Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/20/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall June 20, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. At the request of Mayor Torrey, representatives from Oregon Beaver Boys State introduced themselves and identified their respective high schools. A plaque was presented to the mayor and City Council in recognition of their hospitality to the Oregon Beaver Boys State Program. A. Work Session: 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 Ordinance No. 20149, Ordinance No. 20150, and Ordinance No. 20227; Amending Section 4.874 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date The council was joined for the item by Acting City Manager Jim Carlson, City Attorney Jerome Lidz, and Lieutenant Ron Roberts of the Eugene Police Department. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to schedule a public hearing on Version B. Mr. Kelly expressed frustration that information he had previously requested was not available. He had specifically asked that the issue be scheduled for final action in June rather than July to avoid the need for emergency action. He had requested feedback on the information requested from Judge Allen regarding the additional workload created by the "show cause" approach. There was nothing in the meeting packet in response. Lt. Roberts said conversations with Judge Allen indicated there would be no significant impact on the Municipal Court. Mr. Kelly said that he had asked City Manager Jim Johnson to secure feedback from Chief Jim Hill in response to Judge Allen's letter regarding the effective date of the exclusion order Lt. Roberts explained that some of the misunderstanding had been staff miscommunication about how exclusion orders were being issued. He clarified that no action was taken to exclude an individual from the mall until the court had issued an exclusion order. Police officers issued notice there MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 1 Work Session would be an exclusion order, but not the order itself. Mr. Kelly expressed confusion as staff had previously indicated that officers issued the order. A memorandum from Chief Hill had discussed the need to be able to exclude individuals immediately. He asked if staff was saying, "Oh, we were only kidding." Mr. Kelly said he wished there was a more forthcoming answer. Ms. Bettman said she previously requested a recommendation from the Eugene Police Department regarding the possible extension of the exclusion area boundaries. Version A of the ordinance extended the boundary from the north boundary of 11th Avenue from Lincoln to Oak streets. She asked for staff input on why a smaller extension was not proposed. Using a map of downtown, Lt. Roberts identified the downtown mall and the area on 10th Avenue in front of the Lane Transit District (LTD) property and Broadway Place apartments as the area proposed for inclusion. He said that the staff recommendation was based on the location of the businesses in question in relationship to the downtown mall and Broadway. Lt. Roberts had attempted to simplify the extended area's boundaries to the degree possible. Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Lt. Roberts explained that LTD already had the ability to exclude people from its property. LTD used that tool extensively now. The area in question was not an area of concern to Eugene Police Department staff because of that fact. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the motion to expand the boundary to the south margin of 10th Avenue, including the sidewalk from Oak Street to the eastern margin of Lincoln Street. Mr. Kelly said he did not generally like exclusion ordinances because they penalized people before they went to trial for the underlying offense. The data provided by staff in April had convinced him to support the tool as long as the mall was a closed mall. He could only rationalize the use of the tool on the mall where the streets and alleys were closed to automobiles, which reduced visibility. He could justify the use of the tool on Broadway, but he questioned applying it to streets that were indistinguishable in form and function from one another. Mr. Meisner supported the amendment. He was satisfied that the problems on the south side of 10th Avenue were similar to those experienced on Broadway. The area north of Symantec and the Broadway Place garages were also a problem. He pointed out that similar exclusion ordinances exist in the parks as a tool to address criminal activity. Extending the boundaries a block to the west and across the street did not trouble him. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Lidz said that generally, staff interpreted "street" as used in the ordinance to include the sidewalks. He further clarified that the mall was defined as Broadway plus portions of the adjacent alleys. The amended definition was intended to clarify the boundaries and make them more clear to the citizens and police. Ms. Bettman said that she agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks and was uncomfortable in setting aside the area, but she thought downtown had unique problems because of the mall, and that mall problems were spilling over into other places. If the City moved forward with opening Broadway, she thought it would see more problems until construction was complete; when the street was reopened, there would be enough increased auto/pedestrian use to dilute the effect of those who were acting illegally or improperly, which would create a better overall atmosphere, and then the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 2 Work Session council could repeal the ordinance. She said the predatory nature of some of the people on the mall combined with the presence of youth made her believe the City needed a special tool. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to comment on why a larger area was being contemplated. Lt. Roberts responded by describing illegal activity that occurred in concealed and obscured places on the mall, and said staff hoped to eliminate those activities by establishing a defined geographic area from which people could be excluded for criminal offenses. There were many businesses along 10th Avenue that were affected by such activities. At the request of Ms. Nathanson, Lt. Roberts drew a blue line on the map of downtown to show the parameters of Ms. Bettman's proposal as compared to the staff proposal. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Lidz indicated that there was a discrepancy between the map and ordinance, and staff had prepared a revised version of the ordinance. Mr. Fart shared Mr. Kelly's general concerns about exclusion ordinances, but he thought there were overriding issues in the area that supplanted those concerns. He pointed out the area around the Overpark on the map and suggested it was also quite problematic and should be addressed. Lt. Roberts responded that there was a considerable degree of activity occurring in the area and officer response to issues in the area. Mr. Fart wondered if it would become more of a problem if the exclusion area was expanded to include that area. Mr. Fart, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the amendment to extend the southern boundary to include the south margin of East 11th Avenue. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the motion reflected Version A of the ordinance. Mr. Fart, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, rephrased the motion as moving to adopt Version A. Ms. Bettman thought that, given time, the Eugene Police Department could point out a lot of problem areas in the community. She had attempted to strike a balance that addressed the unique problem downtown without creating a situation where people were being excluded from the entirety of downtown. Mr. Meisner understood the concern expressed by Mr. Fart but preferred Ms. Bettman's amendment at this time. He believed the staff recommendation supported the motion offered by Ms. Bettman. He said that Ms. Bettman's amendment addressed the documented problems that do exist, and the ordinance could be amended later to address new problem areas. He wanted staff to monitor the situation before any further areas were added. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Lidz that the phrase exclusive of those portions of the street that are open to vehicular traffic meant that those excluded from the area could drive or ride a bicycle down the road, but not walk down the sidewalk. Mr. Kelly pointed out that redrawing the expanded area as a block had the result of adding six additional blocks to exclusion area. Mr. Fart reiterated his concerns about the area around the Overpark. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mayor Torrey noted that he had observed fighting on the south side of the LTD station. He believed the boundary extension would help to stop such behavior and protect other citizens, particularly youth. Mr. Meisner asked Lt. Roberts if the southwest block including St. Mary's Church or the block east were problem blocks. Lt. Roberts said that St. Mary's was not a problem area; the block to the east was. The vote on the amendment to the amendment to the motion was a 3:3 tie, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Meisner voting yes; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mayor Torrey voted in support of the amendment, and it passed on a vote of 4:3. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 3:3 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Meisner voting yes; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mayor Torrey voted in support of the motion, and it passed on a vote of 4:3. Ms. Taylor was philosophically opposed to any exclusions from public places. She favored giving people who offended a penalty for a crime, but asked where those people were supposed to go if they were excluded from downtown. She preferred to see them downtown, which was more heavily patrolled, than other places where they could break the law without being observed. Mr. Kelly said that an exclusion order would not do anything to prevent the fighting the mayor had witnessed. He did believe that the ordinance had an impact on the drug traffic downtown. He shared Ms. Bettman's concern about predatory behavior, but noted that the American Civil Liberties Union had offered testimony suggesting the ordinance was unconstitutional. If the ordinance moved to a public hearing, he would recommend that the ordinance be moved from the code section specific to the downtown mall because it had been broadened in nature to the downtown. Mr. Farr said many people from west Eugene do not come downtown because they feel threatened. He noted the council's goal of getting people to come downtown at all times. He favored the ordinance and thought it would, in conjunction with the possible opening of East Broadway, assist downtown. Ms. Bettman said the tool was not the only one in the City's toolbox. The council was working on several initiatives that were intended to revitalize downtown and mitigate the problems downtown. She had been seeking a balance between a general exclusion approach and a more focused strategy on the problem area near the LTD station. Ms. Bettman regretted having to vote against the main motion because she did not think the broader exclusion area was justifiable. Mr. Meisner indicated he would move to reconsider the amendment to the amendment to secure the support of Ms. Bettman for the main motion. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to reconsider the amendment to the amendment to the motion. Mr. Farr remained concerned about the area around the Overpark but said he would support Ms. Bettman's amendment to secure her vote for the main motion and smaller boundary extension. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 4 Work Session The vote on the motion to reconsider was unanimous, 6:0. The amendment to the amendment to the motion failed unanimously, 6:0. The vote on the amendment to the motion was 4:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting no. The main motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting no. B. Work Session: A Resolution Calling a City Special Election on September 18,2001, for the Purpose of Submitting a Measure to the Voters of Eugene on the Opening Broadway to Vehicular Traffic, Between Oak Street and Charnelton Street The council was joined by Denny Braud ofthe Planning and Development Department. Mr. Braudreminded the council of the Greater Downtown Visioning Implementation Work Plan, which included a recommendation that the street opening question be placed on the September 2001 ballot. Staff had prepared a resolution to that end. At the direction of the council, staff had prepared some schematics to show voters what the street might look like. Mr. Braud briefly reviewed the input gathered by staff and a group of design professionals as they worked on developing the potential of Broadway as a "Great Street," as called for in the vision. He noted interest in maintaining the pedestrian focus of the street. Mr. Braud reported that, if the street opening was supported by voters, staff would return to the council with a financing plan and detailed design options. Mr. Braud noted the presence of Carl Sherwood of the design group. Mr. Fart determine from Mr. Carlson that the measure offered to the voters would not be accompanied by a cost because the council asked the staff not to do any design work. The financial plan would come to the council after the vote to open the street. Mr. Carlson confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Fart, that staff anticipated private funding support. Mr. Fart said the opening was a long time in coming. Mr. Kelly said he was now in favor of the opening after previously being opposed. He did not want to create false expectations among the voters about the street reopening, and wanted to add the phrase "subject to available funding" to the resolution so the public saw the vote as a necessary but not sufficient step. Mr. Lidz saw no barrier to such an addition. Mr. Kelly was worried that the design standards for the street would be "lost" and wondered if he needed to make a formal motion to direct the City Manager to develop those standards to ensure they were in place before the street was opened. Mr. Braud pointed out that the design standards in question were associated with the update of the Downtown Plan, which would be brought to the council as a separate item. Mr. Kelly asked when the council would see the plan. Lew Bowers of the Planning and Development Department anticipated the council would review the Downtown Plan in June 2002 so all the code changes could be addressed at the same time. Great streets, such as Broadway was intended to be, would have more extensive, higher level design standards. Mr. Bowers thought the design standards would be in place before the street was reopened. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly speculated that the code amendments associated with the design standards would not be done before Broadway was reopened because they involved land use changes. Mr. Bowers indicated he would not challenge Mr. Kelly's timeline, but staff thought the design guideline would have most effect as the redevelopment of the street occurred as opposed to the actual street reopening. Mr. Kelly thought the approach being taken by staff put the "cart before the horse." He was disappointed because now he could not support the motion. In response to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner pointed out that the council could direct staff to time the reopening of Broadway to occur when the design standards were in place. He also wanted the design standards in place. The council could have the vote and gather the needed funds and defer the reopening until those were in place. He wished the council was also addressing and approving the design parameters because for the most part, they reflected his desires. Mr. Meisner added that, as so often happened, he was discouraged by the way the design parameters were translated into design. He said "we never look outside Eugene," but go to the same group of people, get the same ideas, and "never do anything really new." He wanted staff to take a fresh look at the design. Mr. Meisner questioned the ballot date as the September ballot would be a full one. Mr. Carlson said that the council could direct staff to develop the design standards parallel to the development of the Downtown Plan and the other things related to the implementation of Land Use Code Update, but that may take additional resources. He said the council would have many future opportunities to review the street design. The council would have control of the opening and the development of design guidelines. Ms. Bettman said that the staff notes indicated that Broadway had some of the most depressed rental rates in the community, which did not tally with what she had been told by others. She said that citizens often ask why businesses should locate downtown when rates were so much lower elsewhere. Ms. Bettman noted the elements of the design parameters that cost the most were the responsibility of the City. She believed that, given the strong competing needs for available funding, the funding strategy should maximize private contributions and leverage any public contribution to fund the design standards. She did not want the design standards to "encourage" appropriate development. She preferred an approach that established, for example, a minimum number of stories and specific guidelines that would produce a public benefit for the public expenditure. Ms. Bettman recommended the council pass a motion directing staff to give it design standards just for Broadway so that it became part of the money measure. If the City went to the voters for funding, it can show them what they will get. In response to Ms. Bettman's question about rents, Mr. Bowers said that staff charted rents, and those areas closest to the mall have the lowest rates. Ms. Nathanson asked how the council could ask staff to develop design standards without public involvement in a two-week period. She was also interested in appropriate mandatory design standards. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about the message the public would get by the lack of a plan and associated costs. She would have preferred to have a design and some notion of cost so people know what they were getting. She wanted to be able to explain that the City would have the funding, and the street reopening would not mean reductions in other services, facilities closures, or a new fee. She said she wanted to tell the voters MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 6 Work Session the City was asking for authorization for the reopening, not a blank check, and that it did not have a final street design because it intended to seek public involvement and review in the design. Ms. Taylor wanted to know the source of the funding for the street reopening. She thought the voters needed to know where the money was coming from. Mr. Carlson said that staff anticipated the private sector would pay a portion of the cost, had applied to Lane County for a grant to help offset the costs, and would take advantage of downtown funds in place for that purpose. Mr. Braud indicated there was approximately $600,000 in downtown loan program revitalization funds. Ms. Taylor wanted the voters to know the street reopening was not free. Ms. Taylor thought private property owners should drastically lower their rents to encourage activities downtown. She had suggested all the mall rules be eliminated, and the streets opened to bicyclists in the meantime. Mr. Braud responded that to achieve the Great Street concept all elements needed to be introduced, including cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve Resolution 4673 of the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, calling a special election to submit a measure to the voters on opening Broadway to vehicular traffic between Charnelton and Oak streets. Mr. Fart clarified that the council was asking the voters to remove the restriction to opening the street, not the street reopening. Mr. Fart agreed that design standards were needed before the street was reopened. He wanted those design standards to be sufficiently flexible to allow for a variety of building types. He was satisfied that, following a successful election, staff would develop a satisfactory process for proceeding. Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She clarified that it was her intent that, following the election, the council would begin a process of examining funding mechanisms and a design process. Parallel to those processes, the City could be conducting a public involvement process. Mr. Kelly noted that the resolution was not focused on the removal of the charter prohibition, and recommended that staff consider that in drafting the ballot title. He also wanted the ballot title to reflect the fact the council would not develop a street design and assemble the funding until the voters acted. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend Section 1 of the resolution by changing the last sentence to read "...traffic[.], subject to available funding." The motion to amend passed unanimously, 6:0. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Braud said the City's ballot measures regarding the opening of Olive and Willamette streets identified the funding sources; he was unsure they identified the funding amount. The main motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Responding to a concern expressed by Ms. Nathanson that work on the design standards was part of another work program, Mr. Kelly explained his concern that they would not be available until after the street was opened. He suggested that in the case of a successful election, the current property owners would be coming up with new development proposals, and he wanted them to be subject to the standards. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to develop design standards for the opened Broadway area in time for the council to implement them well before the street is opened. Mr. Farr said that the opening of Broadway had been a major goal for him when he took his council seat. He termed the reopening of the street a "big deal," and expressed pleasure the council was united on the issue. Ms. Bettman said a long-time source of frustration to realizing the council's goals for downtown was that property downtown was privately owned. In a situation where the City would be providing a direct contribution to the street reopening, she thought it appropriate to solicit a direct public benefit in return. In this case, it would be the design standards associated with redevelopment. She wanted to tie the street design to the private contribution and requested a staff recommendation on how to do so. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, but did not want to tie the street reopening to the design standards, suggesting it was a type of exaction. Mr. Carlson did not know how to tie the design standards to the private contribution, and agreed with Mr. Meisner that there could be exaction-related issues. Ms. Bettman said that there must be a way to encourage that type of participation, and requested staff ideas. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. C. Work Session: Social Services Dispersal This item was deferred due to a lack of time. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 8 Work Session