Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: March 12, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2007, Work Session, January 31, 2007, Work Session, and February 12, 2007, City Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. January 17, 2007, Work Session B. January 31, 2007, Work Session C. February 12, 2007, City Council Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070312\S0703122A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall January 17, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Mike Clark, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Green Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development City Manager Taylor stated that City Engineer Mark Schoening was present to continue the discussion on green infrastructure and low-impact development the council initiated during summer 2006 when consider- ing the stormwater ordinance. Mr. Schoening recalled the public hearing to consider stormwater development changes, which would require changes to Chapter 9 of the Land Use Code that addressed stormwater quantity and quality from new development sites. He related that substantial public comment had been submitted before and after the public record closed. He said testimony included comments pertaining to the topics of the present work session. Mr. Schoening reported that staff was currently working with Lane County to develop the final Basin Plan for the River Road/Santa Clara area. He said prior to the close of the public record a memorandum had been sent to the mayor and councilors that explained the relationship between the River Road/Santa Clara Basin Plan and stormwater development standards with the conclusion that the two were complementary and there was no need to delay the adoption of the latter. After adoption of the stormwater development standards, the council directed staff to review the public comment that was submitted after the close of the public record and return to the council at a later time. This work session was subsequent to that direction. Mr. Schoening stated that low-impact development had the goal of integrating stormwater management and land use planning with the objective of maintaining the predevelopment hydrologic regime in urban watersheds. He said the City could approach this through regulations or through incentives utilizing the Land Use Code. He cited examples of the implementation of low-impact development standards from the City of Portland that delineated the use of incentive and the use of regulations. Continuing, Mr. Schoening explained that there could be barriers or opportunities in some of the administra- tive policies and procedures, such as the street standards which were adopted administratively. He said the City of Eugene had a “skinny street standard” which had a beneficial effect for stormwater management. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Schoening highlighted the practices of the Puget Sound area, cited in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), and demonstrated the integration of stormwater management into land use planning. He related that communities around Puget Sound formed interdisciplinary teams of people who had expertise in stormwater and people who had expertise in land use. They conducted a comprehensive review of the development code, the stormwater development standards, and other sections of the code and administrative policies and procedures. He said they identified what barriers there might be and ways to encourage more use of low- impact development practices through regulation and incentives. Mr. Schoening said the stormwater development standards that the council adopted in June had been in effect for six months and no problems with the standards had been identified. He felt the idea of low-impact development had a lot of merit and would be a value to the stormwater program and land use process. Staff’s recommendation was to continue with current work programs in fiscal year (FY) 2007 for both the Planning and Development Department (PDD) and the Public Works Department and to direct the City Manager to incorporate the comprehensive view into the PDD and Public Works work programs for FY08 with the goal of coming up with a series of recommendations to further the use of low-impact development practices. Ms. Taylor asked why wait until FY08. Mr. Schoening replied that this was because the City was half-way through FY07. He stated that PDD had a prioritized work program that would be adversely affected by moving forward at this time. Ms. Taylor asked how long it would be after the study was completed before the council could adopt elements of green development such as an eco-roof or curbless streets. Mr. Schoening replied that it depended on the measure as some things would go through an administrative rule process, which could go quickly, while other things would be land use decisions that include notification requirements and would be processed through the Planning Commission and the City Council. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Schoening said the eco-roof was already a practice available to new development in the manual that had been adopted administratively subsequent to the adoption of the ordinance. He stated that the measures that would require changes to the Land Use Code would take the larger process. He cited parking lot standards and floor-to-area ratios (FAR) as examples of items that were addressed in the Land Use Code. Ms. Taylor asked how curbless streets could be addressed. Mr. Schoening responded that curbless streets were a design standard within the arterial and collector street standards that could be altered through an administrative order. Ms. Taylor surmised that the council could direct the City Manager to enact it. Mr. Schoening added that one of the reasons the two departments would be involved was because there were competing values in some of the elements. He underscored the necessity of ensuring that adoption of something related to stormwater would not adversely affect something else that was important to a neighborhood, as an example. Ms. Bettman remarked that it sounded to her that the code provision cited in the AIS created a trade-off to provide an incentive for utilizing an eco-roof such as the possibility of a more permissive FAR. She asked if this meant a requirement for a “denser building” to efficiently use a site could be reduced by the use of an eco-roof. Mr. Schoening replied that he did not think of it that way, though it was possible. He noted that Portland had viewed it the other way, allowing more FAR in the central business area for the utilization of an eco-roof. He confirmed that the City could continue to preserve the policies of densifying and the creation of less permeable surfaces while maintaining incentives. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 2 Work Session In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Schoening affirmed that the motion was limited to stormwater management. Mayor Piercy asked if there were elements the council could provide direction on that could be implemented in the interim. Mr. Schoening replied that it was definitely possible, especially given that the work that had been done and documented in the Puget Sound area was available to the City. Mayor Piercy asked how the council could address neighborhoods’ fears that they would lose the ability to have the changes they wanted to have while waiting for the council to move forward with code changes. City Manager Taylor surmised that the mayor wanted the council to be able to direct staff to go for the “low-hanging fruit” in the potential low-impact development standards. He commented that there were always more things that needed to be done, especially when it involved Public Works and PDD. He said the challenge lay in doing as much as staff could with the current level of service and the departments’ stretched resources while also identifying and prioritizing those additional things. Ms. Bettman asked if the River Road Basin Plan had been completed. Mr. Schoening replied that it was not done; rather, it was an ongoing process with the County and the two community organizations as partners and the end date had been moved to July 2007. Ms. Bettman recalled that the debate about using swales versus “pipe and fill” was prevalent in the River Road neighborhood. She asserted that staff had been consistent in saying that the standards were there and it was up to the development to choose whether to utilize one kind of treatment or another. She alleged that staff consistently said that they wanted a citywide approach. She did not believe that the City could have a citywide approach because of the geographical differences across the city. She felt staff “might want to look at different neighborhoods that have different geography” and then develop different strategies in those neighborhoods. She said the City had been using a “one size fits all which [the City] had very little success imposing on the neighborhoods.” Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to include in the FY08 Planning Division work program and the Stormwater Management Team work program a com- prehensive review of the Eugene Code and administrative policies and procedures to identify barriers and regulatory or incentive-based approaches to increase the use of low-impact devel- opment practices. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add to the end of the motion “for stormwater management practices that are consistent with densification policies and code provisions within the urban growth boundary.” The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor offered Option 1 in the AIS as a friendly amendment. The maker of the motion de- clined to accept the amendment. Ms. Taylor moved, as a substitute motion, Option 1 in the Agenda Item Summary which sought to reprioritize the FY 07 Planning Division work program and direct the City Manager to repri- oritize the Stormwater Management Team work program to include a comprehensive review of the Eugene Code and administrative policies and procedures to identify barriers and regulatory or incentive-based approaches to increase the use of low-impact development practices with the inclusion of Ms. Bettman’s friendly amendment. The motion died for lack of a second. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked if it was possible for staff to look into having different strategies for different geographi- cal areas of the City. Mr. Schoening replied that it was possible. He pointed out that existing standards did have different strategies for different areas of the community. He cited standards for the south hills, as an example, which required flow controls because of the steep gradients and the erosive soils and noted that those standards were not required in other parts of the city. He said he would not characterize the standards as “one-size fits all.” Ms. Bettman noted that Puget Sound utilized consultants and asked if the City intended to hire consultants. Mr. Schoening responded that because the Puget Sound interdisciplinary team had done the work in 2005 and the consultants would be conducting this work with another group in 2006 and in 2007 and all of the work would be published, staff believed the work could be completed internally. Ms. Taylor recalled an all-day session that she attended on swales and impervious surfaces. She assumed that all of that information was still available. Mr. Schoening affirmed that it was. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: Update on Commercial/Industrial/Residential Land Studies City Manager Taylor stated that this was a requested work session for an update on the City’s commer- cial/industrial/residential land studies that had been postponed from December. He asked Acting Planning Manager Lisa Gardner and City Attorney Emily Jerome to discuss the item. Ms. Gardner stated that attachments in the AIS included a memorandum from the City Attorney’s Office to convey the attorneys’ assessment of the City’s compliance with State requirements and to give a status report on the current inventories, a memorandum prepared by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), a rough scope of the work – a “quick assessment” of the work tasks that could be undertaken and order-of- magnitude costs. She said if there was direction to look at a land inventory update, the first thing to do would be to put out a request for qualifications (RFQ) to obtain a detailed scope of costs. Ms. Gardner said there were three components to the buildable lands discussion: 1) the data which was a snapshot in time; 2) getting a handle on what acreage was commercial, industrial and residential and how staff was adding or subtracting the acreage accordingly so that it could be used in a user interface tool; and, 3) the compliance component. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a compelling reason to keep the memorandum issued in December confidential. Ms. Jerome replied that at the time the memorandum was prepared there was an appeal period that was “still alive.” Since that period had passed and no appeals had been filed, she indicated that she had less concern about releasing the memorandum. She said if the council wished to direct her to do so, she could remove the confidential stamp from the memorandum and release it to the councilors later in the afternoon. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to make public the interdepartmental memoran- dum from the City Attorney dated December 6, 2006, with the subject heading: Inventories of residential/commercial/industrial land. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to move to revise the confidential memorandum so that it could be released to the public. Ms. Bettman did not accept the amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark indicated he would be making a motion. He explained that the thinking behind his motion had to do with his belief in the values of good government; that good government involved being honest, being transparent, being proactive, and maintaining the value of home rule. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the Council direct the City Manager to bring back to the council documents to initiate the rezoning and redesignation of all land that was in- cluded in the City’s adopted supply of commercial, industrial, or residential lands and that has since been acquired by the City for a use that is different from the use anticipated in the adopted inventory study. Mr. Clark explained that he felt the City should be honest about what it was starting with. His understand- ing that of the 1,300 acres identified in the Eco-Northwest study, approximately 900 acres were designated in other fashions and were lands that Eugene wished to protect. He thought it was wise to protect those areas and that they should be designated honestly as not being part of the commercial and industrial supply. Ms. Bettman felt the motion did not speak to the intent of the maker. She thought the motions Mr. Clark intended to make were “extreme” and were “Measure 37-ish in their utter disdain for. . .land use laws.” She averred that the approach the City would take was methodical and intelligent and would ensure that the City grew though with some constraints to ensure efficient use of services and infrastructure. She did not think a portion of the available lands should be taken out of “the whole picture” to be treated differently because of an assumption that a property would never be available for development. She called this assumption “erroneous.” Additionally, Ms. Bettman pointed out that on page 17 of the report, under Eugene/major retail or mixed use, the recently rezoned Crescent site was not reflected. Ms. Gardner replied that the data she referred to was at least six months old. Mayor Piercy asked if the next periodic review would be in eight years. Ms. Jerome replied that the periodic review that was now being completed had been initiated in 1994, with the work program approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in 1995. She said at that point all of the tasks were expected to be completed by January 1, 2000. She stated that, technically, the City would not be asked to enter into a periodic review again for seven years. She was uncertain if the DLCD intended to wait or whether it had the means to make the City of Eugene be involved in a periodic review sooner than that. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Jerome explained that the date to begin another periodic review would not be seven years from the present as the City had not completed the one it was in. There was one more work task, a Lane County task, that was “wending its way through” for approval. She said the review would be required seven years from the date that the current review was final and DLCD had given complete approval for it. Mr. Pryor appreciated the issue regarding compliance. He wanted to get to a document that was compliant. He also thought about issues of currency and accuracy and whether it was complementary to the planning efforts being done in the metropolitan area. He did not perceive that the proposed motion would restrain the City in any way. He saw it as being more informative in terms of the land inventory. He believed that if the MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 5 Work Session City was trying to create policies, planning, or regulatory actions based on information that was not current or accurate, then it was out of alignment. He wanted policy documents to reflect what was “on the ground.” He did not wish to make plans based on land that was not available for use. He averred that the City had the capability to prepare inventories that were current and accurate and to maintain those inventories. Mr. Clark stressed that his motion had nothing to do with Ballot Measure 37 or an expansion of the urban growth boundary; rather, it was about being honest and accurate in regard to the land inventory. He wanted to have some consensus about the available land supply. Ms. Solomon observed that a lot of the acreage included in the commercial/industrial land supply was included in the West Eugene Wetlands and that some of it was in public ownership. She asked staff if the land was or should be available for development. Ms. Gardner was uncertain of the answer. She understood that the Metro Plan amendments had been completed to designate those lands correctly. Mr. Yeiter clarified that the rezoning had occurred. Ms. Gardner stated that whether the land should be redesignated was a policy decision and not a staff decision. Mr. Zelenka did not think the study could ever be completely up to date because it would require an ongoing expenditure to maintain the data. He agreed that the City should not assume that any public land should be taken out of the inventory. He asked when staff anticipated that the work would be finished. Ms. Gardner replied that work task #7 in the PDD work program was to prepare scoping on the buildable lands inventory. She said to do a study would require additional direction from the council. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Gardner clarified that PDD currently had studies that were completed in various years for commercial, industrial, and residential lands so there was no ongoing effort or direction to do a study. She said this was the question before the council and if the council did want staff to undertake such an effort it would need to give the City Manager direction to initiate the process and it would need to identify the resources to accomplish it within the PDD work program. Ms. Ortiz thought the motion was broad. She could not comfortably support it. She believed that out of respect for the Planning Commission, the council should ask the commission when this project could be fit into the PDD work program. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the City Manager’s recommendation was to take no action. She assumed that this was based on the evaluation of the periodic review and the three inventories that were offered at the time that indicated the City had a 20-year land supply plus a surplus. She averred that the City was in compliance with State law. She said another study would cost a lot of money and take a lot of planning. She asserted that there were “factions in the community” who were not happy with the conclusions and wanted to start over with a new process. Ms. Taylor did not support the motion. She saw no urgency to having another land supply study. She reiterated her feeling that low-impact development was a higher priority. Mr. Clark commented that he had discussed the land use supply with Planning staff and the professional community who “worked in these fields” and he had heard that there was wide disagreement about the land supply. His motion intended to find a way to discuss the existing inventory and how to move forward intelligently and responsibly with it. He felt that the problems that existed in the Delta Highway/Beltline Highway area were due to poor planning in the Santa Clara area. He asserted that the City had not planned accurately and thoughtfully for that area. In an effort to be pro-active and responsible, he believed an honest, transparent discussion was necessary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pryor asked if the City had current and accurate information regarding the commercial, industrial, and residential lands at present. Ms. Gardner responded that, though the City met State requirements, the information was dated. She said the residential land inventory was more recent, but the commercial and industrial lands inventory had been conducted in 1999. Mr. Pryor thought it was essential to know the current land inventory. He did not want to commit to a certain development path; he just wanted to ensure the information was complete. He did not think saying “we do not really need it” was enough. He averred that in order to govern the City, the council needed current and accurate information. He disagreed with the assertion that it would be expensive to undertake a current inventory, adding that he would be interested in hearing ways it could be conducted within existing resources. Mayor Piercy observed that the inventory was an iterative process. She felt it would be costly to maintain up-to-date data. She noted that the State only required the inventory to be conducted every ten years. Ms. Gardner stated that the inventories themselves did not present a technological challenge. She said the challenge lay in the interface in terms of data, which was separate from whether or not the City reentered a periodic review and were required to do an inventory or chose to do an inventory. She noted that the Commercial/Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) reports had outlined the complexities of the data challenges and the costs. Ms. Jerome said the discussion regarding when the next periodic review should occur was important, but it was also important not to lose sight of the expiration dates of the land supplies studies which would likely come before the next periodic review. She noted that the residential lands study would expire in 2015 and the commercial and industrial land studies would expire in 2010. She stated that whether or not the City would be in periodic review at that time for DLCD to be checking on the City’s status was uncertain. She averred the City would at that time be at risk of being told by others, such as the Land Use Board of Appeals, it was out of compliance. Mr. Zelenka reiterated that this item was not on the work plans and the City Manager recommended taking no action. He observed that every time a study was completed it was dated and out of compliance, unless the City could change to a “completely dynamic system.” He noted that the existing studies concluded that there was a 20-year land supply. He did not believe it was a wise use of staff time to pursue another land use study or an ongoing one. He wanted to see the redevelopment of land that was now being underutilized before any new supplies of land were sought outside of the UGB. Mayor Piercy called for the vote. The vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Poling, and Solomon voting in favor; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition of the motion and the motion failed. Mr. Pryor requested a memorandum from staff to address whether it would be feasible to conduct an inventory. Planning and Development Department Director, Susan Muir, said it could be done as a council assignment. She stated that it could explain some of the advancements that the department had in technology. Mr. Clark said he would not place his other motions on the table. He reiterated his belief that the State would “change the process” for the City and it would be prudent for the City to lead the process by planning for what would work best for it rather than having it dictated to the City by the State. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall January 31, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark. Ms. Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy was participating via telephone. A. WORK SESSION: Defining City Council Goals – What Does Success Look Like? Ms. Ortiz recommended that the discussion begin with the council’s new goals, as those were likely to take more time than the discussion of continuing goals. There were no objections. City Manager Dennis Taylor thanked councilors for their efforts to develop ideas that could grow into council goals for the next year during the recent council retreat. He said that, as in the past, staff would establish planning teams and develop action plans for the council’s consideration. He said that a high-level discussion about strategies and outcomes or successes for each of the goals would help inform staff efforts. He distributed Eugene City Council Priority Issues: Quarterly Report for October 2006 – December 2006, which reported on the seven goals for FY2006-07. New Goals: Sustainability Initiative City Manager Taylor stated that the work of the Sustainable Business Initiative (SBI) and subsequent council resolution established an excellent foundation. He said that an ordinance to create a sustainability commission would be the subject of a public hearing in February 2007. He asked for other outcomes the council visualized as part of the sustainability initiative over the next two years. Mayor Piercy also expressed appreciation for the work done thus far and encouraged moving ahead with the SBI recommendations, particularly working with community partners on zero waste and carbon neutrality. Mr. Zelenka wondered about renaming the initiatives in a more interesting way as was discussed at the retreat. He said the sustainability resolution included 11 recommendations from the SBI and thought those would be good benchmark goals or strategies. He asked for a timeline for hiring the sustainability manager and establishing the commission. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 31, 2007 Page 1 Work Session City Manager Taylor asked for clarification on the “toolbox” strategies needed to support businesses that produced sustainable products and utilized sustainable practices. Mr. Zelenka said the sustainability commission could determine in detail what strategies and incentives to employ. Mr. Clark hoped to see Eugene become the capital for sustainable business. He wanted expert advice on how to achieve that and the sustainability commission would provide that level of opinion. Mr. Pryor preferred the sustainability initiative focus on providing incentives, encouragement and barrier removal instead of taking a regulatory approach. Mr. Poling cautioned that the sustainability initiative should not cause undue disadvantages to any particular business. He stressed the need to be fair and equitable and benefit the entire community. Ms. Solomon was also pleased with the focus on incentives instead of regulations. She said an inventory of current businesses that produced sustainable products should be done to establish a baseline for measuring success in promoting more businesses to become more sustainable. Mayor Piercy noted that the SBI round tables included a series of recommendations for tools to encourage sustainability. Ms. Bettman wanted to see a detailed approach to exploring very specific ways to influence businesses to create more sustainable products or support businesses that did produce those products and apply that universally to the City’s decision-making regarding land use and transportation. She said ways to become a less auto-dominated community had been going on for years with no progress. She said unless the City was willing to provide incentives or subsidize mass transit and efficient alternative modes there would not be progress toward sustainability. She wanted to see the same benchmarks applied to the environment. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that one of the 11 SBI recommendations was to adopt sustainability indicators and measurement systems to assess internal City operations as well as community-wide progress towards sustainability. He agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments and hoped they would be part of the indicators and measures. Ms. Taylor hoped that the sustainability commission would monitor whether the City was actually practicing sustainability. She agreed that protecting the environment was a part of that. Downtown Initiative Mr. Clark appreciated staff’s initiative with regard to the downtown area and said he would appreciate the same type of leadership on future direction. Mr. Pryor liked the brevity of the goal, which invited much discussion. He said the most important word in the goal was “significant.” He said that downtown revitalization had been a topic for years and there had been many efforts to accomplish that; what made this different was the acknowledgement that significant effort was necessary to achieve success. He said a piecemeal approach would not bring the results envisioned by the goal and the key was to recognize what it would take to be “significant” in terms of MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 31, 2007 Page 2 Work Session finance, politics and community will. He did not think there was agreement on what “significant” meant and progress would not be made until there was a common understanding. Mayor Piercy pointed out that downtown revitalization was being treated as a priority but not articulated as a goal. She said that the goal encompassed many current activities in the downtown area, including th development at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street, a City Hall complex, the Park Blocks and the Farmer’s Market. Ms. Bettman said the City had taken great strides in the last decade toward revitalization of downtown, but it would not happen overnight. She said no one project would undo years of misdirected economic development. She pointed to the library as a community-oriented development that anchored the area. She said the council’s purpose to serve the public did not always translate into doing what a private developer wanted. She believed that community-based economic diversity was needed in downtown and that consolidating property into fewer and fewer hands was a mistake. She said the highest priorities for downtown were people and activity, adding that the City’s most significant role would be subsidizing housing downtown. Ms. Taylor asserted it was important to enhance the assets of the City. She said cities that were successful at revitalization efforts began by concentrating on their positive attributes, such as being a center for music or having historical significance. She said Eugene’s two biggest assets were the Saturday Market and Farmer’s Market. She urged that revitalization efforts focus on completing one project at a time instead of trying to do a bit of everything all at once. Ms. Taylor thought there had been many mistakes with urban renewal, such as demolishing historic buildings. She was not happy with the option to buy property with no plan for its use and was opposed to having a “theme park” in downtown. She said the small, independent businesses that were successful should be encouraged as part of enhancing existing assets. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor about the importance of defining “significant” and added that there should also be a discussion about the word “facilitate” and determining the appropriate role for the City. He saw the downtown initiative as similar to the sustainability initiative in terms of developing a toolbox of strategies. He was interested in finding appropriate ways to encourage growth of the Saturday and Farmer’s markets. Mr. Pryor mentioned the Oakway Mall area as an example of significant revitalization. He said transforma- tion of the mall into a dynamic and impressive retail area required a major commitment. He said that transformation was an example of what he was looking for in downtown and hoped the council could reach agreement on a common vision. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the Oakway Mall was redeveloped with no assistance from the City. He said th there were many good projects underway in downtown, including the housing developments at 8 Avenue th and Lincoln Street and 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street. He said a revitalized downtown needed people, and that meant transforming the infrastructure so it was more livable and provided an appropriate mix of housing and commercial activities, combining both local and national businesses. He was interested in what role the City could play; those things the City could do to facilitate revitalization could be listed as part of the goal. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 31, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman said that the Northwest Portland area, often used as an example of revitalization, began with small local businesses and built up over time to the point where it was attractive to national chains. She said that the national chains were not lured into the area with incentives in the hope they would spur economic development. She added that the Pearl District in Portland was formerly an industrial area that was revitalized through the efforts of local business leaders. She said that streetcar service to the area represented an investment in sustainable transportation and stimulated private investment in housing and retail, resulting in a thriving neighborhood that was an economic development magnet. Mr. Clark expressed an interest in exploring ways to facilitate local business growth in the downtown area first. He suggested that the sustainability commission be housed downtown to create a nexus for work on sustainable businesses. Mr. Zelenka said there did not seem to be any clear vision on what it would take to revitalize downtown. He hoped to see a list of the barriers to revitalization as part of the discussion of strategies to facilitate economic development. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that housing was a major factor in revitalizing areas of Portland by establishing a critical mass that created a demand for retail and services. Police Initiative City Manager Taylor said the focus to increase police staffing with a special focus on supporting commu- nity policing and reducing property crime was helpful to staff. He asked the council for any elaboration on the goal. Mr. Zelenka said the recent budget presentation that identified proposed funding for police operations, police staffing, supervisory and administrative support and public safety stations was the correct strategy to achieve the goal to increasing staff and the special focus on community policing and reducing property crime. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka’s comments. He noted that the police chief mentioned during the council’s discussion that the wording of the goal was consistent with his strategic plan. He said the key was directing resources to ensure that community policing was successful. Mayor Piercy spoke to her continued commitment to community policing and reflected that the emphasis on property crime was a consequence of concerns voiced in the community. She said it was important to demonstrate that the City was taking steps to respond to those concerns, and it was also important to be able to measure progress. Ms. Taylor asked if the City Manager understood the goal to mean that more money would be spent than was already in the budget for police. City Manager Taylor replied he did think that was part of what was meant by police staffing to support community policing. He said freeing officers’ time so they could engage in proactive problem-solving policing might take a strategy consistent with recommendations from the earlier Hobson report and a report from the Magellan group that the City would receive in the spring. He said that could include strategies for how to increase staffing and patrols to achieve community policing goal and how to do that in a sustainable way over the next several years. Ms. Taylor remarked that community policing was an attitude and focus. She agreed that people were distressed with lack of police response to property crimes, but asserted that some people told her they were very distressed when they saw police breaking down a door because they suspected there was marijuana MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 31, 2007 Page 4 Work Session there, while people who needed help could not get it. She said it was more a focus on the helpful part of policing rather than the punitive part. She recognized that more money was needed for police, but more money was needed for almost everything. She was disturbed if the goal meant that money would be diverted from other things to provide more policing. Ms. Bettman recollected that some of the methodology used in the Hobson report was questioned several years after it was published, but the City was unable to confer with the author because he had died. She said the new report was a modified version; statistical data was not re-examined and modifiers were used to update the report. She questioned whether that was adequate in terms of resulting in a comprehensive staffing strategy. She suggested that funding for a new study would be a strategy to consider, given the council’s new goal. City Manager Taylor replied that inherent in the police department’s strategic plan was contracting for the Magellan report that would address staffing levels in the department as a whole. He expected that the report would not only present a snapshot of staffing but also inform action steps for moving forward and provide a tool for measuring progress along several dimensions of police staffing. Captain Steve Swenson added that the department hoped to develop a staffing plan that coincided with multi-year financial planning for implementation. Ms. Bettman said her understanding of the goal to reduce property crime was that when people called about property crime they got a response. She did not think that was a sustainable goal because as long as there was drug addiction there would be property crime. She said that addressing property crime meant providing for prevention and drug abuse treatment. Mr. Clark did not think that the County would retain the federal Secure Rural Schools Act funding and if not, the police chief needed a backup plan if the district attorney decided not to prosecute property crimes. He said that would change the dynamic of police response and any strategy to reduce property crime should include a backup plan if there were changes in other areas of the public safety system. Mr. Zelenka asked what commitment the council had made to the Hobson report or a subsequent report and the increase of staffing. He was not certain how the budget documents translated into council policy. City Manager Taylor said the Hobson report was before his time, but he understood that specific outcomes were identified based on that report and the City was poised to make a major investment in the level of police staffing, but the impact of ballot measures 47 and 50 required a retrenchment involving reprioritization through the Budget Committee process. Mr. Zelenka said he had heard differing opinions about whether the goal meant increasing police staffing at the expense of other things in the budget or increasing police staffing when resources allowed. Ms. Ortiz said she could fully support the goal if she had a clear vision of what increased police staffing meant and whether that effort would be supported by the City’s partners in the public safety system in terms of prosecution and incarceration. She was concerned about diverting resources from other services without knowing if there was a high level of coordination among jurisdictions. Mr. Pryor said he depended on the knowledge and experience of the chief and professional staff to know what needed to be done. He was focused on the outcome, which was for the residents of Eugene to be safe and secure, and while he wanted to know how that would be achieved, he would defer to the police chief on developing specific details of the plan. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 31, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman remarked that approximately 80 percent of all crime was drug-related and the percentage was greater for property crime. She said strategies would need to address the cause through prevention and treatment services, which were meagerly funded at this point. She said it was a choice between services and infrastructure; people were being matrixed out of the jail not because of a shortage of beds or capacity, but because there was no staffing. She said unless the County’s income tax measure excluded the ability to spend income tax revenue on capital infrastructure, it would not get her support. Transportation Mr. Pryor stated that it was important to have a balanced range of options to solve the problem of transportation system funding. He was willing to include bikes and pedestrians and other modes of transportation in the discussion if it meant the council could reach agreement, adding that the discussion should include how to address the $110 million backlog of street repairs. He expressed his desire to develop stable, sustainable funding for ongoing repairs and was willing to listen to any ideas to accomplish that. Mayor Piercy said she had confidence that the council’s subcommittee would develop a combination of solutions that would help the council reach a broader consensus. Ms. Bettman asked how expanding the goal to include cars, bikes, trucks and pedestrians was different from all of the council’s earlier discussions about a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF) and how to fund the backlog. Ms. Ortiz said it was her opinion during her two years on the council that it was a hit-and-miss presentation with scattered ideas. She felt there needed to be a more comprehensive conversation. Mr. Zelenka agreed with the need to deal with the backlog of street repairs. He said there was desperate need for a comprehensive package solution that had many components to address the entire transportation system, not just a curb-to-curb fix. He said a package would require compromise and a willingness to give on a particular piece in the package in order to get something else. He hoped the discussion would examine all of the ideas that had been discussed in order to have a broad palette of solutions to consider when crafting a package that would work for everyone. He also urged incentives to encourage people to leave their cars at home and use other modes of transportation. Mr. Clark stressed that filling more potholes was a major concern for his constituents. He was willing to consider any idea in order to achieve a solution to transportation system funding. Ms. Taylor said she had been told by someone in the Crest Drive area that the City might get sued if the potholes were not repaired because they presented serious hazards. She was pleased that pedestrians and bicycles were included in discussions of the transportation system. Continuing Goals: Race Ms. Ortiz reported that the City Council Subcommittee on Race was developing recommendations and would prioritize them for presentation to the council. Neighborhood Empowerment MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 31, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mayor Piercy said she had no objection to the language of the goal, but noted that the City was making progress with neighborhood associations through better communications and better collaboration with the City. She said the neighborhood associations requested that the council delay revising the language of the goal until after the associations hold their summit meeting on February 17. She suggested the council could continue its work on the neighborhood initiative with a focus on the neighborhood association component. Mr. Pryor said he saw two directions for the goal: neighborhood associations and neighborhoods. He cautioned that would make a very large goal and he would be interested in seeing what might be achieved during the time span identified. Mr. Clark expressed an interest in waiting until after the neighborhood association summit for the sake of better understanding the issues. He was hesitant about accepting the Neighborhood Leadership Council’s (NLC) suggestion of language for the goal as it was the council’s goal and should be defined by the council. Mr. Zelenka said that he received feedback indicating that restating and renaming the initiative had de- emphasized the neighborhood associations. He did not think that was the intent of the council. He thought the associations played a key role and the language clearly stated part of the goal was empowering neighborhood associations to get more involvement. He thought that neighborhood protection and livability was linked to the City’s land use policies as expressed in code, ordinances and regulations and that emphasis was not in the previous goal. Ms. Taylor said she understood the council agreed not to discuss the neighborhood initiative until after the summit meeting. Homeless Initiative Ms. Ortiz announced that Project Homeless Connect would take place on February 8, 2007, at the Lane Events Center. She encouraged councilors to attend if possible. Mayor Piercy also invited councilors to participate in Project Homeless Connect. She said she was developing for the council’s consideration a list of potential members for a committee to address the issue of more adequately funding community services for the homeless. Mr. Pryor stated that the Human Services Commission was also working diligently on the issue and there was a great deal of coordination with City staff and partner agencies. He said that a count of the homeless would be done to develop a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem and demographics of the homeless population. He said the goal spoke to working collaboratively to end chronic homelessness, but that was only a fraction of the problem. He urged the council not to lose sight of the fact that many people were “situationally” homeless and could benefit from a wide range of services that would have an immedi- ate, tangible impact on their circumstances. Mr. Zelenka related that the Safe and Sound program worked with homeless youth. He said there were many reasons why youth were homeless and that drugs were a major factor. He said that needed to be considered in the process and youth should be treated differently than chronically homeless adults. He was pleased that youth were recognized as a distinct category under the goal. City Hall MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 31, 2007 Page 7 Work Session City Manager Taylor said staff was working to implement the council’s plan for a chosen site. He asked if there were other results the council anticipated from the goal. Mr. Poling observed that the February 14, 2007, work session would be the next major step in the process. He recently spoke to one of the property owners who would potentially be affected by the plan and had no idea it was still possible to participate in the community discussion. He said the City needed to expand its efforts to contact those owners and get them more involved in the process. He said there was still an opportunity to get involved in the community forums and emphasized that no final decisions had yet been made. Arts and Outdoors City Manager Taylor said the cultural policy review process would be presenting recommendations over the next two years. Ms. Bettman questioned how well the available recreational activities were promoted. She said the recent Oregon Truffle Festival attracted participants from around the country and the world and more than half of the 300 participants at the fundraising dinner were from outside of Lane County. She said that many of the out-of-town participants were unaware of recreational opportunities in the area. She said that conferences and events should be tracked and used as marketing opportunities for the areas cultural and recreational activities; it was a mistake to only focus efforts on a few larger events like the Olympic Trials. Mr. Poling said the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County (CVALCO) conducted those types of marketing activities countywide. He noted that Mr. Clark, as the council’s representative on the CVALCO board, would have an opportunity to encourage CVALCO’s active participation in highlighting the best of Eugene. Ms. Taylor said she was more interested in having substance to talk about than in marketing to others. She said the City should be supporting the arts and protecting the outdoor assets. She said that did not mean just sports; it meant protecting the Amazon headwaters from pollutants. She said that environmental degrada- tion of the headwaters could subject the City to a lawsuit. She preferred to see the City add to its outdoor assets and protect the ones it already had instead of marketing them. She said more should be done to support the arts and hoped there would be a focus on substance instead of bragging about what the City had. Mr. Clark mentioned that there was a rich discussion at a recent CVALCO board meeting around the idea of what would happen at the County level if funding changes affected CVALCO. He said the City should think about what a commitment to the arts and outdoors meant if one of the means for promoting those activities was in jeopardy. Hospital City Manager Taylor cautioned that legal counsel advised that there should be no discussion of a hospital because there was a land use application pending with the City. Ms. Bettman commented that the council made a statement by adopting a goal publicly endorsed by a majority of members, and it seemed highly unusual that it could not be discussed. City Manager Taylor referred to a legal opinion indicating it was acceptable for the council to adopt a goal, but to modify the goal MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 31, 2007 Page 8 Work Session or to discuss modifying the goal could expose the council or individual members to allegations of bias and affect its role in review of the pending application. He said the council determined at its retreat to retain the existing language and not comment on the substance of the goal until the pending application had been processed. Ms. Taylor stated she did not vote for the goal; by voting for it, the council did make a statement and staff might take that as permission to take action in certain ways. Mayor Piercy said it was important to have a full-service hospital in Eugene because of competition and choice and the future of the community. Ms. Ortiz asked if legal advice also cautioned against removing the goal. City Manager Taylor said the prohibition was against modifying or discussing the goal. Mr. Zelenka pointed out the goal was already in existence and reauthorizing it did not change its status. He said it was an aspirational goal to have a full-service hospital for competition and choice; it was not about siting or location. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor indicated that the council did not readopt some of the previous goals as they had been accomplished. Ms. Bettman said she thought the constraint on discussing a hospital was significant because there were goals that the council did not readopt and readopting the hospital goal was a statement. She thought it was contradictory advice that the council could readopt a goal but not discuss it. Mr. Clark agreed that adopting a goal was an important policy decision. He suggested that when the hospital was discussed, tax-base be included as a topic along with competition and choice. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 31, 2007 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall February 12, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - Recognition of Detective Bob Holland Mayor Piercy commended Detective Bob Holland for his dedicated and successful work in arson investiga- tion and the prevention of construction industry theft and vandalism. She stated that he had been named top in the state by two separate Oregon agencies. She said the Oregon Chapter of the International Association of Arson Investigators named Detective Holland its arson investigator of the year and the Construction Industry Crime Prevention of the Pacific Northwest group would be presenting him the 2007 Law Enforcement Award later in February. She noted that Detective Holland was a 25-year police veteran and served as an arson investigator for the last 10 years. Detective Holland received a round of applause. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. Nick Urhausen , 2858 Warren Street, noting the recent offer made by Arlie & Company for the riverfront property owned by the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), said once the property was sold to a private land owner, the City would not be able to get it back. He believed the property belonged to the entire community and should not be put up for sale for the highest bidder. He wanted the property to stay in the public domain. He heard that Arlie & Co. offered $30 million for the EWEB building, but that building had cost $25 million to build. He urged the council to oppose any sale to a private developer. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, asserted that having public input “designed” by a planner would be “dangerous.” He believed that there should be some public input that was not designed by planners because that would take away any bias. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting Mr. Vishanoff recounted for the council his beginnings as an activist. He lived in the University neighbor- hood in an old house that was subsequently sold to the University of Oregon and kept empty. He felt this was a conspiracy to destroy the neighborhood. He has worked to maintain the neighborhood since that time. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. Councilor Taylor thanked Mr. Vishanoff and Mr. Urhausen. She said she agreed with Mr. Urhausen’s testimony. She also recalled walking the University neighborhood with Mr. Vishanoff. She remembered the house of which he spoke. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - December 11, 2006, City Council Meeting - December 13, 2006, Work Session - January 4, 2007, State of the City - January 8, 2007, Work Session - January 8, 2007, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of City Council Goals for 2007-08 D. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of November 21, 2006, January 16, 2007, and January 23, 2007 E. Adoption of Resolution 4903 Amending the Administrative Guidelines for Annexations Adopted by Resolution No. 4358 of the City Council Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Cal- endar. Councilor Bettman pulled items C and E. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exceptions of Items C and E, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman wished to explain why she would vote against Item C. She felt the council goal-setting sessions changed from goal-setting to a process of elevating issues on which the organization was already working. She thought this work should be done in a regular session and on camera. She also disagreed with the process, noting that it was not a consensus minus one process, but rather a super majority. She was disappointed in the way the process “devolved over time.” Councilor Ortiz clarified that the council initially fleshed out what the goals meant to the council, but the council had not discussed the fourth goal, neighborhood empowerment, which would be elaborated upon through the work plans. She underscored that the goals were not set in stone at this point. Councilor Taylor indicated that she would oppose the motion. She felt the process was not good. She agreed with Councilor Bettman and she objected to holding the meeting in a place that she thought was not easily accessible to the public. Councilor Zelenka pointed out that the neighborhood goal still made bolstering the neighborhood associa- tions a high priority. He added that he was excited about the sustainability initiative. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy said goal-setting was an opportunity for the councilors to work together on their priorities. She thought the process resulted in a set of important goals to focus on that responded to the major concerns of the community, and she was pleased with the results. Councilor Clark thanked his colleagues for spending two days discussing each of the issues. He noted that Councilor Pryor said the goal-setting sessions gave clarity to the work that many of the councilors feel is important. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item C, approval of the City Council Goals for 2007-08, passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy asked Councilor Bettman to speak to Item E. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend Section 1 of Resolution 4905 by adding the words ‘revising and’ before the words ‘adding language’ and replacing the word ‘should’ in the second paragraph with the word ‘may.’ Councilor Bettman averred that the word ‘should’ was vague and could be misleading. City Manager Taylor said this was a useful clarification. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Ortiz stated that River Road Community Organization Chair Rob Handy had asked the council to table this item until after the joint meeting with the Boundary Commission, scheduled for February 14. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to table the item. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Solomon, Ortiz, Bettman, and Taylor voting in favor and coun- cilors Clark, Zelenka, Pryor, and Poling voting no. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion to table and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. 4. ACTION: Transfer of Water Pollution Control Property from City of Eugene to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to take the necessary steps to proceed with the transfer of approximately 168 acres of City-owned land to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. Wastewater Division Director Peter Ruffier, in response to a question Councilor Bettman had submitted earlier, said staff had found an agreement dated June 1981, between the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) and Agripac, which had been the sole user of the seasonal waste facility. He related that the agreement spelled out the funding source for the property as 85 percent federal and 15 percent local, and it obligated Agripac to pay back the local share. Staff had also been able to find in City of Eugene records an agreement with an individual to process a property purchase under condemna- tion and that agreement specifically obligated that individual to provide information in a format suitable for the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) reimbursement forms. He had not found specific documentation indicating that it was a transfer of payments to the City or that the City initially paid for the property at all. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting He said it was staff’s belief that this documentation did not exist because the City never did pay for it initially. Councilor Bettman noted that the County Service District initially paid 15 percent for the local match and asked if this was what Agripac had reimbursed. Mr. Ruffier affirmed that Agripac had reimbursed the district. Susie Smith, Environmental Services Division Manager for the City of Springfield and General Manager of the MWMC, clarified that Agripac paid the MWMC and the MWMC had then made payments to the County Service District. Councilor Bettman said she was now assured that there was no Eugene taxpayer money involved in the purchase of the property and she could support the motion. Councilor Poling recommended that in the future, better maps be provided so that the councilors could more easily find the reference points. Councilor Zelenka stated that he had consulted with the City Attorney and had been instructed that there was no conflict of interest for him. He explained that he was married to the General Manager of the MWMC. Additionally, Councilor Zelenka noted that MWMC attorney Dave Jewett had provided an email stating that the City had not paid for the property and this confirmed it for him. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting