Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: January 22, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2A 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 13, 2006, City Council Meeting, November 27, 2006, City Council Meeting, December 11, 2006, Work Session, and December 12, 2006, Joint Elected Officials’ Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. November 13, 2006, City Council Meeting B. November 27, 2006, City Council Meeting C. December 11, 2006, Work Session D. December 12, 2006, Joint Elected Officials’ Meeting 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\M070122\S0701222A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall November 13, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed everyone to the meeting. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - Recognition of Sandy Shaffer Mayor Piercy said the League of Oregon Cities asked members to submit the names of people who had contributed to the health and well-being of their respective communities. City of Eugene representatives submitted the name of Recreation Manager Sandy Shaffer and Ms. Shaffer had been selected to be honored. Mayor Piercy read a certificate of appreciation from Governor Kulongoski. Ms. Shaffer received a round of applause. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Shaffer to explain her position with the City. Ms. Shaffer stated that she was manager for the Sheldon and Amazon centers and that part of the award was due to an initiative taking place in the community from the Lane Coalition for Healthy and Active Youth. She accepted the award on behalf of herself and the coalition. Presentation by Friends of Eugene Public Library - Dale Crawford, President of Board of Directors of the Friends of Eugene Public Library, made the presentation in conjunction with the Friends board and the 300 volunteers who work with the Friends “all year long.” He presented a check for $100,000 to the City for the Public Library. Mayor Piercy thanked him and expressed appreciation for all of the work of the volunteers. The Friends of Eugene Public Library received a round of applause. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting th Eugene Drix , 307-½ East 14 Avenue, member of the West University Neighbors, said there had been a tree behind the Lemon house for 100 years and the tree now had to be taken down. He explained that the house had belonged to Charlotte Lemon, who had been active in the neighborhood until her death at 92. He invited the councilors to attend a potluck and ceremony on behalf of the tree on December 2. Mr. Drix was also concerned about the two holes in the downtown area. He felt they were a great starting point for the community to work together to put something good on those properties. Peter Ferris , Bayview Mobile Home Park, 955 Mill Street, Waldport, reviewed the talking points on his signed submittal, entitled the Petition for a Moratorium on Park Closures in Eugene. He asked that the council consider the proposed moratorium on mobile home park closures while it considered passing an ordinance that would protect mobile home residents. He said the mobile home community wanted this to occur before anyone could take away the mobile home park lands from them. He asserted that there were 1,500 people in Bend and in the Portland area that would have liked to have had a proactive city council in this regard. He believed that something similar to the moratorium the City enacted on condominium conversions in 1979 could be put in place. He related that St. Vincent DePaul had data that it cost $150,000 to reconstruct a lost affordable housing situation. He hoped the City would pass an ordinance similar to the one passed in Wilsonville. He stressed that an action taken by Eugene would have tremen- dous influence statewide given that Eugene was the second largest city in Oregon. Libby Sherman , 1475 Green Acres Road, Space #31, related that she was a “baby boomer.” She retired from 36 years of flying as a flight attendant, but had lost her pension because the major airline she worked for filed for bankruptcy. She found some financial balance in her life by living in a mobile/manufactured home park in Eugene. She averred that mobile home parks were not just for the elderly, disabled, or people without families. Rather, she said more people were finding that the parks offer communities of caring people who help each other. She loved her mobile home park and wanted to work to save the parks. She noted that she cared for her 80-year-old mother in her home and she found that people in her park were supportive and informative. Additionally, she and her mother felt safe in the park. She asked that the council not allow what had happened in Portland to happen here. She asked the council to help preserve and protect the mobile home parks so that people could live without the fear of losing what they had left. David T. Boehm , 1699 North Terry Street, Space #182, stated that he had retired at the age of 76-½. He worked to that age so that he could pay for his house, pay for his carport, pay for his new roof, and pay for the refrigeration and heating unit. He was now retired with only an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) that he had put away and Social Security. He said if he was forced to move he would have to drain his IRA and eventually would not have enough money for food. He stressed that he was just one of many people on fixed incomes who could not afford to move. Jerry A. Harden , Briarwood Mobile Home Park, 1400 Candlelight Drive Space, #224, averred that this was not a political issue; rather, it was an issue of fairness. He and his fellow signers of the petition believed the council would deliberate and come up with the right answer, which would be to declare a moratorium on park closures. He related the story of a friend in a Beaverton mobile home park who felt secure in the mobile home park she lived in one year ago, but was now renting a dilapidated house having been forced to move. He alleged that a “prominent park owner” asserted that every mobile home park was for sale at the right price. He said he was a member of the Lane County committee studying park closures and the committee was far from ready to make recommendations. He cited the two most serious unresolved issues: 1) a lack of vacant spaces to move homes to and how to address this; and 2) no one knew who would pay for an improved compensation package. He underscored that there were not enough vacant spaces in the Eugene/Springfield area to accommodate “even one medium-sized park closure.” He said one MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting proposal called for the developer to pay moving costs in excess of a payment from the State and a counterproposal called for an even split of this cost between the State, the City of Eugene, the developer, and the tenant. He opposed having the homeowner pay “a subsidy” to a developer who caused their eviction. He added that many homes were too old to be moved. He also asked the council to consider what happened to the tenants who did not have thousands of dollars “up front” to pay for moving. He said the inventory of market-rate apartments was limited and the rents were nearly double the cost of park space rent. He noted that St. Vincent DePaul reported a waiting list for affordable housing of more than 400 families and other agencies reported a wait of one to two years. He presented the petition, signed by 976 people. Tom Mitchell , 3355 North Delta Highway, Space #45, asked the council to consider a moratorium on the closure of manufactured home parks in Eugene until adequate protections were put in place for those people who may face eviction from their homes. He stated that he and his wife lived in Eugene for 46 years, the last 8 of which were spent in Lakeridge Manufactured Home Park. He had gathered 136 signatures in 12 days. He attributed the eagerness of people to sign to concerns he and his manufactured park community had about plans for a hospital to be constructed near the River Ridge Golf Course. He noted that the park entrance was directly across from the 11th hole. He said traffic past the park entrance was projected to increase by 60 percent if the hospital was built. He believed that if the City Council approved the hospital’s request to change the zoning the Lakeridge property would become more desirable to developers. He said the manufactured home park residents enjoyed a good relationship with the current owners of the park, but no one could predict the owners’ reaction to a purchase price that could far exceed their investment. He pointed out that one-third of the residents of the park were widows. He added that the double- and triple-wide homes in Lakeridge were not mobile and would be expensive to move, but even if they could be moved there were no parks in the Eugene/Springfield area that could accept significant numbers of these houses. He predicted that with the coming retirement of baby boomers would increase the need for affordable housing. He believed the “wave” of park closures that “started in the Portland area” was moving down the valley toward Eugene. He asked the council to “please be ready with a plan to forestall that wave.” Tonya White , 4785 Skyline Road South, Space #207, Salem, said that she was a former tenant of Emerald Valley Estates. She indicated that two years ago, the 20 residents of the park were given eviction notices just after Thanksgiving. Of the 20 homes, only one homeowner was able to afford to move. She stated that all of the other homeowners were forced to give their homes back to the bank. She explained that it cost between $12,000 and $17,000 to move a home and put it back to the same standard it was when started. She said the one homeowner who was able to move her house had purchased the home with a life insurance policy left from her deceased husband and then spent all of her savings to move her house one mile away. She shared that for her the experience had been devastating as it had for many of her neighbors. She averred that it devastated people’s credit and there was nothing to be done about it, no laws to protect her or her neighbors. She felt they had been dealt with in “a shady manner.” She explained that the home had been her grandfather’s and, as a result of its loss, he was now unable to borrow money to put a roof on the house in which he currently lives. She stressed that this was an affordable housing issue that threatened to put people out on the streets. th Bob Cassidy , 1401 East 27 Avenue, noted that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) wanted to move earlier on the proposed Roosevelt project than it originally planned and that it would save approxi- mately $3.5 million. He personally did not object to EWEB making these kinds of business decisions as they made good business sense. He thought it also made sense for EWEB to “cooperate with the community.” He believed that the collecting of tax money, as suggested by the City Manager, was a good, common-sense business idea, and he had testified to EWEB commissioners in support of the plan. He did MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting not feel that EWEB should become a public service monopoly; rather, EWEB was a part of the community fostered by the City Council. He thought EWEB should function independently rather than subject all decisions to the City Council. He believed, however, that there should be a better way to communicate between the two. He suggested to the EWEB commissioners that they form a standing committee with representatives of the two bodies to meet periodically and foster the exchange of ideas, cooperation, and to work through conflicts. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, said he had gone to the Metropolitan Planning Committee meeting held on the previous Thursday. He expressed his outrage at the cost of a traffic camera project that was part of the implementation of the 2003 Intelligent Transportation Plan for the region. He related that the eight traffic camera installations were slated to cost $800,000. He felt that the reason no one objected was because the money was from the federal Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program funding and was “just taxpayers’ money.” He said he had looked further into the plan and “tallied” the total for the camera project. He alleged that the total was $22 million with another $1 million in software. He wondered why no one had “raised their eyebrows.” He suggested that members of the public should call their councilors and ask them why this money was being spent in that manner. He said he would be back before the council to further report on this matter. James R. Seaberry , 1475 Green Acres Road, Space #162, spoke in support of the proposed one-year moratorium on mobile/manufactured home park closures. He felt one year was insufficient and suggested the moratorium be for seven years. He pointed out that people could work to upgrade the mobile home parks and make them better places. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, thanked staff “for wrangling over how people can get paperwork to” the council. He looked forward to being able to “finalize” that so he could provide the council with “the right documents” so that councilors could understand “the problems with the planning.” He alleged that the University of Oregon was using money from the sale of Westmoreland student housing to purchase the “Joe Romania site” and would use this to “help facilitate mixed-use development on Franklin and the pie-in-the- sky basketball arena.” Mr. Vishanoff felt the borders of the Walnut Node had been “drawn up in a cookie cutter fashion.” He suggested the City “go to Salem” and ask for “more free money” in order to study the historic preservation of the Fairmount Neighborhood. He noted that a historic review of the River Road/Santa Clara Neighbor- hood had been undertaken and some of the borders of proposed mixed-use areas had been altered as a result. He felt this was a good idea because it caused less animosity from the neighbors. He reiterated that the City should ask the State for money to conduct such a study of the Fairmount area. Additionally, he opined that the butterfly lot should “get a public hearing” before it was sold. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. Councilor Kelly thanked everyone who took the time to come down. In particular, he wished to thank people for their organized and eloquent remarks on the mobile home park situation. He averred that nothing was more fundamental than food and shelter. He said society and government did much to protect the roof over peoples’ heads. He thought there were likely many layers of legal complexity surrounding this issue and thought a work session for the councilors was in order. City Manager Taylor asked City Attorney Jerry Lidz to speak to what would have to be done in order to have a productive work session. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting Mr. Lidz stated that the City’s authority to impose a moratorium on mobile home park closures was not entirely clear. He felt the City likely had the authority to regulate such closures, though there was some dispute about that. He said if the council decided to proceed with an ordinance to enact a moratorium it would involve the usual ordinance process. City Manager Taylor stated that the Housing Policy Board (HPB) had a subcommittee that had been working on this. He recommended letting the subcommittee report on its findings. He added that at this point he and the Mayor were looking at meetings toward the end of January for scheduling purposes as the end-of-the-year docket was relatively full. He noted that Councilor Solomon served on the HPB subcom- mittee on mobile home parks and asked her to speak about it. Councilor Solomon stated that the subcommittee was working “eagerly” to bring proposals to the council in early January so that it could keep the process moving forward and provide the protections that the tenants deserve in the event of a mobile home park closure. Councilor Kelly thanked Councilor Solomon for her work on this issue. Councilor Ortiz echoed Councilor Kelly’s thanks and also thanked everyone who had testified. She stressed that this issue was very important to her constituents as there were several mobile home parks in her ward. Also, the issue of homelessness was very important to her. She said she was working on the initiative to end homelessness in ten years and stressed the importance of trying not to have more homeless people. Councilor Taylor called it an urgent matter and said the council should do whatever it could as quickly as it could as it was important to prevent homelessness. Councilor Papé thanked everyone who came down to testify. He concurred with Mr. Drix regarding the two holes downtown. He said the City needed to find some good private investment in order to make them into “two wholes.” Councilor Papé also agreed with Mr. Cassidy that the council needed to improve relations with the EWEB commissioners. Regarding mobile home parks, Councilor Papé averred that the real solution needed to happen at the State level. He wondered if this was part of the Council Committee for Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) agenda. City Manager Taylor reminded him that it had been one of the amendments to the legislative statement the council passed. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the work of Mr. Ferris and Mr. Harden, as they had worked on the mobile home park issue for a long time. She encouraged them to persevere. She noted that people from the Falconwood Park had come to the most recent Mayor’s “One-On-One” talk and she and Councilor Papé encouraged them to come to the council meeting. She felt this was a venue to increase public awareness. She also wanted them to know that bringing something to the attention of elected officials helped to further one’s cause. She said while this did not mean that the problem was solved at this point, it did mean that they had “gotten [the council] moving” on the issue. City Manager Taylor stated that he would be at the League of Oregon Cities meeting on November 17 and one of the most important subjects of discussion was to be the league’s legislative agenda. People with MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting expertise on the issue were slated to participate. Mayor Piercy added that Mayor Leehan from Wilsonville intended to be there. She noted that Wilsonville was working on this issue as well. Councilor Papé declared that nothing happened at the legislative level without passion behind it. He commended the speakers for their ability to passionately articulate their situation. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - September 25, 2006, City Council Meeting - October 9, 2006, Work Session - October 9, 2006, City Council Meeting - October 16, 2006, Work Session - October 16, 2006, City Council Meeting - October 23, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4891 Endorsing the Lane County Food Policy Council D. Adoption of Resolution 4892 Supporting and Promoting the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Fish and Wildlife Species E. Adoption of Resolution 4893 Publicly Committing the City of Eugene to Sustainable Practices and to Businesses that Produce Sustainable Products and Services Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly said he submitted minutes corrections electronically. Mayor Piercy deemed the correc- tions, without objection, approved. Councilor Bettman asked to pull the minutes from the work session of October 23, 2006, as she requested a correction. The Minutes Recording Section had reviewed the tape of the meeting and had requested the opportunity for Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff member, Tom Schwetz, to review the proposed clarification for accuracy. Councilor Solomon pulled Item D. Councilor Papé pulled Item B. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of the minutes from the work session of October 23, 2006, and Items B and D passed unani- mously, 7:0. Regarding Item B, Councilor Papé asked if there would be time during the EWEB/City Council joint meeting and tour to discuss other issues with the commissioners. Mayor Piercy responded that she met with EWEB President Sandra Bishop and had been in contact via email. She said there would be time for discussion. City Manager Taylor added that 25 minutes had been set aside for discussion. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item B passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon explained that she pulled Item D because she objected to groups coming and asking the City Council to take positions on federal legislation. She could not support the resolution as written. She supported changing the Endangered Species Act so that it contained an acknowledgement or an analysis of economic impacts to local communities. She also wanted to amend it so that it included flexibility in crafting habitat management plans and to create more accountability in measuring successes. Mayor Piercy commented that all three of the resolutions in the Consent Calendar had been vetted by the CCIGR. Councilor Bettman averred that a similar resolution had been supported by the City Councilors and community leaders from all over Oregon. She listed some of the organizations that supported it. She read from a letter sent to Senator Ron Wyden that spoke to the importance of the Endangered Species Act. Councilor Papé ascertained that the CCIGR vote had been unanimous. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. 4. WORK SESSION: Report on Sister City Trip Mayor Piercy stated that the delegation to Irkutsk included City Councilor Taylor, President of the Irkutsk Sister City Committee Galina Groza, David Piercy, and herself. She expressed her appreciation to all of the delegation and to the people of Irkutsk who made them feel so welcome. She felt it was a very important time in the United States to foster friendships with other nations in the world. She commended the people in Irkutsk for taking their growing democracy and the protection of the environment very seriously. Councilor Taylor said every effort had been made to welcome, entertain, and educate the delegation about all aspects of the area including arts, education, and health care. She had been very impressed by the friendship between the sister cities and the work that the sister city committees had done to strengthen the relationship. She felt the Mayor had done a good job of speaking for Eugene. The Mayor provided a narrative as slides from the voyage were being shown. She called it “a lovely and informative trip.” Councilor Papé asked about the status of organized religion at present in Russia. Mayor Piercy replied that people there were very religious and that there was a lot of effort to bring back the churches. Councilor Ortiz wished to acknowledge the Boy Scout troop in attendance at the council meeting and welcomed them. Mayor Piercy said the people of Irkutsk wanted to show the delegation from Eugene all of the progress that had been made there. They also made four requests of the City of Eugene: they wanted to rejuvenate their Rotary contact and visits, they wanted a stronger relationship between their technical university and the University of Oregon, particularly in the areas of urban planning and architecture, they asked that local children participate in the international children’s art shows of Irkutsk, and that they would like to have more educational exchanges. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor expressed gratitude for the Sister City committee and especially to Ms. Groza for keeping the relationship with Irkutsk going. She also thanked Council, Public and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston for her help in preparing and facilitating the trip. She had been impressed by how much work the people in Irkutsk had done to entertain and inform the delegation from Eugene. Mayor Piercy echoed Councilor Taylor’s last comment. She said they would be joined at dinner by experts in the areas they had visited during the day so that they could continue the day’s conversation. Councilor Taylor added that the food had been very good and very plentiful. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall November 27, 2006 7:30 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 regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. Ed Singer, 4160 Eddystone Place, indicated that he was a resident of the Santa Clara area. He said with the 1998 parks and open space bond measure, the City promised to purchase land for a community park in Santa Clara and eight years later the land had still not been acquired. He said the City’s promotion for the 2006 parks bond measure again promised to purchase land for a community park in Santa Clara. He urged the council to do whatever was necessary to purchase property as soon as possible before all sufficiently sized parcels were gone. Reverend William Winget, 4501 Franklin Boulevard, Space 2, Springfield, asked whether Eugene Police Department and SWAT team personnel were drug-tested. He said that people in the community were held accountable for their actions and police officers with weapons who were profiling people and looking for hazardous situations should be drug-tested. He stated he had not been able to get the City to regard him as a patient with a medical marijuana card instead of a criminal, regardless of what he had done in the past. He felt the counterculture in the community had been overlooked because its members were not black, gay, or Latinos. He said the City accepted their money but not their ideas and standards for accountability. He looked forward to seeing action on police accountability. Gary Heldt, 3477 Onyx Street, said he was not in town for the public hearing on the road fee and realized the record was closed, but wanted to comment even though it would not go into the record. He said the major issue was the amount of revenue to be generated, which was larger than the Library levy. He thought it should be subjected to a public vote. His position was that two-thirds of the funding should come from a gas tax and the other third should ideally be a general obligation (GO) bond situation for project-specific reconstructions. He said the second choice would be a road fee. He opined that the proposed fee was a regressive tax that hit residents who seldom drove at the same rate as residents with multiple SUVs. Mr. Heldt urged the council to consider doubling the gas tax, perhaps to nine cents a gallon, which would have minimal impact on consumers, would capture contributions from tourists and others passing through the community, and would provide a sufficiently stable funding source. He encouraged the City to pressure MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting the State to consider a statewide gas tax increase in the name of combating global warming and providing road maintenance money; in the meantime local control in the form of GO bonds for major capital reconstruction projects should be the approached along with doubling the current gas tax. He noted that Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was opposed to collecting the fee for the City and it would be expensive for the City to create its own collection system. He hoped the council would consider a more progressive approach. th Drix, 307-½ East 14 Avenue, said Eugene was a great community and he encouraged all residents to connect and find ways to help enlighten themselves. He observed that there were two holes in the middle of town and suggested filling them with something the community needed. He was not certain what that might be but urged residents to offer suggestions. He announced that a 100-year-old tree in his neighborhood would be trimmed on December 2, and felt the community should thank it for its years of shade and service to the neighborhood by cutting it down and creating things from the wood and planting a new tree. The tree was named for Charlotte Lemon, an early community leader. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, urged the City not to sell the McNail-Riley House as the community was lacking in meeting spaces and the property should not be sold in retaliation against Jefferson-Westside Neighbors. He said the matter should be referred to a public hearing to avoid a precedent of selling things off quietly. He said the council should also encourage the 4J School District to hold a public hearing on the sale of Civic Stadium as there was strong community support for the facility. He remarked that purchase of the EWEB property by the City would have major ramifications and it would be better to have a non-profit manage development while the council focused on fixing the core of downtown first. He informed the council of a number of Internet sites with interesting information related to life sciences. th Paul Conte, 1461 West 10 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson-Westside Neighbors, shared additional positive developments on efforts to further the effective approaches to sensible compact growth. He said that Terri Harding, who had joined the Planning and Development Department to implement the council’s direction on infill compatibility standards and opportunity siting, recently joined the neighborhood association’s co-chairs for a walking tour of the neighborhood and a discussion of resident concerns and the potential for appropriate projects with the right locations and designs. He said an informal gathering of leaders from four neighborhoods experiencing some of the most severe impacts from poorly planned infill development would meet with the new interim Planning Director Lisa Gardner to share visions, concerns, and ideas for good solutions. He said the neighborhood association became aware of plans to sell the McNail-Riley House and would keep the council informed. He hoped the house would remain a community asset. th Paul Nicholson, 1855 East 18 Avenue, urged the council not to impose a residential property tax to fund road maintenance, as it was inconsistent with the council’s recent commitment to combating global warming. He noted that it would socialize the cost of driving and lower the bar encouraging single- occupancy vehicle transportation. He said there were better alternatives, such as a commuter tax on people who worked but did not live in Eugene or a gas tax, which was the preferred approach. He said imposing a property tax should include commercial and industrial destinations that did not pay any part of the gas tax incurred by employees and customers driving to those locations. He hoped the council would back away from an extremely unpopular proposal and adopt an approach consistent with the environmental principles many of the council supported. Mayor Piercy invited comments and questions from councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Papé raised a point of order about disposition of the two pieces of testimony related to the transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) when the record had been closed. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said the issue before the council was adoption or non-adoption of the TSMF; it was not a quasi-judicial matter and there was no record so the council was open for comments. Councilor Kelly thanked those who spoke. He asked about the staff response to an inquiry about the status of the McNail-Riley House and was concerned about any definitive action being taken without the council having a chance to discuss the matter. City Manager Dennis Taylor said the information would be in the Thursday agenda packet and he agreed that no action should occur without the council’s involvement. Councilor Papé thanked Mr. Singer for his remarks regarding a Santa Clara community park and said the City did plan to acquire property for that park in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Councilor Taylor also expressed her concern about status of the McNail-Riley House. Councilor Bettman thanked those who spoke and informed Rev. Winget that the new police auditor had been hired and an enabling ordinance for the Auditor’s Office would be considered by the council on December 11 following a public hearing. She anticipated that the office would be able to accept complaints and provide service to the community by mid- to late-January 2007. Regarding the McNail-Riley House, she was astounded that the City would consider selling it because it was part of an agreement between the City and adjacent neighborhoods related to the Lincoln School to provide the house for a community meeting place in perpetuity. She thought that selling the property would breach that agreement. Mayor Piercy thanked all who spoke and assured the public that no decision would be made about Civic Stadium without a public hearing. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - October 11, 2006, Work Session - October 18, 2006, Workshop - October 23, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4892 Concerning the City’s Historic Loan Program; Repealing Resolution No. 3440; Adopting a New Historic Loan Program; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly said he had submitted a minutes correction electronically. Councilor Taylor said she had submitted a minutes correction. Councilor Bettman said she had electronically submitted minutes corrections. She pulled Item B. Councilor Papé pulled Item C. Mayor Piercy deemed the minutes corrections, without objection, approved. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting Roll call vote, the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item B and Item C passed, 8:0. Regarding Item B, Councilor Bettman stated that the poll on her request for a work session on reconsidering an income tax for education and dedicated to the classroom had four councilors requesting the work session but it was not on the tentative agenda. She asked if that was an oversight. City Manager Taylor said that he and Mayor Piercy had been trying to coordinate a meeting with representatives of the two school boards and school districts as they had expressed interest in participating with the council. Councilor Bettman said considerable background information on the funding mechanism was available as a result of work done for the local option levy. She said the work session should be scheduled in accordance with council procedures and school district representatives invited to attend; once council direction was clear, there could be a strategizing session with the districts. City Manager Taylor said a date for the work session would be set in January or February 2007 and stakeholders informed. Mayor Piercy said the work session had not been scheduled because she and the city manager thought it might be useful for the council to discuss funding approaches with the districts to better inform what was brought to the council at the work session. Councilor Kelly said he understood the desirability of collaborating with the education partners but was bothered that the rule that a work session would be scheduled on the tentative agenda within a week of a successful poll had not been followed. City Manager Taylor commented that the council had discussed the concept of a workshop, which would be a more collaborative process involving stakeholders. He said that was the approach he and Mayor Piercy had been taking but he would move to immediately schedule the work session. Councilor Bettman asked that she be kept informed in the future if there was a delay in scheduling a work session. Roll call vote; Consent Agenda Item B, approval of Tentative Working Agenda, passed, 8:0. Regarding Item C, Councilor Papé acknowledged that the City’s Historic Loan Program had done a good job of ensuring that properties met the necessary historic criteria, but it was also important to determine if the loan recipients were credit-worthy. He asked if there were specific rules for determining who could qualify for a loan and the amount of the loan. His concern was with consistency of the City’s credit- worthy standards. Historic Preservation Program manager Ken Guzowski said the loan program was consistent with standards for loan applicants established by the Development Division. Councilor Papé asked if the standards were in writing. Loan Analyst Amanda Nobel said an applicant’s cash flow was analyzed to determine if there was a debt coverage ratio of 1.0 or higher. She said the applicant’s credit report was reviewed and all financial information was compiled into a credit report to be reviewed by an advisory committee that made the final decision. Councilor Papé asked if one year the advisory committee could vote for someone with a certain standard and in three years vote down someone with the same standard because of personnel changes. Ms. Nobel said she had not seen any deviation from established standards in the loan program; decisions were based on a compilation of the applicant’s character, collateral and cash flow. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Papé suggested that credit worthiness standards be developed and written down so that all applicants were evaluated in the same way. Roll call vote; Consent Agenda Item C, adoption of Resolution 4829 concerning the City’s Historic Loan Program; repealing Resolution No. 3440; adopting a new His- toric Loan Program; and providing an effective date, passed, 8:0. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Transportation System Maintenance Fees (TSMF) and Adding Sections 7.750 through 7.790 to the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4931, an ordinance concerning a Transportation System Main- tenance Fee. Councilor Bettman stated that with the motion on the table there were at least ten amendments to be considered; that would be a waste of time if there was no support to adopt the ultimate ordinance. She suggested withdrawing the motion on the table and putting in place a motion to not move the ordinance forward so that if there was no support for the ordinance it would go away and the amendments would not need to be considered. Mayor Piercy suggested taking up Councilor Taylor’s motions first as they would either table the motion or return the ordinance to a work session for further refinement. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to table the motion to adopt the TSMF ordinance. Councilor Kelly pointed out that an item could be tabled to later in the meeting while the alternative motions were discussed and then removed from the table for further consideration. Councilor Bettman questioned why time should be spent discussing the amendments if there was intent to remove the item from the table later in the meeting, requiring consideration of all the amendments again. Roll call vote, the vote to table the motion to adopt the TSMF ordinance was a tie, 4:4; councilors Bettman, Kelly, Pryor, and Taylor voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Poling, Solomon and Papé voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in op- position and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the main motion to add a new subsection (3) to section 7.760 of the ordinance as follows: “As long as the TSMF is collected, the percentage of all other transportation revenue that is allocated to operations, maintenance, and preservation on the effective date of this ordinance shall continue to be allocated for those purposes at the same percentage.” Speaking to her motion, Councilor Bettman stated that currently the City had dedicated funding for operations, maintenance, and preservation (OMP) from system development charges (SDC) reimbursement fees, some road funds and other sources. She said her intent was that the percentage of those moneys from existing transportation revenues should stay dedicated to OMP. She did not want TSMF revenues to MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting displace those funds so they could be used for other purposes. She said the reason it was a percentage instead of a number was because transportation funding overall with inflation would increase and she wanted the percentage dedicated to OMP to remain the same. Councilor Kelly indicated that he strongly supported the idea of not backfilling other things because the TSMF was in place. He asked if there was potential for a legal problem as certain funds were statutorily earmarked and a large appropriation for a specific improvement project would skew the percentages and make it mathematically impossible to comply. Public Works Director Kurt Corey replied that if the intent was to ensure existing resources were allocated in the same way he did not see a problem. Mr. Lidz said that without knowing all of the funding sources in the year in which the ordinance would take effect it would be difficult to determine the impact. He said if there were no current earmarks and if the purpose was to maintain the same percentage of the current group of funds he saw no problem. Councilor Kelly withdrew his concern as the ordinance spoke to percentages as of the effective date of the ordinance and if there were earmarks in the future the issue could be revisited with a specific focused amendment to the ordinance at that time. He said he would support the amendment. Councilor Papé said he also supported the essence of the amendment but had concerns similar to those expressed by Councilor Kelly. He asked if General Funds currently went into the transportation system. City Manager Taylor said for the first time the council by policy had authorized a $1.5 million one-time allocation of General Fund money for pavement preservation. Mr. Corey pointed out there was a nominal amount of General Fund money transferred each year to cover activities such as street lighting on the off- street bike paths, transportation planning, and traffic calming that were in the general category of transpor- tation but not eligible for road funds. Councilor Papé was reluctant to take away options from the Budget Committee as the General Fund fluctuated, but demands increased by insisting the same percentage come from the General Fund in the future as it did currently. He asked how short-term or one-time funding would affect the percentages. Mr. Corey responded with the example of current funding received from Lane County through the partnership program, 100 percent of which was allocated to OMP. He said to the extent that funding streams ebbed and flowed, the percentage could remain the same, but the actual dollars would differ. Councilor Papé offered a friendly amendment to exclude General Fund money from the formula. Councilor Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Bettman said that Councilor Papé raised a valid point as she did not want to rule out the opportunity for more funds to be available for OMP but she wanted to assure that funds currently dedicated to OMP would not be replaced with TSMF revenues so the existing revenue could be used for something else. Councilor Bettman restated her motion as follows: Move to amend the main mo- tion to add a new subsection (3) to section 7.760 of the ordinance as follows: “As long as the TSMF is collected at least the same percentage of all current transporta- tion revenue, other than General Fund revenue, that is allocated to OMP on the ef- fective date of this ordinance shall continue to be allocated for those purposes at the same percentage.” Roll call vote, the motion to amend the main motion passed, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend the main motion to delete Section 7.750(2)(a) from the ordinance concerning a transportation system maintenance fee. Councilor Poling stated that his purpose was to prevent TSMF revenues from being used for anything other than curb-to-curb repairs. He was agreeable to a suggestion at an earlier meeting by Councilor Kelly that five percent be dedicated to off-street bike paths, but wanted to remove any possibility of TSMF revenues being used for OMP and improvements; funds should be used strictly for road repairs. Councilor Bettman asked how revenue collected annually would be impacted. Mr. Corey responded that the rate methodology would not be affected but it would create a problem that would not be addressed as part of the strategy and that was the need to fill the $1.5 million gap in the operations and maintenance budget. He said Councilor Poling’s amendment would address the backlog of deferred maintenance but leave unresolved the funding gap in operations and maintenance. Councilor Kelly said he would support an amendment that only deleted the words “and improve” instead of the entire section. He wanted to restrict the TSMF to OMP but not improvement or new streets. He said since the council chose not to address road operations funds with some other budgetary mechanism to resolve the $1.5 million gap, he could not support the amendment. Councilor Papé felt that people wanted the streets repaired and if there could be a sunset at the point when repairs were completed he thought OMP could be funded from a source like the gas tax. He asked if any gas tax revenue was currently used for OMP. Mr. Corey replied that the local option gas tax completely dedicated to capital preservation and had been since its inception. He said the operation and maintenance gap could be addressed through other means, such as an increase to the local gas tax. He said each cent of tax generated about $700,000 annually, so a two-cent increase would close the gap. Councilor Papé remarked that he wanted to see the City use TSMF revenues for repairs, be held account- able, get the job done and then rely on other sources for OMP. He would support the amendment. Councilor Bettman pointed out that Section 7.760(1) stated the fee should not be used for capacity- enhancing street improvements. She believed there was a conflict with the language and definition and one of her amendments would resolve the issue. She would support Councilor Poling’s amendment if the words “and improvements” were removed, but if the TSMF passed she did not want the $1.5 million to be shifted from other General Fund services. Roll call vote, the vote to amend the main motion by deleting Section 7l750(2)(a) from the ordinance concerning a transportation system maintenance fee was a 4:4 tie, with councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor and Papé voting in favor and councilors Bettman, Kelly, Taylor and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in op- position and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Poling asked about the average cost to a taxpayer of GO bonding versus TSMF. Mr. Corey said if there was a $100 million issue to address most of the backlog of repairs the estimated additional cost for a median value homeowner would be approximately $125 annually. He said the TSMF would be about half that amount. Councilor Poling asked how much of GO funds could be used for curb-to-curb work. Financial Services Manager Sue Cutsogeorge replied that use of GO obligation bonds was established by State statute and they MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting were limited to construction and capital improvements; routine maintenance was not eligible. City Manager Taylor said that reconstruction might be eligible but he would need to confer with bond counsel; some portion of preservation and maintenance might also be eligible and that could be researched if the council decided to pursue GO bonding. Councilor Pryor stated that he supported a TSMF but not this TSMF for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the level of consternation, questioning, and uncertainty among councilors. He felt there should be much more discussion of the issue and apologized to those on the council who had been engaged in the TSMF discussion far longer. He wanted more discussion of options such as bonding and a gas tax before supporting a maintenance fee in the current form. He wanted a TSMF that was reasonable, accountable, was supported by the community, and was part of a larger strategy that could solve the $110 million problem, of which half was capital and half maintenance. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to postpone action on the transportation system maintenance fee until the city manager could schedule a work session to consider additions or alterations to the program. Councilor Taylor said she would support the motion. Councilor Kelly said he could support the motion if it charted a new direction such as a work session to consider a mix of GO bond, gas tax, and other options, but as phrased the motion felt like returning to the beginning of the discussion and he could not support it. Councilor Papé remarked that the City had a problem that was getting worse and discussion of solutions had begun in 2000 with the citizen members of the Budget Committee. He said that some action was necessary and any ordinance enacted could always be reviewed, modified, or repealed. He urged immediate action on the concrete solution before the council. Councilor Ortiz said the discussions in 2000 occurred a long time ago and if anything was going to be presented to the voters the council owed it to them to start from “square one” and review all of the options again. She would support the motion for that reason. She was willing to support some part of a TSMF but could wait until new members had joined the council and further discussions occurred. Councilor Bettman said she intended to support the substitute motion to postpone as the proposed ordinance did not reflect the center of the council and had very little community support. She pointed out that both the business community and the “progressive” community were opposed to it and she believed the council should consider some options, including a commuter tax. She thought that any version of the current ordinance that was enacted would be referred to the voters and the council should craft an ordinance that would appeal to the majority of the voters. Councilor Pryor clarified the intent of his motion, which was that there were options that the council had already considered seriously, such as bonding, a gas tax, and TSMF. He hoped the work session would be confined to a combination of those options to address both preservation and operation. Councilor Pryor restated his motion: Move to postpone action on this item and di- rect the city manager to schedule a work session to consider additions or alterations to the funding strategy, including from a mainstream perspective a transportation system maintenance fee, gas tax, and bond. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor indicated she wished to offer a motion to amend Councilor Pryor’s motion to add other options. Councilor Kelly pointed out that while it was acceptable from a parliamentary procedure perspective, it was the council’s practice never to amend amendments. Mayor Piercy agreed that only one amendment at a time should be considered. Councilor Bettman proposed a friendly amendment to add a commuter tax to the list of options to be considered. Councilor Pryor accepted the friendly amendment for purposes of discussing the option at a work session. Councilor Papé said that while he would not be on the council in 2007 to discuss the matter it was his sincere hope that the council would not still be debating the issue four or five years in the future with a $150 million backlog. He challenged the current council and two new councilors to get the job done even though the solution might not be agreeable to everyone. Councilor Solomon said the council had been having the same conversation over and over again. She thought that the council agreed a TSMF had a valid position in the City’s strategy for transportation funding and she did not understand why the council got to the point of making a decision and then backed off. She encouraged the council to take action to include the TSMF as one of the strategies and as Councilor Papé mentioned earlier, it could always be adjusted later to accommodate other options. She hoped that the council would not be starting the discussion over every two years as that would be a disservice to citizens. Councilor Kelly shared Councilor Solomon’s sentiment and thanked her for speaking up. City Manager Taylor noted that the TSMF ordinance before the council was designed in such a way that if the council added to the gas tax or pursued a GO bond or other options, the formula would be adjusted. He said the ordinance did not presume that a TSMF was the only way to deal with the backlog or pavement preservation; it was designed to accommodate new revenue streams or sources as they became available. He said if the ordinance was adopted the council would still be able to consider other options that would have the effect of reducing the amounts assessed for the TSMF. Mayor Piercy clarified that if the council adopted the ordinance a work session on options could still be held. Councilor Taylor stated that the TSMF was an unfair tax and she would never vote for it. She hoped the council could discuss other options such as taxes on parking spaces and commuter taxes. Councilor Bettman remarked that the reason the council had not acted on a TSMF was because the proposal before it was very inequitable and a better proposal was needed. She noted that any revisions to the ordinance after it was adopted would require a public hearing and could take considerable time. She hoped a new proposal was developed that would have broader community support. Roll call vote, the vote on the motion to postpone action on a transportation system maintenance fee was a 4:4 tie, with councilors Pryor, Bettman, Taylor and Ortiz voting in support, and councilors Kelly, Poling, Solomon and Papé voting in oppo- sition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy commented that as much as she wanted to see a TSMF move forward a tie vote was not a good way for that to happen; there needed to be a broader level of agreement and consensus. 4. ACTION: Appointments to the Budget Committee Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint Robert Peters to Position 3 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2006, and ending October 31, 2009. Roll call vote, the motion to appoint Robert Peters passed, 8:0. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint Rick Gates to Position 7 on the Budget Committee to complete the unexpired term of Mike Clark, a term beginning upon appointment and ending on October 31, 2007. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend the motion by substituting the name Rich Gaston for Rick Gates. Councilor Solomon said she supported Rich Gaston for the position. She felt he was exceptionally articulate and was well-versed on the City’s budget; his breadth of experience would be valuable to the Budget Committee. Councilor Bettman stated that she would not support the amendment and would support Mr. Gates’ appointment if the amendment failed. She said there was little diversity of thinking on the Budget Committee as many members were business people. Councilor Pryor said it was a dilemma for him as Mr. Gates lived in Ward 8 and he was always pleased to see Ward 8 residents become involved in committees and other groups. He had met with Mr. Gates and he had many good ideas, although he had only been in the community a short amount of time. He felt that Mr. Gaston had a somewhat better grasp of some of the issues before the Budget Committee; he would work with Mr. Gates to help him become involved in other activities with the City but vote for Mr. Gaston. Councilor Kelly agreed with Councilor Bettman’s statement and indicated he would vote against the amendment in order to support Mr. Gates. He viewed Mr. Gates’ relatively short residency as an asset to bring a fresher outside perspective. He noted that Mr. Gates had quickly become involved in the community and was chair of the City Club’s program committee. Councilor Papé felt both candidates brought good qualifications to the position but thought Mr. Gaston had a longer tenure with the City and broader contacts in the community. He encouraged Mr. Gates’ enthusiasm and continued involvement in the community. He said Mr. Gaston was from Ward 6 and a representative from that ward had not been on the Budget Committee during his service on the council. Councilor Taylor stated she would vote against the substitution as Mr. Gates was better qualified, had already become involved with the City Club, and served on a budget committee in another community. Roll call vote, the motion to substitute the name Rich Gaston for Rick Gates passed, 5:3; councilors Kelly, Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting Role call vote, the motion as amended to appoint Rich Gaston to Position 7 on the Budget Committee passed, 5:0; councilors Kelly, Taylor and Bettman voting in op- position. Mayor Piercy adjourned the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council. Mayor Piercy convened the work session of the Eugene City Council. 5. WORK SESSION: Parks and Open Space for River Road/Santa Clara City Manager Taylor stated that the work session was requested by council vote and introduced Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss to present the item. Ms. Weiss provided a brief summary of acquisition efforts to date regarding a community park in Santa Clara. She said following the council’s 2005 decision to discontinue consideration of the McDougal proposal, staff revised the criteria used to identify suitable park sites in the area and began to look at smaller parcels and sites with multiple property owners. She said many meetings were held with Santa Clara Citizens for Sensible Parks to keep them apprised of the project’s status. She said that letters of interest were originally sent to 11 property owners in the Santa Clara area and followed up with telephone calls but no willing sellers emerged from the process. Ms. Weiss said that acquisition of land for a Santa Clara community park and providing park services in a flexible way was a priority in accordance with the council’s direction. She said further revisions to the criteria focused the search on smaller parcels in the vicinity of Madison Middle School and an additional 13 properties were identified. She said contacts with those owners did not identify any willing sellers. Ms. Weiss said that attention was now focused on two sites, which were the two largest parcels adjacent to Madison School. She used an aerial photograph to illustrate Site A, an 8.5 acre parcel owned by the Farver family and Site B, a 16 acre parcel owned by the MacClay family. She indicated that the parcels had been appraised and purchase offers based on those appraisals made to each property owner in late October. She said formal responses had not been received although there had been numerous conversations with the owners; discussions with the owners would continue in hopes of either acceptance of the City’s offer or a counter-offer. She said staff was also working on acquisition of the East Santa Clara Waterway running directly north from Madison Middle School to Wendover Park and then to the Willamette River. Councilor Papé said he had asked for information on the procedure for using eminent domain to acquire one or both of the properties. Mr. Lidz said an ordinance would be required to condemn real property for a park. Councilor Papé asked if there was time to act before Measure 39 took effect. Mr. Lidz replied that Measure 39 would take effect next week and in his opinion would not apply retroactively, although he was not certain how “retroactive” would be interpreted in terms of the offer process in a condemnation case. He did not think that Measure 39 would apply to the offers already made but would apply to any offers made after its effective date, particularly the requirement that the City pay attorney fees if the City made an offer that was less than the jury found the property to be worth after an eminent domain trial. Councilor Papé asked if Measure 39 could be avoided by an ordinance to condemn. Mr. Lidz said he did not think that would avoid Measure 39. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz asked if the City had made market-value offers. Ms. Weiss replied that offers were based on property appraisals. Councilor Ortiz asked if staff had considered making higher offers to owners. Ms. Weiss said staff would entertain a counter-offer as long as it could be substantiated. Councilor Ortiz stressed the importance of acquiring land soon as suitable sites were disappearing as the area was subdivided and developed. She asked if there had been any contact with the Christianson family. Ms. Weiss said that a meeting had been scheduled. Councilor Poling expressed confusion about a memorandum dated October 30, 2006, from Parks and Open Space Director Johnny Medlin. He asked if the offer to purchase delivered to the Farver family was under the current zoning or future zoning if the City acquired the property and rezoned it. Mr. Medlin said the Farver parcel was outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB) and if the City acquired it there would not be a move to rezone it in the near future; the appraisal and offer were based on the current zoning. Councilor Poling asked if the MacClay parcel had been sold and the City was now working with a different owner. Mr. Medlin said there was a current dispute based on a purchase agreement between the MacClay family and Clyde Beat and staff was not clear about the outcome of that dispute. He said staff was working with both the MacClay family and Mr. Beat to make the City’s interest in purchasing the property known. Councilor Pryor commended staff for its “enormous” efforts to acquire park land in the Santa Clara area. He said the problem was finding a parcel with enough acreage to be suitable for a community park and finding contiguous parcels was even more difficult. He said the process was also going slowly because of the lack of willing sellers and he was appreciative of the work session to update the council. He thought the sites around Madison Middle School were ideal because of the school/park connection and neighbors in the area were helping the City work on the matter. Councilor Bettman asserted that there was no such thing as an unwilling seller; it was just a matter of price. She suggested that staff consider hiring a consultant to assertively negotiate purchase of property. She agreed with Councilor Pryor’s comments about the sites adjacent to Madison Middle School. City Manager Taylor remarked that the City had made its intention clear to all of the owners of parcels of interest and the conversations were ongoing. He remained optimistic that the willing seller approach was the preferred approach, Measure 39 notwithstanding, as it had worked well for the City in assembling park properties. He emphasized the need to confirm that the neighborhood also regarded the sites as suitable for a community park. Councilor Papé concurred with councilors Pryor and Bettman that the parcels represented an excellent community park site. He had attended many neighborhood meetings and felt certain that the neighborhood was supportive of that site. He thought the City should move forward with acquisition and expressed his frustration with lack of progress. Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to direct the city manager to bring back an ordinance to use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire Site A and Site B. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor said both sites appeared to be outside of City limits and the UGB and asked what legal authority the City had to condemn that property. Mr. Lidz said he would research the question. Councilor Ortiz was not certain she could support the motion as she preferred to see the City work with property owners to reach an equitable agreement that would foster better community relationships. She was concerned about the location outside of the UGB and while she understood Councilor Papé’s frustration she thought that ongoing negotiations would result in the right price for those parcels. Council Kelly said he would not support the motion if this was the first discussion of a community park in Santa Clara, but the process had been an ongoing challenge and the City had dealt with the property owners for some time, with the possible exception of Mr. Beat. He was not certain he would vote for an ordinance but did feel that indicating the potential of an eminent domain ordinance, which would still pay fair market value, could cause the property owners to be more willing to negotiate. He said the motion only brought the ordinance back for public hearing and by that time there could be clarification of the UGB question and further communications with the property owners. He would support the motion. Councilor Papé agreed with Councilor Kelly that directing the ordinance to be prepared did not mean the council would use it and that intent could possibly help with negotiations. He reminded the council that the Santa Clara area had been promised a community park in 1998 and it was now 2006. Councilor Poling said he interpreted the motion as a Plan B. Councilor Bettman said she intended to support the motion and the issue of Measure 39 further prompted her support as it brought balance to what she thought was a “jurisdiction-heavy” process. She was alarmed at the extent to which property owners outside of the UGB were holding out in anticipation of the UGB expansion as if that was assured. She looked forward to the public hearing and would support the motion. Councilor Pryor indicated he would support the motion with the clarification of the City’s jurisdiction in the matter and with the acknowledgement that condemnation was a nuclear option to be used very carefully. Roll call vote, the motion to direct the city manager to bring back an ordinance to use eminent domain passed, 8:0. Mayor Piercy referred to the earlier consideration of the TSMF and stressed how seriously she took the decision not to approve a fee. She was committed to expediting efforts to solve the problem of road repair. The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 27, 2006 Page 13 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall December 11, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. 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 announced that Congress approved the transfer of the properties owned by the Bureau of Land Management to the City of Eugene for the new Wetlands Education Center. Mr. Papé arrived. th Mayor Piercy noted the ground breaking for the new WestTown on 8 development on December 15 at 10:30 a.m. Ms. Ortiz noted her recent attendance at the National League of Cities (NLC) in Reno, Nevada, and reported that she attended several breakout sessions. The most interesting was that of keynote speaker Henry Cisneros, who had a comprehensive plan for homelessness. She hoped to get a DVD of the session and share it with the council and community. Another session involved the topic of inclusive community. One of the presenters was from Minneapolis, who shared how the Minneapolis council funded a youth center to ensure that immigrant youth felt included in the community. The tone conveyed by all three presenters was that their communities supported inclusiveness for their immigrant residents. Mr. Poling said he attended the most recent Lane Transit District EmX Steering Committee meeting on December 5, and learned that the Franklin EmX corridor was nearly 99 percent complete, with just a few minor changes to be made. The fourth vehicle recently arrived, the fifth one was on the road, and a sixth was being painted; all six vehicles would be in Lane Transit District’s possession within the next two weeks. Operator training was underway. Mr. Poling said the grand opening and the commencement of service was scheduled for January 4, 2007. He said the committee took a tour of the route, which was very exciting. th The committee also briefly discussed the third EmX corridor, which he thought mislabeled the West 11 corridor and which should be called the west Eugene corridor as it was intended to address traffic problems th in that area, not just on West 11 Avenue. He suggested the labeling could work against it and asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to see if he could raise that issue in the proper setting. City Manager Taylor agreed to do so. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Continuing, Mr. Poling said that Lane Transit District would be doing some preliminary modeling for other possible EmX routes. Work on the Pioneer Parkway/Gateway EmX corridor was also progressing. Ms. Taylor said she also attended the NLC conference. Housing had been a major topic of the conference and Mr. Cisneros’ comments touched on how increasingly working people could not afford to live where they worked. She also attended a mobile workshop on housing for the homeless and viewed Reno’s Homeless Services Campus near downtown, which she found interesting and impressive. Another session was on the topic of gated housing. The presenters dissented on the consequences of gated communities but there was evidence that they were not always workable and liability issues could arise that placed a burden on the municipality in which they were located. There were some things cities could do to guard against those consequences, and Ms. Taylor indicated she would request a work session on the issue. Another conference theme was reuse. She went on a mobile tour of downtown Reno and saw casinos that had been converted to condominiums. Both Reno hospitals were expanding downtown and reusing their existing sites. Both hospitals were also building housing for their nurses. Mr. Kelly noted the recent federal courthouse dedication and thanked the General Services Administration and local federal court staff for the interesting dedication ceremony. He was glad to see an architecturally distinctive building added to Eugene’s downtown. Mr. Kelly noted the City’s one percent for arts ordinance for public buildings, and called the council and public’s attention to a new piece of art related to the train renovation project. He encouraged the council to view the piece, which was installed by artists Betsy Wolfson and David Thompson at the end of Willamette Street in front of the train station. Mr. Kelly thanked local artist Tim Boyden for a driftwood gift that included the saying “Normal is a setting on a washing machine.” Ms. Bettman said that the Eugene Public Library would host the Eugene Youth Ballet for two abbreviated performances of the Nutcracker on December 13 at 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. She said the performances high- lighted local, dedicated, talented students. Ms. Bettman reported that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations held a reception for the local legislative delegation on December 4. She thanked staff members Alex Cuyler, Jessica Cross, and Mary Walston for their assistance in arranging the event and thanked the councilors and legislators who attended. She noted that the City’s Legislative Policy document would be available soon. Ms. Bettman noted community resistance to the idea the west Eugene EmX corridor would move further to th the south than West 11 Avenue, and suggested that the route be designated as the northwest corridor to ththth indicate that 6 Avenue was under consideration as an alternative route, as opposed to 13 or 18 avenues. She understood from the Lane Transit District that those routes were “off the table.” She thought it should be clear what would be included in the study of the area. Mr. Pryor said he found the NLC conference useful and noted his attendance at a session on inclusive leadership and a session on collaborative visioning. He hoped to be able to implement some of the lessons learned from those sessions in Eugene. Mr. Pryor commented that the housing sessions were great and one that focused on downtown redevelopment reinforced to him the need for public-private partnerships and the importance of housing to the revitalization of downtown. He agreed with the quote “people judge the vitality of a community on the vitality of its downtown,” and suggested the council owed it to the community to try to make the community’s downtown as vibrant as it believed its community to be. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Papé concurred with Mr. Kelly about the dedication of the federal courthouse and praised its appear- ance. He said Judge Michael Hogan reminded him of the need for parking in that area of town. Mr. Papé also reported on the NLC conference, concurring with the remarks of Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Taylor with regard to Mr. Cisneros’s remarks and the Homeless Services Campus. He felt that Eugene could learn from what Reno had done in regard to the issue of homelessness. He indicated he would also share information he had received regarding sustainability with City staff. Mr. Papé presented a rock that someone had used to break his car window while he was jogging to meet with Councilor-elect Mike Clark. City Manager Taylor thanked councilors-elect Mike Clark and Alan Zelenka for the work they had done on a variety of City issues prior to taking office in January 2007. He also thanked Mr. Kelly and Mr. Papé for their work during the transition. City Manager Taylor announced the hiring of Acting Fire Chief Randy Groves as the new fire chief of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department. City Manager Taylor reported on a recent executive management team meeting, where the team brought Downtown Languages to demonstrate to the leadership team how to learn languages as one interacted with other citizens speaking different languages, in this case Spanish. He said it was a wonderful session and was a means to give staff the ability to be inclusive in the way it did basic communication when it interacted with all citizens. Mayor Piercy noted City Manager Taylor’s receipt of the City’s Human Rights Award on International Human Rights Day on December 10. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue—City Hall Complex The council was joined by Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker and Associates, who noted the recent decisions made by the council in regard to City Hall and the options before the council. Mayor Piercy asked if the consideration of cost included temporary housing for staff. Mr. Penwell confirmed that those costs were included. Acknowledging that the council had not discussed the concept, Mayor Piercy asked if the cost estimates included the cost of creating park linkages “across the street.” Mr. Penwell said no. Mr. Kelly said that the cost of locating City Hall at the butterfly site would only be 10 percent more than retaining the building on the current site, and he thought the butterfly site had great advantages. The 10 percent in additional costs was a one-time cost. He said that placing the building on the site and eliminating the butterfly lot would do a great deal to enhance downtown and inspire civic pride. The half-block footprint spoke to his values about compact urban development and it would enhance the northwest Park th Block. Mr. Kelly said the streetscape on 7 Avenue would be much improved if the butterfly lot was gone. Mr. Kelly thought the location would generate excitement beyond what the current site would do, which would enhance support for a bond measure. He was not supportive of the staff recommendation to build on the current site, and wanted to move forward with schematic design on the Rock ‘N Rodeo site instead. He said he would not be inclined to hold a fifth workshop at this time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pryor said that Mr. Kelly’s comments were proof of why there was chocolate and vanilla. He thought the current City Hall site was best because it was a full block. He said that ten percent of the total cost was still a considerable amount given the costs involved. Mr. Pryor acknowledged the costs of moving twice but believed it was doable. The increased flexibility that the full block created and the long-term nature of the decision made him support the current site. He thought that issues related to the site, such as the potential it could look underdeveloped, could be addressed. Mr. Pryor did not want to reduce from a full block site to a half-block site, although he recognized the City’s ability to build up. He believed that there were civic improvements that could be made on the butterfly site to make it a more desirable area, particularly if it was folded into the Park Blocks. Mr. Pryor supported the staff recommendation. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the work of the consultants and the process that occurred. Ms. Bettman expressed confusion at the assumption the City would be required to replace the parking that would be lost if it purchased the County’s butterfly parking lot to redevelop as a new city hall. When one bought a house, one did not pay to relocate the family. She asked how that could be justified. Ms. Bettman also asked how many parking spaces were under City Hall now. Mr. Penwell said there were approximately 200, and the City would replace 228 on the butterfly lot. Ms. Bettman suggested that meant only 28 more spaces were needed if the County employed the parking under City Hall. Ms. Bettman asked who would own the parking that the City replaced, and who would maintain it. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s first question, Mr. Penwell said that the proposal did amount to double-paying; however, the butterfly lot was not on the market, and the City had gone to the County seeking the property, which was currently a source of revenue for the County. The replacement of spaces was part of the deal for the County. In regard to the County’s interest in City Hall, he inquired about a straightforward exchange, but the County indicated it did not want the City Hall property because it was encumbered by the building. With regard to who owned the County spots, the County wanted to continue to maintain control of the parking spaces and its staff discussed adding two decks to the Public Service Building lot. He added that staff could “push back” on those points during future negotiations. Mr. Poling recalled that he suggested the council contact all the property owners involved to determine their interest in selling their properties. He thought one of the best reasons not to proceed with the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site was the overall cost difference and the potential it could be even higher. He did not think the City would benefit from the purchase of the butterfly lot. In addition, the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site did not provide the potential for future expansion in the same way the current location did. Mr. Poling said that building on the current site provided an opportunity for a plaza and additional open space. He supported the staff recommendation. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the City’s ability to handle two moves. Ms. Solomon noted her long-time support for building on the existing site and said she continued to hold that view. She said that considering building on a site when the City had no clue as to the property owner’s interest in selling was a waste of time. She said that the 10 percent cost differential was important to the project’s bottom line as well as the City’s ability to build a new police headquarters. Mr. Papé supported the butterfly site. He argued that the costs projected did not include the costs of “organizational turmoil” and inefficiencies related to staff moves. He asserted that the 10 percent cost differential between sites could easily be consumed in two years from “operational inefficiencies related to organizational dispersal.” He asked the council to think about what kind of civic contribution it could make to the community if it built a new city hall on the butterfly lot. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz said the issue for her was what the taxpayers were willing to pay for. She said the direction the council took could influence the voters. She preferred to stay at the current City Hall site because while it could cost money to move, City staff was a “hardy group” and the council was talking about building for the long-term. Ms. Taylor noted her agreement with Mr. Papé’s remarks. She thought there was a value to eliminating the butterfly lot and doing something else with that space. She hoped through getting rid of that lot, the City could do something to enhance the Farmers Market. Ms. Taylor was skeptical about the need for future City Hall expansion as she anticipated that in the future more people would be working from home. Mayor Piercy said she thought she could make a good case for either space, but was persuaded that if the City worked at it, it could find some cost savings related to the butterfly parking lot. She thought that the community needed to be excited about a new City Hall and was persuaded the council had the biggest chance of exciting the public with the butterfly lot. Ms. Bettman continued to be concerned about the parking and how it was configured. She suggested that some of the suppositions in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) were used to minimize the value of selecting the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site and maximize the value of selecting the current City Hall. She thought those were simply assumptions that could be “negotiated away.” If she had to choose between the two sites, she would select the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot site. Ms. Bettman wondered whether the butterfly lot would have been one of the two final sites if anyone had identified the issues related to it earlier. She felt manipulated by staff. She thought that if staff determined the lot was not for sale and would cost extra money, it should have been “off the table” at that point or considered in light of those issues. When the council talked about saving money by building on a City- owned site, there was the Sears site, which was supported by many people at the public forums. Perhaps the council would have taken a closer look at that site, which she preferred to the current City Hall site. She thought the butterfly lot was a good location because it was in a part of town that needed redevelopment. Mr. Kelly responded to concerns about the butterfly site, suggesting that the average voter would consider an $80 million bond measure in the same light as a $90 million bond measure. They were both big measures. Regarding the need for a separate police facility, he pointed out to Ms. Solomon those costs were included in both options so his was an “apples to apples” comparison. Speaking to the suggestion the County was not a willing seller, Mr. Kelly believed that the County was a willing seller. The issue for the County was price. Regarding the potential for future expansion, Mr. Kelly did not think the public would support removing a much-loved park or plaza after a period of time had passed. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Oritz, moved to select the existing City Hall site for use in schematic design. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to substitute the butterfly lot for the existing City Hall site. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the substitute motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor said that there were civic amenities that could be provided in a full block that could not be accommodated in a half block. He said the council was proposing to trade a full block for a half block and to pay $10 million more for it. He did not think it was a good deal from that perspective, and the City would have to do a lot of explaining as to why it was a good deal. Ms. Bettman believed that if the council did not choose a site other than the existing City Hall site, the public would criticize it for spending money on consultants to tell it to rebuild City Hall and put a police station across the street on the basis of that was where the City started. She also thought the public would criticize the council for spending money to move staff to temporary quarters. Mr. Papé thought that some councilors were thinking a bond measure could be offered to the voters within two years; he believed that realistically, the measure was further out in time given that there were other things the voters were interested in, such as street repairs. He felt that within that time period, the City could “find the art of the deal” with the County by offering it things the council had yet to think of. Mr. Cohen clarified that combining the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot would result in a three-quarter block site, with parking underneath. Mayor Piercy said she recently spoke to County Commissioner Bill Dwyer, and she thought it made sense for the council to sit down with the board and discuss how the two bodies could help each other. Speaking to public perception, Ms. Taylor noted that participants in the public forums had indicated a strong preference for the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot. She thought if the council decided to retain the current site, it would give a bad impression. Ms. Ortiz indicated that, although she would prefer the City Hall site, she would support the Rock ‘N Rodeo/butterfly lot because of the input at the public forums. The vote on the amendment to the motion was 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pyror voting no. The vote on the amended motion was 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Establishing a Real Property Value-Added Charge; Adding Sections 2.100, 2.105, 2.110 and 2.115 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending Section 8.0005 of that Code; and Adopting a Severability Clause City Manager Taylor recommended that the council postpone action on such an ordinance and consider forming a work group to “hammer out” the differences parties had about the subject. He also pointed out that the State legislature would meet soon and he would like to have the benefit of the action taken by that body on Ballot Measure 37. Mayor Piercy called the council’s attention to a motion she prepared that spoke to the points made by City Manager Taylor. Ms. Bettman said that in several cases Eugene acted where the State legislature would not, and had set a standard that stimulated discussion and gave urgency to the legislators. She indicated she would offer an amendment to the staff-prepared motion to accept the ordinance with some minor amendments, including a MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 6 Work Session sunset clause in case the legislature should act. She called attention to her amendments, copies of which were provided to the council. Ms. Bettman said that the council had heard from the real estate industry, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, and Rick Duncan of the Planning Commission, who had a Ballot Measure 37 claim against the City. Those individuals had been involved in the issue and were now saying the issue was complex and the City should not act. In the meantime, the City was facing Ballot Measure 37 claims and if it did not have a compensa- tion fund, the council would have to waive its regulations. The City had Planning Commission work items underway that, when put into ordinance form, would create Ballot Measure 37 liabilities. If the council wanted to be able to regulate for condensed growth within the urban growth boundary and fulfill the City’s policies, it must have a compensation fund. She called on the council to show leadership on the issue, noting she had originally requested a work session on the issue more than a year ago. She thought it was time to act. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Klein said if the City Hall property was sold and rezoned and the effect of that was to increase the fair market value of the property, the ordinance would require the owner to pay the City 25 percent of the increase in value. If the City rezoned it, it would have to transfer 25 percent of the increase in value in the compensation fund. He noted that one of Ms. Bettman’s amendments would delay payment until sale. Mr. Papé preferred to wait on the work of the State legislature. He suggested that Ms. Bettman might want to be careful what she asked for since action on the part of Eugene could spur the legislature to take action to restrict what Eugene could do. Mr. Pryor said he did not like Ballot Measure 37 but did not think two wrongs made a right, and he considered the ordinance a wrong approach. He said that he understood Eugene was vulnerable in some areas but he hoped to see that vulnerability addressed by the legislature. Mr. Kelly responded to what was said. He argued that what the council wanted to do with regard to land use would give rise to Ballot Measure 37 claims. He said that the council could do a third bad thing, which was not to do anything, and see its infill standards rendered moot by a series of Ballot Measure 37 claims. The e-mail from 1,000 Friends stated that in an ideal world, Eugene would not have to craft its own response. Mr. Kelly said this was not an ideal world. The legislature was supposed to do something about Ballot Measure 37 but it had yet to act. While he could hope for such action, he had no expectation of it. He noted that Eugene had received four new claims and it needed to start collecting money to pay claims now. Speaking to those who said the City needed to find a better way, Mr. Kelly said no better way had come forth. Ms. Ortiz said a lot of work went into the ordinance and she wanted to honor that effort. When she considered how much it cost to develop, the proposed fee was a problem for her. If the ordinance took less, such as 15 percent of the increase in fair market value, she might be able to support it. However, she thought the proposed fee was an “amazing amount of money” to ask for on top of what the City charged for doing business in the community. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the proposed fee was only 25 percent of the increase in value that the actions of the council gave the property. It was merely “taking back part of what we gave by some action” and only when the benefit was realized, not instantly. She thought it minimal, and demonstrated that at least the council was doing something. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy praised Ms. Bettman and those who worked hard on the concept so that the City had money and did not “roll over” for every claim that came through. She was not opposed to Eugene being first. However, she had a sense that the idea had not “cooked enough.” Mayor Piercy noted that Governor Ted Kulongoski expressed interest in dealing with the concept, as did Representative Floyd Prozanski. She hoped that a work group could be formed to track the work of the legislature and help to develop a more fully informed way to move forward. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Klein what “jeopardy” the City would be in terms of regulating infill and other Planning Commission work plan items if the council postponed action for five months. Mr. Klein said it depended on the schedule those items were on. Most of the “jeopardy” arose from existing regulations not in place prior to the establishment of the State land use system. Ms. Muir did not see any pending commission actions that would give rise to additional Ballot Measure 37 claims. Ms. Bettman encouraged the governor and State legislature to do what they could to remedy the effects of Ballot Measure 37. If they took action, her amendment would ensure the ordinance ceased to exist. In the meanwhile, Ballot Measure 37 was the law and the City needed a revenue source to counter its effects. Speaking to Mr. Pryor’s comments, Ms. Bettman said the fee was based on the average real market value so it would underestimate the benefit that accrued to a property after the City took action, which worked to the benefit of the property owner. In a situation where the appraisal may be above the average, those property owners were likely to appeal and do their own appraisal and they would get a reduction in the fee; when an appraisal was below the average, those property owners would not need to appeal. The result would be that the appraisal would be based on the average and below. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the ordinance be scheduled for a work session following the 2007 legislative session. Ms. Solomon strongly objected to the direction the council was heading. She thought the ordinance needed more work and it would have the same type of unintended consequences as Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to substitute the motion with a motion to di- rect the City Manager to perform no additional work on the real property value-added charge and the ordinance shall not be scheduled for a future council meeting. Mr. Kelly indicated his opposition to the substitute motion because he interpreted it as precluding the council from discussing the issue again. He thought it would be foolhardy for the council, in the face of existing and potential Ballot Measure 37 claims and what he believed to be the community’s desire to continue to do land use planning, to not continue the discussion. Ms. Bettman was glad that Ms. Solomon offered her substitute motion because she thought it very revealing. She said some people who called for delay did not support Ballot Measure 37 and had good intentions, while others calling for delay supported Ballot Measure 37 and just wanted to kill the ordinance and any jurisdictions’ ability to do anything but waive regulations. She considered the motion “an honest example of what some people’s motivations are.” She intended to vote down the substitute motion and amend the Mayor’s motion. Mr. Papé said that some of the personalities that had slowed progress on the implementation of Ballot Measure 37 were not going to be around for the next legislative session, and he wanted to give the legislature one more chance to address the issues. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Poling said the value-added charge was nothing but another tax and he did not support it as he regarded it as double taxation. It would cause an increase in costs of all development and infill, particularly with regard to housing, and those first-time buyers trying to buy a house were already priced out of the market. The fee was going to add to their costs. He pointed out the school districts were also opposed to the ordinance, as were many of the people he spoke to. He supported the motion and said if it did not pass he could not support anything but the original motion. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s comments, Mr. Pryor said he did not suppose to second-guess people’s intentions. He said that many people were concerned about how the fee would affect them. He said that the fee could cost School District 4J any where from $1 million to $1.5 million. He did not think the ordinance needed to be enacted now and said the council could wait and think about it. The council could always bring the ordinance back later. Mr. Kelly said the example of School District 4J had been brought up. The implication was that the City was taking a part of the district’s budget; but instead, it was proposing to take away any increase in value provided by a City action. It was a profit for the district at that point, and 75 percent of the remaining value was new money for the district to do good things with. The other 25 percent did not “send someone to Rio or pay someone’s salary.” He maintained it preserved the City’s ability to do land use planning, maintain the quality of life, and keep up the district’s property values. Mr. Kelly said that he received many e-mails that were generated from the same template that made mention of double taxation. He said that “double taxation” was a great sound bite but it had no policy meaning. He likened complaints made about Social Security in the 1930s with complaints about double taxation. He said the value-added tax was a tax for an entirely different purpose. Ms. Taylor maintained that the council had been thinking about the issue “for years” and it was time to act. She opposed the motion. Ms. Bettman suggested the transportation system maintenance fee was double-taxation given the existence of the property tax and gasoline tax, and yet people still expected their pot holes to be filled. Ms. Bettman said the fee was merely a percentage of the benefit the property owner received. The property owner would also have to pay capital gains taxes and no one called that double-taxation. She pointed out that the affected property owner would pay less in capital gains taxes because of the actions of the City, which reduced the revenues subject to that tax. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the school districts did not pay taxes. The districts would benefit from selling their properties but they had not contributed to the cost of the City’s land use regulations. She said the districts needed to contribute to those costs. She said the City could reduce property values when it took action, and the opposite of that was true. The vote on the substitute motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Papé voting yes, and Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to substitute the motion by moving to adopt the ordinance. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes, and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Papé voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to direct the City Manager to establish a technical work group made up of staff, experts, and community leaders to develop options and a rec- ommendation for how the City of Eugene might best capture value when it grants increased development rights to property owners. The ideal method should be fair, simple, inexpen- sive, and easy to administer. The work of this group shall be completed by March 2007, in time to influence the legislative decision making. Ms. Ortiz did not feel as though the development of the proposed ordinance was a bipartisan effort, and she would like to see people working together more, and for that reason supported the motion. Mr. Kelly was disappointed the council was unwilling to take definitive action on something with an impact on the City’s ability to plan. Every time the council took a step toward a failure to plan, it made the City’s growth management policies more irrelevant. Mr. Kelly indicated he would support the amendment to the motion as preferable to the main motion. He hoped to be, but did not expect to be, pleasantly surprised by the results of the State legislature. Mr. Papé wanted to know the logistics of the proposed work group. Mayor Piercy indicated that no detail was behind the proposal at this point. Mr. Papé indicated support for the motion. Mr. Poling questioned if the predetermined outcome of the work group was a value-added tax, because if it was he could not support the motion. City Manager Taylor anticipated that the work group would discuss how to make the ordinance work in a way that met some of the concerns raised by those who had reviewed the draft ordinance from different perspectives. Mr. Poling asked what would happen if the work group could not agree on the ordinance. Would the manager get another technical work group? He reiterated that if the council was establishing a work group with the specific goal of a value-added tax, he could not support it. Ms. Bettman asked the maker and second of the motion to accept a friendly amendment that should the work group not have a remedy, the ordinance would be reconsidered for adoption. Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Papé agreed to accept the friendly amendment. Mr. Pryor also did not want the motion to presume a value-added tax was the result of the work group effort. He did not want to hamstring the group by overly specific direction. He hoped the spirit of the motion was that the work group would work diligently on options, because he could support it if that was the case. Ms. Ortiz deferred to the mayor, who had asked her to offer the motion. In response, Mayor Piercy said her intent was to see if the value-added tax could be made to work. If other things emerged, then other things emerged. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Ortiz indicated acceptance of amending the motion to include a completion date of March 31, 2007, as a friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon did not support the motion because she could not support the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor thought the motion was a time-delaying measure but she would support it in the absence of anything else. Speaking to Ms. Solomon’s comments, Mr. Kelly thought the spirit behind the motion was that the work group would come back with a recommendation that might or might not take the form of an ordinance. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 10 Work Session pointed out there would be two new councilors at the table and if the majority of the council was not interested, it could dispose of the issue in a work session. The amended motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voted no. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 11, 2006 Page 11 Work Session ATTACHMENT D BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS’ MEETING December 12, 2006 5:30 p.m. Harris Hall Main Floor Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present. Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present. Mayor Kitty Piercy presided for the meeting of the Eugene City Council with Councilors Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Pape, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon and Betty Taylor present. 1. THIRD READING AND CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1238/Amending the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Revise the Goal 5 Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inventory, Redesignate From "Agriculture" to "Sand & Gravel"; Rezone From "E30/Exclusive Farm Use Zone" to "SG/Sand, Gravel & Rock Products Zone" and Allow Mining on 72.31 Acres of Land Pursuant to the Goal 5 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 660-023); and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 05-6151; Delta Property Co.). (NBA & PM 10/18/06 & 11/1/06) Dwyer explained this is a continuation of the proceedings that started on November 1, 2006. He said the purpose of the hearing is to consider and provide an opportunity for all parties to comment on the request for a Metro Plan Amendment that affects 72.3 acres of land. That would change the plan designation from agriculture to sand and gravel and rezone the land from exclusive farm use to sand and gravel and rock products for future mining of the expansion area. He said because this application is for property located within the Eugene Springfield Metro Plan boundary, both the Eugene City Council and the Board of County Commissioners are required to take action. He added because this application involves a Metro Plan amendment and a rezone, the de novo hearing procedures for the rezone will be used to allow new testimony and evidence on the entire application. He said they will use the sign up sheet from the November 1 meeting for those wishing to testify. He indicated that written testimony or evidence may be submitted until the record is closed. Commissioner Dwyer asked if any city councilors or commissioners wished to declare any contact with any person that would constitute an ex parte contact in this matter. There were no ex parte conflicts. Page 1 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Dwyer indicated the staff report was provided at the November 1 meeting and staff from public agencies were allowed to testify. He said that staff have provided a supplemental packet of materials that have been received since the November 1 meeting. Mayor Piercy opened the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene. Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing for the Board of Commissioners. Steve Cornacchia, Eugene, spoke, representing the applicant. He reported that Delta Sand and Gravel have determined that they have approximately 10 years’ inventory of aggregate material at the current site. He added at its current rate of production, they anticipate that in 10 years if not more is added to the site, it will mean the end of Delta Sand and Gravel. He said the company had also determined that, with the exception area, the addition of the 74 acres of the expansion area will extend the life of the company for an additional 15 years. He said the one issue the Eugene Planning Commission did not find in their favor was dust. He said they don’t create dust at the mining operation, but at the crusher at the far extreme corner of the property against the river and Beltline. Cornacchia commented that the neighbors in the area of the gravel pit are convinced Delta Sand and Gravel would make their lives miserable if the application is approved. He said they know they could mine the area without a negative impact on the neighbors. He said they have been mining for 40 years. He noted there are homes across from the gravel pit and they dug across the street from the people within the last 15 years without any issues with LRAPA or any regulator agency. He added they received no complaints. He said that was a demonstration of the commitment the company has to being a good steward, professional and ethical in the treatment of the land, and treatment and interface with its neighbors. Cornacchia recalled in 1996 LCDC went through a process where they established new rules for the Goal 5 resource. He indicated those rules were a direct result of continual arguments and opposition whenever there was an aggregate facility proposed for establishment or expansion. He said people believe it is impossible to have this type of operation and a livable community next door. He said they have been doing it for 40 years and the manner in which they have been doing it rendered a positive product to the community. He said there was a lack of negative impact on existing neighbors. He said the process for this has taken a year and there have been no complaints or issues with LRAPA. He said what is most important for the criteria of the Goal 5 Rule is the definition of minimization of conflicts. Cornacchia explained what they are required to do is to demonstrate there is an adequate and significant resource. He said they are required to identify an impact area within which potential conflicts could be identified. He said they have done that. He said they are to identify the potential impacts that will be within the area. He added following that, they need to demonstrate how those potential impacts will be minimized. He said if they have done that, the rules state the elected officials shall approve if they make an affirmative decision. He said the rules provide a tool to use throughout the consideration Page 2 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T of potential impacts. He said the definition of minimization is if the applicant can demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the applicable regulatory agency, then it has minimized the conflicts. He said in the materials they have, the consultant reports on those potential impacts and the conditions the company would have to meet if they were to approve the matter would mean they would have to meet the requirements of each of the regulatory agencies. He indicated the Eugene Planning Commission agreed with them, wherein they agreed that they could minimize all potential impacts except dust. He said on that issue they didn’t do a good enough job to explain how they create dust and how they could minimize dust impacts. He recalled at the last hearing the elected officials were given an exhibit of the Delta Sand and Gravel sample log. He said it showed a follow-up to issues raised by the Lane County Planning Commission that they did not have a significant resource. He said, based on testimony from people who questioned the consultants report on the manner on which the boring samples were taken and what the analysis was and if it was done right, the Lane County Planning Commission accepted that information from an individual who was not an expert, but someone giving testimony over testimony from their consultant, EGR Associates, who are licensed engineers who do the work continually. He said if their conclusion meets the standards, then they have done the job they should do. He recalled throughout the Lane County Planning Commission discussion, that concept was continually raised. He said the Planning Commission stated they couldn’t accept the testimony of the consultants because they were paid by the applicant and it tainted their testimony. Cornacchia noted the sampling test was a resampling and retesting by ODOT and an analysis by DOGAMI. He explained those are the two agencies that are the regulatory agencies for this issue. He said they were told by planning commissioners that they could rely on the consultants and there was nothing from DOGAMI and ODOT. He said because of that, they had ODOT come down to test and retest. He said they took the borings and did their own sample. He said they issued their opinion (copy in file) that the samples demonstrate the deposit is significant and meets the requisite standards as a sample and the requirements as base rock. He said they sent that conclusion to DOGAMI and asked them to respond. And he noted that based upon what ODOT had done, they believed they had a representative sample, and the sample was appropriate for the requirements of ODOT for base rock and meeting the Goal 5 requirements for establishing a significant resource. He believed they met the burden that the agencies that review these had signed off on the significance issue. Cornacchia commented that their consultant reports were criticized by consultants from opponents. He said following the criticisms, they provided them to their the consultants, who rendered the conclusions in the reports. He asserted their consultants rebutted every one of the issues raised by the opposing consultants. Cornacchia stated they identified the potential impacts of noise, groundwater, flooding, dust, impacts on wetlands and air cultural practices. He noted on all six, the planning commissions had the opportunity to review their testimony and evidence and rendered a decision on each one. He said the Eugene Planning Commission found for the applicant on every issue except for dust. He said they found they had a significant inventory of Page 3 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T resource and they found they had identified all of the impacts and minimized or could demonstrate that they could minimize the impacts on all issues except dust. He said they produce dust at the crusher, not where they mine. He indicated that LRAPA issues a permit for all facilities like this. He said they have a discharge permit that limits the amount of material they can discharge into the air shed. He added that limitation comes with a production level limitation and requirements that the pressure stays where it is at, its produces at the level it is limited to, and that they water their haul roads to and from the mining area to the crusher. He noted there are no conditions in the permit about the actual mining. Cornacchia indicated that Delta Sand and Gravel had operated at their facility without a single citation issued to them by LRAPA regarding these matters, except for one last January. He recalled that on that day there were freezing temperatures, and the company had decided to water Division Avenue. He said they were cited by LRAPA for failure to meet their requirements. He added that citation, after discussion with the agency, was dismissed and LRAPA did not issue any type of a sanction for that day. In added in 40 years not once did LRAPA say Delta Sand and Gravel had violated their provisions or requirements. He said the company is responsible, ethical, and committed to meeting its requirements and to operating without negatively impacting its neighbors. Cornacchia recalled the Eugene Planning Commission agreed with them on the issue of the aquaclude but the Lane County Planning Commission did not. He said the aquaclude is intended to minimize the impacts of the groundwater flow. He said the closer they get to west of the gravel pit, the more likely negative impacts to their wells could occur. He said that is a consideration they have to take into account. He said their answer was to build an aquaclude. He said the consultants for the opponents suggested that as water comes through the aquaclude on a day of heavy rain, it would flood the grounds. He said they tried to explain through EGR’s testimony that doesn’t happen. He said ground water would go around the aquaclude. He added to meet those concerns EGR went back to drop the aquaclude at a different elevation that would still reduce the majority of the groundwater but they suggested that the top of the aquaclude would be just above the water level of the wetlands. He said in the event their argument is correct and the water could rise, it would rush into the pit and not onto the surface. With regard to dust, Cornacchia stated the opponents provided testimony from a medical doctor regarding rock dust and the extreme negative and severe health risks of rock dust. He found the testimony to be prejudicial. He said the doctor had not visited the site and didn’t know if the rock dust he was discussing is produced at the wall. Cornacchia stated rock dust is created when rocks are broken. He said rocks are broken at the crusher and it is allowed by law by the LRAPA permit. He commented that they were certain that the testifier had the credentials to give the testimony he gave. Cornacchia said Delta Sand and Gravel is dedicated and committed to the community as a steward of its own land. He said they created a heron rookery and the governor in 2005 presented an environmental award regarding their work with the McKenzie Watershed, the council and their provision for habitat for pond turtles and red legged frogs. He said Page 4 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T the company has been mining for 40 years and the land has been owned by the company for over 100 years. He commented that it was not a multi national corporation; it is not doing anything except what it had been for the past 40 years, and as a family for over 100 years. Cornacchia believed that at the Planning Commission level they had met their burden and could minimize all potential impacts and do what they were doing with the mining previously. Alan Babb, Delta Sand and Gravel, Eugene, stated their application stands on its own merits. He indicated the rules are clear and allow what they are asking for. He said that all goals had been addressed and any conflicts will be mitigated. He said they are asking for only an addition to an existing site. He indicated there would be no change in their operation, no new plants, no additional trucks or truck routes. He said what they are asking for is a longer life for an existing company. He said the land has been owned by various members of the Babb family for over 100 years. He indicated the island they zoned to the north was sand and gravel in 1967. He said the greenway law came in and it took them eight years to solve the issues it brought up. He said as part of their agreement, they gave up 45 acres of mining land to protect the Blue Heron Rookery. He said they have been trustworthy all of their lives. He said they have family wage jobs. He indicated their lowest pay scale is $17.00 per hour and it goes up to $28.00 per hour. He added their benefits are over $700 per month per employee and they are company paid. He stated they are not asking for any public money, but for another 10 to 15 years. Doug DuPriest, Eugene, stated he represented the Narvas. He said by participating tonight, they do not intend to waive the objection they raised at the last meeting. He said there were other issues of concern to the planning commission, including agricultural and wells, groundwater, wetlands, flooding, and the applicants made the point that they supplied another set of the applicant’s documents in the form of a binder. He noted at the Planning Commission hearing, the opponents provided their own rebuttal packet. He said they provided a detailed rebuttal of the evidence before the Planning Commission and legal analysis (letter of March 17). He provided a summary of what the Planning Commissions did. He indicated it lists the steps, the sub issues and the jurisdiction. He noted on Step 2, the Lane County Planning Commission found that the rock was not sufficient. He said in Step 3, with both jurisdictions, the impacts that were of concern were dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands, sensitive habitat and agricultural. He added the Lane County Planning Commission was concerned about flooding. He said neither was concerned about traffic. He said the City of Eugene Planning Commission said no only to dust. He noted the Lane County Planning Commission has concerns as to dust, groundwater, wetlands, sensitive habitat, agricultural and flooding. He said neither had concerns about noise. He thought there were serious concerns about noise that had not been minimized. He noted there was no ESEE analysis related to noise. DuPriest said the question is whether this is the right place. He noted if the elected officials do not agree it is the right place then they must deny it. He said they could try again or try another location. He said the application is based upon a fiction. He said Page 5 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Delta said they were going to take the same extraction that was buffered from residences by a half mile of their own lands. He said if they move the operation the half-mile there would be no impacts they couldn’t minimize. He said despite the pit, there are many impacts they had not minimized. He thought the elected officials should pay attention to what was missing. He said to comply with statewide planning Goal 5 and the Goal 5 Rule that is the legal criteria for the application, nearly all proposed plan amendments will contain two reports, one is an ESEE report detailing the nature and extent of conflicts and allowing the decision making body to make some decision about to allow conflicts, or limit conflicts; and the other is a Traffic Impact Analysis to show how the state Transportation Planning Rule could be complied with. He said the application contains neither of the components. He asserted that because of the missing information, the application should be denied. DuPriest indicated that Delta Sand and Gravel said they would mitigate all possible effects of the new operations so there would be no net increases in impacts and no ESEE analysis is required. He stated that the one-half mile area that is now open and acts as a buffer between the existing pit and excavating activities will be lost. He added that Delta seriously understated the magnitude of existing problems with respect to the nearest residents to the south. He noted under DEQ rules, houses are noise sensitive uses and should be treated that way He said the Delta’s noise reports overstates the ambient noise levels. He added that Delta’s experts report seriously understates the noise to be produced by the new operation and the most recent memo by their expert ESA presents conclusions without providing necessary assumptions, methodology or analysis. He said that Delta’s proposed noise mitigation is insufficient. He stated since Delta has proposed insufficient mitigation and had prepared no ESEE analysis, the application must be denied. DuPriest stated that Delta had not provided any traffic analysis or study, even though three nearby intersections are below ODOT’s standards of 0.8 volume to capacity ratio. He said that number comes from a traffic study that was submitted to the City of Eugene in another matter that is now pending. He distributed a report from Group McKenzie prepared for the McKenzie Willamette Hospital. He showed the River Avenue ramp merging onto Beltline Road, entering Beltline eastbound at Delta Highway southbound off ramp and entering Beltline Road westbound on Division Avenue off ramp are all in excess of what is allowed. He said by definition any traffic that would be added to a failing intersection is significant. He noted if there are significant impacts on a transportation facility, a transportation impact analysis is required and it should address the area for one mile within the entrance to the mining area. He noted the staff report stated that Lane County transportation planning had waived the traffic impact analysis requirement under Lane Code 15.697(1). He commented that even if Lane County could waive its own requirements, Lane County may not waive the requirements of statewide Goal 5, the Goal 5 Rule or the Transportation Planning Rule. He added the Eugene Code specifically requires TIA’s when certain conditions exist, including “For development areas that abut a street in the jurisdiction of Lane County, a TIA review is required if the proposed development will generate or receive traffic by vehicles of heavy weight in their daily operations. Eugene Code 9.8670(4).” He commented that sand and gravel Page 6 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T trucks are of heavy weight and there was no evidence that the city had waived that requirement. He added that Delta’s employees (before the planning commission) admitted that the actual traffic levels will depend upon market demand for their product. He noted the TIA rule requires that the traffic analysis be done for the 20 year planning period. He said if they were to consider having a new use located next to a residence, a gravel extraction pit would be low on the list. He commented that the most difficult planning decisions that cities and counties have to make are where they have different categories of use coming together and it represents an extreme example of having an industrial use. He commented that the impacts are real and not mitigated and the application should be denied. Jim Nepler, Eugene, commented the only way they learned about the situation was the Lane County Planning Commission told them there would be a hearing about this. He said they didn’t consult with the neighbors. He said he had a personal interest in this issue because his son suffers from serious asthma. He said--despite what is said about dust--dust and diesel fumes create severe conditions for children with asthma. He commented that nothing Delta had asserted regarding air quality was supported with data. He said they were asking to trust them. He said given the potential monetary gains for the applicant, and the quality of life costs, they need to make an honest judgment call about the applicant’s credibility. He commented the application was filled with statements that were untrue. He recalled at the November 15, 2005 Planning Commission, Delta’s attorney said “Delta has complied with all dust regulations for 80 years.” He added in February 2006, Delta stated “They have a proven track record of compliance over the life of its LRAPA permits.” He asked if Delta really never received an LRAPA violation. He said since 1966 LRAPA had received more than 16 complaints from neighbors about Delta’s operations. He reported that the complaints include a 1999 petition signed by over 20 neighbors who were being affected by air pollution and dust created at the existing Delta facility. He said complaints included breathing difficulties from persons suffering from throat cancer and other ailments. He added in the past six years LRAPA had issued Delta’s four notices of non-compliance and a violation for failing to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne, including the failure to water the facility yard and roadways. He said a copies of the violation notices were already in the record. He said LRAPA’s file on Delta includes a notice of violations. He thought with more homes nearby, the problems would get worse. He said in the past Delta had few neighbors, and those neighbors periodically filed dust complaints against Delta. He said that Delta’s pit expansion would put it a few hundred feet from people who already have serious breathing problems. He said that Delta stated they intended to minimize dust by complying with its LRAPA permit in the future. He hoped that Delta would make the promise in good faith, but said their neighbors had come to suspect that good faith is an attribute that Delta holds in short supply and they aren’t credible. He said they had not curtailed dust problems and didn’t have a plan to do so in the future. He hoped the elected officials would deny the application. DuPriest read a letter from LRAPA in May of 2000. Page 7 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Joel Norva, Eugene, stated he lived adjacent to the pit. He said he had lived on his property for the past 18 years He said in the past five or six years, the City of Eugene had approved and allowed development of the Silver Meadows addition that has 70 new homes. He said when that was done, they cleaned up the waterway that had not been running for the past 18 years, but now runs heavily. He indicated it runs through Silver Meadows to the back of Albertson’s Supermarket on Division Avenue. He thought the aquaclude would cause greater saturation of the land that would last longer. He thought the jobs that are there now will be there in the future. He didn’t think 135 jobs would disappear, the jobs would be there ten more years and after that the same number of jobs would be in the community for digging gravel no matter where the pit is at. He commented that they have another 20 years or more to rehabilitate the pit. He stated that the noise of the pit bothers him. He said when they move to 150 feet from him and his neighbors, the noise will be louder. With there being a conflict, the planning commissions voted 11-0 that it is a conflict and whether it could be mitigated was not the case they were concerned about. He noted the proposed pit is located adjacent to a new elementary school. Mark Reed, Mineral Resource Geologist, Eugene, said his interest was helping to ensure the integrity of scientific input in the making of public policy by adherence to the rules established to protect their best farmland. He said his opinions are founded on 30 years of experience as an economic geologist, including 25 years as professor of geology and geochemistry at the University of Oregon, and three years of full-time work for the Anaconda Cooper Company in Butte, Montana where his responsibility was to decide where to drill holes for exploration of mineral resources, logging of the bore hole cuttings, interpreting drilling results and to decide what sample to take and how to mix samples from a drill hole to make composite samples. He said that was a key issue with regard to the significance question in this case. He said the general sampling principles are simple, universal and common sense that non specialists could understand. He commented that gravel resource in the proposed Delta Sand and Gravel expansion area fails to meet the significance test under the Goal 5 Rule because six of the samples submitted for testing of quality are not representative samples. He indicated the rule requires representative samples and these were not representative. He added the fundamental failing of four EGR samples is that EGR mixed concrete grade rock from the upper unit that is high quality rock with poor grade rock thereby diluting the poor grade rock with the higher grade rock to get a composite that passes the ODOT test. He added the bottom 35 feet may fail the test, he didn’t know. He said the gravel deposit is divided into two units, an upper unit of high quality and the lower unit with low quality. He said the mixing of the two parts is contrary to well established standards for taking representative samples from this type of resource. He said it was an essential part of the significance determination for a deposit of that kind that the quality of the rock be adequate to justify sacrificing the Class 1 and 2 farm soils on the surface. He stated the reason for the Goal 5 Rule is to make a fair trade for the farm land. He commented that the test of quality is a fundamental importance under the law. He said that was the key issue that needed to be addressed. He said the basics of representative sampling are outlined in a set of national standards from the American Society of Testing Materials, the Army Corps of Engineers and the American Association of State Highway and Page 8 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Transportation Officials. He said they have established standards for sampling that are clear and objective that when sampling deposits of this kind, one must separate units of rock of different character. He said that EGR mixed the two. He commented if the lower part alone fails the test, then under his reading of the rule, it would mean it would not pass the significance criteria under the rule. Reed stated in response to that criticism, EGR took some new samples. He said they responded by getting laboratory tests on the lower unit alone, but their tests only took six and a half feet of material out of a total of 35 feet. He said that was a failure of representative sampling, as it calls for sampling all of the material over the interval. He commented that all or part of the lower 35 feet of the rock may fail the test. Reed noted in their final rebuttal before the Planning Commission, EGR contended wrongly that the standards “state that it is preferable to sample the rock as processed as it will be used to assure that it will meet the standards in its ready to use state.” He thought that was an incorrect reading of the standards. He said they took part of the standards on the sampling of processed rock. He noted there is another standard that addresses the sampling of rock in the ground instead of rock that had been processed. He said there is nothing in the OAR that would disallow the processing of the rock prior to testing it. He said they brought up the argument in context of trying to justify mixing the full extent of their sample. He said if they process it before they test it, they are biasing the result. He said in today’s testimony they brought up new work by ODOT in relation to the DOGAMI opinion. He commented that DOGAMI in their opinion fails to address the sampling issues he is raising. He said they defer to ODOT. He said ODOT does testing, they don’t do geology. He indicated in his review of the ODOT sampling, that they referred to late in the testimony today, it appeared that is not a representative sampling to address before the closure of testimony. He said from what he had seen tonight, the ODOT samples are not representative because they are not all inclusive. He commented there is a resource of lava that they could mine and they don’t need to take high quality farmland for aggregate. Dr. Steven Kimberly, Eugene, stated he is a board certified specialist in internal medicine and works full time for WebMD creating health risk appraisals. He reported for the past ten years he had specialized in health risk evaluations and research. He stated he had 25 years as a physician. He discussed rock dust. He said that rock dust pneumoconiosis is the name for the disease in quarry workers and others who have been exposed to significant amount of rock dust over a significant period of time. Rock dust pneumoconiosis is a type of emphysema. He said there are two measures of dust they use for evaluating particulate matter: PM 2.5 and PM 10. He commented that particulate matter of that size is invisible to the naked eye. He said there would be no assurance that that dust was not being carried as PM 10 as far as ten to thirty miles and PM 2.5 particles could travel farther. He said PM 10 particles are larger and tend to get stuck in the sinuses and the upper airways and don’t make it down to the lungs. He added PM 2.5 goes down into the lungs and can cause significant lung damage if enough is breathed in. He explained there is a difference between the organic dust they see from agriculture and inorganic dust that is rock dust. He said that inorganic dust cannot be broken down by Page 9 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T the body and is more harmful. He noted on the assessment of the haul road, it states that 39 tons of uncontrolled PM 10 dust would be created on the haul road per year. He added .5 tons of PM 2.5 would be created on the haul road each year. He didn’t think they could crush thousands of pounds of rock without creating dust. He said the majority of the dust is invisible. He wanted to raise public awareness about the health consequences of rock dust. He stated that rock dust is a significant health hazard. He thought there would be increased sinus and respiratory infections and there could be the development of emphysema. He didn’t think keeping the material moist would completely eliminate all the small particle rock dust that could cause health problems. Art Noxon, Eugene, stated he is a state licensed acoustic engineer in Eugene. He distributed information on the summary of his work. He said he was trying to clarify the work of the consultant for Delta, to straighten out their work and be clear about the calculations. (Copy in file). He said that DSA was not clear about the methodology, they made gross errors in the calculations and assumed the quietest noise source to be the source, instead of the loudest. He asserted they confuse and create mathematical models that don’t exist and have no foundation in the laws of physics. With regard to the memo by DSA, that addresses a new regime of noise sources that now have to be DEQ compliant, the noise from the rock will be regulated by DEQ. He noted there is as much regulation on the trenching rock as there is on the pit rock. He reported that DSA submitted a two and a quarter page memo that says nothing and they expect that to equal three quarters to one inch material they had submitted for the pit mining operation. He noted the equipment they are using for the trenching is the same equipment they are using in the pit. He said there is zero support for information provided from an engineer’s viewpoint about how the trenching operation has become DEQ compliant. He said they now have four excavators on site, twice as many as was originally proposed to be on site and no mitigation plans for it. He stated there is no basis to conclude that the mining operation will meet and comply with DEQ standards. Robert Funk, Eugene, stated his house is within 900 feet of the subject area, putting him at the impact zone, which is within 1500 feet. He added it could also be brought out to 2400 feet. He said they have 70 houses in the new subdivision. He noted they have added a substantial amount of vehicles. He said in addition to the vehicles there are trucks coming out of the quarry. He said DEQ establishes the standards but the funding they have does not allow them to enforce those decibels. He noted the area is located in FEMA’s 100 year flood zone so the water is already high. He thought the construction of the pit would last approximately two to three months. He stated EGR never stated the distance on how far the aquaclude is from the property lines. He said it shows the water table does rise. DuPriest indicated the applicant has serious problems in terms of its proof as to the quality of its rock, and the amount of noise it would cause the nearby neighborhood, and the traffic impacts and the health effects of dust. He said those are the same concerns the Lane County Planning Commission (with the exception of traffic and noise). They are important and he urged the elected officials to consider them carefully. He said the methodology of the initial noise test was for Delta to put some equipment out in the area Page 10 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T that is not being mined and run it and go to places offsite to measure it instead of having their receptors behind the houses. He said they created a test situation where they elevated the existing background noise. He said they would keep the amount within ten decibels above that. He indicated what Art Noxon’s report said is they are getting two sets of ten decibels and the increase from the current ambient. He said the noise study they have doubles the amount the DEQ allows. He thought the application should be denied. Sorenson asked what sampling Christenson was able to do of the top layer. Christenson said they had three samples: top layer with the lower layers. He said there was actually a fourth sample from the pit wall. Sorenson asked if the sampling technique he performed was in compliance with DOGAMI, ODOT and ASHTOS standards. Christenson said there are a number of different standards they could use and none are referenced by the OAR that prescribes how it is to be. He said it only says representative. He said it is their responsibility as a licensed geologist to take their expertise and apply it to this. He added it is their responsibility to make sure they do it in a manner that is consistent with the way the resource may be used. He believed Dr. Reed was in error in the way he had read both the standards on how that is to be done. He said they also took standards across the bottom. He noted not once did any sample fail or come close to failing with base rock standards. Sorenson asked if the proposed pit is further away from the river. Christenson said when he sees the rocks, they are the same at any level he looks at them. He said they have to be able to demonstrate that there is rock throughout the entire 60 foot level, it doesn’t necessarily all have to pass the test. He said it has to be minable and useable through the depth to meet the standards of the OAR. Christenson indicated the testimony he heard rebutting the work they had done is primarily a point of view trying to demonstrate they shouldn’t be disturbing farmground. He didn’t think it directly pertains to what the OAR actually says, its intent or the intent of the testing to be done. Sorenson asked why an ESEE analysis was not presented. Christenson responded that the application doesn’t require the ESEE analysis unless it has been demonstrated or presumed that the mitigation cannot be done. He said it is the next step but it is not required at this step. Alan Babb, Eugene, recalled that Dr. Reed spoke mostly about EGR and that he didn’t like their sampling. He said subsequent to that they had ODOT come in and they did not touch the borings, they pulled their own samples and made their own analysis of the Page 11 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T material. He added they checked with DOGAMI. He said that Dr. Kimberley has made no connection between rock dust and their excavating. He stated their excavating does not create rock dust. He said that any rock dust they produce is produced by the plant when their crushers actually mash up rock. He said that is covered by LRAPA’s permit. He noted there is a limit to how much they can produce. Avon Babb, Eugene, said they had only received one LRAPA citation at Delta Sand and Gravel and that citation (as Cornacchia mentioned) had been dismissed. He noted the others had been at construction sites at other places. With regard to traffic, their plant production and traffic will not change or increase. He said they are permitted by LRAPA and they have a cap on how much rock they could produce and sell each year. He said he is co-owner of Delta Sand and Gravel. He said the Babb family has owned most of the property since the 1860’s. He indicated that his brother started Delta Sand and Gravel in 1965. He believed they had met all the state requirements for Goal 5 that was set up to protect aggregate resources such as theirs. He said if they met the requirements they could keep extracting gravel. He said it was ironic that the new homes were built west of their property and the owners did not wish them to expand. He indicated that the owner got the property zoned for single family residences. He said they cleared the site and installed the utilities. He said they are good stewards of the land. He indicated they set aside 45 acres for a Blue Heron rookery. He said his site is available to the community as a gravel fresh rock ready mix concrete source and a place to leave excavation materials. He stated it saves the community money, time and fuel. He commented the farther away a resource is, the more costly it is for everyone. He explained the citations that were mentioned previously were all construction sites away from Delta Sand and Gravel. Clyde Beet, Eugene, stated he is a farmer who farms his property next to Delta Sand and Gravel. He commented that he had not seen the negative impact that Delta Sand and Gravel had on farming. He said his well went dry and he and Delta resolved the problem. He thought the dust complaints that Delta had were from him because he is a farmer and is allowed to make dust. He commented that Delta doesn’t do anything he doesn’t see. He thought people were making statements that were less than factual because he is in the area every day. He thought elected officials should follow the scientists and the experts and not the people who claim to be experts. Dan Branton, stated he is employed by the Babb family and is impressed by them. He said if they eliminate competition that prices will go up and it will affect the public who will have to pay more. He commented that the people who moved into the new housing tract knew a gravel pit was there. Mike Altucker, Eugene, spoke in favor of Delta Sand and Gravel’s application as a neighbor, a competitor and as a Goal 5 veteran. He said the sand and gravel industry is an industry people can’t live without. He noted they are currently using ten to twelve tons per person per year in Lane County. He commented that gravel is found where nature puts it. He urged the Board’s consideration to approve Delta Sand and Gravel’s application. Page 12 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Ken Latham, Eugene, stated he has been a Delta employee for 11 years. He thinks Delta has gone out of its way to be a good neighbor. He said the company practices good stewardship of all of its materials and it supplies the needs of the community. He commented that aggregate is the life stream of the infrastructure. He said without having the rock they wouldn’t be able to build roads. He thought if they shut down or limit Delta’s resources, then through supply and demand the prices will go up. Kate Pearly, Eugene, stated she is a farmer in Santa Clara and is an agricultural educator in the community. She commented that without food no human could move a machine and without food no one could live. She stated the soils on the site are made up of four different soil types. She said the assertion that their site was unsuitable for agricultural was false. She thought they should look at the land for long term production of food, not just its current neighbor. Richard Ruth, Eugene, said he is an environmental consultant. He said he had been listening to the testimony about the dust issue. He thought it was overridden by sensationalism. He noted it was the same crusher and the same location with the same limits by LRAPA. He thought the issue of health and dust didn’t make sense because what they currently have is what they are going to have in the future. He indicated the Mine Safety Health Administration regularly monitors the operation for dust and there had never been a violation for dust issues. With regard to modeling, he said Delta took into account testimony and concern about whether modeling should be done. He said there wasn’t a lot of dust to be able to model. He indicated that LRAPA did a model and it was submitted into the record on November 1, 2006 and they modeled all the haul roads in the operation for expansion and LRAPA concluded that the modeled impacts from each haul road added to the ambient monitored concentrations is below the PM 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. He said showed Delta Sand and Gravel met the standards. Sue Palmer Boyd, stated she worked at Delta Sand and Gravel for 18 years. She planned her retirement around Delta and didn’t want to start over. She commented that this was a good location with competitive prices and it was good for the economy. She asked the elected official to approve the expansion. Sorenson asked Christenson about aspects of the groundwater wherein the Lane County Planning Commission determined that the impacts involving groundwater could not be minimized to acceptable levels. He asked about that finding. Christenson responded that it was his understanding that they were concerned about the hydraulic barrier they had built into the ground, that it would cause flooding. He said it is hydralogically impossible for the groundwater barrier in the ground to cause flooding at the surface of the ground. He said the only way they would have surface flooding is when there is a surface water flood. Pape asked what they could grandfather, or what they could take with regard to dust, noise and groundwater and transportation impacts. Page 13 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Howe recalled the Board of Commissioners and the city councilors have heard the presentation by the applicant and opposition and the planning commission had heard the same information, but it had been refined on both sides for tonight’s presentation. He said the planning commission came up with recommendations. (Copy in file). Pape asked what they could accept with regards to traffic impacts and noise levels. Howe said for each identified impact, there has been information presented that those could be minimized. He added if they are minimized within the required regulations, then under the Goal 5 Rule, the impact has been minimized. Pape asked if a minimization meant a smaller increase in it of to drop below what existed prior to the application. Howe responded that it meets the agency standard. Pape recalled there was testimony regarding agriculture. He asked if that should be taken into account. Howe said that impacts on agriculture need to be significant to the point that they are affecting the farm management practices or increasing the cost for those farm management practices. He said if they thought the operation would have those types of effects, he said then those would need to be minimized. Pape asked if there were Class 1 or Class 2 soils if they take into account taking the soils out of farm production or if it was not a criteria. Howe said it is not a criteria. He said the standard under the rule says if it is certain soil classifications then it can’t be of a certain depth and the volume of the aggregate resource has to be significant. He added if it is significant and meets the volume and depth requirements, then that eliminates whether it should be farmland or sand and gravel. He added if it is a significant sand and gravel resource, then that is the direction they should go. Morrison noted there was an e-mail about a question raised regarding the subject site that was included in the City of Eugene’s residential land study in 1999 from Dan Revelle. She asked if it was really included in the residential land study. She indicated they were supposed to have a specific supply of those. Kurt Yeider, City of Eugene, didn’t think it would have been included because it is located outside of the urban growth boundary. Morrison recalled in Nefler’s testimony he was commenting about the complaints that were filed with LRAPA. He mentioned one was Irvington. Morrison said Irvington was Page 14 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T not near the site. She said the complaints are not on the site itself but construction sites separate from the application. Bettman asked how many cubic yards of aggregate are estimated to be on the 72 acres. Cornacchia responded that DOGAMI assumed an 82 foot thick average depth of the aggregate layer that represents 15 million tons of aggregate. He indicated that was for the entire site. He said that included both the area of the aquaclude and all 74 acres. He noted that was 7 million cubic yards. Bettman asked about the traffic impact analysis Lane County waived and the requirement on the assumption that there is no analysis. She asked how the City of Eugene would require a traffic impact analysis. She asked if they had the ability to require a traffic impact analysis and how they would do that. Yeider didn’t recall if that section of Division Avenue is within the city or the County. He said the city would be limited in its ability to do a TIA because all the activity would be happening outside of the city. He thought the exception might be for access rights on Division. He said he would get back to Bettman with that information. Green asked which agency approved the subdivision. Howe indicated that the city approved it. Green asked how they approved the subdivision if it had a close proximity to an existing gravel pit. Yeider indicated the gravel pit doesn’t exist near the new homes. He noted there were gravel operations near the older homes near Beaver Street. He said the site that is visible impacts the new homes and was zoned for agricultural. He said the Metro Plan offers a little buffer between the urban and gravel interface. He said the Metro Plan stated there would be a buffer. He said in the draft Metro Plan of the 80’s this expansion site was known to have potentially significant aggregate resources. Dwyer asked which way the prevailing winds go. Ruth indicated there had been two submittals with wind modeling that was done by LRAPA on November 1 and March 17 hearing there was information submitted. He explained there is a summer winter difference. He noted in the summertime when there are dry conditions the winds are from the north. He said there is only 4.37 percent of the time the wind blew from the east, east northeast and the east southeast, that would put it into the Silver Meadows subdivision. He indicated there is limited wind exposure for the people. Green asked if there had been any past regulations or complaints by DEQ. Page 15 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Cornacchia responded that they did a search of company records regarding complaints received and citations issued. He noted the only citations are the frozen road on Division and the other three were citations by LRAPA on construction sites. They were for tracking mud onto the street and not having a load covered. He said it had nothing to do with the mine operation or the crusher. Sorenson asked about page 6 of Noxon’s report on noise. He said Noxon’s report stated that Oregon law currently protects degradation of the community ambient noise standards of up to ten decibels. He asked how Noxon determined that Delta should have added 21 decibels of noise. Noxon responded he determined it by reading their report. He said they said they have an ambient noise level of 39 DB and they have a right to make noise up to 49 DB. He said they added 10 DB and claimed the ability to generate noise to the level of 59 DB. He thought they were using their own noise floor as their right to make that much noise on the neighboring property. He said they said when they move into the area they could raise the noise level 10 more DB. He said that results in the loudest rock quarry the state could have and still be in compliance. Sorenson asked if they would violate the DEQ noise limit with what they are proposing. Noxon indicated they are proposing to raise the natural non-Delta noise ambient level by 21 DB. He commented that that was an arbitrary decision they were making to allow them to move into the area. He stated they haven’t shown any analysis that the trenching operation and the pit could meet the DEQ compliance. He thought their paperwork submittal needed to be readable and confirmable. He said it was summaries and conclusions. He noted there was no engineering report. Green asked if he was opposed to the mitigation plan offered by Delta Sand and Gravel and the minimization process. Noxon said the mitigation process is based on assumptions and the assumptions are what he takes exceptions to. He said the analysis and method of modeling was incorrect and not based on engineering principles. He thought they were trying to get around the letter of the law. Green asked how many complaints the company received around noise. Noxon responded that the quarry has been operating more than an a quarter of a mile away from where the houses are. He said they are moving their operation into a quiet neighborhood. He said trying to evaluate whether their operation in a noisy environment where the houses are far away from the operation when they are encroaching into the neighborhood is not a good way to say they are running a quiet operation. He said the noise of the freeway dominates the noise field in the residential area that is closest to edge of the pit. Page 16 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Bettman asked if the sound was measured within 1500 feet from the residences. Noxon explained that wasn’t a DEQ rule. He said the impact area of a quarry is 1500 feet past it to see if there are any problems. He said the acoustic engineering company that was hired to assess the quarry’s proposed plan for expansion found that the impact zone wasn’t 1500 feet as far as noise was concerned. They found that it was approximately 850 feet. He indicated it was in a report of June 14, 2005. Bettman asked if the sound impact was evaluated from the aquaclude trench. Noxon stated in the memo dated October 27, 2006, there are two figures. He said they say there is a zone of set back line of 475 feet for the average sound level violation and there is a 250 foot for the short time high level voice standard. He said it is based on an inaccurate model of the noise that is being generated. He said the setbacks aren’t valid setbacks. He stated they had not presented any real noise study associated with the trenching process. He said the noise generated in the trenching process uses machines of similar size and character and power as the ones in the pit. Bettman asked about impacts of the mining operation and aquaclude not previously evaluated. Yeider said for some of the impacts the entire site was studied. He recalled with the discussion of noise, that there would be a temporary impact when the aquaclude was dug and refilled and a sound berm was added to the project description. Bettman asked what happens if Lane County and Springfield want to have a dissolution of LRAPA, so in a year there is no LRAPA to monitor or enforce the assumptions included in the report that showed how they mitigated. Yeider thought the enforcement branch would go to DEQ. He didn’t know if LRAPA had different standards than DEQ or if DEQ has as many local enforcement abilities that LRAPA might have. Bettman asked if that was a viable assumption to say that the mitigation had been achieved based on the fact that LRAPA is an entity that could monitor. She asked if DEQ would have to be included in the mitigation. Taylor thought they needed someone from LRAPA present. She thought there were complaints and then they are forgiven. She said because it is being used as evidence, they need facts. Sorenson asked about the quality of the sampling and what was wrong with the sampling. Reed responded that the upper 25 feet is so high in quality that it is a substantial resource and profitable to produce. He said the 60 foot rule was put together by DLCD to establish a quantity to justify destroying the soil at the top. He said the standard for the Page 17 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T 60 foot rule is that it meet base rock, not concrete grade quality. He indicated they are currently mining to that depth and it is economically worthwhile to do so in the existing pit. He added they are able to process the rock before they sell it and they could upgrade substandard rock to rock that passes the base rock standard, and it could be of economic interest to them. He said the question remains that to whether the lower section actually passes the base rock standard. He said it was a mixed sample and it made it invalid from the standpoint of being representative because they mixed the high quality with the low quality and they couldn’t tell whether the deeper part passes the test. He thought it made the sample invalid. Concerning the 74 acres, Sorenson asked if three bore holes were adequate. Reed responded it was likely to be adequate. He thought the quality of the rock was not good. He thought the quality of the samples they tested passes. Bettman commented that given the fact of their decision making rests on specific criteria, (one being that there be a significant resource, and the significant resource issue is so important to this application), why when there is a broad range of standards to choose from for sampling would they pick one that is not the highest standard and one that could be questioned by the opponents so easily. She stated there are certain standards to adhere to make sure they have a pure outcome. She said since the 60 feet of quality aggregate is the standard that determines whether the resource is significant enough to sacrifice the prime farmland and create impact on the residential neighborhood. She said the criteria is not whether it is a good company or great jobs, it is based on very specific objective criteria. She asked why they have a significant resource, why they didn’t choose the highest standard of sampling. Christenson said they did choose the highest standard of sampling. He said they followed the ASTM, the Corps of Engineering sampling protocol. Bettman asked if what Reed described was the industry standard. She asked if people used that sample. Christenson responded that they do use the ASTM and the Corp of Engineering sampling standards. He recalled what Reed submitted was the standard for quarry rock that is not appropriate in this case as it is aggregate and they didn’t use that standard. He said they had also gone through the Goal 5 and there was a different set of standards they were supposed to adhere to by Reed’s testimony and they adhered to his previous testimony. He didn’t think Reed wanted to see a gravel operation disturb farm ground. Bettman asked if he was confident it would have shown that there is a significant resource. Christenson said it does. Bettman asked why he didn’t do the sampling the way it was described. Page 18 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Christenson replied that it was the first time that Reed said that composite sampling, taking a broad area to be sampled together is what they were supposed to do. He recalled before they were supposed to take discrete samples from various levels. He commented that it is the same rock they have been excavating and have been selling as base rock for the past 40 years. He was confident the rock would pass the base rock standards. Morrison asked if DOGAMI was accepting what had been presented, if they had the initial permit after the County takes action from the state level. Reed responded that they issue a permit for mining in relation to the mining itself. He noted they don’t pass judgment on the significance issue. Morrison asked if they should challenge DOGAMI. Reed indicated that DOGAMI was addressing the drill hole spacing as whether that was adequate to demonstrate continuity. He added that DOGAMI specifically does not address the sample quality issue. He said that was a mistake on DOGAMI’s part. He said that ODOT was not in a position to determine from a geologic perspective whether the samples are geologically representative. He said it was a geologic issue. He commented that it was a straightforward issue of looking at the law. He added the rule requires representative samples and none of those entitles, ODOT or DOGAMI or EGR has argued based on citations of external standards that their sampling methods met those standards. Pape asked if he had to meet the ORS requirement. Reed responded the ORS requires a representative set of samples meeting the ODOT base rock standard. He said the rule doesn’t state it. He said it is not addressed in the rule explicitly. He said the question is what is a representative set of samples. He said that is what he had done. He went to existing national standards. He said ASHTOS has a statement about what it is. He noted a key statement is separating material of distinguishable physical and visually distinguishable properties. Pape asked if Chrishtenson complied with the standards of ASHTOS. Reed believed Christenson’s position is the standards referred to how to sample processed rock. He said they wanted to determine if the rock met the requirement for the construction site. He said the issue is whether the rock in the ground meets a set of quality criteria. Pape asked Christenson if he had to prove the rock in layers to get a significant sample. Christenson commented that was an argument that Dr. Reed has used previously. He actually argued that the top 35 layers was as far as they could go because it was distinguishable from the other and the OAR said it has to be the mass and the rock Page 19 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T changed and they couldn’t count any of the gravel below that. He said that turned out neither the way LCDC or the County Commissioners determined at that time it was determined to be done, it was to count all the rock in the mass from the top to the bottom. He noted that all of the standards that are being referred to all start with that the geologist is to use their professional judgment for the materials to be used to do the sampling programming. He added it goes on to discuss distinguishable layers. He agreed if they moved from the gravel above to the bedrock to sample it if they are going to mining the bedrock. He indicated that they weren’t intending on doing that, they were going to mine the gravel. He commented as a professional geologist he would be remiss if he didn’t recognize they are operating and using the gravel from top to bottom. He said it is common to mix the rock for sampling. He said in the standards for the rock itself, not the pre processed rock sampling, it is best if they actually sample the processed rock they are going to use instead of the raw material. He said they sampled the raw material and it still meets standards. Cornacchia recalled there was a statement made that the elected officials were placed in position to decide between experts on the issue of significance. He said in this case they have Christenson, who is. He didn’t believe that Mr. Reed was an expert under Oregon law. He understood that geologists in Oregon had to be licensed and to give expert testimony, someone needs to be licensed. He thought it was possible that Reed could have become licensed since the Eugene Sand and Gravel application, but at that point that issue was raised. He noted in the appeal of the Eugene Sand and Gravel application, there was a variety of assignments of error and one was that the Board of Commissioners did not accept Dr. Reed’s position. He said that LUBA found that was not an appealable error. He understood when Dr. Reed was questioned by his licensing agency, he said he was not given expert testimony, that his testimony consisted of a political speech. He commented that the impression has been given that at no time was any sampling done in a manner which sampled the different layers. He said they went to ODOT and DOGAMI was for their independent testing. He noted in the packet of November 1, were the first three ODOT reports are the different tests. He stated each of them had the following conclusions: “Samples submitted is representative of native aggregate material. Test results meet base aggregate specification. “ Section 02630.10(c ) 2002 Oregon Standards Specification for Construction. He said those were the rules from the regulating agency. He indicated the sampling was done in three layers: from 3 to 30 feet, from 61 to 67 feet and from 76 to 85 feet. Cornacchia commented they were seeing false arguments. He asked the elected officials to read the ODOT report. With regard to the traffic analysis, he said they did one. He indicated they were not going to create any new traffic, as there will be no new trucks. He said they are not asking to create a new operation, they are asking for a continuation of their existing operation. He recalled that LRAPA has a production level on them and they cannot produce more rock than the permit allows. He said that Lane County transportation looked at the analysis and agreed with him that with no added trucks, there is no impact. He added that both planning commissions agreed with them. Page 20 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Kerry Stanlee, Beaverton, wondered why questions went to Mr. Noxon instead of the applicant relative to the study that was done for the applicant. With regard to the memo that was generated on October 27 that was a response for a request for them to consider the construction of the aquaclude as mining activity. He recalled that originally the aquaclude construction was considered construction and under the DEQ regulation, the noise from construction activity is exempt. He indicated it was not studied at that point. He said when the question came up at the first hearing, if it is construction if the material is going to be excavated and some of it sold, they were asked to determine what would be needed to mitigate the noise from the activity if the county and city decided to consider it was excavation instead of construction. Dwyer indicated they would be leaving the record open for any party to respond to items submitted during the previous open record period including the public hearing to have the opportunity to respond. Stanlee indicated the memo was generated to address the question of what mitigation would be required if the aquaclude construction was considered excavation instead of construction and considered non-exempt from the noise regulation. He said they looked at the use of an excavator and a front end loader, not simultaneously. He determined that it was a 980 H frontend loader that mitigation would be required when the equipment was within a certain distance of residences. He indicated it differed from different parts of the site because of the ambient degradation rule. He said when Noxon stated they didn’t put the data in for the analysis of the 330 L excavator, an oversight was made. He said the 330 L level is 73 DBA at 50 feet for the record. He had in the memo that the frontend loader was 72 DBA at 50 feet so the source data was there. He said using the same analysis for the original calculated, they came up with the height of the berms required for different locations. He stated the aquaclude would not be constructed at one time, it would be as needed to open more areas. He commented it was not a long term operation. Stanlee said all questions the elected officials might have are answered in what they submitted. He stated Noxon brought up the issue about the ambient degradation rule and how they went to generate an ambient that was not normal. He noted in the rebuttal materials there is a letter from John Hector who was the manager of the DEQ noise and enforcement section for 11 years. Stanlee indicated Hector reviewed what they did and he wrote into the material that this procedure was acceptable. He said the area where they had an excavator operate, was an area they do current operations at. He recalled on the first day they were out there it wasn’t operating. He said they had the measurement made at that time. He said they looked at what was the representative of the conditions the residents experienced now. He said they provided reference data and it is in the report. Piercy said they would keep the record open. She noted period one of the record is open for submittal of additional written information by any party, including the applicant until January 8, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. She added that period two is that the record is open for any party to respond to items submitted during the previous open record period to January 22, Page 21 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T 2007 and Period Three, the record will be open for final written argument from applicant to January 29, 2007. Howe noted the time processes expire and the record is closed and then the two bodies need to decide to reconvene jointly to deliberate or to do deliberations separately. Dwyer recommended deliberating separately. Sorenson asked whether there was an advantage in having the City of Eugene deliberate first as they must reach a threshold question first, and if it was necessary for the Board of Commissioners to deliberate, they would. Vorhes thought it was a policy call. He didn’t think legally it was pointing them to one direction. He recalled it had been a past practice of the County to wait for the city to act. MOTION: to approve a Fourth Reading and Deliberation for January 31, 2007. Sorenson MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 5-0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 10:00 p.m. Melissa Zimmer Recording Secretary Page 22 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T Page 23 – Joint Elected Officials' Meeting – December 12, 2006 WD bc/m/06121/T