HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/28/02 Work Session MINUTES
Eugene City Council
McNutt Room-City Hall
October 28, 2002
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary PapS, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr,
Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Gary Rayor.
Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order.
A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager
Mr. Farr spoke in support of Ballot Measure 20-67, the measure offered by the City to the voters to
assist the school districts with funding.
Mr. Farr asked City Manager pro tern Jim Carlson to check on a situation in west Eugene
regarding trees. He said that Fairfield Nazarene Church had a problem with some trees that were
affecting sidewalks and the surrounding lawns and the church was experiencing difficulty obtaining
the necessary permits to take care of the trees. The church wanted to replace the existing trees
with trees that would be correct for the area.
Mr. Rayor spoke of the attack on Temple Beth Israel that occurred on Friday, October 25. He
characterized the attack as a hate crime and urged members of the public with information about
the attack to call the police. Mr. Rayor thanked the Human Rights Program staff and the police for
responding immediately, and Mayor Torrey for the leadership he had shown after the incident.
Mr. Rayor announced an informational meeting occurring in his ward on October 30 to discuss
potential school closures and parks.
Mr. Meisner expressed his concerns about the October 25 attack on Temple Beth Israel. He also
thanked the Human Rights Program staff and the mayor for showing leadership on the issue. He
hoped the police would be able to resolve the issue to the community's satisfaction.
Mr. Pap8 said he was disappointed to hear about the attacks on Temple Beth Israel and joined in
the thanks expressed by Mr. Rayor and Mr. Meisner.
Mr. Pap8 asked the council to indicate its willingness to separate the human rights ordinances
related to the proposed domestic registry and gender identity for separate action. There was
support for such an action from Mr. Farr. No other councilor voiced support.
Mr. Kelly expressed sorrow about the attack on Temple Beth Israel. He said that while it was
acceptable to disagree with a group, it was not acceptable, legal, or civilized to attack another
group. He expressed sympathy to all those affected, and asked members of the community to
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 1
Work Session
remember to be civil to their neighbors. He thanked the mayor for attending services on Saturday
at Temple Beth Israel.
Ms. Nathanson concurred with the remarks of other councilors regarding the attack on Temple
Beth Israel, and expressed hope that it was an isolated incident.
Ms. Nathanson thanked the mayor for attending the opening of the new park in Ward 8, Skyview
Park. She also thanked Public Works Department staff for staging the opening, saying although it
rained, many people attended the event, which she attributed that to the fact the neighborhood
had worked for a long time to get a developed park in the ward.
Ms. Taylor shared the concerns expressed by others regarding the attack on Temple Beth Israel.
She asked if the council could make a formal statement of support to the congregation.
Ms. Taylor asked the council to consider joining in a statement of opposition to the proposed war
against Iraq.
Ms. Taylor expressed appreciation that the outsourcing of maintenance at the library was
postponed.
Ms. Taylor expressed concern that the tree sitter in the Park Blocks was surrounded by a fence
that did not permit the passage of food to him.
Ms. Bettman shared the concerns expressed by other councilors about the attack on Temple Beth
Israel.
Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation to Mr. Farr, Mr. Meisner, and the mayor for their meeting as
the Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth (CCHY). She believed the City, in
conjunction with organizations like Looking Glass and Safe & Sound, had done a good job in
addressing the issues of homelessness.
Ms. Bettman regretted the situation at the Park Blocks and said she encouraged the tree sitter to
come down because she thought the situation was obscuring the fact that there were many
people in the community without homes or a vehicle to sleep in. She believed there was
community support for the idea of a temporary, safe sleeping accommodations for homeless
adults without vehicles and hoped the advocates for a tent village and those involved in the
protest would turn their attention to tapping into that support.
Ms. Bettman suggested the membership of the CCHY be expanded to include another councilor,
that it meet again soon, and that it expand the scope of its effort to include a tent village. She
wanted the council to have a work session on the topic after the committee had explored the
issues involved.
Mr. Carlson had no items.
Mayor Torrey introduced Hannah Peter from Roosevelt Middle School, who was participating in a
mentoring program with him.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 2
Work Session
Regarding the issue of homelessness, Mayor Torrey noted that there were two councilors who had
requested a work session on the topic. He asked the council about its interest in scheduling a
work session on the subject.
Mr. Kelly believed that the council should look specifically at the issue raised by Ms. Bettman.
Mr. Farr said there was already a process in place for requesting a work session in place. He
endorsed the approach suggested by Ms. Bettman.
Mayor Torrey asked staff to determine whether four council members serving on a council
committee constituted a quorum of the council. Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office
indicated that four councilors did not constitute a quorum.
Ms. Bettman said that using the CCHY as an avenue of investigation could save the council some
time. If the council scheduled a work session in February 2003, it could be ready to discuss the
committee's recommendation. She volunteered to serve on the CCHY.
Mr. Pap~ expressed concern about focusing on one element of the homeless issue because of the
political climate. He said that the City had been dealing with the issue for a long time, and it was
difficult and multi-faceted.
Ms. Taylor advocated for a council work session on the topic.
Ms. Nathanson recalled the City's establishment of a homeless car camp, noting that it was
possible to live there in a tent. However, the car camp had not worked well. She reminded the
council that when the City had sought someone to operate the camp, none of the local nonprofits
responded because of the difficulty of managing the camp. She endorsed the approach
suggested by Ms. Bettman.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that CCHY expand by one
member, meet through the fall, and report to the council in a work session
after January 1, 2003.
Ms. Bettman wanted to ensure that the council was in agreement that the CCHY would focus on
the potential of a tent village. She asked if the extra member was to be a City Councilor. Mr. Kelly
said yes.
Mayor Torrey clarified that Ms. Bettman was proposing to add examination of a tent village to the
committee's existing work plan.
Mr. Fart said that the committee had already done a great deal of work to address the issue of
homelessness and had changed the landscape as far as the community's response to
homelessness was concerned. He favored continuing that work. Mr. Fart asked how he could
remain involved in the work of the committee if its effort continued after his term on the council
ended.
The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 3
Work Session
B. WORK SESSION: Implementing Measures for Chase Gardens Nodal
Development Plan
Ordinance No. 1: An Ordinance Concerning the Chase Nodal Development
Area; Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and
the Willakenzie Area Plan; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an
Effective Date;
Ordinance No. 2: An Ordinance Concerning Nodal Development; Amending
Sections 9.3000, 9.3020, 9.6000, 9.6725 and 9.8320 of the Eugene Code,
1971; and Providing an Effective Date; and
Ordinance No. 3: An Ordinance Establishing a Chase Node Special Area
Zone; Amending Sections 9.1030, 9.8030, 9.8865 and 9.9700 of the Eugene
Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.3100 to 9.3126 to That Code; Amending the
Eugene Zoning Map; Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a
Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date
The council was joined by Principle Planner Kurt Yeiter of the Planning and Development
Department. He reminded the council of its public hearing on the topic and indicated that the staff
response to the council's questions were included in the meeting packet. Action on the three
ordinances were scheduled on November 12. At that time, staff would also seek council approval
to begin acquisition of the Garden Way right-of-way.
Mr. Yeiter noted that the materials before the council included sample motions reflecting the
recommendations of the Planning Commission. Those motions addressed the commercial
development potential of the Wylie Property east of Garden Way; the size of the commercial
center; the requirement for two functional floors in the commercial buildings abutting Garden Way;
a requirement that each business abutting a pedestrian-oriented street have an entrance facing
the street; and prohibitions on drive-through facilities in the node. He said that the materials
included some options to the commission's recommendations.
Mr. Yeiter noted an error on pages 22-23 of the council packet, reporting that options regarding the
two-story requirement were erroneously included with the street entrance discussion.
Mr. Yeiter noted that if the council made substantial changes to land uses in the node, the public
record would be reopened as requested during the public hearing.
Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions.
Mr. Kelly said the plan was a fragile result of a number of compromises, and he was prepared to
support the five recommended options, which reaffirmed the recommendations of the Planning
Commission. He reminded the council that nodes were being created to reduce vehicle miles
traveled; without the plan, the result would be a suburban strip mall.
Mr. Kelly said that although the developer was eager to start work the council needed to keep in
mind that what it was considering was beyond the shod-term development. It was taking actions
that would affect how the area looked for 50 years.
Mr. Pap~ determined the zoning of the Wiley property was a combination of agricultural and
suburban residential as it was not annexed to the City; Mr. Yeiter indicated it was designated for
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 4
Work Session
future commercial use in the master plan. He said the area was not being down zoned, but the
current amendments affected only land use designations.
Mr. Pap8 expressed appreciation for the information provided by Mr. Yeiter in his October 22
memorandum regarding the features of nodal development. He did not perceive that the features
mentioned were so constrictive as to demand two functional floors, prohibit entrances facing the
street, and prohibit drive-through banking. Mr. Yeiter concurred that the adopted definition of a
node in TransPlan was very broad; the node in question was the first the City had done. Mr. Pap8
expressed particular concern for the requirement for two functional floors and the requirement for
entrances onto the street.
Ms. Bettman said that what was before the council was just a semblance of what the City had
tried to achieve. She was prepared to support the majority of the commission's
recommendations, but believed the plan had very little to distinguish it from a suburban shopping
center or any other commercial development. She said that nodes were characterized by things
such as prohibitions on drive-through uses, street-facing entrances, and two-stow commercial
development. She quoted from the definition of nodal development, which stipulated that the
fundamental characteristics of a nodal development require design elements that support
pedestrian environments and encourage transit use.
Ms. Bettman said she would not support the motion related to the Wiley property. She believed
the node could be accommodated within the existing designations. She noted that during
discussion of the Royal node, there was extensive discussion on where to put the commercial
center. There was agreement it should be off the main arterial because otherwise it would not be
pedestrian-oriented. She supported not having the commercial area centrally located, and
believed that could be accomplished without any zone changes. She suggested that the council
would create a disincentive for nodal development by allowing for such a large amount of
commercial property.
Mr. Meisner was generally supportive of the commission's recommendations. He said that he
was pleased with the potential of having a node surrounded by a variety of housing types, but was
concerned about having the location and size of the commercial center. He said that if the City
wanted to provide an incentive for two-stow construction, it was possible that would fail if there
was too much commercial acreage, and he believed there was. He said that the proposed square
footage exceeded the size of many grocery stores in Eugene. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the
City did not want just residential density, but commercial density as well. He did not want to
eliminate the possibility of two floors.
Regarding drive-through facilities, Mr. Meisner said that he could not support a motion that went
beyond a banking ATM. He indicated he was not opposed to preserving the potential for an ATM
drive-through in the parking lot of a bank as long as it was the only such allowed use.
Mr. Rayor was also concerned about the large amount of land proposed for the commercial use.
He expressed concern that a large-sized commercial district would draw people who lived across
Interstate 5 in Springfield. He did not think there was enough balance between the residential and
commercial development.
Mr. Farr noted the lack of commercial services in his own neighborhood, saying there was
commercially zoned property but it was often too small to attract a business to serve the area.
When he needed many commercial services, such as a sit-down restaurant, he had to leave his
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 5
Work Session
neighborhood. Mr. Fart expressed the hope that as the council moved forward it keep in mind that
what it wanted and what actually worked were not always the same thing.
Ms. Nathanson recollected testimony offered at the public hearing regarding the issue of two
functional floors and the entrances facing the street. She asked if staff was recommending any of
the approaches that were mentioned in the Mr. Yeiter's memorandum responding to council
questions. Mr. Yeiter said yes. Staff thought there were alternatives to the commission's
recommendations, particularly with regard to the Wiley property. He said that staff attempted to
forward both the commission's recommendations and options should the council want to pursue
those. Ms. Nathanson said she was interested in the options mentioned by Mr. Yeiter.
Ms. Nathanson noted the statement offered in testimony suggesting that office tenants do not
want to locate above first-floor retail. She said that might be true for most, but she was skeptical
of it as a generalization. She recalled the Meridian Building at 18th Avenue and Willamette Street,
which had nonretail uses on the second floor. Ms. Nathanson said that the purpose of the
commission recommendation was not only to create an effective retail center, but to increase the
density and reduce the need for office development toward the periphery. In response, Mr. Yeiter
said that the most absolute trend was that the City would not likely see retail uses above the first
floor in this location for a very long time. If the two-story requirement was imposed, it would most
likely result in office or residential development, on the second floor, although the latter was
problematic in several ways. If the City was to reduce the commercial acreage as a way to
encourage second floors in the remaining commercial problem, it would probably mean that office
uses were built rather than retail or eating establishments.
Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman that the council had already compromised a great deal. She
thought the node being proposed was large enough to be a regional shopping center. She
wanted to preclude all drive-in uses, require two functional floors in the commercial area, and
require individual entrances to businesses on the street. She said that the purpose of nodes was
to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and the size of the center being proposed would attract people
from elsewhere in the community.
Mayor Torrey said the question was, does the City want to develop its first node? If the City was
prepared to impose requirements that the current developer was not willing to accept, it could do
so, but he questioned how long would it take for another developer to come forward. He
suggested that the plan might not be everything the City wanted, but it was a start.
Mayor Torrey asked staff if there were unintended consequences the City would face if the node
was not developed; by that, he clarified, he meant not giving the developer some of the things
they wanted. Mr. Yeiter said staff heard from area residents that they desired services in the area,
and were now driving elsewhere to get them. He said that one of the reasons the larger
commercial center was proposed was because the grocery store located in the nearby
commercial center east on Centennial Boulevard had closed, and staff was concerned that waiting
too long meant the grocery store there could be reestablished. The residents in the node would
drive there instead, and the node would lose its market.
Mayor Torrey called for another round of comments.
Ms. Bettman said there would be other developers. Given population projections, the land would
be developed and redeveloped in the future. She believed that the City could define what it
needed to see to realize its objectives in the node. Ms. Bettman did not think the City had to
"bend the rules until they broke" for the sake of one developer. She reminded the council that it
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 6
Work Session
adopted a policy allowing for a ten-percent discount on systems development charges (SDC) in
nodes. The developers would receive a $45,364 break on the transportation SDC when they
applied for a building permit.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning
Commission recommendation to change the land use designation of the
Wylie properties from Commercial to High-Density Residential/Mixed Use.
Mr. Kelly said that the process had been going on for two years; if the council changed something
as fundamental as the definition of the use of a big area of the node, it would be reopening the
public process and would be "back at square one." He said that for commercial development in
the node to work, it needed to be located on both sides of the street. Most of the Wylie property
was directly opposite the historic homes, which he anticipated would be last to be redeveloped in
the area. He noted the protections to those homes created by the design guidelines that would be
applied to development there.
The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Fart and Ms. Bettman voting no.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning
Commission recommendation to change the land use designation of
approximately nine acres on Simpson Housing property from High-Density
Residential to Commercial.
Mr. Kelly observed that the motion left the commercial land in its current location. He was
concerned about too much commercial acreage, but was also concerned about reopening the
public process from the beginning. He encouraged the council to think long-term, pointing out that
there were 1,500 apartment units directly adjacent to the node.
Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion to reduce
the acreage from nine acres to five acres.
Ms. Bettman said that the smaller acreage would result in a neighborhood commercial
development rather than a regional shopping center.
Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Bettman where the five acres would come from. He asked if the
commission discussed the figure or if it was from "out of the air." Ms. Bettman said that it was not
from "out of the air" because the council had looked into the subject before when discussing nodal
development. She was not sure she remembered where the figure came from.
Mr. Rayor said that testimony offered to the council suggested that the proposed acreage would
be the sixth largest commercial development in Lane County, and asked if that was correct. Mr.
Yeiter did not know. He clarified that the total building square footage was not mandated by the
zoning ordinance; rather, it was merely what was proposed by prospective developers.
Mr. Rayor asked if the ratio of commercial use to residential use was in proportion for a node. Ms.
Childs believed it was. She said that the node was proposed to serve one of the highest density
multi-family areas in the city, plus the single-family residential development in the Chase Gardens
subarea. Those residents had few commercial opportunities within walking distance, so having a
full range of commercial services available in the node was important.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 7
Work Session
Mr. Pap~ repeated Mr. Meisner's question about where the five acres would come from. Mr. Yeiter
speculated that it would be removed from the easternmost part of the node, and the remaining
commercial acreage would be clustered around Garden Way.
Mr. Fart said that the node needed a critical mass to attract development. He was concerned that
five acres was too small. He did not think that the testimony offered to the council about the size
of the node if adopted was accurate as he recalled another development that more than doubled
that size.
Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Wiley property would also be developed with commercial uses
because of its mixed-use zoning. Reducing the size of the acreage in question did not remove the
commercial potential of that area. Reducing the size to five acres would help achieve the intensity
and density of use the City was seeking.
Ms. Nathanson indicated she would support the commission recommendation for nine acres.
Mr. Kelly acknowledged the commercial potential of the mixed use area and clarified its 2,500 sq.
ft. maximum size for individual commercial tenants with Mr. Yeiter.
The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, Mr. Kelly, and
Mr. Pap~ voting no, and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Meisner, Mr. Rayor
voting yes. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the amendment, and
the amendment failed on a final vote of 5:4.
The main motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Bettman voting
no.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning
Commission recommendation to require two functional floors in buildings
abutting the Garden Way pedestrian-oriented commercial core.
Mr. Kelly pointed out the limited area to which the requirement would apply. He said that national
research indicated that two-floor construction was one of the key design elements in nodal
development.
Mr. Pap~ referred to testimony the council received stating that development of the single-story
space would occur first, and the second story development would not occur for some time. In
addition, testimony suggested that the requirement could result in lesser quality construction than
the City would like to see. He favored facades of a certain height, but did not want to require
second storeys due to the expense.
Ms. Nathanson said that a two-story facade did not achieve any of the intended purposes of the
node. It was merely a design element. However, she wanted to provide for design flexibility. She
asked how the City could best do that. She was not sympathetic to the assertion that "no one
likes it, and it will never happen." She had traveled to other cities where it did happen. It might
not be happening in Eugene now, but she wanted to nudge the community in that direction and
see if it could happen. She asked Mr. Yeiter for a recommendation on how she could accomplish
her goals. Mr. Yeiter suggested that the City could not require so many buildings to be two-story.
Certain key buildings at the intersection could be made two-story. Mr. Yeiter added that the City
also had a standards adjustment review process. However, he did not think the developer would
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 8
Work Session
be able to make a case as to why a requirement for two-story retail development could not be met
that had not already been discussed.
Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend item by ten minutes. The
motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Fart observed that where he grew up in Sheffield, England, two-story retail was the norm.
However, he was concerned about imposing the requirement on the area. He expressed
appreciation for Ms. Nathanson's remarks, but pointed out that within a shod bicycle ride of the
node in question there was a failed shopping center. He was worried that the requirement would
result in another failed commercial area.
Ms. Bettman said there was little to distinguish what was being proposed from any other suburban
shopping center, and the requirements in the plan represented the last compromised attempt at
creating a node. She said that the City would be providing a subsidy to developers in the node,
and she questioned why it would want to do so when the development being proposed was the
same that was being built in other areas of the city.
Mr. Kelly believed that the Planning Commission had already incorporated flexibility into the plan
by focusing the two-story construction along Garden Way only.
The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning
Commission recommendation to require individual entrances to businesses
abutting March Chase and Garden Way.
Mr. Kelly believed the requirement was needed to enhance pedestrian access to the businesses
in the node. He said that there were many places across the country where businesses were
located on the street and parking was in the back, and visitors had to walk from the back of the
building around to the front entrance. He did not consider that to be a hardship.
Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Yeiter if reducing the areas in which street-facing entrances were
required would remove the intent of how a node operated. Mr. Yeiter said that it might matter
more in this node because of the location of the apartments. He said that the Planning
Commission was adamant about the requirement. It was hard to judge, without requiring site
review, what other building types might satisfy the intent of the requirement.
Mr. Rayor supported the motion because it facilitated access by pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mr. Pap~ said he assumed that the motion did not provide for the flexibility of a central building
corridor through which businesses were accessed. Mr. Yeiter said that it did not. Mr. Pap~
opposed the motion, saying the City needed to provide more flexibility to the developers.
The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Planning
Commission recommendation to prohibit drive-through facilities in the Chase
Node.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 9
Work Session
Mr. Rayor indicated support because he thought people needed to reach commercial businesses
in the node by foot or by bicycle. They needed to get out of their cars and navigate the node
using the pedestrian facilities provided.
Ms. Bettman said the prohibition was key to increasing pedestrian circulation.
Mayor Torrey believed that drive-through facilities performed a needed function, particularly for
senior citizens. He hoped that drive-through facilities were made available at least at the bank.
Mr. Pap8 agreed with Mayor Torrey, pointing out that local weather conditions argued in favor of
having a drive-up facility in the bank.
Mr. Farr suggested the council consider the commercial viability of businesses to be located in the
nodes. He believed that the downtown mall failed because six months of the year the climate was
not conducive to people walking through it.
Mr. Rayor pointed out that many stores have ATMs near the front door close to bicycle parking.
He believed that the prohibition was reasonable.
Ms. Nathanson clarified with Mr. Yeiter that the motion did not prohibit ATMs. Mr. Yeiter said that
the Planning Commission's intent was that no business could be conducted from an automobile.
Mr. PapS, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to amend the motion to create a
drive-through exception only for banking purposes due to security concerns
with conditions or site review to minimize impacts to the pedestrian
environment.
Mr. Kelly said he did not support the amendment because of the additional complications created
by the proposed discretionary review. He said that nothing prohibited the installation of an ATM
that people could park near and access.
The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Farr voting yes.
The main motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Farr voting no.
C.WORK SESSION: Property Purchase for Fire Station 11 in the Santa Clara Area
Mr. Carlson introduced the item, reminding the council that it had discussed the topic as part of its
discussion of the residual bonds and bond assessment funds.
Fire Chief Tom Tallon provided the staff presentation. Real Property and Lease Manager Em
Jensen was also present to answer questions. Chief Tallon referred the council to the Agenda
Item Summary and commended Deputy Chief Matt Shuler for encapsulating the history of the
item. He said that the City entered into a lease-purchase arrangement with the Santa Clara
Church of Christ in June 2001. On July 1, 2002, the City started providing service to the area and
the data collected to this point indicated the City's decision to move into the area had enhanced
and improved service in the northwest part of the community. On August, 1 the City Manager
formed a Fire Project Policy Team. He presented the policy team's first recommendation, which
was to allow the City to use the River Road/Santa Clara residual bond funds to purchase the site
on which to locate a new Fire Station 11.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 10
Work Session
Mayor Torrey called for council questions and comments.
Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Carlson said that the River Road/Santa Clara Urban
Services Committees had not specifically discussed the staff recommendation, but had made
recommendations for implementation actions. There were no specific implementation actions
related to the fire station purpose. He confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr.
Kelly, that the committees were aware of the assessment bond reserves and discussed the use of
those funds for plan implementation.
Mr. Kelly did not object to acquiring the land for the fire station and he believed the deployment
plan made sense. He wanted to know how the City could both acquire the land and move forward
with the plan implementation steps. He asked if staff estimated the cost of moving the plans
forward. Mr. Carlson said staff had cost estimates for the implementation measures. The total
cost for implementing all three measures was about $450,000. Staff did not expect all that work to
be done in fiscal year 2004.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare
a request for Supplemental Budget #1 that appropriates the amount needed
to purchase the property for Fire Station 11, up to $555,000. Funding of this
purchase shall come from reducing the reserves in the River Road/Santa
Clara Assessment Bond Fund Reserve.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion so that up
to $355,000 of the fire station land purchase would be funded from the Bond
Fund Reserve; the remaining $200,000 from Facilities Reserve; and the
$200,000 available in the Bond Fund Reserve would be held to fund the
recommendations of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services
Committees.
Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Carlson that there was approximately $570,000 in the bond
reserve account, which was enough to fund purchase of the site. Mr. Carlson indicated that there
will be revenue to the fund totaling about $400,000 to $500,000 over an eight-year period.
Ms. Nathanson did not support the amendment. She said that the council did not know what the
committee recommendations would yield. If they resulted in capital improvement projects, those
projects might already be addressed through other efforts, such as the Parks and Open Space
Bond. The City was already acquiring more neighborhood park land in this area than in other
areas. She suggested that some of the other recommendations might not cost much money to
implement. She thought the recommendation worked well as it stood.
Mr. Kelly clarified that he was not proposing to set aside the money to implement
recommendations such as those calling for capital projects. His focus was on setting aside
money to fund the plan updates recommended by the committees.
Ms. Bettman said she would support the amendment if it was to implement the second two
recommendations of the committees, which was to conduct two more studies. One was for an
urban facilities and services study and the other was for an economic study. She thought those
were the first steps in the process of seeing how the service transition would evolve. She also
perceived the recommendations as the least expensive of the recommendations, and said she
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 11
Work Session
would like to see them funded as well as the station. She supported the amendment as a
compromise.
Ms. Bettman said her calculations indicated that the site being purchased, which was only partially
inside the city limits, would cost $375,000 per acre, or $65,000 per lot. While she acknowledged
that she was not a real estate expert, that seemed high to her. She asked for the rationale behind
the price. Ms. Jensen responded that the parcel was appraised by a certified appraiser. She said
that the appraiser listed comparable properties and certified values in his appraisal.
Mr. Rayor asked if staff would be able to work on the plans that the amendment called for in the
next fiscal year. Jim Croteau, Acting Assistant City Manager, reminded the council that it directed
staff to return in the next budget cycle with a recommendation on plan implementation. He
anticipated that some of the work involved would be done by a consultant. Other tasks, such as
the refinement plan update, would be done by staff, and they would have to be incorporated into
the work plan. He noted that the committee envisioned the Transition Manager it recommended
would be a City staff member.
Mr. Fart said that the council needed to keep in mind that the area in question was not receiving a
full level of City services. He supported the amendment because it would help forward some of
the committees' other recommendations.
Mr. Kelly accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Pap~ to use $400,000 from the Bond Fund
Reserve and $155,000 from the Facilities Reserve.
Mayor Torrey determined that there was no staff objection to the amendment. Mr. Carlson said
that the source of the funds was a policy choice for the council.
Ms. Nathanson was not prepared to support the use of Facilities Reserves as it would put the
projects envisioned out of context. She pointed out that other neighborhoods had been waiting for
a refinement plan for two decades. She questioned why this neighborhood should go ahead of
other neighborhoods. She also questioned whether the amendment removed pressure from Lane
County to help financially with the project. In the absence of discussion of those issues, she was
not prepared to support the amendment.
Mr. Pap~ said that if there had been more money in the River Road/Santa Clara reserve, he would
not have supported the amendment. However, he wanted to maintain the momentum created by
the transition planning effort.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to extend time for the item by two
minutes. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Taylor thought the initial motion was straightforward and represented an appropriate use of
the money in question. She suggested that the issues raised by Mr. Kelly be addressed at a later
time.
Mr. Farr said that the council had an opportunity to address the concerns of a neighborhood that
was at a critical juncture. He supported the amendment because he did not want the City to
repeat the mistakes it made in other neighborhoods, such as his own.
The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Taylor, and
Mr. Rayor voting no.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 12
Work Session
The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
D.ACTION: Resolution 4742 Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent Domain
for the Acquisition of Property Interests (1948 Crane Lane T1 17-04-24-05800)for
Location of Portion of a Police Department Facility
Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to City staff for its willingness to "go the extra mile" to resolve the
needs of the property owner and all others concerned. He indicated he would place a motion
related to the resolution on the floor.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to affirm that the City, in addition to
payment of the just compensation required under Article 1, Section 18, of the
Oregon Constitution, will fulfill the requirements of the Oregon Relocation
Payments Act regarding the house at 1948 Crane Lane, including assuring
that there is replacement housing available to the homeowner that is
comparable to or better than his current housing. If there is no comparable
or better replacement housing available to the homeowner at the price paid
to him as just compensation, the City will comply with the Oregon Relocation
Payments Act by providing additional funding for the homeowner's purchase
of comparable or better housing, which could include moving his existing
residence to a new property.
Mayor Torrey called for council comments.
Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion, although he thought it unnecessary. He said if he
was a staff person he would probably find it insulting that the council felt it necessary to pass a
motion that suggested that in the absence of direction to the contrary, staff would not comply with
the law.
Mr. Farr said that the council knew the staff would comply with the law. He suggested that by
passing the motion, the council was helping people understand what the City was doing. He
agreed that the motion was not necessary but he would support it as a statement of what the City
intended to do.
Mr. Kelly clarified that he was not implying that the staff would not follow the law, but rather to
explain to the public what was going on. Mr. Meisner suggested that the council needed to state
that it trusted staff to do the right thing. Mr. Kelly said "consider it said."
Mr. Rayor said that he supported the intent of the motion but would vote against it. He was upset
by the purchase of the trailer park property and he wanted more information about the purchase.
He recalled that the council had been adamant that it did not want the Iow-income housing the
park contained to be displaced. Now the park would be gradually vacated over time until it was a
"ghost town." That was not his intent in supporting the master plan. Mr. Rayor said that it was his
intent that if the City acquired the park it would relocate all the residents, not drive them out "one-
by-one" until it was no longer a safe place just so the City could expand its facilities. Mr. Rayor
said that the manager should have asked the council's permission to proceed with the purchase,
even though he acknowledged such an action was not required by law. He was upset that the
charter only required the manager to consult with the council about selling, not buying property.
Mr. Rayor said that he had only heard of the purchase second-hand. He thought he had received
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 13
Work Session
a memorandum from the City, but he "had not seen it." Mr. Rayor did not feel as though he had
been notified.
Ms. Bettman was concerned that, given the stand the property owner had taken, condemnation
could harden that stand and "put him over the edge." She also questioned whether the property
owner might have to be removed from the house by force. Mr. Carlson said that he did not feel
qualified to make a judgment about the property owner's reaction. He said that it was conceivable
the property owner could be removed from the house by force, either as a result of the
condemnation or foreclosure for past due property taxes. Ms. Bettman determined that the
property owner had one year to pay back taxes.
Ms. Bettman said that she could not support the condemnation action. She thought other
alternatives existed, and that the City should exhaust every avenue before it took such an action.
She said she would support the motion on the floor, but not the resolution.
Mr. Pap~ indicated support for the motion but hoped the council was not setting a precedent
through its adoption. He suggested that the council could make a statement on the record without
taking formal action.
The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting no.
Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the manager to sell
the trailer park.
Mr. Rayor said that there were many people living in the trailer park and now the City was their
landlord, to the detriment of Iow-income housing. He felt that the City's purchase of the property
after the council's discussion was a "slap in the face" of the council, and if he could undo it, he
would.
Mr. Carlson explained that staff had informed the council of its decision to make an offer on the
property. A memorandum describing why the City made an offer was sent to the council. He said
that the City learned another individual was going to buy the property, which would have resulted
in the removal of the residents. The City opted to purchase the property to preserve its options in
developing the master plan. The City had no intention at this time of moving people out of the
park. However, over the long-term, there were plans to redevelop the property as part of the
master plan.
Mr. Kelly said he thought the City's purchase of the property more beneficial to the residents than
the other purchaser would have been.
Mr. Meisner noted the property in question was in his ward. He did not recall that the council had
guaranteed the permanent survival of the trailer court; rather, it tried to guarantee its possible
continuance, depending on what its owner did. He concurred with Mr. Carlson's assessment of
the situation. He noted that there was considerable turnover in the trailer park, and few long-term
residents.
The motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting yes.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve Resolution 4742
authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the
acquisition of property interests (1948 Crane Lane, T1 17-04-25-24-05800)
for location of a portion of a police department facility.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 14
Work Session
Mr. Fart agreed with Ms. Bettman that condemnation needed to be the City's last option. Based
on what he had heard, he believed that all options had been exhausted at this point. He indicated
support for the motion.
Ms. Taylor said she could not vote to evict someone who could not be negotiated with. The result
of the City's action was unknown. She asked what would happen if the County foreclosed on the
property. Mr. Carlson said that the property owner could be forcibly removed by the County when
it took possession of the property. The foreclosure period ended September 2003. Ms. Taylor
asked if the City would be responsible for paying back taxes if it condemned the property. City
Attorney Glenn Klein believed the answer was yes; the City's money would be deposited with the
court, which would allocate it first to back taxes first. The remainder would go to the property
owner. He said that was a separate transaction from the relocation benefits the property owner
would receive.
Mr. Kelly said that the requirements of the relocation act ensured that the property owner would be
able to purchase comparable or better housing. He pointed out that the motion did not cause
condemnation; it initiated a process that could lead to condemnation, and it was his hope that the
action could spur the homeowner to engage the City in negotiations.
Ms. Bettman said that the need to condemn was created by the City's acquisition process, and
she believed that there was no need to proceed with extreme haste at this time. She encouraged
the council to allow events to play out, suggesting that over a year's time the property owner might
change his mind. She did not think the City had exhausted all its options, so she could not
support the motion.
Mr. Rayor agreed with Ms. Bettman. He said that anyone who presumed that the mechanism of
condemnation would work better for the property owner than the foreclosure process was "playing
god."
Mr. Pap~ suggested that the likely outcome of waiting was that the County would take possession
of the property and the City would be negotiating with the County for the property. At that time, the
property owner's options would be even fewer than he had now. He agreed with Mr. Kelly's
summary of the situation.
The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Rayor voting no.
The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Carlson,
City Manager pro tem
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 15
Work Session