site selection. Mr. Poling remarked that consolidation might also depend on the site selected. Mr. Hacker reminded the council that massing diagrams for both full block and half block sites indicated that either could accommodate Option B; however, selecting Option C would require two sites: one for City Hall and one within two blocks distance for police. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 6 Work Shop Mr. Kelly said that Option C did not specify a distance. Interactive Session Applying Criteria to Potential Sites Mr. Hacker said that in relation to all of the criteria discussed previously, the current City Hall site was a good choice and the design team recommended that it should be considered as a primary possibility for the new City Hall. He said the site was positioned on a great civic street, had desirable relationships to other governmental functions, and was close to the Park Blocks and cultural center of town. Regarding proximity to cultural activity, he stated the team believed that city halls benefited from being visible and seen by the public; sites near places used by the public in large numbers were a benefit to the image and presence of government. Mr. Macy said the site from Willamette Street to Oak Street, incorporating the butterfly lot and commercial uses, as a potential City Hall site included the prospect of reclaiming the historic Park Blocks and would contribute to the great civic street as well as promote the concept of a City Hall with a great civic space. He said that locating the City Hall across the street from the Hult Center would also provide high visibility. Mr. Hacker added that the site was also consistent with higher use of the land and sustainability. Mayor Piercy said that the public should discuss whether use of the current City Hall as a visual arts center would be consistent with the civic vision. Mr. Macy said that with respect to the great street concept, there were two problems with the current City Hall over the long-term: in a 50- to 100-year horizon it was a complete underutilization of land and had no ground floor relationships. He said the building was designed in a time when ground floor relationships were not deemed important but over time, planners and architects recognized that a community’s streets were its most valuable open space. Mr. Papé asked if the buildings along Willamette Street on the west side of the site were on the Historic Register. Mr. Hacker replied that the quarter block site did not have any historic structures and was currently underutilized. He said there was some attraction to having a local government presence on the main street with a connection between Spencer Butte and Skinner Butte. Mr. Papé said the current City Hall site could be better utilized either as the site of a new City Hall or sold for a different, more intense use. Mayor Piercy said it appeared that all were in agreement that the current federal building and County’s parking garage were not viable sites and could be removed from the list of potential sites. Mr. Macy encouraged an approach that would mix other uses with civic uses along the great civic street to promote activity throughout the day and evening. Mr. Kelly asked for the consultants’ perspective on the old County elections site. Mayor Piercy commented that the site was bordered by a street that was not pedestrian-friendly. Mr. Macy agreed that the street would only get busier and additionally the site was somewhat isolated from the downtown core, although still within walking distance. He said it had the feeling of being on the perimeter of downtown. Mr. Papé said he favored retaining the former Sears site on the list. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 7 Work Shop Mr. Pryor noted that the County was also searching for a downtown site and asked if there had been efforts to coordinate the City and County searches. City Manager Taylor replied that there were active discussions in progress with the County. Mr. Poling preferred to retain as many potential sites on the list as possible for the public forum. He expressed concern about locating a City Hall complex on the EWEB property because of the flood plain issue. He did not believe that locating a government building close to the railroad tracks would create noise problems. He commented that the location of the two State motor pool lots also presented a barrier to the rest of the downtown area. Mr. Kelly did not want the sites discussed by Mr. Poling to be removed from the list prior to the public workshop and suggested that the problems with those sites could be identified and, if possible, the cost of mitigation estimated. Ms. Ortiz said she was in favor of removing those sites that were near the railroad tracks but they should remain for the public forum. She agreed with removing the remote sites such as those west of Olive Street th and north of 6 Avenue, as well as the PeaceHealth site. Mr. Poling said an important question for the public would be their willingness to have government facilities farther apart, particularly if it was necessary to go from one building to another. Mayor Piercy questioned characterizing some sites as remote as they were all within walking distance of transportation and parking. th Ms. Taylor agreed with eliminating all sites west of Olive Street and south of 11 Avenue. She suggested that the old County elections site would be a good location for a police station. She favored the quarter block that included the butterfly lot as a site for the new City Hall complex. She did not feel that the police chief needed to be with other administrators. Mayor Piercy asked that the public discussion include the topic of type of urbanization that was desired for the downtown area. Mr. Hacker said, in general, urban vitality increased with greater density, greater numbers of people living in the downtown, and a very active street life. Mr. Papé asked the consultants to provide the public with diagrams that illustrated the mass and scale of various building heights on different sites. Mr. Pryor said the current City Hall site was attractive because it was a full block. He also liked the butterfly lot site with its proximity to the Park Blocks and Ms. Taylor’s suggestion of the old County th elections site for a police station. He said the two parking lots across 8 Avenue from the current City Hall should be considered a potential site. He would support removing sites west of Willamette Street because of th their location and orientation and sites south of 10 Avenue because of remoteness. Mr. Hacker asked for councilors’ opinion about sites close to the new federal courthouse. Mr. Papé thought the sites were remote but the public’s opinion should be sought. Ms. Ortiz said the sites did not appear to be welcoming or easily accessible and should not be considered. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 8 Work Shop Mr. Kelly indicated he was lukewarm about the sites but they should be left on the list for discussion at the public forum. He expressed concern about shifting downtown to the east before the current core had an opportunity to be revitalized. Mayor Piercy agreed with Mr. Kelly’s concern about a shift in downtown, as did Ms. Taylor. Mr. Papé said he was not certain that a significant amount of retail could be attracted to the downtown; offices and restaurants could be the more typical use. Following a discussion, Mr. Hacker determined that the issue of train noise would be discussed at the forum only if raised by the public, although access issues could be addressed and crossing sites illustrated on the map. Ms. Teninty clarified that the EWEB site would remain on the list but information about flood plain issues would be presented at the public forum. She asked about the relevance of stimulating arts and culture in the downtown. Mayor Piercy said her concern was not with adjacency of arts and culture but rather with having an arts and cultural component to the new City Hall that would connect it to the community. Desired Public Feedback and Information Required to Evaluate and Select Site Ms. Teninty asked if the criterion related to high potential to integrate sustainable design was clearly presented. She determined there was general agreement that it was. Mr. Kelly remarked that it was important for the consultants to raise issues during the public forum, but not to the extent that it was implied a site was eliminated. Ms. Teninty asked if the criterion related to proximity and beneficial relationships with other government entities required clarification. Mr. Kelly felt it would eliminate confusion by simplifying the criterion to just proximity to other governmen- tal services. Ms. Teninty determined there was agreement with Mr. Kelly’s suggestion. She also determined that the language related to compatibility with adjacent land uses was acceptable. She asked if the issue of a flood plain could be presented under site costs. Mr. Poling asked that the issue of potential safety hazards with a site in the flood plain or adjacent to the railroad tracks be included in the criteria and presentation by consultants. There were no objections to the wording of the criterion related to considering the impact on community and private development. Mr. Kelly suggested that the criterion related to public safety vehicle access to transportation corridors be eliminated or revised to indicate the criterion was dependent on whether the patrol function was consoli- dated. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 9 Work Shop Ms. Teninty asked if there were particular questions that should be posed to the public to elicit information for the council. Mr. Kelly asked that hard copies of the maps be provided at the public forum to aid the discussion. He said the presentation and discussion should include all sites except those that were determined to be impossible and removed from the list. He suggested that the remaining sites be numbered with a key to identify each site to make discussion of sites easier. He said members of the public should be asked if there were certain sites they loved or loathed. Ms. Ortiz said she was interested in whether the public would support a bond issue. Ms. Teninty said that question would be asked in the next phase of the project. She asked if there was other information the council wanted in order to confidently make a decision to narrow the number of sites that would move forward to the conceptual design process. Mr. Papé said that it was important to know the public’s opinion on the current City Hall, its community value and retaining it for community use. Mr. Kelly said there was also an economic component to the discussion of disposition of the old City Hall and he was interested in estimates of the fair market value of the block and building and the cost of seismic upgrades for general use. He also wanted feedback from the for-profit and nonprofit communities indicating interest in the building. Mr. Penwell asked for more clarity on what type of information this would produce that would help the council make a decision. Mr. Kelly said that the quantity and quality of expressions of interest would be useful. Ms. Ortiz said she was thinking about the future reaction of voters and was interested in some background information about the potential sale of the current City Hall, costs associated with repairs and improvements and similar issues so she could have informed conversations with constituents about the estimated cost of various options. Mr. Papé said it was not the City’s mission to preserve period architecture. Ms. Teninty invited the public to participate in the August 24, 2006, public forum. The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 10 Work Shop NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: August 14, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\cc060814m2.doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 8/18/06 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 9/5 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 9/6 ky Returned to Staff ____ __ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall August 14, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé (participating by speakerphone), George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Greg Veralrud, 975 Oak Street, #625, Eugene, spoke to the independence of the auditor’s office and congratulated the council for finding a wise and reasonable approach. Marilyn Mohr, 1085 North Park Street, Eugene, requested that the council direct staff to halt the practice of extended street annexations in River Road. She said it was the City’s stated policy to pursue only voluntary annexations of private property; the new practice was outside of that policy and moved annexation from voluntary to involuntary. She said staff’s explanation of the new policy was neither convincing nor compelling. She asked councilors to carefully review the details outlined in the attachment to the River Road Community Organization’s advisory letter dated August 1, 2006, and, in addition, review the Santa Clara Community Organization’s advisory letter of May 2006. She said the new policy was creating hostility between residents in River Road and City government that many residents would like to move past. She believed that many councilors were committed to repairing that relationship and urged them to direct staff to halt the new practice of annexing street segments that went far beyond the boundaries of properties applying for voluntary annexation. th Gypsy James, 1851 West 10 Avenue, Eugene, said she lived very close to Martin Luther King Jr. Park th on the corner of West 10 Avenue and Grant Street. She said that neighbors were asking that measures be taken to make the park dry. She read into the record a petition from neighbors asking the City’s help in taking back their neighborhood park and submitted the petition and photographs of the park. th Rene Kane, 254 West 14 Avenue, Eugene, co-chair of Jefferson Westside Neighbors, thanked the council for its continued support as neighbors addressed several serious threats to the neighborhood’s stability and character. She thanked Planning and Development Department staff for their assistance in developing a simple yet sufficient approach to reduce the redesignated area’s vulnerability to damaging infill that could MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting occur because of R-2 upzoning. She hoped the council would approve the actions recommended by staff in some form, including initiating plan and code amendments to designate the area as Low-Density Residential and requesting a code interpretation of the Low-Medium Density Residential category to be applied during the interim period until plan and code amendments were in effect. She noted that the City Manager recommended shifting planning resources from other high-priority work to accomplish the code amend- ments quickly. She pointed out that plan revisions were simple in concept, required minimal changes to refinement plan text, and were supported by area residents and the neighborhood association. She saw no reason that processing the amendments should impact other high- priority tasks and also believed the quickest, lowest impact way to implement the requested code interpretation was for the Planning Director to issue it directly. Jason Georgianna, 765 Mimosa Avenue, Eugene, owner of Pacific Coast Cage Fights and a fighter himself, said he was encouraged that most councilors felt the need to learn more about the sport. He felt the sport was very misunderstood and there was a significant core that was not recognizable from the marketing tactics used. He said that although the sport was not regulated by the State, it was not totally out of control; the truth was somewhere in between. He was interested in moving toward regulation of the sport on the amateur level and was eager to work with the council. He listed some examples of precautions that could improve safety, such as ensuring participants were equally matched, having medical staff and supplies on hand during matches, and adhering to standard mixed martial arts rules. He encouraged councilors to visit his website at pccagefights.com or contact him personally for additional information about the sport. He said the perception was that the sport was devoid of any social value, but it was, in fact, the only empirical test for determining the effectiveness of various self-defense techniques. Charles Moss, 4255 Berrywood Drive, Eugene, Santa Clara Community Organization board member, spoke to the issues of the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission and street annexation. He said Lane County had the only boundary commission in the State and legislation had been introduced to abolish it, but local legislators voted against it at the City of Eugene’s request. He questioned why the City would want to retain the boundary commission and said he would be watching the next legislature with interest to see if legislation to abolish it was introduced and whether City officials again tried to subvert the will of the voters of River Road and Santa Clara. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, Eugene, remarked on a letter to the editor from the director of the South Waterfront Project that appeared in The Oregonian. He read excerpts from the letter and said the project was a good example of “connecting the dots” on a wide range of issues. He discussed local projects that would use federal funds and said it was his responsibility to sort out federal pork and asked for someone to acknowledge that there was an issue. Joe Collins, PO Box 24411, Eugene, referred to an article in The Register-Guard related to the Police Auditor’s office and supervision of staff. He asserted that the City was mismanaged and administrators knew and ignored or were unaware of problems within the Police Department. He felt that the Police Department and its leadership were a disgrace and said that officers did not report problems because they feared reprisal. He urged that lie detector tests be administered to police officers every few months. He said that the district attorney was not on the side of justice. He asked the council to show strength of will and character and dismiss administrators he did not think were competent. Sherry Franzen, 910 Almaden Street, Eugene, stated that the will of the voters was to have a completely independent review of the Eugene Police Department. She said an investigation was promised by the police chief into why Roger Magana and Juan Francisco Lara were able to carry out egregious acts against women in the community while on duty, but there had not been a report yet. She witnessed police officers MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting harassing black people on bikes without lights. She felt the clear intent of the voters to have a truly independent review system of the Police Department and meaningful accountability was being trifled with and empty promises and grabs at power by the City Manager did not engender trust. th Michael Carrigan, 1439 West 4 Avenue, Eugene, said that the Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC) supported Measure 20-106, which was overwhelmingly supported by the voters of Eugene. He felt the opinion by the City Attorney that employees in the Police Auditor’s office came under the authority of the City Manager was incorrect and the legislative intent of the ballot measure was that the auditor’s office be fully independent. He said the ballot measure gave the auditor the complete authority to hire, supervise and manage the office and employees under the auspices of the City Council and a legal opinion by Art Johnson differed with the City Attorney and affirmed that conclusion. On behalf of the CALC board of directors, he urged the council to affirm the voters’ decision and give the auditor the authority she would require to manage a truly independent office by approving a resolution to that effect. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, speaking as a community activist involved with several City groups, thanked the City for its recognition of volunteer efforts at the annual picnic on August 13, 2006. He commended the City for empowering its citizens to make a difference and urged more people to volunteer. Speaking as a private citizen, he expressed concern about the location of the Nobel Peace Laureate monument in Alton Baker Park. He did not feel that was an appropriate location and the monument would be better located where it would enhance the area. He thought the monument was a lovely gesture but was not certain it was in the best location because parks and open spaces should reflect the natural beauty and be appreciated for their own uniqueness; monuments should be in surroundings where they would engender solidarity in the community. Majeska Seese-Green, PO Box 1214, Eugene, speaking for the Whiteaker Community Council, said the council had been calling for truly independent police review, which meant that the staff in the auditor’s office needed to be truly independent and accountable to the auditor and City Council through the auditor. She hoped that the council would take action to affirm that independence and not return to the voters for clarification as they had already decided on an independent external auditor. She said the council had the authority to implement the oversight function consistent with the will of the voters, even though the City Attorney may have advised differently. Ruth Duemler, 1745 Fircrest Drive, Eugene, said she thought when she voted for an independent police auditor it really meant a completely independent department – independent of the City. She had great respect for City administrators and felt their positions would only be enhanced by having a completely separate auditor for the Police Department. She did not see the point in another vote on the issue as the people expected to have a separate auditor and office. She read an excerpt from a statement by the attorney for victims in the Magana and Lara incident that described the terrible injuries suffered by those women and stressed the critical importance of the police auditor having complete authority over the her staff. She emphasized the need for both the auditor and staff to be completely independent and not susceptible to even the appearance of bias. John Attig, 2335 Terrace View Drive, Eugene, spoke as a member of the citizen group sponsoring the Nobel Peace Laureate monument. He said the site in Alton Baker Park was selected in consultation with the Parks and Open Space Division and staff also participated in design selection. He said selection criteria required the design to be consistent with the overall atmosphere of Alton Baker Park. He said the design–a peace path–was a great work of landscape architecture and appropriate to its location. He said the monument would be a great asset to the City, the State and the country and the design was intended for peaceful contemplation and would honor in a simple and dignified way people who had saved lives, MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting prevented wars and worked in the cause of peace. He urged the council to join the many people and organizations in the community who had endorsed the project. Doug Newton, 147 Cross Place, Eugene, discussed inappropriate use of taxpayer resources when members of neighborhood councils used those resources to promote their personal political agendas. He said he routinely received materials from the Whiteaker Community Council that advocated for ballot measures and candidates. He said members of those councils did not represent the views of all citizens in the community and it was an unlawful practice and an abuse of public funds. He found the debate over who would supervise the police auditor’s staff to be moot as it should not require more than one full-time public employee to investigate complaints against the Eugene Police Department. He related statistics recently published in The Register-Guard indicating that of the ten complaints filed during the first six months of the year, only one was determined to have merit. He said the first line of defense against police abuse was an objective court system. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. Councilor Kelly thanked those who spoke. He asked for further details about problems in Martin Luther King Jr. Park, potential enforcement strategies from the Police Department, what regulations might apply to the park and whether additional signage would support those regulations or require a change. Councilor Ortiz also thanked those who spoke. She asked for background information on the boundary commission and its functions. With respect to the Santa Clara and River Road annexations, she said it was her understanding that when a property was being improved the road section in front of the property was annexed, not the entire street. She asked for clarification of the current practice that was spoken to by Ms. James. Councilor Bettman thanked those who shared their views and said she had the same questions as Councilor Kelly regarding Martin Luther King Jr. Park. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 19, 2006, Executive Session - June 21, 2006, Work Session - June 26, 2006, City Council Meeting - July 12, 2006, Work Session - July 19, 2006, Work Session - July 24, 2006, Executive Session - July 25, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4887 Amending the Sustainable Buildings Policy Adopted By Resolu- tion No. 4884 D. Adoption of Resolution 4886 Endorsing the Nobel Peace Laureate Monument Project in Alton Baker Park Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman stated that she had submitted a minor minutes correction electronically. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the minutes correc- tion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Approval of Contingency Funds for Eugene Celebration Parking City Manager Taylor recommended that the council make no changes to its current policy or, alternatively, the council could vote funds from General Fund contingency dollars to make parking free in all six parking structures during the Eugene Celebration. Mayor Piercy said she felt strongly that if the City invited citizens to come downtown for a celebration they should not have to worry about being ticketed or finding free parking. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to allocate $7,500 from General Fund contingency to provide for fully free event parking at all City ga- rages for the Eugene Celebration. Councilor Kelly remarked that letters from downtown merchants supported free parking and those were the small businesses that the council wished to support with its downtown policies. He noted that the Celebration was uniquely different from other events like concerts at the Hult Center or the Bach Festival; it was a specific party that celebrated the City and highlighted downtown and its assets for people who seldom came downtown otherwise. He thought it was important to do everything possible to make it welcoming and while he understood how the Parking Fund operated, this was an instance where a small amount of money could advance very positive goals for downtown revitalization and arts and outdoors priorities. Councilor Ortiz said she would support the motion and hoped that the amount was sufficient to cover the entire Celebration. Staff indicated that $7,500 would cover the entire period of the Celebration. Councilor Solomon said she supported the concept but would support the motion only if the $7,500 was taken from the $50,000 already allocated to the Eugene Celebration. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend the motion to allocate $7,500 from the $50,000 already approved for the Eugene Celebration. Councilor Bettman said she originally felt that the Celebration was already being subsidized through Budget Committee action, but after considering it she agreed it was a unique event intended to create a sense of community. She said there was a good cost/benefit value for the amount of money free parking would cost and the good will it would generate. She would not support the amendment and would support the main motion. Councilor Kelly stated he would not support the amendment because it was two different issues: an organization and the public. He said the Budget Committee and the council provided $50,000 to Downtown Events Management, Inc. (DEMI) as part of its budget for the Celebration and DEMI did not ask for free parking. He agreed with Councilor Bettman that it was goodwill purchased cheaply. Mayor Piercy added that many volunteers who assisted with the Celebration last year reported that they were ticketed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon asked the City Manager if the Police Department was also absorbing costs associated with the Celebration. City Manager Taylor replied that he did not believe the Police Department would absorb costs because of the allocation of funds to DEMI and the fact that the planned celebration would pay its own way. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 5:3; councilors Solomon, Poling, and Papé voting in favor. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 6:2; councilors Solomon and Papé voting in opposition. Councilor Ortiz referred to earlier remarks by Councilor Taylor about people receiving tickets when they left their cars on the street overnight after drinking too much. She said it was important to encourage people not to drink and drive and asked staff to consider ways to perhaps engage the business community in a coupon program or other approaches that would not penalize those who made the responsible decision not to drive when drunk. 4. ACTION: Appointment of Police Auditor Mayor Piercy thanked all those involved in the police auditor selection process, those who came to the community forum to share their thoughts, committees that worked on the concept and councilors who participated in reviewing applications, particularly Councilor Bettman for traveling to Cambridge to perform due diligence. She was sorry that Councilor Poling was unable to make the trip. She said all of those efforts created an extraordinary background for making the decision on appointing an auditor and the community should be proud. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint Cristina Beamud to the position of Police Auditor and authorize members of the council’s ad hoc committee to negotiate a salary and benefit package. Councilor Bettman thanked the council for sending her to do due diligence. She regretted that Councilor Poling was unable to participate but with the assistance of Jim Gardner, the contracted investigator, a very extensive background investigation was conducted. She described the broad range of people with whom interviews were conducted and said that responses were extraordinarily positive; the candidate was very uniquely qualified to fill the position of police auditor and work collaboratively with the community. She urged unanimous support of the appointment. Councilor Kelly concurred with Councilor Bettman’s remarks. He said the materials provided from the background investigation demonstrated that Ms. Beamud worked collaboratively and had the respect of everyone in the Cambridge community. He would enthusiastically support the motion. Councilor Ortiz echoed Councilor Bettman’s and Councilor Kelly’s comments. She thanked the commu- nity and the Police Commission for all their work. She would support the motion. She felt that Ms. Beamud was the best fit and would improve the credibility of the City with the community. Councilor Poling expressed his extreme disappointment that he was unable to make the trip. He said he spoke by telephone with Jim Gardner and voiced the issues and concerns that he anticipated raising during MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting the interviews. He felt that those questions were all answered during the investigation. He related that the ad hoc committee began the selection process with 91 applications and while Ms. Beamud scored highest during the rating process, he had voted for another finalist; however, based on the information provided in the background investigation he would wholeheartedly support hiring Ms. Beamud as the police auditor. He encouraged unanimous support for the motion. Councilor Taylor echoed the previous comments. She said there were two good candidates for the position and Ms. Beamud was her first choice. She was pleased with the selection. Mayor Piercy thanked the Police Commission for its work over the past year and a half. Roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman noted the memorandum from Human Resources Manager Helen Towle requesting that the council approve new salary figures for range 37. City Manager Taylor replied that the new figures reflected a cost-of-living increase for exempt employees that had been authorized. He recommended using the revised salary matrix. 5. ACTION: Consideration of Proposed Charter Amendment Mayor Piercy announced that there had been agreement on another course of action and she would not be proposing a charter amendment. 6. ACTION: Resolution Interpreting the Provisions of the Eugene City Charter Councilor Kelly said that a proposed motion and resolution that had been distributed to councilors. He said his motion would reflect that resolution, with the following changes: deletion of Section 3 in its entirety and renumbering of Section 4 as Section 3. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4889 authorizing the independent police auditor to hire, supervise and make other em- ployment decisions regarding the auditor’s support staff. Councilor Kelly explained that the resolution contained findings describing the history of the charter amendment and read the remainder of the resolution: “NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon as follows: Section 1. The Independent Police Auditor shall have exclusive authority to hire, supervise, and to make all other employment decisions regarding the auditor’s support staff. Section 2. No change relating to the authority to hire and supervise the auditor’s staff shall be made without formal action of the City Council amending this Resolution. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting Roll call vote, the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Papé voting in opposition. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting