Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: August 11, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the. June 9, 2008, Work Session, June 11, 2008, Work Session, June 18, 2008, Work Session, and June 23, 2008, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.June 9, 2008, Work Session B.June 11, 2008, Work Session C.June 18, 2008, Work Session D.June 23, 2008, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080811\S0808112A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 9, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Piercy said she had attended an awards ceremony at Cal Young Middle School for student Hunter Hastings, who had won a national letter-writing competition. Mr. Pryor said the Active Bethel celebration was an enjoyable event. He announced he was representing the mayor at the Bethel School District to deliver a proclamation against hate speech and discriminatory activities and would have to leave the work session by 7 p.m. Ms. Ortiz thanked City Manager Jon Ruiz for his efforts on behalf of the WOW Hall. She reminded Bethel and Trainsong neighbors of a June 10 open house about planned Eugene Water & Electric board (EWEB) projects. She was pleased with community interaction during the city manager’s recent visit to the Whitaker neighborhood. She noted that the Downtown Neighborhood Association was active again and meetings well attended. Mr. Poling said the city manager would hold a community forum at Cal Young Middle School on June 12 and another forum at Sheldon Community Center on June 19. He encouraged everyone to attend the SafetyFest at Alton Baker Park on June 21. Mr. Clark reminded Ward 5 neighbors living on Bond Lane that there would be a meeting on June 24 at Sheldon Community Center. He said the annual Willamette River cleanup would occur on June 14 and thanked REI for its sponsorship. Ms. Taylor noted that the city manager would visit Parker Elementary School on June 11. She attended the National League of Cities (NLC) Human Development Steering Committee meeting. She said the committee’s work was focused primarily on health care and parental involvement in schools. She would provide a report to the council. She said the NLC lobbyist had asked elected officials across the county to write letters in support of Amtrak reauthorization. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka announced that the Fairmount Neighbors had prevailed in their appeal of the planning director’s decision regarding a conditional use permit for the University of Oregon basketball arena. He was not opposed to moving forward with the alley vacation, but asked that the council delay final action until it was more synchronized with the rest of the arena planning process. Mr. Clark said the Amazon Headwaters Acquisition Committee’s report would be completed this week and thanked Mr. Zelenka for his work in finding compromises among committee members’ positions. Ms. Piercy commented that she had attended the We Are Bethel celebration and was amazed at the large turnout. She said it was becoming an institution in the community. Ms. Ortiz said there were hundreds of people in attendance and a large percentage were children. th Mr. Ruiz announced there would be a June 17 public meeting to review proposals in response to the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street Request for Proposals (RFP). The council would consider propels on July th 16. He said that WestTown on 8 was being occupied by residents and a grand opening as scheduled for August; there would be a June 10 ground breaking for the Prairie View affordable housing project in Bethel. B. WORK SESSION: Downtown Public Safety Zone Police Chief Bob Lehner introduced Sgt. Pete Kerns to present the topic. He also introduced that Dan Barkovic from the city prosecutor’s office, Jerome Lidz and Lauren Sommers from the city attorney’s office and Judge Edwin Allen, who were available to respond to questions. Sgt. Kerns described the three options developed in response to the council’s direction. He said two options were exclusion ordinances and the third was an enhanced penalty zone; however, discussions with the Municipal Court indicated the enhanced penalty zone would probably not be effective. He said Option A would impose a 90-day exclusion on an offender upon arrest or citation for one of the offenses listed in the ordinance, with a one-year exclusion upon conviction. Option B would exclude persons for one year upon conviction of the commission of certain offenses within the downtown boundaries. He said a judge would impose the exclusion under both ordinances and there were provisions for appeal of the exclusion. Mr. Clark favored Option A as a reflection of the council’s previous discussions. He preferred the term “time out zone” instead of exclusion order. He asked how the geographic boundary of the exclusionary zone was determined. Sgt. Kerns said the boundary was based on the area were most offenses occurred, based on experience. Mr. Clark suggested that the western boundary be moved one block further to the west to include businesses that had experienced a significant number of problems. Ms. Solomon asked if the police department had the capacity to maintain a consistent police presence in the exclusion zone. Sgt. Kerns replied that two officers were on one-year assignments in the downtown area and the ordinance would be a tool for them to use. He said the department was not presently able to add a third officer. Ms. Solomon noted that Option B based the exclusion on a conviction and asked how long it could take for a conviction to occur. Mr. Barkovic replied that the length of time depended on a variety of factors. He said the problem with waiting for a conviction was that there were many instances when someone failed to appear in court on the charges and it could be six to nine months between arrest or citation and the trial. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Solomon indicated she preferred Option A and supported Mr. Clark’s suggestion to expand the western boundary. She noted a letter from Linda Henry regarding problems occurring outside of the library and was pleased the library was included in the ordinance boundary. Ms. Ortiz was willing to discuss the ordinance and conduct a public hearing to receive community feedback. She said in the past the Human Rights Commission (HRC) had been concerned that an exclusionary zone was used punitively. She noted that considerable community policing had been added since the council had last discussed an exclusion ordinance and questioned whether it was still needed. She observed that the ordinance did not include a variance to enter downtown for entertainment purposes such as a performance at McDonald Theater. Mr. Pryor agreed with expansion of the western boundary of the proposed zone. He sought to strike a balance between flexibility and certainty and felt that Option A best achieved that in a thoughtful and transparent way. Ms. Taylor pointed out that if people were excluded from the downtown area they would just go elsewhere in the community. She was willing to listen to community feedback but was opposed to excluding people from any place and hoped the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was following the issue. She said the downtown should be open to everybody. Mr. Zelenka agreed there were problem behaviors in the downtown area. He was opposed to Option A because it would exclude someone before a conviction. He was willing to discuss Option B, but wanted to see how effective an increased police presence, combined with Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEI) patrols, would be in controlling problem behaviors. He said that some of the offenses in the ordinance were not criminal violations and the variances needed to be clarified. He was concerned about the impact of the ordinance on Municipal Court’s workload. Ms. Piercy commented that there were many projects underway in the downtown area that would have a beneficial impact and wondered if the ordinance should have a sunset provision that would allow its effectiveness to be evaluated in the near future. She said the City had explored some short-term measures, such as increased policing of downtown, loans to businesses for improving their premises and other strategies for improving the appearance of downtown, which had helped to reduce problems. She was also concerned about the burden an ordinance might place on the Municipal Court. Judge Allen remarked that the proposed exclusion zone was significantly different from the prostitution zone, both in size and number of offenders. He said there had been 45 exclusions in the prostitution zone in eight years and the clientele in that zone was typically ashamed and embarrassed, resulting in few repeat offenders. He said the exclusion was part of probation for those individuals. Regarding the proposed exclusion zones, he said there were 8,600 misdemeanors filed with the court last year and 5,290 of those fit the definition of an offense in the proposed ordinance, although he was not certain how many of those occurred in the downtown area. He said the funding crisis for the public safety system in Lane County meant he did not have the jail space to enforce such as ordinance. He recognized the City’s desire for a vibrant downtown free of problem behaviors, but those behaviors were limited to a small number of individuals. He said the ordinance would have to be enforceable to be effective. Ms. Piercy asked if the list of offenses should be narrowed. Judge Allen said it could be pared down to better focus on what the City hoped to accomplish and grant the court the discretion to determine the length of exclusion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Poling felt the ordinance was intended to be focused on the chronic violator. He favored Option A and expansion of the western boundary. He was willing to listen to public input. He was concerned with the ability to hold people accountable for their behavior. He was not in favor of a sunset provision as revitalization of downtown would take years to achieve. Mr. Clark agreed that downtown should be a place where everyone was welcome, but that welcome ended at a point when someone intimidated, threatened or harassed others with their behavior. The point of the ordinance was to indicate that such behavior would not be tolerated in downtown and addressing public safety issues was an integral part of revitalizing the downtown. He said the ordinance gave officers a tool as just an increased presence was not sufficient. He understood concerns about imposing sanctions on first time offenders and would consider scaling back the list of qualifying offenses, but he wanted an immediate response to the hardcore individuals who caused a majority of the problems and for that reason supported Option A. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Clark about the importance of public safety to downtown revitalization efforts. She asked what was considered a preponderance of evidence required to determine someone had committed a crime within the zone in order to impose exclusion. Mr. Lidz said a preponderance of evidence meant it was more probably than not, but was not beyond a reasonable doubt. He said the judge had to be persuaded that the offense occurred; the decision was not made by the officer. Ms. Ortiz said it was also important to include other offenders, such as sexual predators, in the ordinance to assure they could be excluded from the zone. Mr. Pryor commented that the debate, which was also occurring in other communities, was about the conflict between individual liberties versus the community’s public safety needs. He said added to that was the problem of resources to assure meaningful enforcement. He hoped the public hearing would provide some guidance on how to create a system that was enforceable. Ms. Taylor said the worst offense on the list was pointing a fire arm at someone. She asked what the consequences were if that occurred anywhere in the community. Sgt. Kerns said that person would be arrested for menacing. He said the individual would be lodged in the jail, but likely released quickly. Ms. Taylor said if someone was excluded from downtown for that offense they could go somewhere else in the community and do that. She said that was a major concern for her as it would just move problems around. Ms. Piercy observed that enforcement in neighborhood parks had shifted the problems somewhere else, but that allowed people in the neighborhood to resume using their park. She said the City faced that issue all the time and while problems were not solved, enforcement did bring some relief to an area. Mr. Zelenka expressed concerned with infringing on people’s rights and taking away freedoms without due process. He questioned the constitutionality of excluding someone without a conviction. Mr. Lidz said the ordinance was modeled on the City’s prostitution-free zone ordinance, with some modifications, which was modeled on a Portland ordinance. He said the Portland ordinance had been upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court as a civil remedy. He said as a constitutional matter a criminal conviction was not required, but due process was and that was the purpose of bringing the individual before a judge for a decision. He said the city attorney regarded the ordinance as constitutional; it was the council’s policy decision to balance free movement in the City with enhancing livability in downtown. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said he was interested in a different approach. He noted that most of the listed offenses were serious crimes and when committed by habitual offenders, the exclusion could be part of probation or parole. He was worried about enforcement capacity and preferred to give additional police presence a chance before taking the step of creating an exclusion zone. He asked for definitions of the offenses listed in the ordinance. Mr. Lidz replied that all of the offenses were defined either in City code or Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). Mr. Clark understood Mr. Zelenka’s interest in allowing additional officers to do the job first, but said that the officers lacked sufficient tools and that was the reason for proposing the ordinance. He was not comfortable with no action and wanted the council to respond to community concerns. He was not interested in limiting people’s rights unless they had proved their willingness to violate other people’s rights; at that point sanctions were appropriate as a last resort tool. Ms. Ortiz asked for a report to the council on the exclusion zone’s effectiveness if the ordinance was implemented. She asked if the Portland ordinance was still in effect. Ms. Sommers said the ordinance was still included in Portland’s online code. Ms. Ortiz opined that effectiveness of the ordinance would depend on officers’ ability to enforce it. Mr. Zelenka asked for a copy and background information on the Portland ordinance. He reiterated his concern with protecting people’s rights. He said the ordinance provided considerable discretion and that made it susceptible to abuse. Ms. Piercy asked if the meetings to discuss the ordinance included representation from all interested parties, including Municipal Court. Mr. Clark said initial meetings consisted of a wide range of stakeholders, including downtown business owners, police officers and HRC staff. He said a larger conversation including the ACLU would also be held. Chief Lehner added that prosecutors and Municipal Court judges and administrative staff were included and the ordinance had been discussed with the ACLU. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the city manager to schedule a public hearing on an ordinance providing for exclusion of persons who commit cer- tain offenses in the downtown area. Sgt. Kerns commented that there were complications associated with excluding persons based on probation, rather than an ordinance. He said the impact of limited jail capacity on the ordinance was difficult to determine because the police department practiced a strategy of disruption that did not require a fully staffed, robust criminal justice system, but did require a persistent police presence with tools such as the ordinance to interfere with criminal conduct of chronic offenders. In response to a question from Mr. Lidz, Mr. Pryor said that paring the list of offenses could wait until after feedback from the community at the public hearing. Mr. Zelenka preferred to clarify and refine the ordinance content prior to submitting it for public comment. He felt that the questions raised during the work session should be answered before a public hearing was scheduled. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table until the answers to ques- tions had been provided to the council. The motion failed, 5:2; Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Ms. Taylor said she would not support the ordinance, but agreed the list should be reduced to those activities that were dangerous to others. She asked if the offense related to consumption of alcohol in unlicensed places could apply to someone attending the First Friday Artwalk. Sgt. Kerns said events like the Artwalk obtained a license, although someone walking along the sidewalk with a glass of wine could theoretically be cited. Mr. Clark pointed out that the council often forwarded staff recommendations as submitted to a public hearing for the purpose of receiving information about the community’s concerns and recommendations. He was willing to compromise on a shorter list of offenses, but wanted public input on the ordinance as proposed. Mr. Poling remarked that the list of offenses was based on a history of criminal activity in the area. He said those who wanted to testify at the public hearing could research the definition of offenses online if they were unclear. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor voting no. . WORK SESSION: General Obligation Bonds for Street Maintenance Projects C Sue Cutsogeorge, Central Services, provided an overview of a General Obligation (GO) bond measure. She said staff, at the council’s direction, had developed an $81 million bond measure for placement on the November ballot. She said the preliminary project list included in the agenda packet reflected full expenditure of the bond proceeds. She illustrated on a map the geographic distribution of projects, which included approximately 50 percent reconstruction projects and 50 percent overlay projects. In addition to the projects on the list, she said $350,000 would be set aside annually for preservation of off-street bike and pedestrian paths. She said the next step was to consolidate the data from the pavement management system into project groupings that made the most efficient use of bond funds. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the council’s interest in accountability and flexibility was addressed through a draft resolution that included hiring an independent auditor to review expenditure of bond proceeds and report to the city manager, the council and the public and establishing a department advisory committee (DAC) to review the project list annually and assist in identifying the projects that would be done each year. She said the DAC would also advise the city manager on any modifications to the list. She said the project list represented staff’s best professional estimate of what could be accomplished with bond proceeds over the next ten years, but it was impossible to predict with any accuracy the pavement condition of particular street segments or the exact costs; the DAC would help decide whether projects should be added or removed from the list depending on expenditure of funds. She said the deadline for referring a measure to the ballot was August 6, 2008. Mr. Pryor asked if the GO bond was the same as or similar to a ten-year serial local option levy as discussed by the council’s committee on transportation system funding. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the committee had discussed both long-term and short-term bond and the proposal was for a short-term bond similar in operation to a local option levy. She said payoff was incremental and interest costs lower. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pryor said all things considered it was wiser to refer the measure to the 2008 ballot than the 2010 ballot, where it would be competing with other funding measures. Mr. Poling asked about the estimated cost of an external auditor and if the cost would be paid from bond proceeds. Ms. Cutsogeorge said she would research the question and provide the information later. Mr. Poling appreciated the checks and balances built into the proposal and liked the preliminary project list. He supported an advisory committee that would review the project list on a regular basis because it was difficult to predict with certainty exactly what projects would need to be done at what time because of the variables of weather and traffic conditions. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor that a viable solution needed to be crafted now, but was concerned with placing the measure on the November 2008 ballot because of other measures that would be on the ballot. He felt that politicizing long-term solutions in the budget cycle would add challenges to passing the measure in November. He liked the concept of involving the public through an advisory committee, but had grave concerns about the measures passage in November. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Ruiz said if the council chose to refer the measure to the November 2008 ballot, it was essential that everyone be involved in the difficult task of assuring it was successful. He said the bond was part of a long-term, comprehensive solution to street maintenance. He had convened a community group to discuss what the public would be willing to support and he would have a better sense of that when the council had its next work session in late July. He commended staff for developing the information and the thorough assessment of street conditions. Ms. Solomon agreed that the bond measure would only account for less than half of the annual estimated cost for street maintenance, but it was essential to begin to address the issue. She was willing to refer the measure to the November ballot, but it would require the full support and efforts of the council to help educate the community about the need for the funding mechanism. Mr. Zelenka said the problem had grown so large that it could not be solved with just one revenue sources. He said lack of resources from the State and federal levels meant that local governments had to bear the full burden for road maintenance; the GO bond was part of a package of solutions to address the backlog of maintenance projects. He asserted that the project list should be very specific and not subject to change. He did not favor a DAC with no accountability that could revise the list once it had been approved by the voters. He did not object to prioritization, but objected to adding or removing projects from the list. He stressed the need to build trust and credibility with the public. He did not understand why a very specific list could not be developed. Kurt Corey, Public Works, explained that the list was the department’s best estimate of how $16 million would be used if it was currently available, based upon the pavement management system. He said the DAC was proposed in response to the council’s discussion at its January meeting of the need to establish some level of accountability in the process. He emphasized that the projects on the list represented high priority reconstruct projects and projects that would prevent deterioration to the point that reconstruction was necessary. Mr. Pryor left the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Zelenka comments that the parks bond was somewhat ambiguous in terms of how revenue would be used and he wanted to avoid that problem with a street maintenance funding measure. He asked if the bond could be referred to the May 2009 ballot. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that the measure would be subject to a double majority in May 2009. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Zelenka observed that the Crest Drive project was not on the list. Mr. Corey said there was significant discussion by the council of Crest Drive within the context of whether the bond would be used for improved or unimproved streets. He said there was specific direction from the council that unimproved street projects would not be included in the bond measure. Ms. Ortiz supported referring the bond to the ballot in November and was willing to help pass the measure. She said the community recognized that something needed to be done about streets and the challenge would be to education people about the importance of the bond as part of the funding structure. Ms. Taylor asked who was in the community group convened by Mr. Ruiz and how were they selected. Mr. Ruiz said he would provide a list of members to the council; members were recommended by councilors and the mayor in response to his request and he had identified others to fill in gaps. Ms. Taylor asked for a list of members and an explanation of why they were considered to know how an election would go. Mr. Ruiz said his interest was not in predicting election results, but rather what could various community interests agree upon. Ms. Taylor opined that including Crest Drive might improve the chances for passage. She was in favor of a bond measure, although she preferred using the General Funds if there were sufficient sources of revenue. She said voters could make a choice with the bond. Ms. Piercy stressed the council’s commitment to road repairs over the past several years and had imple- mented several short-term strategies. She said it was time to focus on long-term solutions and hoped that there would be strong council support and consensus if the measure was referred to the ballot. She suggested formation of a focus group to help prepare for an election campaign. She said the council could decide what type of advisory committee might be appropriate and agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the project list should not change. Ms. Solomon supported including a project list in the bond measure and agreed with the concept of an advisory committee to provide review and oversight. She did not see the advisory committee adding or deleting projects as much as reprioritizing them based on circumstances. Mr. Corey said the committee would provide advice if there were proceeds remaining after the project list was completed or if the funds were not adequate to complete all of the projects on the list. He said the project list was to some extent a moving target as a project that was now an overlay could become a reconstruct by the time funds were available. He said the list represented staff’s best estimate based on how pavement deterioration occurred. Ms. Solomon said there had to be a balance between asking voters to commit to paying for projects and the City’s ability to identify which projects would be constructed. She asked if a reduction in the number of municipal bond underwriters would have any impact on the bond measure. Ms. Cutsogeorge said there would be no problems as the bond measure was relatively small compared to those issued by other jurisdictions. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Cutsogeorge said that bond measures could be referred to any ballot, but a double majority was required for all elections except November in even numbered years. Mr. Zelenka said his concern with the bond measure as a funding mechanism was the lack of connection between the value of a house or commercial property and road use. He preferred fees that were based on road use, such as a gas tax, street utility fee or carbon tax. He was opposed to a DAC adding or deleting MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 8 Work Session projects and felt that would lose support from other councilors. He did not object to a DAC being involved in prioritization if there was another mechanism for revising the list that involved the council. He asked when the street utility would move forward. Mr. Corey said the current focus was the bond measure and other fee mechanisms would be addressed later to avoid confusing the issue. Mr. Zelenka noted that a Springfield citizen advisory committee had recommended a street utility or preservation fee as a funding mechanism. He asked if the Crest Drive project could be included on the list if the council reversed its policy to use funds only for improved streets. Mr. Corey said the council had determined that the City’s share of unimproved street projects should not be included in the bond measure. In response to another question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Corey said there were 75 miles of unimproved streets representing approximately 15 percent of streets. Ms. Cutsogeorge added that the $173 million backlog did not include any unimproved streets. Mr. Clark did not agree that the council had shown a commitment to street maintenance, which was why it had become an issue. He said adding funds to the budget to fix potholes did not address the greater problem of street repairs. He hoped the council could compromise on a solution that all could support. Ms. Piercy said she did not feel the problem had been solved, but wanted to acknowledge the council’s efforts over time to address the issue. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the city manager to bring council a resolution placing an $81.1 million GO bond measure on the November 2008 ballot, consistent with the initial project list in Attachment C and the draft resolution in Attachment E. Ms. Solomon asked if it was possible to include unimproved streets on the project list. Mr. Corey reiterated that the current ordinance, which supported the council’s policy, required unimproved streets to be paid for initially by direct assessment of properties. He said the council was scheduled to discuss assessment procedures at a work session later in the month. Ms. Solomon asked that the council’s policy regarding unimproved streets could be discussed at that work session. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Clark voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon June 11, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: Coordinated Population Projections City Manager Jon Ruiz said the purpose of the work session was to receive direction from the council regarding beginning the process of establishing a population forecast for Eugene in order to comply with requirements of House Bill 3337. He introduced Lisa Gardner, of the Planning and Development Department, to present the topic. Ms. Gardner stated that the comprehensive lands assessment studies required by HB 3337 required that a 20-year population forecast be established for both Springfield and Eugene much earlier than the County’s next periodic review. She said the County had delegated preparation of the population forecast to Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), but in April 2008 the Board of County Commissioners had rejected LCOG’s forecast and decided to wait until its next periodic review to conduct a population forecast. She said the County had rescinded that action and would be conducting a population forecast sooner than the next periodic review. She said state statutes allow cities to use a “safe harbor” approach to establishing population forecasts if a coordinated number is not otherwise available. She said City staff had reviewed several options and determined that the safe harbor approach was the best strategy for moving forward; Springfield staff had made the same determination and there was an opportunity to be more efficient by preparing one joint Metro Plan amendment that would allow each jurisdiction to take its own path. Ms. Gardner said the council was being asked to initiate a Metro Plan amendment process, but doing so did not commit the City to a population figure. She said an amendment process would allow input and questions when it went before the Planning Commission and the council. Ms. Bettman asked about the impact of the County’s most recent action on Eugene’s use of the safe harbor approach. Ms. Gardner said County staff was preparing materials for a June 25, 2008, work session that would include four options for the board’s consideration, none of which would preclude moving forward with the safe harbor approach or render a safe harbor population number irrelevant. She said safe harbor would assume a steady 1.31 percent growth rate for the urban population projected over the 20-year period. Ms. Bettman asked if establishing a population projection was a requirement of HB 3337. City Attorney Emily Jerome explained that the bill required the City to demonstrate it was providing sufficient buildable lands to accommodate housing needs for 20 years and a 20-year population forecast was required to begin that process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked when the County’s next periodic review was scheduled. Ms. Gardner said it would begin in six years. Ms. Jerome added that the current population forecast was a combined number for Eugene and Springfield and it only went to 2013. Ms. Bettman asked what process would be used to distribute population figures among the cities in Lane County and what role the council would have in reconciling those numbers. Ms. Gardner said the council would not have a role in reconciling the numbers because it was a County function to develop a coordinated population forecast. The recommendation from staff was to initiate a Metro Plan amendment process, which could be coordinated with Springfield to achieve some efficiencies. She said the County had several actions it could take at its June 25 work session; however, most of those options would take considerable time and increase Eugene’s need for a safe harbor number to comply with HB 3337. She said none of the County’s options would change Eugene’s safe harbor number. She said Eugene’s safe harbor number would be conservative and she was not certain what process the County would use to redistribute any additional population from a coordinated forecast. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome explained that the Division of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) had appealed on behalf of small cities, Lane County’s original resolution to postpone the population forecast until the next periodic review. She said the appeal had the intended effect as the County had withdrawn that decision. Referring to a memorandum from Ms. Gardner, Ms. Bettman asked what specific Eugene-related planning items would be delegated to regional staff. She asked who the regional staff was. Ms. Jerome said that Eugene and Springfield staff would be assigned to the project and a single amendment package, with a population forecast for each city, would be presented to the County. She said the project would be coordinated between Eugene and Springfield staff, but no other staff would be involved. Ms. Bettman asked if the same growth rate would be assumed for both jurisdictions. Ms. Gardner replied that the growth rate of 1.31 percent would be assumed for each jurisdiction based on currently adopted population figures and that trend would be extended over a 20-year period. She said each city would develop its own population number. Ms. Bettman asked if the adopted population number, or the 2005 number that was not adopted, would be used. Ms. Jerome stated that the formula for establishing population forecasts was in the statute and cited the relevant language. Ms. Bettman asserted that the 1.31 percent was a combined growth rate for the Eugene and Springfield areas. She asked if that would be broken down into an actual growth rate for Eugene and a growth rate for Springfield. Ms. Gardner cited a Portland State University 2007 study that estimated Eugene’s population at 153,690 and Spring- field’s at 57,320. She said, assuming a safe harbor approach at 1.31 percent growth rate, those figures would be 221,000 and 82,000 respectively. She understood that 1.31 percent reflected both cities’ existing growth rates. Ms. Taylor asked if there was any advantage to separate Metro Plan amendments. She thought it would be more work to coordinate the efforts of two staffs. Ms. Gardner said the population forecast processes would be separate and result in a forecast for each jurisdiction; they would be packaged in one amendment to present to the County, although that was not necessary if the council preferred a separate amendment. Ms. Taylor asked what option the City had if it decided not to use the safe harbor approach. Ms. Gardner replied that the City would have to wait for the County to establish a coordinated population number and that could take longer than the City had to meet its statutory requirements under HB 3337. She said the City had 18 months to comply and the analysis would take that long; it could not afford to wait. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if the City could choose a one- or two-percent growth rate. Ms. Gardner said the growth rate had to be based on an assumption about growth and using a past assumption was acceptable. She was not aware of any options that would allow the City to choose another assumption. Ms. Taylor asked what advantages or disadvantages there might be to having a higher or lower population projection. She also asked why the small cities had appealed the County’s initial decision. Ms. Gardner said a significantly higher or lower projection would affect what the 20-year supply of land should be. She understood that for small cities the growth rate and population assigned was more critical in terms of scale and could affect things like infrastructure and improvements. She said some state allocations were based on population projections. Ms. Taylor asked if a city would have to pay back funds if its population growth was slower than forecast. She commented that a larger population growth would create more pressure to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB). Ms. Gardner said she would need to research the question about repayment of state funds. She said a significantly higher growth rate would raise questions about how to accommodate that growth, but the safe harbor approach would not require any policy or growth rate change for the City. Mr. Pryor said that the questions about appeals by small cities and other aspects of the County’s action were interesting, but not relevant to the council’s decision. He felt the safe harbor approach presented the most flexible option the City had to keep moving forward under HB 3337 requirements, without being committed to a projection that could not later be revised. He said LCOG’s effort to forecast separate populations was based on 2005 numbers, even though they had not been adopted, and growth rates based on previous trends. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Gardner said she did not know the specific methodology used to develop the 1.31 percent assumption, but it was more conservative than the LCOG number. Mr. Zelenka said if there was a finite amount of State funding available for infrastructure and it was allocated based on population, a conservative assumption for Eugene and unrealistically high assumptions for other cities could shift money away from Eugene. He asked if the 1.31 percent assumption for both Eugene and Springfield could change. Ms. Gardner said there was already a targeted population number for each city based on the assumption and those numbers would not change during the planning process. Mr. Clark asked what efficiencies would be realized through coordination with Springfield. Ms. Gardner said there could be efficiencies in terms of both time and money through joint planning activities, as well as efficiencies in presenting one Metro Plan amendment to the County. Mr. Clark indicated he would support the City Manager’s recommendation as the logical way to move forward without taking other options off the table. Ms. Bettman asked what Springfield’s projected growth rate would be if it were based on specific historic data instead of a combined growth rate for Eugene and Springfield. Ms. Gardner said she would need to research the answer to that question. Ms. Bettman said that was a key issue for her and agreed with Mr. Zelenka’s concern about the allocation of state resources based on population projections. She said going with the safe harbor approach meant the City was adopting a projected population number. She was not convinced it was in the City’s best interests to move forward with a combined Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment and intended to amend the motion to assure the cities moved forward separately. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Ruiz cited a report from ECONorthwest to the Springfield City Council in October 2007 that said 1.7 percent was the average annual growth rate for Springfield between 1995 and 2006. He said given the relative populations of Eugene and Springfield, the combined rate of 1.31 percent was probably only slightly higher than Eugene’s actual average annual growth rate. Ms. Piercy asked if the public processes for Eugene and Springfield would be separate. Ms. Gardner said they could be separate. She emphasized that the critical path was initiation of the Metro Plan amendment, not combining efforts with Springfield. She said the processes could be separate if that was the council’s preference. Ms. Ortiz asked if the City would have to pay back state funds that might be allocated based on over- estimating the population forecast. Ms. Gardner said the question was outside her area of expertise. She said most population numbers were based on census data, which was separate from the planning figure being used. Ms. Ortiz felt that the process presented a good opportunity to work with Springfield and realize efficiencies in a coordinated effort. She expected that the jurisdictions’ public outreach processes would differ. Mr. Zelenka noted that Appendix A confirmed Mr. Ruiz’s estimate of Eugene and Springfield’s population growth rates. Mr. Pryor asked if a coordinated process would involve the staff of both cities working collaboratively and a collaborative public outreach and information gathering process. Ms. Gardner said a joint elected officials process could be used. Ms. Jerome added that each jurisdiction could decide the extent to which it wanted public involvement prior to joint hearings. Mr. Pryor said his concern was assuring that Eugene residents had full access to the process and opportunities to provide input. He saw advantages to staff from the jurisdictions working together and did not perceive staff from one city trying to co-opt the other. Mr. Poling asked if the County had any preference in terms of the City’s approach. Ms. Gardner said the County staff concurred with the safe harbor approach. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to initiate a Metro Plan amendment to adopt a safe harbor population forecast for Eugene. Ms. Bettman said she understood the Board of County Commissioners was considering a coordinated projection and that would supersede safe harbor. Ms. Gardner reiterated that it did not mean the safe harbor assumption would be changed. Ms. Bettman asked at what date it was assumed the projected 231,420 population target would be reached. Ms. Gardner said it was projected that the population figure of 221,000 would be reached by 2030. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to move forward with a City of Eugene initiated Metro Plan amendment. Ms. Bettman said it was her experience that there was more public involvement if the effort was City-oriented and she did not foresee there would be much difference in the outcome. She said using the numbers to justify larger investments in metropolitan wastewater or transportation capacity, or expansion of the UGB, would include assumptions built into that decision-making process that required community input. She said Springfield was building out at half of the Metro Plan density requirements and Eugene was taking a different approach. She said it MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 4 Work Session was the first in a long sequence of Metro Plan amendments and it was important to engage the community early in the process. Ms. Gardner clarified that that there were public involvement activities associated with the Metro Plan amendment and also with the HB 3337 process. A citizen involvement plan for the HB 3337 would be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Zelenka commented that both Springfield and Eugene would use a 1.31 percent growth rate for developing their buildable land inventories. He asked how that rate could change. Ms. Gardner said policy choices could be made at the conclusion of the study regarding the provision of a 20-year supply of buildable land. She felt the safe harbor number would carry the City through the full analysis. Mr. Zelenka asked for the current range of average household size. Mr. Clark asked what impact Ms. Bettman’s motion would have on the proposed process. Ms. Gardner said she believed there were efficiencies to be gained by moving forward together on a Metro Plan amendment. She said the public process could be separate and as robust as the council wanted. She said the motion would mean the jurisdictions would go separately to the County, requiring the County to process two amendments, and the benefits of staff working together to prepare materials would be lost. Mr. Clark said he would not support the amendment because the original motion left all options on the table. Ms. Solomon said constituents expected jurisdictions to work in a coordinated manner when there was an opportunity to do so and it would behoove the council to take advantage of any efficiencies in a coordinated process. She felt Eugene’s values would be reflected in the process and the City could augment its part with additional public hearings and community input. She would not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman asked if staff would not work with Springfield if the amendment passed. Ms. Gardner said she understood the amendment meant staff from Eugene and Springfield would not be working together to prepare materials for the Metro Plan amendment. Ms. Bettman remarked that moving forward with the safe harbor approach limited the City’s options because it was committing to a population number for 2030. Ms. Gardner agreed, but pointed out that number would be revisited during the next periodic review. Ms. Bettman wanted the savings realized through a coordinated process quantified. She said if that could not be substantiated the staff could not claim to be saving money by moving forward with a coordinated approach. Mr. Ruiz said it was reasonable to expect that time and resources would be conserved by virtue of having staff work together on an amendment instead of working separately on two amendments, although it would be difficult to assign a specific value to the savings. Ms. Bettman commented that waiting until the County had made its decision was most efficient and the City was “jumping the gun” because if the County adopted coordinated population projections the City would not need to take a safe harbor approach. Ms. Gardner said there was benefit to the City initiating a Metro Plan amendment prior to the County taking action because if the County’s projections were appealed, the City could not move forward. If the City initiated its own safe harbor approach it was granted that number in six months. Ms. Jerome added it was a matter of timing. She said the real issue was whether the County chose an option that did not result in a coordinated population projection until it was too late for the City to comply with HB 3337. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 5 Work Session The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Piercy remarked that the issue of changes in household composition had been raised in several presentations at the Moving Forward Together conference currently underway. B. WORK SESSION: Selection of Community Advisory Team (CAT) Members for EWEB Riverfront Master Planning Process Mr. Ruiz introduced Nan Laurence, of the Planning and Development Department, to respond to questions from the council on the appointment of advisory team members. Mr. Pryor asked if councilors had responded to the straw poll on candidates. Ms. Laurence said she had not received any responses yet. Mr. Pryor suggested that councilors submit their straw polls by the end of the week and Ms. Laurence could tally the results in order for Mr. Pryor to put forward four names at the June 16 meeting. He said the council could discuss the qualities it was seeking in candidates for the remainder of the work session, but he hoped for a consensus on individuals to be appointed. Ms. Laurence remarked that EWEB hoped to hold the first meeting of the CAT on June 19. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor’s suggestion to take more time and make a decision on selection of candidates on June 16. He said it was unfortunate that the council would not go through its regular process of interviewing candidates for appointment to boards and commissions as the riverfront master planning process was critical. Ms. Solomon also concurred with the suggestion to postpone a decision on appointments until June 16. Ms. Taylor stated that she had reviewed the list and was prepared to indicate her preference for four candidates. Ms. Bettman said she did not object to a straw poll. Her interest in selecting four names from the pool of applicants was to achieve balance on the CAT as there were few applicants who had a neighborhood perspective or reflected broader community interests beyond an industry perspective. Ms. Ortiz thanked everyone who had applied for appointment to the CAT. She was impressed by the caliber of applicants who were interested in EWEB’s planning process and willing to volunteer on behalf of the City. She agreed that there should be balance on the CAT, but observed those who were interested were the most likely to pay attention to opportunities to participate. She asked how the appointments were advertised. Ms. Laurence said the City did not send emails soliciting applicants, but did use a number of other means to spread the word in the community, including posting notices on the website and on buses. Mr. Zelenka also thanked those who applied. He said the nature of the project was to discuss the property’s development potential and that naturally skewed applications toward development interests. He agreed with the need to try to achieve some type of balance in CAT membership. Mr. Clark said he had reviewed the applications and was impressed by the level of skills available to the council. He said the final project decision would be made by the council, which represented a balance of community views, but MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 6 Work Session the process required accurate, professional and reliable information from people who understood all of the aspects of developing the property in order for the council to make a wise decision. He was pleased to see that a number of young people, who had a vested interest in the outcome of the process, had applied. Ms. Bettman said she did not view appointing CAT members with a lot of expertise as the council’s intent because City and EWEB staff could provide technical expertise. She understood the council was interested in incorporating community values in the master planning process, including how the river related to downtown. She said that EWEB would develop a master plan for the site, which would come before the council as a quasi-judicial decision. She said the council could either approve or disapprove the plan, but not modify it. Ms. Laurence said there would be a series of applications that the council would have the ability to approve as presented or request modifications. She would confirm with legal counsel the extent to which the council could require modifications as part of approval. City Attorney Glenn Klein said a Metro Plan amendment would be part of the application process and he did not believe the council was limited to approving or denying. He said in the past the council had approved applications with specific conditions and would research those examples. Ms. Piercy said in her view everyone that applied for the CAT was a citizen of the community and all had an interest in the community. She said just because an applicant had a specific area of interest did not mean that individual did not also have the interests of a citizen. She noted that the list of applicants included those with a background in riparian issues, art, nonprofit agencies, history, neighborhoods, architecture - and students. Mr. Clark noted that two applicants were not residents of Eugene. Mr. Zelenka suggested eliminating applicants who were not residents. Ms. Piercy summarized that the council would conduct a straw poll due on June 13, with a decision on applicants scheduled for June 16. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon June 18, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon (via telephone), George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She indicated that Mr. Zelenka wished to make a motion before the action item was considered. Mr. Zelenka said the council had delayed the public hearing on the alley and street vacation for the arena, but because there was no August public hearing that meant the date would be sometime in September, which was late for the hearing as the council would be making decisions around that time. He felt it would be appropriate to schedule it in July, but to take action more coincident with the conditional use permit (CUP) process which was moving forward. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to set a public hearing date on July 21, 2008, for consideration of the right-of-way vacation requests made by the Uni- versity of Oregon. Ms. Bettman said the original public hearing was scheduled when students were available and they would not be on campus in July. She questioned why the hearing could not be held in September or October when students would be available. She also pointed out that five public hearings were already scheduled for July 21. Mr. Zelenka said the process was moving forward and could potentially be completed by the time students returned, so delaying until late September or October would probably negate construction starting on the arena until the next season. He said the alley vacation was located in the middle of the proposed arena. Ms. Bettman asked if the alley vacation was a quasi-judicial proceeding and, if so, could the council receive guidance on conversations related to it. City Attorney Emily Jerome said that particular alley vacation, tied closely to a development, would be considered a land use decision and quasi-judicial. She advised the council to be cautious and avoid conversations related to the subject. Ms. Piercy asked if there was a problem discussing the hearing, but not how councilors might vote on the matter. Ms. Jerome said the issues to be concerned about were related to the criteria and in the case of the alley vacation the single criterion was whether it was in the City and public’s best interests. She said scheduling a hearing and discussing logistics was not problematic as long as councilors did not make statements that reflected how they might view the application. Mr. Zelenka asked how the council could discuss how to move forward with all the components of the arena project without having ex parté contacts. Ms. Jerome said she would provide written guidelines for the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 18, 2008 Page 1 Work Session council. She stressed the importance of not acting in a way that indicated a position with respect to whether it was in the public’s interest to vacate the alleyway. She said if councilors felt that any contacts might be considered ex parté, the remedy was to disclose them for the record before the hearing so the public could respond to them. Mr. Clark asked at what point the council needed to be concerned about discussing the arena. Ms. Jerome said that occurred at the point at which the council became aware it would be making a decision on the matter. Ms. Taylor asked if it would be evidence of bias to vote on the motion following Mr. Zelenka’s explanation that it would help construction on the area occur sooner. Ms. Jerome said that would not be a problem; councilors could vote to consider the matter without indicating a position in support or opposition. Ms. Bettman did not understand how councilors could participate in a discussion in a way that facilitated moving forward with the arena since the arena was predicated on vacation of the alleyway. She asked if a councilor could participate by stating they had revealed bias. Ms. Jerome said she was not aware of the entire arena process, but would research that and provide guidance. She saw no problem voting on the question of scheduling a public hearing and assisting citizens and the applicant in their efforts to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement; that did not reflect a bias. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. A. ACTION: – An Ordinance Adding Sections 9.4770 Through 9.4790 Water Quality Protected Waterways 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; Adopting the Water Quality Waterways Map; Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date. City Manager Jon Ruiz introduced Therese Walch, Public Works, to make the presentation. Ms. Walch stated that three people had testified at a public hearing on May 19 and 23 and pieces of written testimony had been received on the proposed Water Quality Protected Waterways. She said the agenda packet contained the testimony, staff responses and recommended modifications to the ordinance based on the testimony. She said the proposal originated with council-adopted policy in the form of the stormwater management plan, which included direction to integrate the beneficial functions of waterways into the City’s stormwater system, including adoption of setback protection measures. She said the Clean Water Act was also a driver with respect to total maximum daily loads (TMDL). She said numerous management strategies were already being employed by the stormwater program; the setback protections would fill gaps. Ms. Walch used a map to illustrate that adopted Goal 5 protections already provided a considerable amount of water quality benefit and there would be significant administrative difficulty in trying to apply setbacks in addition to those existing through Goal 5. She said the current proposal would apply to 13.6 miles of waterways instead of 90 miles to fill the gaps in water quality protection. She said the complexity of the ordinance reflects staff’s efforts to balance protection of water quality with the ability of owners to utilize their properties for their intended use. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 18, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Clark wondered what it would cost to purchase conservation easements on the properties impacted by the proposal. He asked if there were other options similar to purchasing easements that would mitigate impact other than regulating top of bank and protection setbacks. He was interested in ways to protect water quality without impacting property owners. He disagreed with staff’s conclusion that the regulations would not cause a reduction in property value. He pointed out there was also no evidence that the remedy would actually succeed at increasing water quality. He said everyone valued cleaner waterways, but the cost was being imposed on a very few property owners and that was unfair. Ms. Walch said it was difficult to measure the impact of one strategy in isolation given the variables in the watershed; however, the City would continue to monitor water quality and a successful outcome of the proposal, all other things being equal, would be no worsening of water quality. She noted the proposal was to protect, not improve, water quality. Mr. Pryor asked for clarification on how the proposal would affect current property owners. Ms. Walch said the proposal was modeled on Goal 5 in that existing impacts, such as structures and landscaping, would be grandfathered in; owners could continue with those uses but new uses would be limited. She said the owner could utilize the property for its intended use, but in a manner that protected water quality. Mr. Pryor liked Amendment C related to telecommunications. He asked for an explanation of the additional reporting requirements under Option C1. Ms. Walch explained that the difference between options C1 and C2 with respect to telecommunications was with respect to water quality mitigation. If an existing satellite dish had a small foundation that needed to be enlarged, the lost water quality would need to be mitigated. She said administrative rules were being developed to lay the framework for quantifying the impact and the mitigation actions which could be taken. Mr. Zelenka reiterated that the proposal was a water protection ordinance, not a water quality enhancement ordinance. He believed that the various measures would cumulatively enhance water quality. He said it was less expensive to address water quality at this point tha treating it at the other end. He felt it was unreason- able for people whose property abutted a waterway to have an expectation that there would be no impact on the property; there were responsibilities that accompanied owning such property. He asked why certain waterways on the map were not being recommended for protection. Ms. Walch said those waterways in the West Eugene wetlands area were covered by the wetland conservation plan and policies and it was logical to honor those. Mr. Zelenka commended staff for a well done proposal. Ms. Bettman pointed out a typographical error on page 152. She said the reference should be to effective date. She asked to what extent the waterways were currently polluted. Ms. Walch said the waterways on the map were either not meeting state standards or drained into a waterway that was not meeting state standards. Ms. Bettman said that meant the proposal would maintain the pollution status quo and perhaps not become more polluted. Ms. Walch said that was not the intent; the proposal would prevent further pollution and combined with all of the other strategies was intended over time to improve water quality. Ms. Bettman asserted that the ordinance would not reverse existing pollution and because it was bundled with other practices its specific benefit could not be delineated. She asked if the waterways would be monitored and a baseline for pollution established before the ordinance was implemented. Ms. Walch said the monitoring that had occurred over the past 11 years would continue; that included monitoring stations on MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 18, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Amazon Creek as well as the Willamette River, but no new monitoring stations were planned within all of the waterways. Ms. Bettman asked if the cost of implementing the ordinance would be paid from the stormwater fund. Ms. Walch said implementing the Water Quality Protected Waterways could be accomplished within existing resources in Planning and Development and Public Works. Ms. Bettman asked what share of existing resources would be used to implement the ordinance. She wanted a specific number. Ms. Walch said additional resource impact had not been quantified because implementa- tion would use existing resources. Ms. Bettman asked who had appealed the original ordinance to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Ms. Jerome said that it may have been multiple parties, one of which was Rest Haven Cemetery. She said the current proposal had not attracted the same level of controversy. Mr. Poling asked how mitigation could be accomplished by a property owner, such as a telecommunications company which needed to increase the size of a satellite dish base, if the property was already fully developed. Ms. Walch said the details of mitigation were not yet developed, but there could be options such as using adjoining property or property owned by a public agency, or payment in lieu of. Ms. Taylor felt the ordinance did not do enough and preferred something similar to the ordinance remanded by LUBA or purchasing buffer zones. She asked what would happen if the ordinance was not adopted. Ms. Walch said staff would meet with the Department of Environmental Quality to consider what other options might be available to the City. Ms. Taylor said she could understand not requiring a property owner to tear down a house, but was very disturbed about exempting landscaped areas, which she felt could be easily returned to a natural state to avoid the use of chemicals. She said there was nothing to prevent people from planting more landscaping. Ms. Walch said the ordinance was written to exempt landscaped areas in response to testimony received from the public. Ms. Ortiz said residents of River Road and Santa Clara were interested in natural bioswales under the minor code amendments process and asked how that related to the proposed ordinance. Ms. Jerome said it would depend on whether or not waterways in that area were included on the map, but she would need to research the matter. Ms. Walch clarified that the ordinance would apply to waterways that were within the City limits and to specific properties outside the City limits but within the urban growth boundary upon annexation. Ms. Solomon appreciated Mr. Clark’s discussion of purchasing conservation easements as an ordinance. She was concerned about decisions that would be made in the administrative rules process and hoped for more time to consider that. She asked if a property owner could rebuild a house as it was if it burned down. Ms. Walch said the house could be rebuilt. Ms. Solomon said she was still not convinced the ordinance was good policy. Mr. Clark said there was restoration work being done along Spring Creek currently. He said the ordinance would affect what property owners would be able to do with their property in the future. Ms. Walch clarified that Spring Creek and Flat Creek were covered by Goal 5 and not included in the ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 18, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Clark asked if it was possible to quantify and compare the benefits and costs of the ordinance to other potential mitigation factors. He related his recent experience with the annual Willamette River clean-up and the amount of trash that was removed from the water and the banks. He said the comparative value of implementing the ordinance versus purchasing conservation easements versus ending illegal camping on the riverbank was not being discussed. He was not certain the ordinance was the best approach. Mr. Pryor did not see an either/or situation with respect to protection strategies. His support of the proposed ordinance was based on the real benefits to be realized and the degree of mitigation flexibility. He said people who purchased property along a waterway needed to recognize the responsibility that entailed, but the City should balance protection with the rights of owners to use their properties as intended. He asked how the ordinance would impact the buildable land survey. Ms. Jerome said that was quantified in terms of acreage under the Goal 9 and Goal 10 findings. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to return the ordinance with the revisions described in attachments C-1, D and E. Ms. Bettman said it was good public policy to protect waterways and enhance water quality. She said if she felt the cumulative effect of the ordinance would accomplish that she would be supportive, but she did not see a benefit that outweighed the chaos that would occur on affected properties. She preferred to see money from the stormwater fund used to acquire easements. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute a motion to direct the City Manager to return to the council with a scope of the cost of acquiring ease- ments before moving forward with the ordinance. Ms. Ortiz said she could support either motion although she questioned how the City would proceed if there were not willing sellers. She remarked that not all people who lived along waterways were contributing to pollution and most recognized the responsibility of living along a waterway and many used organic gardening practices. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s remarks and said he could support either motion. The motion to substitute passed unanimously, 8:0. The main motion as substituted passed unanimously, 8:0. B. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(e), Mayor Piercy called the Eugene City Council into executive session to discuss real property transactions. Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session and moved the council into public session. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to let the option on the Green property expire and to continue with due diligence to acquire the property for public parks, habitat and water quality values and bring any pro- posal back to the City Council in executive session for consideration. Motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 18, 2008 Page 5 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 18, 2008 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon June 23, 2008 6:15 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Council President Chris Pryor called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that Mayor Piercy was attending a utility conference and speaking on Eugene’s pursuit of sustainability. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER. Mr. Clark thanked City Manager Jon Ruiz for his listening tour of the community and said he had attended the sessions in his ward, which he found very informational. He participated in the Willamette River clean- up on June 14. He thanked REI and the City of Eugene for their sponsorship and John Brown for his efforts to organize the event. He attended a meeting of the downtown public safety group and looked forward to the results of its efforts. Mr. Poling said he had walked the University area neighborhoods and found it very educational. He noted that the SafetyFest had been well attended. He said a Convention Visitors Association of Lane County Oregon (CVALCO) dinner had recognized those involved in organizing Eugene 08, including City employees and elected officials. He thanked the Springfield City Council and Mayor Sid Leiken for their efforts to support Eugene 08. Ms. Solomon said Mr. Ruiz’s listening forum at Peterson Barn was very interactive and engaging and attracted several individuals who did not typically attend those types of events. She said Active Bethel Citizens was meeting June 25 and would be electing officers for the next year. Ms. Ortiz said the Human Services Commission’s (HSC) adopted budget would hold the program harmless for the coming year. She said HSC had been primarily a funding conduit, but would be discussing a broader, more active role that included advocacy at its July 2 retreat. She thanked the police for investigat- ing whether an attack in the Trainsong neighborhood was a hate crime. She said the neighborhood was holding a fundraiser to assist the victim. Mr. Pryor said the SafetyFest was an impressive event and all of the participating agencies and organiza- tions did a great job. He had also toured the University area neighborhood and found it very informative. He agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s remarks regarding the HSC and a potential new role. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Ruiz reported that he and Mr. Zelenka had attended a meeting at which the neighborhood and the University and City were working together to mitigate issues involving the new arena. He said more work was required, but was pleased that all of the stakeholders were willing to work toward solutions. B. WORK SESSION: Street Assessment Policy City Engineer Mark Schoening used a map to illustrate the location of 75 miles of unimproved streets within the City. He noted they were clustered in the areas of River Road, Trainsong, Bethel, Crest Drive, Laurel Hill valley and Willakenzie. He said regulatory authority for the City’s assessment code came from state law, the City charter and the Eugene code. He explained that local improvements could be initiated either through petition/poll where property owners bore over half the cost of any improvements or council action or motion. He said once bids on the project had been received there was a hearing before the Hearings Official. He said if owners of property that would bear more than half the estimated costs remonstrated, the hearing would be continued to the City Council; it required approval by two-thirds of the council to continue with the project. Mr. Zelenka arrived at 6:25 p.m. Mr. Schoening said if the council approved the formation of a local improvement district (LID), a contract was awarded for construction and when construction was completed the costs were assessed. He said a second public hearing would then be held before the Hearings Official to determine if the assessments were done appropriately. The council would then adopt an ordinance levying assessments and notice was given to property owners. He said property owners had 10 days in which to pay the assessment without interest, obtain personal financing or finance the assessment through the City. He reviewed the financial assistance options offered by the City. Mr. Schoening said the council had established an ad hoc committee in 1999 to review the City’s assessment policies and achieve greater fairness and equity in how property owners paid for the cost of upgrading unimproved streets. He reviewed the seven committee recommendations that were approved by the council: ? Assessable costs ? Assessable frontage ? Equivalent assessments ? Street subsidy program ? Corner lots ? Primary access ? Vacant and partially developed lots Mr. Schoening used a flow chart to illustrate the decision tree for determining street assessment status and assessable frontage of a property and a diagram to illustrate the calculation of assessments for several types of lots. He said arterial and collector street projects since the code was updated had been council initiated and the City’s share funded with transportation system development charges (SDC). He said local projects on local streets, including unclassified streets, were initiated by petition poll and the City’s share was unfunded as the City lacked a viable funding source. He said options for initiation of local street improve- ments included maintaining the current petition poll process or initiating improvements through the budget process. He said options for funding the City’s share of local street improvements included identifying an existing source of funds, identifying a portion of the proposed bond measure for that use, and amending the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Eugene Code to assess all costs for local streets. He concluded his presentation with the assessment of Pearl Street construction in 1908 to show the City’s history of assessment abutting property owners. Mr. Clark asked why polls were rarely successful in initiating street improvements. Mr. Schoening said people were surprised at the cost of improving streets and the expectation that property owners abutting the street would pay. Mr. Clark said his experience was that failure was due less to the cost than to the payment options. He suggested polls would be more successful if there were other payment options that made it more affordable for a property owner. He was interested in exploring some of those options, such as the ones he had forwarded to staff. He asked Mr. Schoening to explain those alternatives. Mr. Schoening explained that one option was expansion of the LID boundary to include more than just abutting property owners. He said that could be accomplished through a code amendment, but it was contrary to the City’s policy that everyone should pay once for the street where they took primary access, which was why corner lots were not assessed for two streets. He said another option was doing assessment projects for maintenance overlays, but the assessment process was fairly expensive and that would add to the cost of a project. Mr. Clark said a policy question for the council, if it decided to assess overlays, was who would pay for the administrative costs. He was interested in a scoping of the typical administrative costs associated with an assessment. Mr. Schoening said another option was deferral of the assessment until a property was sold. Mr. Clark commented that the deferral option would place a lien against a house that would be paid at the time of sale of the house, instead of requiring payment of the assessment over a ten-year period. He pointed out that the average home sold every seven years so the City might actually recover costs more quickly. He said the option made improvements more affordable for the property owners and thus polls were more likely to succeed. Ms. Taylor felt the assessment process was unjust and many communities used a different approach to pay for street improvements, such as a bond measure. She hoped the City would consider no-interest loans instead of charging for financing. She liked the idea of postponing payment of assessments until a property was sold, but said that should be optional. She said those who used the street should also pay for improve- ments and used the example of a street that had to be improved because a subdivision used it for access, but only those living along the street had to pay the costs. She noted that in the case of Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street, there were a number of cul de sacs that had to use those streets for access, but the property owners were not assessed for improvements. She said the overlay assessment could be risky and invite development once improvements were completed. Ms. Solomon remarked another factor in the failure of polls was that many people on unimproved streets were renters, not owners. She said many people also objected to the scope of a project and felt that amenities like curbs and gutters were unnecessary. She asked Mr. Ruiz what his experience of these issues had been in other communities. Mr. Ruiz related that Fresno had chosen to invest $45 million in unimproved streets; no assessment of local property owners was involved. He said the project was funded through a variety of resources, including General Fund and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money. He said local improvement MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 3 Work Session districts were used to some extent in each community in which he had lived and included both petition and council initiation. Ms. Bettman observed that the ad hoc committee had considered a broader LID that included the travelshed of the neighborhood to help spread the costs beyond abutting property owners to others who benefited. She said that was something that could be initiated by a neighborhood. Mr. Schoening said the code restricted the LID to properties that abutted the street. He said others could voluntarily contribute to the costs, but they would not be part of the district or eligible for financing. Ms. Bettman commented that the code could be amended, but the ad hoc committee had declined to pursue that option because of its complexity. She asked if SDCs could be used for an unclassified street. Mr. Schoening said the methodology adopted by the City was based on an arterial/collector street system. Ms. Bettman said that the state did not prohibit using SDC funds for local and unclassified streets, as long as the project met the definition for increasing capacity. She said the City could amend its methodology to use SDCs for those streets. Mr. Schoening said that would be a monumental task. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Taylor’s point about the need for people who used the streets being improved for access to share in costs. He used Arcadia Drive as an example; there were three streets that could only be accessed from Arcadia Drive and the people living on those streets benefited more from improvements to Arcadia than the people who lived along it. He said there should be some methodology to spread the costs to everyone who benefited from improvements. He asked how the cost of an improvement would be paid for if the assessment was deferred until a home was sold. Mr. Schoening replied that the City would carry that cost. He said funds were reserved to pay those costs when the current deferral program, which was limited to qualifying owners on the basis of age and income, was established; however, deferrals were not widely used. He said if the concept of allowing any assessment to be delayed was implemented the City would have to carry a much more substantial amount. Mr. Poling said that assessments varied depending on street classification and asked how a street could be reclassified. He said that Arcadia was no longer a dead end neighborhood street and should be reclassified. Mr. Schoening said the classification map was changed by ordinance. He was not certain there was a defined process for requesting reclassification, but if there was a substantial difference since the time of original classification the council could direct staff to initiate that process. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Schoening explained the street classification system, which was based on five criteria. He said the classification system was implemented citywide in 1999. He said at least 70 percent of streets were local; there were 75 miles of unimproved streets, of which 12 miles were arterials and collectors and 63 miles were local streets. He said some streets in the Crest Drive neighbor- hood were unclassified pending a transportation study. Mr. Zelenka indicated he was interested in more information about financing strategies used by other jurisdictions to help property owners pay the cost of assessments. He said cul de sacs were a major concern because they were not assessed for improvements on a street that they used for access. He liked the idea of a travelshed to include others who benefited from improvements. He wanted information on street standards and context-sensitive design and how that was related to people’s concerns about more improvements than they felt were needed on a street. Mr. Schoening pointed out that Crest Drive was a context-sensitive project and it would be difficult to determine whether people’s preferences were influenced by the potential cost of improvements. He said the theory was that people living on a cul-de-sac had already paid for improvement of the cul-de-sac. He said at some point a person could only be asked to pay for so many streets, regardless MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 4 Work Session of how many they traveled on. The code was modified to include a City-funded share of improvements to arterial and collector streets to address that issue. He said the City’s financing program for assessments was funded through bonds issued by the City and he did not think there was a statutory requirement to limit the period to 10 years. Mr. Clark asked for confirmation from staff that the financing period could be extended beyond 10 years. He agreed that people who had to use a street other than the one they lived on to gain access to major thoroughfares should be able to contribute to the cost of improvements, but requiring them to pay meant they would pay for improvements to two streets and that was not fair. He was interested in developing a voluntary participation process that was not too administratively burdensome, but not in compelling payment. He asked for clarification of the City Manager’s recommendation. Mr. Schoening said the recommendation was to add the option of council-initiated improvements to local streets, not replace the poll petition process. Mr. Ruiz said that option would allow the council to move proactively on local streets in the capital improvement program (CIP) process if it desired instead of only responding to a poll. Mr. Clark said he would be challenged by the idea of the council choosing a street, forming an LID and assessing costs without the participation of property owners. He noted that the amount of unimproved roads had increased from 48 miles in 2001 to 75 miles currently. Mr. Schoening said those roads had been annexed into the City. Mr. Clark said he was interested in how the process could be made more affordable to home owners. Ms. Taylor opined that some people paid more for street improvements than they paid for their property. She did not believe that people on cul-de-sacs paid for the street as they purchased their home after the street was constructed. She used Whitbeck Boulevard as an example of developers being allowed to build houses after an overlay had been completed; the street was damaged by heavy equipment and those who had paid for the overlay were left with a street in poor condition. She felt that flag lots should be assessed the same as regular lots for their access streets. She liked the concept of a travelshed. She asked if the Crest Drive/Storey Boulevard/Friendly Street project would proceed if the bond measure did not pass. Mr. Schoening said at this point, the City’s share of the road improvements was not funded and the project could not move forward. Mr. Ruiz said he was discussing with the neighborhood the option of reclassifying streets in order to use SDCs for the City share. Mr. Schoening added that it could be paid for in the capital budget only if another project was eliminated. Ms. Bettman said it did not seem there was sufficient cohesion to move forward with a motion. She said funding the Crest Drive project could be discussed during the council’s consideration of a bond resolution. She suggested reconvening the council’s subcommittee on transportation funding to examine the inequities in the assessment policies. She asked for a memorandum from staff on how the code could be changed to allow funding of an unclassified street. Ms. Solomon hoped the council would act thoughtfully, but expeditiously, to address the matter of assessments. She said the recommendations did not address street classification and LID limitation issues. She asked if the recommendation to include unimproved streets in the CIP meant the entire cost of the project or only the City’s share. Mr. Schoening said the idea was to initiate projects on local streets by council action in order to begin to reduce the 63 miles of unimproved streets; the CIP would front the cost of the entire project, with the non-City portion to be assessed. Ms. Ortiz remarked that many of the unimproved streets were in her ward and 70 percent of the residential properties were rentals. Her challenge was not with street improvements, but with all of the improvements MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 5 Work Session in addition to just the pavement. She said the River Road area was interested in good roads, no sidewalks and preserving bioswales. She hoped that the City’s policies could be examined for the purpose of allowing some flexibility to tailor improvements to a neighborhood’s wishes. Mr. Ruiz said the subcommittee would be useful to address those types of policy questions. Mr. Pryor determined that there was agreement among councilors to re-establish a subcommittee on transportation system funding. Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman volunteered to be on the subcommittee. Mr. Clark said the City’s policies driving infill and increased density had created some of the problems by taking unimproved roads and forcing increased capacity onto them without paying for it. He said Bond Lane was an excellent example; side streets and cul-de-sacs had increased the number of houses and the City as a whole bore the responsibility for what increasing density had done to Bond Lane. He was troubled by the issues of Crest Drive and questioned why the City’s share of only that project might be included in the bond measure. He hoped the subcommittee would address those equity issues. He agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s comments regarding design concerns in River Road. Ms. Bettman said she could not support including improvements to unimproved streets in the CIP because that was a caveat that would force people on those streets to pay assessments without any say in the matter. She said creating travelshed LIDs should apply to new subdivisions and traffic impact analyses should take into consideration the cumulative impact on access streets. She pointed out that half of the unimproved streets were accepted as transfers from the County, which had over $40 million in a Road Fund reserve. She said the City should request some of those funds to offset the obligation it assumed with those roads. Ms. Taylor said the reason for doing the Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street project first was because they had been working on the design issue for years. She commented that some people in River Road area were pleased that the Crest Drive design project was setting a precedent. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 6 Work Session