Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of MinutesEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: June 27, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the May 23, 2005, City Council Meeting, and May 25, 2005, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. May 23, 2005, City Council Meeting B. May 25, 2005, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050627\S0506272A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall May 23, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Pap6, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed all those present. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy observed that 20 people signed up for the Public Forum. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Pap6, moved to hold 45 minutes for the Public Forum and to limit testimony to two minutes per person. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0, Councilor Solomon having not yet arrived. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Councilor Solomon arrived. Jeremy Hall, PO Box 11648, Eugene, said that he worked with the Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC). He urged support for Resolution 4836. He averred that clean water and the big trees in the McKenzie River watershed were some of the primary reasons why Eugene was a great place to live, work, and raise a family. A "yes" vote on the resolution, he asserted, would say "yes" to clean drinking water, "superb" recreational opportunities, and a balanced local economy. He attributed the quality of life for Eugene residents, past, present, and future, to the public forests and clean water of the McKenzie River. He underscored that the river provided jobs as well, both related to outdoor activities and to the businesses that stay or relocate here in part because of the quality of life. Mr. Hall stated that the "towering groves of ancient trees" were dwindling. He alleged that over 3,352 acres of old growth forest were slated to be cut over the next few years. He averred that logging such forests in past decades had contributed to massive sedimentation in river waters. He pointed out that EWEB was forced to shut down its plant during the flood of 1996. He provided a spreadsheet that described the logging projects for the council and a copy of a petition containing 5,180 signatures from people calling on the Forest Service and Congress to permanently protect the old growth and mature forests of the McKenzie River. Amy Pincus-Merwin, 2220 Sandy Drive, spoke in support of Resolution 4836. She wished to call attention to herbicide use on land that had been clear-cut in the McKenzie Watershed and all over Oregon. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session She asserted that pesticides such as Arsenal, Oust, and 2-4-D were getting into the watershed and harming people. She said she was a breast cancer survivor who had been poisoned by the herbicide 2-4-5-T, related to 2-4-D and a component of Agent Orange. She predicted that 20 years from now the cancer rates in people in the McKenzie watershed would spike if logging and spraying is allowed. John Dotson, 2447 Canterbury Street, said he joined the Santa Clara Committee for Sensible Parks and Open Spaces a few months earlier and found the people to be sincere and dedicated to their concerns about the future of parks in the Santa Clara area. He felt there were "filters" in place that prevented the correct information from being provided to the councilors. He stated that committee members had spent much time in the community and had a different idea than the City of what the people in the Santa Clara area wanted and needed. He indicated the committee wished to work with the City's Parks and Open Space Division to advance the park needs of the area. He felt this would save time as the flow of information would go directly into the division. He commented that, while he supported Councilor Pap6's concept of a sports complex with baseball diamonds, he did not perceive it to be a priority. He thought such a complex should be in a commercial area where the games could continue into the morning hours. He suggested that other theme parks could complement the area and diversify traffic problems there. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, called it a shame that public input was being reduced to two minutes. He averred that there had been "a problem with a lot of issues around town" because not enough public input was gathered. Mr. Vishanoff provided copies of an article printed in The Oregonian entitled Civic Duty Doesn't Play on the Islands. He explained that the Nike Corporation did not pay its share of taxes. He thought the City should discuss this. He noted that a place in Canada had chosen not to take donations from Nike Corporation. Mr. Vishanoff provided examples of the "cracker box housing" for which proponents of"smart growth" and the Congress of the New Urbanism were advocating. He said more and more of these types of houses were being built. In closing, Mr. Vishanoff thanked Mayor Piercy for acknowledging that some sort of forum would be held on the University of Oregon's basketball arena. He also said to slow down the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. Dan Herbert, 1913 Potter Street, member of the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC), reminded councilors that he spoke at the last meeting about the need to reexamine the relationship between planning and development, and noted he would raise two planning issues in his present testimony. He said the first issue was the 50-year projection for population growth in the area and the second issue was the inequalities in elementary education. He noted that School District 4J Superintendent George Russell warned that addressing education inequalities could mean changes in housing patterns. He felt that taken together, these two issues could block efforts to realize whatever plans were made. He said one problem was how the City organized for development. He averred the present organization was mainly reactive. He thought public/private partnerships in the next decade would demand a more proactive role for public agencies. He asserted another problem had to do with ends and means. He said the City often planned for the results it wanted but did not provide for the intermediate steps. He noted that the cities of Portland and Eugene contained several alternative models of how to organize for development. He maintained that studying these models would help the City rethink its development policies for the next decade. He indicated he would return to two more Public MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session Forums to further discuss and summarize his ideas on this topic as well as to suggest what next steps the council might want to consider. Glen Love, 393 Ful Vue Drive, averred that everyone realized that the McKenzie River was a priceless resource. He said what might not be so widely recognized was that the river was what it was because of the ancient forests in its watershed. He stated that these forests were the ultimate source of that "peerless" water because they protected and filtered the water. He asserted the trees helped to protect the river from floods and erosion and fostered healthy fish populations. He quoted writer John Fowles, who said old growth forests were the "last green churches and chapels outside the walled civilization and culture we have made with our tools." He urged protection of the old growth forest. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Home Builders Association (LCHBA), spoke regarding the ordinance creating the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) as an intergovernmental entity. She said the LCHBA would withdraw its objections to the ordinance as it stood if the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) specified that a change in the numbers would require that the cities have a final say in them. She reiterated that any change in the numbers would change the methodology for computing them. She said, given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would not be loosening the rules on treatment, the MWMC capital project list as proposed could increase by $90 million. She shared the LCHBA's hope that the list would deal with the "real source of the problem." She averred the problems were not just due to growth-related issues and new Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) rules, bnt rather to problems with inflow and infiltration (I&I) and asserted that nothing in the proposals seemed to address this. She asked where the responsibility of individual home owners lay in this respect and wondered if private lines should be checked. She underscored the need to take care of the broken places in the lines over building new ones. Tom Snyder, 1143 Monroe Street, explained that he lived near the Monroe Street Caf& He said the caf6 had changed ownership 18 months earlier bringing with it a change in the style of service and how the caf6 was managed. He stated that the establishment had become a bar and now neighbors were experiencing difficulty with noise levels from patrons and live music. He noted that the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) did not have an agreement with this particular establishment because the agreement with the previous establishment was passed on with the sale. He said the agreement was about to expire and asked the City to intervene on behalf of the neighborhood to help the establishment become a better neighbor. He played a tape of people yelling at the bar that he allegedly made on his front porch at 11:45 p.m. He added that dogs tied up in front of the caf6 had menaced him. Kathy Saranpa, 3015 Friendly Street, chair of the Crest Drive Citizens Association (CDCA), related that at a work session in January, councilors expressed awareness of"ongoing problems with trust and communication" between her neighborhood and City planning staff. She said neighbors in attendance were feeling "fresh outrage" because a local improvement district (LID) had been proposed for Crest Drive and Storey Boulevard. She stated that after the council directed staff to work on context-sensitive design and to maintain better contact with the neighborhood, the residents felt better about the situation. She reported that the first communication she received regarding the street classifications arrived on May 17, initiated by her after she realized the issue had been placed on the council agenda for June 29. She said Principal Engineer Mark Schoening agreed to come to the next neighborhood meeting. She hoped he could address neighborhood concerns. She stressed that the CDCA wanted the neighborl~ood streets to be classified as local, adding that the neighbors wished to see specifications for context-sensitive design in writing. She believed that the guiding principles were positive, but until placed into writing they would remain only principles. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session Becky Riley, 202 Hawthorne Avenue, said she was speaking on behalf of herself and a network of west Eugene residents who were advocating for cleaner air. She urged that Drew Johnson be appointed to the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) Board. She averred that his knowledge of the agency and of air regulation far surpassed that of the other candidates. She related that he had helped her neighborhood understand air contaminants and air pollution programs..She noted that the former director of LRAPA referred to him as the "ideas guy." She felt his skills were much needed at the agency, especially given the relative newness of some of the board members. She declared that he would help inform the board's choices because of his experience and public health perspective. Pat Hadley, 2611 Edison Street, president of the Trainsong Neighbors, echoed Ms. Riley's recommendation of Mr. Johnson. She explained that the Trainsong Neighbors were going to be intimately involved with issues regarding J.H. Baxter & Company and the railroad and would benefit from knowing that someone would be on board who could take a seat on the LRAPA and take action right away. She said originally she put her name into the running for the position, but withdrew because she considered Mr. Johnson to be a better candidate. Bill Burwell, 90575 Mountain View Lane, Leaburg, urged the City Council to adopt Resolution 4836. He explained that he was a lifelong resident of the McKenzie Valley, and noted that he had worked both in the timber industry and as a restoration forester. He averred that old growth trees were a thing of the past for mills as only three mills in the county remained tooled for large trees. He felt the USFS needed the direction the resolution would provide, as it was under pressure from Washington, DC, to cut the trees. He stated that selective management was good for second-growth forests and such forests provided the kinds of logs most mills were seeking. Mary Farrington, 1160 Monroe Street, wished to address the problems the Monroe Street Caf6 was creating for area neighbors. She said the business license specifically indicated there would be no live entertainment at the establishment, yet amplified performances occurred regularly. She shared that this music could be clearly heard inside her house. She related that noisy customers congregated in front of the building and would only disperse when the owner or a member of the Eugene Police Department (EPD) forced them. Parking also created problems for the neighborhood. Additionally, she reported that people congregated in the alley behind the establishment "doing something" but would "scatter like rats" at the sight of her with a telephone in her hand. Frank Gesley, 788 West 11 th Avenue, opposed renewal of the OLCC permit given to the Monroe Street Caf& He said the comer of his house, where his bedroom was located, was less than ten feet from the tavern's smoking area. He compared the noise when people were out smoking to the noise generated by a "German beer garden." He did not think members of the council or the OLCC would put up with it. He shared that he was 83 years old and had lived in his house for 21 years. He underscored that his serenity in his old age was impacted by the neighboring establishment and that he was not able to enjoy being in his garden. Kris Ward, 1134 Monroe Street, asserted that since the Monroe Street Caf~ changed hands, it had attracted an "unsavory crowd" of people as its customers. She said she reported the establishment to OLCC, the EPD, and met with the owner. She averred the owner had not demonstrated the ability to control the noise, loitering, and alcohol use, and ignored the needs of neighbors. She lost count of the number of times she was awakened by the noise at night, adding that she had given up on making reports MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session to the EPD. She averred that a liquor license was a privilege, not a right. She felt the owner demonstrated that she was irresponsible and asked that the current license for the establishment be cancelled. John Ward, 1134 Monroe Street, stated that he bought his house in 1979 and, at that time, the business across the street was a market, which he considered to be an asset. He thought he might now have to move due to the disruptive noise from the Monroe Street Caffi. He did not think that under the current ownership the establishment would ever be compatible with the neighborhood. He complained of bongo drums and screeching. He said he called the EPD and was told to tolerate the noise. Management of the caf6 was rarely on the premises. He asked the council to oppose the renewal of its liquor license. Philip Farrington, 1160 Monroe Street, said he lived in the neighborhood for 11 years. He related he previously only experienced problems with parking in the area during the Lane County Fair or the Timber Convention. Now, he said, parking was a perpetual problem. He averred the caf6 introduced an element into the neighborhood that was not enjoyable. He asked the council to make the caf6 apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) in addition to taking a stand against renewal of its permit. He stated that people were allowed to drink in front of the establishment in a public right-of-way and asked the City to rescind that right. He noted that the caf6 skirted parking requirements by making an arrangement with the County fairgrounds for five parking spaces but, given that the parking facility was two blocks away, it did not seem to be used. He felt neighbors in the area deserved better treatment. Adam Petkun, 251 West Broadway Street, Apartment 165, noted that he was almost finished with his term as President of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon. He supported the resolution to protect the old growth forest and the McKenzie River watershed. He lauded the river's beauty and declared it to be one of the main attractions in this area, underscoring the fact that more than 25 percent of University of Oregon students come from out of state and abroad. He said he would graduate in a couple of weeks, but would likely return to this area to visit what he considered to be "one of the prettiest places on earth." Ellen Ityman, 3863 Dorchester, thanked the council for the recent vote against the Santa Clara land swap that included property for the purpose of developing a large community park. She quoted Margaret Mead, who said change most often comes from a small group committed citizens. She opined that the land swap was not a good deal for anyone except the developers. She reiterated neighborhood sentiments that the swap would have set a bad precedent. She encouraged Councilor Pap6 to attend one of the neighborhood meetings and participate in the process. In conclusion, she suggested that the idea the area needed more ball fields should be reevaluated. She believed something better for the community would come from this process. She thanked the council for "giving the community a second chance." Suzanne Itanlon, 1995 Friendly Street, assistant director of the University of Oregon Outdoor Program, explained that her program was for both students and citizens and served more than 200 people per term. She stated that the McKenzie River watershed was one of the most desirable areas to visit as it provided the opportunity for a multitude of recreational activities. She noted that people who did not have cars could take a Lane Transit District (LTD) bus to the area. She shared that she sometimes spoke with students who were considering attending school at the university. She believed places like those around the McKenzie River helped "sell" the university. She quipped that it helped people decide to be "Ducks and not Beavers." She pointed out that Bike Magazine had listed the McKenzie River as the second best place to ride bicycles in the United States. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, called LRAPA an "exceedingly important player in the community" for long-term economic development and the quality of life. He said it appeared Eugene would have full representation on the LRAPA Board for the first time in five years. He felt it was an important time for the agency, as the director had recently been let go and new members with little experience with air quality had recently been appointed. He urged the council to support the Mayor's nomination of Drew Johnson for the LRAPA Board, as he had a lot of experience. Paul Nicholson, 1855 East 28th Avenue, stated that, from an economic point of view, it was important to protect the McKenzie River. He explained that he was a small business owner in the city of Eugene who founded Unique Eugene, an organization of local small businesses. He said the small business owners depended on the kinds of assets the McKenzie River and its beautiful recreational opportunities provided. He asked the council to support the resolution to preserve the river as it attracted people to the area. Moshe Immerman, 1290 McLean Boulevard, suggested that people needed to ask if decision-makers who did not live in the area loved and understood them. He felt the decision to log along side the McKenzie River was made by people who did not live here or who did not stay long. He asserted that area residents needed to protect the river as old growth trees help to maintain the watershed. He said when old growth trees were logged it altered the biological balance of soils and increased sedimentation in water. He predicted that reforestation would be made more difficult by the lessening of the snow pack that was occurring due to global warming. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She thanked Mr. Petkun for his service as University of Oregon student body president. She also clarified that she was a willing participant in a forum on the arena but, given that the University of Oregon owned the property it was slated to be built upon, she was not able to do more than that. She opened the floor for councilor comments and questions. Councilor Bettman apologized for limiting testimony to two minutes. She said it was encouraging to see the democratic process was alive and well in the City of Eugene. Councilor Bettman wished to highlight two pieces of the Monroe Street Caf6 discussion and flag them for the City Council: 1) mixed-use and incompatible mixed uses in neighborhoods, and how mixed-use interacted with preserving residential uses; and 2) whether the City might need to consider a buffer between smoking areas and adjacent residential properties. She said it seemed the City might have an opportunity to weigh in on the renewal of the OLCC license. She asked if the council could have a "quicker turnaround" and wondered why, given that the neighborhood had been addressing this issue for a year, neighbors were forced to bring it to a City Council meeting. Councilor Taylor said the initial vote on limiting the time created a dilemma for her as she was always opposed to doing so, but given that it was partnered with an extension of the time she voted in favor. She thanked everyone for speaking eloquently. She congratulated the people of Santa Clara for standing up for their issue. She commented that they were evidence that "democracy does work sometimes." She wished the neighbors of J.H. Baxter & Company and the Crest Drive Citizens Association the same sort of success. Councilor Taylor likened being asked to protect the McKenzie River to being asked to save one's own life. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session Councilor Pap6 asked for more information on the Crest Drive issue. He had been under the impression that the City slowed down on its press to change street classifications in order to get better interaction between the City and the neighborhood. Councilor Pap6 was happy to see Bill Burwell at the council meeting as he had known him for all of his life. He thanked Mr. Gesley for testifying and representing the "bottom end of the Bell curve" with him. He also recognized Mr. Petkun for the work he had done as student body president and thanked him for the example he set. Continuing, Councilor Pap6 related that he had attended most of the meetings of the River Road/Santa Clara ad hoc team. He said he had asked for the meeting times for the transition team to be changed so that he could attend those meetings. Currently he had a conflict with Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) meetings. He wanted to keep attending and was glad to see the organization had been revitalized. Councilor Kelly thanked everyone for speaking. Regarding the Monroe Street Caf6, he observed that there were different "flavors" of mixed-use and advocated for getting ahead of the OLCC deadline. He felt the change of use in the Monroe Street neighborhood had been jarring. He asked staff to determine what role the City Council played or could play in the OLCC permit process. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes April 20, 2005, Work Session April 25, 2005, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of April 21, April 28, and May 5, 2005 D. Appointment to the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority Board of Directors E. Approval of City Manager Evaluation Criteria Process, and Timeline F. Adoption of Resolution 4836 Concerning Protection of Mature and Old Growth Forests in the McKenzie River Watershed Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman stated that she had previously submitted minutes corrections. She asked to pull Item E from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the minutes corrections. Councilor Pap6 pulled Item F. Councilor Poling pulled Item D. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items D, E and F passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session Regarding Item D, Mayor Piercy provided an endorsement of Drew Johnson for the LRAPA Board. She interviewed seven candidates and reviewed their qualifications. While all of the candidates were good, she averred Mr. Johnson had the most background experience. She believed he deserved the support of the council. Councilor Poling pointed out that the recruitment period was only two weeks long, which he felt was too brief. He noted that LRAPA was interviewing a new director and the newly appointed board member would take part in the hiring process. He thought the appointment should wait until July, when the council conducted its recruitment for boards and commissions. He pointed out that the council received five to seven letters from LRAPA employees questioning Mr. Johnson's activities and indicating a lack of confidence in him. He did not have a substitute nominee and asked the Mayor and council to consider waiting to appoint. Councilor Ortiz understood that Mr. Johnson had been recruited by the community, which worked to be "the gatekeepers to keep air clean." She emphasized that Mr. Johnson was asked to serve. She felt a person should serve in whatever activity he or she felt passionate about. She questioned the letters submitted to the council, noting that they were from LRAPA staff. She wondered why they would have the power and privilege to make such comments. She supported the Mayor's nominee, stating that as a former employee of the agency, he had a lot of knowledge. She underscored that clean air was important for the entire community. Councilor Bettman observed that there was no shortage of applicants for the position. She thanked everyone for applying. She questioned the propriety of staff weighing in on the municipality's board nomination. She added that she had asked five years earlier for a work session on the concerns neighbors had regarding the air quality issues brought about by J.H. Baxter & Company and was told the City could do nothing about it. Councilor Taylor related that she has served on the LRAPA Board for eight years. She explained that there were three new board members and more were needed. She supported the nomination of Mr. Johnson, adding that she was glad that people asked him to apply. Councilor Pap6 conveyed his support for the Mayor's nomination. He noted, though, that he did not believe it had been long enough since Mr. Johnson worked for LRAPA. He observed that this would be another representative to LRAPA from Council Ward 2 and that there were qualified applicants from wards that were heretofore um'epresented on the LRAPA Board. Councilor Poling asserted that while the letters were from LRAPA employees, they were written as individuals. He respected the Mayor's choice, though he did not want to support it at this time. Councilor Kelly said the problem lay in part from not being able to see the applications and the council had this same issue with any mayoral appointments. He wished to see all applicants that made it to the interview stage. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Poling and Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy asked the councilors to consider Consent Calendar Item E. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session Councilor Bettman said she pulled this item primarily because she did not want to be on the record of being in favor of this process. She noted that she proposed an additional session with the City Manager to discuss some of his initiatives, direction, and vision "about the organization and how he works with staff." She said this was an area over which the council had purview, but that it was only privy to anonymous input voluntarily provided by employees. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item E passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy moved the council on to Item F. Councilor Pap6 said he was a long time lover of the McKenzie River and that he would support the resolution. However, he thought the findings were lacking in empirical background. Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend Item D under the findings to delete "degrading recreational opportunities, reducing prospects for the tourism economy, and..." Councilor Kelly said he disagreed with Councilor Pap6 regarding the findings but did not believe his amendment would impact the conclusion and so he would support it. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Pryor expressed his appreciation for all of the "great information" from the ONRC. He planned to support the resolution. He said he attempted to contact the USFS to talk with them about it. He stated that the agency provided tours for people and he had hoped to see the areas in question in order to understand both sides of the issue. Councilor Poling said he had a concern with Section 1.2 of the resolution. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the Resolution by adding to Section 1.2 the following language after 'McKenzie River Watershed': "... except where necessary for proper forest management." Councilor Bettman indicated that she was unwilling to wordsmith the resolution. She said the council should support asking the forest service to do the right thing. She felt it was especially important to protect the McKenzie River because it was the source of drinking water for the City of Eugene and because the recreational opportunities were integral to the local economy. Councilor Kelly indicated that he could not support the amendment. He said the resolution would not impact ongoing second growth logging. He felt it was possible to have viable logging on younger stands of trees. He underscored that there was no question that road building degraded the ecosystem. Councilor Pap6 said he appreciated the intent of the amendment, but there were already extensive roads in the area that were adequate to handle access to logging areas. He noted that the resolution did not ask that any roads be removed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Poling and Solomon voting in favor. Roll call vote; the main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting in opposition. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Standards for Police Uniforms; Adding Section 2.665 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for an Effective Date City Manager Taylor said this ordinance was being considered on a recommendation from the Police Commission. He noted that Police Commissioner John Brown was available to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Marlin Otto, 525-A Highway 99 North, said his company did not take issue with the ordinance, but understood the spirit and purpose of it. He requested that in enforcing the ordinance the City keep safety in mind. He stated that his business contracted with 99 percent of the alarm companies in the area and his officers handled approximately 49 alarms in a week, a service no longer handled by the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He explained that his employees were often responding to alarms in the backs of warehouses or on other private properties and it was imperative that they were immediately recognizable as security personnel. He underscored that his company had no interest in impersonating law enforcement. Floyd Prozanski, PO Box 11511, State Senator, stated that he was "wearing two hats" as he was also testifying as a member of the Police Commission. He supported the ordinance. He said the ordinance would keep individuals other than members of the EPD from wearing or using or authorizing the use of any part of the police uniforms. He added that some exemptions for other sworn law enforcement officers were made and there would be a transition clause allowing time for a security company that would be financially impacted to change its uniform. He reported that Senate Bill 547, a bill that would parallel what the commissioners were asking the City Council to do, passed through the Senate and was now in the House Judiciary Committee. After some review, it had been determined that it would not be possible to create a statewide law to accomplish the intent of the ordinance as there were too many different uniforms that sworn officers wore. The State law would only prohibit using a badge or identification to impersonate an officer. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Pap6 asked Eugene Police Chief Bob Lehner if the City had been experiencing problems. Chief Lehner responded that there were not presently any security firms whose uniforms could be confused with those of the EPD. City Manager Taylor affirmed for Councilor Bettman that the council could take action at the present meeting with unanimous council consent. Mayor Piercy called for a five-minute break at 8:57 p.m., in part to allow legal counsel to determine the ordinance number. The council reconvened at 9:05 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to approve Council Bill 4902, an ordinance concerning standards for police uniforms, adding section 2.665 to the Eugene Code, 1971, and providing for an effective date. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Creating the Metropolitan Wastewater Commission as an Intergovernmental Entity; and Providing For an Immediate Effective Date And Adoption of Resolution 4837 Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4900, an ordinance creating the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission as an intergovernmental entity. Councilor Bettman expressed her deep appreciation to staff for incorporating her "issues" into the IGA. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that the goal of (3) Specific Functions subsection (f)(1) was full recovery out of SDCs for capacity enhancing projects, but one could not use SDCs for rehabilitation projects. Councilor Kelly suggested that a comma be inserted after "monthly sewer user charges." The council was amenable to the insertion of a comma at that place. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to adopt Resolution 4837 approving the issuance of revenue bonds by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission; and providing an effective date. Councilor Poling asked if the EPA ruling about blending would increase costs and how it would affect the ability to issue revenue bonds. MWMC Commissioner Susie Smith responded that it would not affect the ability to raise revenue bonds, but a group of people would be gathered to strategize on what the EPA ruling meant regarding whether or not the MWMC facilities plan would be adequate to meet Clean Water Act standards. She thought in the long run the MWMC might have to add potentially $89 million more in projects should it have to meet the requirements without any blending. Councilor Kelly acknowledged all of the work that had gone into the ordinance and the resolution. Councilor Pap6 said the plan developed by the MWMC was based upon a balance of costs. He asked if not being able to blend projects would change the balance of expenses. Ms. Smith replied that it could, adding that the MWMC had a scheduled update of the wet weather flow management plan and was in the process of updating all of the modeling. She said, in response to another question from Councilor Pap6, that this would not happen in advance of the bond because the projects that were planned for the next few years were required to be built. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Prohibiting Smoking in Public Structures; Adding Section 6.232 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Section 6.990 of that Code; Establishing a Sunset Date; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4901, an ordinance concerning prohibited smoking in public structures. Councilor Kelly noted that a sunset date had been added and asked if an expiration in September would be adequate to get an ordinance drafted and through a public hearing. Permit Review Manager for the Planning and Development Department Keli Osborn thought the process could be accommodated by the timeline, but it could be hard to predict. Councilor Kelly asked what City Council action would be required to change the sunset date. City Attomey Lidz responded that another ordinance would be required to change the sunset date post the present ordinance. He added that it would be simple to amend the ordinance at hand, however. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Pap6, moved to amend Section 4 of the ordinance to replace September 30, 2005, with October 30, 2005. Roll call vote, the amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pap6 asked if the ordinance was creating any hardships for people who already had permits in. Ms. Osborn replied that only one known permit was in at the moment and the proposed smoking area was a portion of a larger building project. She said smoking would not be allowed in this area until the issue was resolved and the venue in question had been informed about the proposed prohibition in new smoking areas. In response to another question from Councilor Papfi, Ms. Osbom assured him that the 25-foot buffer requirement for buildings only applied to publicly owned buildings. Roll call vote; the motion as amended passed, 7:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 23, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall May 25, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the work session of the Eugene City Council. A. WORK SESSION: City Hall/Police Building Priority Issue Action Plan City Manager Dennis Taylor said this issue had been identified by the City Council as a strategic priority at its goal-setting retreat. He stated that it was the first of the eight priorities staff had brought before the council in an action plan format. Because of this, he continued, an entire work session would be devoted to the item, to be presented by Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson and Principal Facility Project Manager for the Facilities Division Mike Penwell. Mr. Carlson indicated that this was the fifth City Council discussion of this issue since the election in November 2004, at which time the bond measure failed. After the bond was defeated, he recalled that the previous council had decided not to move forward on the building and had deferred further consideration until more ideas could be brought to the table in January 2005, to further determine the scope of the work. The City Council moved $15 million into the Facilities Reserve Fund in anticipation of moving forward with the project in November. He related that the present City Council considered the issue on January 10, 2005, and but no action was taken because Ms. Bettman was not present. He felt it had been clear the council was not ready to embark on a full master planning process. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Carlson continued with a recap of the discussion to date. He said while staff and the council had ruled out the possible co-location of the Lane County Sheriff' s Office (LCSO) and the Eugene Police Department (EPD), there still existed the possibility that some space in a new building could be used for purposes other than the direct work of the City. Further discussion was needed on whether to replace or renovate City Hall. He observed there had been general consensus to consolidate existing City services in one place and to cease renting downtown space, though police could be in a separate facility. Mr. Carlson stated that staff continued to believe that a full master planning process with public input would cost $750,000. He agreed that it was a large amount but pointed out that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was embarking on a similar process and planned to spend $1.1 million on initial design work for a new site. He averred that the City's plans were more complicated than those of EWEB. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Penwell reviewed Attachment B: City Hall~Police Building Action Plan. He felt the delay had served to make the action plan better. He hoped the council would authorize $30,000 for the Policy Advisement Phase of the plan. Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions from the council. Ms. Taylor thought good work had gone into the plan. She remarked that her continuing objection was that there had not been enough community involvement in such plans. Regarding Phase 1, she wanted more facts and figures. She said until the council decided whether to renovate the existing building or build a new building, she was not prepared to vote on the entire plan. She felt that community experts should be brought in as well as staff experts and the council should have more facts, more possibilities, and figures and not just opinions that said it would cost as much to renovate the existing building as to build a new one. She did not believe that the cost of renovation would be as much as the cost of new construction. She opined that a smaller police building should be built nearby and that the City Hall building should be renovated and expanded. She maintained that more community policing was needed. Ms. Bettman commented that it was essential that the discussion the City took to the community be focused. She hoped there would be as many councilors "on board" as possible. She recommended the council have its policy discussion first and make the "big decisions." Ms. Bettman thought the plan should continue be called the City Hall Master Plan. She agreed with Ms. Taylor that the initial decision should be whether to renovate or replace the structure and that a public component was integral to the discussion. She noted that she did not see delineation of the public process in the plan. Mayor Piercy ascertained from the council that there was general support for calling the plan the City Hall Master Plan. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Bettman's assessment that a fact-based decision was needed by the City Council prior to accessing public input. He remarked that his perception of public involvement in the first phase was simply to raise public awareness of what was being considered and take in input through normal channels such as email. He predicted that public interest in becoming involved would increase as the Phase 1 discussion moved into where a new building should be located, whether there should be one, and how it would mesh with the Downtown Plan. He liked the idea of a facilitated session but strongly recommended that councilors be briefed individually by the consultant team in order to be able to fully answer fundamental questions that may be asked of them. Mr. Pryor concurred. He liked the plan and how it was phased. Regarding Phase 1, he agreed that the sooner the public was involved, the smoother the process would go. He noted that under Resource Needs, $30,000 had been allocated for a facilitated session with the council. He thought this amount of money probably anticipated a need to do some sort of stakeholder involvement process. He wanted to focus on the process at this point, but averred that it would be prudent to involve the public early. Mr. Pap6 appreciated the commitment of staffto keep coming back with this item and called the plan the best planning effort to date. He supported the plan and indicated he would support the funding request. He suggested the formation of an ad hoc committee to help in the information flow between staff and the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 2 Work Session council and to foster agreement in order to move forward. Mayor Piercy commented that this was a good opportunity to determine how to get neighborhood associations involved and how they wished to interact with the City staff and government in a meaningful way. In response to the first round of comments, Mr. Carlson said staffs concept of the first phase was to hire the consultant team and get it on board and then have the team interact with the councilors and the Mayor. Additionally, he stated that the consultants would have to review all of the existing information generated to date. He pointed out that generation of additional technical information, should it be needed, would take more than $30,000. An example of something that might require more funding would be studies to determine retrofitting costs, even though there was some existing data. Ms. Bettman recommended asking neighborhood associations how they wanted to be involved in the discussion. She underscored the importance of publicizing the City Council's point of view so that members of the community would know what to comment on. Regarding the facility policy discussion, Ms. Bettman averred that one work session was not adequate. Ms. Bettman said it was important to her to include individual councilor offices on the list under Priority Issue Outcomes 4(b). City Manager Taylor recalled that the discussion at the retreat had suggested that some subjects within the priority issues would lend themselves to sessions longer than the traditional work session. He recom- mended that the first phase policy discussion be held in a longer session. Mr. Kelly reiterated his desire to meet with consultants early in the process so that there would be a clear idea of whether there were new significant technical studies needed in the Phase 1 decisions that would require more money. He felt it was important to find out how the City Council felt about the plans so that the work plan would not be set up to fail through a lack of council agreement. Mr. Kelly recommended using a newspaper insert to educate the public, as well as to request feedback. Mr. Pap6 commented that if the council asked the public whether the City should keep City Hall and the public said yes, the council should be prepared for what lay ahead. He said he would try to be open- minded about the existing building, but he remembered the data from the assessment of 1999. He said he would be hard pressed to change his mind as the building was "functionally and structurally obsolete." He thought the consultants and not the architects should have a lead role in the process, in order to ask some of the critical questions prior to beginning architectural design. Ms. Taylor thought the neighborhood associations should be made aware of the costs of the plan and should weigh in on whether to rebuild or renovate. She hoped people in the community could change the council's minds even if all eight councilors had decided to proceed in one direction. She underscored that the council was acting on behalf of the community. Regarding the consultants, Ms. Taylor asked who decided if a consultant was an expert or not. Mr. Carlson replied that staff did not know who the consultants would be at this point but would engage in a MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 3 Work Session procurement process with an evaluation component to select them. Mr. Pryor called the decision a balancing act between the external process--comprised of public participation but not necessarily expertise, the internal process--comprised of the results from experts the City would hire and the experience of the people who work in the building, and the measurable reality-- how much money was available and the design constraints of the site that would ultimately be developed or renovated. The decision, he averred, would boil down to a process that would foster a balance between the three components. Mr. Penwell said it was difficult to cover all of the possibilities in one work session. He needed to set up a dialogue, starting with the City Cbuncil and then moving to the community, including some "back and forth." He cautioned against rushing to resolve issues prematurely. He averred there was value in keeping fluidity in the dialogue. He was concerned that staff would not have a chance to get all of the data before the decision point on renovation versus rebuilding had been reached. Ms. Bettman was troubled to hear Mr. Penwell's remarks as she believed the decision on whether to renovate should be resolved first. She commented that whatever technical data was needed to make that decision and whatever community dialogue would be held in order to make that decision should be "job one." She opined it would undermine the public process to go out with such a large question on the table. She said the council needed to see the numbers "early on" because if the costs of the two options were far from one another, the decision would be obvious; whereas if they were more similar, the decision would be discretionary in nature. Ms. Bettman observed that design style was not on the list of priorities. She felt that message would come from public conversations. She related that she saw many buildings being constructed in the State that looked just like the new library and asked if the community would want another building like that. She wanted to hold a public hearing that would ask for input about the issues involved in building a new city hall so that it would inform the entire process. She wanted it to be widely advertised. City Manager Taylor ascertained from Ms. Bettman that she wanted a public meeting to be convened in conjunction with a City Council meeting prior to working with the consultants on the development of the material and the date of the facilitated policy workshop. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Bettman's points. He felt the outcome of Phase 1 would be a conceptual plan and would not be cast in stone, though it would be a clear indication of momentum. He indicated he would support the provision of additional money to assess the existing building and provide a clear picture of its adequacy or inadequacy and what it would cost to renovate. Mr. Pap6 averred that more public process was needed as it was an important issue. He thought in addition to a public hearing, the City needed a larger public process with solicitation of emails and more, especially given that the City was likely to go out for a bond. He agreed that more answers were needed because of the number of possibilities the plan presented. Ms. Bettman remarked that another important issue was the location of the building. She staunchly supported moving forward with the plan, but only if it was in the downtown area. Ms. Bettman indicated she would support allocating more money to the first phase, but stressed that those MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 4 Work Session dollars must include support for exploration of the costs that would be saved by eliminating the need to rent space from other entities. Continuing, Ms. Bettman observed that the planned date for Requests for Proposals (RFPs) was set in July. She felt the City Council should be able to review them when they were submitted and provide a recommendation. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Penwell explained that the initial money would be spent on getting the design team up to speed on the history of the issue and on meetings with staff and the councilors in preparation for the facilitated session. He reassured her it was not money for plans for a new building. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to spending any money on a new facility. City Manager Taylor stressed that the $30,000 request did not presume the construction of a new facility or renovation of the old one. Mr. Carlson surmised that this was one of the questions the council wanted answers for in Phase 1. Mayor Piercy agreed that this would be a topic of ongoing discussion in the short term. Ms. Taylor asked the councilors to consider that the public might say that money should be spent on road repairs, if they were given the chance. Mayor Piercy asked staff if any other questions needed discussion. City Manager Taylor surmised that the council wanted to engage the public process early on and wanted firm costs known for possible renovation of the existing building. He indicated he would bring answers to these questions as soon as possible. Mr. Carlson extrapolated from council input an acceptance of the idea of an early public heating, and that councilors wished for the consultants to work with them to find out what additional information they might need when answering questions for the public. He noted that holding a longer work session had been suggested. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the idea of an early public heating be broadened to include early public input. Mr. Carlson responded that staff would figure out some way to add to the opportunities for feedback, but he did not know that there would be enough information for a newspaper insert or questionnaire at that point. Mr. Penwell pointed out that the cursory review of the existing City Hall structure conducted five years earlier had cost between $40,000 and $50,000. He added that ongoing expenses for the building, as it stood, were five times more expensive per square foot than the ongoing expenses generated by the new library. He assumed that any cost projection for the existing structure would be based on a "gut and renovate." His cost projection made six years earlier had been closely based on gutting and renovating the building and did not take into consideration Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. He suggested that he return to the council with general costs based on the specific building. He thought a "gut and renovate" might change the entire configuration of the building. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor wished to reinforce her support for public hearings and for reaching out to neighborhood meetings. She wanted to make everyone aware of what the council was contemplating. She opined that even experts had opinions, slants, and preconceived notions of what should happen. She declared that the building was falling apart because of a lack of maintenance. Ms. Bettman averred that the engineers and facilities staff should determine what information the council needed regarding LEED certification and building costs. She also asked what the City would make by selling some of its other assets. She felt it was important to have all of the background information in order to communicate to the community. Mr. Pap6 stated that the City had spent $40,000 on consultants in 1999 for an assessment of the existing structure. He had been impressed by the process. He said he wanted to see what the seismic upgrades for the existing City Hall would cost, as well as the cost of other improvements such as potential Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades. Mr. Carlson underscored that staff had just completed a facilities condition report and had good data on existing deficiencies as well as emerging deficiencies. He thought the question would be how much data was needed to make the decision to renovate or rebuild. Mr. Penwell commented that the other question was whether staff had enough information for the community to accept staff's recommendation. Mr. Kelly expressed annoyance that staff felt they had enough information. He said ten minutes earlier it had seemed there was not enough information. Mr. Carlson replied that it was not just a decision for staff, it was also a decision of the City Council and the community. He said it was not known prior to engaging in a discussion on the topic whether the council had enough information to make its decision. Mr. Kelly said he had no doubt that staff's professional judgment was based on good data. He suggested that staff should lay out the costs so that it was clearly understood how much it would cost with LEED certification at the gold level versus how much it would cost to do only the minimum. He wanted staff to cite its sources of information. Mr. Pryor called Phase 1 a "narrowing down" process. He said by definition a lot of the decision-making and winnowing would happen at the top. He averred that ideas that did not belong would need to be taken out of the running, but only based on sound and rational reasons. He wanted to do this in a give-and-take manner and test the ideas as the process unfolded. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the proposed City Hall/Police Building action plan. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve implementing Phase 1 of the ac- tion plan and direct the City Manager to request on a Supplemental Budget up to $30,000 from the Facility Replacement Reserve to implement Phase 1 of the action plan. Mr. Pap6 asked if $30,000 was an adequate amount for the initial work. City Manager Taylor reiterated that his initial recommendation had been $750,000. He was willing to return after each phase for funding MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 6 Work Session in a piecemeal fashion. He said the newly adopted action plan was significant and public hearings were forthcoming. He was amenable to leaving the amount at $30,000 for the present. Mr. Pap6 questioned whether $30,000 was an adequate amount for Phase 1. Mr. Penwell replied that he was comfortable with that amount, but that it was unlikely to be the correct amount. Ms. Bettman wished to have whatever technical information necessary to make the early-on priority decisions. She asked if allocating up to $50,000 would cover the "technical piece." Mr. Penwell replied that if it was a review and update of existing information that was expected, $50,000 would be adequate. In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Penwell said he would be able to bring back proposals from architects and engineers to review the existing information and update it within a matter of weeks. City Manager Taylor interjected that, with the help of the consultant group, it could be that the existing data might suggest a recommendation that the council would find acceptable. Ms. Taylor indicated she would support the motion, but she hoped it would be for information only. She reiterated that the commitment at this point was only to conclude the discussion. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to allocate up to $50,000 to implement Phase One of the action plan. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. The main motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 25, 2005 Page 7 Work Session