Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: October 9, 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 24, 2006, City Council Meeting, September 11, 2006, Work Session, September 11, 2006, City Council Meeting, and September 20, 2006, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. July 24, 2006, City Council Meeting B. September 11, 2006, Work Session C. September 11, 2006, City Council Meeting D. September 20, 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\M061009\S0610093A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall July 24, 2006 7:30 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 and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Jim Hale, 1715 Linnea Avenue, Eugene, stated that he supported fixing streets and funding of that by a user fee. He said that $6.26 million could be generated by simply raising the gas tax by nine cents and phasing it in at one cent per month over the next nine months. He suggested that a legal challenge to an ordinance could be blocked by adopting nine separate ordinances with one for each cent of increase. He was opposed to the transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) because it would raise more funds than was needed and the additional funds would be used for a bureaucratic collection system when raising the gas tax would cost nothing to administer. He was opposed to a TSMF because those who did not use the system still had to pay the fee; it was regressive and based on the illogical premise that buildings triggered vehicle trips when people generated trips. He said the gas tax was a user fee and forced people to confront the need to limit the use of highways and pay for them as they were used. Dean Rea, 1220 Clinton Drive, Eugene, said that four-block long Clinton Drive was recently paved as part of a pavement preservation project. He presented the council with a document signed by more than 30 people that thanked the Public Works Department and the City of Eugene for repaving their street. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, Eugene, invited councilors to view a video he was developing about a number of planning issues. He asked the council to weigh in on whether it would support the use of eminent domain in the Fairmount neighborhood. He was concerned about its potential use by the University of Oregon and hoped for a level of support for long-term business owners in the area. Jerry Oltion , 750 Brookside Drive, Eugene, asked the council to consider revisions to the City’s noise ordinance that would take into account new technologies that imposed new noise levels, such as leaf blowers, weed whackers, pressure washers, and mulch-blowing trucks. He said the noise generated by MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting mulch-blowing trucks was phenomenal and more appropriate to industrial zones than a residential neighborhood. He related that the owner of Lane Forest Products would be willing to stop using mulch- blowing trucks if his competition did not use them either and Eugene had more mulch-blowing trucks per capita than any other city in the world. He said that peace and quiet were being sacrificed for convenience and thanked the council for agreeing to Councilor Betty Taylor’s request for a work session. Hugh Pritchard , 2671 Emerald, Eugene, encouraged the council to initiate a code amendment for the Downtown Zoning District. He said the current code had a number of unintended consequences that were an impediment to downtown development. He said new buildings in the core area were required to meet a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 2.0, commonly believed to mean a two-story building; when the language actually stated a building should be not less than two square feet of floor area to one square foot of the development site. He pointed out a number of existing downtown buildings that could not be built under the current code. He said a similar situation existed on south Willamette Street with an FAR requirement of 1.0; few existing buildings could meet that requirement. He said the issue had not arisen because no new building permit for those areas had been applied for and the code was untested. He said the intent was to densify consistent with the council’s goals, which he supported, but the reality was that new buildings could not be built with the current FAR requirements. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, Eugene, spoke to multi-unit property tax exemptions (MUPTE) and the approval process. He said he had experienced difficulties attempting to review the files, including lack of information and timeliness of receipt of that information. He questioned why public comments were not included in an agenda packet and cautioned the council to make sure that all attachments were included. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, president of Friends of Eugene, expressed dismay at the evolution of the City Hall master planning process. He referred to the council’s recent decision not to renovate the existing building and noted the consulting contract for the planning process was over $1 million. He pointed out that hundreds of citizens participated and felt the City Hall process was turning into the same thing as Whole Foods because there had been no comprehensive public presentation about renovating the current City Hall and professionals in the community had not been afforded the opportunity to examine the basis for estimated project costs compiled by the consultant. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. Councilor Papé thanked Mr. Rea for taking the time to convey the appreciation of residents along Clinton Drive. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone who spoke. She noted that a work session on the noise ordinance was scheduled for August 16, 2006, and hoped staff would provide information about controlling mulch- blowing trucks and other technology. Councilor Kelly also thanked Mr. Rea and the Clinton Drive residents. He said the council had discussed at its work session ways to address the backlog of pavement preservation projects. He agreed with Mr. Hale’s remarks that increasing the gas tax was preferable to a transportation system maintenance fee. He had not heard any serious suggestion to exercise eminent domain in the Fairmount neighborhood. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - July 10, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Initiation of Code Amendment for Downtown Zoning District D. Adoption of Resolution 4885 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Resi- th dential Property Located at 673 East 14 Alley Way, Eugene, Oregon (Robert and Leslie Quinney) E. Initiation of Eugene Water & Electric Board Metro Plan Amendment F. Approval of Overseas Travel Request Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar including a corrected version of Item D. related to adoption of Resolution 4885, which was distributed at the start of the meeting. Councilor Kelly pulled Item C. Councilor Papé pulled Item D. Councilor Bettman pulled Item E. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of items C, D and E passed unanimously, 7:0. Regarding Item C, Councilor Kelly indicated he was frustrated the item was again on the Consent Calendar as it had been pulled that last time with a request to obtain public input and return to the council for further direction. He asked if the suggested motion included by reference the seven bulleted items in the City Manager’s recommendation. Associate Planner Nan Laurence replied that staff would start on those items but also recognized that a citizen participation process might develop other items. Councilor Kelly said in order for him to support moving forward, two areas of concern had to be addressed. He said the first was C-3 surface parking limitation and, while he was not opposed to looking at code changes to facilitate better use of shared parking, he did not want to allow more surface parking in C- 3 zones. Referring to the Transit Oriented Development Overlay and FAR, he agreed that the code should not preclude construction of buildings like the U.S. Bank but preferred to consider changes to a number of functional floors requirement instead of reductions in the FAR. Councilor Bettman also expressed surprise that the item was on the Consent Calendar instead of coming before the council in a work session. She said there was broadly worded language that needed to be clarified and some new items that had never been vetted in a work session. She did not feel that the public comments included with the agenda materials made a compelling argument for any of the new items. She said FAR requirements did not affect existing buildings and related to the density the council was trying to achieve in terms of commercial development within the downtown area. She recollected that C-3 allowed for existing buildings to be demolished and the site left vacant for surface parking, which was counter to adopted City policy of densifying. She could not support the amendment until she had more specific information. Councilor Solomon stated she was comfortable moving the item forward as the agenda item summary indicated any code amendments would be processed and require public hearings before the Planning MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting Commission and City Council before action could occur. She said the council could request another work session at any time and in the meantime she wanted to see staff begin working on the issues. Councilor Kelly said he was comfortable with the three items that had been added. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend the City Man- ager’s recommendation as follows: TD Transit Oriented Development Overlay consideration of functional floors rather than FAR.. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the City Man- ager’s recommendation as follows: C-3 Major Commercial surface parking limi- tation parking: consider ways to enhance shared parking provisions. Councilor Papé asked for staff’s understanding of the proposed amended language. City Manager Taylor said he understood that Councilor Kelly wished to maximize the opportunity for surface parking to be available for cross-parking agreements with other users to reduce the amount of surface parking in the downtown area. Councilor Kelly added that he wanted to steer the discussion away from relaxation of the current limitations on surface parking. Councilor Solomon expressed concern about too narrowly limiting the discussion. Councilor Kelly said the Land Use Code Update intentionally included substantial limitations on surface parking in the core of downtown and his purpose was to direct the discussion to satisfying parking needs through shared parking instead of increasing surface lots. Councilor Bettman said she would be able to support the motion if it was Councilor Kelly’s intent to preserve existing code provisions on surface parking and new opportunities for parking would be entirely through shared and structured parking. Roll call vote; the motion to amend the reference to C-3 surface parking in Item D passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Papé said he saw nothing in the code amendment that would prohibit taking down a building, excavating the site and then leaving it vacant for years. He said those situations were a disgrace to the downtown and should be prevented from occurring. Councilor Bettman agreed with Councilor Papé. She asked if there were any communities that included such a provision in their downtown zoning code that required buildings to be replaced within a certain amount of time after demolition. Ms. Laurence said she had not seen such a provision; the timing of development on a site was influenced by economics and not subject to the code. She would consider how that issue could be addressed as part of the downtown zoning review. Councilor Bettman asked if the matter could be approached through some type of taxing of undeveloped property as if it were developed after a certain period of time. Ms. Laurence said she would research how other communities had addressed the problem and report back to the council. City Manager Taylor affirmed that staff would research tools to influence the condition and duration of vacant lots, particularly MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting when the lot had been excavated or there was debris. He said a memorandum would present the issue to the council to determine whether it was appropriate to the downtown code revision process or a separate process. Roll call vote; Consent Calendar Item C, initiation of code amendment for Down- town Zoning District as amended, passed, 6:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposi- tion. Regarding Item D, Councilor Papé indicated he was in support but questioned the date of January 1, 2012, instead of an earlier date. Urban Services Manager Richie Manager explained that the date was consistent with State statutes but he understood development would actually begin immediately. He said the council could change the timeline. Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the project completion date from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2009. Councilor Bettman stated that the amendment would help avoid the problem of demolishing an existing structure and leaving the site vacant. Councilor Kelly supported the shorter timeline, but noted that in another instance where a project timeline was shortened construction delays required an extension. He said the developer for this project could do the same. Roll call vote; the motion to amend the project timeline passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Taylor stated she would be voting against the tax exemption as she saw no clear benefit to the City and the project was located in an area that would be developed as multi-family housing eventually because of its proximity to the University. Councilor Bettman stated she would vote no as she objected to the use of a public subsidy, forgiveness of tax liability, to build a profitable development. She said there was no reason to forego tax collection on property that was profitable, especially since that money was then not available for public safety and schools. She could see using MUPTE in situations where it was necessary to level the playing field or a public subsidy was needed in order for development that met multiple City objectives to happen; in this case multi-family housing would be built anyway and there was no justification for a public subsidy. She was also concerned about subsidizing the demolition of vintage houses. She stated that the loss of Westmoreland student housing would create an even larger market for student housing and strongly believed the City should not be publicly subsidizing this type of project. Councilor Solomon clarified that the owners would still pay tax on the land; the exemption was for a ten- year period and only for improvements to the property. Roll call vote; Consent Calendar Item D, adoption of Resolution 4885 approving a th multiple-unit property tax exemption for property located at 673 East 14 Alley Way as amended passed, 5:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. Referring to Item E, Councilor Bettman asked if the projects located outside of the urban growth boundary in Eugene and Springfield were being built in order to provide capacity for future growth. Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter replied that he understood the projects were a combination of accommodating planned MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 24, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting growth, improving services for existing residents and in one instance providing additional backup through a joint effort with other utility districts. He said in some cases the project would relocate pipes to a more suitable location. Councilor Bettman cited references to a metropolitan-wide system and connections between three different water systems. She asked if that reflected a trend toward regionalizing the water system the way the wastewater system was regionalized. Mr. Yeiter said he did not believe the amendments before the council represented a step toward regionalization. He said the concept of a regionalized water supply had surfaced through the Region 2050 project and would be a separate discussion. Councilor Bettman said she did not think it was a separate discussion; it was a huge policy decision and before initiating the amendment to move in that direction, it was the council’s responsibility to have a discussion and make a policy decision about whether it was beneficial to the City of Eugene and the public. She intended to vote against the amendment. Councilor Kelly understood Councilor Bettman’s concerns but observed there was no amendment before the council and without even an outline of that amendment it was not possible to have a policy discussion. He would support the motion to initiate with the understanding that he would want the issue of regionaliza- tion clarified in the amendment with respect to which projects might be associated with that direction. Councilor Taylor questioned why it was necessary to vote on the item immediately. She expressed concern about inappropriate items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman disagreed that initiating the amendment did not change anything as it committed resources to pursuing a direction that the council had not discussed in terms of policy. She said that no documentation was provided in the agenda materials for the cost savings or significance of moving in a regional direction. She was concerned about regionalization and pointed to the wastewater system as an example of how Eugene ratepayers suffered under the financing structure and local control was lost. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Yeiter said that if there was no decision on the item 60 days from the date the staff report was forwarded to the council it was automatically denied. Roll call vote; Consent Calendar Item E, initiation of Eugene Water & Electric Board Metro Plan amendment passed, 5:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman 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 July 24, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: September 11, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060911m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 9/20/06 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 10/4 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 10/4 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 September 11, 2006 5:30 p.m. 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. She announced that there would be a memorial service at Civic Stadium at 7 p.m. to remember and honor the victims of September 1, 2001. She invited Police Chief Bob Lehner and Acting Fire Chief Randy Groves to join the council before leaving for the memorial service and asked them to convey deep gratitude to first responders, sympathy to those who lost loved ones and a sense of continuing grief over the country’s losses. Chief Groves shared his shock and horror as he watched the tragedy of September 11 unfold and his awe at the heroic response of public safety professionals. He reflected on the local concern and his department’s actions to secure its own response system and place everyone on the highest alert while off-duty personnel called or came in to find out how they could help. He said that almost 3,000 lives were lost that day, including 343 New York City firefighters, but in turn thousands of lives were saved by the actions of those who responded to the calls for help. He said it was important to remember not only the firefighters, medics and police officers who made the ultimate sacrifice, but the ordinary citizens and their families, many of whom were also heroes. He said the passage of time could not fully heal the wounds but would dull the pain and there was survival, learning, a renewed strength and a future that afforded a chance to learn from the past. He said a plaque over the door of the Fire Department’s training tower read “Never Forget.” He thanked the council for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Fire Department and share his thoughts and expressed the department’s appreciation for the council’s leadership. Chief Lehner observed that Chief Groves had eloquently addressed the perspective of public safety first responders. He shared a personal anecdote about being at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon during the excavation periods at those sites. He was present when the bodies of eight police officers were recovered at the World Trade Center site. He noted that the event was the largest single public safety fatality count in American history; no one would ever forget and the county was forever changed. He reflected on the heroes of that day and how their sacrifices made communities around the country better prepared to respond to both manmade and natural disasters. He thanked the mayor and council on behalf of the Police Department and Fire Department for the proclamation that would be issued at the regular meeting that evening and for their thoughts and support. Ms. Piercy thanked Chief Groves and Chief Lehner for the remarks and expressed the council’s respect and best wishes. MINUTES—City Council September 11, 2006 Page 1 Work Session A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Solomon reported that the Manufactured Housing Subcommittee continued to meet and would propose ordinance changes to the council early next year. She said the Friends of Golden Gardens held a benefit garage sale and raised approximately $2,000 to help pass the parks bond measure. Mr. Papé commented that there were two organized committees to assist with passing the parks and library bond measures. He encouraged councilors to become involved in their efforts to pass the measures. He expressed disappointment that the Whole Foods project was on hold and hoped that was temporary. He said that private investment in the downtown would be the start of revitalization efforts. Mr. Pryor reported he attended the Lane Workforce Partnership and Lane Metro Partnership awards ceremony. He was pleased to see local companies recognized for their efforts regarding employment. He said that School District 4J Superintendent George Russell spoke about the critical link between education and employment. He noted the addition of a west Eugene intersection to the list of most dangerous intersections and indicated he would be advocating for both short- and long-term traffic solutions for that part of the community. Ms. Bettman thanked Chief Lehner and Chief Groves for their earlier comments. Mr. Kelly thanked Downtown Events Management Inc.’s volunteer board and the hundreds of other volunteers for a superb Eugene Celebration over the weekend. He also thanked Chief Groves and Chief Lehner for their remarks. He read a poem by Pablo Neruda called “Keeping Quiet.” Ms. Taylor thanked Mr. Kelly for his reading and Chief Lehner and Chief Groves for their comments. She said that her recent visit to Eugene’s sister city of Irkutsk, Russia was enjoyable and inspiring and related to September 11 because the more international relationships there were on any level, the more likely people were to hesitate before killing others. She wondered whether having sister cities in Iraq would have made a difference. She was impressed by the warmth and hospitality of the people of Irkutsk and their gratitude for what had been done through the sister city initiative, such as the donation of library books. She said Irkutsk residents were very interested in furthering the arts and there were discussions of exchanges between the sister cities, including exchanges of children’s art. Mr. Poling announced there would be an open house at Cal Young Middle School on September 14 and a Harlow Neighborhood Association meeting on September 20 at Monroe Middle School would host a candidates’ forum with Oregon State Senate candidates Jim Torrey and Vicki Walker. Ms. Ortiz also thanked Chief Lehner and Chief Groves. She said a Trainsong neighborhood picnic would be held on September 13 and she recently attended the Whiteaker neighborhood celebration. She said the Latino Business Network would be hosted at the Town Club on September 12 and later that evening the Toxics Alliance would discuss railroad pollution at the Red Cross facility on Bethel Drive. Ms. Piercy said there would be a presentation on the visit to Irkutsk, Russia on November 8, 2006. Mr. Papé said he met with the co-chair of the Jefferson Westside neighborhood association regarding a motion at the council’s August 16, 2006, meeting to address an anomaly in Area 15 of that neighborhood. MINUTES—City Council September 11, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to reconsider the City Council’s mo- tions of August 16, 2006, related to the Jefferson Westside neighborhood. Mr. Kelly stated he could not support the motion to reconsider. He wished to improve all neighborhoods and provide different types of housing at all levels throughout the City. He said his motion of August 16 was an attempt to compromise and accomplish that goal and reflected the neighborhood’s own plan. He said the substitute motion Mr. Papé would make following passage of the motion to reconsider would not accomplish that and would move in a negative direction. He hoped that everyone could look beyond their own backyards when talking about planning and growth and be honest about how they wanted Eugene to grow. The motion to reconsider passed, 6:2; Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Kelly voting in opposi- tion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to table the motion before the council to Item 5 on the regular meeting agenda following the work session. The motion passed unanimously. B. WORK SESSION: Annual Meeting with Human Rights Commission Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson announced that he would be sitting in for City Manager Dennis Taylor, who was out of town. He introduced Human Rights Commission chair Carmen Urbina and vice chair Surendra Subramani. Ms. Piercy thanked the commission for dedicating its annual report to the memory of former commissioner Dwight Souers, who had recently passed away. She congratulated the commission on its new Human Rights Center. Ms. Urbina introduced other commissioners who were present: Jim Garcia, Elizabeth Aydelott, Dave Lottier, Neil Van Steenbergen, Hugh Massengill, Misa Joo and Councilor David Kelly. She thanked the council for its support and for the opportunity to share the commission’s work. She recognized the lifetime of service by Dwight Souers and said his life was about infusing, teaching and preaching equity, social justice and human rights at every opportunity. She said that the community room at the Human Rights Center had been named for him and his spirit, smile and guidance would be with those who used the center every day. Mr. Subramani provided a brief summary of work accomplished by the commission during the past year, including: ? Numerous activities to further the council’s priorities on race and homelessness ? Secured funding for the installation of accessible pedestrian signals at approximately 30 key intersections, installation and upgrading of assistive listening systems at City facilities, up- graded web portal access for those with visual impairment and consultation on accessibility of the new City Hall complex ? Gender identify code revisions and the difficult decision not to recommend the council move forward with draft legislation ? Immigration justice rallies MINUTES—City Council September 11, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Subramani said that the upcoming mental health and human rights conference to be held October 20, 2006, at the University of Oregon was the culmination of three years of dedicated work by commissioners and community volunteers. Ms. Urbina said developing the work plan was a very difficult process for the commission as it reviewed the issues faced by the community and the things that had to be accomplished. She said commissioners initially tried to reduce the list of tasks to a manageable number given the volunteer nature of the program but soon realized that all issues were critical and nothing could be removed from the work plan; therefore, the commission was asking the council to approve a two-year work plan for FY07-08. She thanked the mayor and councilors for taking a bold step by adopting the priorities on race and homelessness. She said the commission had strong ties to both the homeless community and Communities of Color and asked that the council keep the commission involved on those priorities. She said the commission was also looking at establishing the City of Eugene as a human rights city as part of its two-year plan. She asked Accessibility Committee chair Hugh Massengill to discuss accessibility in the community. Mr. Massengill read the names of Accessibility Committee members and said they had worked remarkably hard during the past year on issues such as accessible pedestrian signals and assistive listening devices in public facilities. He said the committee would continue its efforts under the upcoming work plan to ensure the City provided the most accessible public information possible to the community. He said the committee would also explore the definition of accessibility with respect to access to services and perhaps expand its charge to include the concept of a human rights city. He saluted the committee members for their dedica- tion. Ms. Urbina briefly discussed the commission-planned activities regarding immigration. She said immigra- tion was a painful issue in the community and the commission was planning to become an ally to organiza- tions like CAUSA, which was a statewide immigrant rights organization. She said the national debate over immigration was causing some people in the community to treat immigrants as less than human and the commission would work with its allies on a multi-pronged approach to the community including education of the Latino community about their rights and education of the community at large about the myths that existed about immigration and immigrants. Ms. Urbina invited everyone to attend the three-day open house to be held at the Human Rights Center during the Eugene Celebration. She thanked recognized Human Rights Program staff for their dedication and hard work, thanked the City Manager, the Mayor and the City Council for their support and advocacy for human rights and for the new Human Rights Center, which was an asset to the community. She also acknowledged and thanked many others in the community who had supported the commission and its work. She concluded by reading a call to action by Reverend Martin Niemoller called “I did not speak out.” Ms. Ortiz said she looked forward to the joint meeting with the Human Rights Commission because she was passionate about the issue. She gave credit to staff for helping commissioners accomplish their important work. She commended the new Human Rights Center and said it would provide better program access to people in the community. She was pleased to see the dedication to Dwight Souers. Ms. Taylor asked if the commission considered the impact on human rights of the Patriot Act and making a recommendation against parts of it. Ms. Urbina said the commission had not addressed the Patriot Act at this point. Mr. Subramani added that the commission discussed how the legislation impacted the City but had not looked at it from a national perspective. MINUTES—City Council September 11, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if the commission discussed the rights of people it might regard as bigots and considered recommending that some of those people be added to the commission. Mr. Subramani pointed out that anyone could apply to be appointed to the commission and it was the council, not the commission, which made those appointments. Ms. Bettman thanked Ms. Urbina and Mr. Subramani for a comprehensive and passionate presentation. She appreciated the commission’s work and was aware of the level of commitment and amount of service it required. She was impressed by the extent of the commission’s efforts throughout the community and the services provided on behalf of the City. She said without the volunteer service hours, the City would not have the quality of human rights outreach that it enjoyed. She would be happy to approve the very ambitious work plan and agreed that many of the issues were ongoing and could not be set aside and dealt with in a year. She commended the working agreement for commissioners and felt the City should adopt it in general. She asked what needed to be done to bring the Hate Crimes Conference to the City of Eugene. Mr. Rikhoff replied that the organizing a conference was a major undertaking and thought that a conference in 2009 or 2010 would be a reasonable goal. He noted that the conference in Portland was excellent and staff was working to bring some of those speakers to the community. He said there was significant anti- Semitic activity occurring in the community and a strong educational effort was being developed. Mr. Papé thanked the commission for its acknowledgement of Dwight Souers, who he regarded as one of the most thoughtful, deliberate and discerning individuals he had ever known. He remarked that one of the most positive experiences of his time on the council had been his service on the Human Rights Commission. He asked for clarification of the table of case data for the Human Rights Support System (HRSS) that appeared on page 23 of the annual report. Ms. Leyva-Johnson said that the table included Paso a Paso advocacy cases to show a more complete picture of HRSS activities. Mr. Rikhoff explained that the HRSS was created to address discrimination and harassment and the table represented incidents in which HRSS case managers were involved in both positive and negative situations to bring about a positive result. Mr. Kelly commented that the Eugene City Council was among the first in the country to pass a resolution objecting the certain parts of the Patriot Act when the legislation was first enacted. He said it would behoove the City to revisit the issue with reauthorization of the act pending. He echoed Ms. Bettman’s remarks about the working agreements on page 19 of the annual report. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged James Dean for his extraordinary work as a volunteer with the Human Rights Program. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Human Rights Com- mission goals and work plan for FY2007/2008. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—City Council September 11, 2006 Page 5 Work Session C. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue – Communities of Color Meeting Debrief Mr. Carlson introduced Lauren Chouinard, executive director of Human Resources and Risk Management, to discuss the Communities of Color meeting. Mr. Chouinard introduced consultant Phyllis Lee and asked Ms. Piercy to facilitate a short debrief on the Communities of Color meeting and discussion of future steps. Ms. Piercy said the subject was an important connection to the work of the Human Rights Commission. She thanked the 65 community members who participated in the Communities of Color meeting. She asked councilors to share their experiences and what they had learned during that meeting. She said she had learned that people needed to hear more often about the City’s awareness of and commitment to the issue. She said there was some discussion at her table concerning a lack of knowledge about the City and the possibility of an activity similar to the Business After Hours events hosted by the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Poling said he heard frustration from participants about again discussing the issue, but also awareness that the City was engaged. He said there was some concern about what the next steps would be. He was struck by one of the recommendations in the report that City Councilors should participate more visibly in community events, particularly those put on by the Communities of Color. He agreed that an effort to introduce people to City government and how they might fit in and be involved was a good idea. Ms. Ortiz said it had been interesting as a person of color advocating for the event and then participating in it. She felt at times that she was “in the know” but when she met with her peers she was amazed at what she learned from people she had known for years. She said the dynamics in her group were interesting and enlightening as there were two African-American men with significantly different experiences and perspectives. She agreed that people lacked understanding of how government worked and liked the concept of holding a “government class” similar to the police academy. She said that the Bethel School District held classes for Latino parents to help them understand their role in assisting their children to have a good educational experience in the district. Mr. Kelly commented that the meeting was valuable and revealing. He said it reminded him that there was a real need for statements from leadership of the City on those issues and not just after an incident. He said there was also a need for concrete actions. He heard from participants about the amount of denial in the community about racial problems. He thought the problem was getting worse and would not improve until people acknowledged its existence. Mr. Pryor said he had a strong impression that the best way to approach problems was to acknowledge they existed. He said there was a variety of intolerance and racism in the community and it was important to start by being sincere, candid and respectful about how to approach the problem. He said part of the council’s role was to keep the issue before the public and remind people of what good behavior looked like in order to change community attitudes, similar to the efforts to discourage drinking and driving. Ms. Solomon remarked that she had a lot to learn about the issue and appreciated the willingness of those at her table to share their experiences and help her to learn more about their perspectives. Ms. Bettman said she shared the frustration about continuing discussions of the issue but no specific actions identified. She appreciated the need to have an ongoing discussion but urged the council to identify and MINUTES—City Council September 11, 2006 Page 6 Work Session move forward with some concrete steps. She said the meeting reinforced the importance of not making assumptions. Mr. Papé said he appreciated all of the discussion and feedback from his group. He said there should be a method to determine how well the City was modeling desirable behavior throughout the organization. Ms. Taylor said she had not learned anything new in the meeting but recently learned there were a number of Native American tribes locally and people were very ignorant about them. She suggested the council could have a performance or educational activity during its ceremonial matters. She said that people found it disturbing when others had preconceptions about them. She thought that education was valuable but did not think there were any laws that discriminated in the community. She said it was good to talk to all kinds of people, including bigots, to find out why they had certain beliefs or feelings. She felt that the remaining biggest prejudice was against gays and lesbians. Ms. Ortiz said she also heard a sense of frustration with more discussion. She described a recent event of the Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC) she had attended and commented that youth at that event indicated a commitment to the work of CALC and awareness that it was an ongoing process as long as there were immigrants moving into the community. She emphasized the need to continue working on the issue on a daily basis until it was ingrained into the fabric of the community. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Chouinard said that the timeline in the initial action plan had been extended for a variety of reasons, but there was no reason that a joint meeting with the Human Rights Commission could not be scheduled in November and a facilitated council discussion scheduled in December. Mr. Kelly asked what the timeline would be for next steps to be worked out by an ad hoc committee as suggested under council options. Mr. Chouinard said that as a result of the Communities of Color meeting, there was a need to engage those communities in working with the council. He said the best approach seemed to be the formation of an ad hoc committee composed of twelve to fifteen people to produce a set of recommendations over a two-month period. He said those recommendations could be supplemental to the council’s work plan for race priority. Mr. Kelly indicated he was distressed by the timeline as there would be no council action until after the first of the year. He asked the Human Rights Commission to consider whether its joint meeting with the council should occur prior to or concurrent with formation of the ad hoc group or wait until the group had provided recommendations. Mr. Chouinard said he did not mean to imply that the council’s other activities related to the race priority should be suspended while the ad hoc committee was at work. Mr. Kelly said that a wonderful aspect of the meeting was that people felt comfortable asking tough questions or questions that might be perceived as “dumb.” He said engagement of the broad public was critical and suggested that staff and the ad hoc committee consider publication of a City human rights newsletter, similar to the stormwater and parks newsletters published annually. Mr. Papé stated that the council and City should model good behavior if it was expected of the community as a whole. He said he was not aware of any audits to ensure accountability of the City as an organization and measure progress against policies, but that should occur and the results published for community review. He said the City should lead by example. Mr. Chouinard replied that an assessment of the City organization had been conducted by a nationally recognized consultant and one result was current work on MINUTES—City Council September 11, 2006 Page 7 Work Session the development of a strategic plan for diversity that could be linked to the council’s priority on race. He said a component of that plan would be performance measures and evaluation. Ms. Piercy said she heard a willingness, both at the meeting and in the community, to believe that the council was taking the matter seriously and committed to moving forward with a plan of action. She stressed the importance of council members participating in events and activities throughout the community. Ms. Bettman said establishing benchmarks was one of the concrete steps the City could take. She hoped the ad hoc committee would consider a formal process for establishing benchmarks and ensuring those benchmarks were part of a council public process and not just internal to the organization. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged the attendance of incoming councilor Mike Clark at the Communities of Color meeting. Mr. Chouinard noted that part of the race priority action plan was continuing to make training available to council. He said there had been a suggestion that Perspectives in Profiling training could be provided to the council, the Police Commission, the Human Rights Commission and perhaps other interested parties. Ms. Lee expressed her appreciation for the good working relationships she was experiencing and her enthusiasm for working with the council and City organization. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—City Council September 11, 2006 Page 8 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: September 11, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\cc060911m2.doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 9/19/03rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 10/4 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 10/4 ky Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall September 11, 2006 7:30 p.m. 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 and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS -September 11 Commemoration Mayor Piercy read a proclamation into the record commemorating the tragic events of September 11, 2001. A moment of silence was observed. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, felt there should have been more of a public process regarding the public parking garage associated with the Whole Foods project. He thought there had been “deals” because of his perception of a lack of public interface. He asserted that a neighborhood park in the University area had been “bulldozed” without a public hearing. He alleged that Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) was “working on a plan to put more cameras downtown for surveillance,” and requested a “broad-based” discussion about it. He also alleged that the University of Oregon recently announced a new laboratory that would participate in research into nanotechnology for the Department of Defense. He said the City’s elected efficials should begin a discussion of the Willamette Greenway. He thought Department of Defense research was controversial and more discussion was needed, not less. Additionally, he expressed concern regarding the old landfill near the river and suggested it be cleaned up before the 2008 Olympic Trials. Mike Clark , 2754 Cheryl Street,stated that a baby, five-week-old Orion Smith, had been killed in a car accident near the intersection of Beltline Highway and Delta Highway. A truck hit the back of his parents’ car. Mr. Clark related that a neighbor of his was a firefighter at Valley River Fire Station No. 9. He said those emergency personnel respond to a rush hour accident in that area “every day.” He acknowledged that there were many priorities for transportation issues in the City, noting that a work session had been scheduled for September 25 on such issues in West and North Eugene. He encouraged the councilors to MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 11, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting either make the Delta/Beltline interchange the highest priority or move it up on the list of transportation improvement projects. th Angela Rooney , 520 West 15 Avenue, said that she lived in a 900 square-foot home and that she was a widow with a small pension. She opined the Jefferson neighborhood was a place where people like her could still afford to live in a safe neighborhood. She related that she could walk to the store, the library, and her church. She became active in her neighborhood because she loved it. She underscored that the Jefferson neighbors did not want infill that did not respect the character of their neighborhood. th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, thanked the council for its willingness to listen to neighborhood leaders from the Jefferson/Westside Neighborhood Association. He conveyed the support of the neighbor- hood for the motion Councilor Papé intended to set forth at the council’s meeting. He noted that the motion was based on a solution planning staff presented to the Jefferson/Westside Neighborhood leaders to address the problems raised by the redesignation of the Jefferson area. He said if the council approved the motion it would enable residents and the neighborhood organization to turn their full attention back to the work initiated in January 2006 prior to the Metro Plan redesignation. He reiterated that area residents were endeavoring to determine ways to increase the density in the neighborhood while keeping these neighbor- hoods safe and livable. He felt council action would be a tremendous and important statement to residents that “thoughtful constructive engagement in civic processes” was the best path for better community growth. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. Councilor Taylor commended the Jefferson Neighbors for “never giving up.” 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - July 10, 2006, City Council Meeting - July 17, 2006, Work Session - July 24, 2006, Work Session - August 9, 2006, Workshop - August 14, 2006, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly indicated he had submitted a minutes correction electronically. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the correction and deemed it, without objection, approved. Councilor Bettman stated that she had also submitted minutes corrections electronically. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the corrections and deemed them approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the minutes correc- tions passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 11, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Prohibiting Extreme Fighting; Adding Section 4.740 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Section 4.990 of that Code Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson briefly reviewed the item. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedure for testimony. Jason Georgianna , 765 Mimosa Avenue, stated that he was the owner of Pacific Cage Fights and he was opposed to banning MMA fighting. He distinguished between extreme fighting and Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). He averred that professional MMA fighting was tightly regulated by the State, but this was not so for amateur fighting. He said there were a wide variety of promoters, and they varied in how conscien- tious they were in protecting fighter safety. He asserted that he upheld safety standards in his events and would continue to do so. He related that an amateur Mixed Martial Arts Association, to be headed by Mr. Hagen (see below), was being formed. He felt that until the State fully regulated the sport on a professional level but some checks and balances were needed in the process. The association sought to provide those checks and balances by imposing regulations such as requiring promoters to have a higher bond if they were not members. He listed some of the guidelines that were potentially going to be instituted: only trained referees would be allowed to work the fights; fights would be bound by a list of approved rules that were no less restrictive than those used by the ultimate fighting championship (minus the use of elbows); a medic and medical supplies would be required as well as ambulance or medical transport; and a database would be created for access to a fighter’s record. (A fighter who had lost by a total knock out [TKO] would be disqualified from fighting for at least two months after the TKO.) He compared MMA to football and noted that people were often hurt and occasionally killed while playing football. David T. Hagen , 2065 Myrtle Avenue Northeast, Salem, 97303, stated that he was an official for the State of Oregon, the head official for refereeing and boxing. He said he officiated at the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the International Fight League, and the Pride levels and had competed in approximately 1,800 amateur and 48 professional bouts. He wished to point out that with the advent of safety concerns, boxing officials were transitioning into MMA fighting. He alleged that a doctor who officiated at most of the championship boxing in the world said that MMA was substantially safer due to the types of injuries typically incurred. He asserted that MMA fighters did not suffer subdural hematomas and the other more serious injuries that boxers suffered. He wanted to acknowledge that MMA was not for everyone and pointed out that he personally did not care for football. He said that people who did not like MMA fighting would not have to watch it. He stated that the Oregon State Boxing and Wrestling Commission, an agency approved by the State of Oregon, implemented safety rules that were recognized by the State Athletic Commission. He alleged that the rate of deaths from boxing was approximately 11 per year and that two people had died as a result of MMA events since its advent. He maintained that if a person was no longer able to intelligently defend himself in an MMA bout it would be terminated, but a boxer who could no longer defend himself well was put back in the ring. He averred that MMA was meant to show the athleticism of the individual. He added that 36 states now sanction MMA fights. Heath Howitt , 3842 Willamette Street, stated that he was a promoter of MMA fights in Oregon. He observed that the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) indicated that the City may regulate cage fighting, but the proposed ordinance suggested a ban on such fights. He said, as a promoter, he would like to see amateurs regulated. He provided a list of 28 rules for professional cage fighting. He noted that he imposed additional rules in bouts that he promoted that sought to protect the fighters. He said he made sure insurance was provided for fighters. He supported regulation of the fights but opposed banning them. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 11, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting Beth Aydelott , 3690 University Street, supported a ban on cage fighting. She assumed that most of the councilors were “personally disgusted” by the activity and the crowds “yelling for blood.” She asked councilors to vote their consciences and to vote against cage fighting. She acknowledged the argument that there should be freedom of expression and the freedom for people to do what they want to do, but she pointed out that this same argument was used to support prostitution. She said that as a college teacher, she taught the young people who were “the victims of this.” It hurt her to think that any of them would find themselves in a cage fight. She questioned the notion that “every civilization has its gladiators.” She thought gladiators were the lowest part of Roman civilization. With regard to local regulation, she was uncertain who would take charge of enforcing them. Cage fighting was something she did not want to see in the City. She asked councilors if they really wanted cage fighting to go on in Eugene. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Ortiz thanked the young men who came forward and shared their expertise in this area. She noted she raised three sons and had always discouraged them from fighting, just as she tried to discourage them from playing football. Nonetheless, she was grateful for the coaching her sons had received over the years. She had similar feelings about cage fighting. She believed fighting was an art and said that she had grown up watching boxing. She sometimes wished there was a venue for boxing for young people. She said that the Latino community admired boxing. She underscored that the community was diverse and, while she would prefer not to have such fighting in the community, she also would not want to ban it. She supported fighting under the auspices of rules that keep the fighters safe as opposed to back alley fighting. Additionally, Councilor Ortiz stated that she saw many horrible things in her capacity as an emergency room registered nurse. She could not categorize this particular issue as horrible. She encouraged the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to work at the State level for regulations. She said she wanted fighters to be adequately insured so that they would not become a burden to the State as a result of injuries incurred in a fight. Councilor Bettman thanked those who testified. She expressed disappointment that there were not more people interested in the issue. She requested more data on the actual ratio of how many deaths there were in MMA versus other types of fighting. She questioned the assertion that football was more dangerous and wondered if anyone had really done research to back that up. She felt that regulated sports such as boxing and football at least encouraged good sportsmanship. She did not feel that the MMA fighting was in the same category. Councilor Bettman asked if minors were allowed on the premises during a cage fight event. She also wondered how “amateur” was defined. Regarding the regulations that had been provided, Councilor Bettman asked what the cost to the City would be for enforcement of those regulations. Councilor Solomon thanked Mr. Georgianna for his letter. She noted that it was articulate and contained a lot of information on the subject. She was pleased to see that the State was considering legislation in the next session to bring amateur MMA under similar regulations to professional MMA. She stated that she was not interested in regulating or banning MMA in the City of Eugene. Councilor Kelly reiterated his feelings that MMA was a “dehumanizing event.” He said he was partly motivated to support the ban because of safety concerns, but he also agreed with Ms. Aydelott’s testimony that what went on in the community spoke to the “character of the community.” He felt that while one may MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 11, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting or may not like football its purpose was not to shed blood or to knock out the other person. He circulated pictures of local cage fights that he printed from Mr. Georgianna’s Web site. Councilor Kelly approved of the standards that were brought forward in testimony, but he expressed some concern because they were proposals for self-regulation. He said if the City would not consider a ban, the council needed to look at how the City would be an enforcer of the regulations and from where this enforcement would be funded. He thought one option for funding would be a business license-type fee. He suggested the council convene another work session on the issue. Councilor Poling found it interesting that the proposed wording in the AIS indicated that the ordinance would ban extreme fighting for which no rules had been established and enforced. He felt some of the proposals in Mr. Georgianna’s documentation covered those points. He suggested that one option would be to work with Mr. Hagen and also Brad Darcy, a member of the State Boxing and Wrestling Commission in order to get a better sense of the regulations. Additionally, he suggested asking Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser to contact the State and determine how much progress had been made in its process to better regulate this type of fighting. He thought it possible to establish Eugene’s own criteria in the interim. While he had no desire to attend either a boxing or MMA match, he did not wish to ban this type of sport. He noted that he had been injured playing football, basketball, and baseball. Councilor Pryor echoed the comments of Councilor Poling. He said in looking at the proposed ordinance it seemed that it sought to ban unregulated amateur fighting. In parsing out the varying levels of the sport, he pointed out that there was professional MMA fighting, which appeared to soon be regulated by the State just as boxing is, the amateur MMA fighting, which was proposed to include some regulations and guidelines, and the unregulated uncontrolled extreme fighting. He felt that regulation was a way to bring a level of safety into fighting for the sport and he supported further exploration of the issue. While he did not have a problem with prohibiting extreme fighting, he wanted more information about the kind of regulation, the procedures and mechanisms for regulation, and the interaction with State regulations. Councilor Kelly pointed out that the pictures he passed out were from one of the fights that had been held under the governance of the rules that Mr. Georgianna presented. While he applauded the idea behind the regulations, he felt that without governmental enforcement it was hard to rely on those rules. He also wanted staff to clarify the issue of medical coverage. He agreed with Councilor Ortiz that, at a minimum, a definitive answer was needed as to who would be responsible for a fighter who was catastrophically injured. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 11, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: Motion to Reconsider Area 15: Jefferson Westside Neighborhood Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to substitute the following mo- tion for the tabled motion he made earlier in the evening during the work session: to initi- ate amendment of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan), of the Jefferson/Farwest Refinement Plan, and the Land Use Code to limit the subject area to Low-Density Residential development. In addition, the motion would direct the City Man- ager to make this one task one of the high priority tasks on the Planning Commission work plan and to accomplish this as quickly as practicable within the parameters of the amend- ment process. Unless the council took further action with regard to the subject area, the subject area shall revert to allow Low- to Medium-Density Residential development on July 1, 2008. Councilor Papé remarked that as he understood it, this was the only neighborhood affected by the housekeeping amendments the council approved. He hoped that the City could get “ahead of the game” in terms of opportunity siting and to the kinds of infill standards that were needed so the City could develop the kind of density intended through the Metro Plan. Councilor Kelly asked his colleagues to consider his comments from the work session as they contemplated their votes. Councilor Bettman indicated she intended to support the motion. She believed the City could absorb increased population without “destroying neighborhoods.” She encouraged her colleagues to look at this motion as a way to put things back the way they were before they adopted the housekeeping amendments to the Metro Plan in ignorance of the actual explicit impact to the neighborhood. She averred that the motion before the council would start the public process and would allow people the opportunity to fairly participate in decisions made regarding their neighborhood and homes. Councilor Ortiz stated that she could not support the motion because she did not consider it to be the council’s highest priority. She acknowledged that the neighborhood managed to get together and solidify their vision and bring it forward. Her concern with the motion was in line with her concern regarding the livability of all neighborhoods. She understood that a neighborhood would prefer to keep their area as pristine as possible, but she felt that the more barriers put up against densifying a neighborhood the less opportunity other people had to live in better neighborhoods and to have better lives. Councilor Pryor supported the substitute motion. He said the real focus for him was not whether or not it was a certain level of density; rather he wanted to place a high priority on getting some standards that could be used in all neighborhoods. He averred that the City needed to manage growth in a thoughtful and careful way that both acknowledged and recognized the need to keep neighborhoods as livable as possible as Eugene accommodated further growth and density. He reiterated his support for the motion, adding his prediction that it would only force the issue to come up in another way. Councilor Taylor called the motion a step toward correcting a mistake. She felt it was only to protect the neighborhoods that homeowners had bought into in order to protect their investments in the neighborhood. She felt this motion would bring justice to the neighbors and would be an asset to the entire community by protecting a central neighborhood, while working to prevent urban sprawl. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 11, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy observed that the councilors, for the most part, agreed that they wanted to find ways for people to live more densely while doing it in a way that preserved the character of neighborhoods. She had some concern in regard to the impact affordability was having on the School District 4J. She related that she recently spoke with School Superintendent George Russell about this and there was some question of what the community would do when young families could no longer afford to buy houses. She asked the council to consider what the City would do if only wealthy people could find a house in the City while other areas became “ghettoized.” She said working families were struggling to find a place in the community and if things keep going on this track, they no longer could afford to live in Eugene. She felt one could go into almost all neighborhoods in the City and find “all different kinds of housing and all different levels of income” and this was something to be cherished. Councilor Bettman agreed with the mayor’s sentiments. She said they had to work to preserve affordable single-family housing as it existed in “traditional urban core neighborhoods.” She asserted that allowing “blanket up-zoning” to this level of density in single-family areas would be detrimental to the neighborhood as it would increase the number of rental units and contribute to the high turnover of area residents. Councilor Taylor considered the housing in the neighborhood in question to be middle-income housing and thought it should be protected. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute Councilor Papé’s motion passed, 6:2; councilors Ortiz and Kelly voting in opposition. Roll call vote; the substitute motion passed, 6:2; councilors Ortiz and Kelly voting in op- position. The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 11, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: September 20, 2006–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\Cc060920m1.Doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 9/21/06 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 10/4 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 10/4 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall September 20, 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: City Council Priority Issue – City Hall Complex City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects and Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell to lead the discussion of narrowing site options for a City Hall complex as a result of the feedback from community forums. Mr. Cohen thanked the council for the opportunity to work with it over the past year. He noted that the council decided in a previous work session that the City Hall complex should be consolidated to the greatest practical extent but had not yet decided if the police patrol functions would be combined with other City Hall functions or in a separate facility. He said the council also decided to eliminate the renovation and hybrid options and move the project forward based on new construction. He said the focus of the current work session was to narrow the list of 25 site options to two or three sites that would be carried forward to the conceptual design step, which would occur over the next two or three months. Mr. Cohen explained that conceptual design was an architectural term that referred to a process of laying out the different divisions of a building to determine how they fit together on a specific site or sites, taking into account sustainable design opportunities, planning for open space, public and services access, expansion potential, security issues and implications of the integration or separation of police patrol functions. He said the process would also begin to explore how the spaces might translate into a physical form or massing models. He emphasized that the council was not being asked to make a decision regarding police consolidation and stated that the design team agreed with the City Manager’s recommendation to narrow the sites to Site 8 (Rock N Rodeo/Butterfly Lot) and Site 9 (existing City Hall) because both sites were very compelling. He said the fact that one site was a full block and the other a smaller block would stimulate good dialogue about density issues in Eugene. Mr. Penwell provided an update on the following sites: ? The former Sears site – A majority of participants at the last community forum indicated a desire to consider it for City Hall but three responses had been received to the recent request for proposals MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 1 Work Session (RFP) for private development. The proposals appeared to be good quality and responsive and that was why the site was not being recommended for further exploration. ? The existing City Hall site – Over 300 nonprofit agencies were contacted regarding interest in the site and one statement of interest had been received. That statement expressed an interest in receiv- ing monetary assistance from the City. There was long-term potential for market rate development but short-term prospects were not promising. ? Butterfly Lot/Rock N Rodeo site – Discussions with Lane County did not rule out the possibility of acquiring the Butterfly Lot, but if that action was pursued, it was agreed that the action should be mutually beneficial to both agencies and to the community as a whole. There had been no contact with private owners, including the owner of Rock N Rodeo property, but contact would be made if the site moved to the next phase. Mr. Papé asked if there were reasons other than the RFP for eliminating the Sears site and the potential of buying the entire block for a civic center. Mr. Penwell said because of the existing public development at that location, the site was seen as a prime opportunity for private development. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Penwell said there were three private owners of the Rock N Rodeo and adjacent parcels. Mr. Poling commented that the information obtained from the public forums was very interesting and he appreciated the work involved in reaching out to the community. He thanked those who had participated in the forums. He expressed concern with limiting the number of sites before there had been some contact with the private property owners to determine if they were interested. He hoped there would be some minimal outreach to those owners before a decision was made. Ms. Bettman questioned the extent to which the public understood the benefits of a higher intensity development instead of a lower scale building. Mr. Cohen said there was considerable discussion of that by small groups during the forums. He said a number of graphic exhibits of the density implications of different sites—half block v. whole block—were provided and the participants indicated preference for a larger site because there seemed to be greater comfort with less density and more potential for onsite expansion and open space. Ms. Bettman remarked that a larger site with dedicated open space would require the rest of the site to be denser. She wondered if the values, cost savings, and implications for sustainability of a more intensely dense development were discussed. Mr. Cohen said there was not a detailed discussion of that. Ms. Bettman asked for elaboration on the term “mutually beneficial” regarding discussions with the County about the Butterfly Lot. Mr. Penwell said there was recognition that the parking spaces in the lot were heavily used and would need to be replaced in some manner and that the County anticipated future facility needs as did the City and both entities owned property. He cautioned that the discussions were in very general terms. Ms. Bettman said she wanted to ensure there was no implication of co-location with the County. Mr. Penwell replied there was no suggestion of co-location or combined facilities. Ms. Bettman was pleased with the outreach to nonprofit organizations but concerned with marketability of the current City Hall if another site was chosen. She asked why staff had limited their inquiries about marketability to six local developers, the preponderance of whom had vested interests in downtown, instead MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 2 Work Session of including developers from other areas in the state such as Portland and Salem who could have been more objective. She said ruling the existing City Hall out in terms of its marketability for sale on those six opinions seemed limiting and asked for staff’s rationale. Mr. Penwell replied that Ms. Bettman’s question underscored the difficulty of trying to discuss development ideas and property in an arena that was very competitive and secretive. He said that staff contacted other developers, including ones in Portland, and one that specialized in reuse of existing facilities, but only six were willing to speak on the record. He said even those six developers were reticent about the short-term prospects for redevelopment. Ms. Bettman asked if redevelopment meant actually changing the structure as opposed to someone purchasing the property and using it for another purpose until it became financially viable to redevelop it. Mr. Penwell said the overriding sentiment was that developers could extract some income from the existing facility, especially the parking, for some period of time until the market was such that development opportunities made it cost effective to demolish the structure and build something with greater density and mix of uses. Mr. Pryor said he also was reluctant to start narrowing site choices but recognized the value of beginning to have some certainty. He was willing to move forward because he believed the current site was the best choice; the City owned the property and it comprised a full block. He did not think that City government should be “shoe-horned” into a smaller space. He said that Site 8 was next to an historic building—the Smeede Hotel—and he would be reluctant to demolish if more space was required. He said that half blocks had problems with access, public space and other issues that would not exist with a full block site. He said the City was wise to own a full block when the current facility was built and would be wise to retain that full block in its possession for future needs, including the City Hall. Ms. Taylor reiterated her position that the current building should be renovated, but if there was going to be a new building the Sears site should not be eliminated because it was already owned by the City and close to public transit and the library. Regarding the Sears site, Mayor Piercy said if the three RFP responses were as good as anticipated that would fulfill the council’s desire for mixed-use development in downtown. For that reason she was reluctant to use it for the City Hall when it could provide an opportunity for mixed-use development and stimulate other desirable activities in the area. She was open to the sites recommended by the City Manager. She stressed her interest in a component of City Hall that connected it to the community, perhaps through a cultural center that would help educate about the history of various groups and the roles they have played in the community. Mr. Kelly declared he was comfortable narrowing the site options as it was necessary to further any design concepts. He said if neither of the two recommended sites proved viable, the council could always reconsider other sites at a later date. He was not opposed to a full block site but pointed out that most small cities did not hesitate at half or quarter block development. He agreed with Mayor Piercy’s remarks about the Sears site and the importance of a publicly interesting space such as a cultural center in a new city hall. Ms. Bettman said she was willing to narrow the options, but was concerned that if none of the current proposals for the former Sears site was successful, the City would be left with a big hole in the ground. She wanted to see the motion include language that the Sears site would be included pending successful outcome of the RFP process to avoid removing it entirely from consideration. Regarding the current site, she preferred to spend money on amenities and square footage rather than on rent and related expenses to move MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 3 Work Session out and back in. She said the Butterfly Lot was a good site but was concerned about impacts on the Farmers Market during construction. Ms. Bettman observed that some forum participants viewed the City Hall as a mixed-use development and re-emphasized that mixed-use did not have to happen all in the same building or even all in the same block; it just needed to be in proximity. She did not believe the City as a public entity should be creating an unfair competitive field for the businesses that were in downtown and would likely benefit by the public investment by creating more competition that was publicly subsidized. She was opposed to commercial space within City Hall. Mr. Papé commended the design team for its work. He hoped that media representatives at the work session would digest the agenda materials and get word out to the community that there was objective documented evidence to support pursuing specific options. He was not ready to eliminate the Sears site and asked whether the current City Hall site or the Sears site was more ready for development. Mr. Penwell said that site preparation was a very small percentage of the overall project cost and not a significant factor. Mr. Papé asserted his interest in continuing to consider the Sears site as an option because of its location. Mr. Hacker commented that work of the design team suggested that private mixed-use development was easier and more attractive on sites that were very close to central public transportation. He said the library also made the Sears site more attractive for housing than the current City Hall site. He said keeping the Sears site as an active option could potentially scare away private developers, which the City wanted to avoid, but he favored retaining it as a possibility if the proposed development did not happen. The design team believed the Sears site was better as a private development than as a public development because it would provide a mix of urban activities in off-hours and weekends that a public facility would not. He felt the City would benefit more from private development of the Sears site. Mr. Papé asked if any public entity had entered into an “air space” arrangement where a block was developed with mixed-use on the ground floor and public offices such as City Hall above that. Mr. Hacker replied that public entities had done that but he was not aware of any projects that included a city hall. City Manager Taylor and Mr. Cohen offered examples of that type of development with a library as the public function. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Hacker said that the Sears site could be added for consideration at a later date if the council wished to move the two recommended sites to the conceptual design phase. He explained that conceptual design was a vehicle to identify the various issues and understand their implications for both full block and half block sites. He said that would not prevent the council from choosing an entirely different site either for study or for the city hall. He said a full schematic design process would follow the conceptual design. Ms. Taylor asked if conceptual designs for full and half blocks could be done without specific sites. Mr. Hacker replied that conceptual design was not completely abstract and it was necessary to understand street direction and capacities, public access and other factors as related to a particular site. He said an entirely abstract process would not teach the kinds of things the design team and council needed to know. He said the assumption was that Site 8 or Site 9, or possibly the Sears site if private development did not occur, would be the eventual site of the new City Hall and the conceptual design would assist the council in making the final site selection. MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz inquired about the status of the Whole Foods project and related land swap with The Shedd. City Manager Taylor said he was optimistic that the project would continue to move forward as originally conceived with a parking structure, then the land swap would occur; however, if only the grocery store project went forward there would be no land swap and the City would still own a half block across from the current City Hall. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern that discussing the Sears site would send mixed messages to the community. She agreed the site should be considered if none of the three proposals was successful but until that happened it should not be an option for the City Hall. She appreciated Mayor Piercy’s comments about including a cultural component to connect the building to the community. She encouraged City staff to have conversations with any private owners whose sites might be considered to inform them of the City’s interest. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Hacker’s comments on the value of the Sears site for private development and Ms. Ortiz’s comments on sending mixed messages. He was not opposed to keeping the site in mind and would support amending the suggested motion to include language that would make it clear the preference was for private development. He offered the following language: Consider Site 19 if the current RFP process did not result in a project. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for a thorough outreach on redevelopment of the current site and acknowledged the letter of interest from DIVA (Downtown Initiative for the Visual Arts) and those in support of a visual arts center. He agreed that a visual arts center in downtown should be a civic priority but was not certain the current City Hall building was the best choice. He asked for the consultants’ views on Site 17 and Site 14. Mr. Cohen clarified that there was a definite recommendation at the public forum for a combination of sites 17 and 19. Mr. Hacker said that Site 17 on Broadway was not a good location for City Hall functions because Broadway should be all retail for the sake of commerce and the type of urban activity the City wished to encourage. He said Site 17 would only work in combination with Site 19. He said that Site 14 should be considered as a half block and a quarter block; being next to the park blocks was a plus, but the negative factor for the site was its north/south orientation, which would not allow for the most sustainable design principles. He said the Butterfly Lot was significantly better because it had the park blocks and an east/west orientation. He reminded the council that there was a proposal to restore the full park block on the north th side of 8 Avenue and the design team strongly supported that as it would provide more space for the Saturday and Farmers markets and make a good public forecourt for the City Hall if it was located on the Butterfly Lot site. Ms. Bettman said the council’s interest in the Sears site if the RFP process was not successful should be articulated to the public. She said that going through the schematic process on that site could determine it was not the best site but it should move forward in that process with the caveat that the council hoped one of the three proposals would be successful. She was concerned about Mr. Kelly’s suggested language as it seemed to preclude doing the schemata until perhaps there was a development there, which would take it out of the process in the meantime. She thought it more likely there would be development on the Sears site than on the half block site across from the existing City Hall. She wondered if that site should be considered as well since the City already owned it, it was a half block and in an advantageous location that would not preclude other development. She suggested including the half block site in the schematic process in case the Whole Foods projects did not occur. MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Cohen clarified that Ms. Bettman was referring to the conceptual design process; the schematic process would occur after that phase. He reminded the council that the design team would complete two variations for each site: one with the police patrol function and one without. He wanted the council to be aware there would be twice as many concepts as sites in order to understand all of the implications and the potential for four sites meant a significant amount of work. Ms. Bettman noted that there was already a significant amount of information available on the existing City th Hall site and the half block across 8 Avenue so it would be incrementally more work but not twice as much work. She stated her preference to sell the current building or convert it to another use such as an arts venue or permanent structure for a year-round market. Mr. Penwell asked if there was a compromise that could take forward to the conceptual design process sites th 8 and 9, plus a generic half block site that could represent either the site across 8 Avenue from the current th City Hall or the Sears site. Mr. Hacker said the difference in orientation and location of the Sears and 8 Avenue sites would fundamentally change how each site was dealt with. He felt both sites were unique although there were some shared generic factors among all sites. He said the limited amount of calendar time and budgeted consultant time could result in less depth if more sites were included in the conceptual design process. Mr. Papé said the deliberations convinced him that the Butterfly Lot was a good choice. He asked if West Park Street could be vacated. Mr. Penwell replied that it would require a land use action but could be done. Mr. Kelly said he would prefer to see an indepth study of two sites in the conceptual design process than a th less comprehensive study of four sites and would not favor moving either the Sears or 8 Avenue sites to conceptual design at this point. Mayor Piercy suggested not using the phrase “eliminate all sites” in the motion and simply moving sites 8 and 9 forward to conceptual design. There were no objections to the suggestion. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the consultants to move for- ward with Site 8 and Site 9 for developing concept designs for a new City Hall. Ms. Bettman said she would support the motion but did not favor the existing City Hall site for demolition and rebuilding. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 6 Work Session