Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/26/01 Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall November 26, 2001 8p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor James D. Torrey called the regular meeting of the City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. John Brown, 1260 Charnelton Street, noted his work to get a bus shelter installed to serve a low- income housing project, and asked that in the future the City consider requiring such shelters in low-income projects to serve the children living in them. Mr. Brown also noted his work to improve water quality in the Willamette River and said he would continue to work on the issue. He urged the council to take the lead in ensuring that communities upstream did not allow degradation of the river water before it reached Eugene. Misha Seymour, 1313 Lincoln Street, suggested that preference voting would have produced a different result in the last mayoral election. He criticized those in support of citywide elections. He called on citizens to "take back our rights over here." Mr. Seymour called for retention of the current ward system so the council had diversity. He called for laws to limit campaign contributions. He said the Gang of 9 was "just a gang." Mr. Seymour said that Eugene was "our city, for us, not for them." Joy Zhao, 163 Southwest Clay Street, Portland, a student at the Portland State University, described the benefits of the Falon Gong exercises she performed as part of her embrace of Falandafa and said they could be done anywhere, anytime, making it convenient for the modern lifestyle. She said the Chinese government was persecuting adherents of Falandafa practice both inside China and overseas, and she was present to clarify the truth about Falandafa. She noted that her relatives and mother had practiced the Falon Gong exercises and benefitted from them, but due to government persecution, her mother gave up the practice and lost the benefits. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 1 Regular Meeting Arvy Wong, 2135 Northwest 160th Avenue, Beaverton, joined in Ms. Zhao's remarks, and requested the City Council's support for those who were persecuted for practicing Falandafa. He called attention to information provided to the council about the persecution facing those who practiced the exercises, and described an incident of repression in China. He asked the council to consider adopting a resolution in support of Falandafa. Carol Feinberg-McBrian, 1875 West 15th Avenue, called attention to the council's goal regarding accountability to the people and respect for all people. She said it appeared that many councilors would be moved around if the Indigo ward boundary scenario was accepted, and she did not think changing citizens' councilors demonstrated accountability. She feared a situation where liberals in the community would not be well-represented. She thought the councilors in place represented the will of the people in their district as evidenced by the vote on the West Eugene Parkway, and urged the adoption of the Violet scenario. Rob Handy, 455-1/2 River Road, spoke of the long effort put into the adoption of TransPlan, wherein road projects were prioritized in light of their need, expected performance, and benefit to the system. He said the plan was intended to guide the community away from limited access bypass highways. Mr. Handy said while campaigning against the parkway, voters made it clear to him they wanted road projects that perform well at an affordable price. He said the parkway's minimal performance value would render it obsolete before the completion date. He asked what projects would be dropped from the constrained TransPlan project list to accommodate the parkway. Mr. Handy said that henceforth, no new transportation facilities will be built that do not incorporate the alternative performance measures agreed to by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. He noted the impact of those measures on new facilities. Nick Urhausen, 2852 Warren Street, advocated for redistricting that resulted in wards with a roughly equal number of voters. Mr. Urhausen termed redistricting based on current representation "insane." He said no councilor deserved a guarantee of a seat. He suggested that if the council selected the Violet scenario, it would be building a stronger case for citywide elections of councilors. Jim Hale, 1715 Linnea Avenue, preferred the Indigo redistricting scenario with modifications, copies of which he distributed to the council. He discussed his proposed modifications, suggesting the scenario was inadequate in that it divided the Bethel area into three rather than two wards, and would result in major overhaul of the boundaries similar to what was being proposed. He was also concerned that the remaining scenarios did not address the council's criteria regarding the undersizing of wards in growing parts of the community. Mr. Hale supported ward-based elections, and disagreed with those who thought citywide elections would provide a different result. He said that there were clearly two cities, and the issues MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 2 Regular Meeting between the two sides would get greater. He thought the voting patterns in southeast Eugene monolithic and dangerous. Mayor Torrey called for comments from the council. Councilor Rayor urged Ms. Zhao and Mr. Wong to contact the Human Rights Program staff and discuss their issues regarding the Chinese government's oppression of Falandafa with the Human Rights Commission. He noted that Portland had a similar commission and encouraged them to take advantage of that avenue as well. Mayor Torrey noted that Mr. Brown had appeared before the council before regarding the issue of camping along the river, and asked staff to provide a response about what the City could do or would do in its response to illegal camping, and what limitations existed on the City's ability to react to the issue. Mayor Torrey closed the public forum. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes October 24, 2001, Work Session October 31, 2001, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman pulled the minutes of October 24 and October 31. Regarding the minutes of October 24, she asked that paragraph 8 on page 1 be changed to read as follows (italicized text added; struck text deleted): "Ms. Bettman maintained that the "overwhelming majority" of Budget Committee members were business representatives; for example, they worked for insurance companies and were bankers." Regarding the minutes of October 31, Councilor Bettman asked that the fourth sentence in paragraph 5 on page 5 of the minutes be changed to read "Ms. Bettman encouraged staff to find a way to reach out to affected property owners and provide information on the impact of the policy so that these owners could understand the costs involved at the end of the process before the public hearing." Councilor Nathanson asked that the second sentence in paragraph 4 on page 9 of the October 24 minutes be changed to read "She pointed out, however, that there was not just a single councilor to representiag the entire south hills, which had unique concerns and interests as well." MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 3 Regular Meeting Regarding the October 24 minutes, Councilor Kelly asked that the first sentence in paragraph 4 on page 4 be changed as follows: Mr. Kelly reminded the council and staff that all 22 items received support from a council majority for further study." Regarding the minutes of October 31, he asked that the phrase "metropolitan open space" in the last sentence in paragraph 4 on page 3 be changed to "metropolitan open space initiative being managed by the Lane Council of Governments." He asked that the third sentence in paragraph 3 be changed to read "Mr. Kelly explained that it was a fairness and (potentially) legal issue to state that as a condition to build a single-family house on an unimproved improved street..." Councilor Meisner asked that the second sentence in paragraph 4 on page 5 of the October 31 minutes be changed as follows: "...especially in the East Blair area of the Whiteaker neighborhood." Mayor Torrey determined there was no objection to the corrections to the minutes. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. PUBLIC HEAR1NG: An Ordinance Granting to the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad a Non-exclusive Franchise to use the Public Right-of-Way to Construct and Maintain Private Commercial Facilities Within the City of Eugene City Manager Jim Johnson indicated that Pam Berrian of the Information Services Division was present to answer questions. Councilor Pap~ determined from Ms. Berrian that many jurisdictions use a per-foot formula to reach the fee when a percentage of gross revenues attributable to Eugene customers could not be calculated. Ms. Berrian said that she used the Williams Communication per-foot rate as a basis for the proposal. She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Councilor Pap~, that the railroad would maintain the right-of-way and repair any damage that occurred from its activities. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. There being no requests from the public to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Rayor said that before the council took action, he would like information about the status of the railroad crossings. Ms. Berrian indicated she would ask Public Works Department staff for that information and include it in the agenda packet of December 10, 2001. In response to a question from Councilor Meisner about crossing locations, Ms. Berrian said there were six railroad crossings, and identified their locations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 4 Regular Meeting 4. PUBLIC HEAR1NG AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Alley Vacation for PeaceHealth (AV 01-1) City Manager Johnson said staff was present to answer questions about the application. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Gretchen Pierce, 31434 Fox Hollow Street, a member of the PeaceHealth, Oregon, Board of Directors, spoke in favor of the alley vacation application, describing the scope of the proposed construction, and noting that outpatient services would be centralized on the Hilyard campus. The hospital was seeking certainty about the footprint it would have to work with. She said the design of the Hilyard campus was directly tied to the development of the new hospital. Planning for one contiguous parcel was easier than it was for two parcels divided by a right-of-way. Ms. Pierce said that PeaceHealth had met the requirements for the vacation set out in State law and Eugene Code, and it was consistent with the City's land use goals. She said that both the City and hospital's interests were served if all the issues were resolved, and urged the council to ask questions of those offering testimony in support of the application. Brian Terrett, 770 East 11th Avenue, representing PeaceHealth, urged approval of the alley vacation. He assured the council the hospital was aware of the concerns that had been expressed about the timing of the process and said that those concerns would be addressed. Mr. Terrett said the neighbors were aware of the support the hospital offered. He noted the letters of support that had been provided by neighbors of the hospital. He said the hospital's expansion and remodeling plans would address the issues of security, traffic safety, and practicality, as well as the public interest Vincent Martorello, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, planning consultant for the applicant, spoke in favor of the application. He described the area in question and noted the majority of property, including all that was adjacent to the alley, was owned by the hospital. He said the alley vacation would give the hospital greater flexibility in its master planning efforts. He challenged the staff contention that the application did not meet the requirements of Oregon Revised Statute 271 because the applicant had not submitted a site plan to show how the area would be used. A site plan was not required by the statute. The only legal requirement that existed was for the applicant to explain the purpose for which the area would be used. Mr. Martorello also disagreed with the staff contention that the public interest would be prejudiced by the application. The pedestrians and bicyclists using the alley now could use the facilities that were specifically designed to accommodate them. Other routes were shorter and more direct than routes that include the alley. He maintained that the public interest was also served by the hospital's continued service to the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 5 Regular Meeting Chris Clemow, Balheizer Hubberd Engineers, 975 Lincoln Street, discussed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) his firm prepared for the alley vacation, and concluded that the majority of traffic was internal, that there was some external traffic that created conflicts with the internal traffic, that bicycle and pedestrian trips would be displaced but that bicyclists and pedestrians would experience no increase in travel time because those trips could be accommodated on 11th or 13th avenues. Mr. Clemow maintained that the alley vacation would increase safety by eliminating conflicts between service vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, and motorists using the alley. Phillip Farrington, Sartre Associates, 132 East Broadway, said the State statutes require the applicant to identify the purpose for which the alley would be used, and PeaceHealth had done so. He reiterated that the site plan requested by the City was not required by State law. In addition, the statutory notices requirements were met by the application. Mr. Farrington said that the staff had not explained how the vacation would prejudice or harm the public interest, or what public interest was compromised. He believed the public interest was served by coherent master planning for 1,800 future employees projected to work on the campus. Mr. Farrington concurred with the remarks of Mr. Clemow, noting that pedestrian traffic was generated by University students using the alley instead of the nearby sidewalk. That use created both a potential safety hazard in that the pedestrian traffic conflicted with internal traffic as well as a security risk. He noted further the alley had no amenities to support through pedestrian movement and was not identified in any adopted plan as part of the local transportation system for any mode. Mr. Farrington suggested that denying the application was to put a higher priority on maintaining cut-through pedestrian traffic in the alley than on the public interest inherent in preserving the jobs and functions that would occur on the campus. Jim Weston, 770 East 11th Avenue, Director of Facilities for PeaceHealth Sacred Heart Medical Center, discussed the hospital's concerns about security in the alley proposed for vacation. He noted concerns about vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian conflicts, and said that although the alley was owned by the City, the hospital had signed it, added paving marking, and mirrors, but the alley continued to be hazardous. If the hospital controlled the alley, it could limit access and mitigate the danger to employees. Mr. Weston further noted concerns regarding vandalism, graffiti attacks, and public urination, and the safety of equipment stored nearby. Michael Robinson, Perkins Coie LLP, 1211 Southwest 5th Avenue, Suite 1500, Portland, attorney-at-law, represented PeaceHealth. He discussed whether there was a public interest threatened by the alley vacation. He said that if, following a public hearing and the receipt of testimony, the council finds that the public interest was not prejudiced, appellate courts have ruled that the alley vacation shal! be granted. The public interest was not prejudiced because neither Oregon Revised Statutes nor the Eugene Code required that a site plan be submitted. Mr. Robinson said that the site plan was dependant on the alley vacation and master planning process. He said that there was evidence in the record that those using the alley would not be displaced or inconvenienced and had ample opportunity to continue their trips on facilities designed expressly MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 6 Regular Meeting for that purpose. Mr. Robinson further pointed out that alleys were legally not intended to serve either general traffic purposes but were intended to serve adjacent business uses. Jim Werfelmann, 770 East 11th Avenue, Executive Director of Property Planning for PeaceHealth, said that the hospital had consistently communicated its desire to establish two facilities to the City, including redevelopment of the Hilyard campus. He briefly described the improvements proposed and the location where construction would occur. He emphasized the importance of the vacation to the effort, and said it was important for the hospital to know what planning constraints existed soon because it would use the information to help determine what services go on what campus, and how those services will grow and evolve over time. Terry Connelly, Eugene Chamber of Commerce, 1401 Willamette Street, spoke in favor of the alley vacation, arguing that to deny the application would send the wrong message to private sector companies who want to do business in downtown Eugene. He said that the City's planning efforts seemed to indicate it wanted downtown to be a thriving center for commercial employment and cultural activities, but the staff recommendation did not support that vision. He thought the vacation request was a simple issue for the City to resolve. Vicki Walker, State Representative for House District 41, PO Box 1034 Eugene, 97440, spoke in support of the alley vacation request. She said that she was concerned about traffic safety and medical services. She believed that vacating the alley would appear to improve both without downsides. She noted the staff concerns regarding the displacement of pedestrians from the alley, but pointed to the Oregon Revised Statute definition of alleys, ORS 8.01.110, which defined alley as meaning a street or highway primarily intended to provide access to the rear or sides of lots or buildings in urban areas, and not intended for through vehicular traffic. She also cited Eugene Code, Section 4.830, which stipulated that alleys shall not be used as a pedestrian thoroughfare. Ms. Walker suggested that, if necessary, she could clarify that issue in the next legislative session. She concluded by saying she thought that PeaceHealth's proposal was in the community's best interest, and anything the City could do to facilitate the hospital's effort was in the collective best interest of the community. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and called for council questions/comments. Councilor Bettman thanked the public for its testimony. She asked about the relationship of the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) to the application. She noted that in the council's discussions with the hospital regarding a downtown campus, airspace cost was quantified. It was not in the application, and she asked why not. She questioned the time blocks shown for the peak hour time periods associated with the TIA and asked what effect that had on the data. Ms. Bettman asked if the owners of the Alder Street Market supported the vacation. She wanted to know if the hospital intended to redevelop the site for exclusively medical use with administration to support that use, or if retail or commercial office space would be available. Ms. Bettman asked how, given the ultimate use of the alley was not known, the hospital could know what became of the internal trips, and could the City be sure they were not displaced. She asked if staff had looked MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 7 Regular Meeting at the adequacy of 11th and 13th avenues regarding the to-be displaced trips, and if staff had ever looked at the alley in the context of addressing the safety issues that were raised in testimony. Transportation Engineer David Reinhard did not think the alley was studied or was included in CATS. He did not think any alleys were called out or included on transportation planning maps. Mr. Jacobson indicated that airspace rights were based on the assessed value of the land. The value was determined on that basis; he clarified that the assessed valuation itself does not include air rights. Mr. Johnson added that the zoning of the commercially owned property allowed the hospital to build up, and the market value of C-2 zoned property reflected that fact. Mr. Reinhard deferred Ms. Bettman's question regarding the peak hours employed in the TIA to Mr. Clemow. Mr. Reinhard said he shared Ms. Bettman's concerns about the internal trips to be displaced and deferred that question to the applicant. Regarding the adequacy of sidewalks and bicycle lanes on nearby streets for the displaced pedestrian and bicycle traffic, he indicated that staff had not done a quantitative analysis of the adequacy of those facilities. Regarding the issue of alley safety, Mr. Reinhard was not aware of any quantitative evaluation of the alley. Staff discussion indicated that when the alley was most congested at the peak periods, vehicle travel speeds were very low, contributing to safer conditions. Mr. Farrington spoke to the Alder Street Market question, saying that the owner of the building that housed the market supported the alley vacation, but the hospital had not heard from the market operators. He suggested that, given there would be more pedestrian traffic past the storefront, the owners would be in support. He also suggested that increased pedestrian traffic would help enliven the street front, another City goal. Mr. Farrington indicated that the entire campus would be redeveloped for medical uses and related functions. PeaceHealth was working with staff earlier in the year on a proposed medical services zone, and he assured the council all the uses proposed were consistent with the uses discussed in that context. Regarding the displacement of internal trips, he said that those were essentially occurring between one building and another building, with some bicycle trips having a destination of the bicycle lockers located in the area. Those uses would be displaced elsewhere and accommodated elsewhere on the site. Mr. Clemow responded to Ms. Bettman's questions about the TIA, stating that the study periods were two-hour periods with the intent of capturing the one-hour peak period for the a.m., midday, and p.m. periods. The volumes on page 2 of the analysis were the one-hour time periods. The volume of external diverted trips for the three peak hours of the day, which he suspected constituted at least 50 percent of the trips generated over 24 hours, totaled 284 pedestrians, 58 bicycles, and 34 automobiles. Mr. Clemow said that the existing transportation infrastructure could accommodate the displaced trips, which staff acknowledged in the meeting packet. While MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 8 Regular Meeting some alternative movements may be out of direction, the result was not necessarily longer trip lengths. Mr. Clemow agreed with Mr. Farrington's summary of the internal trips issue. Councilor Bettman noted the medical services zone discussed when the hospital and City discussed that potential expansion downtown would accommodate a wide range of commercial uses. She suggested that such a zone would allow even uses that were not allowed in the underlying zone. Mr. Farrington said the medical services zone was intended to limit the scale, scope, and nature of the uses that could occur commercially on the site. The potential uses being contemplated were consistent with what was being proposed for the larger two-block campus that would be redeveloped for medical and medica-related uses. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Reinhard to speak to the adequacy of the infrastructure near the hospital. Mr. Reinhard said that staff had not done a quanttative analysis. Responding to a question from Councilor Rayor, Mr. Farrington said that the hospital did not seek further signatures on the petition from other property owners after it reached the 75 percent threshold. It had an e-mail in support of the alley vacation from Northwest Christian College. He confirmed that had already been submitted to the council. Councilor Rayor determined the location of easements in the alley and determined from Mr. Farrington that those easements would be maintained or the hospital would bear the costs of relocating them. Councilor Rayor confirmed with Mr. Reinhard the lack of mid-block crosswalks on Hilyard or Alder streets to support the alley as an east-west access. Councilor Rayor confirmed the location of access driveways and parking in the area, and recalled that the majority of the parking in the administration building used the alley to reach that location. He suggested that no additional driveways be allowed on East 11th Avenue to facilitate pedestrian travel, and that perhaps parking be removed. He asked ifa bicycle lane could be installed on East 11th Avenue. Mr. Reinhard said that those ideas had been discussed, and City staff felt it was necessary to work more extensively with Lane Transit District staff on the location of the Bus Rapid Transit route before making a final determination. Responding to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding how access to the alley would be controlled by the hospital, Mr. Martorello said the hospital would work with City staff on the control measures to be implemented, but until redevelopment occurred there was a certain amount of access that must be maintained because the alley is the main access and service delivery point for the hospital. Responding to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding input from the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department on the alley vacation, Gabe Flock of the Planning and Development Department said the department made had no response, which generally indicated it had no issues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Rayor asked if the public interest would be prejudiced if the council had no reason other than a strong gut feeling the council needed the alley. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded it depended on the basis for the feeling. He somewhat disagreed with PeaceHealth's argument regarding the public interest, saying he believed the council had discretion to make that determination on the basis of the traffic using the alley. Councilor Nathanson suggested that traffic patterns in the area were complicated by the fact that area streets were one-way streets. She believed the council needed the discretion to determine what was in the public interest, and when she looked at the distance pedestrian traffic would be diverted, it was not a long distance. She did not think pedestrians or bicyclists would have to go more than one-half block. She asked about the bus stop on Hilyard, saying it did not appear the alley was fundamental to the use of that stop. Mr. Reinhard agreed. He added that staff was concerned about the uses displaced from the alley, such as vehicle loading and unloading, access to parking, etc. He disagreed with the contention that those trips were solely the hospital's problem; he thought the extent to which they impacted the public street system should have a bearing on the issue. Councilor Nathanson asked what would be the substantive difference between approving the vacation request now and approving the request after a site plan was submitted. She asked if City staff would be involved in the development, review, and approval of the site plan. Mr. Reinhard said yes, staff expected to be involved. Speaking to the first question, Mr. Reinhard said that the staff recommendation regarding this vacation was not typical, but he pointed out that once vacated, it was possible that the redevelopment plan would not come to fruition. He did not expect that to occur, but it was the basis of the staffs concern. Jerry Jacobson of the Planning and Development Department suggested the issue was what should happen first, the planning or the vacation. Generally, there were development plans in place to demonstrate the vacation was warranted. Given the need to consider the public interest, staff believed it was in the public interest to have certainty that the vacation was warranted. Councilor Nathanson asked if staff would have the authority to influence the master site plan in terms of such elements as the location of loading docks, driveways, etc., if the council determined the vacation was warranted now because of its interest in increasing density downtown and interest in maintaining medical services downtown. Mr. Jacobson said yes. Councilor Nathanson asked what was the loss to the applicant as opposed to the gain to the public if the council denied the alley vacation. Mr. Jacobson said that he did not know. He said that development was costly, and time was money. He said that the City generally had more certainty as to what would happen in the future to demonstrate the need for the vacation. Mr. Terrett agreed it would be nice if the City had more certainty, but the hospital's resources had been stretched by its planning on the new Springfield campus. He said that PeaceHealth's work had progressed to the general concepts level; he anticipated the Hilyard campus would be an outpatient center, but the precise distribution of services had not been determined. Mr. Terrett MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 10 Regular Meeting said that having certainty about the amount of land available at the Hilyard campus was essential to the hospital's planning efforts. Councilor Kelly determined from Mr. Terrett that the applicant was willing to pay the value of the alley as determined by the City. Councilor Farr asked Mr. Klein if there was a legal requirement for a detailed site plan. Mr. Klein said there was no such requirement. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to deny the alley vacation. Councilor Farr, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved to substitute the motion with a motion directing staff to prepare an ordinance allowing the alley vacation. Councilor Farr indicated acceptance of the applicants' argument that it was not possible to do a detailed site plan without knowing the parameters of the site. Councilor Pap~ also thought that PeaceHealth had made its case for the vacation. He said that, if planning the site for development, he would want certainty about the alley vacation. With regard to the public interest, Councilor Pap~ indicated appreciation for the comments made by Mr. Roberts and Ms. Walker about the purpose and use of alleys, and noted the concurrence with the application expressed by the adjacent property owner. Councilor Pap~ also appreciated the arguments related to security offered by PeaceHealth. He said that his only concern about the application was satisfied by Councilor Rayor's question to staff regarding the position the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department had taken on it. He commended PeaceHealth for its outreach to the neighbors of the hospital, and said he would support the motion. Councilor Meisner asked if the utility easement could be addressed by staff in an ordinance. Mr. Klein said yes. Councilor Meisner indicated support for the substitute motion, saying that he might want conceptual plans in a smaller development setting. Given that the situation at hand involved two square blocks, multistoried development, and a planning process that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, he thought it unreasonable to ask the hospital to embark on such a planning process without more certainty about the alley vacation. Councilor Meisner found the purpose statement satisfactory and thought PeaceHealth would act in good faith. While Councilor Kelly thought there was a legitimate public interest in the current pedestrian and bicycle use of the alleyway, he thought there was also a public interest served by the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 11 Regular Meeting redevelopment of the Hilyard campus by PeaceHealth. He was tentatively prepared to support the substitute motion. Councilor Kelly acknowledged the lack of a legal requirement for a site plan and added he did not feel the need for such a plan at this time. Councilor Kelly expressed disappointment that the hospital had not provided more specific information in the supplemental materials regarding the type of construction anticipated or the jobs to be created. He asked the applicant to prepare a statement that the hospital would be redeveloping the Hilyard campus within a given time period with a rough time line for completion. Councilor Taylor opposed the substitute motion, saying that the application was premature and there was no clear demonstration the vacation was in the public interest. Those currently using the alley would have to go someplace else, and the council needed to consider that. She pointed out that the adjacent market required deliveries and loading and unloading, which necessitated access to the alley. Councilor Nathanson reminded the council that six months' previous it had been working to get a much larger redevelopment in the area in question, which would have necessitated many, many more significant changes beyond the alley vacation. She said that if the council wanted to see redevelopment, it seemed to be nitpicking an issue it would have been able to easily overcome earlier. Councilor Nathanson wanted to ensure that certain issues were addressed; she cited the bus stop on Hilyard and the need for Lane Transit District's involvement in the site planning process, and a review of bicycle travel patterns and how bicycle lanes were marked, noting the danger created by an increasing number of bicyclists traveling out of direction in the area. To the extent the vacation redirected some bicycle traffic, she wanted to improve how lanes were marked. Councilor Nathanson was also concerned about sidewalk widths, requesting staff exploration of appropriate sidewalk widths to accommodate additional pedestrian traffic. Councilor Rayor was also inclined to support the substitute motion. He wanted to ensure that the alternate route was protected, such as by limiting driveways onto East 11th Avenue, that PeaceHealth paid to relocate the utilities in the alley, and that PeaceHealth work with the City and the Lane Transit District on alternative modes on adjacent streets. In response to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding how the vacation request could be modified to address his concerns, Mr. Klein indicated the ordinance adopted by the council approving the vacation could include conditions that stipulated the vacation took effect when the conditions were met. Councilor Bettman indicated she could support an ordinance adopting the vacation with the conditions suggested by herself and other councilors. She wanted reassurance from the Transportation Division that those issues could be addressed. She did not think that pedestrian and bicycle traffic could be routed to East 11th Avenue because of the Bus Rapid Transit route, and said the City needed to determine what was needed to accommodate the changes that would result MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 12 Regular Meeting from approval of the alley vacation. She indicated she would like to see that evaluation done in conjunction with the development of the ordinance. Mr. Klein requested that the council provide direction that it wanted staff to work with PeaceHealth on a set of conditions that worked for the applicant and addressed the concerns of the council that could be incorporated into the ordinance. Councilor Meisner expressed interest in knowing more precisely what the conditions would be. He believed that, for example, Councilor Kelly's desire to ensure redevelopment actually occurred on the site represented a request for a site plan. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to amend the substitute motion to include that the final ordinance presented to the council addressed the concerns expressed by councilors Kelly, Nathanson, Rayor, and Bettman. Responding to a question from Councilor Nathanson, Mr. Klein indicated that the conditions would come back to the council as an agenda item and staff would indicate those the hospital accepted. Responding to a follow-up question from Councilor Taylor, Mr. Johnson indicated the council would make the decision on the conditions ultimately adopted. Councilor Pap~ expressed concern that conditions placed on the vacation might inappropriately apply to the adjacent Wheeler property. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Farr and Pap~ voting no. Roll call vote; the substitute motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting no. A break ensued. 5. ACTION: Resolution 4693, A Resolution Realigning City Ward Boundaries; Repealing Resolution Nos. 42993 and 4299; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to adopt Resolution 4963, aligning Eugene city ward boundaries with a map using Scenario Violet .4. Councilor Bettman expressed support for the motion, saying every proposal presented to the council equitably distributed the city's population. She considered Violet A to be the least radical scenario as it disenfranchised the fewest number of voters; it did not require a series of convoluted manipulations to be accommodated, made legal, and internally consistent; and it ensured that MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 13 Regular Meeting downtown was contiguous with the neighborhoods that surround downtown. Councilor Bettman said those neighborhoods were the natural support system for downtown, and downtown relied on those neighborhoods. She thought whoever represented downtown should also represent the portion of those neighborhoods in the city center. Councilor Rayor also supported the motion, saying that the Violet A scenario provided logical geographic boundaries for Ward 1 and gave the population of the south hills ward representation that they did not get under the other alternatives. He also preferred the Violet A scenario because it ensured that the River Road/Santa Clara areas were in one ward. Councilor Nathanson opposed the motion. She supported the alternative scenario, Indigo D. She said that currently, City representation was unfair and had been so for some years. Six councilors lived south of the river, one councilor lived north of the river to serve the entire Ferry Street Corridor area, and one councilor served far west Eugene. Acknowledging her own residence south of the river, Councilor Nathanson said that it still did not seem fair to her. She believed four councilors were too many councilors representing the interests of south Eugene. Councilor Nathanson said she was trying to keep in mind the long-term best interests of the city, and called for a plan that more fairly divided the city. She said that points of views and attitudes about how the city's growth and commercial activity should be managed in support of residential neighborhoods varied, but they all needed to be represented. Speaking in support of the motion, Councilor Taylor thought population equity could be achieved without the drastic changes represented by the Indigo D scenario. She said that if Indigo D was adopted, large numbers of voters would no longer be represented by the councilor they elected. She believed that was an important consideration. Councilor Taylor said that in addition, the reassignment of wards necessitated by the adoption of the Indigo scenario meant that wards that had just gone through an election would have to go through another one. She believed that was a hardship for those who worked on behalf of their councilors to get them elected. Councilor Taylor thought the Violet A scenario more fair because it resulted in as little change as possible. Councilor Kelly also supported the motion for the reasons stated. He said that while both scenarios provide numerical equity, he agreed with the rationale stated by councilors Bettman and Rayor. Councilor Meisner said he could not support the motion. He also supported the Indigo D scenario. He said that none of the options presented to the council were ideal or close to what he preferred. However, it was incumbent on him to gauge the scenarios on the basis of the council's adopted criteria, primarily that of equity of population and communities of interest. In terms of his own ward, Councilor Meisner said there was no scenario before the council that made sense to him. None of the scenarios created, preserved, or even permitted communities of interest to unit. Councilor Pap~ agreed with a speaker in the public forum that everyone in the city needed representation. He thought that could be best accomplished by the Indigo D scenario. Councilor MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 14 Regular Meeting Pap~ pointed out that his ward contained 43 percent more people than the smallest ward, and therefore it was not represented adequately. He pointed out that the council adopted five criteria, and the fifth, council incumbency, was the only criterion on which there was not unanimous agreement. Councilor Pap~ spoke to the long-term nature of the task at hand, and said the council should do it right without taking into account the people currently in office because the council would change over time. Councilor Farr also supported the Indigo D scenario for the reasons related to population inequity stated by Councilor Pap~. Indigo D ensured that two councilors represented the community living on the north side of the river. Mayor Torrey noted his own support for the Indigo D scenario. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Kelly, Rayor, and Bettman voting yes; councilors Nathanson, Meisner, Farr, and Pap~ voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to adopt Resolution 4693, realigning Eugene city ward boundaries with a map using Scenario Indigo D. In response to Councilor Papa's comments about the need to consider ward redistricting without taking into account current office holders, Councilor Bettman maintained that the council did not do so in relation to the Indigo D scenario. She said that there were many scenarios that were never presented to the council that would have redistricted some of the wards of the councilors who support Indigo D. She said there were many variations the council could have looked at regarding ward 8, 6, 5, and 4 that were just never presented to it. She said "so that really didn't happen, that wasn't a criteria," and she wanted to correct it for the record. Speaking in opposition to the motion, Councilor Bettman believed the Indigo D scenario was designed to minimize the influence of certain constituencies. She said that it put downtown in a ward that reached all the way to River Road/Santa Clara, and it was a drastic change from the existing ward system. Councilor Rayor also opposed the motion. He said that if it passed, he would ask that the council appoint him to Ward 4, which would not have a sitting councilor. Councilor Rayor, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved to amend the draft resolution (Attachment B) by revising recital F through the addition of the following text: "...except that where two or more councilors reside in a single ward, the councilor with the longest remaining term shall be assigned to the ward in which he or she resides"; by revising Section 2 of the ordinance so that Ward 1 would be assigned to Councilor Bettman with an term expiration MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 15 Regular Meeting date of 2004, and Ward 4 would be assigned to Councilor Rayor with a term expiration date of 2002; by striking the existing sentence that ends Section 2 and replacing it with the following: "Councilor Gary Rayor no longer resides in the ward that he represents but may serve out his term of office"; and by revising Section 4 by changing the last four words to read "Ward 1 to Subsection 2." Councilor Nathanson asked Councilor Rayor the reason for his amendment. Councilor Rayor responded that he believed it was the fair thing to do; if one had no intention to run again, he thought it important to let the voters and potential candidates know as soon as possible. He did not propose to run for office again, and did not want to increase Councilor Bettman's concerns about residency in Ward 1. He said that his decision was personal and was based on his turning 50 and the recent death of his brother. It was not a reflection of the office or the desirability of the office. He considered his service an excellent experience. Councilor Rayor thought he could serve Ward 4 well, and perhaps had a better temperament to do so than Councilor Bettman. He added it was his belief that all the councilors represented everyone in the city. Councilor Kelly pointed out that Section 4 of the draft resolution should read "...an ordinance to amend Subsections 1 and 2 of Section 9.2966 of the Eugene Code..." Councilor Kelly extended his appreciation to Councilor Rayor for his professionalism, forthrightness, and class. He believed that Councilor Rayor would do a good job of representing the newly drawn Ward 4, and said he would be happy to acquaint Councilor Rayor with his new constituents. Mayor Torrey called Councilor Rayor the finest role model he could be for a body such as the council, and he applauded him. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the vote on the amended motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Nathanson, Meisner, Farr, and Pap6 voting yes, and councilors Taylor, Kelly, Rayor, and Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion as amended, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Assessment Procedures; Amending Sections 7.010, 7.100, 7.125, 7.130, 7.150, 7.160, 7.175, 7.250, 7.295, 7.299, 7.400, 7.405, 7.407, 7.410, 7.420, and 7.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date Fred McVey of the Public Works Department Engineering Division introduced the item. He called the council's attention to information regarding the potential range of assessment costs, included in the meeting packet. He said there was no maximum assessable dollar amount specified in the ordinance; previously staff had made reference to a possible maximum amount, but determined later it was not accurate to characterize maximum assessable frontage as a maximum assessable amount. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 16 Regular Meeting Mr. McVey called attention to minor corrections made to the ordinance to clarify its provisions. Mr. Klein referred to sections 9 and 10 of the proposed ordinance, which included blank spaces to fill in to indicate which pads of the ordinance would be delayed for six months. He recommended that the second line of Section 9 be revised to read "...where required by Section 39 of the Eugene Charter of 1976, sections of this ordinance shall become effective six months..." The second line in Section 10 should be amended to read "...except for those sections covered by Section 9 of this ordinance, this ordinance shall become effective..." City Manager Johnson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4773, an ordinance concerning assessment procedures; amending sections 7.010, 7.100, 7.125, 7.130, 7.150, 7.160, 7.175, 7.250, 7.295, 7.299, 7.400, 7.405, 7.407, 7.410, 7.420, and 7.245 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and providing an 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, and that the bill include the recommendations of the legal counsel. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion by deleting the minimum driveway widths in Section 7.410(1)(c) and (d). Councilor Bettman said the City currently had no minimum driveway widths, and she believed such minimums took away flexibility from property owners who might prefer a ten-foot driveway width. She also believed it was consistent with the Land Use Code, where the council removed the minimum driveway widths. Councilor Kelly noted that the Council ad hoc Committee on Street Improvement Funding had not discussed the issue of driveway widths, and requested staff clarification as to why the minimum widths were added to the ordinance. Mr. McVey said that staff was proposing a minimum width to avoid the construction of potentially small and unsafe driveways. Councilor Kelly suggested the issue should have been addressed in the Land Use Code; he thought it seemed oddly imposed in the ordinance. If a person wanted to build their own house and use a motorcycle as a means of transportation, that individual might not want a 12-foot driveway. Mr. McVey responded that the Land Use Code did not regulate improvements in the public right-of-way; those improvements are regulated by Chapter 7 of the Eugene Code. Councilor Kelly clarified that the distinction was between the width of the driveway and driveway apron. Mr. McVey concurred. Councilor Kelly indicated support for the amendment. Councilor Rayor pointed out that one could have as narrow a driveway as one wished, but as one began to back into the street, a turning movement was required, requiring some minimum width. He believed that future owners would be disadvantaged by such a choice. He did not support the amendment. Councilor Meisner said he had not been inclined to support the amendment until Mr. McVey's response. He thought the issue more appropriately addressed in the Land Use Code, and expressed the wish that Planning staff was present to endorse the Public Works recommendation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 17 Regular Meeting The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Meisner, Kelly, Taylor, and Bettman voting yes, and councilors Nathanson, Fart, Rayor, and Pap~ voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the amendment, and it failed on a 5:4 vote. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend Section 7.407(4) by including a proscribed method for determining the access fee based on the equivalent assessment. Councilor Bettman said that if the road to be accessed was already improved prior to when the property took access, she believed the property taking access should pay an equivalent assessment as had the other property owners living on the street. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting yes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. City Manager Johnson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4773 by council bill number only. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Councilor Bettman spoke in opposition to the motion. She believed the proposed ordinance decreased the assessment for large lots over one-half acre that were already developed and resulted in an assessment that was not proportional to the infrastructure required to serve the development. The City then had to make up the difference between the assessment and the cost using County Road Funds, and she believed those moneys should be preserved for operations, maintenance, and preservation. Councilor Bettman found the proposed approach inequitable and said it could result in a hardship to some property owners. Councilor Taylor agreed with the remarks of Councilor Bettman, saying the ordinance was a slight improvement over current practice but she continued to think it inequitable. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting no, and became Ordinance 20236. 7. ACTION: Appointment to Boards, Commissions, and Committees: Budget Committee Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to appoint Kim Level to Position 2 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2001, and ending October 31, 2004. Councilor Nathanson requested a tally of the preliminary balloting as of 5 p.m. City Manager Johnson indicated there was a 3:3:2 split among the three top candidates, Ms. Leval, Jennifer Solomon, and Michael Wolfe. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 18 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly supported the motion, commending Ms. Leval's interview. He noted that most Budget Committee members, unlike the Planning Commission, lived north of the river, and Ms. Leval was a westside resident. In addition, he thought Ms. Leval brought "age diversity" to the Budget Committee. Councilor Meisner said he was unsure of how to vote, noting his strong interest in another candidate. Councilor Rayor was also unsure of how to vote. He thought there was a need for better gender representation on the committee. He said that vocal participation on the committee was important to him. He regretted he had not been present at the Budget Citizen Subcommittee meetings to know that Ms. Solomon did a good job, adding that "I heard that." He had not checked the record but could not recall Ms. Solomon speaking at a Budget Committee meeting, and said if someone could refresh his memory of that he could support her candidacy. Councilor Pap~ said that it appeared to him that the council was not reappointing Ms. Solomon, who did an adequate if not good job on the committee, because of her participation on the Gang of 9 and people were "out to get her." Councilor Bettman said her current objective in making the appointments to the Budget Committee was to achieve economic diversity. She supported the motion, saying Ms. Leval was very enthusiastic and had done a great deal of policy work at the federal level. She did not think it appropriate to have a Budget Committee that was drawn consistently from one socio-economic class. A more diverse committee would make decisions in the best interests of the entire community. Councilor Farr wondered if any councilors spoke to other Budget Committee members about Ms. Solomon; he had, and his consultation with the chair indicated his belief that Ms. Solomon made a good committee member and participated actively at meetings. He said that, like the council, some members of the Budget Committee speak at great length and the result was that those with less to say did not get a chance to speak or just decide not to request time. Councilor Fart noted the support expressed for Ms. Solomon by the chair of the committee. He said if the motion passed, the second largest ward in the city would have no members on either the Planning Commission or the Budget Committee. In response to the comments of Councilor Papd, Councilor Meisner said that he had no objection to the Gang of 9. He also was not concerned about the amount of time Ms. Solomon spent speaking in committee meetings, but he wanted to know the basis for her votes. Councilor Meisner added that he found it ironic that while the Gang of 9 was telling the City it was going in the wrong direction, Ms. Solomon supported all the motions considered by the Budget Committee except for the match for the Sister City Program. He wanted to know "what's wrong." MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 19 Regular Meeting Councilor Nathanson said the vote in question was different because the City Council had an incumbent member. With regard to gender diversity, she pointed out that Ms. Solomon was a woman and she was younger than Councilor Nathanson. She noted the council's receipt of a letter from four lay members of the Budget Committee requesting that Ms. Solomon be reappointed. She concurred with Councilor Farr about the need for committee representation from Ward 6. Councilor Nathanson said if the motion were to reappoint the incumbent, she would support it. She intended to vote against the motion. She commended the other candidates were also excellent, and expressed regret there were too few opportunities to involve them in City affairs. She hoped that City staff worked together to attempt to involve some of other talented and enthusiastic people who want to serve the community. Councilor Pap~ concurred with the comments of Councilor Nathanson. He said that if the council was interested in getting more socio-economic diversity on committees, it needed to have facts about that status, and not just assume what and who people were from appearances. Responding to the concern expressed by Councilor Farr, Councilor Kelly pointed out that neither wards 1 or 3 had representation on the Budget Committee. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Kelly, Taylor, Rayor and Bettman voting yes, and councilors Nathanson, Farr, Pap~, and Meisner voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a 5:4 vote. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to appoint Michael Wolfe to Position 2 on the Budget Committee. Councilor Bettman expressed support for Mr. Wolfe, noting his enthusiasm, knowledgeability, and good communication skills. Councilor Nathanson, seconded by Councilor Fart, moved to substitute the motion with a motion appointing Jennifer Solomon to Position 2 on the Budget Committee. Councilor Rayor indicated support for the motion, saying he had made his concerns known. Councilor Meisner also indicated support for the motion, given Councilor Rayor's change of mind and the fact it appeared there would at best be a tie vote otherwise. He expressed concern about the growing tendency for councilors to become polarized around issues to the degree there was no convergence at the end of the decision-making process. He called for the council to find a way to come together. Councilor Meisner noted that in the past, once balloting was done, the council had generally been unanimous on such appointments. Councilor Meisner said that Ms. Solomon needed to understand that he need to know why she voted with the committee majority but thought the council did everything wrong. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 20 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly expressed disappointment at the remarks of Councilor Meisner, saying he had thought the council was about to reach that convergence with the appointment of Mr. Wolfe. He thought that the successful passage of the motion would serve to further polarize the council. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute passed, 5:3; councilors Kelly, Taylor, and Bettman voting no. Roll call vote; the vote on the substitute motion was 5:3; councilors Kelly, Taylor, and Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 26, 2001 Page 21 Regular Meeting