Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: September 25, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 2A 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 August 14, 2006, Work Session and August 16, 2006, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. August 14, 2006, Work Session B. August 16, 2006, Work Session 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\M060925\S0609252A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: August 14, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060814m1.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 9/15 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 9/15 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 9/15 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall August 14, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé (participating via speakerphone), George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Tay- lor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Mr. Papé would participate via telephone. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Piercy reported that she attended the Multicultural and PRIDE Day celebrations over the weekend, as well as an event honoring the City’s many volunteers. She said that she and Ms. Taylor would be traveling to Eugene’s sister city of Irkutsk, Russia. She received many requests from the community to explore various aspects of life in Irkutsk such as sex education, domestic violence, environmental issues and labor unions. Ms. Taylor said that Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) was still plagued with complaints about odors, particularly vehicle exhaust. She said the State should consider emission control measures. She raised a concern over ticketing cars parked overnight because their owners were too drunk to drive and sought other transportation. She continued to be concerned about fines that multiplied if they were not paid. She said the interest should be capped and forgiven if the fine was paid. Mr. Papé announced he was attending the West Coast Corridor Council of Governments annual meeting being held in Portland and he would report to the council upon his return. Ms. Bettman apologized to constituents who were waiting on responses from her. She had been out of town for ten days and was catching up on e-mails and phone calls. Ms. Ortiz announced that she attended an anniversary celebration for the Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC), Riverfest at the River House, and the Human Rights Commission’s potluck and picnic. She said that a recent performance of Los Lobos at Cuthbert Amphitheater was well-attended. City Manager DennisTaylor reported that the fifth annual volunteer celebration event was attended by hundreds of people. He said that 8,000 people volunteered last year for a total of 97,000 hours. He thanked MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 1 Work Session the many people who served on boards and commission, particularly the Police Commission, which worked extremely hard over the last two years. Mr. Poling apologized for not attending the onsite interviews in Cambridge that were part of the background investigation for the police auditor candidate. He explained that a booking error and flight cancellations prevented him from traveling. He had an opportunity to discuss the interviews with investigator Jim Gardner and was pleased with the results. Ms. Ortiz reminded members of the community that applications were being taken for positions on boards and commissions and encouraged people to apply, particularly residents of the River Road, Santa Clara, Whiteaker and Bethel areas that were underrepresented on those bodies. B. WORK SESSION: Fiscal Year 2007 Police Commission Work Plan City Manager Taylor introduced Police Commission members Tim Laue, Angie Sifuentez, and Maurice Denner to present the commission’s annual report and proposed FY07 Work Plan. Ms. Piercy thanked members of the commission for their work, especially Mr. Laue as outgoing chair and Mr. Denner as chair-elect. Mr. Laue reviewed the commission’s FY 2005-2006 Annual Report. He said the commission was charged with reviewing policies, resources and issues in the community. He listed several policy reviews completed by the commission during the past year, including the SWAT policy, risk assessment, upgrade of equipment for the crisis negotiation team and in-car video policy. He said the commission reviewed the FY07 budget and revisited the Downtown Public Safety Action Plan, forwarding recommendations on the plan to the council. He said the major issue addressed by the commission during the past two years was the concept of community oversight. He said the commission, at the council’s request, developed recommendations regarding recruitment of a police auditor and those recommendations formed the basis of the council’s recruitment and selection process. He received feedback from a number of sources around the country that the recruitment process was very impressive. Mr. Laue said the commission also worked on mediation alternatives in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission and developed a series of recommendations. He said all of the commission’s recommendations, including the draft oversight ordinance, were presented in framework or outline form with options for consideration when finalized by the council and auditor. He thanked the council and City Manager on behalf of the commission for budgetary enhancements to police services. He said the commission also worked with the police chief and department on a strategic plan and held work sessions on domestic violence and use of the Lexipol model for department policies. He indicated that the outstanding issues requiring attention over the next three or four months were: 1) role of the Police Commission under the new oversight model, 2) determination of the day-to-day supervision of the auditor, and 3) ordinance framework for dealing with establishment of the auditor’s office and the civilian review board. He thanked the council and past councils for the honor of serving on the commission. Ms. Sifuentez referred to the draft civilian oversight ordinance framework included in the agenda packet. She said the commission established two committees: one committee developed draft language related to the auditor and the other developed language related to the civilian review board; the work of those committees was then combined in a final draft. She said the purpose was to create a framework that defined the basic MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 2 Work Session functions of the board and auditor that could then be refined by the auditor. She said the city attorney reviewed the draft language to ensure it was consistent with the charter amendment. She noted that some previously unresolved issues were also addressed, such as the membership qualifications and background investigation process for the civilian review board applicants. She said the city attorney cited two areas in the draft framework that would be subject to mandatory bargaining: confidentiality of personnel records and timeline for the completion of investigations. She said those issues would need to be resolved prior to enacting the ordinance. She indicated that the commission would work with the city attorney to review definitions and would work with the auditor if desired to help resolve outstanding issues and discuss other areas not included in the draft language that the auditor believed should be in the ordinance. She pointed out that those activities were in the commission’s proposed FY07 Work Plan. Mr. Denner remarked that much of the commission’s work was about people. He commended the work of outgoing members Tim Laue, Floyd Prozanski, and Tracy Olsen, staff member Jeannine Parisi, and Police Chief Robert Lehner. He pointed out the timeline chart in the work plan that identified on a month-by- month basis the following proposed tasks: ? Implement stages of the oversight model ? Review and comment on development and implementation of the family violence strategy ? Assist with revisions to the police operations manual ? Conduct work sessions to review the report card on the Lane County Criminal Justice System, the staffing consultant’s report on current and future staffing levels and Perspectives in Profiling train- ing Mr. Denner stated that the commission’s ongoing involvement in the oversight process would include building collaborative relationships that extended to the auditor’s office, continuing to refine the draft ordinance framework, working on policies and procedures for the auditor’s office as requested, aligning Internal Affairs policies with the operations of the auditor’s office and examining whether the commission’s role should change. He emphasized the commission’s ongoing concern about family violence and its search for ways to address that critical issue. He noted the FY07 Work Plan was approved at the commission’s last meeting and invited questions and comments from the council. Ms. Solomon was pleased that the commissioners would be working on the issue of family violence and suggested that they solicit input from the Relief Nursery and other organizations in the community that dealt with the victims of family violence. Mr. Kelly commended the commission for the extent and quality of its work. He supported the FY07 Work Plan and appreciated the plan to address family violence. He thought the draft ordinance framework was thorough and agreed with the recommendation to involve the auditor in finalizing the language. Mr. Papé also thanked the commission for its hard work and Mr. Laue for his leadership. He was pleased that the Police Department was proceeding to wards certification and asked if Lexipol established the certification guidelines and standards. Chief Lehner said that Lexipol was a subscription service to a model policy manual that was used as a base product from which each department would then develop its own set of policies and procedures. He said Lexipol expedited the process because the fundamental development work related to legal requirements was already done and the policy implications of state and federal court cases were monitored on an ongoing basis. He estimated that the certification process would take about two years. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Papé asked if the detailed quarterly report provided to the commission would be available in an abbreviated version for the public. Chief Lehner said the department was working with the commission to identify an appropriate executive summary that included pertinent information to provide to those who did not wish to read the entire report. Mr. Papé said the most critical issue for the community was to establish the credibility of the auditor’s office as soon as possible and reestablish confidence in the Police Department. He asked if outcomes for the auditor’s office would be established. Mr. Denner said the commission had discussed that but would wait until the auditor was on board and requested that type of assistance. Ms. Bettman also thanked the commission, Mr. Laue, and other outgoing members. She asked how the standardized Lexipol policies would affect the role of the commission in terms of policy review. Mr. Denner said that policy review was an area in which the commission developed strength and knowledge. He expected that as policies were revised, most of them would pass through the Police Commission. He envisioned in five years the commission’s role would be to provide community input into policies and procedures and the civilian review board would exist as a filter for the work of Internal Affairs and the management team with issues involving personnel. Ms. Bettman asked if the commission discussed criteria for which policies would come before it. Mr. Denner said there had been some discussion and the commission intended to review those policies on which it previously worked , such as use of force and crowd control policies. He said there were questions that arose in law enforcement practice that raised issues of community concern and those, along with procedural issues, would likely go to the commission. Mr. Laue added that policy work would still exist, even with Lexipol, and he expected that the auditor and civilian review board would refer questions that needed to be addressed on a policy level to the commission. Ms. Bettman asked how long it would take to equip the patrol fleet with in-car video. Ms. Parisi replied that it would take about a year to equip the current fleet with digital video. Mr. Denner added it would take three to four years to update the entire fleet to the new vehicle color and style. Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the commission’s efforts and Ms. Parisi’s staff work. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Police Commission FY07 Work Plan as proposed. Mr. Papé asked if the commission had a recommendation for the council regarding management of the auditor’s staff and the City Manager’s administrative order. Mr. Denner replied that in the sense of moving forward, the commission voted to support the administrative order; the vote was not unanimous but it was a very strong majority. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the vote was taken after the committee working on that part of the ordinance had determined that the issue should be flagged for the council to resolve. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Region 2050 MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 4 Work Session City Manager Taylor introduced Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter to present an overview of Region 2050. He noted that Mr. Kelly was the council’s representative on the Region 2050 Policy Board and had participated extensively in the regional planning process. Mr. Yeiter stated that the Region 2050 effort was a collaborative regional planning process that began in 1999. He said the process was originally within the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) framework but the withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove necessitated retooling the process to conform to existing statutes. He said the question before the council was whether to endorse the Region 2050 Strategy when endorsing meant the City agreed to use the goals and objectives and regional growth concept, including the coordinated population allocations, as a tool to guide growth and development. He said endorsement also implied the City would implement those actions that the City Council determined to be appropriate to the needs and desires of the community. Mr. Yeiter noted that endorsing the strategy did not automatically initiate Metro Plan amendments or changes in the code; however, if the strategy was endorsed, amendments would be contemplated as an addition to the planning work program. He said an immediate effect of endorsement was the implication that the City would accept population forecasts that were quite different from historic trends and the State’s forecast. He said Eugene’s population in 2050 was forecast to be about 50,000 fewer people than was projected by the State, and the strategy spread those people to the smaller communities and rural areas. He saw the Region 2050 Strategy as a beginning to be fleshed out over time. He said staff recommended endorsing the strategy, although the council also had the option of endorsing the strategy with changes or conditions or declining to endorse the strategy. Mr. Kelly strongly encouraged the council’s endorsement of the strategy, which was a great example of regional cooperation and recognition that what one community does affected other communities throughout the region. He said the strategy provided high level direction; it was not a land use action. He said the strategy represented more than six years of staff and elected official collaboration and detailed examination of data. He felt it could give a level of clarity to governments, the public, property owners and service providers such as utility companies and school districts. Mr. Kelly emphasized that endorsement was an agreement by the City to use the goals and objectives and Regional Growth Concept, including coordinated population allocations, as a tool to guide growth and development and nothing was binding until it became a Metro Plan amendment or similar action. He also stressed that the City had discretion to implement those actions deemed appropriate to the community. He said that although Springfield and Cottage Grove withdrew in early 2006, they participated throughout the process and their input was strongly represented in the final document, with their population allocations being based on historic trends. Ms. Taylor asked what the City would be prevented from doing if the strategy was not endorsed. Mr. Kelly said that if constituent jurisdictions did not endorse the strategy it would not be endorsed by the Policy Board and would become a research artifact; no action would be taken to move the City toward its goals and objectives. Mr. Yeiter added that the biggest risk if Eugene did not endorse the strategy was to the other communities. He said several of the small communities were relying on the Region 2050 process to give them their first comprehensive plans. He said many of those communities were hoping for higher growth, in part to secure funding for sewer treatment plants and other facilities. He said if all jurisdictions did not agree on the coordinated population forecast in the strategy, then it could not be used by individual communities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she did not see how the population allocations made a difference, but did see how planning in connection with other communities was a good idea for issues like siting of a hospital or new industry. She did not see the point of the strategy without Springfield’s participation and asked what restrictions or mandatory actions would be imposed if the council did endorse the strategy. Mr. Yeiter replied that if the population forecast was to be used for any of the City’s planning efforts it must be adopted and incorporated in the Metro Plan. He said the action with least impact would be to monitor the population over time and, in a few years, review trends with the other jurisdictions to determine if actions were necessary to direct growth. Ms. Taylor asked how growth would be directed. Mr. Yeiter replied that actions could include more effectively encouraging growth in other communities or not providing services for growth in Eugene. Ms. Solomon said her concerns were similar to Ms. Taylor’s. She wanted the 50,000 people in Eugene so that property values would increase and the City could benefit from increased property tax collection. She was not particularly interested in helping outlying communities grow and found it inconsistent with the City’s efforts to be responsible and increase density. She interpreted the section on exceptions in the memorandum from the City Attorney to mean that the council would be adopting a plan that would require a lengthy bureaucratic exceptions process just to restore the control the City currently had over its planning process. Mr. Yeiter replied that if regulations were required to direct growth, they would have to be adopted in accordance with existing rules and the exceptions process was one of the rules that allowed some flexibility. He said the strategy did not provide any additional flexibility from the State rules or take any flexibility away. Mr. Poling asked if the City would revert back to using historic population growth trends if the coordinated population forecast was not used. Mr. Yeiter said that it would. Mr. Poling asked how the figures for Springfield and Cottage Grove in the coordinated population forecast were developed. Mr. Yeiter said that those two jurisdictions reverted back to historic trends. Mr. Poling said he had difficulty regarding the strategy as a regional growth management tool when two of the three largest jurisdictions were not involved. He said the strategy appeared to be adding another layer of bureaucracy to the Statewide Planning Goals. Ms. Bettman said she regarded a recommendation from Mr. Kelly on land use issues very seriously because of his expertise, but she disagreed philosophically with his recommendation on the strategy. She asked which decision-making body determined what assumptions were fed into the model that produced the population strategies. Mr. Yeiter said the numbers incorporated in the strategy evolved through a lengthy process and many adjustments. He said the County delegated authority to the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Board for the coordinated population forecasts now required by the State. He said that the Office of Economic Analysis data was used as the basis and each jurisdiction had its own review process; ultimately the LCOG Board adopted the final product. Ms. Bettman said that withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove meant that Region 2050 was no longer a regional planning process. She was concerned that the strategy was a way to move forward with land use decisions that were not consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and she supported those goals. She asked if there would be instances where an outcome of the strategy process might be inconsistent with the City’s growth management policies and, if there was an inconsistency, whether the strategy would supersede local policies. Mr. Yeiter said possible discrepancies would depend primarily on how the City’s growth MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 6 Work Session management policies were interpreted, but generally the strategy did not conflict with the idea of mixed-use centers, transit systems and higher density inside the urban growth boundary. Mr. Kelly emphasized that the strategy did not supersede anything; the only time something might be superseded was if the council adopted a Metro Plan amendment that was in conflict with one of the growth management goals. Mr. Papé noted that under the proposed coordinated population allocation, Eugene’s annual average growth rate would drop to 0.6 percent, which was lower than it had been in historic trends, and the population growth above that would be distributed among outlying communities. He asked why the rate was so low for Eugene and whether there were benchmarks that could be used to determine if the City was on target at 2010. Mr. Yeiter said one of the expectations was that if communities endorsed the strategy, they would have to monitor progress over time and decisions made about whether to direct growth more assertively if it was not distributing in accordance with the allocations. Mr. Papé asked if the population projections could be changed and whether changes would affect other elements of the strategy that were guided by population figures. Mr. Yeiter replied that the projections could be changed fairly quickly and the impact on other elements would depend on the number and extent of changes. He said the population projections would also be used by utility providers and transportation planners and if they were changed often, it would throw other planning efforts into disarray. Mr. Papé asked who made the decision to set Eugene’s annual average growth rate at 0.6 percent. Mr. Kelly said that early in the Region 2050 process, a collection of goals and objectives was adopted unanimously by all of the elected officials from all of the communities and those were used to look at local policies, community desires, geographic restrictions and other factors to develop a reasonable model for growth. Mr. Yeiter added that recent historic trends showed outlying communities were growing more rapidly and was a factor in the overall forecast. Ms. Bettman remarked that population projects and allocations were important because they would ultimately determine resource allocations. She said although there was no change in total regional population, the distribution had changed and, with that, resource distribution would change. She observed that the expansion of Coburg had wastewater, transportation and water implications and all of those required additional resources. She believed the denser, larger metropolitan areas should be the logical providers of those urban services. She was uncertain how all of those things might be affected by Measure 37. She expressed dissatisfaction with regional boards and commissions that were once removed from local decision-making bodies, citing the LCOG board as an example. Mr. Pryor commented that he wanted to be a good regional partner and thought that LCOG was a good organization. He said the LCOG board was composed of elected officials who represented their communi- ties. He thought the withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove was unfortunate and perhaps based on concerns about being constrained, which was a concern he shared. He said the projections would provide guidance but also be the basis for policies and implementation of strategies. He was concerned that if not all partners were involved, the strategies might not be effectively implemented and the policies might not be adequate. He was uncertain if he would support endorsement of the strategy. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the issues that were raised by councilors and said that the Policy Board spent hundreds of hours discussing those same issues. He said when Springfield and Cottage Grove withdrew, elected officials and staff from jurisdictions had a lengthy discussion of whether there was any point in going MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 7 Work Session forward. He said the unanimous decision to move forward was based on many reasons, including the fact that Springfield and Cottage Grove were involved in drafting most of the strategy, their staff was still involved and their elected bodies would have to adopt the coordinated population allocation, which left those communities’ figures at historic trends. He said the City already used population numbers and those drove many policies, models and analyses; the new numbers would drive those same processes but for Eugene, the numbers would be much more in keeping with its growth management policies. He pointed out that even for the modest growth proposed for Eugene the City’s average residential density would have to be increased by 25 percent. Continuing, Mr. Kelly indicated that if the council did not endorse the strategy and took no further action, the City would continue to operate under historic trends and the current Metro Plan, which he believed would make it more difficult to achieve growth management policies. He pointed out innovations in the strategy that added tools such as tying urban growth boundary expansions to achievement of particular residential densities. He asserted that the strategy did not add a layer of bureaucracy as there was no ongoing Policy Board and the strategy would be implemented by jurisdictions in exactly the same way they now operated, but with a regional framework. He agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments about shifting resources but pointed out that when a new person moved into the area, regardless of the community, there was a cost to the region in terms of utilities and transportation. The best way to provide services and pay for them could be discussed as a region. Ms. Piercy spoke in support of endorsing the strategy and commended the efforts of regional partners over a lengthy period of time. Mr. Papé asked if Springfield and Cottage Grove could adopt population forecasts developed using their own approved methodologies instead of adopting the coordinated population forecast. Mr. Kelly explained that the total regional population projection was no different than historic trends; only the distribution among communities was different. He said Springfield numbers were based on historic trends that still added up to the total for the region. He noted that population projections at the State level were required to be adopted by counties; the coordinated population allocation that Lane County would adopt included Springfield and Cottage Grove numbers based on historic trends and numbers based on Region 2050 modeling for other communities. Mr. Pryor asked if Eugene would fall into the same category as Springfield and Cottage Grove if it declined to endorse the strategy. Mr. Kelly replied that the Policy Board would not adopt the strategy and all communities would be in the same situation. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to endorse the Southern Willamette Valley Regional Growth Management Strategy, dated August 31, 2006. By this endorsement, the City of Eugene agrees to use the goals and objectives and Re- gional Growth Concept embodied in the strategy document, including the coordi- nated population allocations, as a tool to guide growth and development. Ms. Solomon felt that planning should adhere to historic trends and not try to create a new trend to be followed. She said the strategy would be completely unproductive for the community and therefore she could not support it. Ms. Bettman cited regionalizing decision-making as the primary reason she could not support the strategy. She pointed out that many rapidly growing small communities did not have system development charges and MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 8 Work Session the capacity to serve that growth. She said that once utilities and services were regionalized that capacity would be subsidized by the higher concentration of population in Eugene, similar to the effort to add Coburg to the regional wastewater system. She said Eugene would pay for adding capacity to outlying communities either by increased rates or diminished local service. The motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Ortiz voting in favor. B. D. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Prohibiting Extreme Fighting; Adding Section 4.740 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Section 4.990 of that Code City Manager Taylor stated that the work session had been requested by Mr. Kelly and introduced City Attorney Jerry Lidz to discuss the proposed ordinance to regulate extreme fighting, also known as cage fighting. Mr. Lidz said the question before the council was whether the ordinance should proceed to public hearing. He said the structure of the ordinance was that it regulated only amateur participants because State law had exclusive control over professional boxing and wrestling, which included extreme fighting. He asked the council to review the definition of extreme fighting in the proposed ordinance and determine if the attributes represented those activities the council wished to regulate. Ms. Ortiz commented that some communities regarded extreme fighting as a form of entertainment. She was not opposed to a public hearing on the ordinance but would not support a ban. She would consider some regulation. She said the fights happened whether or not the City regulated them and she would prefer to provide a venue for people to take out those aggressions. She said her rationale for regulating was concern for people who were injured and permanently disabled. She thought the organizations sponsoring extreme fighting should be required to have insurance. Mr. Pryor said he was cautious about the City regulating what people chose to do with their lives, but recognized that cities did regulate everything from motorcycle helmets to seat belts. He thought that cage fighting was barbaric and endorsing or supporting that type of behavior was repugnant, but he questioned to what extent his personal opinion should be imposed on others. He supported taking the ordinance to a public hearing to learn more about the subject. Mr. Kelly commented that he raised the issue because extreme fighting was utterly unregulated and untrained amateurs were seriously injured and in some cases permanently disabled. He said there were both male and female matches and, while walking through the Lane County Events Center he had observed an event and found it to be the most brutal and dehumanizing experience he had ever witnessed. He said extreme fighting encouraged a lust for blood and questioned whether that was what young people in the community should be exposed to. He said that society had taken steps to regulate things like cock fighting and public executions, choosing not to appeal to the basest instincts in all of us. He supported moving the ordinance to a public hearing and hoped the council would consider banning instead of regulating extreme fighting. He expressed interest in having the city attorney research whether and how other communities regulated the activity and suggested that the ordinance language state “. . . for which no rules have been established by a governmental body.” Mr. Poling favored moving the ordinance to a public hearing in order to hear both sides of the issue. He said there were two discussions: one a legal discussion of the ordinance and the other a philosophical one. He heard comments that extreme fighting was desensitizing youth to violence and brutality. In terms of MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 9 Work Session regulating people watching the fighting, he pointed out that it could be viewed on television. He said if the City passed an ordinance that allowed extreme fighting, it should be very careful in developing regulations, which should primarily be to safeguard against serious physical injuries. Ms. Taylor supported a public hearing and favored banning the sport, not regulating it. She wanted to learn more about the issue. Ms. Bettman stated she was in favor of a public hearing on the ordinance. She did not understand how a person who assaulted someone on the street and caused serious injury or death could be charged with a crime while a participant in cage fighting who caused an opponent to suffer serious injury or death would not be charged. She asked if the fact that fight participants were both there by consent was what made the difference. Mr. Lidz said he believed it was the consent factor but would research the question. He noted that even signing a waiver would not protect against prosecution as that was at the discretion of the district attorney, but participants might sign a waiver of rights to sue the other party for personal injury. Ms. Bettman asked if the City would have any liability if it chose to regulate instead of banning fighting and something occurred that fell outside of the regulations. Mr. Lidz said the City could not be sued for not regulating enough; the only risk would be if the City adopted regulations that it did not enforce. Ms. Bettman emphasized the need to understand the resource implications of enforcement if the council chose to regulate instead of ban because of the liability associated with failure to enforce. Mr. Lidz said there were many factors that would influence whether the City could be sued for failure to enforce regulations and pointed out that the Police Department had substantial discretion about when to enforce a law. Ms. Solomon asserted that it was not possible to regulate stupidity. She said that if the City banned extreme fighting it would only move to another community. She said if the council was concerned about youth and people’s safety it should address it by discouraging people from watching and participating in fighting. She liked Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion to require sponsors to carry insurance. She noted there were other forms of violence to which children were exposed, such as violent video games, and it was not possible to regulate all types of violence. Mr. Papé indicated he was in favor of a public hearing but not certain he would support the ordinance in its current form. He was concerned that charging violators of a ban with a Class A misdemeanor was severe for a first offense and asked whether the same penalty would be imposed on people involved in a street or bar fight. Mr. Lidz said he did not think that a street fight would be subject to the ordinance and youth under 18 did not get convicted of misdemeanors. He said there was always prosecutorial discretion on charges. City Manager Taylor clarified that the proposed ordinance would ban extreme fighting and regulating it as discussed by some councilors would be a much more difficult endeavor that raised complex issues. He said that research would be done on those things before the public hearing. Mr. Poling said he was interested in hearing from proponents of cage fighting what they were prepared to offer as suggestions for making the sport safer. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to schedule a public hearing on the draft ordinance. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 10 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 11 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: August 16, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060816m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 8/24/06 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 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 August 16, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Abatement of Noise Pollution City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Land Use Supervisor Mike McKerrow to discuss noise pollution. He said the issue was raised by Ms. Taylor. Mr. McKerrow stated that noise standards were mainly found in Chapter 4 of the Eugene Code (EC) and were enforced by the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He said current requirements prohibit noise from amplified music, construction, lawn mowers and other sources during certain hours and the standards include an exemption provision and variance process, which is used primarily for large construction projects. He said that regulation of noise varied widely in other communities and standards could ban products or activities altogether, limit hours of operation or duration or establish maximum decibel limits or use a combination of those strategies. He related that research found few outright bans of mulch blowers and leaf blowers. He noted that restricting the use of mulch and leaf blowers would have an impact on City operations in parks, the downtown mall and elsewhere in the community. He said that Public Works and Facilities Management had upgraded equipment and reduced noise levels from leaf blowers in recent years and preliminary information on that was available to the council. He identified the special challenges associated with enforcing noise standards, including the usual limited duration of the noise, availability of staff and the inconsistent volume of the noise source. Ms. Taylor agreed with the difficulty of enforcement when the source of the noise might be gone before staff arrived, but she felt there was good cause for banning things such as leaf and mulch blowers that did bother people. She said the ban on noise between certain hours did not recognize that people’s lives could be disrupted by noise at times other than those for sleeping. She said that ever since a constituent initially raised the issue she had heard similar concerns from many people. She questioned the usefulness of leaf blowers and cited the problems created when leaves ended up in storm drains or neighboring property. She did not feel it was necessary to inflict noise on people simply for the comfort or convenience of another person. She said just because a law was difficult to enforce was not a reason to abandon it. Ms. Ortiz said the issue for her represented a bigger picture because there were many things in the community that made noise. She lived in an industrial area where residents would regard a leaf blower as a minor noise source. She commented that many noise sources could not be stopped and she would not support a ban on mulch and leaf blowers, but would support limiting the time of use. She said that leaf and mulch blowers were part of today’s culture because people had less time; they were modern conveniences that also represented businesses and jobs. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Ortiz that there were many sources of noise pollution and they were not all created by leaf and mulch blowers. She would not support a ban but would consider expansion of EC 4.083(h), which listed pile drivers, hammers and lawn mowers, to include leaf blowers and mulch blowers in order to limit operations to a reasonable timeframe. She did not want to drastically impact landscaping businesses, gardeners and people’s ability to care for their property. Mr. Kelly observed that city dwellers should expect some noise although that did not mean residents should have to tolerate unlimited noise. He said there was a balance point in government regulation and he hoped that most noise problems were resolved through neighbor-to-neighbor conversation and courtesy. He acknowledged that was not always the case. He received complaints from constituents about loud music from parties or car stereos and, in particular, leaf blowers. He asked how other communities enforced decibel-based codes. City Manager Taylor replied that the code was primarily decibel-based in the three communities he lived in prior to Eugene and it required that enforcement officers responding to a complaint use a device to measure the decibel level. He said it was easier to enforce time limits. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman’s suggestion for expanding the number and type of devices restricted to specific times. He said an issue with respect to leaf and mulch blowers was frequency; leaf blowers might be used once a week and mulch blowers once or twice a season. He was not interested in imposing restrictions on mulch blowers beyond prohibiting use between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. He was interested in considering leaf blowers in greater detail both in terms of noise and the pollution from the fuel consumed by inefficient engines. He asked for more details about the Davis, California ordinance. Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly. He noted that noise concerns were greater in the summer when people had their windows open and lawn equipment was used and as the City densified, those problems would be exacerbated. He would support adding leaf blowers to the code as well as Mr. Kelly’s suggestion to expand the current list, but would not support a ban. Mr. Poling stated he would not support banning mulch and leaf blowers. He said there were standards in place that seemed to be working. He questioned the need for more regulations when the City had difficulty enforcing those it now had. He was in favor of perhaps expanding the current ordinance to include devices such as leaf blowers and power washers in restricted times. He would not support a ban because some people were unable to perform manual labor on their own property and the cost to hire someone would be prohibitive. He said mulch blowers actually did the community a service by distributing mulch efficiently and reducing waste and runoff. Ms. Piercy said she was in favor of expanding the list instead of banning. She encouraged businesses that used those devices to find ways to lower the noise level. Mr. Pryor declared that he owned an electric leaf blower and a power washer. He acknowledged the devices made noise and operators wore hearing protection, although noise dissipated quickly over distance. He agreed that the level of noise that was acceptable was an extremely subjective issue; however, a limitation on hours of operation was not subjective. He agreed with previous speakers that there should not be a ban but would favor a public hearing to determine what could be done to mitigate or control noise pollution. Ms. Taylor said a ban on operation of leaf and mulch blowers from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. was ridiculous as people were not mowing their lawns or using leaf blowers at 11 o’clock at night. She said there was more to quality of life than sleeping. She said she was less bothered by noise when sleeping than when she was having a cookout on the deck. She agreed that noise in an urban environment was unavoidable but reiterated that leaf blowers did not seem to serve an obvious purpose as the leaves just went elsewhere. Mr. Kelly affirmed his interest in considering language regarding leaf blowers and similar devices that was comparable to the Davis, California ordinance, which combined several strategies. He understood the desire MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 2 Work Session for a certain amount of convenience but had a problem with both the noise and pollution of leaf blowers relative to other devices. He suggested staff develop proposed language that would address times of day, broadening the list of devices and perhaps incorporating the Davis language related to leaf blowers and similar power tools. Mr. Poling asked if the larger landscaping businesses could be surveyed to determine the current decibel ratings of their equipment. City Manager Taylor said the City’s devices could be evaluated. Mr. McKer- row commented that the leaf blowers used downtown to maintain the mall were the quietest models available when purchased and operated at a maximum of 65 decibels, while older models operated at 80 decibels. Mr. Papé said he would agree to looking at a range of devices and decibel levels, but not to singling out leaf blowers. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor about City operations, Mr. McKerrow said that he understood most of the leaves were blown into piles and collected by vacuum, although he doubted that homeowners vacuumed leaves. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back language that expanded the noise ordinance to include leaf blowers as well as some of the elements of the Davis, California ordinance. Ms. Bettman asked if mulch blowers would be included. Ms. Solomon said the discussion seemed to indicate that mulch blowers provided a service and would not be included. Mr. Kelly agreed there had not been as much discussion about restricting mulch blowers. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to add the following sentence: “Staff will review the current noise ordinance to see if significant noise sources are missing. Ms. Solomon accepted the amendment. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to include mulch blowers. Ms. Bettman provided a second for purposes of discussion. Ms. Bettman said her intent was to add mulch blowers only to EC 4.083 that prohibited operation from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as that would not have a significant impact on responsible businesses that provided that service. Ms. Taylor said that was not the intent of her motion. Ms. Bettman withdrew her second and the motion to amend died for lack of a sec- ond. Ms. Solomon confirmed that any proposed language would be subject to a public hearing before action. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: Jefferson/Westside Options for Immediate Protection City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Susan Muir to present the options for addressing concerns raised by the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Muir explained that the purpose of the work session was to consider short-term options to pause or mitigate the R-2 zoning in a portion of what was known as Area 15 of the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan as illustrated in Attachment A of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She related the history of the issue and described staff’s research and work with residents of the neighborhood. She said many options were brainstormed with the neighborhood to address inappropriate infill and those were set forth in the AIS. She said that additional discussions narrowed the options down to two for further consideration and those would provide a process that would ratify an opinion about the meaning of Low-Medium Residential density. She noted an email from the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood co-chairs with suggestions for action and indicated that those were discussed in the AIS along with a recommendation from the city manager and staff that the actions were not necessary. She discussed the impact on Planning and Development Department resources, the Planning Commission’s and department’s work programs and high priority tasks, as well as the difficulty of responding quickly if the council initiated plan amendments. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for working with the neighborhood. She remarked that one of the council’s high priority goals was protecting neighborhood livability and a component of that was preventing the negative effect of inappropriate infill. She said that Area 15 was a very small area of established, historic single- family housing in a larger neighborhood adjacent to downtown that had a significant amount of density, including several high-rise buildings. She said action was necessary to protect the Area 15 enclave if the council wanted to promote a diversity of housing in the neighborhood. She said if low density zoning was at risk in that area it would remove any incentive for opportunity siting in the neighborhood. Mr. Pryor appreciated Ms. Muir’s candidness regarding the department’s workload as it was essential to know the impact of the proposal on department resources. He said he was comfortable devoting resources to the task and acting swiftly on the matter to resolve the situation as expeditiously as possible. He was impressed by the character of the neighborhood and did not want to see it move in a direction undesirable to the neighborhood and the council. He recognized that reducing densities also reduced residential develop- ment opportunities, but in this case he was willing to accept the trade-off. He fully supported a move to initiate the recommendations related to interpretation and reaching agreement and was in favor of making whatever resources were necessary available to accomplish that quickly. Mr. Papé said he would support protection of the area but was concerned about the precedent being set. He said that similar situations existed in neighborhoods throughout the community. He was concerned that there were inadequate resources to address all of those situations and questioned how neighborhoods would be prioritized for attention. He was also concerned about the impact on density requirements several years in the future. He was willing to move the issue ahead with reservations and hoped that a community-wide solution to preserve certain areas while encouraging opportunity siting could be developed. Ms. Ortiz said she understood the desire to protect neighborhood character, but the issue was a challenge for her because of its effect on the ability of lower income people to find affordable housing. She asked how the goal to protect the urban growth boundary and agricultural land could be achieved if density did not increase. She emphasized the importance of encouraging economic diversity of residents in neighborhoods and said the less development was allowed to happen in better neighborhoods, the harder it would be for people with diverse backgrounds and lower incomes to integrate into the community. Mr. Kelly commented that density was either done well or done poorly and many communities had established processes for accommodating density without destroying the neighborhood. He agreed with Ms. Ortiz regarding the need for affordable housing and neighborhood diversity. He agreed with Mr. Papé’s concern about establishing a precedent and the cumulative effect of restricting density an acre at a time; however, he perceived a specific technical problem in the subject neighborhood and would be willing to consider a code change or refinement plan change that would define an overlay to enable low to medium density in combination with site review, consistent with the refinement plan. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Piercy expressed her appreciation for the discussion about how to live more densely while preserving the character of neighborhoods. She thought another council goal should be to ensure the economic diversity of residents within neighborhoods. She was interested in a tool to accomplish density while preserving neighborhood character that could be applied broadly instead of taking a piecemeal approach. Mr. Pryor said the challenge was to find a unified approach that addressed the problem of density and neighborhood character across the community. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the neighborhood in question was the densest neighborhood in the entire city and included a variety of housing types. She said it was important to the health of the entire neighborhood that Area 15 remain a stable section of single-family homes. She hoped that the solution could be simple and not require an extraordinary amount of resources. Ms. Taylor said the neighborhood was not wealthy or sparsely populated and urgent attention was needed to protect it. Regarding mixed housing, she referred to her previous discussions of inclusionary zoning, which she thought should happen but was currently prohibited by the State. She hoped that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations could take the matter up during the next legislative session. Mr. Papé agreed that while the neighborhood was more densely developed than the south hills or other areas in the community, it still did not match the planned for density. He was not certain that the neighborhood would be opposed to appropriate densifying of the area. He asked which of the two options under consideration was the most legally defensible. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that while the options were procedurally different, each of them was legally defensible. Mr. Papé asked if the two options were short of a Metro Plan amendment. Ms. Jerome replied that the proposed process was two-step. She said the neighborhood and staff agreed to present to the council the possibility of a Metro Plan amendment process to identify the neighborhood as low density which could take some time, and an interpretation process to address the neighborhood’s concerns in the interim. The neighborhood hoped the interpretation would be consistent with the way they viewed the intent of the neighborhood refinement plan and provide a basis for arguing against an upzone in the area until the Metro Plan amendment took effect. She noted that, this two-step strategy was viewed by the neighborhood as an interim measure and infill standards were regarded as the best way to address concerns about density. She clarified that the neighborhood’s intent is to support a return to a medium density Metro Plan designation once the Council has adopted infill standards. Ms. Muir added that staff was committed to making an administrative interpretation decision initially and, if appealed, the interpretation would move through the appeal process. Mr. Papé asked if the decision would apply to other neighborhoods. Ms. Muir said the decision would only apply to the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan but clarified that anyone could request an interpretation by the Planning Director by filing a form and paying a fee. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to Low Density Residential development. In addition, to direct the City Manager to make this task priority #1 on the Planning Commission work plan and pull resources from the other high priority work program items to accomplish this as quickly as possible within the parameters of the amendment process. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the motion by deleting the sec- ond sentence of the motion entirely and rewording the end of the first sentence as follows: “Move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to Low Density Residential development low to medium density residential as described in the re- finement plan. In addition, to direct the City Manager to make this task priority #1 on the Planning Commission work plan and pull resources from the other high pri- ority work program items to accomplish this as quickly as possible within the pa- rameters of the amendment process. Mr. Kelly explained that he was not interested in allowing upzonings to 28 units per acre in the area but was interested in allowing selective increased density under site review and as described in the refinement plan to a middle ground above 10 units per acre. He deleted the second sentence because the work plan has been developed in great detail and opportunity siting was identified as a high priority. He said there were numerous tasks in the work plan on which the council would expect to see progress. Referring to statements that the neighborhood was very dense, he noted that the refinement plan stated that in Area 15 the average lot size was 8,200 square feet, which was a density of five units per acre. Ms. Bettman reminded the council that the refinement plan was developed in 1983. She said she would not support the amendment because it increased density without the infill standards and cited a section of the refinement plan relating to encouraging and increasing residential density while maintaining the character of the neighborhood. She said a commitment by the City to rehabilitate existing housing stock through public and private investment had not occurred. She said the motion would accomplish half of the opportunity siting strategy to increase density as high as possible in certain appropriate sites and at the same time downzoning and preserving existing residential neighborhoods. Mr. Kelly revised the language of his motion to amend as follows: Move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to Low Density Residential development low to medium density residential as described in the refinement plan to be con- sistent with the policies of the refinement plan for Area 15. Mr. Papé, as the sec- ond, accepted the revised language. Ms. Jerome clarified that the motion would require a text amendment to the Metro Plan, not just a diagram amendment, and did not address the neighborhood’s concern about interpretation of the meaning of low to medium density as the refinement plan policy itself was the issue. Mr. Kelly further clarified his amendment as follows: Move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to Low Density Residential development low to medium density residential as described in the refinement plan to be consistent with the policies of the refinement plan for Area 15 and with maximum densities higher than R-1 but lower than R-2. Mr. Papé, as the second, accepted the revised lan- guage. Mr. Papé reiterated his concern about other neighborhoods having the same problems and the need for a consistent approach. Ms. Bettman pointed out that there were a number of high density developments adjacent to Area 15, which made the area the highest density with the highest threat of any neighborhood in the community. She noted that the petition requesting a remedy was signed by 286 residents, including many who lived outside of to Area 15. She thought that Mr. Kelly’s amendment would perpetuate the issue of disparity between the original meaning of low to medium residential and the current understanding that it meant upzoning to R-2 was acceptable. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Muir said the motion before the council considered some of the options in the May 24, 2006, memoran- dum from staff, including work on site review and design standards. She said that changing the language from “low to medium” to “low” was identified in discussions with the neighborhood as part of a future action that might implement opportunity siting. She said that was not emphasized in the staff report because there was never a guarantee unless there was a sunset date. She did not want to rely on that until there was something concrete to consider. She thought the work associated with the proposed motion would require a little more time and effort to present a product to the council. City Manager Taylor clarified that the proposed motion would require more staff time than the motion suggested in the AIS. Mr. Pryor observed that just designating an area low density would not address the issue of neighborhood character or inappropriate infill. He understood that there was no expectation an area would remain low density; that was an interim measure while other strategies were developed. He preferred to make it a priority task. Regarding the hope that low density was an interim solution while other strategies were developed, Mr. Kelly noted that there was great enthusiasm in 1993 for nodal development, also known as mixed-use centers, and 13 years later, that effort was barely started. He said his amendment would not allow four to eight more units per lot as that was based on blanket R-2 and his amendment specified density lower than the maximum R-2. Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the amendment as the matter of protection required some urgency. She said that increasing rentals in a neighborhood created a transitory effect and reduced the number of residents with a long-term interest in the stability of the neighborhood. Mr. Papé asked if the motion would require moving to a density of four to eight units per acre. Ms. Jerome replied that Mr. Kelly’s motion limited density to something below the maximum allowed in R-2 but an interpretation would still be necessary to determine what that number would be. Mr. Kelly said the number would be defined by staff during the process. Mr. Papé asked if the council’s action could be sunsetted in two or three years to ensure that long-term strategies were developed. Ms. Muir said a sunset provision would not be part of the council’s current action but, if an amendment was initiated, staff would work with the city attorney to draft that type of language. Ms. Jerome encouraged a sunset provision to establish a specific sunset date instead of indicating it would happen when the City adopted infill standards. The vote on the motion to amend the main motion was tied, 4:4; Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Poling voting in opposition, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Papé voting in favor. Ms. Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion to amend and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Papé suggested including a sunset provision. City Manager Taylor said that staff would include a recommended timeframe for a sunset provision in its report to the council. Ms. Muir clarified that her reference to a sunset clause related only to redesignation from low-medium to low density as an interim step before opportunity siting was implemented. Ms. Piercy stated that she voted in favor of the amendment in part because there were many priorities and she was not comfortable with it being number one, although it was important. The vote on the main motion as amended was tied, 4:4, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Poling voting in opposition, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solo- mon and Mr. Papé voting in favor. Ms. Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion as amended and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to request that the City Manager di- rect staff to begin the process of issuing an official interpretation pursuant to EC 9.0040(1) or (3) to interpret the Area 15 policy of the Jefferson-Far West Refine- ment Plan, which is incorporated into the Land Use Code at EC 9.9580(17). The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—City Council August 16, 2006 Page 8 Work Session