Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: April 9, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2007, Work Session, February 12, 2007, Work Session, February 14, 2007, Work Session, February 20, 2007, Public Hearing, February 21, 2007, Work Session, February 26, 2007, City Council Meeting, and March 14, 2007, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. January 24, 2007, Work Session B. February 12, 2007, Work Session C. February 14, 2007, Work Session D. February 20, 2007, Public Hearing E. February 21, 2007, Work Session F. February 26, 2007, City Council Meeting G. March 14, 2007, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070409\S0704093A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall January 24, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark. Ms. Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She acknowledged Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy was participating telephonically from the United States Conference of Mayors in Washington DC. A. WORK SESSION: Ordinance to Create Sustainability Commission City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Council, Public and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston to discuss implementation of one of the primary recommendations from the Sustainable Business Initiative (SBI): creation of a Sustainability Commission as an advisory committee to the City Council. Ms. Walston gave an overview of the SBI, which began in the spring of 2005 and culminated with a report approved by the council in October 2006. She said the report contained 11 recommendations for the City, including a public commitment to sustainability, creation of a sustainability manager position within the organization and formation of a sustainability commission. She noted that the council had made a public commitment by resolution and the City was in the final process of classifying and posting the sustainability manager position, with hiring anticipated in March 2007. She said implementation of the third recommen- dation for a commission was reflected in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Walston said that much of the language in the proposed ordinance was based on the ordinance that created the Police Commission. She noted that the draft reflected the council’s discussion of a 12-member commission with one citizen appointed by each councilor and four citizens appointed by the full council. She said staff recommended a smaller body composed of seven or nine members similar to the Civilian Review Board, with the mayor nominating and the council appointing members. She said staff also was suggesting that the council wait to appoint a commission until the sustainability manager was hired and could have an active role. Mayor Piercy stated her preference for modifying Section 2.380(1)(b) of the ordinance as follows: b) practices to grow and create sustainable business and jobs in the city publicly committing the City of Eugene to sustainable practices and to businesses that produce sustainable products and services. She did not have a preference regarding the size of the commission as long as the members represented a broad range of interests. She wanted to discuss whether proceeding with hearings on the ordinance before the sustainability manager was hired would be a problem. She thought the appointment process should be as uniform as possible across boards and commissions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 1 Ms. Taylor felt that a twelve-member commission was too large and preferred seven members. She thought appointments should be made similar to the process used for the Charter Review Committee, with each councilor submitting two recommendations from among applicants and the council making the final choice. She said the ordinance should proceed and not wait for staff to be hired. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Taylor regarding a seven-member commission as the most effective size. Regarding the selection process, he was agreeable with the recommendation that the mayor nominate and the council appoint members as the mayor had taken the lead and accomplished her goals with little dissent among councilors. He was confident the recommended process would result in good appointments and if the nominees were not acceptable to the council, it could request more names. He asked why the council should wait until after the sustainability manager was hired to hold another work session and public hearing on the ordinance. City Manager Taylor said it seemed the logical process was to have the person who would lead the City’s sustainability effort involved in creation of the commission and determining expectations and scope of work. It would also synchronize efforts with the availability of resources in the FY08 budget to support the commission’s activities. Mr. Poling said the commission could be appointed but not meet until staff support was available. Ms. Solomon favored a smaller commission of seven or nine members. She asked why the Police Commis- sion appointment process was different from some other boards and commissions. Ms. Walston said that was how the ordinance establishing the Police Commission was written in 1998. She thought it might be based on the idea that appointment by the mayor could be a more stable model and less prone to politics. Ms. Solomon preferred that the council nominate and appoint commission members. She agreed with Mr. Poling that Mayor Piercy had done an excellent job of shepherding the sustainability issue to this point, but there would be different mayors in the future and it would be the council’s responsibility to move forward. Ms. Bettman said she was willing to send the ordinance as written, with the amendment suggested by Mayor Piercy, forward to a public hearing. She supported a 12-member commission because it would fulfill a very different role than other commissions; it required a broad range of expertise and members with access to resources regarding sustainability strategies used successfully in other jurisdictions. She could accept a 9- member commission with each councilor and the mayor appointing members but thought the ordinance language was the best approach. She saw no reason to delay the public hearing and adoption of the ordinance until the sustainability manager was hired. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to take the ordinance forward to a pub- lic hearing with the Mayor Piercy’s suggested amendment. Mr. Zelenka said the issue was consistent with the sustainability goal the council had just adopted and he agreed that there should not be a delay in moving forward. He disagreed with a statement in the agenda item summary that there had not been substantial debate or discussion on the number of commission members or appointment process. He said an amended motion proposed by former councilor David Kelly at an earlier work session specifically outlined a 12-member body with City Council appointment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Zelenka noted that the Human Rights Commission and SBI had 15 and 16 members respectively and both bodies work very well. He said an argument in favor of having a larger group was the importance of having a diversity of opinion represented on the sustainability commission; having more ideas was better than fewer ideas. He like the concept of councilors each appointing one member and the full council appointing four members. He said if there needed to be an odd number on the commission he would propose having a 13-member body with the thirteenth member being a representative from the council. Ms. Ortiz supported Ms. Bettman’s motion. She thought it was important to reflect the larger community on the commission as the scope of work had not yet been determined and it was essential to have different passions and opinions represented. She said she could support the concept of a 13-member commission and preferred to have the council appoint members as it gave the council ownership of the sustainability initiatives. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Bettman clarified that the motion was to move the ordinance as written, with Mayor Piercy’s amendment regarding language in Section 2.380(1)(b), forward to a public hearing. Ms. Solomon reiterated her concern that a 12-member commission was an unmanageable size and was not certain she could support the motion. Mr. Clark supported the motion and said he could even support the idea of the mayor appointing commis- sion members. He appreciated the leadership Mayor Piercy had shown with the diverse interests involved in the SBI and would trust her wisdom in appointments. Ms. Taylor commented that Mayor Piercy had done a good job but she would not be mayor forever. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the ordinance to establish a commission composed of seven citizens. City Attorney Glenn Klein pointed out that if the commission was changed to seven members that meant the appointment process of each councilor appointing a member would have to be changed. Ms. Taylor restated her motion as “I move to amend the ordinance to establish a commission composed of seven citizens with each councilor suggesting one or two people from the pool of applicants and the full council appointing.” Mr. Poling withdrew his second. There being no other second, the motion died. Mr. Poling said he withdrew his second because of concern that trying to make amendments “on the fly” would create problems. He preferred to send the ordinance to a public hearing as written and the council could amend it at a later date. He supported Ms. Bettman’s motion but that did not mean he supported the proposed ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 3 Regarding each councilor appointing a commission member, Ms. Bettman remarked that while Mayor Piercy had a significant positive influence on the sustainability initiative, she would not always be mayor. She felt that each councilor appointing a member and four members being appointed by the full council would facilitate a buy-in by each councilor’s constituency. She said that the future direction of sustainabil- ity would require the support of the entire community and each councilor’s constituents, instead of moving the initiative forward with a split vote. She hoped the makeup of the committee would help avoid divisive- ness and polarization. Mr. Zelenka thought that all commissions should have an odd number of members. He noted that all other commissions had a councilor as a member and he thought that created a liaison and provided input from a council perspective. Mr. Zelenka proposed a friendly amendment to change the composition of the sus- tainability commission to 13, with the thirteenth member being a city councilor ap- pointed by the mayor. Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Mayor Piercy supported the friendly amendment. The motion as amended passed, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: River Road/Santa Clara Annexation Policy City Manager Taylor introduced Central Services Executive Manager Jim Carlson to present an overview and background of the City’s existing approach to annexation policy. Mr. Carlson said the issue arose with respect to River Road/Santa Clara annexations, but related to the City’s annexation policy in general. He provided an excerpt from the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Plan (Metro Plan), as that was the basis of the City’s annexation policy. He said the Metro Plan assumed that the cities of Eugene and Springfield were the logical service providers within the urban growth boundary (UGB). He said it was clear during meetings with citizens in the River Road/Santa Clara area than many of them did not agree with those principles of the Metro Plan and believed that the existing provision of services by multiple service providers, special districts, Lane County and the City of Eugene was adequate and acceptable. He noted letters from both the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhood associations supporting that position. Mr. Carlson used maps to illustrate current city limits and recent annexation activities in the Bethel/Danebo and Willakenzie areas. He said that hundreds of annexations had occurred in the River Road area since adoption of the Metro Plan in 1982 and those were all voluntary annexations in the sense that they were initiated by the property owners, frequently because annexation was required in order to allow development of property at an urban density. He said about 40 percent of the River Road/Santa Clara area was inside of Eugene’s city limits and many of the annexed areas were noncontiguous to the main body of the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Carlson pointed out that Senate Bill (SB) 417 would abolish the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission and the council might wish to schedule a separate work session on the subject of the commission. He described the role of the boundary commission, including responsibility for annexations, and said under the City’s current policy all annexations were voluntary and went directly to the commission without involvement of the City Council or Planning Commission. He explained the boundary commission had two processes, one of which was an expedited process at the applicant’s request that eliminated the need for a public hearing if none of the affected districts asked for one. He said that process would not exist if the commission was abolished and the provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 222 related to City annexations would be in effect, requiring a City Council public hearing on all annexations and increasing the council’s workload. Mr. Carlson said another feature of having a boundary commission was that noncontiguous annexations were allowed in boundary commission areas and most of the River Road/Santa Clara annexations had been noncontiguous annexation of isolated parcels of vacant land that the owners wished to develop. He said that for those types of annexations to continue, the City would have to annex more road right-of-way to connect those parcels to the main body of the City. He said 25 to 28 annexations occurred per year with 40 percent in River Road, 40 percent in Santa Clara and the remaining 20 percent in the rest of the City. He said the City’s ordinance on annexation would need to be amended as it currently required the boundary commission to approve any annexations approved by the council. He said that was particularly a factor in island annexations, which could be initiated and approved by the City but under the current ordinance would require a secondary approval by the boundary commission. Mr. Carlson explained there had never been an island annexation in River Road and Santa Clara; the last island annexation initiated by the City occurred approximately 15 years ago and affected parcels along West th 11 Avenue. He said there was a series of large island annexations in the 1970s that essentially completed annexation of the Willakenzie area south of Beltline. He noted that the agenda materials included the council’s policy, approved in 1993, regarding the addition of road rights-of-way to privately initiated annexation proposals. He reviewed that policy and said that when staff requested annexation of road right- of-way, it was consistent with the policy. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged the presence of members of the River Road/Santa Clara community and Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green. Ms. Bettman said the boundary commission issue warranted a separate work session. She asked if SB 417 included a provision for noncontiguous annexation. Mr. Carlson replied it did not; it merely abolished the boundary commission. He said that such a provision would require an amendment to ORS 222 and would affect all cities in Oregon. Ms. Bettman agreed with the Metro Plan that the City was the logical provider of urban services. She did not think River Road/Santa Clara residents disagreed with the plan. She thought the aggressive practice of island annexations was scaring people because of the financial hardships imposed on property owners in the past by requiring them to connect to sewers. She agreed with the need for sewers but the issue was more one of the process and not the eventual outcome. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Bettman declared that her reading of the City’s policy related to road rights-of-way annexations suggested that use of the word “should” instead of “shall” allowed staff discretion on whether to seek inclusion of road rights-of-way in an annexation. Mr. Klein agreed that “should” did not mean “shall,” but the policy would require justification from staff if road right-of-way annexation was not requested; otherwise, any adjudication would question why the City did not comply with what appeared to be an applicable policy. Ms. Bettman said the boundary commission had exercised that discretion by not granting every road right- of-way addition the City requested. Mr. Carlson responded that the City only requested the addition of roads in about 50 percent of the annexation proposals. He said the boundary commission had been somewhat inconsistent about agreeing to include road rights-of-way. Ms. Bettman felt that the council could give direction to the City Manager to halt the practice and that was the motion she would be making. City Manager Taylor indicated that the City was using a best management practice similar to that used by other jurisdictions related to noncontiguous annexations and logical provision of services. Mr. Clark asked if the City was currently in compliance with Metro Plan provisions to identify methods of establishing an urban transition program to eventually provide provision of key urban services only by cities. Mr. Carlson said a plan was currently in place and how well it worked depended on the service. He gave examples of contracting with districts to provide services to portions of the City, but thought some of those agreements were less effective than they could have been. Mr. Clark clarified that he was asking if there was a plan for transitioning annexation. Mr. Carlson replied that the Metro Plan provision cited by Mr. Clark related more to interim service delivery methods than to a plan for eventually annexing the entire area. He said there was no timeline or process for ultimate annexation of the area; the Metro Plan did not require such a plan, but asked that an active annexation program be undertaken. Mr. Clark asked if the street annexation program had changed over time. Mr. Carlson said the program evolved over time; shortly after adoption of the Metro Plan the practice had been to sometimes annex the street in front of the property or occasionally only half of the street. He said in many cases the annexations were sufficiently isolated that no street was included; increased annexation in certain areas over the past five years had resulted in more frequent staff recommendations to include streets because service delivery would be more efficient if the road was included. He said in most cases the requests were made when 50 percent of the front footage was already within the city limits. Mr. Clark asked if the City operated like other metropolitan areas in similar circumstances. Mr. Carlson pointed out that Eugene was the only jurisdiction that still had a boundary commission and different jurisdictions responded in different ways. He gave the examples of Portland and Gresham, whose active, aggressive annexation policies and practices resulted in very little unincorporated land in that area. He said in the Salem area the approach was to form the City of Keizer; Eugene was using the incremental annexa- tion approach with voluntary annexations only. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Taylor asked if island annexation would be more difficult without the boundary commission. Mr. Carlson replied they would actually be simpler because island annexations currently had to be initiated by the council, approved by the council and then forwarded to the boundary commission for additional public hearing and review. He said if there was no boundary commission, the City Council would be the only entity involved in the annexation. Ms. Taylor asked if the street would be annexed if only one property was involved. Mr. Carlson replied that typically the street would not be involved unless the location was near or adjacent to other properties that had already been annexed. Ms. Taylor asked if an island could incorporate as a city. Mr. Carlson said while nothing in the Metro Plan prohibited that, it would be difficult because of the way services were provided. Ms. Taylor observed that some property owners were not aware of whether they were within the city limits. She believed that citizens should have a right to control whether they were annexed. Mr. Zelenka supported having a work session on the boundary commission issue. He understood there were no forced annexations and the real issue was island annexations, which still concerned people even though there was no plan for that type of annexation. He agreed that cities were the logical providers of services and all of those properties should eventually come into the City; the issue was how and when. He said the City should establish a process to build trust on both sides, including discussing the status of refinement plans. He requested information from staff on the advantages and disadvantages of curb and gutter and stormwater drainage ditches. He would agree with a motion to direct the City Manager to halt island annexations as a good first step. Ms. Solomon supported the City’s annexation policy as it made sense. She said that over time, all of the property would need to be annexed but it was entirely voluntary at this point. She was comfortable that there had been no island annexations in many years and did not envision that the current or future councils would initiate them. She was reminded of the council’s earlier discussion of the transportation system and the fact that over 40,000 of Eugene’s 80,000 jobs were held by people who did not live within the city limits. She felt that people who used the roads and enjoyed services should be a part of the City and contribute to the support of those services. Mr. Pryor asked if the reference to providing for the efficient delivery of city services was addressing all services or focusing on specific services. Mr. Carlson said there were implications for all services, with perhaps the exception of library services. He explained the difficulties and inefficiencies of having multiple service providers and the problems that could create for emergency responders when there was confusion over jurisdiction. Mr. Pryor asked if there were implications for public works costs if only portions of a street were annexed. Mr. Carlson said there were issues but the City had a maintenance agreement with Lane County to identify areas of maintenance responsibility; the agreement was adjusted annually to accommodate the annexation of roads. Mr. Pryor asked if not annexing a street until all properties along it were annexed would be practical or present insurmountable problems for police and fire services. Mr. Carlson said there was no legal prohibition but there was a practical problem with respect to 911 dispatching if all of the properties were in the City but the street was not. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 7 Mayor Piercy said it seemed more aggressive annexation was creating tension in the discussion of transition. She asked about the status of the transition process and suggested that if the current policy remained, it would be helpful to have a timeline established for conclusion. She asked for comments on the council making a statement that it was not interested in doing island annexations. Ms. Bettman said just stating the council was not interested in island annexations while the staff was pursuing annexation of road rights-of-way meant that people would be surrounded by annexed roads while their property remained unannexed. She said that a promise not to pursue island annexation was not a guarantee. She referred to a letter from the River Road community organization underscoring the fact that annexing streets adjacent to unannexed properties created as many problems as it solved. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to halt the practice of adding road right-of-way to annexation requests in the River Road/Santa Clara area where such additions would create islands. Ms. Bettman restated her motion as “I move to direct the City Manager to halt the practice of adding road right-of-way to annexation requests in the River Road/Santa Clara area adjacent to unannexed property. Ms. Ortiz accepted the re- stated motion. Mr. Carlson asked if Ms. Bettman’s intent was that street annexation could not be requested unless property on both sides of the street was in the City. Ms. Bettman said that was her intent. Mr. Zelenka suggested keeping the language simple by prohibiting island annexations. Ms. Bettman said there could be a situation where it would not create an entire island because the unannexed property was not completely surrounded. Mr. Zelenka said he did not see a problem with road annexation; it was the creation of an island that concerned people. He did not disagree with the City’s current road annexation policy and said the council could just direct the City Manager to halt island annexations. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment: “…annexation requests in the River Road/Santa Clara area where such additions would create islands adjacent to un- annexed property.” City Manager Taylor clarified that Mr. Zelenka was supportive of rational service provision annexation of road right-of-way for police, fire and maintenance but not when it would create an island that people feared would enable the council or boundary commission to act without their input. Mr. Zelenka agreed. He said he would not care if an island was created as long as it was not annexed. City Manager Taylor said that the City’s practice was not to annex islands. He said the staff had no plans to request island annexations in River Road/Santa Clara or any other part of the City. Mr. Klein pointed out that the there had been no disposition of Mr. Zelenka’s friendly amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 8 Ms. Bettman asked for clarification before she accepted or declined the friendly amendment. She asked what road annexation scenarios would occur if only island annexations were prohibited. Mr. Carlson said there were many options. He distributed a map illustrating annexation options along River Road that would annex road right-of-way adjacent to annexed properties but not form islands. Ms. Bettman commented that annexation of the road rights-of-way was not required and the road could remain under County ownership and maintenance. Mr. Carlson said there was a maintenance agreement with the County and the City actually maintained those sections except for preservation activities. Ms. Ortiz said the council’s discussion had indicated the City did not engage in the practice of island annexations. Mr. Carlson said it was a legal option for the City but had not happened in 15 years and had never happened in River Road/Santa Clara. Ms. Ortiz restated the motion she had asked Ms. Bettman to make for her: “I move to direct the City Manager to halt the practice of adding the right-of-way to annexa- tion requests in the River Road/Santa Clara area.” Ms. Bettman agreed with the restated motion. Ms. Ortiz agreed she had provided the second. Mr. Clark recognized the importance of the issue to River Road/Santa Clara residents but he was concerned about taking a tool away from the City. He wished to be sensitive to City and County residents and the process for transition. He said residents questioned the benefits of annexation and he thought there were benefits, but it was a broader issue of shared responsibilities within a community. He said that residents should share responsibility for tax-funded services such as human services and road maintenance. Mr. Clark felt the need to represent the interests of his constituents who resided in the City, but as a show of good faith, because the process mattered, he wanted to support this type of motion to avoid any de facto taking of rights when the opportunity for an island was created. He said the motion went further than just prohibiting islands and he was not certain he could support removing the tool for every area in the City. He asked if the motion would take the City out of compliance with the Metro Plan and might there be unintended consequences to the motion. He asked what effect there would be on City residents as opposed to County residents if the motion passed. Mr. Klein said he was not aware of any conflict with the Metro Plan but would have to research the matter further. He said he was not concerned with a motion that halted the practice, but recommended that the council allow staff to bring back a resolution to amend in order to avoid legal problems if there were challenges. City Manager Taylor said it was difficult to ascertain if there would be unintended consequences. He recommended continuing current practices and was opposed to a public policy that stated the City would not annex any road right-of-way because it created complex problems for police, fire and other services. Ms. Solomon said she would not support the motion as it seemed to be a solution in search of a problem. She noted the City only annexed street rights-of-way 50 percent of the time and last year there were 25 annexations. She preferred to see the City put energy into developing an annexation proposal instead of removing a tool from the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 9 Ms. Bettman remarked that the policy was only to process voluntary annexations, but the streets were not voluntary annexations. She preferred language related to unannexed property but the motion was specific to the River Road/Santa Clara area. She said the City would need to negotiate a process for annexing roads with the residents of that area and the motion would provide a push in that direction. Mr. Pryor said he was supportive of the motion when it addressed islands, but could not support the motion as restated as it went too far. Mr. Clark asked if a friendly amendment to apply the policy only to island annexations would be accepted. Ms. Ortiz declined to accept the friendly amendment. She said if the current practice was to do no island annexations there was no benefit to the amendment. She said the motion was specific to the River Road/Santa Clara area based on concerns she had heard from the community. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pryor that the motion went too far. He wanted to respect the principle of the annexation process and agreed with Mr. Zelenka that road annexations should be allowed as long as there were no island annexations of property. He would not support the motion. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend the motion by adding the phrase “where such additions would create islands.” The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy said that the inclusion of a reference to islands would prevent problems with provision of services and she was supportive of the motion as amended. The main motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council – Work Session January 24, 2007 Page 10 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 12, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She welcomed everyone the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Commissioners and said that they would be introduced at the beginning of the workshop. Mayor Piercy acknowledged and thanked Richie Weinman and Pearl Wolfe for their work to organize Project HomelessConnect. She also thanked members of the community who participated in the event. Mayor Piercy said that the event was incredible noting that more than 1,000 homeless people were served. She identified many services provided such as bike repair, pet care, and hair cuts. Mayor Piercy announced that a Neighborhood Summit would take place on February 17. She said that the Asian Celebration would also begin on February 17, noting that this was an opportunity for celebrating the Asian community and their cultural gifts to the City. She acknowledged the River Road Celebration that happened earlier in the month and described it as a wonderfully organized event. Mayor Piercy read a letter from the mayor of Chinju, South Korea, one of Eugene’s sister cities, which thanked the City of Eugene for its hospitality to students from Chinju who had visited and stayed with local citizens. He said that he and his city would extend the same hospitality to students from Eugene who would visit Chinju in July 2007. Mayor Piercy expressed sadness and feelings of loss for the entire city because of the deaths of two members of the Eugene Symphony who were killed in a car accident on February 11. She said that their deaths were a big loss to those who loved them and for the entire community. Ms. Ortiz said that she also attended the Project HomelessConnect event for several hours. She described the experience as amazing, especially the way in which all people were acknowledged and treated with dignity and respect. Ms. Ortiz said that she had taped a radio advertisement with County Commissioner Bobby Green supporting the Earned Income Tax Credit. Ms. Ortiz said that she attended a Police Commission meeting with Mr. Poling. She shared that she was working on the Domestic Violence Subcommittee, which was working on MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 1 Work Session sexual assault, partner violence, child abuse, and neglect. She said that the subcommittee would be reaching out to stakeholders for feedback. Ms. Ortiz commented that this year the Asian Festival was falling on the Lunar New Year, which made it a special weekend. She added that Monday, February 19, was the Day of Remembrance for Asian Americans who were interned in Eugene. She said that the dedication of the memorial would be at noon at the Hult Center. Ms. Bettman echoed Mayor Piercy’s gratitude to the staff and community members who volunteered for the Project HomelessConnect event. Mr. Poling said that his first meeting of the Police Commission was exciting. He said that the commission- ers seemed to be working well together and he was glad to be a part of their work. He said that the Police Commission would also be working on use-of-force and policies and procedures. Ms. Taylor said that she also attended the Project HomelessConnect event and experienced personally the dignified and respectful treatment given to those participating. Ms. Taylor commented on the downtown development proposals as she would not be in attendance at the meeting at which it was discussed. She said that she would be asking for a delay on the vote unless she could join the council by phone. She said that the Bean Development sounded good to her because the proposal called for the rehabilitation of a couple of buildings and filling the Aster site on Willamette Street. She said that she thought that it was important to remove the threat from businesses that were thriving such as John Henry’s, the Horsehead, the Tango Center, Taco Time, etc. She said that it was to the City’s advantage to foster, care for, and encourage businesses that were working. She said that the City should help the Farmer’s Market to relocate if something was done with the Washburn Building. Ms. Taylor said that the City should get a guarantee that any new development would not tear down buildings and leave holes. She concluded by saying that the offer to renovate was excellent. Ms. Taylor mentioned the new truck stop that would help trucks clean up, use less fuel, and provide other services for trucks. She pointed out that this started through Lane Regional Air Protection Agency. Mr. Zelenka also echoed the comments made about the Project HomelessConnect event. He said that it was a very heartfelt experience for him to see over 300 volunteers and more than 1,000 people attending. He noted that it was “one-stop shopping” for people to get through a lot of services that might take them weeks to get to otherwise. Mr. Zelenka said that he attended the Franklin Corridor AIA Workshop on February 3. He said that it was well attended and that people were given the opportunity to design different areas of the Franklin Corridor. He said that it was a great kick-off for an ongoing project. Mr. Zelenka said that he attended the Eugene 08 reception, which was a kick-off to get the business community involved in the Eugene Olympic Trials. He said that it was a great event. Mr. Clark said that he was proud to attend the Fire & EMS Department’s Awards and Promotions ceremony. He said that it was a wonderful event and commented that he was proud of the City Manager’s choice for Fire Chief. Mr. Clark said that he attended the Chamber of Commerce Celebration Business Dinner. He said that he enjoyed sitting with people from Golden Temple and hearing Kartar Khalsa’s presentation about sustainability. Mr. Clark said that he also attended the Eugene 08 event. He said that the Olympic Trials should be a world-class event. Mr. Clark congratulated the organizers of the River Road MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Celebration. He said that he also attended the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County (CVALCO) retreat at which the creation and formation of a sports commission was discussed, as well as the creation of a new, better and more appropriately located visitors’ center. Mr. Pryor apologized for missing the Budget Committee meeting. He said that he was ill but that he watched it on TV and had enjoyed the discussion very much. He said that he also missed the Project HomelessConnect event due to his illness, but heard positive feedback. Mr. Pryor said that he attended the 2007 Economic Forecast and found it very interesting. He said that he enjoyed former Governor John Kitzhaber’s presentation. Mr. Pryor said that he attended a West Eugene Forum meeting, a recently formed group that came together to talk about transportation solutions in West Eugene. He said that he was impressed with the diverse group of people and that he would continue to work with them. He said that the group handed out copies of a Practical Guide to Consensus. Mr. Pryor said that the Transportation Subcommittee had a very good first meeting, and that the Public Works staff did a great job in bringing the group together and getting it moving. Mr. Zelenka said that after a discussion about library services, he researched a file from former Councilor David Kelly titled The City Sponsored Levy Unbiased Publication that stated the following: City Council places Measure 2011 on the ballot to ask voters if the City should continue Eugene Public Library’s current level of services with funding in part for the levy. He pointed out this what was promised in terms of support for the library. City Manager Dennis Taylor applauded the councilor’s reports and all the work that councilors and City staff were doing together as well as cross organizationally. He also commented on the Project Homeless- Connect event, noting that conversations took place throughout the day about how to work together to end homelessness in the community. He said that the project provided one-stop shopping for benefit programs, health programs, medical care, immunizations, dental care, vision care, HIV testing, hair cuts, bike repair, veterinary care, library cards, legal assistance, etc. He reported that the culinary students from Lane Community College, along with FOOD for Lane County, provided breakfast and lunch for the participants. He said that every attendee took away gifts of hygiene kits, blankets, coats, socks, and food boxes. He said that 42 Burley bike trailers were given away and Lane Transit District (LTD) offered free transportation to and from the event, with vouchers to schedule future appointments. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that because of the event, hundreds of people would receive housing and future medical and dental attention. He said that it was an example of the community coming together and working together. He added that he thought this was a nice event to lead into the meeting. Mayor Piercy also thanked the City Councilors for all the meetings they had been attending and she thanked Ms. Ortiz, in particular, for leading two meetings while she was gone. Mayor Piercy suggested that if the Project HomelessConnect event was held again, that she and the councilors try to make themselves available for the entire day in order to hear from people attending the event. B. JOINT WORK SESSION: Discussion of Planning Process for Eugene Water & Electric Board Riverfront Property Mayor Piercy welcomed EWEB Board Chair, Melvin Menegat, EWEB General Manager Randy Berggren, EWEB Commissioners, and EWEB staff. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Menegat opened the EWEB work session at 5:50 p.m. The EWEB Commissioners, John Brown (commissioner-at-large), John Simpson (wards 1 and 8), Ron Farmer (wards 4 and 5), and Patrick Lanning (wards 2 and 3) were in attendance. City Manager Dennis Taylor welcomed the commissioners. He said that he, Mr. Berggren, Mayor Piercy, and Mr. Menegat met regularly and that he was glad to have this opportunity for a joint meeting. He noted that the councilors had walked around the site in question in preparation for the discussion. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that City staff, EWEB staff, he, and Mr. Berggren had met and put together a recommended approach for the two bodies to consider with regard to the joint exploration of whether, when and how the EWEB property could change. He said that this had been articulated in the agenda item summary. He said that this was a time for the councilors, EWEB commissioners, and the Mayor to have a discussion about some of the issues of concerns. He said that he hoped that the dialogue would help inform what needed to be done in the future in a coordinated and timely way. Mr. Berggren said that EWEB was there to explore with the council and to learn more to help the board decide what to do. He said that he thought that it would be important to try and create some collaborative work because it was clear that the City Council would play a significant role in the all of the critical milestones. He said that EWEB wanted to understand the perspective of the council. Mayor Piercy said that the council appreciated the last meeting with EWEB and hoped that it would be one of many more. She said that planning for the redevelopment of the EWEB riverfront property was an important topic to both organizations and to their shared constituents. She said that the riverfront property represented the history and identity of the community and was the legacy to the future. Mayor Piercy said that by working together, the two organizations could have a critical impact on one of the most special places in the community: a place to touch the river. She said that the two bodies needed to be thoughtful and collaborative so that in the long- and short-term their actions would bring them closer to the shared vision for the community. Mayor Piercy added that EWEB was an important part of the community. She said that EWEB was the City’s partner and was part of what made the community great. She said that the council was glad to have the commissioners there to talk about this very important issue. Mr. Menegat thanked and acknowledged staff for collaborating and for putting together the various proposals and strategies and for the ongoing collaborating that often goes unseen throughout the year. Mr. Menegat said that some of the desired outcomes for the joint meeting were: ? To get the council’s perspective on the disposition of the riverfront property and the process for moving forward with that disposition ? To develop an understanding of the positions of the City and EWEB regarding the strategies set forth in the Agenda Item Summary. Mr. Menegat noted that the board’s position regarding the disposition of the property was evolving and that support for other than Strategy 1 had been voiced. He continued: ? To have a shared understanding on each other’s interests and priorities for the site ? To further a collaborative relationship in planning work for the site Mr. Menegat said that the board had committed to moving its operations yard to the Roosevelt Site. He said that the exact parcels that would be available had not yet been determined. He said that the steam plant and MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 4 Work Session a portion of the Willamette Substation and the portion east would probably not be involved in the disposi- tion. Mr. Menegat said that the board saw value to EWEB as it related to economic value to reduce the costs of the new facility. He said that the board was looking at multi-use high density commercial and residential development consistent with the City policy. He said that the board needed some sense of certainty about the value and timing of sale in order to move forward with its plans. Mr. Menegat said that the bottom line questions were: What was the City Council’s position regarding the value of the property? Would the City be willing to purchase the property at an appraisal based on multi- use high density residential/commercial? Mayor Piercy said that the council’s interest was also in how master planning would be undertaken together. Ms. Bettman welcomed the EWEB commissioners and thanked them for joining the council for a discussion. She said that she welcomed a conversation but noted that the council had a staff recommended motion in front of them and did not have the luxury of simply having a conversation. She said that the council would have to deliberate to a conclusion. She said that this was unfortunate because she did not think there was enough time for this deliberation. Ms. Bettman asked where the money came from for EWEB’s purchase of the property in 1908 and 1998. EWEB staff member, Mike Overly, said that the property had been compiled by many pieces over many years. He said that every piece, with the exception of the original purchase in 1908, came directly from EWEB rate payer funds. He said that the 1908 purchase was made by the City of Eugene from the Willamette Valley Water Company and included the steam plant and part of the property east of the steam plant where the substation was located. He said that the property was included in the purchase of Skinner’s Butte, the reservoir and the water systems that were up there. He said that when EWEB was formed in 1911, those water properties and the debt associated with them were transferred to the new utility board. Ms. Bettman addressed Mr. Menegat’s question about the City’s position regarding the value of the property. She said that, as the council had discussed many times post-Ballot Measure 37, zoning and regulation often create value. She said that in this situation in which the City had the opportunity to up zone and adopt a Metro Plan amendment, the City would be creating value. She said that the number depended on whether it was before or after the master plan, whether it was before people were committed to transportation capacity improvements or after. She said that from the City’s point of view, this was a monumental and unprecedented redevelopment opportunity. She emphasized that this was a very important piece of property to the public and that she did not see the benefit of transferring the master planning process to EWEB. She said that for an asset this significant to the community, the City should initiate and manage the master planning process. She said that once EWEB relocated, that property would become a City asset. She said that she thought that there was wisdom in the initial agreement for the City to have first right of refusal and she thought that the City should exercise that right. She suggested a strategy that would include a mixture of Strategy 1 and Strategy 3, in which the City would declare its intent to purchase and then would include EWEB and other stakeholders in a process of doing the master planning. She said that to get the maximum value out of the property would take a huge public investment and infrastructure. Mr. Brown pointed out that Public Land (PL) could not be valued. He said that when he did the appraisal of the land several years ago, he assumed it was non-PL and used the information he received from staff in a memo that said to consider it as two-thirds commercial and one-third residential. He said that an appraiser MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 5 Work Session today would assume that the master plan had been done and that would be the “before;” the “after” value would be the same number. Mr. Brown asked if the Downtown Plan stated that the master plan would be considered as a Type 2 application, which would allow approval by the Planning Director at the applicant’s choice. He also asked if the PL zone allowed a public/private partnership. He said that if EWEB wanted to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ), similar to what the City did on some of its properties, and ask for a developer to join them in a master planning process, and include the City in the planning process, it could do that. He said the basis for that statement was that EWEB had a direct financial interest in finding a timely resolution. City Planner Nan Laurence said that the Downtown Plan did state that the master planning would come in as a Type 2 Land Use Application, which would mean that it could be approved at a staff level. She said that the other applications associated with this, specifically the Metro Plan amendment would need to be approved by the council. She said it could be that all of the applications would be bundled together or could be done separately. She did think that doing a public/private partnership would be permissible in doing the master planning process. City Manager Dennis Taylor added that while EWEB could do the master planning on its own, it was the City’s recommended that there would be some advantages to collaborating without specifically saying how that would be. He repeated that if EWEB should choose to dispose of the property and undertake the master planning, it could do that wholly on its own without any involvement of the staff or the City except for the City’s role to review the master plan or the Metro Plan amendment or the zone change. He said that was one of the issues about who would participate in an advisory group. He said that the City Council and the mayor would have specific roles that they might have to play in a quasi judicial land use issue, so they would be restricted in terms of being involved in a planning process that might have some party allege bias in the future. He recommended that groups other than the elected officials who made the City Council decisions be involved in the planning process until such time as those plans were forwarded as formal applications. Mr. Brown emphasized that he wanted EWEB to move and that he had been involved in this process for years. He said that his concern was that a large portion of the property would be designated open land space for which there would be no dollar amount tied to it. He said that the solution had to be a win/win solution. He said that EWEB would be able to accept an offer which would say that, had it not been for the open space designation, it would have been C3 and therefore $30 or $40 a square foot. City Manager Dennis Taylor opined that the Mayor and City Council wanted EWEB to move in the best way. Mayor Piercy said that while she understood the board’s desire to realize a good value for the property, she thought that the board had two values to balance: the best value in terms of sale and the best value for the community as a whole. She said that the City also had to balance these values. She said that it was a matter of how to get the “best bang for our buck” for the community and how to get the best result for the community as a whole. She said that she hoped that the board would consider both of these values. Ms. Taylor said that she agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments and did not think that the council needed to come to a conclusion tonight. Ms. Taylor said that whenever anyone mentioned commercial zoning, she thought of all the commercial space downtown that was empty. She said that she did not know how much commercial space was needed in the City. She referred to Mr. Brown’s earlier comment and asked how staff could say that the property would be one-third commercial and two-thirds residential. Mr. Brown said that he had a memorandum from previous City staff stating that. City Manager Dennis Taylor clarified that if the board declared the property surplus, he would recommend that the City use the opportunity to take the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 6 Work Session five years to do due diligence, during which time he would be engaged in negotiations with EWEB’s General Manager. He said that it would be up to both bodies to approve the sale under whatever terms and conditions and prices were the result of due diligence and the negotiating process. Ms. Taylor said that she was glad that the City Manager mentioned the five years for due diligence. She said that was not quite as urgent as tonight. Ms. Taylor asked how this would fit into the Franklin Corridor Study. Ms. Laurence explained that when the City did the Courthouse Concept Plan adopted in 2002, the City took a look at the area as the length between the university and the downtown. She said that many of those ideas, especially the transportation ideas, were adopted and were being implemented as part of the Downtown Plan. She said that she thought that there was an opportunity to look again at the riverfront and the connections to the university and make a better connection to the Franklin Corridor. She said that in 1999, the City did the Downtown Vision which was actually the downtown and the Franklin corridor vision process. She said that it seemed time to pull those threads together, particularly for this site. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Laurence said that it was a part of the Franklin Corridor. Ms. Taylor noted that a community meeting had been held about the Franklin Corridor and she hoped that the community input from that would not be ignored. Ms. Taylor said that whenever the council adopted plans, it was told that the plans were not binding. She asked City Attorney Glenn Klein if the plans were legally binding. Mr. Klein said that it depended on the kind of plan. He said that parts of the Downtown Plan, in particular those policies related to the master planning process, were binding policies. He said that there were other parts of the Downtown Plan that were aspirational goals. Ms. Taylor asked what parts of the plan were legally binding. Mr. Klein clarified that the Downtown Plan said that before property could be redeveloped, it would need to go through the master planning process. He said that the council had the legal authority to follow the process to amend the Metro Plan and could change the zoning from heavy industrial. Ms. Bettman said that she would like to see the memo that Mr. Brown mentioned that delineated non-public land use as two-thirds commercial and one-third residential. Ms. Laurence said that she had not seen the memo and that she thought that it had come from previous staff giving some assumptions that would be useful in doing the appraisal. She said that the memo was no longer binding. She said that what was binding was the policy in the Downtown Plan that stated that a master plan was required. Mr. Brown said that the memo was from the Planning Director who preceded Susan Muir. He agreed that the memo was sent for the purpose of appraising the property since PL zoned land could not be owned by private entities. Mr. Klein said while he had not seen the memo, he was assuming it was the Planning Director’s guess as to how the property might be able to be redesignated in the Metro Plan. He said that it was not, and could not be, a commitment on the part of the City because the Planning Director did not have the authority to amend the Metro Plan or to rezone inconsistent with the Metro Plan. He said that, oftentimes, appraisers would ask for recommendations on how to do an appraisal, but that it was in no way binding on the City. Ms. Bettman said that even though the Planning Director had changed, Planning staff was the same staff who had worked on the Downtown Plan. She said that she thought that the memo was a very important piece of information for the council to see. Ms. Bettman said that there were two public entities involved and that her objective was to maximize the public benefit from the piece of property, not maximize the profit from the property. She said that she thought having the City manage the master planning process was the best way to move forward since the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 7 Work Session City had the experience in doing that and had the ultimate authority over approving or disapproving of the plan. She thought that it was a better way to see that the public benefit was achieved. Ms. Ortiz said that she thought that there was still work to be done in terms of having clear direction on what EWEB wanted and what the City could do for EWEB. She encouraged the board to listen to its constituents on what direction it should be taking. She agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments about achieving the maximum benefit for the public. She said that the river was priceless and that as much of the adjoining property as possible should be kept for public access. Mr. Clark cited a recent deal in which the City of Cottage Grove acquired a golf course. He said that in the process, the City created a win/win for everyone involved. He noted that the two entities shared constituents and he encouraged everyone to look for the way to serve the highest good for the citizens while at the same time having the lowest impact on rate payers and tax payers. He said that he thought that there were some goals that the City had that could be served by some creative and innovative thinking. He encouraged staff to do that. He also suggested that no formal steps be taken at the meeting, but that an ongoing conversation be continued in which something innovative and new could be created to serve people for a long time. He encouraged the two bodies to work together. Mr. Pryor said that he thought that there could be a win/win in this situation. He said that, in particular, he did not want the public to be a loser in this. He said that his sense was that EWEB did not have a lot of time and that he was reluctant to begin a planning process for an infinite amount of time. He said that he was exaggerating to make the point that the process needed to be completed in a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Farmer said that while he thought that everyone on the EWEB Board believed that there were higher and better uses for the property than its current use, that was not why EWEB was moving. He said that the real reason for moving was for EWEB’s functional operational capacity. He said that the board was committed to move; but if it could not make it work financially, it would not be able to move. He said that when the projected costs of the project reached $98 million, the board asked the architects to find a way to reduce the costs. Mr. Farmer said that part of the plan had always been to realize as much value out of the property as possible in order to make the move work. He said that the greatest value would be for high- density commercial or high-density residential and that the board’s ability to gain that value would determine whether or not it would move. He said that if EWEB could not get that value, it might end up staying where it was and using the property for EWEB use. He said that it was urgent to try and move forward. Mr. Farmer said that, personally, when he thought of the downtown core, he believed strongly in high- density commercial and high-density residential zoning when appropriate. He said that any great city core had that. He said that did not mean that he did not value open space. He repeated that EWEB needed the value of the property to be able to move. Mr. Farmer said that the City Council could look at it from a different perspective and could place value on having open space. He again expressed that his main goal was to realize the most financial value from the property, not what the City decided to do with the property after it purchased it. He did acknowledge that he might even applaud the City if it made the land open space. Mr. Lanning said that this was not a new issue for EWEB and that he had been involved in these discussions since 2000. He said that it had been his experience in working with complex groups, that the quickest way to find a solution was to have a collaborative process that had everyone at the table at the same time. He said that he was very excited that Strategy 1 brought everyone to the table. He said that he heard from MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 8 Work Session constituents who requested of him not to let this get drowned into a process that would go on forever. He said that EWEB had a real interest in that also. He said that having everyone at the table made sense to him. He said that he hoped that this would be given consideration. Mr. Poling asked if there was any idea of how long the master planning process would take. Ms. Laurence said that the minimum time would be six months to nine months. She said that the factor expanding the time had to do with how participatory the process was and how quickly a broad agreement could be reached. Mr. Poling said that Strategy 1 seemed to describe what should be happening because it would get the master planning process going. He said that it did not commit EWEB to selling the property and it did not commit the City to buying the property. He said that the citizens, EWEB, and the City would all have a say in the plan. Then the property could be sold at the maximum amount of the purchase price to a developer who would have to follow the master plan. He thought that this would be a win/win situation. He said that the motion simply directed the City Manager to work with EWEB to pursue Strategy 1. He said that he thought that action needed to be taken for EWEB’s benefit and to protect that valuable property. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that was exactly what he and Mr. Berggren were recommending and that, regardless of what was done, the first step was to initiate master planning. Mr. Poling said that by initiating the master planning process early, he thought that a plan for the optimal use of the property could be developed in which there would be open space, bike paths, and mixed use of commercial and residential land. Ms. Solomon said that Strategy 1 made the most sense to her and involved all the players, including the community. She noted that Eugene’s community had a strong voice and a great diversity of opinion and ideas. She thought that this would lead to a very thoughtful process for developing a master plan. Mr. Brown referred to Mr. Clark’s comments about Cottage Grove and said that he had been very involved in that process. He said that one of the most critical factors in getting the Cottage Grove project completed was the timing and not the numbers. He said that timing was just as critical as anything in the process. He said that everyone needed to be cognizant of the fact that EWEB needed resolution in order to avoid uncertainty, which would not work. Mr. Farmer cautioned people against being too optimistic about how quickly the process would move. He said that while he respected Ms. Laurence’s optimism, he pointed out that the Research Park took 10 years under this same process. He clarified that the EWEB Board had not yet finalized its position on the potential strategies. Ms. Bettman said that she agreed that the planning process needed to be collaborative. She said that while it was very understandable, EWEB’s impetus was to maximize the profitability and financial value of the property. She said that the City’s interest that the river was a significant resource and that the redevelop- ment of the property needed to be done consistent with certain criteria and values of the City as underscored in the Downtown Plan and all other plans. She said that, therefore, she believed strongly that the master planning process should be managed by the City with EWEB and other stakeholders at the table. She agreed that the timeline was important and should not take four years to complete. She noted that if the City exercised its option to purchase the property, it would have five years to plan for it. She said that she thought that the process would go move smoothly it the City managed it because the City would be able to capture more of the community’s sentiment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to a work session, a proposal that negotiates the City acquisition of the property in the event that it is declared surplus and provides for a City managed master plan process which outlines a collaborative process with EWEB. Mr. Poling said that while he appreciated Mr. Farmer informing the council that the board had not yet decided on which strategy it supported, he noted that the meeting had been set up as a time to find out what the City wanted. He also pointed out that the five-year time period that the City would have did not have to be used and that the sale could happen in a much less time. He said that he was still in favor of the recommended motion in the AIS and did not support Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Pryor said that he thought that Ms. Bettman’s motion went further in making commitments that the recommended motion in the AIS. He said that he liked the motion because it initiated a planning process but did not necessarily make commitments with regard to surplus property and purchases. Mr. Pryor said that EWEB owned the property and it seemed logical to him that EWEB should be doing the master planning process with the City’s help. He said that question was who would own the master planning property. Mr. Zelenka said that the reason the property was in question was because EWEB needed to move and had a need for more functional space. He added that the economics for EWEB needed to make sense and the public benefit needed to be considered. He noted that there was a substantial, if not complete, overlap in constituents. If there was a financial benefit, the two entities should work together to capture that benefit and use it for EWEB’s move and also for the public infrastructure that would be needed. He said that he did think there were higher uses for that property and had a concern that the Willamette River and the riparian area needed to be adequately protected in the process. He said that he thought that the process should be collaborative and work toward a master plan. Mr. Zelenka acknowledged the City Manager for answering his question about why there was no city councilor on the advisory team. He said that he thought that it was important to have more public involvement in the planning process. He said that perhaps a way to get the council’s voice on the advisory team was through the selection of some of the community members on the team. Mr. Zelenka said that he was thinking of a process that would be more co-managed. He acknowledged the City’s interest in moving this forward while also acknowledging that the City did not own the property. He said that the EWEB commissioners needed to do what they needed to do in order to manage its fiduciary responsibilities as a board, and the council needed to do what was necessary in order to maximize the public benefit and make Eugene a nice place to live. Mr. Zelenka said that his problem with the motion was that EWEB had not yet declared the property surplus and therefore the City did not have any options at this point. Ms. Bettman pointed out that her motion said that “in the event that the property become surplus.” Mr. Zelenka asked what leverage the City had on EWEB to let the City manage the planning process when the City had no option yet on the property. Ms. Bettman clarified that the motion asked for the City Manager to bring a proposal back to the council. She said that this would give the council the opportunity to ask for additional information such as how other jurisdictions had managed transfers of public land. She said that this was not EWEB’s land but that it was public land. She said that EWEB had jurisdiction over the land and the City had first right of refusal. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman pointed out that when the council and the community adopted the Downtown Plan, there were negotiations with EWEB about the provision in the plan that the City would get to approve the master plan and that the property could not be sold until there was a master plan. She said that EWEB was “on board” with this from the beginning. Ms. Bettman said that her motion was to have the City Manager bring a proposal back to the council. She said that the proposal could be modified at that point. She said that the City had rezoned property in the past and then disposed of it. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that when he and Mr. Berggren began discussing how to meet the board’s needs in terms of timeliness, certainty, and value, and the council’s needs in terms of community values and the master plan, he offered a similar proposal to Ms. Bettman’s. The proposal was for an assignable option in which EWEB would not have to declare the property surplus but terms would be negotiated and the City would take on the responsibility to master plan either jointly or through an advisory team. He said that this was done frequently and was being done with the West Broadway options. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that it seemed that there was consensus on what the two bodies did want and that the problems arose from who would go first and how the process should be managed. He said that was why he and Mr. Berggren made the recommendation to get the process underway as soon as possible and to enlist people to do the master planning who would be of assistance to both the City and EWEB. He said that he would like to have direction from the council so that he could go to the EWEB Board and ask what it would take to get the process going immediately. Ms. Bettman thanked the City Manager for his comments and said that she had used his letter to Mr. Berggren as part of the impetus for her motion. She emphasized that her motion did not say that the City Manager would go out and buy the property; rather, when the property was declared surplus the City could negotiate its option. She said that it would give some certainty and would give the community a chance to have a voice. She said that most people saw this as a community redevelopment opportunity and that she thought that this was the purview of the City. She said that she hoped that the councilors could support the motion. Ms. Taylor said that she intended to support the motion. She said that it was the citizens who owned the property, not EWEB or the City. She asked for the motion to be repeated. Mayor Piercy said she understood that both organizations had the public as their mutual constituents. She said she did not think that she could necessarily serve the public any better than the EWEB Board could serve the public. She said that she just wanted to know that the two bodies would come to agreement about how to go through the master planning process. She said that this needed to be a collaborative process and that each body needed to be satisfied with the process and that the process needed to be started soon. She said that she was not wedded to who would start the process and that she trusted both entities to have the public’s interest in mind. Mr. Pryor asked if the master planning could be done jointly. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that it was. Mr. Pryor offered a friendly amendment to the motion which would state that “the City and EWEB jointly undertake the master plan.” Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Pryor how that would differ from a City-managed master plan. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Laurence said that the City had undertaken other large planning processes, such as the one with City Hall. She said that she thought that EWEB and the City could jointly move forward to initiate and manage this process using the City’s expertise in planning and EWEB’s knowledge of the property and what would work for them. She said that funds for the consultant for this process would need to be discussed. She saw no difficulty in working together as had been demonstrated in the past five years. Ms. Bettman clarified that a jointly managed process would mean that at decision-making points, the council and EWEB would have to agree to a multi-jurisdictional decision-making process. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that ultimately both bodies would have to agree on the master plan. Ms. Bettman said that the proposal was to bring something back to the council and she wondered if it could include the option of City- managed and jointly managed plans. Mr. Klein said that the council could direct the City Manager to bring back proposals describing how the process could be City managed and how it could be jointly managed. Mr. Klein added that he would want to include in any proposal the extent to which the council could be involved in the master planning process. He said that if councilors were part of the advisory team and recommended approval of the master plan, they would also be saying that the comprehensive plan should be amended to allow it and this would appear as already supporting the quasi-judicial decision on the MetroPlan amendment. Ms. Bettman asked if the advisory team could just recommend forwarding the master plan to the council for a decision. Mr. Klein said that he thought that there was a way to have some council involvement, but he thought that the advisory team offered too many opportunities for opponents to say that whoever partici- pated on the team was biased and had a conflict of interest. Mr. Klein said that whether the master plan came to the council by itself or with the Metro Plan amendment, the council would have ultimate authority to say no to all of it because the master plan could not go forward without the Metro Plan amendment. He said that in terms of resources and a smooth system, it would make sense to have the master plan approved concurrently with the Metro Plan amendment. City Manager Dennis Taylor commented that the master plan process was not without cost and that one of the questions was who should bear that cost. Ms. Bettman said that she would like to take as the friendly amendment that the City Man- ager bring back proposals for both a City-managed master plan process and a joint or co- managed master plan process. Mr. Pryor agreed. Mr. Zelenka said that the reason he brought up the co-managed plan was that staff of the two entities brought different kinds of expertise and knowledge to the process. He said that both would be integral and important to making this work. He said that perhaps a third party facilitator would benefit the process. He said that he would like to hear what the EWEB commissioners thought of the proposal. Mr. Farmer said that based on what he had heard, he did not know if the board would accept a co-managed process or not. He said that he was almost certain that the board would not give up its right to manage the process for the property that it was going to sell. Mr. Simpson said that he was very much in favor of approaching the master planning process in a collaborative, shared manner. He said that it did not matter to him who was the lead on the process. He thought that the same results could be had even if the City took the lead. He said that he wanted to express MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 12 Work Session to the council that the board also understood that the land was in public domain and that the best and highest value of the property included not only the economic return but also what was best for the community in terms of opening up access to the river. Mr. Simpson said that he originally pushed to keep the EWEB headquarters building in operation at its current site and sell just the industrial portion of the EWEB site; he saw it naively in terms of the greatest dollar value. He said that over the last year he had come to understand that the value included much more than that. He said that the council could trust the EWEB commissioners to understand those values of balance. Mr. Simpson said he had a constituent suggest that the City Hall might be located on the EWEB property. He said that he would like to hear the council’s perspective on what might be the make-up of the Riverfront Advisory Team. Mr. Berggren said that this had been a learning experience for him and that he had become aware of the approval role that the council would play in the process. He said that it had become very clear that there would be no value for EWEB to spend money and go through a process if that process did not engage the City’s interest in an authentic and diverse way. He repeated that there was no value in the board doing something that would not lead to the council being able to approve the master plan. Mr. Berggren spoke about the two bodies having the same constituency and the EWEB commissioners’ awareness of the affect this process could have on rates. He used the metaphor of having money in the left pocket and the right pocket, explaining that running out of money in one pocket to buy needed services could impact a certain group of constituents, depending on who bore the cost. He said that while he and the board understood and recognized the diversity of value, they would have trouble reconciling that diversity without the process and the collaboration to find the balance point to treat both “pockets” in an equitable way. Mr. Berggren said that it sounded to him as if the City’s interest in buying the property had become a metaphor for controlling the process. He acknowledged that he could be wrong. He said that somehow the option to purchase was a control fulcrum. He said that he thought that there were some trust issues to work through but he assured the council that from the board’s perspective, there was no value for the board to do something that was not trustworthy, artful, and complete in creating a master plan. Otherwise, the board would have wasted a lot of time and money. Mr. Brown thanked Mr. Berggren for his comments. He said that if the property was designated all open space, EWEB’s rate payers would pay for the space; if it was not, the general tax payers would pay. He said that someone was going to pay whether it was through property taxes or utility rates. He said that there was a creative way similar to the Cottage Grove project. He said that through a collaborative process of the minds in the community, a way could be found to maximize the value of the property and protect the community asset. He said that he was not afraid of who did the process; but, whoever did it needed to have a vested financial interest in it. He said that, otherwise the only motivation would be to make it a public asset and the burden would be balanced on the backs of the rate payers. He said that would not be fair to the rate payers, especially those who struggled to pay for basic needs. He said that everyone involved had to make it work and that he was willing to participate to make it work. He said that he was still undecided as to who should lead the process but emphasized that it had to work and that it would work. He thought that it would be better to find resolution than fight. Mr. Menegat said that he supported a collaborative process but, as a member of the board, he would be reluctant to pass his duty or responsibility to proceed with this and to manage it on to someone else. He said MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 13 Work Session that the board would be discussing this further and that information might come forward to change his mind, but that at this point he would be reluctant to approve a co-managed process. Mr. Lanning said that he also would be reluctant to approve a co-managed process. He said that the board had every interest in having a master plan in a timely way that would be supported by the City. He said that he was very much for a collaborative process done in a timely way. Ms. Bettman addressed comments from Mr. Berggren. She quoted from an e-mail she received from the City Manager in response to a question she posed: What does the manager view as benefits for the City of the site’s acquisition? The city’s acquisition of the EWEB property would give the city the maximum amount of control over the future redevelopment of the property. Based on preliminary comments from our attorney, it appears that the master plan would need to be completed before approval of any lot line adjustments prior to the completion of a sale. Ms. Bettman said that in a lot of ways she thought that it was in the City’s best interest to manage or co- manage the process. She added that the City had more experience managing large redevelopment proposals. She repeated that EWEB was committed to moving and that once it was gone, the property would become part of the City’s downtown giving the City a vested interest in the outcome. She said that the motion provided options for a City-managed process and a co-managed process and that both would be collabora- tive. Mr. Pryor said that he was surprised there was no support from the EWEB commissioners for the co- managed process. He said that he was not hearing a lot of support for either option in the motion. He said that gave him pause in terms of moving down a road that did not have much benefit at the end. He said he would have hoped that a co-managed process would have been a demonstration of partnership. He said that it was unfortunate there was not a lot of interest in that. He said that he recognized jurisdictional or authority issues and still hoped that the two bodies could get to a joint process. He said that he would leave his friendly amendment with the hope that the City would bring back a joint process which EWEB could accept with a lot of trust issues being overcome. He noted that early partnerships always had a lot of trust issues. He said that he was optimistic that those trust issues could be overcome. Mr. Clark said that it seemed as if there was not consensus and that perhaps some more discussion would be helpful. Mr. Zelenka said that he was hoping to make a partnership in the planning process. He said that he would caution the EWEB commissioners from going off on their own given the role that the City would play. He said that all the interests needed to be at the table. He pointed out that this was a land use process more than it was a facilities planning process and that the City had a lot of experience in this. He said that if the project was to build a power plant there, he would recommend that EWEB lead the process. He said that was not the project and that the City would bring more expertise to a redevelopment project. Mr. Zelenka said that in the end he did not think that the City would necessarily have to buy the property if the process worked out right. He added that in the end the City still would have a giant lever of being able to have the option and potentially delaying the process. He said that did not seem like a very fruitful way to go. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 14 Work Session Mayor Piercy said that prior to the meeting, she had the feeling that the two groups were being portrayed as people who did not get along together. She said that she approached the meeting in the opposite way, and had tried to conduct the meeting in the opposite way. She said that she interpreted comments during the meeting that the notion of a shared planning process was about not trusting. She submitted that it was exactly about trusting. She said that the council had gone from a City-managed process (although she thought that Ms. Bettman was still interested in that) to a co-managed process in which the two bodies trusted each other. Mayor Piercy emphasized that all the council was being asked to do was to direct the City Manager to bring back an approach for the two entities to work together on behalf of the community. She hoped that the board would take this leap with the council. She said that the board could always “nix” the process later if it did not seem to be in the best interest of EWEB. She asked that both entities at least “start out the door” with the belief that everyone was mutually interested and committed to serving the best interests of people that they represented. She said that no one was trying to claim to be the superior body and that everyone was in this together. She asked the board to consider this carefully. She said that she thought that the council was willing to try to do this process together. She implored people to cast aside all the old “stuff” that was written about in the paper about relationships between the two bodies. She said that was not valuable. Mayor Piercy said that this was a moment in time and history for the community and that the constituents were looking for their leaders to say, “Let’s head out the door together.” She said that she believed that the two entities could do it. Ms. Bettman restated the motion: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to a work session a proposal that negotiates City acquisition of the property, in the event that it is declared surplus, and provide options for a City-managed master plan process and a co- managed master plan process, both of which are collaborative with EWEB. Ms. Solomon asked if the motion meant that the City Manager would wait until EWEB declared the property surplus. Ms. Bettman said that it did not and that it said, “in the event that it is declared surplus.” She said that the planning would not have to wait for that. The motion passed, 6:2, with Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling casting votes in opposition. Mayor Piercy thanked the commissioners for being present and for participating with the council. She said that she hoped that this would be one of many more meetings. Ms. Bettman said that she wanted to thank the commissioners for being willing to reconsider the fish tracking strategy. She said that she thought that it took a lot of courage and foresight. She also thanked the commissioners for their decision on the reservoir. Ms. Bettman said that she was interested in finding out about what would happen to the cell infrastructure on top of the water tower when EWEB decommissioned the water tower. Mayor Piercy thanked the board for its speedy action to protect the riparian zone. She said that was a huge and wonderful action. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 15 Work Session City Manager Dennis Taylor said that the City got a lot of recognition for its hard work on sustainability such as being recognized as the Number 1 Green City by the Green Guide. He noted that the recognition was largely due the work and policies of the board and the collaborative work between the City and EWEB. He said that the two entities had worked so well together that he was sure they could work together well on this project. The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Elise Self) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 12, 2007 Page 16 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 14, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She welcomed everyone present and those watching at home. She displayed a plaque from First Place recognizing the City’s contributions to Project Homeless Connect. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue – City Hall Complex City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell and Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects to discuss Phase 3 of the City Hall Complex Action Plan. Mr. Penwell reviewed the history of the project to date, noting that the City Hall issue was established as a council priority in February 2005 and the council adopted an action plan in May 2005 that outlined a four- —— phase process. He said the first two phasespolicy advisement and development planhad been completed and resulted in three concept plans. He said the next phase consisted of two components: Phase 3A and Phase 3B. Mr. Cohen reviewed the design team’s proposed scope of work and fees for Phase 3A, which included both technical work and public involvement activities related to exploring financing and phasing options, bond measure strategy work, ongoing police patrol facility planning, expanded concept design, five public involvement meetings and related outreach activities. He noted the agenda packet included a proposed budget for Phase 3A. Ms. Taylor asked for specific details of the cost for community forums and a definition of “ward-based” advisory meetings. Mr. Cohen said the cost of a community forum included not just the cost of a three-hour meeting. In addition to the cost of the facility, food and personnel during the meeting there were also extensive planning efforts to ensure the community forums were successful and follow-up tasks to document and compile the results. He said the next round of forums would include a larger group of professionals such as a sustainability consultant. He said the concept of ward-based meetings was to establish an advisory committee of people representing all of the wards in the City, with the intent to have councilors identify two or three individuals from each of their wards who would be generally supportive of the project, actively involved in their wards and willing to commit to an ongoing involvement. He said the committee was envisioned as meeting every six to eight weeks during the remaining project phases and involved in ongoing project design development as another constituent group that would provide input. He also hoped that committee members would become ambassadors to explain the project to community members. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor stated that she had a recent conversation with Ada Lee, owner of the Rock ‘N Rodeo property, who indicated she was unhappy that her property had been identified as a potential site and did not wish to sell. She said that Ms. Lee was in Hawaii and ill during much of the planning activities and only received notification after the council had voted to use her property. She felt the council should pause before proceeding with City Hall plans. Mr. Clark said he also had discussed the issue with Ms. Lee, who expressed the same concerns to him. He asked what activities were included in the bond measure strategy work in Phase 3A. Mr. Cohen replied the purpose was to understand what the public wanted and what might motivate them to support the project, specifically to analyze past bond measures and conduct very detailed public opinion research through focus groups and phone surveys. He said the intent was to determine public sentiment on a ward-by-ward basis. Mayor Piercy pointed out that the earlier public forums had narrowed the list of potential sites and the council indicated its preference, but no commitment had been made. Mr. Penwell said he had spoken to Ms. Lee three times in the last several months, following the council’s decision. He emphasized in those conversations that the process was underway and no decision on a site had been made, although a decision would occur at some point in the future. He said he conveyed the message that the City wished to work with willing sellers and was not interested in taking property. Mayor Piercy asked if Ms. Lee and Lane County were the only property owners involved with the site. Mr. Penwell said there were two other properties; he had spoken to one owner and the other property was undergoing a change of ownership. Mr. Pryor said that funds spent on a bond measure strategy should be for public information and feasibility purposes, not advocacy. He asked what activities were included in the $226,000 budgeted for public involvement tasks. He felt that an expenditure of that size should be well defined so the public would perceive it as appropriate and justified. Mr. Cohen responded that the tasks were a continuation of work begun in prior phases and included updating and continuing to maintain the website, responding to comments, building a database of interested persons, conducting tours of the existing City Hall, facilitating focus groups on a variety of topics, speakers bureau for neighborhood outreach, newsletters, flyers, media outreach, facilitating community forums, developing a traveling exhibit for community events and providing many hours of staff support. Dana Ing Crawford of Thomas Hacker Architects added that the intent was to be everywhere, to respond to the council, and to not just inform but bring the broadest amount of involve- ment to the project. Referring to the project schedule, Mr. Zelenka asked why focus groups and polling activities occurred later in the phase instead of at the beginning. He felt it would be better to ascertain public opinion earlier in the process so the council would know if there was little likelihood that the project would have community support. He was disappointed that Ms. Lee was not contacted before the council’s vote. Ms. Crawford replied that the intent of focus groups and polling was to find out what people cared about rather than solicit a “yes” or “no” response. She said indepth questions would determine what the community was interested in with respect to downtown that would motivate people to support the project. Mr. Cohen added that polling was an expensive process and a significant amount of research was required to obtain the data to inform the polling process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka felt there were a number of tasks that could occur after an assessment of public opinion. Mr. Penwell said the issues were so complex and interrelated it was difficult to address them separately. He said polling only on the question of whether there was support for a bond measure would likely result in mostly negative responses, whereas conducting enough research to develop options and pose thoughtful questions would provide a more comprehensive assessment of public opinion and allow for adjustments accordingly. Mr. Poling agreed that it was a good idea to conduct research before polling the public. He noted that at the beginning of the process to narrow potential sites he had cautioned that it was important to contact property owners and determine that there were willing sellers. He said the last council vote only indicated a site preference and he had urged at the time that a second choice be identified as a backup plan if the first site was not available. Ms. Bettman remarked that the proposed resource needs in Phase 3A were different from the projected resource needs in the action plan. Mr. Penwell said the plan was written two years ago and based on his best estimates at the time. Ms. Bettman stated she was disillusioned with the process and cynical about the success of a bond measure, although she thought the consultants were doing a good job. She said that focus groups that contained only cheerleaders for the project were a mistake and when people were polled they should be asked their opinions about the City moving forward with a separate police facility when there had already been three failed bond measures for that same plan. She said that probable vocal opposition within the community should be taken into account and agreed with Mr. Zelenka’s suggestion to conduct polling at the beginning of the phase. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern that the process would not have the desired outcome. She agreed with separation of the police facility from City Hall and thought a police facility should be considered in an entirely separate phase. She was interested in seeing the patrol function moved from downtown out into the community. She said patrol did not need to be in downtown where property was the most expensive but did need facilities that were clean and functional and she hoped that would move forward immediately on a separate and parallel track. She was concerned that the City Hall project would not have the support of a majority of the community. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to proceed with Phase 3A of Implementation Plan Phase of the City Hall Complex Action Plan. Mayor Piercy remarked that from the beginning of the process, the council had emphasized the importance of a state-of-the-art outreach and community engagement initiative. She said it was always a challenge to ask the public to pay for a public building, but the council had decided there was a need for a new city hall and that was not the question that should be posed to the public. She said the question was what type of building the community wanted and the entire effort was to find out what type of facility the public would be willing to support. Ms. Taylor said she would not vote in favor of proceeding as long as there was property with an unwilling seller involved. She agreed partially with the need for a separate police facility, but that should include all police functions. Ms. Solomon urged the council to stay the course and even if the decision was not to pursue a bond measure, at least the process would have been completed and information gathered that could be used in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 3 Work Session future. She said stopping now would mean that a future effort would have to start at the beginning and represent a colossal waste of money. She did not personally support the preferred site and hoped there would be a backup plan for the current City Hall site, but would remain supportive of the project as a whole. She agreed with Mayor Piercy that the question was not whether a new city hall should be built, and she reminded the council that it was far more aware of problems with the existing building than the public was. She felt that a bond measure could be in jeopardy if the City did not fix potholes first and hoped that the council would support whatever recommendations the subcommittee dealing with transportation system financing brought forth. Ms. Ortiz indicated she would support the motion. She said that during the council’s Community Committee on Race meetings, the subject of a cultural center was frequently raised, with communities of color expressing a desire for a place to hold events. Ms. Bettman agreed that the current City Hall needed to be replaced and City services, now scattered in various places, should be consolidated into one building, but that should include police services. She would vote against the motion. Mr. Zelenka liked the current course and agreed with the need for a new city hall. He commended consultants for a very effective and innovative public involvement process. He said he still preferred to have polling occur earlier in Phase 3A, although that did not mean it would stop at that point; it could better inform and direct activities through the remainder of the phase, including more aggressive public outreach. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to move the focus groups and polling ac- tivities to the beginning of the process with a check back before proceeding with the rest of Phase 3A. City Manager Taylor said it appeared that Mr. Zelenka was asking for an assessment of the situation at the beginning of the process to establish a baseline, but the design team preferred to develop more refined data about issues that would inform the design concept. He said the more general polling requested by Mr. Zelenka might be in addition to the tasks proposed in the scope of work. Mr. Cohen said the proposed schedule was intended to be flexible and could accommodate Mr. Zelenka’s amendment. Mr. Zelenka said his amendment would change the schedule and was substantially different than the focus groups and polling activities originally proposed. He wanted those activities to remain but tasks added to obtain a snapshot of current strengths and weaknesses and political issues at the beginning of the process. Ms. Ortiz accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Pryor as second accepted the friendly amendment if the intent was understood to be the addition of supplemental polling activities to the scope of work at the beginning of Phase 3A as preliminary research, not shifting those activities from elsewhere in the phase. Mr. Zelenka agreed that was his intent. Mr. Clark echoed Ms. Solomon’s remarks. He said it was wise to proceed with good planning, but he could not support any next steps with the City Hall until the backlog of road maintenance had been addressed as a much higher priority item. He agreed with Mr. Zelenka that it was appropriate to consider the larger political spectrum of the County and assess public opinion with regard to the City Hall project. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 4 Work Session The motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposi- tion. B. WORK SESSION: Lane County Local Government boundary commission City Manager Taylor introduced Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter to discuss Senate Bill (SB) 417 related to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Mr. Yeiter stated that SB 417 was introduced by Senator Walker and representatives Barnhart and Edwards. He said the boundary commission was a State agency with seven members appointed by the governor and it was the last one in Oregon. He said that abolishing the boundary commission would shift annexation requests to a different section of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). He said that annexation of noncontiguous properties would no longer be allowed, although the City might be able to pursue annexations if they touched other noncontiguous pieces of City property. He said that annexation of vacant property that the owner wanted to develop would no longer be allowed if the property did not touch another part of the City. Mr. Yeiter said the City would assume responsibility for 25 to 35 annexations annually if the boundary commission was eliminated and a public hearing before the council would be required for each annexation. He said the Board of County Commissioners would assume responsibility for boundary changes and creation of special districts such as water districts, fire districts, park districts, library districts and public safety districts. He said elimination of the boundary commission would also mean there would be no independent review of water or wastewater extensions outside of the city limits. He said that staff recommended continued support of the boundary commission by opposing SB 417 as a Priority 1. Mr. Clark said he was in favor of dealing with annexation issues in a transparent and accountable way, and he was somewhat concerned that the existence of the boundary commission removed some accountability from the process. He thought it was appropriate that the council should be accountable to the people for annexations. He asked for clarification of the issues surrounding noncontiguous annexation. Mr. Yeiter said the issue primarily related to the River Road and Santa Clara areas because of the development pattern that had occurred there. He said the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) policies suggested that new development occur within city limits as cities were deemed to be the logical providers of services. He said that annexations were entertained on a voluntary basis at the request of the property owner and boundary commission law allowed noncontiguous annexations. He said in other jurisdictions a technique called “cherry-stemming” was used to run pieces of the city out to touch a property through street annexations. He said if Eugene lost the ability to do noncontiguous annexations, questions would arise about the City’s intent for vacant property not near a piece of the city. Mr. Clark asked if property could be developed under County standards. Mr. Yeiter replied that City and County standards were virtually identical and the City regulated the development permit process for the County. Mr. Clark asked if SB 417 would result in any major changes to current procedures. Mr. Yeiter said the biggest change would affect someone who wished to build a house on a piece of property not adjacent to city property and how that situation would be handled. City Attorney Jerome Lidz added that the Metro Plan MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 5 Work Session required all new urban development to be on properties annexed to the City and, if the property could not be annexed, it also could not be developed. Mr. Clark asked if that would affect the City’s inventory of buildable lands or create a Measure 37 claim. Mr. Lidz replied that he did not think there would be a Measure 37 claim and he would research the question of buildable lands. He said that regardless of which authority approved an annexation, it had to meet a standard of reasonableness and that would apply to practices such as cherry-stemming. Ms. Taylor stated that many problems had been caused by noncontiguous annexations and when property changed hands, people did not know whether they were in the City or the County. She was in favor of eliminating noncontiguous annexation. She asked if the County could decide to create a special district, such as a library district that would include the City, if there was no boundary commission. Boundary commission Executive Officer Paula Taylor replied that under current Oregon law, cities could not be included in new taxing districts without their consent, although legislative changes might modify the rules for county public safety service districts. Mr. Lidz said the County could approve formation of a district or a city as long as it did not include part of the City of Eugene. Ms. Taylor observed that the impetus for abolishing the boundary commission came from local legislators and the County was in support of the legislation. She would not vote to oppose SB 417 but might support a neutral position. She thought the more transparent and responsive government was the better and the City Council was better known to citizens than the boundary commission. She felt the council would be able to manage the additional work of annexation hearings. Ms. Bettman was concerned with the staff recommendation to oppose SB 417 as a Priority 1 as that meant the City would use its most aggressive lobbying efforts to oppose the bill when sponsors were local legislators. She preferred a neutral position to one that was adversarial to the local legislative caucus. She did not feel there were enough benefits to the boundary commission to compel the City to fight for its retention. Ms. Bettman said SB 417 also raised the issue of home rule, as the boundary commission was an entity appointed by the governor and local elected officials had no voice in those decisions; that was counter to the City’s legislative posture. She intended to propose an amendment to support the legislation. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Yeiter said currently there were restrictions by Metro Plan policies and other regulations on extending utilities such as water and wastewater lines outside the city limits, with some exceptions for health and safety reasons that required a permit from the boundary commission. He said if there was no boundary commission, there would be no other regulatory authority to review those issues and provide oversight. Ms. Solomon foresaw a day when all of River Road and Santa Clara were annexed to the City of Eugene and everyone was on the same water and wastewater systems and subject to the same regulations. The City would benefit from taxpayer dollars for the services those residents enjoyed by living so close to the City. She was interested in annexation and reluctant to add another layer to the process through the boundary commission, but was concerned about noncontiguous properties. She asked if owners of noncontiguous properties could still voluntarily annex to the City if the boundary commission was abolished. Mr. Yeiter replied that if nothing else changed with respect to the Metro Plan or regulations, the property would have to be contiguous to some piece of City property in order to be annexed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 6 Work Session City Manager Taylor said that annexation of noncontiguous property could only occur if it was adjacent to an already annexed noncontiguous portion of the City. He said Resolution No. 4903 adopted by the council on February 12 established procedures for approving those types of annexations. Ms. Solomon asked if legislators introduced SB 417 on behalf of residents in unannexed areas. She asked if the bill sponsors would be willing to amend the bill to provide greater flexibility on the issue of noncontigu- ous annexations. City Manager Taylor said that most discussions leading to the legislation were from the perspective of making annexations to the City of Eugene from the River Road and Santa Clara areas more difficult. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson said that the bill’s sponsors were unlikely to agree to an amendment as they were opposed to annexation. Ms. Solomon opined that it was unfortunate legislators did not realize the impact of SB 417 on the City of Eugene. Mayor Piercy clarified that she had received a call from Senator Walker to discuss SB 417. Mr. Pryor observed that the issue was not about the boundary commission; it was about annexation strategy. He said the council would need to decide whether it was willing to surrender the City’s current annexation strategy by abolishing the boundary commission and develop another approach. He said in order to endorse the City’s current annexation strategy, which included noncontiguous annexations, the council would need to support the boundary commission. He said that supporting SB 417 meant the City would need to develop another annexation strategy, which would be a challenging task. He was not certain he was willing to entirely redesign the City’s annexation strategy and would likely support the boundary commis- sion for that reason. Mr. Zelenka asked what impact abolishing the boundary commission would have on City resources. City Manager Taylor said the City currently paid $38,000 annually for boundary commission services and the cost of having City staff perform those tasks would probably be somewhat higher. He said that was not as great a concern as the impact on annexations. He said given the City’s transition plan, the net result would be a halt to annexation of noncontiguous properties; the agreement to not annex rights-of-way would make the orderly transition to urban development even more difficult. Mr. Zelenka echoed Mr. Pryor’s remarks as the discussion had convinced him of the need to oppose the legislation on a Priority 1 basis. He felt the City was on the right path with its annexation policy and he was unwilling to start over again if the boundary commission was abolished. Ms. Ortiz said the bill was proposed because there was a problem with annexations. She said there was no face to the boundary commission, which was an anonymous group appointed by the governor. She, as an elected official, had difficulty obtaining any information about the commission and could imagine how hard it was for her constituents. She thought the council should go to the voters and ask them when they wanted to be annexed and if they were opposed, the process should be stopped. She said the independent spirit in River Road and Santa Clara needed to be respected and she was not willing to oppose the legislation. She said the council was accountable to the voters and people expressed their opinions through voting; if people were upset about being annexed it would make it difficult for the City to get ballot measures approved. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to remain neutral on Senate Bill 417. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Clark agreed that the current annexation strategy was not working well because of the tension it had created in the community. He was not opposed to abolishing the boundary commission, as it created a more direct and accountable way to address the issue. He thought it was a good thing to offer those who were not City residents an opportunity to have a voice at the table by becoming residents, but the political reality was that the bill would pass and be enacted. He said the City could better spend its time developing a more inclusive strategy. Regarding the council’s adoption of Resolution No. 4903, Mr. Clark said if abolishing the boundary commission changed the strategy for noncontiguous annexations, then the City must retain the ability to annex streets in order to be able to successfully annex the willing. City Manager Taylor replied that the resolution did not preclude that; it prohibited use of the annexation of right-of-way to create a wholly surrounded island that then could be annexed without the agreement of the property owner. Mr. Clark said the council often discussed the rights of City residents and the rights of County residents, but seldom spoke of the responsibilities. He noted that people who lived nearby and enjoyed benefits the City provided did not contribute financially to events like Project Homeless Connect. He said there were close-in County residents who had a duty to participate in the City of Eugene’s responsibilities. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to support Senate Bill 417 as a Priority 1. Ms. Bettman stated the bill did not stop annexations; it just increased elected officials’ accountability for decision-making around annexations. She said it would provide a more respectful annexation policy as opposed to an aggressive and adversarial one. She said the discussion had focused on the opponents’ perspective that the bill was about annexation instead of the proponents’ perspective that it was about accountability. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend the time by 10 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Taylor said the bill would pass and it was important to maintain a good relationship with its sponsors. She had lobbied against similar legislation during the last session and sponsors of that bill had given the City one year to show why the boundary commission should remain. She did not think that had happened and she would support the substitute motion. Mr. Poling echoed comments from Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Clark. He could not support the amended motion and favored the staff recommendation to oppose the bill. Mr. Zelenka indicated he was not certain how the situation would be improved by abolishing the boundary commission, particularly if there was no opportunity to amend the legislation to address noncontiguous annexations. Mr. Pryor stated he did not believe in forced annexations and was not interested in doing that. He did not want to lose investments in infrastructure and strategies. He would not support the amendment but would consider supporting a neutral position. The motion to amend by substituting support for Senate Bill 417 as a Priority 1 failed, 5:3; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Poling moved to oppose Senate Bill 417 at a Priority 1 level. The motion died for lack of a second. The main motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 14, 2007 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 20, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She asked those present to acknowledge the tragic death of Nathan McBryde at Willamette Pass Ski area the previous weekend with a moment of silence, and to reach out to his family. She said it was a loss for the entire community. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: FY08-13 Draft Capital Improvement Program Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County and Homebuilders Construction Company, expressed her organizations’ concern about the $51 million in parks projects included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). She said the association supported parks but objected that the City had not acknowledged the impact of its proposed parks acquisitions on the land supply. When the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive (PROS) Plan was remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), that agency ruled the plan could not be a stand-alone document, and at least part of it must be adopted as a refinement plan. LUBA also ruled that if the portion of the PROS plan adopted as a refinement plan did not include a precise estimate of the acreages required for parks, recreation, and open space facilities, it was unlikely the City would be able to justify a Metro Plan parks, recreation, and open space facilities element refinement plan if it failed to included mandatory standards that governed the selection and improvement of individual parks sites in the future. While there were standards in the PROS Plan related to acres-per-thousand residents for different park types, those were not mandatory standards. Ms. Cueller said the City had not dealt with the remand and had no mandatory standards. She thought the inclusion of the parks projects without those standards was in violation of the LUBA remand. Ms. Cueller discussed the issue of local wastewater lines, saying there was a lot of low-density land included in the urban growth boundary west of the city that could not be built on because it did not have services. The Residential Lands Study, acknowledged in 1999, outlined when areas were likely to receive service. Most of the area was slated to have service within seven to ten years, and that time was quickly approach- ing. She said if the council declined to look at the land supply, it should consider extending services. Carlos Barara , Olive Street, asked that the CIP include funding for Washington Park to allow for the conversion of the wading pool to a spray pool so small children could use it during the warm summer months. The Friendly Area Neighborhood Association supported the expenditure. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 1 Public Hearing Nancy Ellen Locke , Friendly Area Neighborhood Association Executive Committee, asked the council to include funding for a spray pool in Washington Park in the CIP. She recalled that the wading pool was shut down for health and safety reasons and the neighborhood repeatedly told the project was “on the list.” It did not seem fair to be postponed for so many years. She said the park was very important to the neighborhood, and the trash accumulating there was an eyesore. Kevin Matthews , President of the Southeast Neighbors and Friends of Eugene (FOE), said he would like the council to amend the CIP with the staff text reducing the scope and budget of the Dillard Road project to a project development project in the amount of $400,000 in fiscal year 2013. He noted the work done on Dillard Road by the Southeast Neighbors in opposition to a proposed development that involved Lidarscan- ning, a technology which reveals geological faults, and that indicated it was premature to plan a road project in light of geologic hazards and while the fate of the natural area was in doubt. th Jeanne Marie Moore , #5 East 24 Avenue, requested funding for a spray pool in Washington Park. She supported the request because the water could be recycled and the park was important to the neighborhood. Zachary Vishanoff , of Patterson Street, spoke of the importance of saving Civic Stadium from redevelop- ment. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water District and River Road Park and Recreation District, and from the Santa Clara Water District Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, she closed the public hearing. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Diagram and the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan Land Use Diagram and Text; Amending Section 9.9580 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; Providing an Effective Date; and Providing a Sunset Date (Jefferson/Far West, MA 06-05, RA 06- 03, CA 06-01) Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. th Renee Kane , 254 West 14 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, called the council’s attention to the resolution passed by the neighborhood organization and the petitions signed by area residents submitted in support of the amendments before the council. Ms. Kane briefly discussed the past planning process that led to the establishment of Area 15 and asked that it remain intact. She said there were many families with children living in the area, and if the neighborhood was to have true diversity, such families were necessary and must be accommodated. Triplexes and multiplexes shoehorned into backyards did not foster families or support the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Kane suggested there was also the danger of flooding to consider, and reduction of pervious surface through more development would see a rise in water volume in the Amazon Creek. She said neighbors were ready to work on ways to support infill in the neighborhood. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 2 Public Hearing th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, co-chair of the Jefferson/Westside Neighbors, thanked Terri Harding of the Planning Division for her work on the proposed amendments. He also thanked Mr. Zelenka for accompanying the neighbors on a tour of the neighborhood to view Area 15 and some of the infill properties. Mr. Conte said that the action contemplated was not a downzoning. The plan amendments would remove a major discrepancy between the medium-density designation applied to much of the area and the area’s existing zoning and development. The neighborhood completed detailed research on the area and of the 253 lots in Area 15, one was commercial, two were historic, and all but seven of the remaining lots were zoned R-1, the zone that implemented the proposed low-density residential designation. Mr. Conte said the amendments were temporary in nature and were scheduled to sunset. He called the council’s attention to an e-mail from the chairs of the neighborhood group pointing of that the just-released schedule for the City’s infill compatibility standards process indicated staff did not anticipate such standards being adopted by the July 1, 2008, sunset date in the current version of the ordinance. He requested that the sunset date be adjusted or staff directed to accelerate the schedule for the standards. Mr. Conte said the amendments provide temporary protection against higher density development that might potentially destabilize the neighborhood. Because that projection was urgently needed, he asked the council to revise the ordinance to make the amendments effective upon adoption rather than in 30 days to prevent applications that circumvent the intent of the amendments. He thought the long-term solution for this and other neighborhoods was appropriate infill compatibility standards and an effective opportunity siting process. th Angela Rooney , 520 West 15 Avenue, spoke in support of the proposed amendments. She said the neighborhood was a place where persons living on fixed incomes could afford to live safely. The residents wanted to maintain their neighborhood livability, rather than shut people out of the neighborhood. Virginia Austey , 1540 Jefferson Street, a 19-year resident of Area 15, asked the council to support the proposed amendments that would place a temporary moratorium on incompatible development in the area. She thanked the council and the Planning Commission for the support those bodies had shown the neighborhood to this point. The amendments would allow residents to protect the character of the neighborhood while increasing density. She said that renters with whom she spoke indicated they were drawn to the neighborhood for its unique character. Ms. Austey quoted from an op-ed piece in the Eugene Weekly that stated density and livability were not mutually exclusive, and said the neighborhood was merely requesting time for the development of infill standards that would maintain the character of the neighbor- hood. th David Burkett , 543 West 17 Avenue, pointed out the population of the community had changed little in 20 years. He understood density was desirable, but he did not understand the push to achieve such density through dramatic zoning changes that would alter the face of the neighborhood. Pedro Perez , 1571 Olive Street, spoke in support of the amendments before the council. His family was attracted to the neighborhood by its character and did not want to lose that. He was present to show support for the neighborhood association and for the amendments. He did not want to see the neighborhood change as that would make his family consider moving. At this time, he thought the neighborhood was a good place to raise his children. David Hinkley , 1350 Lawrence Street, #1, opposed the amendments before council. He believed that the amendments were overkill as a means of controlling the adverse effects of infill. He believed the amend- MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 3 Public Hearing ments were drafted in a manner contrary to the City’s statutes because they did not take into account the City’s Growth Management Study policies, seven of which he believed were applicable in this instance. The amendments did not consider the impact of the de facto delay caused by Ballot Measure 37; in this case, the amendments would sunset before the measure could be fully implemented. Mr. Hinkley maintained that the amendments were also contrary to two statewide planning goals, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan, the neighborhood refinement plan. Because of the lack of consistency with those adopted policies, the amendments failed to meet the approval criteria. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She called for questions or comments from the council. Ms. Bettman asked the time line for the development of infill standards. Ms. Harding indicated the draft plan for the compatibility standards project identified a target date of September 2008 for city-wide standards. Ms. Bettman requested that staff return with a motion including text that provided for a sunset date congruent with that target date when the council considered the ordinance for action. She also requested text that made the ordinance effective on adoption. Ms. Bettman said the neighborhoods indicated no opposition to density but wanted it done right. She agreed with that sentiment. She referred to an article that day in The Register-Guard regarding a new development on a greenfield site zoned low-density where lots of 4,500 square-feet to 13,500 square-feet were permitted. She asserted that if density was important in the inner city, it should be important throughout the urban growth boundary, and urban core neighborhoods should not be burdened with more density than they had while new developments enjoyed lower densities. She asserted that “it was not a balanced formula.” Mayor Piercy thought Ms. Bettman brought up a good point. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Lidz recommended the council pick a date certain for the sunset date. Mr. Poling suggested a sunset date of January 1, 2009. Mr. Poling also supported making the ordinance effective immediately. Ms. Taylor concurred. Ms. Taylor expressed admiration for the neighborhood association for its work in protecting the neighbor- hood and thanked the neighbors for their work. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbances; Amending Sections 4.083 And 4.084 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Sections 6.750 and 6.753 to that Code Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Anita Sullivan , 3745 Emerald Street, spoke in favor of controls on noise and noted her annoyance at people working on weekend projects that made noise. She wanted the full force of the City behind her when she confronted those people about the noise they made. Kevin Jones , 4740 Wendover Street, spoke to what he considered the inefficiency of leaf blowers and the pollution created by two-stroke engines. He recommended the council ban leaf and mulch blowers in two years’ time by imposing strict day and time limits on their use. He suggested that the council allow parking lot cleaning companies to register with the City and receive a one-year grace period so that alternative tools could be found by those companies. He suggested that by year three of a ban, neighborhood-friendly, ecologically sound alternatives could be found. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 4 Public Hearing Susan Polchert , 3143 Riverplace Drive, noted her objections to the use of the leaf blowers due to noise and the air pollution they created. She said that three days a week, someone was using a leaf blower on her block, forcing her to keep her windows closed. Often blowers were used for three hours at a time in her neighborhood and there were still bits of leaf and debris in the streets. She did not think the decibel level of blowers could be compared to conversation. Jerry Oltion , 750 Brookside Drive, thanked Ms. Taylor for introducing the topic and council for consider- ing it. However, he did not think the noise ordinance before the council would do what was needed as it would “rubber stamp” the status quo and not prevent noise pollution. He said if council would not grant a ban he hoped it would support alternatives. He thought something would work if the City committed to enforcing it. He said leaf and mulch blowers were conveniences, not necessities, and that convenience was bought at the expense of others. He thought a realistic noise limit, if enforced, would be useful, as well as restricting them to the hours suggested by Mr. Jones. He also suggested a muffler retrofit program where owners could exchange noisy mufflers for quiet mufflers. Doug Wilson , 35890 Bain Lane, Creswell, sweeper, discussed his company’s services and asked the council to consider his firm’s livelihood as well as the livability and cleanliness of Eugene. There was not enough time to do the work his company did with brooms alone. Harry Hayes , 25804 Wiggins Lane, Veneta, a parking lot sweeper, said his company could not do its job without blowers. His firm kept Eugene the clean, nice city it was. The time restraints being discussed made it difficult for his company, as it was not possible to get into most commercial parking lots before 10 a.m. or after 7 p.m. David Andrews , 2670 City View Street, favored noise limitations because of the impact of excessive noise on hearing. His own hearing was damaged to the degree he could not hear without an aid. He agreed the default for Eugene should be peace and quiet. He had a leaf blower and a lawn mower but they were electric and made much less noise than a gas blower. He anticipated an increase in deafness from such equipment. Ed Page , 26538 Pearl Road, a board member of the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association and the local Lane County chapter president, said his association was opposed to new decibel limits and ban on leaf blowers. He asked how the City would enforce that ban given that most blowers used by the landscape industry already met Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. Reducing the decibel level meant reducing power, thus increasing the time needed to do a job. Mr. Page pointed out the costs of lesser or no equipment would be passed on to the consumer, which he anticipated would lead to an outcry, particularly among those on fixed incomes who used landscape companies for landscape maintenance. He questioned if Eugene’s attempt to dictate what equipment was used by the industry was restraint of trade. Marvin Cowley , 1284 Frogs Leap Lane, suggested that everything in life was a tradeoff. He sold leaf blowers and he acknowledged they were noisy. He said that the question was whether people were willing to rake their yards for two to three hours or complete the job in a few minutes. He asked if residents were willing to pay landscape firms three times as much to do the job because the job would take three times longer than before. Mr. Cowley also asked if residents who did their own work, particularly those senior citizens or people on fixed incomes with only Saturday available to them, would be willing to spend all that day doing work that would take only a few moments with power equipment. He believed the ordinance was MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 5 Public Hearing a first step toward outlawing power equipment in Eugene. Mr. Cowley spoke of antiquated ordinances that did not make sense and suggested that the ordinance before the council was such an ordinance. Dick Nokleby , 1699 North Terry Street, #237, owned and operated Eugene Power and Street Cleaning Company. He said his trucks went out at 8 p.m. and were back by 4 a.m. His firm’s business was 90 percent commercial with the work done at night. He suggested that if residents had a problem with blowers, it was because of the way they were operated. Mr. Nokleby said they did not have to be run full out all the time. He observed that he had never had a noise complaint in 25 years of doing business. Jonathan Cowley , 4065 Eddystone Place, opposed the banning or further restriction of leaf blowers and blower trucks because the people who used leaf blowers were hired by local residents who were elderly or on fixed incomes and could not do the work needed themselves. If leaf blowers were banned, landscape maintenance costs would increase for those residents, who would either pay the extra cost or hire landsca- pers who would not follow the rules. Jim Dodson , 35503 Brabham Road, Pleasant Hill, owner of MidState Industrial Service, a commercial sweeping business, said blowers were an invaluable tool for the sweeping industry. Blowers enabled operators to reach and access places, which was important because the City’s parking lot design standards had made many parking lots difficult to sweep without blowers. Blowers were fast, economical, and clean. Mr. Dodson said his company used scheduling strategies to avoid noise issues in jobs that border on residential areas. Most of his firm’s sweeping was commercial and took place away from residential areas. Areas bordering residential areas were swept early in the evening or during the day. It was extremely rare for his company to receive a noise complaint in Eugene. His company used the quietest blowers available and at least three models were rated at 65 dBA. Standard blowers were rated about 79 dBA. Mr. Dodson estimated that 98 percent of the blowers being used were the louder blowers. His company did not want any complaints from customers or their neighbors. He thought the existing ordinance was effective and adequate. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, maintained that people did not go downtown because of the leaf blowers that were used every morning. He said that leaf blowers moved allergens around. He asked that the “sound shed” of the river be considered. He suggested that disadvantaged youth be put to work downtown cleaning the downtown with brooms. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She asked for council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor thought the issue of leaf blowers was a serious problem. She had been unaware of how many commercial enterprises used such blowers, and had not considered the issue of air pollution, although that seemed obvious. She said the noise created by such equipment was problematic with regard to hearing loss. Ms. Taylor could envision a compromise that limited the hours of operation for such equipment and that required the use of equipment with the lowest possible decibel. She recognized the problem of enforcement but said that was an issue for all laws. She thought that people were entitled to some peace and quiet at all times of the day. Ms. Taylor noted that she requested that text be developed for a motion to amend the ordinance in regard to limiting decibel limits and times of operation. Ms. Taylor thanked all who spoke. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 6 Public Hearing Mr. Poling referred to page 327 of the meeting packet, which contained the draft ordinance, specifically subsection (g), Commercial and Industrial Noise. He asked if that subsection exempted the commercial application of such equipment in commercial and industrial areas such as shopping centers. Mike McKerrow of the Land Use Management Section explained the subsection in question would not provide an exemption; the subsection was intended to protect residential properties from any type of activity on commercial and industrial properties that created noise exceeding 60 decibels. He clarified that the text related to the one-hour equivalent was different in that it intended to average the sound received from the receiving property line. Mr. Poling asked that text be prepared for a motion that that created an exemption for the application of street sweepers and blowers in commercial and industrial areas during the proposed hours given the difficulty of accessing large parking lots during regular business hours. Ms. Ortiz suggested the ordinance may also impact City operations given that street sweepers operated at night. She questioned whether technology existed to further muffle such equipment. She thought such technology should be an obtainable goal but she did not want to limit people’s ability to work. She thought it would be beneficial if residents were willing to pay for manual labor but she did not think they were, particularly when they had big yards. Ms. Ortiz felt the yet-to-be formed Sustainability Commission should examine the issue and make a recommendation to the council. She thought the jobs provided by the sweeping industry were important and believed the actual issue before the council was how to maintain community livability. In response to Ms. Ortiz’s comments, Ms. Solomon pointed to the section exempting City, County, and State employees, and their contractors. She thought it was unfair for the City to be exempted from the provisions of the proposed ordinance. She thanked Mr. Dodson for his comment about the fact the City’s parking lot design standards were contributing to the problem. She pointed out that the trees now required for such lots drop leaves, which needed to be picked up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4900 Adopting Amended System Development Charge Methodology for Parks System; Affirming Systems Development Charge Methodologies Adopted by Resolution Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883; and Repealing Resolution Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County and Homebuilders Construction Company, recalled her written submittal prior to the first hearing on the topic in January 2007. She thanked council for considering her comments about the need for adjustments to the neighborhood acquisition ratios and hoped they would be incorporated into the methodology. Ms. Cuellar said she worked on the State systems development charge (SDC) statute over several legislative sessions. The State statute was a collaborative effort between the League of Oregon Cities, Oregon counties, special districts, some municipalities, and the Oregon Home Builders Association. The original statute was submitted by those groups together and every amendment to the statute had been done cooperatively between them. The intent of the SDC statute was that new construction would be charged for the increased demand that a new structure would place on public infrastructure, in this case, parks. To the extent new construction would cause additional use of a park, the SDC was appropriate. Ms. Cueller said MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 7 Public Hearing she had never been able to find an appropriate nexus between the parks SDC and commercial and industrial development and did not think one existed. She recommended a solution by which a larger part of the SDC was allocated to pick up the cost of nonresidents visiting parks. Ms. Cuellar expressed concerned about the 20-year project list because it was so speculative. From now on, developers would pay a piece of every single park project on the 20-year list, and it was highly unlikely current residents would ever pay for all parks projects. Terry Connelly , representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, 1401 Willamette Street, said the chamber supported parks, recreation, and open space which made a positive contribution to the community’s quality of life, but believed that it was only one contributor in that regard. A healthy economy, he said, was also important to quality of life. Mr. Connelly said the chamber did not support charging a parks SDC to nonresidential development. The City could not demonstrate that commercial and industrial development created a demand for parks. Office buildings for professional services, art galleries, health care clinics, restaurants, banks, hardware stores, and clothing stores do not create a demand for parks and should not be charged an SDC. Mr. Connelly said the chamber objected to charging thousands of dollars in parks SDCs to new businesses as it could prove to be possible disincentive for compact urban development, redevelop- ment, and downtown revitalization. Existing public and private land providing hundreds of acres of open space were not taken into consideration when future demand for parks was calculated for parks in the PROS Plan; thus, the parks SDC was artificially set. Mr. Connelly objected to charging parks SDCs on nonresidential development if the money was to buy lands otherwise needed for jobs and housing inside the urban growth boundary. The large scale purchase of land considered in the PROS Plan would have a major impact on buildable lands inventory but the City would not account for that impact nor the future costs to maintain all the land acquired in part with SDCs. Michael Roberts , 1919 Meyers Road, said he was a member of the City’s Public Works Rates Advisory Committee and its Green Building Committee. He expressed disappointment with the City Council. Mr. Roberts said the Rates Advisory Committee, which was a disparate group of citizens representing many differing points of view, worked together to twice reach unanimous agreement about the application of the parks SDC to industrial and commercial lands, and the council rejected the recommendation. He asked what a committee had to do for the council, and why anyone should serve on a committee if that was the way committees were listened to in Eugene. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street,wanted to know if the funding in question would facilitate redevelop- ment in the Riverfront Research Park. He also wanted to know if there was a tie to funding to a “green street” on Franklin Boulevard being proposed, which he believed was a boondoggle. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, supported assessing SDCs to commercial and industrial uses because he believed any park located within a quarter mile of a business or offices would be used by the employees of those businesses. Any reasonable person would conclude that and pointed to the Parks Blocks as evidence that the proximity of businesses contributes to the use of parks. He believed that Eugene businesses were “getting a free ride” and should pay their equitable share of the costs of maintaining City parks. Jim Welsh , 2139 Centennial Plaza, Springfield, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, expressed appreciation for the City’s attempt to spread the costs of building parks out to more parties. However, he MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 8 Public Hearing did not believe there was a nexus between the parks SDC and commercial and industrial development. Mr. Welsh said the PROS plan was an overly ambitious plan with regard to its 20-year plan and that it did not adequately speak to the need to fund ongoing administration, maintenance and operations costs of new and proposed parks. He opined that it should have been reduced to a more affordable size and the parks and open space inventory should include the river greenway, west Eugene wetlands, and school properties involved in recreation programs to reduce the need to seek more SDC funding. David Hinkley , 1350 Lawrence Street, #1, a member of the Rates Advisory Committee, said there was a nexus between a park and a commercial use if a company’s softball team played on a field or an employee picked up lunch on the way to a park. There was a commercial demand on parks, but to get from that nexus to its fair apportionment was a problem. Mr. Hinkley suggested that alternatively, the council consider including hotels and motels in the list of residential uses as the only difference between those uses and an apartment was the length of one’s stay, and that the City forego on collecting from commercial enterprises. He did not agree with splitting neighborhood parks out from the methodology. He asked why facilities such as baseball fields and racquetball courts were not called out separately. There being no more requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for council questions and comments. Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Roberts and Mr. Hinkley for their remarks and indicated his continued opposition to charging commercial and industrial uses an SDC for parks. Ms. Bettman said it became evident during the council’s discussion of the transportation system mainte- nance fee (TMSF) that 50 percent of the people who work in Eugene do not live in Eugene. She questioned what percentage of people who shopped in Eugene also did not live in Eugene. Ostensibly, she suggested, if Eugene had regional shopping centers and regional retail uses, one could assume that many of those shoppers do not live in Eugene. She asked for numbers to quantify that assumption. Ms. Bettman believed there was an obvious nexus between office and commercial uses and the parks SDC because of the “mere fact” that 50 percent of the people who work in Eugene do not live in Eugene. That meant when an office or commercial building was constructed, it would result in the employment of people who then required the City to increase its capacity to parks to serve those people, who were not residents. She perceived a very direct nexus and wanted a number to justify that conclusion. Fred McVey, engineering data services manager did not have any numbers to offer. He explained that the nexus staff used was an intercept survey of park users; the survey found that 16-½ percent of park users were not Eugene residents. Ms. Bettman thought that a “modest percentage” but the chamber and homebuilders were denying the validity of the nexus. Ms. Taylor said that, “obviously, if people work here, they are going to use the parks.” She saw a connection between the parks SDC and commercial and industrial uses. Also, Ms. Taylor asserted that parks such as those developed for Olympic events have been shown in many communities to increase business development. Mr. Clark said he understood that many of those surveyed were riding their bicycles through City parks. He suggested that those using the parks were transportation system users and not parks users. That fact skewed the survey results for him. If SDCs were supposed to represent the impact and the equitable funding of services, businesses need water, stormwater, sewer lines, streets, and wastewater to exist; they did not need parks to exist, and therefore did not see the nexus. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 9 Public Hearing Mr. Zelenka asserted it was disingenuous to say there was no nexus between businesses and parks. He said it was clearly not the case. He averred that businesses located next to parks had higher property values than businesses not located next to parks. Ms. Solomon said when she worked in Springfield she had never visited a park in that community. She went to Springfield to work. Her husband worked in Springfield and never visited a park. He went to Springfield to work. She opposed assessing businesses an SDC for parks based on speculation that their employees created an impact on a park. Mr. Pryor thought the Rates Advisory Committee had done a great job in a short amount of time. He said that growth occurred geographically and drove the location of parks; ideally, one would link the two through the parks SDC to the geography where the growth was likely to occur and not to areas where growth did not occur. However, that would be quite complex, so the committee had to take a generalization and make it fit fairly, and he thought it did a good job of accomplishing that. He thought there might be a nexus between the parks SDC and commercial and industrial uses, but he questioned whether that nexus was strong and direct enough to justify charging an SDC to those uses. Mr. Pryor observed that he heard people say their property values decreased when recreational facilities were located nearby, although he questioned that. Mr. Pryor did not see a sufficient nexus to start charging SDCs to nonresidential uses at this point. He preferred to stay with the current ordinance because of the more clear nexus between residents and parks. Ms. Ortiz believed there was a connection between business and park use. She attended an event at Molecular Probes recently and talked to an employee who shared that they owned a business in Carlsbad, California, and bought land around their business to make it more park-like. She thought it would be great if businesses were willing to do that. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Authorizing HUD Section 108 Revenue Bonds Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She called for council questions and comments. Ms. Bettman wanted to amend the ordinance so that it did not go into effect until there was a project attached to it. Sue Cutsogeorge of Financial Services indicated that was possible. Ms. Bettman said she understood that a project would come back to the council and a hearing would occur, but it would occur before the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee. She wanted to amend the ordinance so that any public hearing on any project occurred before the City Council. She requested text to that effect. Mr. Lidz questioned what was left of the authorizing ordinance if the council did not want it to take effect until there was a proposed project. He did not know the difference between that and merely postponing adoption of the bond authorization until a project was at hand. Ms. Bettman determined that one alternative would be to postpone adoption of the ordinance or include a provision in the ordinance detailing that once there was a project, the public hearing would occur before the City Council. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the council could do a project-specific ordinance instead of enacting the ordinance before it. Ms. Bettman requested both options be prepared. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 10 Public Hearing Ms. Bettman said the ordinance indicated there was the possibility the City might need to waive some of its debt policies. She asked if council could include a provision in the ordinance that projects funded with the bonds be consistent with the City’s debt policies. Ms. Cutsogeorge recalled that staff had discussed with the council the potential the City might want to lend funds to a private party, which would require it to waive its debt policies. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s question, Mr. Lidz said the result of including such a provision requiring consistency with City debt policies in the ordinance would simply be to make the process of changing the policy more difficult. He said that the council could never adopt an unchangeable policy because future councils could not be bound in such a way. Including the provision in an ordinance required different procedures to change the ordinance. Ms. Bettman wanted to see text amending the ordinance that the City would seek projects that were consistent with current City debt policies. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business Licenses; Repealing Section 3 of Ordinance 20337; and Amending Section 3.467 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Gary Heldt , 3477 Onyx Street, supported the proposed increase as the most equitable way for citizens to pay for street maintenance. He was disappointed that the increase was not more and suggested that passage of the ordinance at this time might undermine the work of the subcommittee working on street maintenance options. He thought the gas tax should be the City’s sole source of non-bondable, preventive maintenance funding. He thought that gas was relatively cheap and citizens had a responsibility to help move the country to energy independence and a reduction in green house gases. Terry Connelly , 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber did not support the increase in the gas tax at the level proposed and for the purposes specified in the ordinance. The increase would be directed toward operating costs rather than the backlog of street repairs. He believed that those costs needed to be prioritized in the City’s General Fund budget. Mr. Connelly said that if enacted, the increase would give Eugene the highest gas tax in the state at eight cents per gallon, five cents higher than any other city in Lane County, and eight cents higher than communities without local gas taxes. He said the magnitude of the increase would put Eugene dealers at a competitive disadvantage with other dealers located outside the community. The chamber was also concerned about the timing of the increase. Mr. Connelly recalled the chamber’s offer to help with a campaign for a bond measure or capital levy to apply to the $100-plus million backlog in street repair work. However, an increase in the gas tax before a decision had been made to send a measure to the voters would confuse the public and likely doom the changes of winning an election. He said the public did not distinguish between the backlog and ongoing operations of streets, and would view a sharp increase in the gas tax as fixing the problem. Mr. Connelly further pointed out that the State Legislature was considering a state gas tax increase with a portion to be distributed to cities for street operations and maintenance. He suggested the City Council wait and see the results of the state legislation before considering a local gas tax increase. He also asked the council to be mindful of the consequences of an increase in the tax, as he anticipated there was a breaking point and at some future time that will lead to an initiative petition to repeal the gas tax. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 11 Public Hearing Ron Tyree , 4000 Spring Boulevard, Tyree Oil, indicated his opposition to an increase due to the competi- tive disadvantage it would give Eugene stations . Gas stations at the edge of the community would be able to charge eight cents less than Eugene stations. Dealers in Eugene would not be able to pass the costs on to the consumers, which would hurt the companies and their employees. It costs money to maintain and operate stations, and if profit margins go down, companies’ investments will go elsewhere, he said. Mr. Tyree indicated that it did not make sense to put money in a gas station where projects would be less. Alternative fuel projects would also be affected. Jim Welsh , Eugene Association of Realtors, 2139 Centennial Plaza, concurred with the remarks made by Mr. Connelly and Mr. Tyree. He suggested that if gas stations were driven out of the community, Eugene residents would drive to Springfield for gas. He suggested that the council consider other alternatives, such as bonding, to improve existing streets, many of which were an “embarrassment” to the community. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, suggested the increase was the start to an overall funding system. It needed to be one piece of a broad plan to address system sustainability. He noted the council subcommittee charged with working on the issue and suggested it be open to consideration of the entire transportation system. Bonding, he said could help with the backlog and fix potholes, but it was not an ongoing funding source, necessitating the need for consideration of such things as gas taxes. He encouraged the council to forward unpopular measures to the public to ensure that the system was sustainable. Paul Romaine , 707 SW Washington Street, Suite 927, Portland, represented the Oregon Petroleum Association, said his organization was opposed to a local gas tax but not to an increase in the state gas tax of 14 cents per gallon to be distributed to the cities. He said that local gas taxes resulted in balkanization because people were aware of where gas was the cheapest. He asked that the City work with the legislature to ensure a State gas tax increase. He said his association agreed it would attempt to refer each local gas tax increase until the State began to pay attention to the issue. If the council went forward, he asked it to refer the ordinance. th Howard Bonnett , 1835 East 28 Avenue, submitted testimony pertaining to the work of the council subcommittee working on transportation issues. Mr. Bonnett supported an increase in the gas tax to address the growing backlog of road maintenance. He believed that an increase of 15 cents per gallon would be needed to completely address the backlog, and suggested more work was needed. He thought the subcom- mittee would have to develop alternative funding sources because the City would not accomplish what was needed through the gas tax alone. He suggested that timing was important because additional funds now would fund needed overlays that would make future road repairs less onerous. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and in light of the time remaining, asked the council to e-mail their questions to staff. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Creating a Sustainability Commission; Amending 2.013 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding a New Section 2.380 to that Code Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Krisna Khalsa , 70 Lawrence Street, strongly encouraged the council to create a Sustainability Commission. He believed the proposal would result in a citizen organization similar to the Lane County Food Policy MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 12 Public Hearing Council, an organization with which he was involved. It would create an opportunity for the two organiza- tions to communicate and cooperate. He thought the proposal a reasonable response to the work of the Sustainable Business Initiative (SBI) Task Force. He said communities, not just businesses, need to organize themselves around sustainable issues. He suggested that sustainability could stimulate noncom- mercial transactions among residents that would make the community more sustainable over time. He encouraged the council to look at the work being done by the Portland/Multnomah Food Policy Council. He suggested the council tie that together with the recent peak oil initiative passed by the Portland City Council, which he considered a wonderful model. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Street, supported the proposal and the council and mayor’s efforts toward sustainability. He expected great things of the commission and hoped it did not shy away from controversy or issues that might cause difficulty because he thought that absolutely necessary. He also hoped that the proposed commission did not avoid whole-system thinking. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, acknowledged he was a sustainability skeptic, but recommended several online essays, including “When Sustainable Development Comes to your Town” and “Monsanto’s Approach to Sustainability.” He said that big companies do things that seem environmental, and he feared large companies could try to dress themselves up as being sustainable and in return receive assistance from the City. He suggested a list of unsustainable companies be prepared by the City. He recalled an article from the Eugene Weekly explaining an SBI recommendation to ensure that developments in the Riverfront Research Park would be sustainable, which he feared could lead to the development of land that would otherwise not be developed. Kevin Matthews , PO Box 1588, Eugene, representing the Friends of Eugene, supported the creation of a Sustainability Commission and said it was a positive step forward. He commended the council. Bob Doppelt , 31740 Fox Hollow Road, who assisted with the SBI Task Force, commended the council for the ordinance, which he believed was consistent with the SBI Task Force’s recommendations. He thought the commission would help the community address things such as climate change as well as help it to take advantage of emerging business opportunities. Mr. Doppelt suggested that the council ensure that the proposed commission has a diverse membership. He also asked the council to refrain from “throwing every issue” that could not be addressed in another venue at the commission, as the commission had several SBI recommendations to address initially. He commended the council for considering the ordinance. Kathy Ging , 2878 Harris Street, asked that the council consider resource depletion and the demand placed on local resources such as electricity and water by large businesses and residences. She noted local companies with a business focus that relied on petroleum and recommended the council “re-examine Hynix.” She asked, “Family wage jobs at what price?” Companies that provide family wages may want to come to Eugene but could contribute to global warming and resource depletion. She called for companies that were more creative and wisely used remaining resources. Ms. Ging further called for a land use planning advocate on the commission. She suggested the use of solar energy and asserted that the Eugene building code was unfriendly to solar energy. She also called for more education about solar energy and suggested the slogan “Eugene: the Solar Energy Capital of Oregon” as she believed it would attract the right people and businesses. David Funk , 30806 Blanton Heights, endorsed the ordinance before the council and thanked the council for letting the SBI process proceed unhindered. He asked that the council consider the “triple bottom line” and remember the initiative was started as an economic development initiative to make businesses better and MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 13 Public Hearing support the families that depended on them. He asked that the initiative not become merely an environ- mental initiative. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called on the council for questions and comments. There were none. Ms. Ortiz moved, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend the proposed ordinance by re- vising Section 2.381(b) to read “businesses that produce sustainable products and services.” Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 14 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 21, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Mike Clark, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Traffic Safety Options City Manager Taylor welcomed Tom Larsen, Traffic Engineer for the Public Works Department, to the table. Mr. Larsen stated that much had been done over the last several years. He noted that the installation of cameras at red lights had at one time been a council goal. He related that in the late 1990s there had been a lot of support for this, but since then there had been lawsuits and problems with some of the systems in some cities. Mr. Larsen reported that between 32 percent and 48 percent of people who run red lights were doing it with some level of intention. He related that the Public Works Department had already made changes recom- mended by the Institute for Transportation Engineering, such as installing 12-inch signal heads, using light emitting diode (LED) lights in signals, and extending or reducing the yellow intervals. He said there had been a large number of enforcement efforts. He stated that the cities of Albany and Salem intended to install red light cameras and there was a bill in the State Legislature that sought to allow Milwaukee to install them and to lower the population ceiling for cities permitted to do so. He felt the City of Eugene had taken all the steps it could toward effective red light enforcement with the exception of installing cameras. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the opportunity to take up this issue. He acknowledged that a lot had been done. He underscored that for him this was not an issue of red light cameras or the revenue that might be generated by potential enforcement using this technology; rather, it was an issue of traffic safety. He had observed anecdotally an increase in the number of people who ran stop signs and stop lights. He believed that if a person knew he or she would not be caught, obeying traffic signals became optional. He said because the City did not have the resources to have traffic patrols everywhere and because he wanted to reduce red light running and accidents and to focus on safety at intersections, he wanted to propose an outcome the council would like to see and ask staff to identify ways to achieve the outcome. Mayor Piercy asked if there was a role for people who witnessed a person running through a red light. She also wondered how effective an education effort would be. Mr. Larsen replied that he agreed the incidence MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 1 Work Session was increasing. He did not believe a call to the 9-1-1 Center would be appropriate if a person witnessed this type of infraction. Mr. Larsen said in terms of intersection safety, he was not aware of any programs that generated revenue and most had a net cost. Regarding an education program, he suspected that every driver who ran a stop sign or stop light saw the traffic device and knew what it meant; he did not know what could be done beyond that. Eugene Police Chief Bob Lehner stated that from the enforcement angle, a person who witnessed such an infraction should not call the 9-1-1 Center, noting that even if the City of Eugene was a well-resourced community, by the time the call was generated and an officer was dispatched to the scene, the driver would be long gone. He related that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) did enforce traffic laws primarily with its traffic enforcement staff. He agreed that while there was value in educating people about the dangers of running red lights, it would not change the behavior of people who are doing it because they believe they are late, in a hurry, or that they will not be caught. He said this was where red light cameras had some efficacy. He commented that there were a lot of good traffic-related and crime-related studies showing that the effect of a police officer’s appearance disappears soon after the police officer does. He said if the goal was to catch and get the attention of violators in numbers large enough to make a difference, the most cost-effective way the City had available to it would be to install red light cameras. th Mr. Clark echoed Mr. Pryor’s comments. He recounted having an office at Olive Street and 6 Avenue and witnessing approximately an accident per month due to people running the light and the blind spot created by the Hult Center parking garage. He said a traffic engineer came and observed traffic at that location and, because of this study the length of the yellow light had been changed. This had seemed to reduce accidents. He asked if there were comparative studies regarding the change in the yellow pattern and how that affected accidents over time. He also understood that the addition of red light cameras in the City of Beaverton had caused an increase in auto accidents because people would see the camera and slam on their brakes, causing a rear impact. Mr. Larsen responded that anecdotally, the change in the yellow light interval had seemed effective in reducing the crashes caused by people in the tail end of queue. Regarding concern for a potential increase in rear-end accidents caused by a red light camera, he wished to note that in looking at crashes overall a “t- bone” accident was a more severe event. Mr. Clark requested comparative information regarding the changes instituted and what results arose from them. Mr. Larsen indicated he would compile the information for the council. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Larsen why the City was seeing this increase in red light running. Mr. Larsen speculated that as the traffic volumes grow and people were more likely to become cut off by traffic signals, there was more incentive to squeeze through a light. He also attributed it to lifestyle changes that saw more people driving from place to place. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Larsen stated that younger drivers were overrepresented as were drivers with prior speeding convictions. Chief Lehner stated that while the City of Eugene was experiencing an increase in red light running, there was a table in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) which indicated that the City of Eugene was still statistically low in comparison with other cities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Larsen stated that there were a number of vendors that offered a variety of systems. He thought most of the more recent technology captured a video segment. He noted that in the state of Oregon, the camera was required to photograph the auto license and the driver. Gender was checked to ensure that the registered owner who was receiving the civil citation at least resembled the driver. Ms. Bettman favored “anything that works,” though she preferred to review the efficacy of changing light intervals before spending money on additional technology. She wondered if there were particular character- istics of an intersection that was prone to have people run red lights. She noted that there were presentations in the schools that showed graphic depictions in the aftermath of accidents. She suggested an educational campaign featuring such depictions. Mr. Larsen said he did not have any data on a campaign and how that might work. He thought given that the violating drivers skewed young, they would not tend to respond to such a campaign because of the sense of invincibility that most young people have. Ms. Ortiz remarked that driver’s education used to be part of the school curriculum. She regretted that it was no longer routinely offered. She believed it was a social responsibility to instruct young people on how to drive. She opined that the reason people felt they could disregard lights was because there was a lack of officers on the street and people knew they would not get caught. Ms. Taylor suggested that a city-wide traffic committee be formed. She observed that people all feel their neighborhoods are experiencing more problems than other neighborhoods, but she felt that all neighborhoods were seeing a similar level of traffic issues. She thought a committee to consider different ideas for traffic mitigation would benefit the discussion. Mr. Pryor agreed that young adults and teenagers were probably responsible for the largest portion of these traffic infractions, but he had witnessed every age group and people from every socio-economic stratum running red lights. He found the table in the AIS informative and had been pleased to see that Eugene was “not as bad” as other places. However, he believed that 464 crashes caused by disregard of traffic devices was 464 too many. He said it was an issue that had to be addressed. He acknowledged that he was throwing “an enormous issue” into the laps of traffic engineers and said he hoped they could find a way to get a handle on the problem. Mr. Clark recalled that many years ago there were a lot of people parking in handicapped parking areas illegally and that a campaign had been conducted to take pictures of cars and send the owners a note. He wondered if the Volunteers in Policing could play a role in monitoring this issue. Chief Lehner replied that the short answer was yes, in that the EPD used a similar program in the past with neighbors monitoring speeding. He said the civilian monitors were not able to issue citations, but it was felt that sending a couple of letters to those who were committing the infractions did get their attention. He added that it was pretty significant in terms of its resource needs, though most of the people were not paid staff. Chief Lehner commented that while he agreed with Mr. Pryor that any number was too many, it was important to ask the question of at what cost. He said this was why the issue of red light cameras versus in person enforcement was significant. He stated that from a cost perspective, if the objective was to issue citations to people to encourage them not to repeat that behavior, on a per violation/per citation basis there would be a greater effect with photo radar than with police officers who were expensive resources. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 3 Work Session added that there was such an overall staffing deficit on the EPD that he would argue whether the next two police officers hired should be dedicated to traffic enforcement as opposed to some of the other difficult issues the community currently faced. B. WORK SESSION: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment Mayor Piercy asked if any councilors needed to declare ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Mr. Clark indicated that prior to his being seated as a councilor, he had reviewed the record and had attended the other hearings as a spectator. While he did not believe he had a conflict or a potential conflict of any kind, he was acquainted with one of the neighbors involved in the issue. He said he had spoken of the issue with his friend, but he did not believe anything of substance had transpired nor had he engaged in any further conversations with his friend since being seated on the council. Mr. Zelenka noted that he had also familiarized himself with the record and attended the public hearing as he had also not been seated on the council when this was first initiated. Ms. Taylor stated for the record that she had asked the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) to send information about complaints that had been received and she had been present at LRAPA meetings at which area residents complained about the activities of Delta Sand and Gravel. Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), stated for the record that after Ms. Taylor’s contacts had become known to staff, PDD advertised it to all of the parties involved during the public review process and those parties were given an opportunity to respond. He believed it was no longer a conflict. City Manager Taylor said Mr. Yeiter would review where the process was in time with the council. He noted the record had been closed and the County was in charge of the process. Mr. Yeiter explained that this was the first opportunity for an elected body to deliberate the application from Delta Sand and Gravel for an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan), zone change, and variances to allow an expansion of its existing operation. He noted it was located just outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB) but just inside the Metro Plan boundary. This required approval or denial of the amendment by both the City and the County. He said the zone change, the variance, and the opportunity to impose conditions rested with the County and this would be deliberated after the Lane Board of County Commissioners heard from the City Council. Mr. Yeiter reviewed the timeline for the process, noting that the last comments from Douglas DuPriest, attorney for the organized opposition, and Steve Cornacchia, attorney for Delta Sand and Gravel were included in the last packet the City Council received. He related that during the public review period a series of questions from Ms. Bettman had been submitted, but the staff timeframe to respond was short as it had the same limitations as the public response period. Staff answered the questions it was able to respond to. Mr. Yeiter stressed that the decision should be based upon the record. He said the City would provide general recommendations to the County, so that as much as the council as possible could come to agreement regarding where the potential conflicts were and what the conflicts were that were not minimized or MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 4 Work Session mitigated and then forward its input to the board. He underscored that the process was well-regulated by State law. He cited the proposed gravel extraction versus housing as an example of a potential conflict. He said the councilors then needed to decide if the conflicts were minimized. He related that State law required that where there were existing regulations that dealt with impacts or conflicts, those regulations would serve as the threshold for minimization; and, if the application and proposed use would meet those thresholds, they were by definition minimized. Mr. Yeiter welcomed Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Director, and Stephanie Schulz, Project Manager for Lane County Public Works. He also noted that City Attorney Emily Jerome was present to provide legal counsel. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Yeiter to review the Lane County Planning Commission’s conflicts and the Eugene Planning Commission’s conflicts that commissioners felt were not mitigated. Mr. Yeiter noted he had prepared a summary, Attachment E in the packet. He stated that both commissions felt the information was adequate, but the Eugene commission felt the site qualified as a significant aggregate resource and the County commission found that the sampling method was inadequate. He reported that both commissions found that there were potential conflicts having to do with dust, noise, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, and agriculture. He summarized the Eugene Planning Commission’s findings, which were that the impact that was not minimized was dust. He related that the County found there would be no impact to traffic and this was not challenged through the planning commission process. Ms. Bettman noted that the materials indicated that if the County and the City could not agree on the impacts and minimization efforts, the issue would go to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) for dispute resolution. She considered this to be a “very undesirable” outcome of the process. She was uncertain how the MPC would address such an issue, given that the consortium included the City of Coburg, Lane Transit District (LTD), and the City of Springfield and those members had not been at the hearings nor had they reviewed all of the materials. Mr. Yeiter responded that both the City and the County code indicated that the decisions, in order to become effective, must be the same, but the codes did not define ‘same.’ He said legal counsel for both entities extrapolated from the codes that the two should be unified in whether the amendment was approved or denied, but the findings could be different. He explained that staff recommended a straw vote at this time because it would allow the City and the County to “go back and forth.” He conveyed staff’s desire for as much detail as possible. Ms. Jerome clarified the staff recommendation. She said one of the ways the County proposed that certain impacts be minimized was through the imposition of conditions that only the County could impose. She said that she would not want to see the council take specific action until the council had specific assurances or could see that the County was heading in a direction that would accommodate the minimization conditions the councilors desired to be imposed. She believed the PA05-6151: Delta Sand & Gravel Deliberation Votes – Metro Plan Amendment and Rezone worksheet County staff had prepared presented the issues in a reasonable logical order. She wanted, to the extent the councilors could provide real direction, to ensure that whatever decision the council made was most defensible and addressed all of the criteria and rules. She indicated her preference to gain direction from council, to work with staff, and then draft a decision for the council to review in order to make sure it reflected the council’s direction. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Yeiter indicated that if the council was unable to come to a conclusion on an issue, staff would take that as a question to bring before the County. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman declared that she had a “major problem” with Lane County’s decision to waive the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Ms. Solomon expressed hope that the council would not make this issue “unnecessarily excruciating” for anyone involved. She felt the information that had been provided was thorough and the councilors had been allowed adequate time to digest the information. She wanted to have a thoughtful and deliberative discussion that would move toward resolution in a timely fashion. Mr. Yeiter stated that Step 1 on the worksheet asked if the Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) information was adequate. Ms. Bettman reiterated her feeling that a TIA was necessary in terms of information needed for a decision to be made. She disagreed with the assumption that the actual production would not increase. She believed there could be impacts to local transportation infrastructure. She also thought an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) assessment should be conducted. She averred that the sampling had been performed in a way that mixed aggregates so that even though the quantity was established, the quantity of the standard that was to be fulfilled was inadequate because of this mixing. She doubted whether the resource was significant. Mayor Piercy noted that the Eugene Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the PAPA was adequate and that the Lane County Planning Commission voted 4:2 that the PAPA was adequate. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Yeiter stated that the planning commissions found there to be enough information upon which to base a decision. He said even if the majority found there was adequate information, the issues could be raised under each topic. Mr. Clark surmised that the commissions ascertained there was sufficient information without the TIA. He asked what the legal standard was for adequacy of information. Ms. Jerome explained that the OAR listed five factors for adequacy. She cited an attachment to the staff report from the date of the hearing and noted that it had listed the OAR criteria. She stated that the Planning Commission, based on County staff recommendations, found that there was enough information in current plans about that area and this had been deemed sufficient. Mayor Piercy called for a straw vote. Straw vote: the information in the PAPA was deemed adequate by a 5:3 vote; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Yeiter explained that Step 2 on the worksheet referred to the quality and quantity of the aggregate resource. He recalled the substantial testimony from the geologist regarding whether the site qualified as a substantial resource and as a Goal 5 resource. Mayor Piercy noted that the Eugene Planning Commission indicated by a 3:2 vote that it considered the site to contain significant material and the Lane County Planning Commission indicated its feeling that the site was an inadequate resource by a 4:2 vote. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman asserted that the significance of the resource was important because it would be used to justify and rationalize the loss of the “grade 1 farmland” and to determine if the expansion of the gravel operation was “worth” the noise and dust to the agricultural and residential uses that were around the property. She did not think the resource was significant enough to justify or rationalize the impacts. Mr. Yeiter pointed out that the elected bodies received more information in that regard than the first hearings of the planning commissions had. Mr. Poling asked how much of the area contained the “grade one” soil. Ms. Schulz responded that the area primarily featured Class 2 quality soils. Mr. Poling asked if the samplings had been conducted according to the criteria for such a process. Mr. Howe replied that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASTO) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) handbook guided the determination of the quantity and quality of the aggregate materials. He underscored that this was the journal/textbook for conducting such samplings. Mr. Poling said in looking at this as a civil action in which a determination would be based on the preponderance of evidence that would be 50 percent plus one. Three samples were taken including one that had been conducted by someone who was not recognized as an expert and two samples that indicated the resources were adequate. Mr. Clark asked what weight testimony from someone who was not considered an expert should be given. Ms. Jerome replied that it was up to the elected officials to make a decision that a reasonable person would make. Mayor Piercy called for a straw vote on the determination of whether the resource site was significant. Straw vote: the vote on whether the resource site was significant was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Clark voting yes, and Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Piercy voted no and the vote failed. Mr. Yeiter noted that Step 3, which sought to determine if identified conflicts from mining could be minimized to acceptable levels of no significant impact, was split into seven areas of potential conflict: traffic, groundwater, wetlands and sensitive habitat, flooding, agricultural practices, dust, and noise. He suggested the council address the impacts individually. Regarding traffic, he pointed out that a TIA could be required at a future point as the area experienced increased development and the gravel operation potentially experienced an increase in production. Mr. Pryor observed that it was questionable as to whether the application would affect traffic intensity. He surmised that the application sought to extend the lifetime of the mining application and not necessarily to increase production. He believed the potential traffic impacts could be dealt with at a later point. He reiterated that as it related to this application, market conditions were not a factor. Ms. Bettman felt the council was relying on the applicant’s assertion that traffic was not a factor. She opined that this was not good government. She said with every development there was an assumption that it would impact traffic. Otherwise, the City of Eugene would end up “holding the bill” for whatever kinds of MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 7 Work Session upgrades or improvements needed to occur because of the traffic impact. She averred that a TIA was just a part of conducting due diligence. Mr. Clark said while Ms. Bettman referred to this item as the council was relying on information from the applicant, he would be relying on the unanimous consent of both planning commissions to guide his decision. Mr. Yeiter noted that there were three questions under Traffic. The City could find a conflict due to traffic but it could also find such a conflict could be minimized through the imposition of conditions. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Yeiter affirmed that the planning commissions had not challenged the County’s assertion that a TIA was not needed because of the consistency of production. Mr. Zelenka surmised that this was because production would not be increased at this time. He pointed out that unless there was a conditional use that would dictate that production would stay at that level, it could change. He said if the gravel operation decided to double production there would be a concurrent doubling of traffic. He did not see how they could make this assumption without making a conditional use provision. Ms. Jerome stated that the first step would be to determine the impact area, which could not be more than 1,500 feet from the proposed expansion area boundary unless there were circumstances that warranted the consideration of a larger area. She noted that both planning commissions had found 1,500 feet to be the appropriate area. Mr. Zelenka indicated he would vote that this was a conflict because there was no indication that a conditional use was being considered and no TIA to indicate otherwise. Mr. Clark ascertained from Ms. Jerome that the council was to determine whether there was a current conflict as opposed to a conflict over a period of time. He related that he had some concern regarding the future of the company. He said if the current owners sold the business there would be no way to know how the future owners would choose to operate the business at this point. He did not know if the council could make this decision based on this potential. Ms. Jerome commented that this pointed to the importance of making conditions. She did not think the council could make a final decision without knowing where the County was going with respect to those decisions. Mr. Yeiter pointed out that aside from the County mining permits, production levels were also regulated by LRAPA and other agencies. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the meeting by five minutes. The mo- tion failed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 8 Work Session (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2007 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall February 26, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. Council President Andrea Ortiz called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She stated Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilor Bonny Bettman were in Washington, DC, and would not be in attendance at the meeting. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Ms. Ortiz reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. rd Bob Dougherty , 479 East 53 Avenue, represented the Masonic Lodge on Martin Luther King Boulevard, and addressed the conversation concerning alcohol consumption around Autzen Stadium. The organization provided a letter to the University of Oregon (UO) that allowed use of the Masonic Lodge parking lots during football games. He worked with Eugene Police Department captains Chuck Tilby and Pete Kerns to develop a handout regarding proper conduct for distribution to all vehicles entering the parking lots. He stated that while the Masonic Lodge would prefer staff’s proposed Option 2, it would work with the City of Eugene and the UO on any of the options. His organization had no problems in its lots last year and encouraged people to place their bottles in containers prior to crossing the street. It had done everything required by the Fire Marshal related to access and egress from the parking lot. David Walbridge , 2447 Melrose Loop, expressed his concerns regarding spiritual and religious freedom and human rights. He felt he was being denied his rights by the Church of Scientology. Lois Harvick , 1865 Parliament Street, identified herself as the Executive Director for the Eugene office of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD). Addressing the issue of tailgating at UO football games, she said MADD collaborated with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in a campaign called Over the Limit Under Arrest in September and October 2006, that was used as a strategy to study what factors among 21-to-34-year-old males would deter them from drinking and driving. The four factors considered were: 1) monetary punishment; 2) injury to themselves or others; 3) escalating insurance premiums; and 4) jail. The study found the fear of being arrested and going to jail was the primary deterrent that kept them from drinking and driving. While MADD could support decreasing opportunities to drive while intoxicated, expansion of the current City ordinance to MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting allow drinking on game days in the proposed areas was a concern that the roads would continue to be at risk for another drunk driving crash. The ordinance did not address the seriousness of the fact that many of the drinking fans would be driving home at potentially illegal blood-alcohol levels. Allowing for the expansion sent the wrong message regarding safety. Game day was no different than any other for preventing drunk driving crashes. Martin KlosMD, , 82518 Howe Lane, Creswell, identified himself as a member of the Lane County Mental Health Advisory Committee and chair of the Lane County Coalition to Prevent Substance Abuse. The coalition was currently hosting discussions with the UO and other stakeholders regarding alcohol consump- tion surrounding game days at Autzen Stadium. Until the City of Eugene or the UO was faced with a public relations “disaster,” public drinking associated with football at UO home games would be acceptable. He said thoughtful changes in alcohol related policies to ban drinking at other university and National Football League (NFL) stadiums only came about when there were enough deaths or riots relating to the alcohol consumption that the public took up the fight themselves and worked to shut off the flow of alcohol. Dr. Klos saw an opportunity to support improved community norms as well as to prevent future disasters if the City Council considered looking at an approach that combined two of the proposed options. Option 3, issuance of permits for alcohol consumption, preferred by City Manager Taylor, would allow Oregon Liquor Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) jurisdiction in the areas where alcohol was being served. It would involve the property owners in the enforcement and publicity surrounding public drinking. This option, combined with an amendment to City Ordinance 19092, Option 2, would lead to a logical, optimal step towards improving public health and safety. Dr. Klos proposed amending the ordinance to read that “public consumption would be allowed until kickoff for the game” rather than until two hours after the game. Allowing alcohol consumption up to the point of driving home two hours after a game was counter to public safety. An ordinance that stopped public drinking at kickoff would also support the UO if and when it decided to stop allowing halftime passes that permitted people to return to their vehicles and get drunk again for the second half. Many universities implemented such policies to stem the tide of fan behavior. Anne Pratt , 42000 Holden Creek Lane, Springfield, identified herself as a member of MADD and Crime Victims United, which lobbied for tougher driving-under-the-influence (DUI) legislation. She said it used to be illegal to drink in a UO parking lot, but it occurred anyway, and had subsequently been legalized. There were now proposals on the table to make illegal lots legal, enabling fans to drink from four hours before the game until two hours after the game. The proposal, while addressing the legality, did not address the real issue, which was that the party goers drove onto city streets and freeways. This was a tragedy waiting to happen. She saw merit in options 3 and 4, but favored Option 5. Ms. Pratt shared a story of the death of her 23-year-old son caused by a drunk driver, who subsequently spent time in prison. She urged the councilors to address the issue of drinking and driving by enforcing existing laws in the parking lots. Gillian Leichtling , 111 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1200, Portland, from RMC Research in Portland, was the evaluator for the Lane County Coalition to Prevent Substance Abuse. She cited the impacts of various alcohol control policies and enforcement at tailgating parties and community events. Alcohol control polices on underage drinking at campus events and community events reduced the likelihood of alcohol sales to underage drinker, reduced the number of incidents, and reduced the number of students treated for alcohol intoxication. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, asked what it takes for a crime to be recognized as a hate crime in Eugene. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting Bill MitchellMD, , 3248 Crocker Road, said he was a general internal medical specialist who also specialized in addiction medicine and currently worked in a methadone clinic. He addressed societal norms changing over time, noting that in the past, people had a good time at athletic events, interacted with friends, and went home. Now, he said, public intoxication was perfectly acceptable. The situation at Autzen Stadium had gotten out-of-hand, sanctioning public displays of intoxication that allowed people to behave poorly and place the blame on the fact that it was game day. The tolerance of public drunkenness occurred because “we have to build up enthusiasm to support our team.” Tailgate parties continued to escalate, with the exuberance of food and drink wrapped up in the guise of loosening people up or feeling good. The effect of increased rowdiness, aggressiveness and offensive behavior was the visible result. He noted non-drinkers were increasingly offended and going to fewer games. A new social norm emerged in which a minority of 10 to 20 percent of the people dictated the conditions of behavior for the event. The idea of responsible public drinking was an oxymoron, noting that it took only one drink to build a blood alcohol of 0.080 percent. By legal definition, this was when one lost his or her sense of responsibility, and when those people in the addiction world knew that judgment was lost, depriving people of the ability to make good decisions about driving. Any effort to reverse the direction of societal norms would be wise planning. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, said that requiring people to give their address was a deterrent to testifying for fear of retaliation to victims of police misconduct. He suggested that requiring addresses should be optional. He found a report online by Amnesty International about the use of tasers and suggested councilors read the report. He said the riparian greenway and fans at UO football games urinating in the bushes did not mix. He asserted that downtown bars should be able to tailgate just as they do at Auzten Stadium. Mr. Zelenka expressed appreciation for those people who addressed tailgating issues and agreed there was a problem with alcohol assumption at UO football games. He wanted to move the community forward in looking at the problem and not merely give in to the problem. Ms. Ortiz thanked everyone for sharing their opinions with the City Council and expressed her appreciation for the work done by MADD in the community. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 10, 2007, Process Session - January 22, 2007, Work Session - January 22, 2007, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of City Council Goals for 2007-08 D. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of January 30, 2007 E. Adoption of Resolution 4904 Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent Do- main for the Acquisition of Property Interests for the legacy Wastewater Interceptor Im- provement Project (City Job 4383) Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Pryor pulled Item D. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exceptions of Item D, passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Pryor pulled two items under Item C, Senate Bill (SB) 187 and SB 335. Indicating she did so at the request of Councilor Bettman, Councilor Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved that discussion on the pulled items be postponed until Councilor Bettman was present. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item C, excepting SB 187 and SB 335, passed unani- mously, 7:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2007. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones asked Glen Potter to briefly describe the issue before the council. Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, provided the staff report. He said in accordance with provisions of the Eugene City Charter, the City’s Toxics Right-to-Know Program was funded by fees assessed to local businesses that were hazardous substance users. To support the program for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the Toxics Board unanimously recommended a fee of $37.38 per full-time equivalent employee (FTE) employed by participating businesses in 2006, up to a maximum of $2,000 as provided by state law. Last year’s fee was $31.30 per FTE up to the cap. Ms. Ortiz reviewed the rules for members of the public speaking at the public hearing Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, said the University of Oregon (UO) had been exempt from the toxics program reporting, which he found to be a big loophole in the system. Rather than exempting the UO, it should be required to report at a higher standard because it was formulating new things others did not understand. He asserted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently decided to take action on regulating nanotechnology containing silver particles. He asserted that the UO conducted nanotechnology projects for Nike. He said he would provide additional information in the future on EPA requirements. Noting no other requests to speak, Councilor Ortiz closed the public hearing. She determined that councilors had no questions at this time. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Diagram to Redesignate Property Identified as Map 17-03-3044 Tax Lot 8900 (Oregon Motor Pool Site) from High Density Residential/Mixed Use/Nodal Development Designation to Commer- cial/Nodal Development Designation; Rezoning the Property from I-2/TD Light-Medium Indus- trial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Development Overlay Zones to C-2/TD/ND Community Commercial with Transit Oriented Development and Nodal Development Overlay Zones’ and Adopting a Severability Claus. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4935, an ordinance concerning the Oregon Motor Pool site. Roll call vote; the motion that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4935, an ordinance con- cerning the Oregon Motor Pool site, passed unanimously, 7:0. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Noise Disturbances; Amending Section 4.083, and 4.084 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Sections 6.750 and 6.755 to that Code. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4937, an ordinance concerning the noise disturbances. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to add an additional exemption to Eugene Code section 6.755(1), as follows: “Sounds produced by leaf blowers and street sweepers being used to clean parking lots and adjacent areas in commercial or industrial zones.” Councilor Poling explained that he wished to include the additional language to assist in the task of cleaning up parking lots and associated areas in the commercial and/or industrial areas that was routinely done late at night, typically between 10 p.m. and 7:00-8:00 a.m., when the parking lots were empty and the businesses closed. Councilor Taylor asked Councilor Poling if he would accept as an amendment “500 feet from residential areas.” Councilor Poling declined to accept Councilor Taylor’s suggested amendment. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion that the City Council adopt an additional ex- emption to Eugene Code section 6.755(1), as follows: “Sounds produced by leaf blowers and street sweepers being used to clean parking lots and adjacent areas in commercial or in- dustrial zones,” passed 6:1, with Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Taylor thanked Dr. Polter for sending the council more information about leaf blowers, which described places where and why leaf blowers were banned. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, to substitute “65 dBA” for “70 dBA” in both places that dBA is mentioned in EC 6.750(e). In response to a question from Councilor Pryor, Mike McKerrow, Land Use Supervisor for the Planning and Development Department, explained that City of Eugene staff currently used the lower decibel models. He had limited information, but acknowledged that one private firm recently ordered the lower decibel leaf blowers. He did not believe that the lower decibel models were generally used by most local maintenance companies. In response to Councilor Zelenka, Mr. McKerrow said he did not know the life span of the machines, although limited information he received from one vendor said a noise reducing shroud to reduce decibels MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting made maintenance more difficult. He added the quieter machines were about $100 more than the louder machines. Councilor Zelenka proposed phasing the ordinance in over a two-year period to allow businesses to transition to the new equipment. Councilor Zelenka offered a friendly amendment, to phase the lower dBA level in over a two-year period. Councilor Taylor accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Clark could not support the amendment, asserting that the elevated cost would be borne by clients of the maintenance firms, some of whom were on fixed incomes and could not afford an increase. Councilor Zelenka shared Councilor Clark’s concern, but opined that two years was a reasonable amount of time for professional maintenance firms to replace their equipment, thus spreading a modest increase across a large number of clients. Roll call vote; on the amendment to the motion to phase the lower dBA level in over a two- year period. The motion failed, 4:3, with councilor Taylor, Zelenka, and Ortiz voting yes. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to amend section 6.750(e) to add the following sentence at the end: In addition, no leaf blower shall be operated between 5 p.m. Saturday and 8 a.m. Monday. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; with councilors Taylor and Zelenka voting yes. Roll call vote; on the main motion as amended that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4937, an ordinance concerning the noise disturbances, with an additional exemption to Eugene Code section 6.755(1), as follows: “Sounds produced by leaf blowers and street sweepers being used to clean parking lots and adjacent areas in commercial or industrial zones.” Councilor Taylor asked what would change if the language on the table was adopted. Mr. McKerrow responded the language would put leaf blowers in the same category as lawn mowers. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Creating a Sustainability Commission; Amending Section 2.013 of the Eugene code, 1971; and Adding a New Section 2.380 to that Code. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4942, an ordinance creating a Sustainability Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall March 14, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. ABSENT: Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION The council met in executive session to consult with legal counsel about legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed, in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(h). Mayor Piercy called the council into regular session. B. ACTION: Brown Measure 37 Claim (M37-06) Mayor Piercy said that Councilor Betty Taylor requested that the council not take action on the resolution in her absence. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to consider the item. Ms. Bettman thought Ms. Taylor’s vote would make a difference on the outcome of the issue and wanted to honor her request. Mayor Piercy wanted to honor Ms. Taylor’s request unless the item was time-sensitive. The motion passed 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting no. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4905 granting a Measure 37 claim and modifying a provision of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, for property lo- th cated on 12 Avenue between Charnelton and Lincoln streets, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Map 17-03-31-42, Tax Lot 2100—DMB Green, LLC). Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend page 2 of the resolution with the fol- lowing: MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 14, 2007 Page 1 Work Session “Authorized modification: The current Land Use Code is waived, and the land use code in effect on July 31, 2001, one day prior to the effective date of the Land Use Code Update is re-imposed for the subject property.” Ms. Bettman offered the amendment because she believed the resolution demonstrated one of the problems with Ballot Measure 37. She thought it imperative to avoid allowing applicants to cherry-pick the code for the provisions they preferred. She did not know if the application of the old code in this case would benefit the property owner, but thought for fairness and consistency, those who objected to the code imposed on their property since they purchased it should not be able to take advantage of the provisions they preferred in the current code. Mr. Clark found it troubling that some referred to Ballot Measure 37 as “the problem or the danger or the consequences,” a negative tone which he believed presupposed the council’s actions about what was right. He thought one of the councilors’ duties as elected officials was to safeguard people’s rights, and that was what Ballot Measure 37 was intended to do. He did not find all the claims troubling when people were acting to protect their rights. He asked the effect of the amendment. Mr. Klein said the legal effect of the amendment would be to take the property back to the code in effect before the update. Heather O’Donnell of the Planning Division indicated that many of the commercial standards in the current code were in the past code as well. The only standard that appeared to make much of a difference was the height standard; prior to the update there was no height restriction in commercial zones. Now the height limitation was 120 feet, which did not appear to be an issue in this case. Ms. Solomon felt the amendment being offered was illogical. If Ms. Bettman felt the code was so valuable, Ms. Solomon questioned why she would want to forego all of it on the basis of one Ballot Measure 37 application. She said the council should be careful in such instances, and asked what the council’s reaction would have been if height was an issue for this project. She found the amendment counter-productive. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about what year the property was purchased, City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated it was purchased in 1994. Noting that the language she offered was drafted by Mr. Klein, Ms. Bettman asked why the amendment referred to the day before the code was adopted as opposed to 1994. Ms. Bettman said the theory she was proceeding under was that such claimants wanted to be subject only to the code in place when they bought their property and no other code. She thought that to be consistent, the council should direct that the property in question revert to the code provisions in place at the time of purchase. That may or may not provide more latitude to the property owner while at the same time denying those property owners the benefit of the updated code as well as giving the City a consistent standard. Mr. Clark moved to extend time for the meeting until the council completed the item. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Zelenka expressed concern about the principle involved in the amendment and what would happen if extended to other properties with older claims. He asked if that would mean the council would go back to no code in some instances, because in that case, he could “not go there.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 14, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pryor said he would be more willing to support someone seeking a partial waiver of the code as opposed to a full waiver. He did not think the amendment helped in regard to what he would want to see come out of the action being contemplated. Responding to Ms. Bettman’s question regarding the date he included in the amendment, Mr. Klein suggested the following revision: “Authorized modification: The current Land Use Code is waived and the Land Use Code in effect on November 16, 1994, is re-imposed for the subject property.” Ms. Bettman and her second, Ms. Ortiz, accepted the revision. Ms. Bettman pointed out her amendment did not waive the entire code, but merely put in place the provisions that existed when the property was purchased. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz voting yes. The motion passed 6:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 14, 2007 Page 3 Work Session