Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/19/08 Public HearningM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 19, 2008 8 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning the Planning Commission; and Amending Sections 2.013, 2.330, 2.332, 2.335, 2.345, 2.350, and 2.355 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. There being no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing and called for comments from the council. Councilor Bettman indicated she did not object to removing ex officio members of the Planning Commis- sion. She asked if there had been any consideration of adding two additional citizen voting members to the commission. Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department, replied that the commission had not discussed larger policy issues such as adding members. Councilor Bettman asked for language to add two citizen members to the Planning Commission and a work session to discuss that issue. She noted that the ordinance also removed the commission’s charge to review the capital improvement program (CIP) and said that was an important task consistent with the commis- sion’s other duties and should remain a Planning Commission responsibility. She said the agenda item summary (AIS) indicated the commission secretary was the planning director, but it did not explicitly state that in the ordinance. Mr. Nystrom said the bylaws were more explicit than the code. He said in practice someone had to be responsible for maintaining the commission’s records and it made sense for a staff member to perform that function; the language change would allow the secretary to be designated, rather than elected. Councilor Bettman requested that the language be revised to be explicit that the secretary was the planning director or designee. Councilor Zelenka concurred with Councilor Bettman’s request for language to add two citizen members to the Planning Commission. He asked why review of the CIP had been eliminated as a commission responsibility. Mr. Nystrom said the commission had discussed the very limited scope of its review because the CIP came to it as a financial document, rather than one related to land use issues. He said CIP projects were identified and prioritized by the council and that was outside the commission’s purview, as were financial issues. The commission felt its role with respect to the CIP was awkward. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing Councilor Zelenka preferred to continue the commission’s review of the CIP as he felt that was valuable input. He suggested that language could be revised to more clearly define the Planning Commission’s role and responsibilities for CIP review. Councilor Bettman clarified that she was requesting two voting citizen members to replace the two nonvoting ex officio members who were being removed from the commission; not an expansion of the total number of commissioners. She agreed with Councilor’s Zelenka’s remarks regarding the commission’s CIP review. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adding Sections 9.4770 Through 9.4790 to the Eugene Code, 1971 that Establish a Water Quality Overlay Zone; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.1040, 9.7055, 9.7205, 9.7305, 9.7820, 9.8005, 9.8025, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8415, 9.8470, 9.8472, 9.8474, 9.8515, 9.8520, 9.8855, and 9.8865 of that Code; Repealing Ordinance No. 20194 and Sections 6.650, 6.655, 6.660, 6.665, and 6.670 of that Code; Adopt- ing the Water Quality Waterways Map; Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. Jason Martin , Ohio Street, Eugene, thanked Councilor Solomon for her assistance. He expressed concern with the impact of the 25-foot setback requirement on his property. He questioned whether that requirement would be triggered by any repairs to an existing fence. Gene Addington , Ruby Avenue, Eugene, stated he was also concerned with the 25-foot requirement and was not certain how that was measured. He currently maintained the portion of his property that would be affected by the requirement and questioned who would have the responsibility under the new ordinance. Doug DuPriest , High Street, Eugene, representing California-Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. (COBI), used photographs that illustrated his concern about the ordinance’s impact on COBI’s satellite dish installation site. He identified a number of problems with the proposed ordinance, including the need for private property owners to hire consultants to determine the setback line. He said if the council adopted the water overlay ordinance, COBI was asking for an amendment that would exempt its Chad Drive property and exclude it from the overlay as a quasi-public telecommunications provider with unique engineering needs and federal regulatory requirements. Alternatively, he asked that the physical footprint be defined as being at least 12 feet wide or the width of the dish, if wider. He noted that COBI was the only telecommunications provider affected by the ordinance and an exemption would be fair. He said the larger dishes were a required upgrade to accommodate high definition signals. Mayor Piercy determined there was no one else wishing to speak and closed the public hearing. She called for comments from the council. Councilor Solomon thanked those who testified. She asked staff to follow up with Mr. Martin and Mr. Addington on the questions they posed during testimony. Therese Walch, Public Works Department, replied that she would follow up on the questions. She said the ordinance would not change who was responsible for managing the property and owners would be able to provide maintenance of vegetation, including existing landscaping. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing Councilor Solomon noted that the Martin property backed up on a ditch that stretched the entire length of a street, but only a few properties were subject to the requirement. Ms. Walch replied that based on topographic data showing the contour of the land there was no defined channel in other areas, which was why protection was not proposed. She indicated the data might need updating. Councilor Clark said there were still a number of questions regarding the ordinance’s impact and suggested an additional work session to address those issues. He asked if the setback boundaries that were mapped would become permanent with adoption of the ordinance or if there was a process to determine the specific boundaries. Ms. Walch said the ordinance, once adopted, would include the map as an exhibit; adoption would create a line on the map that would become the outward limit of the water quality management area. She said the adopted map would include a measurement tool. She felt that data on which the proposal was based was sound. Councilor Clark asked if property owners had received notification of the proposed ordinance other than that for the council’s work session and public hearing. Ms. Walch said outreach to all affected property owners began in June 2006 with the initial proposal; owners were also notified of all related Planning Commission meetings on the ordinance. She said another council work session was scheduled for June 18, 2008. In response to questions from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Walch said the water quality management area might encompass an existing home or structure, but those were excluded from the regulated area and the City was not requiring that they be removed. Regarding the concerns from COBI, she explained that the existing footprint of a satellite dish foundation would be excluded from the regulated area, but COBI wanted the projected area of a dish to be excluded in anticipation of possibly needing to enlarge the foundation during conversion to high definition. Councilor Bettman preferred to tie an exclusion to a use. She pointed out the ordinance included many caveats and exemptions and asked if the outcome could be quantified in terms of benchmarks and standards. She wanted to see that information at the work session. Councilor Clark asked how the ordinance would affect additions to a home or outbuildings located in the regulated area. Ms. Walch stated that there were provisions that enabled erecting a new accessory structure of less than 120 square feet, but additions to a home would not be permitted. She said a list of affected homes was included as an exhibit to the ordinance. In response to a comment from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Walch acknowledged that the ordinance needed some clarification regarding its impact on existing fences. Councilor Zelenka asked for language addressing the problem of larger satellite dish footprints to accommo- date high definition transmission. He commented that the point of the ordinance was better water quality and it was more efficient to improve water quality through enhanced regulation than building treatment plants. City Attorney Emily Jerome said that motions addressing COBI’s request had been prepared at Councilor Poling’s request and would be made available to the council. Councilor Ortiz pointed out that the ordinance represented the City’s response to federal requirements for protecting and improving water quality. Councilor Taylor asked for information about the basis on which 90 miles of waterways were excluded. She also asked whether a property owner could build any type of structure or continue to extend their house if MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing there was already a structure within the regulated area. Ms. Walch said she would provide a written response prior to the next work session. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Extra-Territorial Water and Sewer Extensions Procedures; and Amending Sections 9.7055, 9.7205, 9.7820, and 9.8121 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the procedures for providing testimony. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the council. There were no questions or comments from the council. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Public Contracting Provisions; Repealing Section 2.150 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Sections 2.1420 and 2.1430 of that Code; and Adding a New Section 2.1447 to that Code. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the procedures for providing testimony. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for comments from the council. Councilor Bettman observed that the ordinance gave the purchasing agent a lot of latitude to declare an emergency and establish special circumstances that would allow expenditures without any competition or public bidding. She preferred language that specified the City Manager or designee instead of the purchasing agent. She objected to removal of 2.1430(7)(b) relating to notification of the council and asked to have the language restored. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Rental Housing Standards; Amending Section 8.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Repealing Section 5 of Ordinance No. 20239. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the procedures for providing testimony. Jim Straub , Owl Road, Eugene, acting president of the Rental Owners Association of Lane County (ROA), said the association currently represented over 960 members covering over 6,500 area rental units. He said the association had a deep commitment to promoting fair housing and landlord/tenant regulations and aggressively educated its members about all laws related to rental housing. He stated that the ROA had been on the interested parties list for housing code issues for the past four years, but had not received any notification about the council work session or request to staff to draft language for expansion of the current code. That information became available through a chance encounter with a council member last week. He said landlords, as the sole funding source for the housing program, had earned the right to have a voice in changes to the regulations and asked the council to delay its vote on the ordinance to allow the ROA to provide input. Heather Hannah , Avalon Street, Eugene, ROA board member, addressed concerns with incorporating the issue of mold into the housing code. She said it would open a Pandora’s Box by requiring standards, limits, identification procedures and testing parameters. She said mold was everywhere and not all mold was MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing harmful; expanding the code to include it could force expensive processes on property owners when it might not be a health hazard. She strongly urged the council to reconsider including mold. She said housing programs in other jurisdictions were watching closely as Eugene’s decision regarding mold could have ramifications across the state. She said there were no state or federal guidelines related to acceptable levels of mold and questioned whether the City wished to assume that responsibility. She said the ROA felt it was preferable to provide educational seminars to landlords and tenants alike, rather than incorporating it into the rental housing code. She encouraged the council to postpone incorporating mold into the housing program until those issues were studied and professional opinions sought. She also encouraged formation of a committee representing staff, landlords and tenants to discuss the future housing code program, as was done in Portland. She referred to a memorandum from staff indicating that the City would not assume any liability for mold; that would be passed on to landlords and it would be very expensive. Dennis Casady , Eugene, stated that Eugene’s housing program was based on the Corvallis model. He said the Corvallis ordinance included a sunset clause and the ROA had lobbied for a sunset clause in Eugene’s code. He said the ROA had also asked for a separate or designated account for fees collected by the housing programs, but that was not established. He said the Corvallis program assessed $8 per unit while Eugene assessed $10 per unit per year; the Corvallis program had one staff person to administer it and Eugene had three-and-a-half people to administer its program. He said the Eugene housing program, which only duplicated Oregon landlord/tenant law, had a $78,000 surplus annually. He was troubled that the ROA was not informed about the proposed changes to the ordinance and urged the council to reestablish instead of remove the sunset clause to assure that the City would continue to revisit the housing code and make adjustments as necessary in the future. Devin Gates , Maxwell Road, Eugene, commented that legal aid was available at no cost for tenants who qualified, as was the court. He said the law was very clear concerning retaliatory action towards tenants and provided punitive damages. He noted that units deemed unacceptable represented less than one percent of the rental market and asked out of fairness that the council consider protection for landlords from bad tenants. He expressed alarm with including mold in the ordinance. He said the state was specific about habitability and aside from leaking roofs and plumbing, all other mold was tenant-caused due to the environmental conditions they created, such as not using bathroom fans, heating rooms properly, poor housekeeping or failing to notify the landlord of a problem. He said no other jurisdiction addressed mold, with exception of minimal language used by the Gresham program. He cautioned the council about the potential unintended consequences to the availability and affordability of rental housing. Michael Steffen , Pine Canyon Drive, Eugene, stated he was also an ROA board member. He urged the council to retain a sunset provision to give rental property owners an opportunity to provide input on the housing program. Nancy Nichols , Deadwood Creek Road, Deadwood, said she owned five rental properties in Eugene, most of them for longer than 20 years. She said she occasionally found mold in a house when tenants moved, but not others, and felt that the mold could be attributed to tenant behavior, rather than the house. She was very concerned about adding mold to the ordinance. She did not object to the housing program initially, but gave several examples of how it had caused unnecessary delays in making a property available for rental because the City could not determine the nature of a problem or how to solve it. She noted that not all people were sensitive to mold, while others were sensitive to certain paints or adhesives. She asked if paints and glues would be added to the housing code. She said most mold was due to insufficient use of fans, heating or cleaning and she did not understand how housing inspectors could correct tenant habits. She said a better MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 5 Public Hearing use of the surplus fees was to fast track solutions to code violations to provide landlords with definitive directions and any needed permits within three weeks of an inspection. Bill Slattery , Jackson Street, Eugene, stated he was a general contractor and forensic investigator for construction defects. He had been involved in many high profile mold and spore cases in Oregon and suggested that $78,000 would not be adequate to hire an industrial hygienist, which was what would be required to certify a “mold infested” area. He said mold was an ill-defined event; some people were allergic to it and others were not. He said most problems with mold in houses and buildings related to moisture penetration and entrapment and dealing with it was an active, not passive event; an annual inspection would not prevent mold. He pointed out that the Center for Disease Control found no toxic mold; that was a term developed by the tort industry. He urged the council not to expand the ordinance to include mold. nd Sam Dotters-Katz , West 22 Avenue, Eugene, president-elect of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO), endorsed adoption of the ordinance changes that would augment Eugene’s rental housing standards. He understood there were state statutes in place related to some of those standards, but recourse through court proceedings was too time-consuming and expensive for the two large groups—low income renters and students living off campus. He said it was an access issue and not related to changing the rights of renters; only making their options for recourse more accessible and usable. th Tom Bode , East 18 Avenue, Eugene, said he was a University of Oregon students and renter who had mold in his unit. He followed the guidelines for using a fan and keeping the apartment warm, but his landlord ignored the mold problem. He supported adding mold to the rental housing standards as it represented a threat to the health of renters and renters alone should not bear the responsibility for prevention and remediation of mold. He said researched demonstrated that mold in the home could be a serious health threat, causing allergic reactions and irritating lungs; some mold created microtoxins, which caused illness and death. He said moisture caused mold and cleaning it up without addressing the underlying problem was only a temporary solution. Proper preventative measures could require significant structural changes to housing units for which renters lacked the expertise, resources and permission to perform; they were best undertaken by landlords. He asserted that there were federal guidelines asserting that mold cleanup could be dangerous. He urged the council to include mold in the housing standards as a necessity, not a luxury for rentals. Hilary Jones , University Street, Eugene, a University of Oregon student and renter, related her personal experience with mold in her housing unit to illustrate the need to include mold in the ordinance. She asked the council to adopt the ordinance to improve Eugene’s rental housing standards. Kari Herinckx, Kinsrow Avenue, Eugene, a University of Oregon student, thanked the council for giving students the opportunity to address the need to continue the work started four years ago when students fought for Eugene rental housing standards. She said students represented the needs of all renters. She said the three items being added to the ordinance—mold, security and lack of smoke detectors—reflected the top three complaints from renters. She said those issues represented tangible threats to the health and security of renters, who composed almost half of the City’s population, and passing the ordinance would assure a better standard of living. Paul Cauthorn , Baker Boulevard, Eugene, remarked that landlords provided a service to the community by making quality housing available at a reasonable fee. Tenants were also provided appliances and an on-call handyman when needed. He said tenants had full protection of their rights under State law that included many things the ineffective, redundant City housing program did not. He said staff was advocating for MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 6 Public Hearing expansion of the program even though it had assisted few people and caused many evictions. He pointed out that Eugene was hosting the Olympic Trials next month and yet roads were deteriorating and public buildings in disrepair. He said the council had failed the citizens and urged it to stop chastising small businesses and correct its own mistakes. Patti Lundeen , Lusk Road, Eugene, spoke on behalf of Metro Multi-Family Housing Association, representing many members in the Eugene area. She said the association provided education on mold and moisture and was opposed to the expansion of the housing code to include mold. She said it appeared staff was recommending the expansion in order to avoid returning surplus funds to landlords and lower inspection fees. She said mold, security and smoke alarm issues were frequently the result of tenant behavior and at the very least language addressing tenant responsibility should be included. Jami Sterling-Counard , Spyglass Drive, Eugene, stated she had been in the property management business for over 30 years. She agreed there were mold problems but believed in finding the right balance. She said the industry had a strong emphasis on education and wanted to do the right thing. She said she had not received any notifications of the proposed code revisions until last week and was troubled by the lack of input from the industry. She said when the program was established there were some issues that were highlighted: the program would sunset and there would be a review to determine costs versus need. She said that had not occurred and instead the program was being expanded. She said of the 815 calls the program received, 106 were legitimate concerns and of those only five resulted in violations. She was not certain how that demonstrated a need for the program. She urged the council to ask for an accounting of the fees collected by the program and delay a decision until a program review had been conducted and funds accounted for. Will Hays , Ridgley Boulevard, Eugene, stated he was an ROA member and agreed with previous speakers from the association. He listed 20 years of experience in property management and maintenance, specializ- ing in environmental and habitability issues. He had conducted training in mold and mildew abatement for a wide range of organizations and agencies. He emphasized that mold was everywhere and it required moisture. He said the Environmental Protection Agency had not established any thresholds related to mold and did not think the council had the expertise to establish that level. He said the ROA had procedures and materials that were available to anyone, including tenants, to address mold problems. He was also concerned that cost estimates were made without any regulatory experience. He urged the council to remove mold from the ordinance. Larry Sweek , Walterville, said he had been in real estate and property management and was concerned with the lack of communication with the industry. He supported establishing a committee that would bring stakeholders and resources together to discuss the issue and determine needs. John Huddleston , Patterson Street, Eugene, said he was a University of Oregon student. In 2005 he was living off campus when a fire started outside his window and the entire apartment caught fire. He said residents were able to escape, but he was badly burned; no one heard a smoke alarm and he agreed with the need for higher standards relating to smoke detectors. Mayor Piercy determined there was no one else wishing to speak and closed the hearing. She called for comments from the council. Councilor Ortiz agreed with the need to revisit the ordinance. She was concerned with the lack of participation from a significant part of the community as both tenants and landlords should be involved in MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 7 Public Hearing discussions. She supported a sunset provision as a means for reviewing the program and determining that it was still meeting community needs. She had no objection to the provisions related to smoke detectors but felt the issue of mold needed to be examined in greater depth. She hoped the council would delay its decision until a work session could be held. Councilor Zelenka agreed with the need for more information on the issue of mold and asked for information from the Portland and Gresham programs which had addressed mold problems. He said the housing program was necessary because not all issues were handled on a voluntary basis. He did not think the program was duplicating regulatory requirements; it was a mechanism for assuring they were implemented. He said the proposed enhancements to housing standards represented basic health and safety issues. Councilor Bettman asked staff to review the public notice procedures for the ordinance. Marsha Miller, Planning and Development Department, replied that staff had returned to the council with a review of the public housing code as requested; two work sessions were held and the council provided clear direction on what was to be included in the ordinance. She said the City’s standard public notice procedures were followed as staff was not given directions to develop an advisory committee. She reminded the council that there had been at least three advisory committees on housing codes over the past 15 years. Councilor Bettman observed that whenever there was an ordinance regulating an industry, the industry wanted to help frame that ordinance. She did not feel an advisory committee was necessary every time the council considered revising the code; the public hearing provided adequate opportunity for input. She asserted that laws could not be predicated only on industry interests. She asked for a response from staff to public testimony if the council held another work session. She said over half of the housing units in Eugene were rental because the University of Oregon had externalized student housing needs to the community, making it necessary for the City to assure housing was habitable. She did not favor a sunset provision because the housing code was necessary to protect the health and safety of renters. Councilor Solomon remarked that a sunset provision provided an opportunity for the council to review the housing program and determine it was relevant and achieving the goals that were established for it and if it was not, revise the program to better meet needs. She was disappointed that staff did not provide more comprehensive notice of the proposed ordinance to the industry. She said no one was suggesting an advisory committee composed only of the industry and noted that Councilor Ortiz had emphasized the importance of including both landlords and tenants. She said the code was intended as a tool for both landlords and renters and instead it appeared it was being used against landlords. Councilor Solomon agreed with the need for an accounting of how program funds were spent and also asked for a report on the number of calls, call types and responses to those calls since the program’s inception. She did not find the program’s website helpful. She asked for clarification of how emergency provisions were enforced. Rachelle Nicholas, Planning and Development Department, replied that a section of the code addressed dangerous buildings and referred to the building code. She could not think of any instance where a house had been posted for rental housing code standards. She said what typically happened was that an inspection under the rental housing code identified safety concerns related to the State building code that were serious enough to warrant posting a house as a dangerous building. She said there had been four incidents of that nature. Councilor Solomon asked if the rental housing code emergency clause had been used to enter a building without notifying a landlord. She said that had been done under the State building code as the City’s staff enforced both the rental housing and State building codes. She said the program received both types of calls MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 8 Public Hearing and if the problem was related to the State building code the tenant could authorize access; if the call related to the rental housing program a 24-hour notice was given to the landlord. Councilor Clark agreed with Councilor Ortiz and remarked that the large number of people attending the hearing illustrated the importance of a periodic review of the housing program and the need for public participation. He supported holding another work session on the ordinance and forming an advisory committee similar to the one established in Portland. He suggested it include University of Oregon students. Mr. Ruiz said he would poll the council on a work session and formation of an advisory committee. Councilor Pryor agreed with the need to take additional time to consider revision of the ordinance in a more thoughtful manner and find the right balance. He regretted the lack of notification to some interested parties and stressed the importance of more public input from both landlords and tenants. He believed there were legitimate concerns about mold, but felt there was a lack of expertise at this point to identify a clear course and wanted more information before making a decision. Councilor Taylor stated she would not support another work session as the council had already heard everyone’s opinions. She said the purpose of the code was to protect renters and she had not heard any renters object to the proposed ordinance changes. She was opposed to a sunset provision and an advisory committee. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to remove the mold pro- vision from the ordinance and take it for consideration to a work session and bring the remainder of the ordinance back to the council for action on the scheduled date. She clarified that her motion did not adopt the ordinance and was intended to move forward with the other ordinance provisions without delay while the mold provision was discussed further. She was opposed to the creation of an advisory committee as it would be dominated by the industry because students and low- income renters did not have the resources to participate. Councilor Clark deplored the “us versus them” approach to problem-solving. He said there was disagree- ment among those who testified and the council about how to proceed and it was appropriate to involve more people in making a wiser decision. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Bettman’s intent and was in favor of moving forward with just the provisions related to security and smoke detectors and addressing mold concerns in a work session. He would support a scaled-down version of an advisory committee to obtain more public input. Councilor Pryor said he would support proceeding with the security and smoke detector provisions of the ordinance and removing the mold provision for further study. He did not feel the council had heard all of the opinions on mold and the rental housing program and an advisory committee could be very helpful. Councilor Ortiz supported the motion and asked staff to provide information on creating a smoke detector voucher program with the surplus program funds. Councilor Bettman asked that a work session on the mold provision be scheduled before the council’s break. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 9 Public Hearing Councilor Zelenka voiced concerns about holding a work session during the summer when students were not readily available. The motion passed, 5:2; Councilor Clark and Councilor Solomon voting in opposi- tion. Mr. Ruiz remarked that staff had responded to council direction in preparing the proposed ordinance and the public hearing had achieved its intended purpose in terms of obtaining public input. He said rental property owners would receive any future information related to the rental housing program. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Beam Development Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the procedures for providing testimony. th Bob Cassidy , East 27 Avenue, Eugene, suggested regarding the downtown as an education center, specifically using the Centre Court building for the Lane Community College (LCC) downtown facility. He said its structure and location were ideally suited to that purpose and encouraged the council to consider that possibility. th George Brown , West 17 Avenue, Eugene, encouraged the council to proceed with the Beam development proposal. He said Beam had successfully completed development projects in other communities, particu- larly in Portland, and was a competent, professional business. He suggested development could be accomplished in two phases with the first phase focused on filling the hole and redeveloping the Centre Court Building and saving the Washburne Building for the second phase. He felt the Beam project would encourage other development in the downtown area. Ms. Jerome raised a point of clarification regarding convening a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council and convened the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. Councilor Bettman questioned why the URA agency needed to be convened when it was federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds that were being used. Hugh Prichard , Emerald Drive, Eugene, encouraged the council to pursue the Beam development proposal. He said a missing element had been lack of an anchor tenant, but the City could commit to sufficient space to drive the project forward. He described examples of other government entities that had done something similar by occupying problem buildings to help solve civic problems: ? City of Eugene – Atrium building ? Lane Community College – Montgomery Ward building ? City of Springfield – Springfield City Hall ? Lincoln City – municipal offices ? City of Corvallis – municipal offices Mr. Prichard said helping to solve difficult problems in the civic environment was an important part of the council’s mission. He envisioned a civic center that was developed incrementally and affordably instead of a new City Hall. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 10 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy determined there was no one else wishing to speak and closed the public hearing. She called for questions and comments. Councilor Bettman asked if staff had spoken to LCC about the Centre Court building. Mike Sullivan, Planning and Development Department, replied that staff was engaged in ongoing conversation about its space needs in downtown and would follow up on the possibility of using the Centre Court building. Councilor Taylor thanked Mr. Cassidy for his suggestion regarding the Centre Court building. Councilor Clark was pleased that Beam had continued its commitment to downtown redevelopment. He still had some questions regarding the project, specifically environmental studies and whether water damage had been assessed. Mr. Sullivan said Beam had conducted extensive investigations and was satisfied with the results. He said the City had provided the initial environmental studies to Beam and thought Beam would also pursue its own studies. Councilor Solomon asked how many square feet of occupancy had been committed to by the City. Mr. Sullivan replied that no specific commitment had been made but estimated that Beam would require between 30,000 and 50,000 square feet to be preleased before moving forward with the project. He said the new building to be constructed on the Aster development site and the existing Centre Court building would total about 120,000 square feet. Councilor Solomon asked if there would be a cap on costs and when the actual costs would be known. Mr. Sullivan said there would be a maximum cap on the City’s space commitment in the purchase agreement. He said Beam was still working on details of the pro forma that would be attached to the purchase agreement and that would include final lease rates. He expected the rate would be $1.83 per square foot or close to that amount. Councilor Solomon asked if there was a comparison of that rate to what the City was currently paying in total for the other space that would be vacated in order to move City functions into the Beam project. She asked if there were plans for the sale of other City properties such as 858 Pearl Street. Mr. Ruiz said staff would research the cost issue and provide the information to the council. He said the City was still committed to a private tenant as the first priority, but if the City did become a tenant the intent was to minimize the financial difference and evaluate financial opportunities related to other City properties. Councilor Solomon expressed concern about moving forward without a clear idea of the cost or adequate information to make a decision. She noted that detailed information on space costs had been provided by staff during discussion of the new City Hall project and should be readily available. She wondered what type of response there might be from local developers to a request for proposals if the City provided the incentive of being the anchor tenant. Councilor Bettman remarked that local developers had not responded when there was the implied benefit of an incentive. She was concerned that staff was moving forward with plans to vacate 858 Pearl Street and planning to sell it when the council had not provided that direction. She wanted a work session to discuss all aspects of vacating space, including the current cost of space in the Eugene Hotel building and 858 Pearl Street and plans to sell any City-owned property. She also asked how many square feet of space was rented by the Metro Partnership at the Chamber of Commerce office and the cost of that space. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 11 Public Hearing Councilor Clark agreed with the need for a discussion of the larger policy questions involved in addressing City office space needs. He noted that the City had issued a request for quotes, not a request for proposals, which was a substantive difference. He said the cost of project financing for a private developer was between six and seven percent, while the City’s bond rate was five percent. He questioned why the City did not develop the project. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 19, 2008 Page 12 Public Hearing