Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: January 8, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 4A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2006, Work Session, November 13, 2006, Work Session, November 15, 2006, Joint Elected Officials’ Meeting, November 20, 2006, Work Session, November 20, 2006, City Council Meeting, and November 27, 2006, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. November 8, 2006, Work Session B. November 13, 2006, Work Session C. November 15, 2006, Joint Elected Officials’ Meeting D. November 20, 2006, Work Session E. November 20, 2006, City Council Meeting F. November 27, 2006, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070108\S0701084A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 8, 2006—Work Session TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 11/22/06rmaDraft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall November 8, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Adoption of 2007 Legislative Policies Mayor Piercy thanked the members of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) for their work. City Manager Dennis Taylor thanked the voters for the confidence they showed in the ballot measures put before them by the City. He said Council, Public and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston and Intergovernmental Relations staff Alex Cuyler were in attendance to present the agenda item. Ms. Walston stated that Mr. Cuyler would be the City’s assistant lobbyist in Salem during the legislative session. She said the City Manager’s Office hoped to have a new Intergovernmental Relations Manager in place in December. She reported that the CCIGR reviewed the document twice; it was largely based on the policies and procedures from the 2005 session. She stated that the committee requested discussion of two specific points at the present meeting: the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission item, specifically annexation, and transportation and growth in the document related to page 28. Ms. Walston said Mayor Piercy outlined 11 points of concern to her and at the councilors’ places were intended motions listed on an attachment headed by Eugene City Council Intended Motions: 2007 Legislative Policies Document and dated November 8, 2006. She noted that Ms. Bettman asked to revise information about the partnerships which had been in the document and had been struck and this was at the councilors’ places in an attachment entitled Revised Language to Proposed Deleted Language – As Per Request of Councilor Bettman dated November 8, 2006. Mayor Piercy noted that the CCIGR members were Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Pryor. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt the 2007 Legislative Policies docu- ment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to add on page 31 of the draft, under the “Oregon Transportation Plan” section as Recommendation 3: “Continue to seed funds for local transportation systems through the Connect Oregon projects.” Mayor Piercy said she talked with Governor Ted Kulongoski and he asked what Eugene would want from the next phase of Connect Oregon. This was why she suggested the amendment. Mr. Kelly offered the following friendly amendment to rephrase the amendment, as follows: “Continue to seek our fair share of funds for local transportation systems as available in future through the Connect Oregon projects rounds.” The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment, as did the second. Ms. Bettman stated she intended to oppose the amendment. She opined that if the Governor wanted more money for transportation then he should look to raising the gas tax statewide and should look to counties to implement a systems development charge (SDC) for transportation. She felt to borrow on future lottery revenue assumed that Oregon would continue to be dependent on it and, if this assumption was to be made, then Oregonians should assume that it would be available for education, too. She opposed the mechanism of “putting youth in debt for something like this.” She reiterated her opposition to the project that had been built with this source of funding in the previous year. The motion to amend the main motion, as amended by Mr. Kelly’s friendly amendment, passed 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to move to restore on pages 10-12 of the draft, under the “Regional Partnerships” section, the language deleted on specific intergov- ernmental partners. Mayor Piercy said she brought this up because she believed the council needed to continue to recognize who the City’s regional partners are and that, whenever possible, the council should support them. She indicated she would be happy to accept the language revised by Ms. Bettman in that regard. Ms. Bettman offered the Revised Language to Proposed Deleted Language attachment as a friendly amendment. The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Papé wondered why Lane Community College had not been recognized as a partner. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff be directed to draft an appropriate paragraph. City Manager Taylor agreed that it would be easy to develop parallel language if the motion passed. Mr. Papé offered a friendly amendment to include Lane Community College in the language referring to the City’s regional partners. The maker and second accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor indicated she would support the amendment but she did not agree that it needed to be in the legislative document. She thought the document should be pared down so that anyone could pick it up and see what legislation the City was supporting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy called for the vote. The motion to amend the main motion, as amended by friendly amendments, passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to restore on page 25 of the draft under the “local Flexibility for Enterprise Zone” section in Recommendation 1, the word ‘additional.’ Mayor Piercy explained that from her perspective the City was looking for additional opportunities for the State to give the City more flexibility when it came to community standards. Ms. Taylor thought ‘flexibility’ spoke to the intent by itself. Ms. Bettman asked legal counsel if the word would make a difference. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that the word ‘additional’ would imply that there was some local flexibility and the City would like more flexibility. The motion to amend passed, 6:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to delete on page 29 of the draft, under “Funding for Streets” Recommendation 1, Item “h,” the words “supports an elected Lane Transit District (LTD) Board.” Mayor Piercy said while she may support an elected LTD Board, she could not support it in this document. She felt this was unnecessarily disrespectful to a community partner and would be seen as cross- jurisdictional interference that would not help local efforts on many fronts. She added that it would be appropriate to address the issue if it came up during the legislative session. Mr. Kelly asserted that it would come up during the session given that State Senator Bill Morrisette brought it up during the last legislative session. He said the City Council raised concerns in the past about the appointment process. He did not believe it to be a “slap in the face” to the LTD Board. Ms. Bettman averred that there were “many issues” in the document that anticipated issues and were proactive. She believed that given that LTD was eligible for transportation funds, its budget should be approved by an elected body; that was democracy. She felt that in terms of how important transit was, the board was making very important transit and resource decisions. Mr. Papé concurred with the Mayor. He did not favor an elected board at this time. He said “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” He pointed out that the LTD Board was obviously a “heavy” volunteer position. He felt it would be prohibitive to get good candidates to run district-wide for positions. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Walston clarified that her recommendation for the amend- ment, if approved, was that it should be moved somewhere else in the document. Ms. Solomon was not prepared to support a move to have an elected LTD Board at this time. She wanted to have the discussion as a group at another point in time. Mr. Kelly said his expectation would be that an LTD Board member would have to run in a sub-district, so it would not be a district-wide campaign. He added that he had felt LTD to be unresponsive to him when he MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 3 Work Session had questions regarding the appointment process and also when he had been asked to comment on the nominees. He thought the appointment process was “broken.” Mr. Pryor believed the discussion to be a “classic example of persuasive arguments. . . on both sides.” He was less inclined to put it in the document than to wait for a specific proposal that could come out of the legislature. Ms. Taylor declared that the LTD Board was a very powerful group and an elected board would be a step toward democracy. She predicted the LTD Board would become more powerful as people use transit more. She added that the council had taken a stand on this in 2005 and no one had objected. She felt the CCIGR and council could make changes if necessary if this came up in the legislature. Mr. Papé asked if anyone had talked to the City’s other jurisdictional partners. City Manager Taylor and Ms. Walston indicated that no one had done so. Ms. Bettman averred that certainly the City was taking many stands in the document that it had not vetted with its partners. She said if the City was unwilling to take a stand on anything without seeing an actual bill it would not need a legislative policies document. She believed supporting deletion of this item would be a way of saying that the body was not interested in an elected board. The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Mr. Papé, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in support. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to add on page 41 of the draft, under the “Removal of Regulatory Barriers” section, a new bulleted comment after the first bullet which reads: “The closure of manufactured home parks, in particular, is currently a significant issue locally and around the state. Owners of manufactures homes who rent their space in a park may find themselves with either expensive alternatives or no alternatives if their park is closed because the land has a higher value for a different use. Many of these households are comprised of elderly people who find their investment and home at se- vere risk. There are at least 25 parks and 1,830 spaces in Eugene, with many more throughout Lane County. While Eugene had adopted very limited protections for some tenants, there is no statewide legislation.” The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to delete on page 56 of the draft, under “Homeless Youth” all of the current language and replace it with the following: “There are 41,000 homeless children in Oregon schools, of these 2,000 are unaccompa- nied youth without family support. There are 24,000 homeless and runaway youth statewide. Recommendations: 1. Eugene supports additional services and resources to meet the needs of homeless and at-risk children and youth. This includes the recommendations from the Ore- gon Commission on Children and Families that were identified as a result of HB 2202 in 2005. 2. Eugene supports legislation to increase services to youth who are aging out of the foster care system. Currently nearly half become homeless within six months. 3. Eugene supports legislation that provides additional mental health, substance abuse, and health care for children and young adults under the age of 21.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Walston noted that Richie Weinman, a member of the Community Development Division who has worked extensively on issues involving homelessness, helped craft the language. Mr. Kelly commended the Mayor, Ms. Walston, and Mr. Weinman for the stronger language. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to add on page 57 of the draft, under “Air Quality” the following language: “The City will support legislation and work with local and state partners to reduce car- bon emissions.” The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to add on page 65 of the draft under “Notice for Spraying Pesticides/Insecticides” the following: “The City supports legislation which requires advance written notification to the City and recognized neighborhood organizations of pesticide and insecticide spraying along railroad tracks.” Mayor Piercy said this motion responded to a long-term concern in the community, but she was uncertain whether the State could actually force the railroad to actually notify the public. Mr. Kelly supported the intent but he believed the State could do nothing about it. Ms. Walston acknowledged that the State had no jurisdiction but she thought it should at least be “put in the hopper” as a statement of support. Mr. Kelly offered the following friendly amendment: “The City supports legislation which requires advance written notification to the City and recognized neighborhood organizations of pesticide and insecticide spraying along railroad tracks to the extent allowed by federal law.” The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman asked how practical it would be to add it to the United Front agenda. Mayor Piercy believed that if there was a resolution of some kind on this issue that went to Congress that, given the shift in power at the level of the House of Representatives, it could bring about change at the federal level. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add this item to the United Front agenda. The maker and second accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Papé asked if the United Front agenda had been prepared. Ms. Bettman replied that it had and it basically duplicated the agenda from the previous year. The motion to amend passed, as amended, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly said he hoped the legislative document could be revised and rewritten. He noted that it had not been substantially reviewed and revised since 2001. Ms. Walston said she would put it on the agenda for the CCIGR in 2008. Mr. Kelly said on page 17 there was a new boldface-type recommendation to support removal of the corporate minimum tax. He was uncertain what the intent was. Ms. Bettman explained that the committee sought to remove the cap. Mr. Kelly did not believe there was a cap; rather there was a floor on the tax that was “very, very low.” He asked if the intent was to “raise the floor.” Ms. Bettman affirmed that this was the intent. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the language, as follows: “Support increase of the corporate minimum income tax.” The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly said he had noticed something was missing from previous documents. He explained that previously the council advocated for making municipal court a court of record. Ms. Walston clarified that this was a successful action as the municipal court could now be a court of record; it was now up to the City to pass an ordinance to enact this at the local level, and that this would also require the installation of some recording equipment Mr. Kelly thanked councilors-elect Alan Zelenka and Mike Clark for their attentiveness to the council meetings over the past months. Mayor Piercy added her post-election congratulations to them. Mr. Kelly observed that there had been a recommendation in past legislative documents that had been stricken that read, as follows: “Support proposals to increase the number of signatures required for initiative constitutional amend- ment.” He asked why it had been struck. He believed a constitutional amendment merited a higher threshold. Ms. Bettman agreed that there was a downside to the threshold. But her sense was to leave the initiative process alone. She felt, on balance, it was a “good thing.” Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to restore the recommendation on page 73 of the document. Ms. Taylor said she believed that really powerful people could get a lot of signatures for a ballot measure, but somebody “down the street who has an idea” was not as able to do so. She supported leaving it out of the document because she wanted to protect the democratic process. Mr. Pryor agreed that constitutional amendments should meet a higher standard in order to avoid frivolous initiatives. Ms. Bettman thought there already was a higher standard for constitutional amendments in the mind of the voters. The motion to amend passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend the discussion by 15 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Piercy stated that the next item for discussion was the transportation issues related to new growth, referred to on page 28 of the document. Mr. Pryor said that since the council had spent so much time discussing the backlog of capital projects, he wanted to make sure the council had the opportunity to think about initiating it as part of the legislative session. He underscored the enormity of the backlog and asked if there was something the council could do at the State level. Ms. Bettman appreciated this, but believed that within the recommendations the CCIGR had covered “the fact that preservation and maintenance” were a high priority. Mr. Kelly said without an inkling of what might come forward he could not come up with language for the legislative document. Mr. Papé thanked Mr. Pryor for bringing this item up. Mayor Piercy said the next issue of discussion was in regard to the boundary commission. Ms. Bettman noted that the council had taken a stand on this item before. She felt that since it was in the document, the council should discuss it. She asked what the cost of the commission was and where the money came from. Paula Taylor, executive officer of the Lane County Boundary Commission, explained that the boundary commission was a State agency and had to operate with a budget consistent with Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 199. She stated that the budget from the boundary commission was adopted by administrative rule and was not part of the legislatively approved budget, which meant the commission received no General Fund money from the State. She said the commission collected the majority of its revenues from assessments to cities and certain special districts in Lane County and it generated almost half of its revenues through filing fees. She clarified that there was a cap in the statute of what the assessment rate could be. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor stated that Eugene’s portion of the cost was $32,294. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the boundary commission was disbanded. Ms. Taylor replied that the business of the boundary commission would be processed through the City Council, with the exception of special districts, which would be addressed by the Lane Board of County Commissioners. She added that the County would also have the authority to form or dissolve new units of government. Ms. Bettman did not think the council needed to come to a conclusion at this level. She thought the CCIGR could take information and questions and discuss it further and make a recommendation to the council if it needed further discussion. Mr. Papé pointed out that the boundary commission was the last one in the State. He believed it would be brought up at the legislative level again. He suggested holding a work session on this item after the new year. Ms. Ortiz agreed the council needed a work session on the boundary commission. She related that her constituents told her that they found it to be another layer of government that was cumbersome and possibly not necessary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly believed that there was some value in having the boundary commission as sometimes the role of the commission was to be an independent third-party check on what could otherwise be some fairly controversial moves. He asked the council to consider if it should strike the language and be silent on the question of whether or not it should take a stand on the commission until after the work session. Ms. Taylor thought this was a good idea. She believed the boundary commission would come up again in the legislative session. She was unconvinced that it was something that should remain in the legislative document; if it was left there, the council would be obligated to fight for it. Ms. Bettman said she had heard enough ambivalence around the table that it made sense to take it out and schedule a work session for the beginning of the year. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to strike the language under number 4 “An- nexation.” City Manager Taylor asked if the council intended to change its position by eliminating the language with regard to annexation. He recalled that there had been an argument in the last session between the City of Beaverton and one of its important employers that led to a statewide discussion on annexation that was not in the City of Eugene’s best interest. He suggested that the City of Eugene might want to maintain its historic position with regard to the flexibility about the methods of annexation that was different from which governmental body made the decision. Ms. Bettman understood the recommendation to be that City Manager Taylor wished to rewrite number 4. She asked Planning staff if removing the language would put it in a tenuous situation. Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner for the Planning Division, said it would depend on the timing. He averred that if the council discussion could be completed before legislation was introduced, it would not have a negative impact. City Manager Taylor stated that a work session could be scheduled for this discussion after the first of the year, but another agenda topic would have to be moved. Mayor Piercy suggested that when making a motion to remove language, it be stated that the motion did not indicate support or lack thereof. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the motion that read, as follows: “Rewrite section 4 on page 44 to remove references to the Lane County Local Govern- ment Boundary Commission pending a City Council work session after the first of the year.” Ms. Bettman declined to accept the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend section 4, as follows: “Rewrite section 4 on page 44 to remove references to the Lane County Local Govern- ment Boundary Commission pending a City Council work session after the first of the year.” In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Kelly assured him that the word ‘pending’ would not delay the document itself. Ms. Bettman believed annexation issues and the boundary commission were intertwined and so should be discussed at the same time. She opposed the amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 8 Work Session The motion to amend passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy acknowledged that the first item of the agenda had run over its scheduled time. She recommended that the last topic, a Report on the Sister City Trip, be postponed. All were amenable to this change. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue – Strengthen and Promote Community Arts and Outdoors Assets City Manager Taylor introduced Community Relations Manager Jan Bohman. Ms. Bohman stated that the council priority issue acknowledged that Eugene’s unique combination of cultural, recreational, and natural resources were the city’s greatest strength and that they provided a foundation for a sustainable economic development strategy. She reported that the City aspired to accomplish two major benefits: 1) that some sustainable economic activity would develop through increased tourism and commerce; and 2) that the community’s livability would improve through improvement to access to arts and outdoor activities. Ms. Bohman stressed that this was an interdepartmental effort. She noted that key projects included the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS), the resource assessment for both arts and outdoors th activities, the Cultural Policy Review (CPR), the major celebration of 100 years of parks, the upcoming 25 anniversary of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts (HCPA), preparation for the 2008 Olympic Trials, and several other projects. She opined that the outcome of the PROS levy was a good indication of how much Eugeneans valued outdoor resources and how much they were willing to support them. Ms. Bohman said one key activity that the staff team worked on was the marketing plan. She related that the City contracted with Funk/Levis and Associates to help staff work on the plan. They had invited approximately 50 stakeholders to provide input. They were now beginning to work on implementing the plan. She stated that the plan focused on the more organizational aspects of the effort. She said the next step would be to convene a steering committee. In the meantime, she related that they were continuing to find ways to incorporate ‘the world’s greatest city for the arts and outdoors’ into a number of the materials the City had to hand out and in publications. Laura Niles, LRCS Business/Communication Relations Manager, provided a report on the season at the Cuthbert Amphitheater. She averred that the City was successful in creating a concessionaire’s contract with local promoter Kit Kesey and David Leiken of Double Tee Productions. She lauded Mr. Kesey and Mr. Leiken for embracing the University of Oregon Folk Festival, a free event, as their opener. She reported that Cuthbert Amphitheater featured 13 event days in 2006, 4 in 2005, and 7 in 2004; paid attendance for 2006 was nearly 24,000, up from 3,400 in 2005, and 13,000 in 2004. She related that feedback from the community and from the promoters had been positive and the City looked forward to partnering with them in the future. Mr. Kelly shared his excitement in the Cultural Policy Review (CPR). He felt it was a way to take the “very rich art scene” and make it richer. He thought it would ultimately impact City government policies and practices as well as activities and relationships in the arts community. He stated that he had been a member of the Mayor’s Committee that was overseeing the process. He invited anyone with an interest to attend the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 9 Work Session next meeting of the Mayor’s Committee, scheduled for November 14 from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Library meeting room. He noted that there would be a large public meeting held from 6 to 8 p.m. on the same day in the lobby of the Hult Center. Mr. Kelly commended the national consultants who were doing the work. He said the situation paper, available at the CPR Web site, would be updated based on the upcoming meetings. He stated that a Web- based survey would be launched in the coming week. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for all of the CPR work that had happened to date and to the public for all of the support for the library and the parks. She added that she had spoken with Jordan Schnitzer and he indicated to her his desire to make the Schnitzer Art Museum a community resource. Ms. Bohman presented a preliminary video that sought to “brand” the City of Eugene with the title “the Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors.” Mayor Piercy related that she had taken the video to the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). She said councilors were welcome to take copies of it to show to constituents and other interested parties. Ms. Bettman commented that she was sensitive to situations that equated the outdoors with athletics. While she thought athletics were “great,” she suggested that what people really liked about living in this area were the hiking, kayaking, and bicycling opportunities, among others. Additionally, Ms. Bettman wished to bring up the potential expansion of recreational activities through the disposition of Buford Park. She acknowl- edged that it was under Lane County’s purview, but she thought any way the City should explore any way it could partner and move the purchase of the adjacent land there forward. She suggested that lottery money could be used. Mr. Kelly commented that he was uncertain whether he would be here if the area did not feature so many amenities that added to the quality of life. Ms. Bohman related that a woman touring City Hall had shared that she and her husband relocated to the area because of what it had to offer. Mr. Kelly thought that the need for a designated entity to bring the marketing plan forward was a point well- taken. He asked if members of City government would have a seat on the steering committee. He also wondered if the steering committee had been named. Ms. Bohman replied that it was not named as yet. Mr. Kelly remarked that both the good news and the challenge in this initiative was that the marketing plan was going ahead at the same time the CPR process was going through. City Manager Taylor stated that preparations for the 2008 Olympic Trials brought a lot of energy that was parallel to the ongoing marketing strategy the City would have. He felt this would be synchronized with what would come out of the CPR process. He added that the video had come from largely existing footage and had been compiled by staff. He underscored that this was a good effort done with existing resources. Ms. Bohman agreed, adding that Cathy Madison of the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services (LRCS) department gathered the footage and Metro Television produced the video. Mr. Papé appreciated the five action items. He asked if anything had been done with regard to securing funding. Ms. Bohman responded that this was “a big thing to work on next.” She said they hoped to get help from partners. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 10 Work Session In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Bohman affirmed that the slogan had been trademarked. Mr. Papé asked if local entities had talked with other cities about partnerships in artistic endeavors such as a ballet company, as an example. Ms. Bohman replied that they had not done so through this effort. Mr. Papé observed that some of the local companies had difficulty sustaining themselves. Ms. Niles pointed out that the Eugene Ballet Company had partnered with Ballet Idaho since 1994. She said this developed as a result of the company’s own planning strategy and not as a result of anything the City had done in partnership with the company. She felt that coming together in the CPR meetings “linked people up to start talking strategically” about the future. She said there had been a lot of discussion among local arts groups about securing resources and sharing them. She stated that the Eugene Ballet now had its own building and shared it with five other arts organizations. Mr. Papé thanked Mr. Kelly for his participation in the CPR process. He also thanked Ms. Jones for “winning the event on the front cover of the Chamber magazine.” Ms. Taylor said that while the council talked about marketing the Eugene outdoors, there was land in south Eugene that was being destroyed. She opined that City staff should “be in the business of protecting rather than helping developers destroy.” The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 11 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 13, 2006—Work Session TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 11/28/06 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall November 13, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. 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 Mayor Piercy thanked voters for supporting the library and parks ballot measures. She said the City was a co-sponsor of Art Train’s recent visit and distributed information about the art exhibit. She attended weekend events in Eugene and Springfield to honor veterans and last week there was a grand opening of th housing for veterans located on West 7 Avenue. She reported that Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne visited the West Eugene wetlands area. She congratulated the Lane Board of County Commissioners for adopting a ten-year plan to abolish homelessness. She also participated in the kickoff of the MADD holiday campaign against drinking and driving. Ms. Ortiz reported she attended a Whiteaker neighborhood meeting with new Police Auditor Cris Beamud. She said Ms. Beamud also attended the November 9 meeting of the Police Commission to discuss issues related to a proposed ordinance articulating her function as police auditor. Ms. Ortiz said she had an opportunity to view plans for PeaceHealth’s Hilyard Street facility and they were very exciting. She said there were plans to involve more of the community in health care, including alternative medical practitioners. She said there would be a count of the homeless population on January 24, 2007, and Project Homeless Connect to provide outreach to veterans would be held on February 8, 2007, at the Lane Events Center. Ms. Taylor said that Lane Regional Air Protection Agency had taken a stand against field burning. She said she received a letter from a constituent regarding pollution at the Amazon headwaters from the use of planting mix. She also received a complaint about the City using leaf blowers by the river. She referred to a recent newspaper article about the City obtaining options on downtown properties and questioned whether the council should have discussed that before $24,000 to $48,000 in funds were spent. She said that a renewal of the options would double that amount. City Manager Dennis Taylor replied that Urban Renewal Agency funds within the fiscal year 2006 budget were used to purchase the options. He said the subject of West Broadway purchase options was on the November 27, 2006, work session agenda and the agenda item summary would contain detailed information. Ms. Taylor reiterated her concern that it was too easy for staff to spend Urban Renewal funds without oversight. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly reported that the Region 2050 Policy Board had its final meeting and because the Eugene City Council did not support the project it would not move forward as a comprehensive regional plan, although several small cities would continue to coordinate and use the information generated by the project. He said the policy board suggested to Lane Council of Governments that a working group of the smaller cities should be convened to help move those efforts forward. He attended a November 3 breakfast sponsored by the HIV Alliance, noting that it was a striking reality check and a reminder that HIV was still very much an issue in the community. He said that Lane Transit District’s EX service would commence on January 14, M 2007, and he had attended the unveiling of the new vehicles. He hoped it was the beginning of an extensive bus rapid transit network. He reminded those interested in the current and future state of arts and culture in the community that there was a public meeting on November 14 at 6 p.m. at the Hult Center. He com- mended the new Wildish Theater in downtown Springfield as a major cultural asset for the area. Ms. Bettman also thanked voters for supporting the City’s ballot measures and her colleagues for putting those measures on the ballot. She said she was hearing concerns that the City’s limit on the number of pets per household was an obstacle to moving toward a no-kill policy. She requested a memorandum from City staff describing whether the ordinance limitation had an impact and what response had been provided when similar concerns were raised previously. She indicated she might request a work session on the issue. Ms. Bettman said she understood that once the minutes of a council meeting had been adopted, the DVD of that meeting was only retained for a year and then destroyed. She was concerned because she continued to find errors in the council’s minutes and hoped that the DVDs would be retained in perpetuity. City Manager Taylor said he would research how streaming video and new technology might affect the City’s archiving of council meetings and provide that information in a memorandum. Mr. Pryor said there had been a presentation from the consultant on findings related to Human Service Commission reorganization options. He said he would keep the council informed as the project moved forward. He praised the Wildish Theater as a great addition to venues in the community that represented cultural arts. Mr. Papé commented that the ArtTrain exhibit was a Native American initiative and it changed his perceptions about the nature of Native American art forms. He thanked the mayor for her one-on-one visit to his ward and thanked council staff Lynda Rose and staff from the Planning Department for their assistance with the event. He asked for a memorandum on the status of discussions with the 4J School District regarding Civic Stadium. He said several members of the McKenzie Watershed Council expressed concern about the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) decision to transport fish around the Trail Bridge Reservoir instead of building a fish ladder. He reminded people to be careful of downed trees during the winter and hoped the City would accelerate its downed tree removal program. Ms. Solomon said that the grand opening of housing for veterans was a wonderful event and she was amazed at the partnerships and networks in Lane County to help homeless and low-income families find decent, affordable housing. She was proud to be a part of that effort. She pointed out that St. Vincent de Paul secured property for additional housing. City Manager Taylor thanked the public for its patience during the leaf clean-up and commended the Public Works Department for its efforts. B. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Report MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 2 Work Session City Manager Taylor introduced the new Police Auditor Cristina Beamud. Ms. Beamud reviewed her activities since her arrival on October 16, 2006. She described her meetings with individuals and groups within City government and many organizations in the community in order to obtain an idea of community concerns and how the office of the Police Auditor could help. She said those with whom she spoke made substantive and positive remarks and emphasized the need for transparency and fairness. She said she had conducted briefings with EPD personnel and would continue the briefings until the entire department had been covered. She intended to do ride-alongs with officers and hold conversations with the Eugene Police Employee Association (EPEA). She was anxious to establish an office, have an ordinance enacted, hire staff, and develop protocols in order to begin her work. Ms. Beamud said she had met with the mayor and council officers to develop an accountable working relationship. She planned to report to the council periodically in writing and if there were major issues she would reach out to the mayor. She had worked closely with the Police Commission to develop the ordinance framework. She hoped to hire staff in a career development position as it would be helpful to have someone who was familiar with the City’s administrative operations. She was looking at potential office locations and hoped to move into a permanent space shortly after the first of the year. Ms. Beamud explained that one of the challenges in creating an ordinance was balancing deference to the Police Chief, City Manager, and Police Commission with the need for the auditor to be truly independent. She highlighted several issues that were addressed during her meeting with the Police Commission, including: ? Definitions section: substituted definitions of “facilitated conversations” and “mediation” for the more generic term “alternative dispute resolution” ? 11(c): language modified to allow administrative investigation during a criminal investigation unless it is determined by the police chief in consultation with the district attorney that the ad- ministrative investigation would jeopardize the criminal investigation. Requires that decision to be rendered in writing. Ms. Beamud said the revisions to Section 11(c) would provide greater transparency and avoid keeping an officer on paid leave for an extended period of time. She said it would also ensure that questions were answered for the community as quickly as possible. Mr. Papé asked if the ordinance provisions would apply to any level of criminality. City Attorney Jerome Lidz replied that the ordinance as written would apply to any criminal conduct, including misdemeanors. Ms. Beamud said she would continue to refine the ordinance language and Section 11(d) would be revised to be consistent with Section 11(c). She pointed out that language in Section 6 had been revised to be consistent with the charter language by allowing up to seven members of the Civilian Review Board (CRB) but not requiring that many. She said the CRB could be a five- or seven-member body and the quorum requirements had been changed accordingly. She said that language recommended by the City Attorney had been selected for Section 11(d) in order to avoid a bargaining problem with the police union. She said the change addressed how information would be presented to the Police Chief in the event there was disagree- ment between a supervisor and the auditor on adjudication of a matter. In conclusion, Ms. Beamud said an issue had been raised about the “statute of limitations” that should be applied to the auditor’s work. She did not feel that was a decision that the auditor should make unilaterally. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 3 Work Session She indicated that based on her research, she would recommend language that would allow complaints to be accepted up to 60 days following the date of a minor misconduct incident and up to six months following the date of a serious misconduct incident, with exceptions for good cause delay. She would transmit her specific language recommendations to the council. Mr. Kelly stated that he was generally comfortable with the direction of the ordinance and deferred to Ms. Beamud’s professional judgment on the recommended changes to language to be forwarded for a public hearing. He said he had suggested at a council process session that the auditor check in with the council officers in person or via memorandum if there was an issue that needed to be addressed by the full council. Ms. Ortiz asked that the ordinance language specify that five members was the minimum size for the CRB. Ms. Bettman was pleased with the ambitious timeline for providing services through the Police Auditor’s Office. She suggested that the auditor’s office could share space with the council when its new offices were established if that would be a benefit to the public. She agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion to clarify the minimum number of CRB members. She also agreed with those changes that arose from the Police Commission’s review of the ordinance. Mr. Papé concurred with Mr. Kelly’s remarks regarding the auditor reporting to the council instead of the mayor, as he was not certain the Mayor was technically a part of the council. Mr. Lidz replied that it was up to the council to determine the supervisory structure and reporting protocols for the Police Auditor. He would research the issue of whether the council included the Mayor but that should not preclude the council moving forward with a discussion of supervisory options. Mr. Papé expressed concern about language relating to qualifications of CRB members that required consideration of whether the candidate had any real or perceived bias or conflict of interest. He said everyone had a bias and suggested that the term be removed. Mr. Lidz responded that in the context of the ordinance the word “bias” meant grounds for disqualification because of having “pre-decided” a matter. Mr. Papé argued that the term should be more clearly defined. Mr. Pryor suggested substituting the word “prejudice” for the word “bias.” He agreed with Mr. Kelly’s suggestion that the auditor report to the council officers on more routine matters and come to the full council on policy issues. Ms. Solomon referred to language in Section 14(c) that prohibited CRB appointments from being made on the basis of a constituency or representation of a particular group. She said she preferred to see CRB members represent a broad range of community groups to assure balance on the board. Ms. Taylor stated she preferred that CRB members did not represent constituencies. She suggested that daily supervision of the auditor could be done by the Mayor and the council involved in matters of substance. She was in agreement with Ms. Beamud making the recommended changes to the ordinance in order to take it to a public hearing. Mayor Piercy asked the council to consider requiring that the criteria for evaluating the work of the Police Auditor, which would be developed by the CRB, come to the council for review and comment prior to adoption. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the proposal and direct the crea- tion of a draft ordinance. Mr. Kelly suggested that Ms. Beamud consider various supervisory mechanisms that could be discussed by the council at its January 2007 process session. He asked Ms. Solomon if she would accept friendly amendments to her motion. Ms. Solomon declined. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the language in draft Section 9(a) with the language of sections 1 and 2 of Resolution 4889 approved by the City Council on August 14, 2006. Mr. Kelly clarified that the resolution language in Section 2 citing “amending this Resolution” should be replaced with “amending Resolution 4889” as it was now an external rather than an internal reference. He said the point of the amendment was that Section 9(a) in the draft described the supervision of the auditor’s staff and following the council’s extensive discussion the resolution was adopted with a dissenting vote by Mr. Papé. He felt that the ordinance language should be consistent with the resolution language. Mr. Papé said he was still concerned about the legality of the matter and asked for the City Attorney’s opinion. Mr. Lidz replied that there were several legal opinions, three from the City Attorney’s Office and one from an outside source, which concluded that the City Manager had the authority to supervise the auditor’s staff based on the terms of the charter amendment. Mr. Papé asked if the outside attorney was paid for his opinion. Mr. Lidz replied that he was. Mr. Papé said that attorneys had been paid for their professional advice and those opinions contradicted Mr. Kelly’s proposed amendment. He would not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman felt that adding the resolution language to the ordinance, which resolved the matter following extensive discussion by the council, was a housekeeping matter. She hoped that the ordinance would move forward without revisiting every single disagreement. Mayor Piercy said she saw nothing new in the conversation that had not been in previous conversations. Ms. Solomon said she did not recall an extensive discussion and after the council adopted the resolution in August 2006 she learned that she had personal liability as a result of adding the word “exclusive” to the resolution language. She asked the City Attorney to clarify the nature of that liability. Mr. Lidz replied that it was a complex issue with many subtleties. He said in light of the City Manager’s delegation order the question would arise only if the auditor acted in a way that was within the authority granted by the council under the resolution, but contrary to the more limited delegation granted to the auditor by the City Manager. He said the issue seldom arose and he would provide further information to the council following research. Ms. Taylor stated it was simply housekeeping by including in the ordinance what the council had already decided. She saw no need for further discussion. Mr. Pryor agreed there was limited discussion and said he based his support of the resolution on the trust that the City Manager was comfortable with it. He said he wanted the Police Auditor to succeed and would support the amendment in the absence of serious objections from the City Manager and auditor. Mr. Papé said there was a lot of discussion between two parties and the word “exclusive” was removed as part of a compromise but returned when the issue came before the council. He asked if the City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 5 Work Session was comfortable with inclusion of the word “exclusive.” City Manager Taylor replied that it depended on whether it was by administrative order or the council’s interpretation of the charter. He understood that the resolution as amended by Mr. Kelly would not include the word “exclusive.” He agreed with Mr. Lidz that it was unlikely there would be a liability problem and it was important to move forward with implementing the police auditor function. Mr. Papé asked if Mr. Kelly would accept a friendly amendment to remove the word “exclusive.” Mr. Kelly declined. The motion to amend passed 5:2; Mr. Papé and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the main motion by adding the phase “and to schedule a public hearing for Monday, December 11, 2006.” Ms. Bettman stated she would support the amendment. She conveyed a sense of the Police Commission’s discussion of the issue of bias with respect to CRB members. She said the commission felt that the board should not represent any particular interest and members should not be selected on that basis; the board should be able to conduct a fair, objective look at the facts. She encouraged any councilor with concerns about that issue to contact former commission chair Tim Laue or current chair Maurice Denner to discuss the issue. She said there was some frustration in the community about the length of time since passage of the ballot measure authorizing an auditor and would support the amendment to schedule a public hearing on December 11. She agreed with holding a discussion of supervisory matters at the council’s next process session. Ms. Bettman said that parts of the ordinance needed to be “staged” and as part of refining it for the public hearing Ms. Beamud should identify which parts should be enacted immediately to allow her to move forward with establishing an office and which parts should be phased in so that she was not obligated to accept complaints immediately upon adoption. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Papé asked for a memorandum on the issue raised by Ms. Solomon, a memorandum on staff authority and a memorandum on when the mayor was considered a part of the council. The main motion as amended passed, 5:2; Mr. Papé and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. C. WORK SESSION: Update on Farmers Market Facilities Management Division Manager Glen Svendsen explained that the purpose of the work session was to obtain direction from the council on the Farmers Market improvement project. He said the request was unusual because capital projects were not generally brought back to the council once they were budgeted; however, in this case the work session was consistent with a request from Mr. Papé to bring back informa- tion on the project before proceeding. He said that staff was recommending delaying the Farmers Market improvements until a decision was made on the site for the City Hall master plan. He said it seemed prudent not to make a significant capital investment in the Park Blocks site until the decision was made. Mr. Svendsen said the Farmers Market representatives suggested several small inexpensive projects that could be done in the interim, such as removing the drinking fountain. He noted that during Budget MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Committee discussions Ms. Bettman referenced the project as a placeholder for projects to be done in FY2008. He said representatives of the Farmers Market also indicated they were rethinking design of the space and the market’s long-term needs and wanted additional planning time. He said that Noah O’Hare, director of the Farmers Market, was available to answer questions. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. O’Hare to discuss the position of the Farmers Market. Mr. O’Hare said the market was pleased with the allocation and had developed a list of recommended improvements that could be accomplished prior to a decision on the City Hall master plan. He appreciated the reason for delaying the projects and emphasized that some small improvements in the interim would be very helpful. He was encouraged that the council was interested in the market’s segment of the local economy. Mr. Kelly said his constituents consistently indicated how valuable the Farmers Market was and particularly how valuable its downtown location was in proximity to the Saturday Market. He said the Budget Committee and the council made clear their support for the Farmers Market and its downtown location. He recalled that discussions of the allocation indicated the improvements were expected in calendar year 2007 in anticipation of the next market season. He disagreed with the staff recommendation and felt that up to the entire allocation should be used for improvements before the next market season as it would be at least 2010 before site development began on that site if it was chosen for the new City Hall. Mr. Papé agreed that the Farmers Market was very important to the community but had not heard the same level of support for a downtown location. He asked if the market was discussing possible relocation to accommodate expansion. Mr. O’Hare replied that no change in the downtown location was expected in the foreseeable future. He said there was great potential to expand beyond the Park Blocks and that could mean additional locations throughout the area with a downtown site remaining. Mr. Papé asked if there were improvements short of the full $300,000 allocation that could be made. Mr. Svendsen said there were smaller short-term improvements that could be made and the reason staff brought the issue back to the council was a fiduciary concern about proceeding with major improvements if a decision on the site was going to be made in a year. He said it should be the council’s decision whether that was a reasonable investment of taxpayer money. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Papé’s remarks. He said he was very supportive of the Farmers Market but did not want to spend money twice or spend it on a project that was short-lived. He was willing to move forward with the recommended improvements on the basis that the market would remain in its current location for several years and the improvements were reasonable and prudent. He was not certain it would require the entire $300,000 allocation to complete the short-term improvements and was interested in prioritizing projects to ensure the health of the Farmers Market over the next three to four years. Ms. Bettman said the allocation was an investment in downtown and questioned why the decision was being revisited. She agreed with Mr. Kelly’s identification of the timeline for projects as discussed during Budget Committee actions. She said the market was a local food source of the highest quality and in need of water, electricity, and space for more farmers. She said supporting the market was the intent of the Budget Committee and she did not agree with the direction staff was taking. She pointed out that the City financially supported Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEI) and that was also not a permanent investment. She noted that smaller markets had sprung up around the community but the City chose to support the Farmers Market because of the tremendous economic vitality it brought to downtown Eugene. She recommended looking for short-term fixes that would provide electricity and water and capacity for more vendors. She identified items 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15 on the project list as likely to accomplish that objective. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Taylor stated her dismay that the decision to do whatever the City could, up to $300,000, to help the Farmers Market was being revisited. She said there was nothing better or livelier downtown than the Farmers Market, especially in combination with the Saturday Market. She said it was a community asset admired by people from other places and in line with the Mayor’s sustainable business initiative. Ms. Ortiz asked if any City funds had been spent previously on improvements for the Farmers Market. Mr. Svendsen said no other funds had been spent, primarily because it was the County’s property. Ms. Ortiz commended staff for being fiscally prudent and checking in with the council. She felt the council had already made the commitment and the project should move forward. She wondered if there might be opportunities for Farmers Market vendors to volunteer on the project and help the City save some money while investing in their future. She hoped to see a similar market in Trainsong Park in the future. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt the recommendation to place the Farmers Market capital improvement project on hold until a final decision is made on the siting of a new City Hall complex. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by substituting the phrase “use currently budgeted authority to implement short-term improvements as rec- ommended in the Parks Blocks Master Plan” to benefit the Farmers Market for their 2007 season in the areas of improved electric, improved water and improved space.” Mr. Kelly said his intent was not to direct the entire $300,000 be spent if the improvements could be done with less money. He said even if the site was selected for the new City Hall complex the market would remain undisturbed for at least three to four years and investing in improvements was well worth it. Ms. Solomon asked if the County was contributing to the project. Mr. Svendsen said the County’s contribution was the property. Ms. Bettman commented that not only had the City not invested in the market, vendors were charged for the space and that revenue funneled into DEI. She said the Farmers and Saturday markets were great business incubators and contributed much to the community. She supported the City’s investment in the market. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Kelly clarified that his intent was to proceed with those improvements that addressed space, electric and water and could be done for the 2007 season. Mr. Papé remarked that if the City selected the “butterfly” lot site, it would be increasing the value and consequently the price that would be paid to the County with the City’s own funds. Mayor Piercy added that her discussions with market vendors suggested a need for storage space as well. The motion to amend passed, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The main motion as amended passed, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 9 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 15, 2006—Joint Meeting TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 12/6 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council and Eugene Water & Electric Board of Commissioners Joint Meeting th Eugene Water & Electric Board—500 East 4 Avenue—Eugene, Oregon November 15, 2006 12:15 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: President Sandra Bishop; Vice President Mel Menegat; Ron Farmer, John Simpson. A. TOUR AND WORK SESSION: Tour of Eugene Water & Electric Board Riverfront Site and Discussion of Relocation Project Prior to assembling in the Training Center in the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Community Center, councilors, commissioners, EWEB staff, City staff, representatives of the press, and members of the public were taken on a tour of the EWEB building housing the electric and water utility operations, EWEB yards, and steam plant by EWEB project manager Ken Beeson. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. President Sandra Bishop called the meeting of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) of Commission- ers to order. She introduced members of the board present, noting the absence of Commissioner Patrick Lanning. Mr. Berggren introduced the topic of discussion. He said the board worked through a deliberative process to reach the conclusion that EWEB needed to move and upgrade its operational facilities from the current site. The board also believed that the current site could be used for higher and better uses than it currently supported. Mr. Berggren said the issues remaining to be addressed by the board were largely related to the economic feasibility of making the move, and the future of the current site was an issue because EWEB would need the revenues from the sale of the site to accomplish the move. The board would have to decide if the revenues realized from the property were sufficient in the February-March 2007 time period. Mr. Berggren said that EWEB was also facing the issue of cost escalation, and that staff was working with its contractors to bring costs in line with the original estimates, but there were no assurances. Mr. Beeson provided an overview of the Roosevelt Project using an aerial photograph of the site and a site plan. He emphasized the principles of performance, sustainability, and economy, and anticipated that the building designed for the site would be LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified. He summarized the tentative project schedule, suggesting that the two-year construction period could begin in 2007. Mr. Beeson said staff was working to finalize the project design and in March-April 2007 would have final project estimates to include in a bond measure for consideration by the board and ultimately, the MINUTES—Eugene City Council/ November 15, 2006 Page 1 Eugene Water & Electric Board of Commissioners council. He said the Uniform Revenue Bond Act (URBA) process would be required if EWEB was to move forward in 2007. Mayor Piercy expressed pride in EWEB and the work it did on behalf of the community. She encouraged more joint meetings between the board and council. President Bishop concurred. President Bishop noted upcoming board meetings at which the project would be discussed. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Mr. Kelly recognized the challenge that EWEB faced in master planning for the site under the constraints of the Downtown Plan, but emphasized the importance of the site to the plan. He hoped that the City and EWEB could work together to make the master planning process short and useful. He suggested that EWEB consider working with the City cooperatively on a Request for Information (RFI) or Request for Proposals (RFP) to gauge the degree of interest from the development community and gather ideas to inform the master plan. Mr. Kelly urged the commissioners to consider the potential of providing wireless service to the community. He believed that EWEB was a logical provider for such a service, which he considered a strong economic development tool. Mr. Papé hoped the board and council could meet more often in the future. He endorsed a suggestion from resident Bob Cassidy that the board and council form a committee composed of two members of each body. Responding to a concern expressed by Mr. Papé about the potential for EWEB to truck fish in rather than install at fish ladder at Trail Bridge Reservoir, Mr. Berggren said that EWEB recognized the importance of a fish ladder. EWEB committed to the regulatory agencies to look aggressively at options for a fish ladder. EWEB was in the process of bringing an independent engineer to work with its consulting engineers to develop effective fish ladder alternatives that would be acceptable to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He hoped to have those recommendations by January 1, 2007. However, EWEB had to submit a placeholder in its final license application, which was due by November 30, and the catch and truck alternative was included as a placeholder with the intent of further examination. Ms. Bettman said that the Downtown Plan contained strong language with regard to the EWEB site because of the concerns of the councilors and Planning Commissioners who worked on the document. The City considered the site a major community asset and the council did not want to be in a position where it had no influence over what happened to it. She was concerned to read that EWEB was moving forward to pursue an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) and a zone change for the property. She understood wanting to maximize the value of the property, but maintained that if that was the case, EWEB was, contrary to its statements, in the business of land use planning. Ms. Bettman said the master plan must be approved by the City as required by the Downtown Plan. She did not think that was optional. Ms. Bettman hoped to hear more discussion about that. She suggested that EWEB might want to think about contracting for someone to do the master plan similar to its work on the Roosevelt property. President Bishop clarified that when EWEB used the term “master planning” in its documents, it was referring to something less specific and more generic than what Ms. Bettman was discussing. The board had not realized it was a legal or technical term for the City. She thanked Ms. Bettman for raising the issue, and assured her that EWEB had not reached the master planning stage. Mr. Berggren concurred, saying there was no intent to circumvent the City. He was not sure that EWEB staff had the technical understand- MINUTES—Eugene City Council/ November 15, 2006 Page 2 Eugene Water & Electric Board of Commissioners ing of the terminology involved. When the board discussed the site and the potential of selling it, it had agreed it would be useful to issue and RFI and contract with a developer to help EWEB and the City determine what the master plan could be. Mr. Berggren said that at the present time, the issue that was most cloudy for the board was the degree of interest the City had in the property. He said if the City was to purchase the property, it made little sense for EWEB to do the master planning needed. However, it was EWEB’s intent to do what needed to be done and to work cooperatively with the City. Mr. Kelly emphasized the City’s interest in the property but though it was difficult to know the degree of that interest without knowing the price of the property. He thought further discussion was warranted, but suggested the discussion would be very different if there $20 million as opposed to a $1 million carrying cost until resale. Ms. Bettman said the carrying costs were a concern for her as well. A Metro Plan amendment and zone change would result in a “windfall” for EWEB in regard to the value of the property. She questioned if the City would acquire the property before those changes occurred and if any of the benefit would accrue to the City. Mr. Berggren agreed more discussion was needed. Mr. Papé concurred with the need for more discussion, but believed that the council needed more informa- tion about the timing of the sale and the price. Mr. Berggren noted EWEB’s hope to have more information by March 2007, but he was unsure if it would be available by then. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé about the location of the administration building, Mr. Beeson said that space had been reserved for the building between the operations building and employee parking. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor regarding the possibility that EWEB’s administrative functions would be moved, Mr. Berggren said that EWEB made provision for that if it became appropriate at sometime in the future. Mr. Papé noted the City’s interest in purchasing, at minimum, property along the river on the existing site. Ms. Taylor determined from Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson that the Riverfront Research District contained approximately $90,000, but those dollars were already committed to the proposed east side parking structure. Ms. Taylor wanted to buy the EWEB property because community members would then be involved, through their council representatives, with what was done with the site. President Bishop spoke to the issue of where the benefit would accrue from a designation and zone change, saying that the board discussed whether to take those steps or simply move the industrial uses off the site and dispose of the property. She suggested that the council and board keep in mind the fact that EWEB’s customers and the council’s constituents were the same people, and the two bodies needed to work closely together to determine how to benefit them. EWEB needed to realize the money from the sale of the property to pay down the bonds and make the Roosevelt project work. If EWEB could not do that, it called into question whether EWEB had the ability to move. She suggested the two bodies had the same vision and goals but the board needed to focus on the needs of the utility. MINUTES—Eugene City Council/ November 15, 2006 Page 3 Eugene Water & Electric Board of Commissioners Mayor Piercy believed that the two bodies needed to consider how best to use the land for the community while recognizing the responsibility the board had to the ratepayers. She wanted a meaningful discussion to put all issues in perspective. Ms. Bettman said that if EWEB wanted to know if the City was interested in buying the property, it should put a price tag on it and communicate that to the City, as well as its interest in any subsidies, which she was not assuming at this point. Mr. Berggren clarified that, to this point, the board had not discussed price, only the process. Commissioner Farmer said the bottom line for EWEB was money. EWEB was talking about breaking ground in June 2007; but unless EWEB could sell the site for a figure that reflected the type of development envisioned in the Downtown Plan, the numbers would not work and that would not occur. The default position for EWEB was that it remained on the current site and redeveloped it, which neither body would be happy about. President Bishop questioned what was meant by Ms. Bettman’s reference to a “windfall” for EWEB in relationship to the zone change proposal. She had never thought of a legitimate request for a zone change made within the planning parameters as a windfall. Further, she said that she had never conceived of asking the City for a subsidy. Mr. Kelly said that the EWEB site was an exciting parcel of land with a lot of potential. He believed that in spite of the fact the two entities were political bodies, EWEB and the City could rise to the challenges of a tight time line. He thought that both EWEB and the City could rely on the community’s goodwill as an asset, and encouraged staff of the two agencies to get together to discuss different scenarios and potential questions surrounding the future of the property. He suggested that a City subsidy could come in the form of expedited permit processes, for example, or favorable financing terms. He called on the two bodies to get creative. President Bishop thanked the council and board for their participation in the discussion and thanked staff for its contribution. The meeting adjourned at 1:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council/ November 15, 2006 Page 4 Eugene Water & Electric Board of Commissioners NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 20, 2006–Work Session TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Linda Henry MINUTES FILE NAME: m:\2006\central services department\city manager's office\city council\cc061120m1.doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 12/04/06 llh Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall November 20, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy reported that a great deal of hate graffiti had been painted Sunday night at various locations throughout the community, including at Amazon Park, South Eugene High School, and the YMCA. The comments were appalling and property damage was serious. She said the graffiti was aimed at the African- American, Asian, Latino, and Jewish communities. She asserted the actions were despicable criminal acts of hate that would be aggressively investigated to bring those responsible to appropriate justice. Mayor Piercy wanted the perpetrators to know that the City of Eugene had a demonstrated record of success in bringing to justice those who committed crimes of hatred and intended to keep that record. She asked anyone with information that might lead to identification of those responsible to call the Eugene Police Department. Mayor Piercy asserted that the Mayor, City Council and fellow community members clearly would not tolerate that kind of activity, would support and stand by all of the communities and would take action when called for. It was important for everyone to respect others, honor differences, and enjoy living together. Mayor Piercy reported she had a discussion earlier with the City Council Committee on Race regarding the need to develop agreed-upon community protocols for response to hate crimes, which she intended to make a priority. She said the idea of City employees acting as the eyes and ears in the community tracking such occurrences was discussed. She added this kind of hate was experienced outside the City limits and she pledged to work with mayors in other local communities. Mayor Piercy believed it was important to work with other groups and organizations. She commended everyone who in their daily lives went out of their way to show they cared about fairness and justice, and that that community cared about everyone. A. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—City Council Priority Issue—City Hall Complex Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:32 p.m. City Manager Taylor thanked Mayor Piercy for speaking on behalf of the community on the hate crime issue. City Manager Taylor introduced Mike Penwell from Facilities Services. MINUTES—City Council November 20, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Penwell provided the staff report. He explained the City Hall Complex master planning process was 18 months into process adopted by the City Council in 2005. The remaining issues included Eugene Police Department (EPD) patrol consolidation and site selection. He asked for permission for staff to talk with Lane County regarding acquisition of the county owned butterfly parking lot, and proposed that staff return on December 11, 2006, with additional information. Mr. Penwell said this meeting provided an opportunity for the City Council to focus on the decision of police consolidation, and whether patrol should be housed inside of or outside of City Hall. He added that the City Manager preferred to locate patrol outside of City Hall for operational reasons that were supported by Police Chief Robert Lehner. Mr. Penwell introduced Thomas Hacker of Thomas Hacker Architects. Mr. Hacker reviewed several options that were displayed in poster form and included in the agenda packet. He said the most important addition was development of a new one-half block scheme that incorporated suggestions from the City Council and looked at a possible alternate containing a diagonal connection between the reestablished Park Block at Eighth Avenue, Oak Street and Park Street with the intersection of th 7 Avenue and Willamette Street. This provided a strong visual connection between the Park Blocks, the city’s civic presence, and the cultural connection with the Hult Center and other similar assets. Mr. Hacker said the other addition to the drawings, while somewhat different, had been to provide each option with below-grade parking and at-grade parking entrances. He said if patrol functions were included in the City Hall building, reflected in Option B of all six options, the need to respond directly to the street level required two exits and two entrances in the event that one of the access or egress points was blocked. He added that the “C” and “D” options offered single entrance and exit, with an added lane for exiting to avoid conflict with other vehicles. Mr. Hacker said the council request to reduce the impact of police functions on the ground floor was reflected in the drawings, particularly in the one-half block site, and had been addressed in all cases by reducing the police area on the ground floor to 10,000 square feet, with the balance of the police areas on the second, third, or fourth floors. Mr. Hacker said the design process would be continued through 2007, and various design options could be carried through the process. Mr. Hacker invited questions from City Councilors. Ms. Ortiz arrived at 5:40 p.m. In response to Ms. Bettman, Ms. Dana Ing Crawford said it was vital to have two separate access and egress ramps to avoid blockage for patrol vehicles, and ideal to have two separate ramps for other police fleet vehicles. Ms. Ing Crawford added if patrol was not located in the building, multiple ramps would not be a vital concern. Mr. Hacker concurred that two ramps had not yet been ruled out in any option. Ms. Ing Crawford reviewed and explained the various cost models included in the agenda packet. She noted that the total project cost number differences were reflected primarily in land acquisition and relocation costs, while construction cost number differences were reflected primarily in the police consolidation option and parking configurations. MINUTES—City Council November 20, 2006 Page 2 Work Session In response to Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ing Crawford said the police consolidation costs reflected the cost of construction of a separate building for patrol. Mr. Kelly commented while the cost information was useful, it should not be the primary driver in making a decision. He appreciated the detail cost information presented. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Penwell stated that staff was talking with Lane County about replacement of 228 parking spaces currently accommodated at the butterfly parking lot. Mayor Piercy said it would be helpful to have information to explain the costs to the public, noting there was concern on the cost compared to the new federal courthouse. Ms. Ing Crawford said the primary explanation for the perceived high cost was escalation, noting that construction costs were at historic highs, rising at eight or nine percent annually, while steel and dry wall costs were rising at even higher rates. Mr. Penwell added that the proposed City Hall Complex included parking, which was not part of the federal building. He further explained that Oregon building code contained seismic requirements for buildings housing police services. Ms. Ortiz questioned how much cheaper the construction costs would be if patrol was not located in the City Hall complex. She added patrol needed to be out in the community rather than in downtown, and high rents should not be paid for parking and locker rooms. Mr. Penwell said the difference in costs was reflected in the “B” and “C” options. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with planning for a new City Hall with police patrol separate from City Hall. In response to Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor said locating patrol outside of the City Hall complex was among the staff recommendations, but not the decision before the City Council today. Ms. Bettman supported having patrol functions included in City Hall. She said she would oppose moving patrol out of City Hall, noting there were not enough compelling reasons to do so. Mr. Kelly said developments in the proposed options made him understand how patrol could function efficiently outside of City Hall. He added that good police oversight would come from good management from Chief Lehner, and work from the Civilian Review Board, Police Commission, and the Police Auditor. Mr. Kelly said he heard concern from his constituents about including patrol in the building. He noted the motion did not address where patrol would be located, other than outside of City Hall. Responding to Ms. Solomon, City Manager Taylor said development of the bond measure language would be a City Council decision. Ms. Solomon said a compelling case had been made for taking patrol outside of City Hall and she would support that proposal. MINUTES—City Council November 20, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Poling said he originally supported keeping the patrol function at City Hall. However, based upon Chief Lehner’s vision, the City Manager’s recommendation, and the most recent verbatim citizen participa- tion comments, there appeared to be a preference to have the patrol function outside of City Hall. He opined that issuing patrol cars to officers would save costs by reducing the need to accommodate parking. He added he would support the motion. Ms. Ortiz supported the motion and looked forward to hearing from the community on the issue. In response to Ms. Taylor, Mr. Penwell said the money for construction of the forensics building came from the facility replacement fund. Ms. Taylor suggested there was enough money in the facility replacement fund to build a modest police building. She said she would support the motion. She liked the idea of officers taking their cars home. Mayor Piercy said she had been surprised by the level of interest in having police being located off-site, and how important it was for the City Hall to maintain a connection to the community. Ms. Bettman said it was important to have a police presence at City Hall. She said the bond measure for City Hall would not necessarily succeed, adding she would oppose the motion and a related bond measure. Ms. Taylor said the people who expressed their opinions during the public participation process were self selected and not a broad cross section. The issue had not been reviewed by neighborhood groups and the City Club. The motion passed 7:1, with Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to council for the December 11, 2006, work session additional cost information related to site selection for a new City Hall, particularly costs related to site acquisition of the Lane County “butterfly” parking lot. Mr. Kelly hoped there would be sufficient information available on December 11 to make a decision. However, he would not make lack of information a reason to decide one way or the other. He said although he would not be on the council beginning in January 2007, the council should carry the decision into the new year if necessary. He noted land acquisition and relocation expenses increased costs. He said he had received unsolicited input from members of the public that they were excited about the possibility of construction at the butterfly parking lot and the Rock ‘n Rodeo site. Ms. Taylor said it was important for the Lane Board of County Commissioners to have a discussion on the proposal. Mayor Piercy said timing on conversations with the board was critical. City Manager Taylor said he talked with the Lane County facilities director and individual Lane County commissioners. He added that their discussions had included improvements to the Park Blocks and acquiring the butterfly lot during the City Center visioning project. Mr. Penwell added that he and Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson talked with a facilities sub-group consisting of two commissioners and County staff that had reached consensus that whatever occurred needed to be beneficial to Lane County, the City of Eugene, and the community. MINUTES—City Council November 20, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Piercy said she talked individually with the five commissioners to explain the process to-date, and had gotten good responses from them. Mr. Kelly asked for a summary in the December 11 City Council agenda packets from the November 21 Human Rights Commission discussion with the project design team. Mr. Papé said he was excited about the possibility of using the butterfly lot and inquired about when it was constructed. Mr. Penwell noted the butterfly lot predated the current City Hall building. In response to Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor said timing of the purchase of the butterfly lot and the Rock ‘n Rodeo site would depend upon the willingness of the property owners to sell. He stated his preference would be to identify a site and have it secured prior to presenting a bond measure to the voters. The motion passed 7:1, with Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—City Council November 20, 2006 Page 5 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 20, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 11/21 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall November 20, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the public hearing of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Stormwater Provisions; Amending Section 6.010 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending the Title of “Stormwater Service: in Chapter 6 of that Code; and Adding Section 6.615 to that Code Development Review Manager Peggy Kepler of the Public Works Department was present to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She determined that the council had no opposition to taking action that evening. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 3934, an ordinance concerning stormwater provisions. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0 (Mr. Papé having not arrived at the meeting). 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Bush Ballot Measure 37 Claim for Compensation (M 37 06-1) Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Associate Planner Patricia Thomas of the Planning and Develop- ment, who provided the staff presentation regarding the Ballot Measure 37 claim filed by Judith Bush th alleging a reduction in value of her property at 1333 West 10 Avenue as a result of the City’s adoption of the Chambers Special Area Zone Standards. The standards, which limited development on the property, were effective January 13, 2006. Staff determined the Bush claim was valid. Ms. Thomas reported that the owner, immediate neighbors, and the representatives of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors worked cooperatively to reach an agreement on the development to be allowed on the site. The recommendation before the council included a waiver of the relevant density standards to allow another dwelling unit on the property. The remaining standards were not waived for future development on the lot. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 1 Public Hearing Ms. Thomas said the waiver was consistent with the agreement reached between the property owner and neighbors Mr. Papé arrived. Continuing, Ms. Thomas said that City Manager Taylor recommended the claim be approved and a waiver granted. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, supported the proposed claim. He then went on to address claims that the Churchill Area Neighbors for a Healthy Neighborhood was elitist and against infill, pointing out the neighbors worked with the property owner on the plans for the dwelling, which would be an infill dwelling. He said that just because the neighborhood had special standards did not mean the neighbors were bad people. th Marie Nemir , 1353 West 10 Avenue, an immediate neighbor of the subject property, supported the staff recommendation for a house to be built in accordance with the recently adopted infill standards. She said that throughout the process the owner’s son Ron and wife Bess had worked with the neighbors to develop a solution that was compatible with the neighborhood and would improve the block’s appearance, safety, and stability. While she did not generally support Ballot Measure 37, she supported the example of responsible property ownership and restraint demonstrated by the Bush family. She thanked Paul Conte and Rene Kane, co-chairs of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors and the owner’s family for reaching a good outcome. th Rene Kane , 254 West 14 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, thanked all those who cooperated to reach the Ballot Measure 37 agreement, saying they showed what remarkable things could be accomplished when people worked together toward a common purpose, in this case, that of maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Kane thought it appropriate that those with a stake in the neighborhood and knowledge of it worked to make it a better place. Ms. Bush had welcomed what her neighbors had to say, and common ground was found. The agreement maintained and enhanced the character and stability of the neighborhood. She congratulated all those involved for providing an example of real community. th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, co-chair of Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, thanked Ms. Bush and her family for working with the neighborhood toward a positive outcome. He suggested that their actions were a benchmark against which others could be measured. They were true to their word and worked toward a solution that made a positive contribution to the neighborhood. Mr. Conte also thanked neighbors such as Ms. Nemir and her husband for initiating a process that had as a goal the common good. He said the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors executive board unanimously endorsed the recommendation before the council. Mr. Conte thought there were several lessons to be drawn from Eugene’s first residential Ballot Measure 37 claim. First, residents and councilors could take heart that sensible infill compatibility standards need not be put aside due to Ballot Measure 37. The house Ms. Bush would construct would demonstrate that property owners can build new, modest houses that meet sensible infill design standards. The solution presented to the council was further evidence that resident-driven processes could produce sound solutions to residential land uses issues given residents’ familiarity with their neighborhood and stake in its future. Mr. Conte hoped the Planning and Development Department and council took notice of what had been accomplished through a constructive approach to challenging issues. He quoted from Wendell Berry: “A viable neighborhood is a community, and a viable community is made up of neighbors who cherish and protect MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 2 Public Hearing what they have in common.” He said that Jefferson/Westside neighbors cherish their homes and neighbors. He thanked the council for its leadership in supporting neighborhood communities. Ron Blacquiere , 1858 Lawrence Street, thanked Mr. Conte and the neighborhood association for their work and hoped for the council’s endorsement of the recommendation. He was excited by the process and hoped it happened elsewhere in Eugene. th Jon Belcher , 1240 West 15 Avenue, #4, said the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors Web site called the recommendation a win for the neighborhood, owner, and City, but he questioned how it was a win for the City given the fact the recommendation overturned the City land use code. He questioned why a Ballot Measure 37 claim was required if both the proposed house as well as the infill standards were great. He suggested that something must be broken, and he believed it was the density standards approved for the neighborhood in question. He said that the standards would preclude the building that existed on the lot now, much less another structure. He said the standards also precluded such desirable things as owner- occupied row houses. While for the most part he found the standards related to scale and size acceptable, Mr. Belcher maintained that the code represented a de facto downzoning of the neighborhood from R-2 to R-1 and the claim before the council showed that did not work. He said if the goal was to reduce the underlying zoning, the City should be honest and just do that rather than set limits on the number of dwelling units by lot size essentially rendering the area R-1 and additionally precluding infill that meets the size and mass standards. Mr. Belcher said that the community should be built to the standards in the Land Use Code, not through agreements between property owners and neighborhood groups for Ballot Measure 37 claims they liked. Susannah Meininger , 1418 Lawrence, #A, asked if the record could remain open for additional testimony. City Manager Taylor indicated the council could hold the record open if it wished. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to keep the record open for written testimony until November 27, 2006, at 5 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions or comments. Mr. Kelly thanked those who testified. He referred to page 23 of the Agenda Item Summary, which described what was waived, including the applicable multi-family standards. He assumed that was because a single-family dwelling was proposed. Ms. Thomas indicated that adding a single dwelling would trigger the multi-family standards, and it was unclear without more exhaustive study and design that the standards could be met and the building actually constructed. Mr. Kelly referred to the first page of the resolution, Recital C, which referred to the written agreement between the neighbors, Ms. Bush, and the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, and asked for confirmation that although the written agreement was attached to the resolution, it had no legal bearing in the City’s action because it was a private agreement. City Attorney Glenn Klein concurred, noting it was attached because it explained in more detail the origin of the detail and because part of the agreement was the waiver of any other Ballot Measure 37 rights by the property owner. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 3 Public Hearing Mr. Kelly thanked the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors leadership and the neighbors for working together to reach a good conclusion. He said that Ballot Measure 37 was not good law but those involved rose to the occasion. Speaking to Mr. Belcher’s comments regarding the recommendation going around the code, Mr. Kelly acknowledged that the Chambers special area zone came about through an understandable feeling of crisis on the part of the Jefferson/Westside residents. Now that it had been in place for some months, he suggested that the council consider whether it would like to ask the Planning Commission to take a look at the zone to see if the standards needed any kind of fine-tuning in regard to the standards while still accommodating desirable infill. He proposed more discussion on his suggestion when the council took action on the item on December 11. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram to Redesignate Property Identified as Map 17-03-30-44, Tax Lot 8900 (Oregon Motor Pool Site) from High-Density Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal De- velopment Designation to Commercial/Nodal Development Designation; Rezoning the Prop- erty from I-2/TD Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone to C-2/TD/ND Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Devel- opment Overlay Zones; and Adopting a Severability Clause Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules for the public hearing, which involved a quasi-judicial matter. She called for conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. There were none. Mayor Piercy determined that councilors had no site visits to report. City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Associate Planner Ann Siegenthaler of the Planning and Develop- ment. Ms. Siegenthaler said the council would hear testimony related to a request for an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Land Use Diagram and concurrent zone change for a parcel known as the Oregon Motor Pool site, located at 445 Pearl Street. The applicant was the State of Oregon Office of Administrative Services. Ms. Siegenthaler said the applicant requested a Metro Plan amendment from High-Density Residen- tial/Mixed Use/Nodal Development designation to Commercial/Nodal Development designation, and asked that the property be rezoned from I-2/TD Light-Medium Industrial with Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone to C-2/TD/ND Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Development Overlay Zones. No development was being proposed at this time. The zone change was a quasi-judicial decision but was being reviewed concurrently with the Metro Plan amendment, and thus followed the process described in the code for a Metro Plan amendment. The amendment was a single jurisdiction Type II amendment and the council decision must be based on the record created before the Planning Commission. Ms. Siegenthaler noted no public testimony was received during the Planning Commission’s comment period outside that of the applicant. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request following deliberation of the application’s consistency with statewide planning goal 12, transportation. That goal required the applicant to demonstrate the change would not have a significant effect on adjacent transporta- tion facilities and any effects would be mitigated. The Planning Commission did not believe it initially had sufficient evidence regarding the issue and requested the applicant provide additional information. The applicant subsequently submitted a trip generation estimate, and the commission determined the application complied with all applicable criteria. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 4 Public Hearing Ms. Siegenthaler noted that the Eugene Code required the council to make a decision on the application within 30 days of the hearing. She noted that the criteria for the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment could be found in EC 9.7730(3)(a-b) and the criteria for the zone change were included in EC 9.8865(1-5). Ms. Siegenthaler called the council’s attention to the findings prepared for the application, included as Exhibit A to the proposed ordinance. Ms. Siegenthaler said the Planning Commission found the existing policies in the Metro Plan and Downtown Plan, the applicable refinement plan, supported the change from high-density residential to commercial use. A key policy question discussed by the commission regarded the appropriateness of retaining the existing designation for the site. There were policies supportive of retaining that designation, but staff and the commission found stronger evidence, particularly in the Downtown Plan, in support of a commercial designation. She called attention to Policy 3 in the Downtown Plan, which called for facilitation of downtown redevelopment by redesignating and rezoning underused properties, such as surface parking lots, to commercial land use designations and commercial zones, such as C-2 or C-3. Other policies in the Downtown Plan supported the change to a commercial designation. Ms. Siegenthaler noted that council action on the item was scheduled for December 11. The City Manager recommended the City Council adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the proposed Metro Plan designation and zone change. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. James Spickerman , 975 Oak Street, said he was asked by the State of Oregon to evaluate the parcel in July 2002, which was currently vacant and being used for parking. Planning documents in existence at that time appeared to support a Metro Plan change and zone change, but he was advised by staff of the work being done on the Downtown Plan and had followed that process to its conclusion. The Downtown Plan addressed the parking lots in the train depot area and the parcel in question and that was the source of Policy 3. He urged the council to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and offered to respond to questions. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She asked for a staff response to testimony. There was none. She asked Mr. Spickerman for rebuttal; Mr. Spickerman had nothing further to offer. Mayor Piercy indicated that the record was closed. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asked about the public notice for the public hearing. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated that notice of the council’s hearing as well as the text of the ordinance was published in The Register-Guard a month prior to the hearing. There was also a notice process used with the Planning Commission’s review of the application. Ms. Bettman asked if the adjacent neighbors were notified. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated she would provide more information about the extent of the public notice on December 11. She noted that a group of interested parties was informed, which included the downtown neighborhood association, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Bettman pointed out that there was a stable neighborhood just north of the site in question and she believed that if those residents were aware of the proposed changes they would probably be present at the hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 5 Public Hearing Ms. Bettman said that the findings indicated there was no reason to fear the loss of residential land because the commercial zoning accommodated residential use, but if the property owner wanted to build housing there was no reason to rezone the site to Community Commercial. She also believed that the transportation issues involved were “kind of glossed over” as she considered Community Commercial to be regional commercial zoning, creating a “major magnet” on what was “relatively local streets.” Ms. Bettman anticipated the development would result in a significant impact on traffic, and maintained that if the impact was not addressed through this process, the cost of mitigating it would fall on the City. Ms. Bettman believed the council had agreed not to take action on any zone changes that created a benefit for the property owner before it considered the “value added tax” ordinance the council intended to consider on December 11, 2006. She questioned if the zone change would be subject to the “Value Added Measure 37 Compensation 37 Fund Collection Recovery Fee.” Mr. Klein indicated he would have to research that question and would respond on December 11. Ms. Bettman wanted to know what the council would need to do to ensure the fee, if adopted, applied to the zone change. Ms. Bettman asked what use the applicant’s traffic analysis was based upon. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated the ITE manual was consulted, and the assumed use was specialty retail; it was also assumed there would be 18 townhouse units on the second floor. The applicant’s trip generation estimates were included in the meeting packet. Mr. Kelly confirmed with Ms. Siegenthaler that the downtown neighborhood association was informed of the proposal. Mr. Kelly asked staff to research if public agencies had the first right of refusal for such State-owned parcels. He suggested that it might be good to be aware of that fact when considering potential parking sites in downtown. Mr. Klein indicated a memorandum would be provided to the council. Mr. Papé questioned if the City could impose a “value added tax” on the State. Mr. Klein indicated he would address that question through a memorandum. Mr. Papé noted the location of the site near the property owned by the Eugene Water & Electric Board and suggested that the council’s action on the application would be premature given the City’s interest in planning for that site. Ms. Bettman asked if the site was inside the urban renewal district. Associate Planner Nan Laurence of the Planning and Development Department indicated that while the parcel was included in the boundaries of the Downtown Plan, it fell just outside the boundaries of the Riverfront Renewal District. Ms. Bettman said it was unfortunate that the use on which the traffic analysis was based on could be “picked out of a hat” rather than the use which would likely be built, which would create more impact. She asked if there was a way to constrain the development to the impact from the use envisioned. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated staff would address that question in the next AIS. Speaking to Mr. Papé’s questions about the EWEB site planning, Mr. Kelly pointed out that the application before the council must be acted on within a time certain. City Manager Taylor concurred. Ms. Siegen- thaler indicated a decision must be made within 30 days of the hearing. Mr. Kelly said that the application could not be denied on the basis of the council’s intent, although he thought Mr. Papé’s points were well- taken. He suggested the issue be addressed in the staff follow-up. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 6 Public Hearing Ms. Taylor asked if the application could be denied on the basis of no obvious benefit to the City. Mr. Klein referred her to the criteria governing the application in the Eugene City Code and indicated he would also follow-up in writing. Ms. Taylor asked who wanted the property rezoned. Ms. Siegenthaler indicated it was the applicant, the State of Oregon. Staff did not know what the applicant planned to do with the property. Ms. Taylor asked if that could be a basis on which to deny the application. Mr. Klein indicated he would follow up. The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 20, 2006 Page 7 Public Hearing NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 27, 2006—Work Session TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 12/1/06 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall November 27, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, George Poling. 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 Mayor Piercy encouraged everyone to complete the cultural policy review survey. She said the City was working to improve its Web communications and asked the public for feedback. She announced that the Network of Watershed Councils presented an award to the City of Eugene and commended the City’s commitment to sustainability. She said that a letter signed by community leaders and anti-hate leaflets had been distributed in response to recent hate graffiti in a South Eugene neighborhood. She reminded the community to be vigilant and respond when hate crimes occurred. She noted that the new federal courthouse would have its grand opening at the end of the week. Mr. Papé shared a Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce publication featuring Library, Cultural & Recreation Services Executive Director Angel Jones on the cover. He appreciated the recent visit by a delegation from Eugene’s sister city, Kakegawa, Japan. He was pleased with the City’s response to hate crimes and hoped the perpetrators were caught and punished. Mayor Piercy noted that the delegation’s visit received good coverage in the newspaper. Mr. Pryor echoed Mr. Papé’s comments regarding the City’s refusal to tolerate hate crimes. Ms. Taylor expressed appreciation for the dinner with the Japanese visitors and press coverage of the delegation’s visit, which she hoped would prompt greater community support for the Sister City Foundation. She commended Mayor Piercy for hosting the delegation. She urged people to attend a performance of “The Seagull” at Lord Leebrick Theater. She said it was an excellent production. She recently attended meetings where the purchase of land for Buford Park was discussed. She said there was much enthusiasm and support for that acquisition and hoped the City would do whatever it could to help. Ms. Taylor said she received a complaint about leaves in the street and the hazard they posed for bicyclists. She agreed with the complainant’s questioning why the City even had a leaf pickup program when the roads needed repairing. She suggested considering whether the money would be better spent elsewhere. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Ortiz thanked Mayor Piercy for her leadership in response to hate crimes. She announced that she and Mayor Piercy would be available to meet with constituents in the River Road/Santa Clara area on the th evening of November 28, 2007. She recently attended a 40 birthday celebration for the Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC) and was amazed at the large attendance. She congratulated City Manager Dennis Taylor for being the recipient of the Human Rights Commission human rights award. She stated that she had received a number of complaints about flooding on the newly resurfaced section of Hilyard Street. City Manager Taylor said he would check into the problem. Mr. Papé remarked that he received a number of calls complaining that rental enforcement program fees doubled every 30 days if not paid on time. He asked that the administrative order establishing late payment penalties be reviewed to ensure it was fair and appropriate. He could envision a situation where a property owner was out of town and missed the 30-day deadline. Ms. Taylor concurred that multiplying fines were not in the public’s best interest. Mr. Kelly commented that given the small size of the fees, doubling for nonpayment did not seem excessive. He said without those payments there would be no rental housing program. He knew for a fact that staff had waived late fees if a property owner demonstrated he or she was out of town for an extended period. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council. Mayor Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). B. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Purchase Options City Manager Taylor introduced Planning and Development Director Susan Muir to discuss West Broadway redevelopment and the purchase options secured by the URA. Ms. Muir recalled the excitement over the Connor and Woolley/Opus proposal last January and the council’s direction to staff to do what it could to make redevelopment of that area happen. She said that staff would be joined by Thomas Hacker and Will Dan of Thomas Hacker Architects, who would participate via telephone because of the bad weather. She said that Mr. Hacker and Mr. Dan were assisting staff because of their involvement with the City Hall master planning project, experience with downtown redevelopment and design expertise. She introduced Denny Braud to present information on the status of property negotiations along West Broadway. Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:45 p.m. Mr. Braud stated that following the comprehensive mixed-use proposal from Connor and Woolley/Opus earlier in the year, the council asked staff to take steps to facilitate redevelopment while awaiting more details on that proposal. He said that proposal did not materialize because the developer was unable to acquire enough property for the project. He said that City staff had been working with Broadway property owners to determine if properties could be assembled into a redevelopment footprint; discussions had been positive and negotiations occurred only with willing sellers. He said redevelopment of the two-block section of West Broadway would support implementation of the Downtown Plan by increasing activity along a Great Street and allow many vacant and underdeveloped properties to make a greater contribution to density goals for downtown, as well as capture momentum generated by recent development activities in and around the downtown area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Braud said that assembling the properties through purchase options could be the first step in an active redevelopment strategy for West Broadway. He illustrated the properties for which the URA had made offers in the form of purchase options. He said that signed agreements had been executed with seven owners representing 12 properties covering three full-block faces along Broadway. He noted that many of the properties and storefronts were vacant or underutilized; in some cases buildings were deteriorated and most of the retail space was poorly configured for today’s retail sales. He said that terms and option periods varied among properties, but a majority had an initial six-month period to execute purchase at the agreed upon price, followed by an available six-month extension period with payment of additional option money. He said the cost to obtain options on properties with a combined purchase price of $15.6 million was slightly over $54,000, with an additional $25,000 for consultant fees and expenses. Mr. Braud noted that some of the purchases prices appeared high for the area and pointed out that a number of the properties were not actively for sale at the time negotiations started; assembling property could be significantly more expensive than buying an individual parcel. He said that property assembly was a typical urban renewal strategy for cities and urban renewal agencies; earlier property assembly-based projects included the Library, the Hult Center, the Hilton Convention Center, the U.S. Bank building, Broadway Place and the federal courthouse. He said cities also typically provided tools and incentives for downtown redevelopment, including sale of property below market value to improve the feasibility of development proposals. Mr. Hacker remarked that work on the new City Hall complex master planning project had familiarized his firm with Eugene’s downtown. He said that redevelopment of the West Broadway area was absolutely essential to the future of a healthy downtown. He said the City created the groundwork to transform that area and bring a density and activity to downtown that would be very advantageous. He believed the City had an opportunity to build on the success of downtown planning and development activities and create the West Broadway district as a mixed-use, multi-story, high-quality downtown destination point. He used computer images to provide a sense of the uses and sizes of possible development to enliven the street and achieve vitality through commercial, cultural and living activities. Mr. Hacker emphasized that the redevelopment of West Broadway was not simply a design issue; the economics of that redevelopment would ultimately determine how the area got built. He believed that a comprehensive redevelopment approach could elevate the economics of downtown Eugene much more quickly and redevelopment along Broadway would attract other developers to the area. He listed three points that were critical to the success of Broadway redevelopment: ? Create an opportunity for a comprehensive redevelopment, have the vision and commitment to see the whole project through; ? Visualize the development potential and imagine the type of future desired for the area; ? Move forward with the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and identify a private sector development partner to implement the strategy. Mr. Braud reviewed possible next steps, including issuing an RFQ, purchasing some or all of the properties and then offering them for redevelopment either individually or as a comprehensive package, or reopening discussions with Connor and Woolley/Opus regarding their original proposal. He said staff recommended issuing an RFQ based on the criteria included in the agenda packet. He remarked that the RFQ process could result in one proposal for the entire area with a single development team or multiple development teams on smaller footprints. He said the RFQ would be out for 60 days followed by the council’s selection of a development team or teams. He said that securing purchase options on a majority of the important pieces of property along West Broadway was a significant achievement and stressed that the City was under MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 3 Work Session no obligation to actually purchase any of the properties; it simply had the option to purchase them within the option periods. Ms. Taylor asserted that the development of Broadway Place was supposed to solve all the problems of downtown. She asked if the City received tax money from the commercial portion of the project, which was mostly empty. Mr. Braud replied that the commercial portion was paying taxes; only the housing portion of the project received an exemption. He said the commercial space was 50 to 60 percent filled. Ms. Taylor asked how long ago the City purchased the Sears site. Mr. Braud replied it had been 12 years. Ms. Taylor stated she was hesitant to purchase a lot of properties and let them sit empty. She preferred incremental to comprehensive development and was not interested in a “theme park” in downtown. She was disturbed about staff taking action without the consent of the council. She was concerned about voting to seek information and having that translated to mean something else was approved. She asked who composed the URA as she thought that was the council, but the council did not discuss whether it wanted to secure the options. City Manager Taylor replied that the council was the URA board of directors and he was the URA director. He said within the general guidelines of the URA plan and budget approved by the council he had secured the purchase options; council direction would determine how the options were used. He underscored that the options only represented an interesting redevelopment possibility and staff was seeking direction from the council on how the Downtown Plan might be implemented consistent with the vision and in a timely manner. Ms. Taylor said that the council was the URA and some members did not even know the options process was happening. She said Scan Design was a successful business in downtown and, while it did not own the building it was in, she questioned why the City would want to threaten its existence by securing options to buy the property. Mr. Braud explained that staff had made offers to all of the property owners that were part of the original footprint proposed for the Connor and Woolley/Opus project. He stressed that they were willing property sellers and he did not feel the City was putting any businesses out on the street as staff had worked closely with the owners to ensure a transition period for any tenants. Ms. Taylor said the businesses would go elsewhere and leave more empty buildings. She said her concern was that Scan Design had been a successful business in that location for a long time and instead of trying to make it move the City should do everything to keep it there. Ms. Solomon said it was her understanding that Scan Design did not have to move; it would be their choice. Mr. Braud agreed. Ms. Solomon said she did not see the City’s actions as a threat to Scan Design’s existence. She asked if the City would recover the cost of options through reimbursement from the development team once that team was selected. Mr. Braud said he was not certain how that would occur until there were proposals in hand. He said options could be assigned to another party and that would be the preferred method of disposing of them; the other party could then act on the options and purchase properties. He said there could be a combination of approaches with some options being assigned and the City purchasing one or two of the properties to help facilitate whatever proposal was selected. Mr. Papé said it was unfortunate that the council had not done a better job of revitalizing Broadway and downtown during his tenure. He congratulated staff on a bold move to stimulate activity. He said that redevelopment would not happen because of public buildings; the private sector was needed to redevelop the area. He was ready to move forward to do things that the council had approved in the Eugene Downtown MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Plan. He asked if Thomas Kemper had expressed an interest in expanding his site to include the entire th block. Mr. Braud said that he had indicated an interest in the entire 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street block, including the properties along Broadway. He thought that interest was spurred by the potential for redevelopment on adjacent properties but was not certain that Mr. Kemper would act unilaterally, preferring to partner with another developer. Mr. Papé asked if staff was pursuing options on properties along Olive Street. Mr. Braud said there were active discussions on other properties, including those along Olive Street. Mr. Poling commented that he was pleased the URA director had taken steps to begin the process with a minimal amount of investment considering the potential. He thought the City needed to take aggressive step to redevelop the downtown area. He opined that part of the reason commercial space in Broadway Place was not filled was lack of other development activity in the area. He said a plan that addressed a majority of the properties owned by willing sellers would be preferable to development of sections over a period of time. He appreciated the work of staff and the visual conceptions of possible redevelopment that were included in the presentation. Mr. Kelly thanked property owners for being willing to enter into discussions with the City as it clarified a number of issues regarding the project. He said that no one project would be the “magic bullet” for downtown but agreed with Mr. Hacker’s remarks that it was a necessary piece for a revitalized downtown. He appreciated the work of staff and consultant John Brown to gather together the purchase options. He asked for a spreadsheet that would assess the feasibility of redeveloping the properties based on the purchase prices, projected square footage, and higher prevailing rates. Mr. Braud said staff discussed that issue with Will Dan early in the process. Mr. Dan said there had been a discussion of conducting market and feasibility studies. He said research indicated that the best market study would come from a willing developer with a clear, compelling vision of the project. He said the key was attracting developers with local knowledge of Eugene and Oregon and they would be the best judge of what mix of uses was best suited to local conditions. Mr. Kelly expressed frustration with not having even an order of magnitude to examine because the RFQ would take considerable time and effort by staff and development teams. He was disturbed about proceeding without that base knowledge. He asked if there had been any serious interest by qualified developers, given the publicity the project had received. Mr. Braud said there had been interest from th developers and a number of valuable connections were made during the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street Request for Proposal (RFP), with developers interested in a larger footprint than that site. Ms. Bettman said she had some concern about the process but acknowledged that under the City’s urban renewal district plan it was obvious that staff had the latitude to pursue the options. She was glad to see staff take an assertive posture on downtown redevelopment, but it highlighted the tragedy and failure of the organization to do the same thing to acquire property for a hospital downtown. She supported the staff- recommended motion but if at some point the City should actually acquire some of the parcels she favored acquiring those belonging to Connor and Woolley as they were the most neglected and degraded. She said those properties had a negative impact on the rest of downtown and dragged down the value of other properties. Ms. Bettman referred to five motions she intended to make, copies of which had been distributed to the council. She said the motions had been accepted by staff and hoped they could be incorporated in the main motion as friendly amendments. She said a definition of mixed-use development, modified to add the phrase “or blocks” to the end of the first sentence, was also included with the motions. She hoped to see some MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 5 Work Session effort to relocate Scan Design included in the project, because even though the business did not own the property, it had been a solid presence in downtown. Mr. Pryor expressed his appreciation for staff’s proactive efforts. He observed that the project had been brought to the council at a point where sufficient information was available to evaluate it. He asked if the City was involved in development of the U.S. Bank building. Mr. Braud said it was as the URA owned that parcel. Mr. Pryor asked if the city was involved in development of the Aster Building. Mr. Braud said the City may have assisted with project financing. Mr. Pryor said his point was that downtown development needed help and the City was the logical partner for the private sector in terms of finance and regulatory matters. He said neither the private sector nor the City could develop downtown alone; a partnership was absolutely required. He saw the stirrings of a partnership capable of accomplishing great things, including replacing single-story buildings in the core of the downtown area with multi-story, multi-purpose development. He said the project had to be financially feasible. He fully supported moving forward and liked some of the suggested options. Mayor Piercy commented that there were many successful parts of downtown. She recalled directing staff to pursue possibilities for redevelopment along Broadway and was pleased they had moved forward. She was very hopeful about the prospects for a successful project. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the Agency Director to: Issue a Re- quest for Qualification (RFQ) for the redevelopment of West Broadway based on the draft RFQ criteria included in this agenda item, with the responses to the RFQ to be brought back to the URA for consideration in early Spring 2007; include an additional criterion “Consistency with City Policies and Goals” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet pages 15 and 16; substitute the word “will” for the word “should” in sub- paragraphs 1 (Urban Design”, 2 (Active Uses) and 3 (Sustainable Development) in the RFQ Evaluation criteria on council agenda packet pages 15 and 16; add the phrase “and will contribute to an active, around-the-clock, 24-hour downtown” at the end of the first sentence in the paragraph under the heading “Active Uses” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet page 15; delete the words “and assistance” from subparagraph 2 under the paragraph captioned “Public Benefit” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on page 16 of the council agenda packet; and add the following definition of the term “mixed use” in the RFQ evaluation criteria: “Mixed use development refers to the practice of containing more than one type of use or activity in a building or set of buildings or blocks. The mix of uses can vary widely but typically includes a higher density combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional or other activities. The uses are typically in close proximity, pedestrian-friendly and compatible with multi-modal transportation.” Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the motion by adding to the end of the first section of the main motion after the phrase “Spring 2007” the following sentence: “The RFQ shall permit responses to deal with (a) property included only in a single option agreement (for example the Center Court Building and adjacent hole); (b) property included in more than one but less than all of the option agreements; or (c) property included in all of the option agreements.” Mr. Kelly explained that his motivation was to expand RFQ options to encourage responses from developers with a great idea for one or two parcels instead of most or all of the footprint to respond. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for its efforts and bringing the project to the council. She hoped that discussions would continue respectfully with owners who were not willing to sell at this time. She was excited about the prospects for downtown revitalization. Ms. Solomon thought Mr. Kelly’s amendment was reasonable but she was somewhat concerned that there could be “cherry picking” of the most desirable properties. City Manager Taylor said the amendment and the council’s discussion during the meeting clarified the intent to encourage anyone with the opportunity and vision to respond as well as explain what the City was seeking from respondents. Ms. Taylor said she liked part of the amendment, but not the part of the main motion about selling the whole thing and would probably vote against it. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman asked if staff had calculated what the available square footage would be if the entire footprint was developed with three- or four-story coverage. Mr. Braud said it would be 175,000 square feet times however many stories were built. Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Kelly’s concerns about lack of data and research that would disclose the percentages of commercial and residential space needed within the footprint to be economically viable in downtown and in the context of the City at large. She said there was a tendency to over-commercialize because it seemingly was more valuable. She said Broadway Place was an example of that with ground floor space dedicated to commercial uses being difficult to rent whereas housing may have been more of an anchor. She cautioned that requiring the ground floor of buildings to be entirely commercial or office space was a mistake. She hoped that the RFQ responses would include a determination and substantiation of the economic viability of the proposals. Ms. Taylor pointed out several businesses that had not received help from the City and were doing well such as Ambrosia, Xenon, Adam’s Place, and J. Michael’s Books. Mr. Braud responded that some of those businesses had received assistance with financing through the City’s loan programs. Ms. Taylor said a large part of the problem with West Broadway was the fact that two people owned much of the property and were not willing to lease for what people could afford to pay. She liked Ms. Bettman’s suggestion to purchase only the Connor and Woolley properties. Mr. Papé joined in Mr. Kelly’s thanks to willing property owners. He asked why one of Ms. Bettman’s friendly amendments to the motion removed the word “assistance” from the Public Benefit section of the RFQ on council agenda packet page 16. Ms. Bettman explained that the original language implied that there would be preferable treatment for responses that asked for assistance. She said the change did not mean subsidizes were not available; it said that asking for a subsidy would not favorably weight an application. Mr. Kelly said there had been many anecdotal comments about the failure of commercial space in Broadway Place and he thought it would be useful for the council to receive a memorandum on the subject from the owners of Broadway Place if they were willing to do that. He reflected on Ms. Taylor’s comments regarding successful businesses along Broadway. He said the problem was not that West Broadway properties were owned by one or two people; it was the motivation and sensibilities of a landlord and the synergy that could create. He noted that the buildings occupied by many of the successful businesses were MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 7 Work Session owned by the Giustina family, which had done much to encourage those businesses for the benefit of the community. The main motion, as amended, passed 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. Mayor Piercy reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Prohibiting Extreme Fighting; Adding Section 4.740 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Section 4.990 of that Code City Manager Taylor introduced City Attorney Jerome Lidz to present the draft ordinance. He noted that the legislature would be addressing extreme fighting when it convened in January 2007 and recommended that the council postpone action unless it intended to outlaw extreme fighting entirely as regulation of a new form of martial arts would be better accomplished at the State level. Mr. Lidz reminded the council of what role the City could play in the matter. He said the State, through statute and the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, regulated all professional boxing and wrestling, with wrestling defined to include mixed martial arts. He said the State did not currently regulate amateur fighting and that was mostly what occurred in the cage fighting exhibitions. He said the legislative plan was to expand the Boxing and Wrestling Commission’s authority to include amateur cage fighting as amateur fighting was regarded as a loophole in current State law. He said that rules adopted by the Nevada Athletic Commission were considered the gold standard for regulation of mixed martial arts; a copy of those rules was included in the agenda packet. He outlined the council’s options: ? Ban mixed martial arts, or extreme fighting as defined in the ordinance altogether in the City ? Regulate mixed martial arts, with rules likely based on the Nevada rules ? Postpone action until the legislature acted Mr. Lidz said he did not know if legislative action on mixed martial arts would preempt local regulation as was the case with professional fighting, although he thought that was probable. Mr. Kelly said it was clear following a public hearing that there was not majority support for banning cage fighting in Eugene. Regarding the recommendation to wait until the legislature acted, he thought a council goal should be to enable a safer climate in the City and promote human dignity. He thought it was reasonable for the council to step in with a sensible amount of regulation of an unregulated sport that could hold another dozen or more events before any legislation took effect, possibly resulting in lifelong injuries to participants. He thought that administrative rules could be put in place with minimum effort and he would probably move to schedule the ordinance for action at a future meeting. He pointed out that a requirement for medical insurance was missing from the ordinance and he would move to amend to include that provision. Mayor Piercy asked for the City Attorney’s response to Mr. Kelly’s proposal to require medical insurance. Mr. Lidz said he was aware that some promoters had provisions for health insurance but was not certain whether that was limited to professional fights or included amateur fights. He noted that testimony during the public hearing indicated that such a requirement was reasonable. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Taylor was concerned that regulating something that was barbaric condoned its existence. She asked if it was possible to have a moratorium and ban extreme fighting until the legislature acted. Mr. Lidz said a moratorium was not possible but the council could ban the activity and then repeal the ordinance if the legislature acted. Ms. Taylor stated that was her preference. She pointed out a provision of the Nevada rules that allowed kicking an opponent who was on the ground, which she found unbelievable and asked if those were the rules the City would adopt. City Manager Taylor said the City would begin with those rules and refine as necessary. Ms. Ortiz said she favored directing the City Manager to monitor legislative action to regulate amateur mixed martial arts fighting at the State level and report to the council at the end of the legislative session. She said that cultures differed on what was acceptable and while she did not personally wish to observe the fighting or have her sons involved, she recognized that for young men in her community being involved in extreme fighting was a badge of honor. She was reluctant to tell people they could not be involved and noted that participants were fully aware of the risks. She was also concerned with enacting another ordinance that would put people in jail when the system was already overburdened. Mr. Poling asked how far the City could go in establishing regulations such as requiring medical insurance or identifying the minimum qualifications of onsite medical personnel. Mr. Lidz replied that the council could be that specific. He said if the council wished to move forward with the ordinance it would be brought back for adoption as the public hearing had been held; if adopted, the City Manager would proceed to develop rules to implement the ordinance. He said the Nevada rules were offered as an illustration of rule- making and not as proposed rules. Mr. Poling supported moving forward with an ordinance and making whatever adjustments might be necessary in the event there was legislative action. Mr. Pryor asked how many fights were held annually. Mr. Lidz said there had been three or four since the council first discussed the matter. Mr. Pryor estimated that five or six fights might occur before the legislature acted and someone might be injured or killed at any one of them, which was why he was reluctant to take no action. He wanted some form of regulation in place to protect public safety, not to address cultural or moral issues, and was comfortable with the direction of the ordinance as drafted, strengthened by Mr. Kelly’s proposed amend- ment. He wanted more discussion about the types of specific protections available without becoming overly regulatory. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz said that a copy of administrative rules to implement the ordinance would be provided to the council for informational purposes but would not be an agenda item. Ms. Bettman felt that the ordinance was a reasonable approach. She suggested that Mr. Kelly’s amendment require the promoter or participant to provide proof of medical insurance instead of simply requiring insurance. She said the council was not preventing people from participating in cage fighting if that was their choice but it did have a responsibility to protect participants and the public in the same way that there were helmet laws or protection from second-hand smoke. She said the public would ultimately subsidize medical care for an injured fighter if insurance was not required. Ms. Bettman said she was not in favor of waiting for the State to act as it was possible there would be no legislative action or the threshold would be low. She said if the City created a reasonable threshold it would MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 9 Work Session perhaps be a standard for the State. She noted that the council’s legislative agenda would need to be amended and asked staff to provide that language. She pointed out that the ordinance did not prohibit access to the cage fight premises by minors and asked if that could be included. Mr. Lidz said the council could prohibit access by minors. Ms. Bettman asked that the ordinance be amended to include prohibiting access by minors before it was considered for adoption. Ms. Solomon questioned how the regulations would be enforced and whether police officers would be sent to monitor the cage fights, thereby taking officers off the street who should be providing public safety services in the community. City Manager Taylor said his recommendation would not be to enforce a business regulation with public safety officers. He said it was more likely to be handled by the Planning and Development Department and include discussions with participants and promoters on how best to approach enforcement. He pointed out that Eugene had led the State on many issues, including a smoking prohibition, Public Employee Retirement System reform, and value-added changes to Measure 37. Mr. Lidz said the Nevada rules had been adopted by most of the mixed martial arts groups, at least for professional fighting and those groups would like to have similar rules in place for amateur fights. He said adopting rules with which promoters and participants were already familiar could reduce enforcement requirements. Ms. Taylor asked if minors could be participants in fights. Mr. Lidz said that could be specifically included in the ordinance. Ms. Taylor felt the only appropriate action was to ban extreme fighting as regulating it implied approval. Mr. Kelly indicated he also preferred a ban but understood that was not the will of a majority of the council. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to place the ordi- nance on the January 8, 2007, agenda for action, with the wording of the ordinance revised to add the following language as subparagraph 4 of Code section 4.740(2)(a): “Require that either the promoter or the participant provide proof of medical insurance for short-term and long-term care for any serious physical injury that a participant suffers dur- ing a match, competition or exhibition.” Mr. Kelly said he was also in favor of seeing language return to the council that would address minor access and minor participation. Mr. Poling remarked that minors could view extreme fighting at home on television and was not certain he would support banning them from the premises. Regarding Ms. Solomon’s concerns about enforcement, he noted that liquor laws were enforced by bartenders and servers and he did not feel that having a police officer present at events would be necessary as promoters should have enforcement responsibility. Ms. Bettman asked staff to provide language banning minors from the premises and from participating. She said studies showed that viewing violence desensitized youth to human suffering and decreased their capacity for compassion and that would be exacerbated by watching a live event. Mayor Piercy appreciated the council’s discussion and felt it could be very helpful to the legislature. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 10 Work Session The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Solomon voting in opposi- tion. The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 11 Work Session