Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/23/01 Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting McNutt Room, City Hall April 23, 2001 8p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Cai Hoover, 2809 Sheridan Avenue, North Bend, discussed correspondence he had sent the council regarding motorized scooters. Such scooters were being widely marketed and would soon be appearing on city streets whether or not regulations were in place. Mr. Hoover felt the vehicles should be regulated, noting the State legislature had taken up the matter in the form of a Senate bill that had already passed and was being considered in the House. He believed the legislation would pass and become law. He reviewed the basic components of the legislation, which defined motorized scooters to include electrically assisted vehicles which he and his wife hoped to build and sell. He asked the council to consider an appropriate regulatory framework for such vehicles. Mike Clark, 2754 Cheryl Street, president of the Active 20/30 Club, requested the council's approval of the extension of Alton Baker Park hours. He said that the club had provided information to the council about the proposed change in venue. He provided additional information about the cost of using the fairgrounds, which would cause the club to lose money on the event. Having the event at the park would raise an additional $10,000 to $12,000 for charity. Mr. Clark said that other previous locations for the event were no longer available. The organization was requesting the park hours extension; without the extension, the event will be canceled. He noted the presence of past 20/30 event chairs and Fire staff, and invited council questions. Steven Leppanen, 280 Conestoga Way, objected to paid parking in the downtown area. He said that paid parking was a form of aversion therapy for residents. He questioned whether the cost of parking enforcement was worth it. Mr. Leppanen said that while residents might have to pay higher prices at establishments that did not charge for parking, at least they went to those establishments. He did not see the benefits of the parking program. Addressing Mr. Clark's remarks, Councilor Farr expressed appreciation at the mode of presentation to the council and thanked the organization's representatives. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 1 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor indicated her concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Leppanen. She said that she thought the meters discouraged people from coming downtown. Councilor Kelly said that the issue of parking had many facets. For example, some of the revenue collected maintains City parking structures. Eliminating parking charges downtown would mean the council would have to find another source of revenue for that purpose. He said in other communities that charged for parking in downtown there was enough to bring people downtown. Councilor Nathanson responded to Mr. Hoover's remarks, saying she had made an information request of staff earlier in response to communication received by the council, and requested the status of that information request and if recommendations from staff about the topic were forthcoming. Councilor Papd agreed with the remarks of Councilor Fart. He said that he supported the application for the park extension on a one-time basis. He encouraged the event sponsors to work closely with police to control extracurricular activities. If the event did not work well, he wanted it to move to another venue. Councilor Papd left the meeting. 2. DISCUSSION OF CHARTER REVIEW ISSUES City Manager Jim Johnson had no charter issues to raise at this time. He noted that an e-mail message had been sent to the council earlier that day requesting input on the charter issues related to the Eugene Water & Electric Board. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Council Minutes April 4, 2001, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions D. Approval of 2001 Intergovernmental Agreement for Criminal Justice Services E. Approval of Exemption to Alton Baker Park Hours F. A Resolution Amending the User Categories to Determine Hult Center Rental Rates as Defined in Resolution No. 3442, 3475, 3800, 4017, 4034, and 4454 G. Approval of City Manager Appraisal Reporting Form Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to adopt the Consent Calendar. Councilor Rayor pulled items C and E. Councilor Kelly pulled Item G. Councilor Nathanson commented on Item B. She noted the potential that another Wednesday meeting would be added to the schedule, and said that for those councilors who planned several weeks out, that was a difficulty. She said that as a full-time employee changing her schedule was very difficult. She said that she MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 2 Regular Meeting had been criticized for missing some council meetings in January that were scheduled at the last minute. She appealed to the council to practice some self-discipline. Councilor Bettman pulled items A and D. Regarding Item A, Councilor Bettman referred to the minutes of April 4 and asked that third line of paragraph one be changed to refer to nodal development, not operations, maintenance, and preservation (OM&P). She said that the word "purpose" in paragraph 5 of page 9 of the minutes should be "responsible." Mayor Torrey determined there was no objection to the minutes corrections offered by Councilor Bettman. Roll call vote; the motion to approve items A, B, and F passed unanimously, 7:0. With regard to Item C, Councilor Rayor expressed concern about the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations' recommendation on Senate Bill 619. He noted the committee's split vote on the issue; his was the minority vote. He was disturbed that the legislation allowed a police agency to establish a boundary for tactical police operations, prohibited an aircraft from coming within a mile of the boundary, and prohibited live video broadcast of activities within the boundary. He wanted the City to take a neutral position or to oppose the bill. Councilor Rayor reviewed the definition of tactical policing contained in the bill, which stipulated the police agency may declare a tactical police operation. He was concerned the legislation would be misused by police agencies. Councilor Rayor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the motion by changing the status of Senate Bill 619 to "monitor." Councilor Nathanson asked Councilor Meisner, the chair of the committee, if the committee discussed the bill. Councilor Meisner said yes, the committee voted to take action on the bill and he and Councilor Farr supported the staff recommendation for a position of Support, Priority 2. He had not shared Councilor Rayor's concerns, noting they were based on general principles rather than the specific legislation in question as the text was not available at the time the committee met. Councilor Taylor also noted her opposition to the bill. Councilor Kelly thanked Councilor Rayor for raising the issue. He reminded staff that bills that did not enjoy the unanimous support of the committee were supposed to be separate consent items. Councilor Kelly supported the amendment. He shared Councilor Rayor's concerns about the breadth of the provision he objected to. He suggested the City could offer amendments to the bill to narrow its scope. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed, 5:2; councilors Farr and Meisner voting no. Roll call vote; the motion on Item C passed unanimously, 7:0. Referring to Item D, Councilor Bettman wanted an opportunity for the community to review a cost-benefit analysis as part of the final report along with issues related to consolidation, such as loss of local control. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 3 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Item D passed unanimously, 7:0. Referring to Item E, Councilor Rayor said he supported the parks hour exemption but was concerned about the potential fire hazard. He requested comment from Fire staff. Deputy Chief Matt Shuler reported that Fire staff had met with representatives of the Active 20/30 Club earlier in the week to discuss fire management issues. He noted that the City Manager had authority to restrict fire works activities in Eugene. The permit issued by the Fire Marshal involved review of the plans for pyrotechnics and a site visit. That permit was revokable based on conditions at the time. City staff closely monitors the weather prior to the holiday. Councilor Bettman asked what City resources would be involved in providing services to the event, and how much of that would be reimbursed. Mr. Shuler said that staff had spent about ten hours of noncompensable time on the issue to date. He anticipated staff would put in ten to fifteen more hours before the event working with the organization. In addition, the permit review and site inspection would require two to three hours; those costs would be covered by the permit fee. The department would decide later if another crew was required, and that would be billed by the hour to any third party requiring the service. Councilor Bettman wanted the event to occur in the safest place and questioned whether the park was the appropriate location. She believed if the City permitted the event it became liable for the event because the event was held on City property. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the City required insurance from such events to avoid the liability issue mentioned by Councilor Bettman. That insurance requirement was required of the City by the State. Councilor Bettman asked if the City Council would have the opportunity to evaluate the event before allowing another such event. City Manager Johnson said yes. Councilor Nathanson said that the organization held the event to benefit children and she applauded the effort. She raised the issue of fireworks use by spectators and noted the organization had produced a plan to limit that use. She asked if the designated area for personal fireworks would put other park users in jeopardy. Tim Rhay of Parks Maintenance said the overflow parking lot was physically separated, so it was chosen for the purpose. He believed that access to the site could be controlled, and the site was not on the access routes to the event. Mr. Clark said that in previous years, individuals using their own fireworks did not use them on the fairgrounds where the event occurred, but in the adjacent neighborhoods with no control. The new area had a specific place where such use could be more carefully monitored. Responding to a question from Councilor Meisner, Mr. Rhay said that the club would be charging admission to the largest portion of the western part of the park. Councilor Meisner did not want to see a beer garden in the parks and said he would oppose the motion for that reason. Councilor Kelly said the concerns he had raised had been responded to. While he was somewhat nervous about the event, he would trust to professional staff and vote to approve the proposal. Police Chief Jim Hill addressed Councilor Bettman's question regarding the provision of police services, and reported that the department was negotiating those costs with the organization. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 4 Regular Meeting Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Rhay clarified that alcohol consumption was allowed at the picnic shelter in the park. City Manager Johnson added that was the location of the Arts in Vineyard event. Chief Hill said that the department would be enforcing all applicable ordinances. He said that the area would be patrolled with bicycles and foot patrols. Councilor Taylor asked what the event would cost the City. City Manager Johnson responded that additional resources such as fire and police services required by the event would be paid by the event organizers. Mayor Torrey supported the motion and hoped the council would support it. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Item E passed, 5:2; councilors Meisner and Bettman voting no. Referring to Item G, Councilor Kelly thanked Human Resources and Risk Services Department Director Lauren Chouinard for his work on the City Manager's evaluation form. He said that he pulled the item to get council concurrence on a change to the survey scale, which was on a one-to-five scale, as opposed to the council goals survey, which was on a one-to-four scale. There was concurrence. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Item G passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED UNDER ORDINANCE 19660 City Manager Jim Johnson introduced the item. He recommended that the council hold the record open. Responding to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Klein disagreed with the landowner's representative that the notice of the hearing was legally insufficient. The recommendation to hold open the record was to give Ms. Ruth, the former landowner, an opportunity to develop a legal argument. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Wayne Maynard, 1574 Coburg Road, representing the former property owner, Laurita Ruth, said if the City Council was willing to delay the issue until May 7, 2001, he did not have much to say. He urged the council to postpone the item. He disagreed with Mr. Klein regarding the issue of notice, and said the attorney for the owner, Larry J. Anderson, would be willing to tell the council why. The property was taken under the threat of condemnation, and the property owner would like time to develop a legal argument as to why the change should not be made by ordinance. He said the consequence of a failure to delay could be expensive litigation. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Rayor requested information about the status of the proposed road aligmnent. Mike Sullivan of Planning and Development Department said there was a preliminary road design. The City had a contract to appraise the property using that configuration. Councilor Rayor asked for information on what the road proposed to go through the property did, and if it was needed, where the road would be in the future. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 5 Regular Meeting Mayor Torrey announced the record for the item would remain open for written comment until May 7, 2001, at 5 p.m. There was no objection. 5. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE DOWNTOWN MALL; REPEALING THE SUNSET PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE 20121 AND SECTION 3 OF ORDINANCE 20122; REPEALING SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE 20149; REPEALING ORDINANCE 20150; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE City Manager Johnson introduced the item. He said that Councilor Kelly had asked staffto develop some options for the council to consider, one related to extending the sunset date and the other providing language for the mall exclusion ordinance that would be similar to the exclusion ordinance for prostitution. He noted the presence of Chief Jim Hill, Captain Becky Hansen, Lieutenant Ron Roberts, and Officer Julie Smith. He noted Officer Smith worked on the mall and was familiar with the ordinance and could answer questions. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Mark Johnson, representing the Lane Transit District (LTD), supported the repeal of the sunset provision of the ordinance, saying it had been a successful tool for the police in dealing with repeat offenders on the mall. He questioned why the City would want to stop a program that had been so successful in achieving downtown goals. Mr. Johnson said he was obligated to protect LTD employees and ensure their safety when working downtown. The ordinance helped him meet that obligation. He did not want to see the tool lost. Walter Hunt, 2745 Spring Boulevard, said that businesses near the LTD station were in support of extending the LTD safety zone to the front of the sidewalk as was done in Springfield. He said that his business was having a problem with spill over from LTD patrons. He suggested that there be a place on the LTD station for people to smoke rather than forcing them to use the sidewalk. Mr. Hunt also advocated for enforcement of City laws to clear the sidewalk. Russ Brink, 132 East Broadway, Director of DEI, said he was also vice president of the Safe and Sound Board, a public/private partnership that helped at-risk youth on the mall. He said that the situation downtown was frustrating for officers because they had so few tools to deal with it and offenders were quickly matrixed out of jail. The mall exclusion ordinance gave police the opportunity to exclude people from the mall for 60 days and it was an effective tool. Mr. Brink said that there was concern expressed when the ordinance was adopted that it was targeted at certain individuals, but statistics indicated only 149 of 609 exclusion orders were issued to youth. He said that more often youth were the focus of adult attempts to bring them into a life of crimes and drugs. He supported the repeal of the sunset provision. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman said she did not necessarily want the ordinance to be permanent, but wanted the sunset date far enough off in the future so that staff did not continually have to return to the council to renew the ordinance. She solicited suggestions on the topic from staff. Regarding the exclusion zone, Councilor Bettman asked if the City was seeing congregations of people on the edge of the exclusion zones, and if it would useful to expand the zone to address that issue. Officer Smith confirmed that staff tended to see excluded people at the westernmost border of downtown at Charnelton Street. She said it might be useful to MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 6 Regular Meeting extend the zone to Lincoln Street. There was also a tendency for people to gather on 10th Avenue on the south side of the road. Councilor Bettman asked if expansion of the boundary could be included in the ordinance before the council. Mr. Klein indicated he would prefer to return with another draft ordinance. Councilor Taylor asked why the people who were excluded would obey the exclusion if they were people who did not obey the law. Officer Smith responded that police staff tracked such individuals when they returned to the area to address any issues that might arise immediately. She said that offenders get tired of the process and in most cases people are only excluded once. Those offenders who violate the exclusion order can be cited for trespass and taken to j ail. Councilor Taylor asked why they could not just be taken to j ail for the infraction they committed. Officer Smith said that was what police initially did; now there was a problem with offenders being matrixed from the jail. She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Councilor Taylor, that those j ailed for violating exclusion ordinances could be matrixed too. Responding to a question from Councilor Taylor about the citations given for criminal trespass, Lt. Roberts said such citations were usually issued because people were on property they had no right to be on or because they violated the exclusion order. The "Other" category of crime included such offenses as shoplifting and criminal mischief. He could recall no exclusion orders issued for violations of the mall rules. Generally, the exclusion orders were issued for drug offenses, drug abuse, alcohol violations, urinating in public, assault, and robbery. Councilor Taylor asked if people excluded stopped committing crimes or committed them somewhere else. Lt. Roberts said they probably do both. Most of the people in downtown who have been cited have repeat offender histories. The exclusion order gets them out of downtown and the network of people they socialize with. Councilor Nathanson commented that 2001 reports were only for a partial year, and she thought it misleading to plot that information on a chart in the manner it was presented. Even though the year was incomplete, it looked as though fewer exclusion ordinances were issued. She asked the reason why. Lt. Roberts said that through addressing the issues on the mall proactively, the police had broken up significant-sized crowds that hid criminal activity in the past. It was harder for people to commit crimes so they tended to leave the mall to do so. He thought the drop in activity was a positive sign as well as a sign the ordinance was working. Councilor Nathanson thought the charts indicated good news in terms of increased safety on the mall and hoped there was a commensurate drop in other types of criminal activities. Lt. Roberts said the crime rate is dropping in downtown compared to previous years, indicating a slight downward trend. He added that the mall exclusion ordinance was just one piece of the puzzle the police were using to address the issues; a combination of policing tools had the most effect. Mayor Torrey asked about the number of appeals of mall exclusion orders. Lt. Roberts said since adoption of the ordinance, there were four appeals; two were upheld, and two were dismissed. Mayor Torrey asked if Lt. Roberts thought the appeals indicated the police used bad judgment. Lt. Roberts said no; he thought that an appeal rate of less than one percent indicated officers were using good judgment in how they used the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Meisner asked if staff had information about the number of show cause notices that had been issued under the prostitution ordinance and how many had been upheld for failure to appear. Lt. Roberts did not have that information. City Manager Johnson said the council would consider Council Bill 4764, an Ordinance concerning the Downtown Mall; Repealing the Sunset Provisions of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 20121 and Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20122; Repealing Section 2 of Ordinance No. 20149; Repealing Ordinance No. 20150; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill, with the unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilor Kelly appreciated that the ordinance prepared by staff acknowledged the Broadway opening was being studied and it could have an impact on the issue. He believed "it went without saying" that if Broadway was opened the council would repeal the exclusion ordinance immediately. He was persuaded by a variety of stories related to him that there had been ways the ordinance clearly helped the downtown. However, he did not believe the ordinance was a panacea for all ills. Councilor Kelly recalled the receipt of a letter from a Broadway business owner in support of the ordinance when the sunset was last extended; that owner, who stated at that time she would have a business no other place and the ordinance made it possible for her to stay downtown, was no longer located on the mall. Regarding the possible extension of the exclusion boundaries, Councilor Kelly said that he was absolutely opposed to that as he envisioned the boundaries could be moved one block at a time until it encompassed the entire city. Councilor Kelly emphasized his concern about the impression of due process. He thought there a logical separation between the function of the police and the function of the judiciary; for that reason, he preferred the show cause hearing option associated with the prostitution exclusion zone rather than the appeal option now in the ordinance. He could only support such an ordinance. Councilor Kelly further expressed frustration that the item was coming to the council one week before the expiration of the sunset date, which meant the sunset would not be in place if the motion failed to receive six votes. Councilor Kelly referred the council to the substitute ordinance labeled Attachment A, which included a show cause process, and described the differences between the ordinance in the packet and the substitute. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved to adopt Attachment A, an ordinance concerning the downtown mall; repealing the sunset provisions of Section 2 of the Ordinance 20121 and Section 3 of Ordinance 20122; repealing Section 2 of Ordinance 21049; repealing Ordinance 20150; amending Section 4.874 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and providing an immediate effective date. Councilor Taylor did not favor exclusion ordinances in general and would not vote to repeal the sunset. She was not convinced the ordinance was morally right or that it had the proper respect MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 8 Regular Meeting for civil liberties. She needed time to consider the substitute ordinance, adding that ordinance could lapse and the City could reinstitute it if needed. Councilor Taylor agreed with Councilor Kelly about extending the boundaries of the exclusion area. If people were committing crimes, they should be punished for the crime, not for being on the mall. Councilor Taylor attributed the lack of appeals to the fact that such appeals made people feel "hopeless," or they had insufficient money or knowledge of the system to appeal. City Manager Johnson indicated that staff was prepared to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches reflected in the ordinance proposed by staff and the ordinance proposed by Councilor Kelly. He noted that staff had not been able to contact Judge Allen to find out the work load implications of the show cause hearings required by the substitute ordinance. Councilor Nathanson was prepared to support a form of the ordinance. She preferred to vote to make the ordinance permanent. She asked the City Manager to discuss what it meant to adopt Attachment A as opposed to the ordinance drafted by staff. Regarding Councilor Taylor's suggestion that the ordinance be allowed to lapse, she opposed that as she believed that there were people who have learned to manipulate the system. She acknowledged Councilor Kelly's concerns about due process, but did not think the analogy to the prostitution zone appropriate because of the large number of adults who were victimizing youth who were cited under the ordinance. In addition, the crimes on the mall involving drugs and weapons were a different kind of crime than those crimes addressed by the citywide prostitution ordinance. Councilor Farr said that he would like to hear a response from Judge Allen regarding the resource issue related to the show cause process. He did not think he was prepared to vote on the ordinance tonight. Councilor Rayor said the current ordinance appeared to provide sufficient due process. The ordinance was clear about the appeal process. The advantages and disadvantages of one approach over the other was not clear to him. He noted his previous support for extending the sunset and suggested the council consider retaining the current ordinance while the issues were worked out. Councilor Meisner said he understood anecdotally that no one has appeared for a show cause hearing under the prostitution ordinance. The effect was a three-to-five day gap between issuance of the exclusion order and its effective date, but it had not had a big impact on court operations. He was comfortable repealing the sunset as the council could always reinstitute the sunset if it wished. He did not want to have to go through the process of extending the sunset every year. At this point, Councilor Meisner was comfortable with Councilor Kelly's substitute ordinance but was concerned that there would be insufficient votes to pass any ordinance that could be effective immediately. Councilor Bettman shared Councilor Meisner's concerns about the council's ability to pass an ordinance with six votes given the concerns expressed by councilors. She favored passing the staff-prepared ordinance while other issues could be worked out. Mayor Torrey expressed the hope the council would defeat the amendment and pass the motion. He said that the council could discuss the issues raised by councilors Bettman and Kelly at a later time. He noted his support for a boundary expansion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly encouraged the council to adopt his substitute motion, saying he felt it was the judiciary's job to hand out punishment, not the police's, and the inclusion of the show cause process makes that decision a judicial one. While he acknowledged Councilor Farr's remarks about the need for input from Judge Allen, he pointed out that staff brought the item to the council one week before the expiration of the sunset. City Manager Johnson observed that show cause hearings would also require the presence of an officer, which would add costs to the police. He said that adoption of Option B would allow the council to take action and get its questions answered. Councilor Nathanson reiterated her interest in input from Judge Allen and also in passing an ordinance. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Officer Smith said the major impact of delay will be on the impact of the victim; a show cause could delay the period of exclusion for five days, giving the offender time to victimize again. In addition, her time would be taken up in court away from patrol time on the mall. Officer Smith had no comment to offer about the advantages of the show cause approach. She said it was important something be in effect so she did not lose a valuable tool. Lt. Roberts said that the advantages of the show cause approach concerned due process. The original ordinance addressed that issue by the inclusion of an appeal process. The show cause approach addressed the concerns of individual councilors, but he thought the original ordinance addressed that issue as well. Councilor Kelly acknowledged the monetary concerns but said, facetiously, that the City could address all such monetary concerns if it had the police issue all punishments on the spot at the time of arrest. He said that there was a balance between costs and different perceptions of the judicial process. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 2:5: councilors Taylor and Kelly voting yes. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Fart, moved to amend the motion by adopting Attachment B, an ordinance concerning the downtown mall; amending the sunset provisions of Section 2 of Ordinance 20121 and Section 3 of Ordinance 20122; repealing Ordinance 20149, Ordinance 20150, and sections 1 and 5 of Ordinance 20196; and providing an immediate effective date. Councilor Kelly explained the motion would extend the sunset date by 90 days to July 31, giving time for staff to solicit input from the judge, for the community to provide input, and for Councilor Bettman's question about boundary expansion to be addressed. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Roll call vote; the motion on first reading passed unanimously, 7:0. City Manager Johnson said the council would consider Council Bill 4764 by number only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 10 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Councilor Rayor reiterated that the ordinance was clear as to the appeal process. The appeal process was straightforward and there was no expense to the appellant. He felt the ordinance provided sufficient due process. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously: 7:0 Councilor Bettman moved, seconded by Councilor Meisner, to direct the City Manager to return to the council with a recommendation to extend the boundaries of the mall exclusion ordinance. Councilor Kelly reiterated his previous remark about extending the exclusion ordinance"one block at a time." Councilor Bettman said she had a lot of feedback about situations in downtown that could be addressed by the expansion of the boundaries, and she wanted staff to explore those problems. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Rayor, Taylor, and Kelly voting no. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting and reconvened it in the McNutt Room. C.WORK SESSION: WEST EUGENE PARKWAY The council was joined for the item by Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Planning Division Manager Jan Childs, and Transportation Engineer Dave Reinhard. Mayor Torrey reviewed action on the West Eugene Parkway to this point, saying that he and staff had met with the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) to discuss proceeding with a scaled- down version of the parkway but he did not think there was interest on the part of the commission. Two of the commissioners had come to Eugene to talk to the council; that meeting ended with a request from Commissioner Russell that the local community address the issues involved through a one-day design charette. Mayor Torrey said staff had developed a framework for a charette that would include representatives of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Federal Highway Administration, Land Conservation and Development Commission, the City Council, Board of County Commissioners, and interested community groups. The charette was reflected in Option 3 of the meeting packet. Mr. Rayor asked if the charette would involve Bureau of Land Management and City wetlands staff. Mr. Carlson said yes. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to accept the staff recommendation for Option 3 regarding next steps in resolving transportation issues in west Eugene. Mr. Kelly questioned what staff meant when it stated the option was consistent with the council's previous action on the parkway. He said support of the option was not support of a scaled back parkway project. Mr. Carlson responded that staff was assuming that the alignment of the eastern MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 11 Regular Meeting portion of the West Eugene Parkway would be part of the charette. Mr. Kelly wanted to ensure that any answer was not arrived at before the process occurred. Mr. Carlson said staff also assumed that the charette would include the modifications the council previously made to the West Eugene Parkway. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Carlson said that staff was asking the OTC to retain the funding currently programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program for one more year for improvements in the entire corridor, not just Unit lA. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Carlson said that before inviting other stakeholders, the City would go the OTC and get its concurrence on the steps outlined in the meeting packet. At that time, staff would design the charette and determine the invitees. He thought that key OTC and ODOT staff would be present. Ms. Taylor asked when the charette would occur. Mayor Torrey indicated the date was not fixed. Mr. Carlson envisioned the charette would be an all-day event. Mayor Torrey said that the council would have to determine which four councilors attended the charette as five or more councilors constituted a quorum. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the flexibility shown by ODOT and the OTC. He envisioned that part of the ultimate solution would be a road project but other techniques such as Bus Rapid Transit, commuter rail, land use, and transportation demand management would also be part of the solution. Ms. Nathanson considered the charette to be an intensive project that would depend on expert judgment and skill rather than a time for political posturing. She questioned what she could add as a councilor to that effort. She believed that staff had heard the input and concerns of the council. She thought it good if the council could be present to observe, but she had not planned on being there to help design a project or discuss potential changes to zoning maps. Mr. Rayor thanked staff for the clear and understandable meeting packet material and for putting together the proposal. He suggested the charette be video-taped. Ms. Bettman indicated she was interested in attending the charette. Mr. Meisner supported the motion and was enthusiastic about it. He said the charette was an incredibly ambitious exercise. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 12 Regular Meeting MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 13 Regular Meeting