Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/31/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 31, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION As Mayor James D. Torrey had not yet arrived at the meeting, Council President Kelly called the meeting to order. A. WORK SESSION AND ACTION: Discussion of Recommended Amendments to the Eugene City Charter and Action on Resolution Calling a City Election on November 5, 2002, for the Purpose of Referring Various Proposed Charter Amendments to the Electors of the City of Eugene Mr. Farr moved to reverse the order of items on the agenda. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the proposed resolution calling a City election on November 5, 2002, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene "housekeeping" amendments to the Eugene Charter of 1976. Mayor Torrey arrived and assumed the chair. Ms. Bettman said that the items under consideration had already been discussed and the council would vote whether to place them on the ballot; she did not intend to offer comments unless debate was reopened. City Attorney Glenn Klein, present in the audience, indicated that the motion on the floor was specific to the resolution at the council's places, not the resolutions in the packet. The same was true for the other motions to be considered. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0 ( Mr. Pap~ not yet having arrived at the meeting). MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to adopt a proposed resolution calling a City election on November 5, 2002, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure amending the Eugene Charter of 1976 concerning ethics and conflicts of interests. Ms. Taylor called for retention of the current charter provision and indicated her opposition to the motion. Mr. Papd arrived. Mayor Torrey said he would work to defeat the proposal if referred to the voters. Mr. Papd confirmed with City Attorney Glenn Klein that the reference to "siblings" included half- brothers and half-sisters. Mr. Papd moved to amend the motion by striking the reference to "siblings." The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Papd said that the task of tracking one's siblings' business dealings would be very difficult. He thought that the references to spouse and domestic partner were also problematic because some might wish to keep their personal and business lives separate. Ms. Bettman opposed what Mr. Pap~ was suggesting. She said it was up to the elected official to know if the policy he or she was considering would create a financial advantage for a member of his or her immediate family. She thought the language being offered was typical of many jurisdictions and would have preferred even stronger language. Mr. Farr agreed with the remarks of Mr. Papd, saying some people were closer to their friends than to their family, so why not include friends? He suggested that the language was over-broad. He opposed the motion. Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. Klein that he was unsure whether the State statute encompassed siblings. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to table the motion to the end of the meeting. Mayor Torrey suggested that he recognize the motion to table at the end of the discussion. Mr. Klein suggested that the mayor could also ask the council to suspend the rules and move to the next motion pending an answer to Ms. Nathanson's question. Mr. Farr withdrew his motion. Mr. Papd withdrew his second. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman questioned the relevance of the State statute to the discussion. She thought if action was postponed, the council should consider the motion in conjunction with a standard for excluding an elected official from discussing or voting on an issue that would result in a financial benefit or disadvantage to a campaign contributor. Mayor Torrey said it was his sense the council was unwilling to suspend the rules. Ms. Taylor determined from Mr. Klein that if a resolution was referred to and not approved by the voters, the current charter provision would remain. Mr. Klein said that whether the resolution weakened the current charter was a value judgment. Mr. Klein reported to the council that State law defined a potential conflict of interest as one that could involve any relative, which included siblings. Mayor Torrey asked how the proposal would affect councilors who were married to City employees. Mr. Klein pointed out that the provision was specific to contracts and the council, at this point, was rarely involved with contracts. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adopt a proposed resolution calling a City Election on November 5, 2002, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure amending Section 16(2)(b) of the Eugene Charter of 1976 concerning purchasing authority. Mr. Meisner, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Farr indicated opposition to the motion. Mayor Torrey indicated he would actively oppose the proposal if referred to the voters. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adopt the Proposed Resolution calling a City election on November 5, 2002, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure amending Section 16(2)(c) of the Eugene Charter of 1976 concerning hiring and firing of City department directors. Mr. Kelly noted the change in the resolution title, which resulted from passage of the council's amended motion related to the topic. Ms. Taylor supported the motion as a means for the council to be better evaluate the performance of the manager. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman said the proposal did not increase the power of the council, merely the information it had available to it regarding the manager's decision about why he or she made a particular personnel decision. That would help the council evaluate the manager. Mr. Meisner indicated support. He added that he believed that the council was dooming the amendments by offering the voters so many measures. Ms. Nathanson said she would vote to send a measure to the voters but that should not be interpreted as support for a first step toward greater council authority over hiring and firing decisions. Mr. Farr indicated support for the motion but pointed out that during his council tenure, the hiring or firing of a department head had rarely been an issue. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Nathanson. Mayor Torrey pointed out that nothing in the charter now precluded what was being proposed. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly indicated that the resolution to which he would refer in the motion he would next propose was that ending with the sentence "The changes made by this measure shall be effective beginning July 1, 2005." Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adopt the proposed resolution calling a City election on November 5, 2002, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure amending the Eugene Charter of 1976 concerning appointment of a City Attorney. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by changing the text of the resolution to read "shall be effective on or before July 1, 2005." Mr. Carlson solicited Mr. Klein's opinion on the topic. Mr. Klein joined the council at the meeting table briefly and first noted his conflict in the matter at hand as a member of the current contract attorney firm. He said his concern about the change was who would decide if the ordinance took effect on or before July 1, 2005. Inherent in the motion was that it would be effective before July 1, 2005, if there was a contract amendment. That was not specifically stated, however. He recommended that Mr. Kelly further amend his amendment by adding the phrase "at the discretion of the City Manager" to avoid any potential legal liability. Mr. Klein returned to the audience. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly declined to accept Mr. Klein's legal advice because of his position as the City's current contract attorney. Ms. Taylor supported the amendment. Ms. Bettman also supported the amendment. She thought Mr. Klein's recommended text would have further confused the issue by giving the decision-making power about the shift to the manager. She suggested that there was the possibility the current firm would want out of the contract after the vote. She wanted the ability to institute the amendment sooner if possible. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the amendment, although he would have preferred to have accepted Mr. Klein's advice. Ms. Nathanson supported the intent of the amendment but shared the concern expressed by Mr. Klein regarding legal liability. Mr. Farr also opposed the amendment. Speaking to the main motion, Mr. Farr continued to be concerned that the council was micromanaging the City. He believed that an in-house attorney would be more expensive than the current arrangement and cost the taxpayers additional money without additional return. At this time, the City had the advantage of a law firm with considerable expertise. Mr. Rayor did not support the amendment because he did not want to put pressure on the current contract. Mr. Pap~ opposed the amendment but indicated support for the main motion because of citizen interest in the subject. Mayor Torrey indicated opposition to both the amendment and motion. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The motion passed, 7:1, Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adopt the proposed resolution calling a City election on November 5, 2002, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure amending Section 24 of the Eugene Charter of 1976 concerning filling of vacancies. Mr. Kelly noted that the revised text before the council had a slight change reflecting the lack of filing deadlines in some odd-numbered election years. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor expressed support for the motion, saying that it was not right that an appointed person be in office longer than necessary. Mr. Farr joined in Mr. Meisner's previously expressed concern about the number of measures on the ballot. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adopt the proposed resolution calling a City election on November 5, 2002, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure amending the Eugene Charter of 1976 concerning liability for unauthorized expenditures. Speaking to the concerns expressed by Mr. Meisner and Mr. Farr, Mr. Kelly said that the council could either separate the measures or bundle them together and risk losing one element at the expense of another. He said that the arguments being offered about the number of measures were valid but the council could not have it both ways. Ms. Taylor said it was important to give people a choice. She thought that separating the measures allowed the voters to choose. Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the motion because the council weakened the text proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee (CCRC). Mr. Farr believed that the number of measures would lead many people without the time to more fully understand the issues to vote no on all of them. Mr. Pap~ requested legal input regarding the proposed resolution. Mr. Klein rejoined the council and said the amendment was intended to reflect a change that was made in State law in terms of unintended consequences as to liability for innocent mistakes. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adopt the proposed resolution calling a City election on November 5, 2002, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure amending sections 28 and 32 of the Eugene Charter of 1976 concerning the adoption and effective date of ordinances. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 4808 calling a City election on November 5, 2002, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure adding a new MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Section 32-A to the Eugene Charter of 1976 concerning ordinances adopted by initiative. Mr. Rayor said that he understood the concept involved, but he did not like the idea of creating a third type of ordinance. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Meisner voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to authorize the expenditure of approximately $20,000 for the cost of a Voter's Pamphlet for the November 5, 2002, election. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to authorize the expenditure of not more than $5,000 for public outreach efforts related to the proposed charter amendments for the November 5, 2002 Election. Ms. Bettman asked how much the outreach related to the west Eugene transportation measures cost. Ms. Walston said that it was about $5,000. Ms. Bettman asked how the charter amendments would be presented to the public. Ms. Walston anticipated that the information would include a history of the process and the present information related to both sides of each issue. The City would not take a position on the measures. Mayor Torrey determined from Mr. Klein that the City could not legally take a position on the measures. The City could only use public funds to provide neutral information on the issue. Ms. Taylor questioned how the information provided to the public could be neutral. Which facts were chosen would determine which way the materials were slanted. She was unsure what was being proposed was a valid public expense. Ms. Walston said she proposed the expenditure on the basis of statements made previously by Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor regarding the need for public education on the measures. Mr. Farr said that he was supporting many of the charter amendments being proposed but continued to be concerned about public confusion regarding the number of measures. Mr. Pap6 concurred with the remarks of Mr. Meisner and Mr. Farr. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to amend the motion to double the amount of funding for public outreach to $10,000. Mr. Kelly said the Voter's Pamphlet cannot give a "big picture" view of the issues involved, and he thought the public outreach could provide that needed context. Ms. Taylor asked if the council would have an opportunity to review the public information materials. Mr. Klein said that nothing precluded the council from making comments on the materials. He had continually recommended that the council not be involved with the production MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 7 Work Session of those materials because of the danger of personal liability in the event of a mistake, and the difficulty of coordinating comments from nine different elected officials. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Rayor voting no. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to initiate the process to recruit members for proponent and opponent committees for the Voter's Pamphlet arguments for the November 5, 2002, election. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Speaking to the subject of the proponents committee, Mayor Torrey recommended that the council officers make a recommendation to him about the membership of the committees. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, City Recorder Kate Fieland reported that the City would advertise for members of the opponents committees on August 15. At that time the City would also need the names of the proponents committee members. She confirmed that the proponents committee members could be different for each measure. Each committee must have at least one councilor who voted in support of the measure. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~. moved that the council officers make appointments for the proponents committee for each of the measures referred to the November 5, 2002, elections. Mr. Pap~ said he assumed that councilors were ready to accept appointment. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Fieland that since the council was forwarding the measures to the voters, the authors of the supporting arguments must come from the council. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Farr determined from Ms. Walston that at this point, nine measures were being referred to the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Rayor asked that the council reconsider on an up or down basis the original language of the CCRC regarding the city auditor position. Mayor Torrey determined from Mr. Klein that the council would not be able to take action on a resolution referring the city auditor position to the ballot that day, but could direct staff to return with a resolution on August 12. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to take two minutes to consider the issue of a city auditor. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back at the next meeting a resolution that incorporates the CCRC's recommendation for a city auditor position for potential inclusion in the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Kelly offered as a friendly amendment, which Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor accepted, that the council direct staff to also return with the proposal that combined the original CCRC text and former manager Jim Johnson's suggestions for streamlining that text. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to extend the time for the item by one minute. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner voting no. Mr. Pap~ said he would also like to see text similar to what Mr. Rayor previously proposed. Mr. Pap~ offered as a friendly amendment, which Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor accepted, that the council direct staff to also return with a proposal that incorporated the essence of Mr. Rayor's text. Mr. Kelly determined that the friendly amendment would mean staff would return with three different resolutions: 1) the CCRC proposal, 2) the combined proposal, and 3) Mr. Rayor's proposal. Ms. Nathanson indicated she would oppose anything related to the city auditor proposal because of the Budget Committee's allocation of funding to a performance auditing project in fiscal year 2003. She thought the motion too rushed. The motion failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting yes. B.WORK SESSION: Courthouse District Concept Plan Nan Laurence, Project Manager, was present for the item. Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle, Public Works Director Kurt Corey, Planning Division Manager Jan Childs, and Dave Reinhard and Tom Larsen of the Public Works Department Transportation Division were also present. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the draft Courthouse District concept Plan, with a revision to delete the reference to the arena on page 11 and add a sentence to the bottom of page 12 that would read as MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 9 Work Session follows: "The University of Oregon is currently engaged in a feasibility study for a new basketball arena. Based on the outcome of that study and further action by the City Council, an arena may be considered as an appropriate use within the courthouse district." Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the motion to modify the plan diagrams on page 6, 8, and 11 to remove the specific road drawn north of the tracks between 5th Avenue and the Riverfront Research Park and the specific shading of "residential/mixed use" north of the tracks, and replace them with a legend that says "riverfront area development and street function and locations are to be determined, based on the principles on pp 13-14." Mr. Kelly said that the amendment did not preclude development north of the tracks, but made the plan diagram consistent with the text. Ms. Taylor asked Ms. Laurence if the courthouse construction plan would be impacted if the council did not adopt the concept plan today. Ms. Laurence said no. Ms. Taylor said she thought the council was rushing unnecessarily to adopt the plan. She did not think the process had been adequately publicized, and the public was not aware of the proposal to extend 6th Avenue to parallel the railroad tracks. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor that the project was on an unnecessarily fast time line. She indicated support for the amendment as being more consistent with discussions held by the Planning Commission + 3 regarding the conceptual nature of development north of the tracks. Mr. Meisner confirmed with Ms. Laurence that the amendment would not preclude development north of the tracks. He indicated support for the amendment. Ms. Nathanson said she would support the amendment with the understanding that the principles mentioned on page 13 were still endorsed by the council. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's remarks, Ms. Nathanson said that slowing the plan adoption process may not stop the construction of the courthouse, but it could impede collaborative efforts between the City, the federal government, and other State and local agencies. Mr. Rayor supported the amendment for the reasons stated by Mr. Kelly. He believed that it would be premature to identify development north of the tracks without further study and analysis. Mr. Pap~ opposed the amendment. He said that people need to understand that there is development anticipated and he thought the schematic did that well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 10 Work Session Mayor Torrey said as long as the record was clear that it was the council's intent that development would be allowed north of the tracks, he supported the amendment. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Rayor, called the question. The motion to cease debate passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The amendment passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to modify the fifth bullet on page 27 to add the following [italicized text added]: "Some reduction in traffic on Broadway, resulting in the removal of at least one lane of traffic, thus providing an opportunity..." Mr. Kelly said that the amendment spoke to the design of Broadway and Ms. Laurence had indicated comfort with it. He said that the amendment would result in a more pedestrian-friendly street. Ms. Taylor said she was inclined to vote against all the amendments because she thought it would make it easier for the council to proceed with adoption of the concept plan. Ms. Bettman supported the amendment, saying that it committed the City to the promise it made from the outset to diminish the right-of-way as the tradeoff for extending the State highway through the property. Mr. Meisner asked if staff found the amendment acceptable. Ms. Laurence said yes, with the understanding the City still has to work through the design issues with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Mr. Reinhard concurred. Ms. Nathanson opposed the amendment because it was too specific and tied the City's hands to a promise it could not yet keep. The City had to work with ODOT on the final street design, and she preferred to leave the text more general because of that. Mr. Farr agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the amendment was overly specific. Mr. Pap~ said he would also oppose the amendment because it meant the removal of one lane that could not be restored without council approval. Mayor Torrey indicated he would oppose the amendment if the vote was a tie. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Farr, called the question. The motion to cease debate passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Rayor voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition, and the amendment failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the plan by adding the following sentence before the last sentence of last paragraph on page 14: "Development or redevelopment proposals that provide adaptive reuse of the primary historic structures will be encouraged by the City; demolition of the primary historic structures would be discouraged." Mr. Kelly acknowledged that a historic preservation plan would be premature at this time, and that the City did not control most of the potentially historic properties in question. At this time, the plan included no text related to use of the historic structures in the vicinity of the courthouse development site. He thought the inclusion of the sentence would allow staff to begin examination of how historic preservation might occur in the area. Mr. Kelly suggested that failure to adopt his amendment was a statement that Eugene had a past but did not care about it. Ms. Taylor did not think the amendment strong enough to accomplish anything, although it might be better than nothing. She reiterated that more discussion by the general public about this and other topics was needed before anything more happened. Ms. Bettman said the amendment gave the City an opportunity to preserve unique structures by allowing for an examination of historic preservation approaches in the area. She said that much of the public testimony related to historic preservation. Mr. Meisner opposed the amendment. Ms. Nathanson said the plan was not silent on the topic of historic properties. There were no specific mandates in the plan because the potentially historic structures in question were privately owned. She asked what it meant to encourage preservation; did it mean the City would expend staff to proactively pursue historic preservation to the possible detriment of other important planning and development activities? Mr. Farr agreed with the intent of the amendment to preserve as much of historic Eugene as possible. He asked if the historic structures had been designated. Mr. Carlson said none were designated. Mr. Farr asked if there was a process in place to do so. Ms. Laurence said that the structures had not been determined to be of such merit that they could be designated. Only one structure was eligible for listing on the National Register, and that was the Agripac general office, which was owned by the City. Mr. Farr indicated opposition to the amendment. Mr. Rayor thought the amendment added value to the plan. Mayor Torrey asked how the amendment would impact the demolition Request for Proposals. Mr. Carlson said it would not. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 12 Work Session Mr. Pap~ suggested that what was historic was a matter of perception. He was concerned that the development of the district not be held up by concern about structures that might or might not be historic. He preferred to identify a historic area and focus on and preserve that area. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Rayor, called for the question. The motion to cease debate passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Pap~ voting no; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Rayor voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the amendment on the condition it did not affect the demolition contract, and the amendment passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend Millrace principle #2 on page 20 to state that part of the principle is to provide that pedestrians can walk along the edge of a water feature from Broadway and Mill Street to the river. Mr. Kelly said he was careful to use the phrase "a water feature" in order not to presuppose the nature of the Millrace. He was merely attempting to codify as a principle what was shown in the diagram; that was, whatever form the Millrace took, a person would be able to walk along it from Broadway and Mill Street to the river. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the amendment. Ms. Bettman supported the amendment as truth in advertising. She said the Millrace was key to the project and to completely minimize the feature was a mistake. Mr. Meisner opposed the amendment because of its mandate for absolute continuity. He said that the Planning Commission + 3 had discussed the need for flexibility in the Millrace's width and character, and in terms of the fact it could at some point flow through a building. Ms. Nathanson agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. Mr. Fart said he liked the idea in concept but shared Mr. Meisner's concerns. Mr. Pap~ said he resented the council attempting to remove the detail of the plans away from those better suited than the council to develop those details. He concurred with Mr. Meisner for the reasons stated, and suggested that safety could also be an issue dependent on the details of the design. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Rayor voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the amendment, and the amendment failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 13 Work Session Mr. Kelly thanked the council for considering his amendments, and expressed frustration he was unable to get assistance from staff two weeks ago to improve them. He said that the council had been unwilling to codify a reduction in the number of lanes on Broadway as speculative, even though it had no problem codifying that 6th Avenue would be two lanes. He was appalled that the council was not willing to guarantee that people could walk along the length of the Millrace. Mr. Kelly could not support the plan as a result. Ms. Taylor said that to be truly democratic, the City should allow for more time to let those without a vested interest provide input into the concept plan. She called for a broad public process. She was opposed to the extension of 6th Avenue and said it will serve as another barrier to the river. She said that concerns about the Millrace and historic preservation were also relevant to her opposition. Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the concept plan because of the 6th Avenue extension. The City would decrease the value of its own property by enveloping it with two State highways. She questioned how residential development could be accomplished successfully next to a State highway. Ms. Bettman said that it was possible the City could see an extension of both 6th and 7th avenues or a wider 6th Avenue in light of the lack of a firm commitment from ODOT. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He noted that the Planning Commission + 3 voted not to consider an arena in the courthouse area. However, he did not object to the language being added because it allowed for exploration of the option with the acknowledgment that other sites were being considered. He hoped that the University of Oregon considered building a new arena downtown. Mr. Meisner commended the work done by staff, in particular Ms. Laurence. Ms. Nathanson also supported the motion, saying the planning process included a wide variety of individuals with a broad range of expertise. She supported the concept plan because of its support for promoting new connections between downtown, the river, and the university, increased access to the river, the incorporation of the Millrace, and a new entrance to downtown. The plan created a new neighborhood with one very exciting building already proposed. She hoped there was more to come, and that the plan made such development feasible. Mr. Farr commended staff for developing text that kept the arena concept alive without locking it in. He wished the council would avoid leveling criticism at staff at the council meeting table. He apologized to staff. Mr. Farr reminded Ms. Taylor that the United States was a republic, not a democracy. Mr. Rayor supported the plan. He said that the key to the plan was the road design, which he thought facilitated traffic movement through the area. Mr. Rayor said he did not think the site appropriate for an arena. Mr. Papd also supported the plan. Speaking to Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly's comments, Mr. Papd said part of democracy was compromise, and noted that two of Mr. Kelly's amendments had been adopted by the council. He suggested that the other two could be informally incorporated into the plan. Mr. Papd said that the area in question was a very difficult area to plan for. He determined from Mr. Carlson that the recommended action regarding the arena was consistent with what the University of Oregon was asking the council to do. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 14 Work Session Mayor Torrey thanked the councilors who served on the Planning Commission + 3. He thought the plan a good outcome for the community. Ms. Taylor said that the concept plan would have long-range impacts on the City and it was ridiculous to rush it through. She said that the City did not have all the answers yet. She agreed that staff did a good job, but she did not think it was the final job. She pointed out that experts in the same fields had different opinions about the same issues. Many of those people had not yet had a chance to make comments on the concept plan. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Pap~ that democracy was a matter of compromise and said he put forward his amendments in that spirit. However, he would be "puzzled for a long time" why, when the Millrace was to be a central part of the plan, the council was unable to support the concept of a walkable Millrace. In response to Mr. Kelly, Ms. Nathanson noted her long-time interest in the Millrace and her support of the concept of the Millrace. However, she did not know that a contiguous Millrace from the Broadway intersection to the Willamette River could be achieved. Her concerns about Mr. Kelly's amendment was focused on its specificity. Mr. Fart said that the planning process had been relatively lengthy with many opportunities for public input. He pointed out that the council was adopting a concept plan with a great deal of flexibility. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's concerns about the specificity of Mr. Kelly's amendment. Mr. Rayor thanked the General Services Administration, the University of Oregon, and ODOT. Referring to the public input received, Ms. Bettman said that she spoke to people who believed that their input about the plan was offered in vain. There was a community and council vision for the area, but what the council had before it was a new road project. That would dictate everything that happened in and around the site. She anticipated that the development patterns that resulted would resemble the development that typically bordered a State highway. The main motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare scoping for implementation of key next steps, including time lines and budget requirements, and incorporate the concept plan as part of the forthcoming Downtown Plan update. Mr. Kelly thanked staff and the Planning Commission + 3 for their hard work on the concept plan. He thought it contained much good work, but believed that the vision and chance for innovation had been taken out of it, which disappointed him. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 15 Work Session James R. Carlson City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 16 Work Session