Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: September 8, 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 23, 2008, City Council Meeting, June 24, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, and July 28, 2008, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.June 23, 2008, City Council Meeting B.June 24, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting C.July 28, 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\M080908\S0809082A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall June 23, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling. Council President Pryor called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order in Mayor Piercy’s absence. Mayor Piercy was in New Orleans presenting a talk on sustainability. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Councilor Pryor reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Judith Clayton-Van , 89326 Old Coburg Road, stated that she was a long-time resident of the City of Eugene. She wished to represent her house with regard to the Old Coburg Road/Chad Drive connection that was being worked on. She had requested a 24-inch exception to the frontage, which would allow her 72- year-old cottage to remain in its natural surroundings and to maintain its privacy. She said there was nothing across the street from it. She further requested that the City gently revise the Old Coburg Road/Armitage Plan to honor its past and present use. She related that it was the oldest county mail road and was now used by bicyclists and joggers, in addition to traffic. She averred that it was “one of the last places to find country in Eugene.” She questioned why the City would want to disadvantage long-term residents. She was not against advancement, but she opposed destroying what was already there. She felt the Old Coburg Road would be better developed with bicycle paths and green park-like settings. She submitted her testimony and pictures of her home into the record. Zachary Vishanoff , somewhere on Patterson Street, Ward 3, said Eugene was hosting the Olympic Trials and this brought a lot of focus to the community, as well as the presence of Homeland Security. He wanted the Olympic Trials to be the peoples’ decision. He questioned whether there was any reason that the people should not have an opportunity to provide input in a public hearing. He averred that the town had no choice about hosting the Olympic Trials. He acknowledged that it was possible that no one would show up for a hearing, but he felt it would still send a message to the public that the public was involved in the decision- making. He also noted that the University of Oregon had indicated it would move the Alumni Center into the proposed arena project and that it intended to appeal the ruling that would require a conditional use permit for the project. Mark Rabinowitz , P.O. Box 51222, wished to address the Interstate 5 bridge project, which he considered to be a widening project. He supported replacing the existing bridge with a bridge that was the same size. He predicted that by 2030 there would be significantly less traffic on the interstate because “oil would be on MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting its way out.” He declared that stronger bridges were needed but not wider ones. He commented that he had recently “made the mistake” of taking the Amtrak. He complained about the delays in the train schedule and that a bus was used for a portion of the trip. He averred that the price of airplane tickets would continue to climb prior to the 2012 Olympic Trials. He felt it would be prudent to improve the train system in order to bring people here. He added that if there was “real leadership” grass seed farming would be discontinued and replaced by grain farming. He proclaimed that when the oil was gone there would be an increased need to grow food locally. Councilor Solomon wanted to follow up on Ms. Van’s testimony. She recalled discussing this issue with Public Works Director Kurt Corey nearly two years earlier. She did not think a 24-inch variance was an unreasonable request. City Manager Jon Ruiz agreed to follow up on it. Councilor Bettman did not understand Ms. Van’s concerns as they related to the context of the project. She requested an explanatory memorandum. Councilor Ortiz agreed with Mr. Rabinowitz that fossil fuel would not continue to be affordable. She averred that she could tell there were fewer cars on the street. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 30, 2008, Work Session - February 13, 2008, Work Session - March 12, 2008, Work Session - March 12, 2008, Executive Session - April 14, 2008, Work Session - April 14, 2008, City Council Meeting - April 28, 2008, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Con- sent Calendar, including previously submitted minutes corrections. Roll call vote; the Con- sent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 23, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing Eugene City Council/Springfield City Council/Lane Board of County Commissioners Bascom-Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library June 24, 2008 7:30 p.m. EUGENE CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling. Councilors Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, and Chris Pryor were absent. SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Sid Leiken, Councilors John Woodrow Christine Lundberg, Hillary Wylie, Anne Ballew. Councilors Joe Pishioneri and Dave Ralston were excused. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Faye Stewart, Bobby Green, Peter Sorenson, Bill Fleenor, Bill Dwyer. A. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Text; Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Text; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; Adopting Severability and Savings Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date ( I-5 , Eugene files MA 07-3, RA 08-1; Springfield file LRP2007-00010; Willamette Bridge Project Lane County file PA08-5230) Call to Order – Three Governing Bodies Councilor Bettman convened the Eugene City Council and reviewed the rules for testimony. His Honor Mayor Sid Leiken convened the Springfield City Council. He requested that Greg Mott, Springfield Planning Manager, read the portion of the ordinance that would affect the City of Springfield into the record. Mr. Mott did so. Commissioner Stewart convened the Lane Board of County Commissioners. He read the portion of the ordinance applicable to Lane County into the record. He opened the public hearing. Councilor Bettman stated that the actions in the ordinance were quasi-judicial and asked councilors to declare ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Councilor Bettman said she had received a call from David Sonnichsen and she had requested that he submit his comments in writing. Mayor Leiken ascertained that no Springfield councilors had ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. He stated for the record that he had a conversation with Congressman Peter DeFazio regarding the issue. He said Rep. DeFazio had indicated he felt he had a commitment from the Oregon Department of Transporta- MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— June 24, 2008 Page 1 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils tion (ODOT) for the bridge to potentially have ramps in the future and wanted to ensure that the Mayor knew that. Commissioner Stewart asked if his colleagues had any ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest to disclose. Commissioner Dwyer indicated that he had a conversation with Rep. DeFazio regarding ramps, similar to Mayor Leiken’s conversation. Introduction of Topic and Background Information Councilor Bettman called for the staff report. Heather O’Donnell, Associate Planner for the Eugene Planning and Development Department, provided the report. She stated that the focus of the joint elected officials hearing was on approval of a Metro Plan text amendment and a Willakenzie Refinement Plan text amendment for the Interstate 5 Willamette River bridge project. She indicated that Attachment C delineated the project area. She explained that this was one of the earlier steps in the process, among multiple steps. She said if the amendments were approved the project details would be reviewed during other land use approval processes, such as the City of Eugene’s Willamette Greenway Permit and Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zones and a Standards Review and the City of Springfield’s 75 Foot Riparian Setback Review. She stated that the subject policies would be amended to include an exception for the proposed Interstate 5 Bridge. Ms. O’Donnell reported that Mr. Sonnichsen had submitted an email, copies of which were provided to the Joint Elected Officials. Ms. O’Donnell stated that the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County had held a joint public hearing and deliberations to consider the request and had voted unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval to the Joint Elected Officials. She further stated that the Eugene City Council was scheduled to take action on July 28; Springfield City Council was scheduled to take action on July 21; and the Lane County Board of Commissioners planned to hold the third reading of the proposed amendments on June 25 with a possible fourth reading to be held on July 30. Open Public Hearing Councilor Bettman reviewed the hearing procedure. She stated that the purpose of the hearing was to receive relevant testimony, arguments, and evidence presented regarding the amendments under considera- tion and that testimony must address the approval. She said failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to allow the City Councils and Board of Commissioners to respond would preclude the issue from being raised in an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Councilor Bettman opened the public hearing and called for testimony from the applicant. Tim Dodson , 3258 Northwest Countryman Circle, Albany, explained that he was the ODOT Project Manager for the bridge project. He pointed out that the project would be constructed entirely in the ODOT right-of-way. He reported that the Environmental Assessment document had been completed, but ODOT needed the plan amendments approved before it could be signed. He said ODOT had hired OBEC Engineering Consultants to begin engineering work and Hamilton Construction had been hired to be the contractor. He related that preliminary design work was underway and they planned to select the type of bridge on August 8. He stated that it was hoped that 60 percent of the design work would be completed by MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— June 24, 2008 Page 2 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils January for the purpose of obtaining permits with the ultimate goal of having the bridge completed by December 12, 2012. Mr. Dodson outlined the public input process ODOT had undertaken, which included engaging local involvement whenever possible and a regularly updated Website that had been available since 2006. He related that an advisory group had been convened that represented the neighborhoods, the parks, the University, and the Chambers of Commerce and had met for 11 three-hour meetings. He said ODOT had held three open houses in each city, had met with neighborhood associations, and had held design workshops to help inform the bridge designers. He stated that ODOT had received comments on the environmental assessment and had conducted a Web survey, responded to by 1,285 people. Mr. Dodson underscored the urgency regarding the schedule. He said it was critical to gain approval of the amendments in order to begin work in 2009. He urged the Joint Elected Officials to help ODOT meet its schedule by approving the amendments before them. Mark Greenfield , 495 Northwest Greenleaf, Portland, land use consultant for ODOT, pointed out that city and county staffs had recommended approval based on compliance with all of the applicable standards, including local code standards. He underscored the need for an exception to the Metro Plan in order to place a non-dependent transportation facility in the Willamette River Greenway, which would require some fill. He stated that it would not have a significant effect on the greenway and because the development would be entirely within the Willamette Greenway there would be no reduction in the amount of permanent open space available in the surrounding park land – public access to the river would be maintained as would the bicycle and pedestrian paths. He said impacts to significant natural resources in the area would be addressed through the permitting processes of the two municipalities and could be mitigated. He also noted that the new bridge would reduce the number of piers in the water to only one. Councilor Bettman called for testimony that was neither in favor nor opposed. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, indicated that he lived within the Willakenzie Area Plan. He was neutral on the change because he was uncertain of the impacts. He felt that placing additional fill would raise the water level and increase flood levels in the flood plains. He asked if ODOT had conducted hydrological studies on how the fill would impact surrounding areas. He conveyed a request by Mr. Sonnichsen to hold the record open for seven days. Lauri Segal , 642 Charnelton Street, expressed disappointment that much of the community focus had been on design elements. She averred that there were still legal issues to be resolved. She asked why Division 20 of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660 was not relevant. She related that it was the Willamette River Greenway portion of the OAR. She thought ODOT had jurisdiction over plan segments in the Greenway, identified in the OAR and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted the plan segments. She asserted that procedures had to be followed when amending the plan. She wanted to know if it was relevant to the proposal to make the bridge larger. She alleged that talk of ramps would fall under segmentation issues and federal highway law. She wondered if the plan segment plan had relevance to ODOT’s plan and, if so, why the Oregon State Department of Parks and Recreation had not received notice of the proposal. She asserted that the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODF&W) also had not received notice and should be notified. John Dotson , 2447 Canterbury Lane, said he was neutral to the project. He considered the Metro Plan to be “another layer of bureaucracy.” He felt that the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the Metro Plan were intended to dilute the authority of the county commissioners and blur the lines between the cities. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— June 24, 2008 Page 3 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils He averred that this had created procedures of stagnant growth. He suggested that the Metro Plan and LCOG be disassembled. Councilor Bettman called for testimony in opposition. Mark Rabinowitz , PO Box 51222, supported a stronger bridge, but not a wider bridge. He predicted that traffic would be reduced given the rising price of fuel and that oil production was falling. He opposed “a rubber stamp” to widening an interstate. He cited the directive from the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) that new circumstances should be considered. He believed that the end of cheap oil and climate change were new circumstances. He asserted that the environmental assessment refused to address comments regarding traffic issues. He declared that there would no longer be money to replace bridges “over and over.” He averred that the new bridge would cost less and create less impact if it was not widened. Councilor Bettman called for staff response to testimony. Ms. O’Donnell stated that the preliminary hydrological analysis from ODOT determined that Pier Option A would result in an increase of .02 feet over existing conditions for a 100-year flood event and Pier Option B would result in a decrease of .54 feet. She said the discussion began on page 26 of the findings and was within the context of the policies. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. O’Donnell affirmed that staff would provide specific responses to questions. Councilor Bettman called for the applicant’s rebuttal. Mr. Dodson clarified that the detour bridge project had placed 61,000 cubic yards of fill into the flood plain and the permanent bridge would remove approximately half of that fill. He stated that Oregon State Parks had been involved in the project, as had been the ODF&W. He stressed that all of the regulatory agencies had been involved in the process. Regarding the width of the bridge, Mr. Dodson stated that it was mandated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to be no less than 64 feet from curb to curb in each direction. He said the project had to comply because it was utilizing federal dollars. Mr. Stringfield added that there were no ramps being considered for the project at this time. He said while the bridge would be built to ultimately accommodate three lanes in each direction, it would only be striped for two lanes. He said the ultimate expansion to three lanes was part of the TransPlan as a future project. In regard to concerns that the project was not applying the right criteria, he stressed that ODOT had to apply the criteria for taking exception to put fill in the greenway. Councilor Bettman called for questions and comments from the elected officials. Commissioner Fleenor asked if ODF&W had been contacted with regard to the potential effect of the bridge project on fisheries. Councilor Bettman asked if the applicants could legally respond to questions in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Eugene City Attorney Kathryn Brotherton advised the elected officials to ask questions of staff and allow staff to respond to them. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— June 24, 2008 Page 4 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Ms. O’Donnell indicated that she would find the answer to Commissioner Fleenor’s question and respond in writing. Mayor Leiken assumed that a demolition permit would be required to remove the temporary and current bridges. He asked if the two cities would be involved in the permitting process. Mr. Mott replied that they would not be involved in authorizing such a permit. Councilor Taylor said she was confused by the statement that the completed bridge would only have two lanes but would be wide enough for three lanes. She asked if that meant that the lanes would be extra wide. Ms. O’Donnell explained that the road would have extra wide shoulders. She added that she would include this in her written response. Commissioner Sorenson asked if the elected officials were approving the bridge or were they approving the use of the land within the greenway. Ms. O’Donnell reiterated that the proceeding was seeking approval for a text amendment to the Metro Plan and the refinement plan in order for the bridge to be considered. In response to a follow-up question from Commissioner Sorenson, Ms. O’Donnell repeated the information provided in the staff report regarding what other permits and processes the project would have to go through for the City of Eugene. She noted that ODOT would also have to acquire a flood plain development permit, only applicable to the portion that was outside of the ODOT right-of-way. Mr. Mott listed the permits that ODOT would need to apply for in the City of Springfield, which included a permit to develop within the greenway, a permit to develop within the flood plain, and, if there would be any kind of tree removal, a tree felling permit. He said the application of those permits applied within the boundary of Springfield. Commissioner Sorenson asked if the size of the bridge was relevant to the present decision. Ms. O’Donnell responded that the fact that the proposed bridge would be built within the existing ODOT right-of-way meant that it was not relevant to the present decision. She stated that if the bridge were designed to be built outside of the right-of-way, ODOT would have to provide more information and a detailed review of pier locations, vegetation removal, and so on. Commissioner Dwyer asked what permits would be required by the County. Stephanie Schultz, Planner for the Lane County Planning Department, replied that no permits would be required by the County; the County was only required to provide its approval for the amendment to the Metro Plan. Councilor Bettman averred that the findings indicated there would be no change in use but she thought the noise and fill levels were only related to the temporary bridge use. She found this illogical. She asserted that the new bridge was actually capacity enhancement and not a replacement project. She asked what an average lane width for an Interstate 5 lane was. Ms. O’Donnell replied that she did not know. Councilor Bettman asked what the bridge would cost in transit money. She wanted to know if the project was in the Regional Transportation Plan. She also asked if there was any local money from the cities or the County. Ms. O’Donnell said she would provide those answers in her written response. Commissioner Fleenor asked if the three-lane width would be in addition to an emergency pull-off. Ms. O’Donnell replied that she would include the answer in her written response. She noted that it was her understanding that striping the bridge for additional lanes was a project identified in the TransPlan but it was a separate project. She stressed that typical replacement projects did not appear in that plan. She explained that when the striping was proposed at some future point there would have to be another federal process that would include hearings. She thought the concerns related to additional traffic and noise would be addressed at that future point. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— June 24, 2008 Page 5 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Chris Henry, Transportation Planning Engineer for the City of Eugene, clarified that the road was planned to be 64 feet from curb to curb and an extra four feet was included for a barrier on the inside and outside of the bridge. He assured Commissioner Fleenor that the bridge would include shoulders on both sides for emergency break-downs or emergency services and that the road would be striped for two lanes consistent with the interstate elsewhere. He cited, as an example, the bridge over the Santiam River as it had recently been constructed to a width that could accommodate three lanes if needed in the future but was currently striped for two. Commissioner Green requested that a copy of the written response to questions be provided for everyone. Commissioner Sorenson wanted to ask questions regarding the transportation implications of the decision. He related that lists had been made of projects that were to be done in the short-term and projects that were to be done in the future and asked where this project would fall on the list. Ms. O’Donnell responded that she would include the answer in the written response. Mr. Henry added that he believed the project had been identified for Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA) 2 and OTIA 3 funding by ODOT and had been included in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). He said it had not existed as an identified TransPlan project because it had not been known at the time that the bridge was broken. Councilor Bettman reiterated that she considered it a capacity project and asked, given this, why it did not include consideration for pedestrians and bicycles. Ms. O’Donnell responded that at this point what was being considered was a high policy question regarding whether or not the bridge replacement made sense and should be considered. She stated that those other considerations would be addressed at the time that the decision to propose striping the bridge for three lanes was made. Councilor Bettman asserted that this was actually bridge expansion and not bridge replacement. She repeated her concerns regarding the proposal referring to a replacement bridge and that it did not take into consideration the changes that would result from expansion to three lanes. She said the figures for the amount of fill in the river disregarded existing fill. She averred that all of the findings needed to be corrected. Councilor Bettman asked if both bridges would be identical. Ms. O’Donnell responded that the design work had not been completed to that point; the project was in the conceptual phase. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. O’Donnell clarified that what was under consideration at the hearing was not a Willamette Greenway Permit, which was a Type 3 Land Use Application. She explained that such an application would look at the bridge design and the impacts to riparian features. Councilor Bettman averred that the amendments under consideration did not predict the design of the bridge. Commissioner Dwyer understood from the preliminary design that the concept for the bridge was a cantilevered single pier bridge. Ms. O’Donnell responded that the Plan Options A and B submitted by ODOT indicated that they were considering a bridge with one pier in the water under both bridges, one pier in the water possibly for one or both bridges on the south shore, and both piers on land on the north shore. Mayor Leiken asked if the design of the bridge could accommodate ramps in the future. Ms. O’Donnell responded that if the record was left open the applicant could respond to this but staff was not looking at the design at this point. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— June 24, 2008 Page 6 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Councilor Ballew said ODOT had gone through a lengthy process. She was not certain what would be accomplished by leaving the record open. She underscored that when the bridge reached the design phase there would be more opportunity for review and for public input. She stated that it would assist ODOT if the elected officials could allow the process to proceed. Councilor Bettman asked if ODOT had looked at alternative plans for the plan, such as a four-lane bridge. She wondered what that would have cost. Ms. O’Donnell did not have the actual cost analysis, but she believed that the applicant did respond to the issue and had determined that the design of two bridges would create less of an environmental and an economic impact. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to leave the record open for seven days for the City of Eugene. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mayor Leiken called for a motion from the councilors of Springfield. None were offered. Commissioner Dwyer asked when this would end and whether they would have to convene another meeting of the Joint Elected Officials. Commissioner Stewart noted that the third reading of the ordinance was scheduled for the following day. Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes clarified that if the record was left open it meant the hearing was closed and the deliberation or continuation of the reading could extend to the point where the record was closed, staff would be allowed to respond to questions and answers, and then each entity could take up deliberation at their respective times. He said unless there was a desire to continue the hearing, all that needed to be considered would be when the next meeting was scheduled to deliberate on the ordinance before the Board. Commissioner Stewart ascertained from legal counsel that leaving the record open did not affect the three dates scheduled for the different jurisdictions to take action. Commissioner Green asked what complications might arise if one entity closed the record and another kept it open. Ms. Brotherton responded that it was not impossible. She said if the record was not left open for everyone, the entity for which the record would be closed would not have access to further information. Commissioner Dwyer, seconded by Commissioner Sorensonn, moved to keep the record open for seven days for the Lane County Board of Commissioners with an additional five days for the Oregon Department of Transportation to respond. Councilor Bettman said the Eugene council motion was for only seven days. She felt that ODOT could respond to staff if necessary. Commissioner Dwyer amended his motion so that the record would only be open for seven days. The second was amenable to the change. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Councilor Wylie moved to keep the record open for the Springfield City Council. The mo- tion died for lack of a second. Close Public Hearing Councilor Bettman closed the public hearing for the Eugene City Council. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing for the Springfield City Council. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— June 24, 2008 Page 7 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils Commissioner Stewart closed the public hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Adjournment Mr. Stringfield requested a list of the questions that had been asked. Councilor Bettman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials— June 24, 2008 Page 8 Lane Board of County Commissioners and Eugene and Springfield City Councils ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 28, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Poling (via telephone). 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 noted the recent resignations of Police Auditor Cristine Beamud and Assistant City Manager Angel Jones, both of whom had accepted positions with other cities. She thanked them for their service to the City and contributions to the community. She described a recycling project by the Friendly Area Neighbors in which residents had an opportunity to recycle among themselves, donate items to local agencies or send them to Next Step Recycling. Ms. Bettman expressed her gratitude to Ms. Beamud and Ms. Jones for their service. She said the Friendly Area Neighbors event and picnic was popular and well attended. She indicated she intended to offer a motion regarding ballot language, either at the end of the work session or during the regular meeting. Ms. Taylor also thanked employees who were leaving. She said a constituent had inquired about notifying the City of a problem on a weekend, such as the lights being out in a park. She asked who people should contact to report problems. She said another constituent asked if the City could clean up Amazon Creek in th the vicinity of 36 Avenue and West Amazon Parkway. Mr. Clark thanked those who organized the enjoyable and successful Cal Young Neighborhood Association picnic. He noted that Vicki Stewart, long-time employee of the City Manager’s Office, had retired last week and would be missed. He was sad to see Ms. Jones leave Eugene and hoped the citizens of Gaithersburg, Maryland appreciated what a dedicated professional she would be as their new city manager. Mr. Poling wished Ms. Jones and Ms. Beamud well in their new positions. He thanked Ms. Jones for her outstanding service to the City and her consistently positive and professional demeanor. Ms. Solomon congratulated Ms. Jones and Ms. Beamud on their new positions and echoed Mr. Poling’s comments regarding Ms. Jones. She reported on a meeting between the Housing Policy Board (HPB) and the Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team (ICS) to discuss the HPB’s concerns about the impact of infill standards on affordable housing in the community. She said it was an interesting and informative discussion MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 1 Work Session and conversations would continue over the course of the ICS project. She attended the preview of the RiverBend hospital and said it was a wonderful regional complex. Ms. Ortiz described her experience as an employee at RiverBend and the mock runs being conducted to prepare for the arrival of patients at the facility. She attended an open house to obtain feedback from neighbors on the Elmira/Maple Road project. She said a grant had been obtained to study the built environment and childhood asthma and obesity in the Trainsong neighborhood. She said a meeting would be held on July 29 at the library to discuss the Beltline project from River Road to Interstate 5. She noted that Vicki Cox would be leaving the City Manager’s Office for a job with the police auditor. Mr. Zelenka thanked Ms. Jones for her leadership and service to the City. He also thanked Ms. Beamud and Ms. Stewart for their service to the City. He agreed with Ms. Solomon that RiverBend was a great facility for the region. He said a June 25 letter to the editor in the Register Guard from Mike Bogdanovich contained misinformation about the City’s expenditure of gas tax revenues for street repair. He assured the public that every cent of that money had gone to street repairs and asked staff to send a letter to Mr. Bogdanovich explaining that. Mr. Pryor thanked Ms. Jones, Ms. Stewart and Ms. Beamud for their service to the City. He represented the City at a reception for a Korean delegation and complimented Mary Walston of the City Manager’s Office for her participation. He attended a Lane Transit District West Eugene EmX corridor meeting to discuss alternative routes. He said more public input would be obtained as the designs were refined. Ms. Piercy conveyed the thanks of Acorn Park neighbors for improvements the City had made. City Manager Jon Ruiz also expressed his gratitude to Ms. Stewart, Ms. Jones and Ms. Beamud and congratulated Ms. Jones on her new position. He commended Ms. Beamud for her work as police auditor. He said he recently participated in an informative tour of the University neighborhood. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that the council begin the recruitment and hiring of a replacement police auditor and that the council receive a draft time- line and framework based primarily on the previous auditor hiring process in time to consider before the council’s break. Ms. Solomon expressed surprise at the motion and hoped the council would take the time to resolve some outstanding issues regarding the police auditor position before hiring a new person. Mr. Clark concurred with Ms. Solomon’s remarks. He referred to the council’s recent discussion about the job description as a part of a performance evaluation in order to make the council’s expectations clear to potential employees. Ms. Ortiz felt that the council had been harsh in the past when evaluating employees and wanted to see the council resolve those issues. She did not feel that asking the staff for a timeline and framework would prevent that work from happening. Ms. Bettman asserted that oversight systems always had unresolved issues because processes were evolving. She was in favor of moving forward, as the council would never all agree on the issues. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka was in favor of requesting a timeline and framework as the recruitment process had been lengthy when Ms. Beamud was hired. He understood that staff was going to develop a job description from existing material and thought that should not generate more debate. Mr. Pryor said his intent was only to obtain a draft of the recruitment process so the council would have a better idea of the timeline. Mr. Poling asked if the council would need to appoint an interim police auditor. Mr. Pryor said he would meet with current police auditor staff to ascertain their interest in an interim position and report back to the council. He said the council would need to formally appoint an interim director. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. Mr. Ruiz confirmed that a work session on the draft timeline and framework would be scheduled prior to the council’s break. B. WORK SESSION: Annual Meeting with Police Commission Mr. Ruiz introduced Police Commission chair Tamara Miller and vice chair Joe Alsup. Ms. Miller presented the Police Commission Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2008, which outlined how the commission had met expectations with respect to its FY 2008 work plan by allowing for issues of community concern and furthered the mission and objectives of the Police Commission. She said work was begun on updating the Police Operations Manual (POM) to Lexipol standards, developing the foundation for a strategic response to family violence and reviewing police department use of force policies. Ongoing work included review of staffing levels, joint meetings with the Human Rights Commission and Civilian Review Board and providing forums for community input at every commission and subcommittee meeting. She said that work on the taser policy included an open public forum format that allowed participants to interact with commissioners and experts on various subjects. She said the forum was successful after people became comfortable with the new format. Ms. Miller said that commission members participated in a modified version of the police operations academy and she was grateful to the police department for its willingness to accommodate the commission with a shortened version of the academy. She noted that the commission had a number of new members and a new staff person during the past year, which made the academy and the boards and commissions training provided by the City very helpful. She said the commission had also gone paperless as part of the City’s sustainability initiative. Ms. Miller said much of the commission’s attention was focused on emerging community issues resulting from the Salisbury case, which generated a Mental Health Crisis Response Subcommittee to examine crisis intervention team (CIT) models. The subcommittee’s report was accepted by Chief Bob Lehner, who agreed to proceed with implementing CIT training. She said the commission also developed a draft Taser policy for a pilot project, which would be reviewed at six months and one year intervals to determine if it should be continued. Mr. Alsup commended the Eugene Police Department for its outstanding efforts on security for the Olympic Trials. He said the 2009 work plan was divided into four main components: ? police long-term staffing plan – facilitating a community conversation on police service levels and formulating police recommendations on ongoing staffing decisions; MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 3 Work Session ? committee projects – ongoing policy work related to the mentally ill, crowd control, missing per- sons, and child abuse; new work on limited English proficiency, hearing-impaired/disabled and pol- icy work on medical marijuana; and ? work sessions and information items. Mr. Alsup remarked that there had been a number of public relations concerns during the past year and the commission was interested in trying to bridge communication gaps in the community and confusion or misunderstanding about the police department. He said the work plan also included intended goals and outcomes. He said the turnover in commission membership and staff meant a significant loss of institutional memory, but competent and knowledgeable individuals had filled those positions. Ms. Piercy expressed her appreciated for the commission’s significant public outreach efforts. She said the crisis intervention work was very important to many people in the community. She asked if the Taser policy recommendation included when and under what circumstances Tasers could be used. Ms. Miller said the policy was very detailed about when it was appropriate to use a Taser and when Taser use was not recommended, such as against the elderly and very young, pregnant women, people who were disabled or medically fragile, or when there was risk of injury from the physical environment. Ms. Piercy asked if the policy specified the Taser was to be used in lieu of a weapon. Mr. Alsup said the intent was to give the police another tool that was short of deadly force. He described several incidents since the policy was implemented where the subjects were armed and deadly force would have been justified if Tasers had not been available. Ms. Ortiz thanked the commission for its work. She agreed that the public forum format used for the Taser issue was innovative and effective. She asked to see data on Taser use when it became available. She encouraged the commission to continue to include experts on the topics that would be under review during the coming year. Mr. Clark also commended the commission for its work and said it served the community well. He appreciated the opportunity to participate in the police academy; it helped him to better understand the job of a police officer. Mr. Zelenka thanked the commission for its work. He asked when Taser use information would be available. Ms. Miller said that the pilot project would be reviewed at six months and that information would be available in August 2008. She said a full year of data would be compiled and reviewed in January 2009. Mr. Zelenka asked if there would be sufficient data at six months to review the project and perhaps recommend changes. Chief Lehner said the six-month information would be limited to data that described the circumstances under which Tasers were used, the capacity of officers and subjects involved and the success rate. He said there might be some earlier indicators of injuries, but it was important to wait for the annual report because the purpose of the Taser was to add a tool to the police department arsenal that would allow it to take subjects into custody who resisted with various levels of violence and minimize the risk of injury to officers and subjects. He said the body of data would be too small at six months to base evaluative conclusions on because of the limited number of deadly force incidents. Mr. Zelenka remarked that Tasers had also been used on unarmed individuals and wanted to review the policy aspects at the six-month point. He asked for an explanation of the new committee work that was being proposed in the work plan. Mr. Alsup replied that policy language in the POM was outdated and the commission was involved in a multi-year approach to reviewing components and determining if they MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 4 Work Session required revisions in order to reflect community values. Ms. Miller said it was not the commission’s charge to continuously review all POM policies; it selected subjects based on emerging community issues or identified risk. She said the Lexipol review would screen all policies against Lexipol standards. Ms. Bettman thanked the commission for its public service. She suggested that the commission provide any draft policy recommendations to the council. She was concerned that being paperless would create problems for those without computer access. She understood that the impetus for moving forward with Taser was to use them in lieu of lethal force, based on an incident involving the fatal shooting of a mentally ill man. She wanted to see the six-month data and a report on how to reach the objective of limiting Taser use to cases of lethal force instead of facilitating an arrest. She was concerned that it appeared the technology problems with in-car video had not been resolved. Chief Lehner said most of the technical problems were resolved early in the process. He said the evaluation was delayed, not eliminated. Mr. Pryor saw the Police Commission as a valuable support mechanism for the interface between the police department and the community. He said the availability of reliable data could prevent misinformation from circulating and he hoped that the preliminary data in six months on Taser use would be helpful to the council and the community. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the Police Commission’s Fiscal Year 2009 Work Plan. Ms. Taylor said she understood the Police Commission’s role was to advise the council on policy. Mr. Alsup and Ms. Miller agreed that was the commission’s primary charge. Ms. Taylor remarked that the council had not been involved in setting Taser policy. She asked about a recent incident involving Taser use. Mr. Alsup said it would be inappropriate for him to speculate on that matter. Chief Lehner reminded the council that the incident was still under investigation and all of the facts on which to base a decision were not yet known; any discussions of the incident should be delayed until the investigation was concluded. Mr. Poling was in favor of a six-month initial review of the Taser project, followed by a full annual review, instead of a “knee-jerk” reaction to recent incidents. He said when the Taser policy was being developed, the commission discussed both use in lieu of lethal force and including Tasers as another step in the use of force continuum. He said the intent was not to limit Tasers to use only in lieu of a deadly weapon. Ms. Ortiz said she also was concerned about the ability of people without computer access to receive information about the commission. Ms. Miller said that the commission itself had gone paperless, but materials were still available in printed format, as well as online. Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Poling for his remarks on the use of force continuum as part of the Taser policy. He encouraged councilors to attend the modified academy to gain a better understanding of the types of situations and decisions that officers were faced with. He was concerned about discussing the Taser pilot project before data was available. He asked if there was a reason to consider the use of force continuum instead of a policy that limited Taser use to in lieu of lethal force. He also asked if adequate data for a review would be available at six months. Chief Lehner said Taser operational policy was guided by State law and training criteria and guidelines. He said the department received and took into consideration policy recommendations from the Police Commis- sion, but the policy was the department’s policy. He noted that EPD was one of the last departments in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 5 Work Session country to implement Tasers as a tool and had drawn on a vast body of experience from other communities. He said EPD had one of the most restrictive Taser policies in the nation. He did not feel that there would be adequate data, including information about the recent incident, at six months, but that information and data would be available for the annual review. Ms. Bettman asserted that the council could discuss anything and there was nothing to divulge since the council did not have any information about the Taser use incident. She asked when the review of the in-car videos was due as it was not in the commission’s work plan. Ms. Miller replied that it was not included in the work plan because it was not a policy issue; however, a program review was on the commission’s list of activities. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to include in the work plan a report to the council on the in-car video program. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amend- ment. Ms. Bettman thanked the commission for including organization of a hate crimes conference in its work program. She asked how many of the Tasers were equipped with cameras and whether that information would be included in the review. Chief Lehner said that four of the Tasers were equipped with cameras as it was a new, untested and expensive technology. Ms. Miller noted that the cameras did not have audio capability. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. WORK SESSION: Community Survey on Street Repair C. Mr. Ruiz introduced Dr. Gary Manross, who would present the results of a needs analysis and feasibility study based on a community survey conducted in early July. He said the information was being presented to help inform the council’s decision at the regular meeting regarding options for funding street repairs. Dr. Manross reviewed the research methodology used to survey 400 voters. He distributed a Needs Analysis & Feasibility Study and used a series of slides to illustrate the data obtained in the survey related to local issues of concern; perceptions of quality of life in Eugene, taxes and waste in the City budget; spending priorities; awareness of street maintenance problems; willingness to pay additional taxes; and preferences for funding street repairs. He emphasized the importance of including a mechanism for monitoring all expenditures from any tax measure approved by the voters to assure funds were spent as promised. Based on the survey and analysis, Dr. Manross recommended placing a five-year General Obligation (GO) bond on the November 2008 ballot at a rate below what voters were willing to pay, such as $5.00 to $7.00. Mr. Clark asked if the November election could be considered a “change” election in terms of voters’ willingness to solve a problem on their own instead of waiting to see what change would bring. Dr. Manross said the survey was the voice of the electorate and meeting voter expectations was the key to success. Mr. Clark asked how much revenue would be generated by a rate of $6.00 or $7.00. Mr. Ruiz said the survey determined voters would be willing to pay a rate of $15.00 per month and the recommendation was approximately half of that amount. Dr. Manross said there was some controversy in the community over trust in elected officials and the bond measure was an opportunity to take a smaller step by asking for a lower rate and demonstrating success in order to build confidence and support for future requests. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Clark said people who answered the survey question related to waste in the City’s budget likely had different definitions of “waste.” Dr. Manross agreed, but said that did not matter as the issue was the perception of waste, which was real regardless of the reason for the perception. Mr. Zelenka asked why the survey posed a question about a stormwater fee instead of a street utility fee. Dr. Manross said that typically people had a much more negative reaction to the term “utility” associated with taxes. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 7 Work Session