Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC Minutes - 06/21/00 Work Session
MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 21, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Items from the Mayor, Council, City Manager Mr. Lee discussed the events of the past weekend, saying he believed the protests that occurred in the VVhiteaker area had gone better than the protests of the previous year. He thought that improvements could be made, however, and said he had discussed different ways to approach such protests with City Manager Jim Johnson and was committed a finding new and better ways to address the complaints raised by citizens. He thanked Mr. Johnson and Human Rights Program staff for their work in developing the Observer Program, which he termed an excellent program that addressed a part of the problem. Mr. Lee hoped the program could be expanded and the observers better-trained. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Mr. Fart said he was present at the protests on both Friday and Saturday nights. He said there was a "night and day" difference between last year and this year. He thought that was because the council and staff had done a good job in letting the Police line staff know what they expected of them. He believed progress had been made. Mr. Fart reported that Human Rights Commissioner Jason Thelan had been arrested during the protests, and Mr. Thelan had indicated that although he was not recognized as a commissioner, he was treated with the utmost respect and had heard a police officer apologize to a diabetic individual who had been separated from his backpack and medication. Mr. Fart thanked staff, in particular the City Manager and Greg Rikhoff of the Human Rights Program, for their work over the weekend. Mr. Fart reported the Human Rights Commission (HRC) unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that it take a position against the most recent initiative being sponsored by the Oregon Citizens Alliance. The council indicated support for taking a position. Mr. Johnson said he would prepare a resolution for the council's adoption at a regular meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Fart noted that on Monday night, June 28, the mayor would retroactively declare June 25 as Pride Day. Mr. Fart asked Mr. Johnson to follow up on a complaint from a citizen that police evidence related to a noise citation received by the citizen was sent to Massachusetts. Mr. Meisner said that Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was constructing a water main project in his ward that was taking longer than had been promised by the utility. The work blocked the East Butte neighborhood, and when it moved west it would cut his ward off south of the river and north of 5th Avenue. He asked if information on project expectations and the time lines for the project could be provided. Mr. Johnson said yes, adding that EWEB was finding the project to be more complex than it previously believed. Referring to the events of the weekend, Mr. Rayor said he wanted to find a way to get people to express themselves in a more constructive manner and not drown out the important messages of others. He was saddened by the amount of resources in the form of staff and volunteers expended on the protests. Mr. Rayor said that he had heard no credible reports of property damage and had personally witnessed no criminal behavior, but the police presence was very apparent. He wanted to match the police response to the threat. He referred to the communication from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) received the previous week regarding the police's "zero tolerance" response and suggested it could become the basis for a program that would allow the City to expend its dollars in a more productive way. Mr. Rayor reported that he had attended the Cruise In on River Road during the weekend. He said that the activities were great and there were many families in attendance at the alcohol-free event. It was his observation that the park did not appear to suffer from the event. He asked that a follow-up assessment on the impact from the event to the park be done. Mr. Rayor said that had the event been held on pavement rather than grass the warm weather would have made attendance less pleasant, so he did not think the fairgrounds was an appropriate site for the event. He questioned whether it was possible the park could accommodate the event over the long-term. Mr. Kelly also attended the Cruise In. He noted the City had also offered the use of Alton Baker Park for the event. Mr. Kelly read the following statement into the record: "1 attended a press conference yesterday at which about 12 people--some protesters, some bystanders--told their stories of what they experienced last Saturday and Sunday. I'm sorry that none of you other than Betty had the chance to be there. "1 want to be clear that if someone is standing or walking in the street (not the sidewalk) for an extended period without a permit that they have committed the misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. I have no problem with such people being arrested. My issues are (1) what level of force is used to effect the arrest of someone guilty of walking in the street, and (2) the appropriateness of arresting people who were not walking in the street. "1 believe it is part of my job as an elected official to praise the policies and practices of police or other City employees when praise is deserved, and to criticize when criticism is deserved. Much of what I observed Sunday deserves praise, and I have given praise. Some of what I observed, MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 2 Work Session and some of what I have heard and seen since then requires criticism, investigation, and change in policies and practices. "If at the press conference I had heard just one story detailing inappropriate police behavior, I would be tempted to dismiss it as hyperbole from someone with an agenda. However, when I hear a dozen stories by a wide range of people--from homeowners in the area to nonanarchist protesters--I'm convinced that inappropriate behavior did take place. "1 heard a professional who produces music videos--and who was not a protester--say that she came upon the protest Saturday and took her professional camera out to film. She was standing on the sidewalk across the street from the protest, and an officer came up and told her to leave. She had the audacity to ask "why?" The immediate response was that she was hit on the head with the officer's flashlight, her $4,000 camera was thrown to the ground, this slender 115 pound woman was sat on by an officer, and she was arrested for disorderly conduct. "1 heard a resident who heard sirens and activity on Sunday and went with his wife to the park blocks to see what was going on. He was standing in the park and was challenged by an officer. The resident said he thought it was okay to stand in a public park. The officer's response was to push him. The resident then put his hands behind his back and said "I'm not a violent person; I won't fight back." The officer responded by jabbing the end of his baton in the resident's chest, shoving him the ground, and arresting him. "1 heard a disabled veteran speak of coming back from the bathroom at Washington-Jefferson Park and walking on the sidewalk. He was told to leave by an officer, and he asked why. The response by the officer was to shout to two State police to "take him down"-- he was knocked down, injured, arrested, and denied medication for his disability in jail. "A reporter from local NPR station KLCC--a reliable source, one would think--told me that she was audio-taping the protest on Oak Street for her news broadcast, when without warning she was struck in the head by an officer with his baton. "A videotape was also released at the press conference. It shows--among other things--police using their bicycles held broadside as weapons to hit protesters who have already retreated to the sidewalk. Ask me if you want to borrow my copy of the tape. "1 urge my fellow councilors and the mayor to join me in calling for Police Department reform in the areas I've described today, and for us to work with the Police Department to accomplish that reform. When we are given a report by the Police Commission next month, I urge us to promptly consider their recommendations as well as to promptly act on the topic I'm bringing up today. "1 ask the City Manager to provide a broader, more transparent mechanism for police review as was promised a year and a half ago--not another year from now, not six months from now, but soon. I also ask the City Manager to issue a public response to the issues raised at the press conference, and to issues I've raised today. "Just two more comments from my experience as a liaison at the protests: It's simply not right that all media was kept a block away during most of Saturday's arrests. The media is a proxy for the citizenry, and needs to observe the operation of our government. Also, the police need to make clear what "disperse" means when a group is almost surrounded by officers. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 3 Work Session "1 won't take anymore time. I just ask you all to help me ensure that law-abiding citizens aren't arrested by force just because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that when protesters are arrested that the level of force is proportional to the seriousness of the offense." Ms. Taylor said that the press conference was both powerful and disturbing. She agreed with Mr. Rayor that the response should fit the threat. There were too many police present. People were generally peaceful when she was present and did not seem threatening. A member of the media had told her that the media were forced back and knew no more than she did about the arrests. She called for more discussion of the issues raised by Mr. Kelly. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could form a department advisory committee to look into the issue of traffic calming. People might have good ideas and people would get a better understanding that the problem was not just on their street. Mr. Pap~ said he understood that automobiles had been burned during the weekend and asked about the relationship between that case and the protests. Mr. Johnson said he had no direct way of stating that individuals' beliefs had led to any particular action. He said that the City had talked to the District Attorney about sharing information related to that case, but the District Attorney could not do so at this time. Mr. Pap~ said that he had been at Washington-Jefferson Park on Saturday night and was pleased that the demonstrations he had witnessed were peaceful. He had observed people exercising their First Amendment rights, as well as participating in misdemeanor behavior that he believed would have gotten him arrested or cited if he had done them somewhere else in town. He was pleased with the Observer Program and commended the actions of the liaisons. Mr. Pap~ had not seen police in or around the area until he left the park. Mr. Pap~ expressed the hope that the City would remove blackberry vines in the west of Alton Baker Park on the south side of the river to reduce illegal camping. Mr. Johnson reported that he had attended police and observer debriefings. He said that the police officers did not prefer to spend their Father's Day at a protest. Many officers had worked 15, 16, and 17 hour days during the weekend. Mr. Johnson said he had requested some time with print and broadcast media earlier that day to discuss how residents can make complaints about they way they were treated by the police. He had discussed the complaint process with the media and had noted the widespread availability of police complaint forms. He added that citizens wishing to commend a police employee can use the same form. He urged those with a concern to follow the process. Mr. Johnson briefly discussed the annual report of filed allegations, noting that 45 percent of those filed, or 19 of 42 allegations had been sustained in 1999. Those involved were disciplined in a variety of ways. Mr. Johnson said that the system can, and does, work. Mayor Torrey read the following statement into the record: "The decision by the event organizers to take back the streets last year in advance of June 18, 1999, was the precursor to this year' event. The event and subsequent activities, including celebrating the first year anniversary, which took place last Sunday, has proven to be both burdensome to the community and very costly to the community. The response to the lawless actions on our streets, in my opinion, was appropriate in light of the publicity generated by the organizers in advance of the two incidents. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 4 Work Session There were pamphlets that indicated what types of activities the group hoped participants would take part in, and those were illegal actions. We have a situation where eggs with this armor- etched material had been put in by hypodermic needle that could serious damage to the eyes, ears, and throat of a police officer. For those who say our police officers should not have been dressed in the gear that they were dressed in, I would indicate to you it is important that our employees be as safe as they can be. And, as the City Manager indicated, they did not ask to come to this event. The event took place and our officers were there to protect the citizens of the community. "There were pamphlets suggesting that illegal actions take place, there were actions on cable television inviting people to take place in illegal actions, the Internet is full of activities that are requested on the part of participants, the radio call in show last week where they specifically indicated that the demolition of personal and private property was "all right." Individuals who participate in an activity like this or come down to view that activity do that with some peril. And I do not believe that that is the same as taking away their rights of free speech. I believe that the City Council last week did an admirable thing in passing the resolution that indicated that we wanted people in this community to feel free to exercise their right of free speech provided they did not cross over the line into an area of lawlessness. "To point out something, there was no permit applied for, for that matter, there was no indication of where the activities were going to take place last week. There was no permit applied for to use Washington/Jefferson Park. It's interesting to note that two months ago I had to go to the City Manager and ask him to waive a $150 charge to one of our local neighborhood associations who wanted to use a park in their neighborhood to hold a community meeting. They had to receive authorization and it took, frankly, quite a lot of bureaucratic effort to get that $150 waived. My concern is, for each of us as policy makers, if we should have one set of rules for those who agree to follow the rules and another set of rules for those who simply say we aren't going to follow the rules. Remember these rules were all democratically put into place. "In my opinion the police acted appropriately based on my knowledge of the events. I was not there, and I'll tell you why I'm not there. All of you know that I have a high profile from within the organization that put on that event to the point where occasionally I have to have a police officers be by my home if I'm not going to be in town. Now I want to tell you I don't like that type of protection being required for my wife in the event that I am not in town. And if you think I'm fooling about that, ask police officers who find the address of my home in backpacks or in locations where these people meet. Now this is not just normal free speech rights. "The authority of the police to control crowds during an unsafe situation is essential in my opinion to the health, safety and well being of the citizens and guests of our community, just as if a large tall building were to be set fire in downtown Eugene, I believe the police have the authority to move people out of the street and away from the danger. This type of potential riotous situation also has danger not only to the citizens of Eugene who may have just happened upon the event--and I frankly find it very hard to believe that very many of them "just happened" upon the event--but it could be so I'm not going to take that out of the realm of possibility-- but folks, when we start taking away the authority and the responsibility of our police officers to ~rotect our community, we are doing a disservice to all of our community. "And for those who would indicate that there was an excessive amount of force I would tell you this year versus the previous year there was no amount of discernable public damage to public and private property. The fact is, isn't that a good thing? Isn't the show of force exactly what we MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 5 Work Session want? Do we want to have buildings burn down? Do we want to have people injured like the young man that was hit on the head with a wrench last year? Are we looking for those type of activities before we bring a level of response that stops that? I would say no. I would say we did the right thing. I would also tell you from numerous people who were at the events and told me that there was ample opportunity for those to leave the area numerous times they were told, we ask you to disperse. Now, if someone does not understand what the word disperse means, maybe we should change our language and say, You must leave the area. The fact is, people who were there had the opportunity to leave and they knew they were supposed to leave. Some of those who chose to stay unfortunately made that choice and I'm sure that many of them regret not having left. "The organizers of this event, by definition, openly call for the absence of government by means of violence. That comes right out of a dictionary. Regardless of their goal to remove the rule of law, I would urge anyone who believes that they have been mistreated under the law, in our city that they seek redress for that mistreatment using either the complaint form, contacting our Human Rights division, or frankly bringing a civil action against employees of the City--in this particular case we are talking about police officers. The laws of our City are meant to protect everyone, not just those who chose to ignore them. Eighty-five percent of the people who have called the City Hall and responded to this issue since Monday morning, there were 63 who said that the action was appropriate, there were 11 who said that it was not. Numerous people who have contacted me. In fact, I would hope that the police officers back there would recognize that in one speech that I gave yesterday you got a standing ovation. It wasn't for me, it was for you. "Do I wish none of this happened in our community? Absolutely. But I'll tell you if we start playing too many games with saying, well, we'll go up to you and say would you please not do this, it is not going to work. And we have a responsibility to protect all of our citizens including those who come to this community to visit. Thank you." B.Work Session: Charter Review Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office was present for the item. She noted that the council had previously been polled on issues it wished to address in a review of the City Charter, and she solicited additional ideas on the scope of that review. Ms. Walston suggested that the level of review would determine to some degree the citizen involvement process. Mr. Meisner called for a broad examination of the roles and responsibilities of the council and City Manager, chapters III and IV of the charter. He was not anticipating specific changes, but wanted a public process that engaged the public about what authority the council had and what authority the manager had, suggesting it would be an educational opportunity for citizens. Mr. Meisner also wanted to examine Chapter X, Section 44 of the charter regarding the authority of the EWEB commissioners, as well as those sections that were perhaps out-dated by time, but said he would leave the specifics to an appointed citizen charter review committee. Mr. Farr did not object to a review of the entire charter. He also wanted to examine Chapter X, Section 44, and those sections of the charter related to the Toxics Right-to-Know law (Chapter 4 Section 50). He noted the Appeal Court's action in invalidating a section of the amendment, which had led to the amendment not being implemented as desired by the voters. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pap~ was enthusiastic about a review of the charter and said that the council should take its time on the effort. He wanted to form an advisory committee that went through a lot of public process, with all issues on the table for review, including the form of government that Eugene had and the manner in which councilors were elected. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that he would leave most issues to the committee and let the committee decide what to do. He encouraged Mr. Kelly to participate in that process, given the number of suggestions he had proffered in the staff poll. Mr. Pap~ also agreed with Mr. Meisner about the need for reviewing those sections of the charter related to EWEB. He said that the council should ask the community what it wanted EWEB to be, and put that in the charter. Mr. Lee was not a strong supporter of a comprehensive charter review. He asked that someone explain to him what the problem was with the current charter, or how it had harmed service delivery or stopped the council from doing what it wanted to do. He had heard no complaints from the public about Eugene's form of government. Mr. Lee said that there had always been debates about the city manager/council form of government. He noted that there was a movement afoot in Portland to revise the commissioner form of government. Mr. Lee thought the council had access to the information it needed in the current form of government in Eugene. Mr. Lee did feel that Mr. Meisner's point about the educational aspect of the process was worthwhile. Most residents did not understand the limits of the council's authority. Regarding boundaries, Mr. Lee pointed out that redistricting would occur shortly after the census was completed, and suggested that redrawing the ward boundaries at this time would be "jumping the gun." Given that the only aspect of the review he considered worthwhile was the educational aspect of it, Mr. Lee did not support a charter review or forming an advisory committee and did not want to add to the council's work load with the task. He asked the council if it actually had time for a charter review. Mayor Torrey said he would like the charter to speak to the issue of boundaries for wards. He said that Oregon Law stipulated that wards should be continuous, be of equal population, employ existing geographic boundaries, not divide communities of common interest, and be connected by transportation links. Wards cannot be drawn to favor a particular interest. Mayor Torrey said that issue should be the first dealt with by the advisory committee. Mayor Torrey favored the existing form of government but said that did not mean improvements could not be made. He asked staff to give the council an indication of how long such an examination would take and how much it would cost. Responding to Mr. Lee, Ms. Taylor thought the council had time for the issue. She had not envisioned, in her response to the council poll, a lengthy review because not all sections of the charter needed to be reviewed. She agreed that there were outdated sections that should be deleted. Ms. Taylor said that the form of government should be discussed by the advisory committee. For example, she thought the committee should discuss whether the manager should have the same powers that the manager now has, or if that power should be diluted. Ms. Taylor said that there were different forms of a council/manager form of government that could be examined. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Taylor did not want to examine the toxics right-to-know charter amendment because it was so recently passed. Ms. Taylor wanted an in-house legal counsel and a performance auditor and said that the present form of government made it difficult for the council to have its way on those issues. She suggested that each councilor, including incoming councilor Bonny Bettman, and the mayor choose two members from the list of applicants for an advisory committee and vote on a final slate of eight to ten members. She advocated for the committee process to begin soon. She advocated for frequent check-ins from the advisory committee so the council could discuss its progress. Responding to Mr. Lee's question about what problem existed, Mr. Kelly noted he received what he termed a "fair amount" of constituent questions about areas of the charter that were of concern to residents. Independent of any problem, he believed said that the charter should be examined periodically. It had been 25 years since that had happened. Maybe no changes would result, but it was appropriate to have the review. He thought the council could give the effort time, but suggested that the council's involvement would not occur until after the advisory committee had finished its work. Regarding the mayor's concern about the timing of the boundary issue, Mr. Kelly was willing to make it a priority but did not want to impose a time line on the committee if members did not think it would work. Regarding the issue of a broad review versus topic review, Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the committee's charge not be overly broad. He suggested that the charge include a list of topics of interest to the council, including the broad topics mentioned, to avoid overly constraining the committee. Members might have topics to add to the list. He wanted his suggested items listed for the committee to ensure that they were discussed. He mentioned some of the items on his list, saying he merely wanted to have committee discussion of them as he was unsure of his own position on them. Mr. Kelly said he was comfortable with the council/manager form of government, but suggested it came in "many flavors." Mr. Rayor agreed in principle with the remarks of both Mr. Lee and Mr. Kelly. He thought the issue of charter review could be highly political and he did not want that. He supported ward representation as opposed to at-large representation because of the difficulty of representing people from all over the city. He also supported the council/manager form of government. While he had concerns about embarking on a charter review, his concerns were somewhat assuaged by Ms. Taylor's suggestion for appointing members of the committee and Mr. Kelly's suggestion for topic referrals. Addressing the topic of a broad versus specific review, Mr. Meisner pointed out that many of Mr. Kelly's suggestions were about items currently not in the charter, which argued for a broader review. Mr. Meisner asked if there would be new boundaries for the 2002 elections. Mr. Johnson said yes. There would be new boundaries for wards, commission districts, and State and federal districts. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Fart reiterated his belief that Section 54 related to the Toxics Right-to-Know law needed to be examined because the law was not being enforced as intended by the people. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Mr. Kelly, saying the charter should be reviewed periodically to let people affirm consensus about the form of government they had. He supported the broader examination discussed by Mr. Meisner. Responding to Mr. Kelly's remarks, Mr. Lee agreed that a periodic charter review probably had merit. He reiterated, however, that he had still not heard about any problems, he was concerned about the timing, and he was unclear as to the need. Regarding the issue of a city auditor position, Mr. Lee said he was familar with examples of the position, but there were tradeoffs between efficiencies realized by such positions and the politics involved. He suggested that the city was not sufficiently large to have a commission form of government, and most cities Eugene's size employed the council/manager form of government. Mayor Torrey said the council needed to keep in mind that the committee's recommendations must be voted on by the public. He wanted to ensure that the committee was representative of the entire community. Mayor Torrey said he did not know what the City could legally do, but it had a problem in that wards contained disproportionate populations. He asked if the City could adjust ward boundaries periodically as infill occurred. Ms. Taylor indicated her concurrence with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the need to give specific direction to the committee about those things the council was concerned about. Regarding the topic list to be given the committee, Mr. Kelly did not want the committee's charge to be outcome-directed. Regarding the auditor position, he noted he was not advocating for an elected auditor. In some areas, the elected officials appoint the auditor. Mr. Rayor said the committee must receive a topic list or it would be subject to outside political influence to pick the topics. Mr. Meisner said that while he disagreed with Mr. Fart regarding Section 54, he understood his concern. He suggested that the council had authority to seek a recommendation from the Toxics Board regarding the basis for the fee. Mr. Fart said it made sense that the board looked at the issue. Mr. Johnson said that it appeared the council did not want a word-by-word review of the charter, but rather a focus on selected sections. He said staff would attempt to schedule a work session in August so the council could provide further direction on the topic list. Mr. Johnson suggested that six months could be taken off the process time line if the council agreed that it wanted to retain the council/manager form of government but also wanted to see some "different flavors" of that form. C.Work Session: Interim Setback Provisions for Open Waterways City Engineer Les Lyle and Planning Director Jan Childs joined the council for the discussion. Mr. Lyle referred the council to the scope of work for developing an interim setback provision for open waterways included in the meeting packet. He recommended that the council, if it MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 9 Work Session concludes that an interim approach is appropriate, adopt the Waterside Protection provisions now applicable in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area as the interim approach, and that the City rely on the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study as the appropriate planning process for evaluating and deciding on a long-term setback provision. As an alternative approach, the Land Use Code update could also be amended to protect open waterways and providing setbacks in the long-term. Mr. Lyle recommended that the interim provisions be focused on restricting structures from being built in the setback areas, and that the provisions be applied to vacant and partially developed sites. Mr. Lyle reported that staff sought input from the Stormwater Management Department Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission on the recommendation; that input was summarized in the agenda item summary. The committee supported the scope of work with some concerns expressed by committee members about the resource impacts of the effort. The commission favored a phased approach, and subsequently recommended that staff map all vacant and partially developed sites and overlay the map with the stream corridors of concern and the buffer dimensions required by the Waterside Protection code provisions, and use that information to determine the buildable lands impact. The commission also asked staff to examine the Land Use Code as another venue for addressing the problem. Mr. Lyle said that staff supported the commission recommendations, which were reflected in Option 2 in the meeting packet. Ms. Childs briefly reviewed the discussion of the Planning Commission regarding the issue of interim provisions, which was also reflected in draft Planning Commission minutes distributed to the council. She said the commission recognized that the imposition of buffers was a land use decision. Because of that and the process implications, the commission wanted more information about how extensive the approach would be, and the impacts of the longer term work program before directing staff to proceed. Ms. Childs said that the commission had some concern about the potential of duplication of effort and public confusion because the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study was also in process. Mr. Johnson said that there were many ongoing related efforts with similar time frames. He thought the commission's recommendations were very good. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, City Attorney Glenn Klein said the issue of interim buffers must be processed by the commission because it involved a land use regulation. Ms. Taylor was concerned that development would occur that affected streams by the time the commission finished its work. She thought 20 feet was inadequate for a stream buffer. Mr. Lyle responded that there was considerable discussion at the DAC and commission about the size of the buffer and a variety of different opinions were expressed. One commissioner recognized that most intermittent streams were located in the headwaters of the south hills, and believed the planned unit development (PUD) process offered the City an opportunity to protect those waterways to a greater degree than interim buffers. The analysis requested by the commission would give members a sense of the scope of the issue. Ms. Childs pointed out that such analysis was typically done at the start of a project, and it would not unduly delay what would be needed to complete the work on interim buffers. Mr. Lee supported the commission's recommendations. He said that the Waterside Protection provisions had precedent and now would be applied citywide rather than only in west Eugene. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Lee agreed about the potential for public confusion and suggested that public information staff be asked to help communicate with residents. Mr. Lyle said that staff involved with the project would communicate with staff overseeing the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study and the City's public information staff to coordinate public information about the two processes. Mr. Lee was very supportive of the proposed approach and thanked staff for its effort. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the comments of the DAC and commission. He did not want the proposed time line to slip, and said a year was not insignificant (the period between the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study completion and the adoption of interim setbacks); once a waterway was degraded, it could not be "undegraded." He supported the phased concept. He said that 20 feet sounded narrow to him, and he would like explanation of its origin at some point. He said that the alternative of relying on the PUD process was not acceptable to him because he believed it was overly subjective. He wanted a more numerical, objective approach. However, he recognized that not all intermittent and perennial streams were equal in function or quality, and suggested analysis of what could be done at an interim stage for some review, including an appeal procedure, that allowed a property owner to argue for an exemption. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks. He was concerned that a 20 foot buffer was inadequate. He was concerned that the recommendation limited the prohibitions in the setback areas to structures only, noting the concerns expressed by the DAC about vegetation removal and cut and fill. He wanted a more broad view, saying that the provisions were not only designed to meet federal and State mandates, but community goals as well. Mr. Pap8 noted his concern about "piling on" regulations, and asked if the City was proposing to regulate something already regulated by the Division of State Lands or Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Lyle said that those agencies did not impose buffers or setbacks; they were responsible for wetlands regulation. He believed that the 4(d) rules that would soon be issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service represented the expecation that affected municipalities would closely examine how they were protecting stream corridors, including the application of buffers. Mr. Pap8 asked if the City could be a clearing house for people with questions about the multitude of regulations. Mr. Lyle said that the City already flags for property owners where permits were required by other agencies, and attempted not to duplicate existing regulations. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Lyle confirmed that affected property owners would be notified. That notice would include an explanation of how residents could be heard. Mr. Pap8 said that 20 feet did not seem like much but it would have an impact on small residential lots. He asked if the ordinance would include an exemption provision. Mr. Lyle said yes. He clarified that the buffers would be measured from the top of the bank, and the impact would vary by size of the affected stream. Exemptions would be similar to the open waterways ordinance and existing watershed protection code language. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding what approach the City would take for an intermittent stream without an exemption it wished to protect, Mr. Lyle said the City would have to determine whether it wished to purchase the involved property or corridor. Mr. Pap8 favored the phased approach. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Farr said that what was being proposed appeared to go beyond what was being required at the federal and State level. Mr. Lyle said that was true at this point. He anticipated the federal 4(d) rules would change what was expected of cities affected by the salmon listing. Mr. Farr asked about coordination with Lane County for streams that flowed from the city to the county. Mr. Lyle believed that the issue of coordination would be addressed by the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study and as the two jurisdictions shared work on the 4(d) rules. Mr. Farr said that in a worst-case scenario, the result of the interim provisions could be a 40-foot strip of land protecting a one-foot wide stream that flows into a ditch outside the city. Mr. Lyle reminded him that the focus of the provisions was on undeveloped property; developed property would be addressed by the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study. Staff would map those vacant properties and show the relationship to stream corridors. Mr. Farr hoped the council considered optimal application of the provisions that took into consideration the uses around the streams. He said this provisions would remove commercial and residential land from the land supply, and asked for more information about the impact of that on the buildable lands inventory. Ms. Childs indicated that information was forthcoming. Using a hypothetical situation involving a property in the middle of a protected waterway, Mr. Farr asked if the City would have to purchase the lot to maintain the integrity of the stream, or if condemnation would be the ultimate option. Mr. Lyle said that the open waterways ordinance includes a provision for stream realignment where appropriate, so there were other options beside City purchase or condemnation. Mr. Farr was glad the City was contemplating realignment of some streams, particularly in cases where streams were already disturbed, as it could help maintain the inventory of buildable land. Mr. Rayor preferred Option 1, to direct staff to go forward with the scope of work as outlined, rather than a phased approach. He thought the City would soon need to demonstrate its actions to the federal government. He wanted the work to include an examination of the PUD process, which he believed was a process that facilitated logging, piping, and destruction. He wanted an appeal and hearings process as mentioned by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Rayor suggested an approach that allowed some offsets. For example, the size of the buffer could be offset by a reduction in landscaped area. He requested commission feedback on the suggestion, adding that the administrative rule regarding 33 percent viability could "save the day" and make property more developable. In response to Mr. Rayor, Mr. Kelly pointed out that Option 2 was Option 1 with a check-in after a couple of months. Mr. Lyle said that the long-term setbacks provisions would be examined when the 4(d) rules were issued and as part of the Metropolitan Area Natural Resources Study. Mayor Torrey supported the recommendation of the commission. He hoped the City would be specific about how the "takings" issue would be addressed. Regarding the buildable land inventory, he concurred with Mr. Farr about the importance of knowing that information. He noted that Portland was going through a similar process and said it could lead to the expansion of that community's urban growth boundary. He said that the public should be aware of such tradeoffs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 12 Work Session Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to modify the scope of work to include a phased approach as suggested by the Planning Commission and direct the staff to proceed. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. D.Work Session: TransPlan The council was joined by Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Ms. Childs, Transportation Engineer David Reinhard, TransPlan Project Manager Tom Schwetz of Lane Council of Governments, and Paul Thompson of Lane Council of Governments for the discussion. Ms. Childs referred the council to page 61 of the June 19 meeting packet, which contained the staff clarification of the Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) recommendation. She noted that Mr. Rayor had asked staff to prepare a motion regarding bicycle financing and to determine whether through new or existing policy it could be made clear that bicycle parking would be provided for both new and existing development. Regarding the TUF, Ms. Childs said that the council was not looking at a policy, but rather a way to address anticipated financing shortfalls through a new revenue source. Members of the council had been concerned that the draft document indicated the council had approved the concept, and staff was recommending that the sentence to that effect be struck. She said that staff further recommended that the reference to a TUF be deleted and reference made instead to a locally controlled source of revenue. Those recommended amendments were reflected in legislative format in the meeting packet. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, that the TransPlan draft be changed to reflect the changes on pages 61 and 62 of the June 19 meeting packet, and that similar changes to made to pages 111-68, 69, 64, and 72. Mr. Kelly endorsed the changes and anticipated more discussion on what the revenue source would be, and if it satisfied the issue of financial constraint. Mr. Thompson noted that the Springfield City Council had modified the document slightly, and called the council's attention to the change, reflected on page 62. The council had recommended that the language be changed to "equitably tied to all users" rather than "the" users. The Springfield council was also interested in charging those not currently paying the costs of the system, such as Lane Transit District. Mr. Fart left the meeting. Mr. Meisner said he continued to be frustrated with the text as it did not reflect any flexibility or openness to finding an approach that ties cost to use. He said that a household or zone basis was not acceptable to him. He believed there were ways to tie cost to mileage or efficiency, and warned staff that if it "resists doing that" he would oppose the financing element in the future. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Ms. Childs referred the council to a copy of an e-mail memorandum from herself to Mr. Rayor responding to several questions Mr. Rayor raised regarding bicycle policies, copies of which had been distributed to councilors. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 13 Work Session Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to add a new Finance Policy to read: "To support full funding of bicycle project capital and operations and maintenance needs as identified on a priority basis. Identify and find more funding to accelerate the bicycle program." Mr. Meisner was unsure how the two components of the motion worked together. Mr. Kelly supported Mr. Rayor's goal but questioned whether it was needed as the council had already made some changes that would partially achieve it. He wanted to understand the implications of what was being proposed. He suggested that Mr. Rayor withdraw his motion and work with staff on policy and intent language that could be considered in a joint work session. Mr. Rayor withdrew his motion. Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to add a new Finance Policy to read: "Support full funding of bicycle project capital and operations and maintenance needs as identified in TransPlan." Pointing out that TransPlan was a financially constrained document, Mr. Kelly said that its adoption by the council would mean it supported full funding of the project list. He asked what the motion accomplished beyond that. Ms. Childs noted that it also called for full funding of projects on the future list. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ about the impact of the motion on other alternative modes, Mr. Rayor said that bicycles represent the largest share of the alternative mode load at the least cost. Lane Transit District spends 20 to 30 times more to move the same number of people than was contemplated in bicycle-related expenditures. Mr. Meisner said it was important that the finance strategies expressly identify the need for adequate funding for alternative modes. He wanted to ensure that the plan was clear about the need to address all modes of transportation, not just the automobile. The motion passed 5:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Ms. Childs referred to the memorandum with Mr. Rayor's proposed changes and said that Mr. Rayor had asked whether there should be a new policy added to the plan that would require bicycle parking for both existing and new development. Currently, bicycle parking was only required to be included in new development. She had identified two ways to address the gap: 1) modifying Bicycle Policy 1 by adding the phrase "for both new and existing development"; and 2) revisions to the Land Use Code, which would be addressed at a later time. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to modify Bicycle Policy 1 to read "Construct and improve the region's bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both new and existing development." Mr. Kelly questioned whether the proposed modification would lead to any changes as it was so broad. He endorsed a suggestion made by Ms. Childs in her memorandum that the City consider supplying City-approved bicycle racks free of charge to existing developments. He said that he often found bicycle racks to be inadequate or unavailable. Mr. Kelly questioned whether the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 14 Work Session solution was found in TransPlan or Land Use Code Update. Ms. Childs said that it was probably prudent to address the issue in both documents. Mr. Meisner supported the motion and agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks about the status of bicycle parking in the community. He supported addressing the issue through the Land Use Code Update as well. Mr. Pap8 asked how the policy would be implemented. Ms. Childs said that, for example, downtown Eugene was currently a bicycle parking-free zone. The City had a program to provide City-funded bicycle racks downtown to meet demand; she thought a similar approach might be useful throughout the community, as it would ensure that bicycle racks were installed and met certain standards. Mr. Lee asked that the policy be referred to the Human Rights Commission Committee on Accessibility. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The council considered a motion suggested by Mr. Meisner, copies of which were distributed to members, to add a new financial policy. In support of the proposed policy, Mr. Meisner said that the existing finance policies set priorities for the expenditure of State and federal facilities, and he was proposing a policy that prioritized the expenditure of local funds. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to add a finance policy to TransPlan that states the community would maintain transportation performance and improve safety by improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity. Mr. Meisner referred the council to the text following the motion that explained its intent and reviewed the definition: POLICY DEFINITION/INTENT: Use the following priorities for developing Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIP). Implement higher priority measures unless a lower priority measure is clearly more cost-effective or unless it clearly better supports safety, growth management, or other livability and economic viability considerations. Plans must document the findings which support using lower priority measures before higher priority measures. 1. Protect the existing system--The highest priority is to preserve the functionality of the existing transportation system by means such as access management, comprehensive plans, transportation demand management, improved traffic operations, and alternative modes. 2. Improve the efficiency and capacity of existing transportation facilities--The second priority is to make minor improvements to existing highway facilities such as widening highway shoulders or adding auxiliary lanes, providing better access for alternative modes (e.g., bike lanes, sidewalks, bus shelters), extending or connecting local streets, and making other off-system improvements. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 15 Work Session 3. Add capacity to the existing system--The third priority is to make major improvements to existing transportation facilities such as adding general purpose lanes and making alignment corrections to accommodate legal-sized vehicles. 4. Add new facilities to the system--The lowest priority is to add new transportation facilities such as a new roadway. Mr. Kelly was very supportive of the motion, and assumed staff would examine the language proposed by Mr. Meisner and recommend revisions or modifications before the joint work sessions if necessary. For example, he pointed out, the definition did not mention preservation as something that protected existing systems. Mr. Meisner and Mr. Lee accepted Mr. Kelly's point as a friendly amendment. Mr. Lee supported the motion. Ms. Childs said it was not clear if the motion was intended to address new systems development charges-funded roads required to support new development, or if the motion was intended to address new bridges, etc. Mr. Meisner said his motion was not intended to preclude such projects, particulary local streets. Mr. Carlson pointed out that most road projects in TransPlan were urban standards projects, such as collectors, which increased capacity. He was seeking a sense of Mr. Meisner' intent regarding such facilities. Mr. Pap8 asked how Bus Rapid Transit would be prioritized under Mr. Meisner's proposal. Mr. Meisner suggested that the local share of the cost was a combination of priorities, but primarily the second priority he had identified, "Improve the efficiency and capacity of existing transportation facilities." Mayor Torrey said that the goal inherent in the motion was a responsible goal, but he did not want the prioritization to become force of law that precluded the council from making a responsible decision about local funding that could have a beneficial impact on the transportation system. He was concerned that someone would use the priorities to stop a transportation project. Mayor Torrey also questioned whether the other elected officials would support the proposal. He asked if the priorities would also apply to State and federal funds the City received for transportation projects. Ms. Childs did not interpret the motion as applying only to local funds. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff could revise the wording of the policy to better implement what the council was attempting to achieve. He said that given the policy would apply to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) it did address the question of other funding sources. Mayor Torrey expressed concern that the result of the motion would be that State and federal funds initially designated for Eugene would be redistributed by those agencies to other communities. Mr. Kelly believed that the policy allowed the council to prioritize local funds at the local level. He said that if the City was contemplating a priority 3 project that included federal funds, and the council would rather use its local match on a priority 1 project, the policy allowed it MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 16 Work Session to do so. It placed a higher burden of proof on the council to show that the priority 3 project was more important that the priority 1 project. He pointed to the definition, which indicated that higher priority projects would be built unless "unless a lower priority measure is clearly more cost- effective, or unless it clearly better supports safety, growth management, or other livability and economic viability considerations." As a result, the council would have to produce some type of findings to support funding the lower priority. He did not think the policy would be a "straightjacket" on the council. Mayor Torrey did not oppose the policy as he believe it was the same thing the council would do in the absence of such a policy. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's assessment. He added that the mere availability of outside funds did not convince him that such projects had value. Each project should be evaluated on its merits. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Childs said that she interpreted the policy as being applied at the time a project was contemplated for inclusion in the CIP or TIP. Mr. Rayor supported the motion because he believed it would conserve money for road preservation through a reassessment of road projects. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Torrey left the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Lee assumed the chair. The council reviewed a new goal proposed by the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County (CVALC©) related to Eugene's status as a major regional center and visitor destination. Ms. Childs suggested that, rather than add a new goal, the definition and intent statement of existing goal 2 be modified to incorporate the concept in the CVALC© proposal. She explained that goal 2 includes a list of aspirations for the transportation system, and the list could be modified with the addition of CVALC©'s concept: "supportive of travel by nonresidents to and through the area." Ms. Childs noted that Springfield, Lane Transit District, and Lane County had accepted the staff recommendation. Mr. Meisner did not think a criterion for designing the metropolitan transportation system should be for travel by nonresidents through the area. He pointed out that State facilities carrying through traffic in Eugene had created a a barrier through the community. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks. He acknowledged the importance of tourism to the economy but did not think TransPlan was the appropriate place to support tourism. He suggested that the phrase "through the area" could be interpreted as needing to get people across town as fast as possible. He thought the goal should be to slow tourists down while they stayed for a few days. Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly. Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to modify the staff recommendation to read "supportive of travel of visitors to the area in recognition of Eugene- Springfield's status and responsibility as a major regional center and the second largest metropolitan area in Oregon." In support of his motion, Mr. Rayor said that he did not want to get into who was being served; he pointed out that the roads under discussion were public thoroughfares. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 17 Work Session Ms. Taylor saw no purpose to the motion as there was nothing to prevent visitors from using City streets and she did not want to build streets to facilitate getting more people to Eugene. Mr. Meisner did not want the text to be misused to justify a "huge highway project that does not serve the community." He said that the text sounded harmless, but he did not trust its application in the future. He suggested instead that the definition of accessible could be revised to address the issue of visitors' use of the transportation system. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that rail was also part of the transportation system and asked if the policy would affect rail. Ms. Childs said yes. The motion failed on a 3:3 tie, Mr. Lee, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Rayor voting yes, and Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to modify the definition and intent of accessible to read that "An accessible transportation system is one that serves all areas of the community and offers both residents and visitors convenient and reliable transportation options." Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Meisner said that the modification merely said that visitors got a convenient system, but not a separate "right." The motion passed, 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 18 Work Session