Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: May 14, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2007, Work Session, February 28, 2007, Work Session, March 12, 2007, Work Session, March 12, 2007, City Council Meeting, and April 18, 2007, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. February 26, 2007, Work Session B. February 28, 2007, Work Session C. March 12, 2007, Work Session D. March 12, 2007, City Council Meeting E. April 18, 2007, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070514\S0705142A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: February 26, 2007—Regular Meeting TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Linda Henry = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 3/08/07 llh Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 4/3 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/4 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A 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 allow drinking on game days in the proposed areas was a concern that the roads would continue to be at risk MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting 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. 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, MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting 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. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting 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 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting 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, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 26, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: February 28, 2007 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 4/23 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 5/9 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 5/9 ky Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B Formatted: Top: 0.44" M I N U T E S Formatted: Font: 12 pt Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall Formatted: Right February 28, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. In the absence of Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy, who with Councilor Bonny Bettman was on official City business in Washington, DC, Council President Ortiz called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Imposing Fees on Unoccupied Downtown Buildings Acting City Manager Angel Jones introduced Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman, who reported that staff had done limited research on the issue of taxing unoccupied buildings. He discussed the upsides and downsides of the concept. Mr. Weinman said that one outcome of such a fee might be that it could increase the amount of space occupied downtown, creating more vitality on the streets. There was also the potential for getting some revenue to support downtown services. On the other hand, there was a concern that such a fee would encourage inactive or marginal uses in downtown. If the fee was not high enough, it might not be a sufficient disincentive to property owners. Mr. Weinman said that because of State tax law, there were limitations on how the City could assess fees to such properties. Split rate taxation was not legal in the State of Oregon, and all must be taxed at the same rate. He suggested some sort of nuisance fee might be a more viable alternative. Mr. Weinman anticipated there would be questions raised about the definition of occupied space versus non- occupied space, and what percentage of the space in question was occupied with what use. He cited the Shafer building and former Bon Marché building as examples. Both are three-story buildings with two occupied floors. In the case of the Shafer building, the bottom and second floor contain office spaces and the third floor is vacant. In the case of the Bon building, the second and third floors are occupied and the first floor is vacant. From the street, the two buildings have very different appearances, but from the standpoint of use, they are somewhat similar. Mr. Weinman invited questions. Ms. Taylor clarified the uses in the Center Court building and suggested that the building was not completely in use as offices. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor determined from Russ Brink of Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEI) that DEI charged business owners .16 cents per occupied square foot for the downtown service district through an agreement with the City of Eugene. It was possible the collection of a fee on unoccupied buildings could be contracted out to such an entity. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Weinman suggested that a marginal use depended on one’s point of view, but he cited as a possible example a plasma donation center that operated in the Shafer building in the past. It was a very active use and profitable for the building owner, but it created a street atmosphere that was not very positive in terms of its contribution to the long-term development of downtown. Ms. Taylor suggested the council could make the fee high enough to motivate property owners. She asked about administration of the fees. Mr. Weinman said that was undetermined at this time. Ms. Taylor asked about the reference in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) to an absorption vacancy. Mr. Weinman posited the example of a new five-story office building where it could take a while for the vacancies to fill. He said the council might need to answer the question of how long a space must be vacant before a fee was charged. Ms. Taylor clarified that staff was suggesting such a fee might discourage new construction in downtown. Mr. Weinman concurred. Ms. Taylor noted that the AIS indicated the fee might encourage higher density, but she did not think the Cit was encouraging that now by leaving all those buildings vacant. Ms. Taylor noted that the AIS suggested the fees and penalties might discourage development, but she thought that was a matter of opinion as the opposite might occur. She recalled hearing a photographer say he would love to locate in downtown but could not afford the rent. She thought it would be very attractive to have a photographer or artists occupying downtown space and placing photographs and art in the windows. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the council’s ability to impose such a fee as it related to property tax law, Mr. Weinman said staff did not have an answer to that question. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that generally, the council could do anything not prohibited by State or local law. The City would have to work within the existing limitations created by ballot measures 5, 47, and 50. He was sure, however, that he could craft something within those limitations. He said the council could call such an assessment a fee or a tax or whatever it wanted; the courts would examine the characteristics of the assessment. He suggested the issue was more of a political than a legal one. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said the downtown occupancy fee was imposed by the City but the City contracted with DEI to collect it. Ms. Taylor suggested that a fee on unoccupied buildings would not be any more of a tax on unoccupied buildings. Mr. Klein said one difference was that the rationale for the fee on occupied properties was that occupied properties created more of a burden on the City than unoccupied property. However, he said, “that was a long time ago,” and if clarification of that information was important, he would get back to the council. Ms. Solomon believed the concept of charging unoccupied properties a fee was unproductive, punitive, and inconsistent with the City’s downtown planning. She said it was not entirely the fault of property owners that their businesses were not occupied, given the atmosphere that currently existed downtown. There was no surrounding environment to help make businesses prosper. She perceived the improvement of downtown as a partnership between the City and downtown property owners. She said if she was a property owner in MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 2 Work Session downtown charged a fee for having vacant space, she would find a marginal tenant just to fill the space. She reiterated that was counter-productive to what the City wanted to do. Ms. Solomon said the City was on the cusp of making a change, noting the recently issued Request for Qualifications for downtown and the th forward progress of the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street development. Ms. Ortiz believed the subject was worth discussing because of the frustration expressed by some people in the community who believed there could be a different way for the City to do business with the people who owned property in the downtown. For whatever reason, there were many vacancies downtown and they became an attractive nuisance, and she was anecdotally informed that those businesses took more City resources that occupied buildings. She had supported Ms. Taylor’s request for the work session because it was frustrating to “hear these things in the circles that we go in” that business owners purposely leave buildings vacant, or do business in such a way that people could not rely on them for the longevity of their businesses. She did not know if she would support such a fee, but she thought the City needed to find a way to offer the services downtown needed and that everyone who owned property downtown should pay for those services. Ms. Ortiz referred to the open hole on Willamette Street, and suggested it was a statement by the property owner in question, who had done nothing about the hole for years. She said that there was considerable foot traffic in the area and speculated that no good was occurring in the vicinity, so City resources were being used. She said it was the responsibility of property owners to take care of their space. The City had no resources to do so unless it charged them a fee. Mr. Pryor said he tried to envision the outcome of the council’s discussion and said if it was to encourage development in the downtown and improve the appearance of downtown that was a good outcome. If it was to generate revenue to help downtown, that was also a good outcome, although the AIS was not specific as to what the potential support to downtown services would be. Mr. Pryor said the question he asked was whether the ordinance would have that outcome. He suggested that in the short-term more tenants could be brought to downtown, but the tenant might be worse than the empty building. Mr. Pryor said the question of whether an unoccupied building was more attractive than an occupied building depended on who owned and kept up the building. He noted the nexus pointed out by Mr. Klein in relationship to the current fee and services and thought that a point for the council to keep in mind. Mr. Pryor preferred to take a carrot approach to downtown as opposed to a stick approach. He did not think the City was ready for the stick, given that it was still working on the carrot. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mike Sullivan of Planning and Development said staff did not have current vacancy rates in the two-block area between Willamette and Charnelton streets but it appeared to have the most apparent vacancies, about 25 percent. Mr. Weinman added that he believed many of the apparent vacancies were being used for other purposes, such as storage. Mr. Zelenka asked staff to address the perception that property owners left the properties vacant deliberately and refused to do improvements or sign long-term tenant leases. He said long-term vacancies that left storefronts empty detracted from all the positive outcomes he desired for downtown. Whether the vacancies existed on purpose or for lack of caring or lack of trying, Mr. Zelenka did not think they created an atmosphere conducive to getting a better downtown. He also thought the City needed to force the owner of the hole on Willamette Street to do something with that property. He thought it was the role of the City to promote an environment downtown where people wanted to do business. Mr. Zelenka asked why the former Bon Marché building was not included in the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for West Broadway. Mr. Sullivan said the building and adjacent Kaufman Building were owned by MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 3 Work Session the same ownership group. A portion of the Bon building was being leased. The buildings were not available in same way as other buildings were when the City began to assemble options. Mr. Zelenka was anxious to get on with the RFQ for the area, suggesting that once the area developed, many of the issues of concern would go away. However, that did not address the hole on Willamette Street. Mr. Sullivan said the hole mentioned by Mr. Zelenka was included in the footprint of the RFQ. Mr. Clark pointed out that there were two holes downtown, and one of them was owned by the City. He thought that people watching might be curious about that. He pointed out the City had options on all the properties of concern and had the power and ability to affect the future of downtown without being punitive and without creating an adversarial atmosphere in downtown. He looked forward to a council discussion of desirable outcomes and ways to create new innovative ways to address downtown’s needs. Mr. Clark asked why business owners would invest in downtown when the City had never been serious about providing public safety downtown. He asked why business owners would invest in downtown when the City had created a situation though its inaction that made it almost impossible for businesses to be successful downtown. He cited as an example a man who passed out in a bathroom at the Chevron Station th on 7 Avenue with a needle in his arm, requiring a public safety response. When the man was released without any citation for drugs that he may or may not have had, he stood in front of the business next door and harassed them for the rest of the day. He suggested that downtown had a climate that the City had the opportunity to improve. He wanted the City to partner with the private sector downtown in a more creative and positive way. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Solomon’s remarks about the fee as counterproductive to the City’s downtown planning. He agreed the fee was a tax. Mr. Poling said if the City required property owners to fill their vacancies, they would fill them with less desirable options, not with what the City was looking for to create a vibrant and active downtown. He pointed out the City had some incentives in place and had the RFQ process to consider as well. He reiterated that imposing a new tax on unoccupied spaces would be unproductive. Ms. Taylor contended that the unoccupied properties downtown created more need for City services. She suggested that the fee already being charged to occupied properties could merely be extended to unoccupied buildings, which she thought should pay more. Regarding the surrounding environment being unattractive to businesses, she maintained that it was unattractive because of the vacancies. If there were more people in downtown, the undesirable people such as the drug addict mentioned by Mr. Clark would merely fade into the background and become part of the “local color.” Ms. Taylor did not see the fee as being punitive; she perceived it as merely as a way to ensure that the owners of unoccupied buildings contributed their share. Mr. Pryor thought the discussion was helpful but it reinforced for him the need to integrate it into the larger discussion of downtown. He said there may be situations were the stick was more appropriate than the carrot, such as in the case of the hole on Willamette Street, but he wanted to approach those issues on a case-by-case basis. He suggested the discussion be tabled for the time being so the City Council could be more effective with an overall strategy. Speaking to the subject of the City-owned hole, Ms. Ortiz thought the City Council did due diligence with that site in its attempt to locate ORI in downtown. She did not think that nothing had been done. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz asked if the owners of unoccupied buildings were paying any fee. Mr. Weinman said the fee was charged only to occupied buildings. He clarified that the City collected the fee and contracted for services with DEI. Ms. Ortiz said there was a community perception the City only wanted desirable people downtown and that offended her, as residents from all walks of life were here together as community members. She took offense to comments about undesirable or marginal businesses. Mr. Zelenka did not think it was fair for Mr. Clark to compare the City-owned hole to the hole on Willamette Street, given that the City had tried to bring ORI downtown and was still attempting to secure a use for the space and the owner of the property in question had done nothing to develop it. He also expressed support for the use of incentives and partnerships and that was why he was excited about the Broadway RFQ. If that failed, he wanted to consider the fee. He believed the work session was proposed because of some people’s frustration with the lack of activity on the part of private property owners “sitting” on downtown property. Speaking to Ms. Ortiz’s remarks, Mr. Poling said that when he discussed less-than-desirable tenants, he was not referring to a person or racial group, but was contrasting an active, vibrant exchange of people, such as a coffee shop or theater or retail store versus a warehouse or single-office use. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged Mr. Poling’s remarks. th Mr. Clark said his point in bringing up the 10 Avenue hole was that the general public did not differentiate between the holes or were knowledgeable about the City’s efforts to fill it. He thought it “seems kind of funny” that the City was looking to treat one punitively when the other was the City’s. Mr. Clark expressed appreciation for Ms. Ortiz’s remarks and said when he offered his anecdote he was not commenting about any particular type of person. Mr. Clark said he had once owned an advertising agency that had the Oakway Mall as a tenant, and it had been difficult to market that facility because the mixture of uses did not attract customers. The mall was now very vibrant and attracted people because it was full of businesses and opportunities that created demand. He said that the community’s downtown had done nothing for many years to create demand for people to go there. The City had never done the things that were needed in the way of enhancing public safety downtown that would create the opportunity to bring in someone who could create demand. Ms. Taylor said that when she thought of undesirable people she had been thinking of the person mentioned by Mr. Clark, who could be considered undesirable, but blended into downtown so it did not matter. She said that the downtown needed a mix of people and different types of businesses, not just one type of person th or business. She had objected to the ordinance banning dogs and skateboards on 13 Avenue, which was intended to eliminate those who were considered undesirable people. Instead, those people moved downtown, and were subsequently displaced to a park. The City could not make them disappear. She thought that downtown should be a place for everybody. Ms. Taylor reiterated that the fee was not punitive as it merely treated unoccupied buildings in the same way as occupied buildings; but it might be a small incentive for property owners to secure tenants. She thought any tenant was better than no tenant as occupancy created life on the streets. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to consider the issue in the context of an action plan on the council’s Downtown Goal. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor moved to substitute motion Option 1 as reflected in the AIS. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Zelenka, and Mr. Pryor voting yes. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Pryor to repeat the motion and then indicated her desire to change her vote. Mr. Klein indicated that would require the concurrence of the council. If the council did not concur, she could request recognition by the chair and offer a motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Klein said that Ms. Taylor was not suggesting she would offer a motion to reconsider, but that she be allowed to change her vote; if the council agreed to that, the minutes would reflect that the vote as 4:3 in support of the motion. If the motion was to reconsider, that would require Ms. Taylor to have been on the prevailing side of the vote. Mr. Klein explained that the council could vote something down 25 times and someone could make the same motion again if the item was back on the agenda. Mr. Poling objected to Ms. Taylor’s desire to change her vote. B. WORK SESSION: Gated Communities—Construction and Maintenance of Private Streets Public Works Director Kurt Corey reported that staff understood the item to be a discussion of how private streets came into being and the maintenance requirements and standards for those streets. He provided some history of the topic, saying that the norm in Eugene was the dedication and construction of public streets. There were about 550 centerline miles of roadway in the city; of those, 34 miles were private streets. The Land Use Code Update had provided more clarification about when such streets would be created. Mr. Corey said that the code now indicated that to the extent streets and alleys were constructed they would be public unless deemed unnecessary to meet the City’s connectivity requirements, which were included in Chapter 9 of the code. Mr. Corey said that private streets must be built to the same structural standard as public streets and certified by a licensed engineer. They must also meet other street standards such as intersection spacing, centerline radius length, street grades, sight distance, minimum paving width, and curb height where curbs were deemed necessary. Private streets were generally chosen by developers to reduce upfront costs. There were also fewer amenities associated with such streets. Homeowner associations were typically responsible for the maintenance of such streets through the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) associated with the development in question. Speaking to the question of whether the City could assume responsibility for the maintenance of such streets, Mr. Corey said yes, and that would require the homeowners’ association to dedicate the needed right-of-way and bring the street up to current City standards prior to the transfer. He said that an inquiry by staff indicated that there had been a mobile home park in west Eugene whose owner desired to convert to a mobile home subdivision. The right-of-way in that park had been upgraded and dedicated to the City. Mr. Corey had no recommendation to offer as he believed the issue was covered by Chapter 9. His presentation was informational in nature. Ms. Taylor had hoped staff would use the materials she brought back from the National League of Cities Conference for the purpose of further research. She had attended a session on the hazards of gated communities and planned developments and provided some information to City Manager Dennis Taylor to share with staff. She had anticipated the work session would occur later in the year after staff research. Ms. Taylor said that one of the speakers at the session was a professor from the University of Chicago, who MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 6 Work Session suggested that such developments were “disasters waiting to happen,” while another speaker thought they were working out. Her question was about City liability, and what it owed to its citizens even if they made mistakes about where they bought their houses. Ms. Taylor said there were sites mentioned in the session where the streets had collapsed and residents lost egress and ingress. Swimming pools became hazards. She asked if the City was liable, or only the homeowners’ associations. She received calls from Eugene residents complaining about conditions in their housing development and asking if the City was responsible. She said if the City was not responsible, perhaps it needed to be more careful about how it permitted such developments. An example of her concern was Whitbeck Boulevard, where residents paid to upgrade the street and then the City approved the construction of three more houses and refused to take responsibility for the damage done to the road during the construction of the houses and maintenance afterwards. Ms. Taylor suggested there was no point in further council discussion until it had more information from staff. Ms. Ortiz asked how many gated communities there were in Eugene. Mr. Corey did not know; he was personally aware of four. He said that more often than not, streets within gated communities were private but that was not always the case. He did not know what percentage of the 34 miles of private streets that were now in Eugene was in gated communities, but some certainly were. Ms. Ortiz suggested that gated communities were in opposition to the City’s density goals as she believed that such development had larger lot sizes and were not as “infilled as they could be.” She believed that such communities were attempts to create a community, which was good in one sense, but in another sense, it was “keeping out regular folks who maybe don’t have any business there.” She said if the City was paying for the streets, it did not make sense to her that it would encourage “this kind of growth.” Mr. Zelenka was also surprised by how quickly the work session was scheduled and the content of the AIS, which was not congruent with the interest expressed by Ms. Taylor. Mr. Zelenka asked how many miles of private streets were built before the Land Use Code update. Mr. Corey believed most were built before the update. Mr. Zelenka asked what City standard existed currently, and if it included sidewalks. Mr. Corey said that the pavement on private streets must meet the City’s structural design standards for public streets but the street did not necessarily have to include amenities such as curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, which were included in the City standard. He added that the design standards were current criteria for private streets, so a developer could not avoid City grade standards or sight distance requirements, for example, by making a street private rather than public. Mr. Corey reiterated the primary difference between public and private streets was the connectivity standard. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Corey concurred that if private streets built under current standards were “to revert back” to the City, they would not require much in improvements in terms of their structural integrity. However, Mr. Corey pointed out, City assumption of responsibility for such streets would require a right-of-way transfer, installation of curbs and gutters, and the installation of sidewalks, and there might also be drainage issues to address. He believed that those private streets built to current standards did not create an additional liability for those purchasing property in such developments. Mr. Zelenka raised the issue of the potential conversion of mobile home parks to subdivisions, and asked what would happen to the streets when that occurred and the low-income residents had no money to bring the private streets up to standard. Mr. Corey said there would be a cost associated with that and suggested it could involve the creation of a local improvement district. He thought the design standards would be fairly nominal and low-cost. He noted that the City had a low-income grant assistance program for MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 7 Work Session assessments and other mechanisms available to “soften the blow.” Mr. Zelenka asked if the City could exempt such subdivisions from the street standard. Mr. Klein did not know if the current code would allow such an exemption, but suggested the council could amend the code. Mr. Zelenka asked what happened when a private development abandoned its assets, they turned into a nuisance, and the property owner then deferred the problem to the City. He found that to be the most compelling issue in regard to the topic. Mr. Zelenka said he did not mind private development but objected to such a development throwing its problems onto the public. Speaking to Ms. Ortiz’s comments, Mr. Poling said the two gated communities of which he was aware, Quail Run and Lakeview Estates, were built on a limited amount of space and the density involved was much more than a traditional subdivision. The goal of those developments was to increase density. Mr. Poling noted that in the past he had heard the City Manager admonished for not getting something on the council calendar fast enough. There were no items scheduled for the work session until the two items on the agenda came up. He suggested that the manager and mayor were “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” Mr. Poling said a scheduling opportunity had arisen and the manager had been attempting to meet the council’s needs. Acting City Manager Jones apologized that the item was on the agenda as she had judged it significant enough to get it before the council prior to the March break. The item had been pulled previously, and she considered it a high priority to get it on an agenda soon, and particularly when Ms. Taylor was available. Mr. Clark acknowledged the concern expressed by Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka in regard to the level of the City’s responsibility for private property. He asked how many of the private gated communities had clubhouses and pools. Mr. Corey did not know. He said that the Public Works Department received periodic inquiries, perhaps once or twice yearly, about caring for private infrastructure, but he had not been presented with any requests related to pools or clubhouses. Mr. Clark asked staff if it was the City’s goal to create equal density throughout the community, or if its goal was to create higher densities downtown. Principal Planner Steve Nystrom said that given the choice, he would say downtown was where the City planned to concentrate more density. He said that the City’s planning documents do not take a uniform approach to achieving grow throughout the community. Those plans do identify downtown as a focus. Mr. Clark determined from Mr. Nystrom that it was the City’s policy to create a higher density downtown than at the edges. Mr. Nystrom said the City took a more strategic approach toward densification in other areas. The selection of those areas was a political choice that the council made over time. Mr. Clark said it appeared the City was trying to create greater density downtown than at the edges. Mr. Nystrom agreed. Mr. Zelenka asked about the rest of the city. Mr. Nystrom said that did not mean the rest of the city was treated uniformly, even though downtown might be the highest priority for density. The City made decisions about where other areas should grow at greater densities. For example, the Quail Run and Chase areas were targeted for higher densities than immediate adjacent areas, such as the Harlow area. Mr. Pryor thought there were only a few true gated communities in Eugene with true physical gates. There were private developments that allowed for more easy access, and the streets they contained may or may not be public. In terms of clubhouses, he could think of one gated community with a clubhouse that could potentially be abandoned or walked away from. Mr. Pryor said was also aware of a private playground that was abandoned and another jurisdiction was asked to accept responsibility for it, but the jurisdiction had the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 8 Work Session option of rejecting it. He thought the question of whether the City was obliged to take over abandoned property was another discussion for another time. Mr. Klein emphasized that the City had no obligation to take over private property or liability, but that did not address the issue of hazard abatement from an abandoned clubhouse, for example. He suggested staff return with written answers to the council’s questions and information about current tools and standards. Ms. Ortiz concluded discussion on the item and recognized Ms. Taylor. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to consider the issue in the context of an action plan on the council’s Downtown Goal. The motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Ms. Taylor thanked Acting City Manager Jones for scheduling the work sessions. The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 9 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: March 12, 2007 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 4/11/07rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 5/9 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 5/9 ky Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall March 12, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman (Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bett- man participated via speakerphone). Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy related that Ms. Taylor was in Washington, DC, representing the City of Eugene at the National League of Cities (NLC) conference. Mayor Piercy reported that Marina Rikovinova, a citizen of Eugene’s Sister City of Irkutsk, Russia, had visited during the previous week in order to attend the E-Law Conference at the University of Oregon. She said Ms. Rikovinova received an award for her work to protect Lake Baikal from an oil pipeline. Ms. Rikovinova had spoken with representatives of the City and of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) regarding sustainability and how the City and its publicly owned utility could work with the Mayor of Irkutsk on some of these same issues. Mayor Piercy said she had helped to kick off the Climate Masters Program. She said Sarah Mazze was leading an effort to teach people how to assess their own carbon footprint, reduce it, and help others reduce theirs. She related that she had led a sustainability tour for state financial leaders. She thanked Connie Bennett, Glen Svendsen, Pat Farr, and Emily Proudfoot for helping with the tour. Mr. Clark thanked staff and especially Public Service Officer Michelle Mortensen, and Natural Resources Specialist Laurie Mullen, for taking the time to help him become educated about the problem people in Ward 5 were experiencing with the recent nutria population explosion in the Delta Ponds area. He said the people who lived in the Garden Isle Estates were experiencing an infestation of nutria. He appreciated staff’s work to address the problem. Ms. Solomon reported that she attended the Housing Policy Board (HPB) meeting. She said the HPB received its Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for affordable housing projects and was reviewing them. She stated that the HPB would make a recommendation to the City Council after the review. She noted that the HPB was also still moving forward on the manufactured housing park ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Poling acknowledged a copy of the letter in council packets from Ada Lee indicating her unwillingness to sell her property. He asked if there would be a follow-up meeting in order to consider a change of plans for the City Hall complex. City Manager Dennis Taylor replied that this would be one of the subjects to be discussed at a workshop in April, after the council break. Mr. Poling noted that although he had missed the meeting for elected officials at which Mel Pine from PeaceHealth made a presentation, he had been able to attend another meeting with Chamber of Commerce members at which the same information was presented. Mr. Poling congratulated the members of the Eugene Police Department who were promoted on March 7, which included Capt. Pete Kerns, Lt. Pete Aguilar, Lt. Tony Baker, Sgt. Mike Gilbert, Sgt. Carolyn Mason, and Jessica Shankle, who was promoted to Records Specialist A. Mr. Poling announced that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was starting its budget process and would hold its first public hearing on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), budget, and user rate at the Springfield City Hall on April 20 at 7:30 a.m. He said this would be brought before the City Council and the Lane Board of County Commissioners in May or June. He added that people were welcome to provide testimony during the public comment portion of the MWMC meeting scheduled for March 15. Mr. Zelenka arrived. Continuing, Mr. Poling stated that at the March 6 meeting of the Lane Transit District (LTD) EmX Steering Committee it was reported that the Franklin Corridor experienced a 67 percent increase in ridership over nd Route 11. He reported that there were over 5,000 boardings on the EmX on March 2 alone. He related that LTD had done some timing adjustments in order to eliminate some of the back-ups caused by the traffic signals, adding that the LTD Board expressed gratitude for the assistance Public Works Department employees provided. Mr. Poling also reported that he attended the Police Commission meeting on March 8. He said Police th Auditor Chris Beamud indicated that the target date for opening the new storefront office at 8 Avenue and Olive Street was between May 15 and June 1. Ms. Ortiz said she was also at the Police Commission meeting. She related that the commission had been updated on the five-year strategic plan. Ms. Ortiz extended kudos to the Willamette High School girls’ basketball team who recently won the state championship. Ms. Ortiz stated that she attended the Bethel School District enrollment project, which included a presenta- tion on the background of the housing there in order to address the coming increase in students. Mr. Poling added his congratulations to the North Eugene High School boys’ basketball team. Mr. Clark added his congratulations to Sheldon High School. Ms. Taylor reported that she perceived the main theme of the NLC conference to be sustainability and a focus on saving the environment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka related that he attended the City Club gathering the previous week and Bill Sizemore had been there. He stated that Mr. Sizemore had four items he was proposing for ballot measures: a measure that would eliminate the requirement for a building permit for any improvements costing $35,000 or less, a measure that would disallow contributions to political candidates from entities the candidates were negotiating a contract with, a measure that would provide a property tax exemption for senior citizens, and a measure that would create an immersion program for foreign language students. He commented that the notion that building permits would not be needed was odd given that most regulations were for safety and health reasons. He said he did not support any of Mr. Sizemore’s potential ballot measures. City Manager Taylor acknowledged the hard work of the Eugene Airport for gaining direct flights to Los Angeles and Las Vegas. He averred that those flights were “huge” in terms of economic development for the community. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 5:41 p.m. B. WORK SESSION: Review of West Broadway Request for Qualifications Responses City Manager Taylor averred that revitalization of the downtown area was “really just putting together a string of successes” and making sure decisions were made thoughtfully and deliberately with the goal in mind of having a vibrant 24-hour downtown. He underscored that the task before the council at the present work session would be to select the team or teams that should move forward to negotiate the project details with the City, and not to determine what those details should be at this time. He reiterated that this was only the initial step in a multi-step process. He anticipated bringing back future decisions for council action. He asked Susan Muir, Executive Director of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), to provide the context for the discussion. Ms. Muir felt this discussion represented a milestone as the decision before the council was an important decision for the community. She stressed that PDD staff had tried to be objective in moving through the responses. She noted that PDD added three people to the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC): a tenant on Broadway, an individual representing the arts community, and a member of the 2000 Downtown Vision Committee. Denny Braud, Senior Development Analyst, stated that the West Broadway redevelopment area consisted of the two blocks along Broadway between Willamette and Charnelton Streets. He reviewed the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process and the RFQs that were received. He conveyed staff’s recommendation to select KWG Development Partners for the project. Ms. Muir said that in talking to developers through the RFQ process, she surmised that they recognized the city of Eugene was ready for this change. She related that in talking with similar cities across the country about this type of revitalization, staff heard that developing a downtown such as the one in Eugene was like a “20-year overnight success” as it would take a long time “to get there.” She underscored that PDD staff made the recommendation to select KWG Development Partners in order to move forward to the next step. Ms. Taylor asked how much revenue the City received from the Broadway Place commercial space. Mr. Braud indicated he could research the answer for her. Ms. Taylor remarked that this was significant as she thought most of that space was currently vacant. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor opined that part of the 24-hour activity of a revitalized downtown would be “destroyed by the threat of this project.” Her first choice for the proposal would have been Greg Bryant’s proposal, as he was a local person. Her second choice was the Beam Development proposal, which did not include a second phase. She felt the private market could take care of the rest. She stressed that her first principle would be to not destroy what was already working and she listed several of the existing businesses in the area that were thriving. Ms. Bettman was excited by some of the components of the proposals. She expressed concern that the City had done an RFQ, which in her opinion meant the City should be evaluating the developers based on their qualifications with regard to this type of development. It seemed to her that the recommendation relied heavily on the components of the proposals, which she did not consider to be fair, given that the City had purportedly not asked for proposals. She felt the process had resulted in proposals from three very qualified developers. She was reluctant to limit the decision to one developer at this point. She was also opposed to consolidating that much of downtown under one owner. She said pursuing proposals from three developers would allow the City to maximize Beam Development’s experience with historical restoration, to maximize Midtown Development’s experience with housing, and to maximize KWG Development Partners’ experience with mixed-use projects. th Ms. Bettman asked what the net gain would be in housing units at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street with the KWG Development proposal. Mr. Braud replied that the proposal included 106 market rate condomin- ium ownership units. He said the net gain would be in the neighborhood of 300 housing units. Mr. Poling said in looking at what KWG had done elsewhere it seemed to him that the ERAC and staff had made the right recommendation. He averred that KWG Development was proposing exactly what the City wanted done downtown and they had the track record to support it. While he appreciated the interest shown by the other developers, he considered the KWG proposal to be the best. Mr. Clark observed that the downtown was not working at present. He felt the City was standing on the “cusp” of something that would work. He said he would support the staff and ERAC recommendation. He noted that he had some thoughts of working Beam Development into the project in some way, but he had ascertained from the City Manager that while some of the developers might be willing to work together, they did not want to do so. Mr. Braud reported that staff had engaged in detailed conversations about the possibility of moving forward with two developers. He said it was a combination of economics, as one would lose the economies of scale a larger project would provide and the developers would be forced to compete for tenants in two different projects. He also noted that staging construction would present logistical issues. Mr. Clark said the Beam Development proposal caused him some concern as it included a desire to do the development on a fee basis; he preferred, when entering into a public/private partnership, there be some means of shared risk. He stated that another concern for him was that was the potential increases in cost for the project the City faced with any kind of delay. Also, he said the Beam Development proposal limiting the Washburn Building to two floors ran counter to the development goal of significantly increasing density and height downtown. Mr. Zelenka thanked all of the developers for their responses. He considered them all to be well-thought out. He thought the “devil was in the details” of the proposals. He envisioned the downtown as first a neighborhood that had mixed uses, residential and commercial. He averred that housing was what would MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 4 Work Session “make it all work.” While he did support the public/private investment in the downtown, he was a little concerned that the City was “getting the cart before the horse” as it was an RFQ and not a Request for Proposals (RFP). He felt the evaluation had been done based on the one that had the best proposal instead of the one with the best qualifications. He liked the KWG proposal, although he had concerns regarding how it would be consistent with the sustainability goals of the City. He liked the Beam Development proposal for reuse of the Centre Court and Washburn Buildings, but he was not keen on their proposal for City ownership. However, he approved of Beam’s experience in constructing Leading in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) buildings. He had also liked the Midtown Developers proposal, though he felt it was more limited as their experience was a “little low on the commercial side.” He did not consider the Bryant proposal or the CenterCal Properties proposal because he did not think either had the right qualifications. Mr. Zelenka did not want to pursue one proposal at this juncture. He also did not believe enough discussion of the public investment had transpired. He did not think it was a time to “go fast.” He stressed that the investment could be tens of millions of dollars. He did not want to put the City in the position of having to say no to a proposal. Mr. Pryor said he was very impressed by the KWG Development Partners proposal, but he did want additional information. He suggested that the City gain more information from KWG and from Beam Development. He said he would be particularly interested in what Beam would do regarding housing. He liked what KWG had proposed in that regard. He also wanted to ask how the developers would integrate with the culture downtown. He acknowledged the movie theater proposal but he wanted to think beyond a movie theater. He was interested in understanding how the proposals would interact with existing downtown businesses as well. He stressed that although he wanted more information, he did not want the process to take another three months. Mayor Piercy said she was interested in how the City would advance its slogan ‘The World’s Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors’ with whichever developments it opted for. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Braud stated that initially KWG Development Partners talked of a concept that would remove the Washburn Building and reuse the Centre Court Building, but staff had conveyed the community’s desire to salvage the Washburn Building given that there was not a great stock of older buildings downtown. He said KWG indicated it was open to the idea of working around the building should the community wish to retain it. Mayor Piercy said given the lack of older buildings in the downtown, it would be good to see if developers could come up with concepts that included retention of one or both of those buildings. Regarding comments about not wanting to select one developer at this juncture, she felt that one developer would not ultimately own every piece of property in the area. Mr. Braud conveyed staff’s uncertainty on whether the City would gain much by moving forward into the second phase of development with two potential developers instead of one. He related that in the case of KWG, the housing units would be sold and the hotel that was planned would be sold, but the retail space, grocery, and cinema would be retained for long-term ownership. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Braud for the presentation and expressed appreciation for the five RFQ submittals. She found it hard to conceptualize undertaking the project with the Urban Renewal District, which was funded by taxing the community. She did not want to lose sight of the fiscal environment the State currently faced. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Ortiz stressed the importance of making the downtown welcoming to everybody. She averred that the Oakway Mall was often held up as a shining example of success, but the area’s low-income population was not represented in the people who shopped there. She declared that it was not the people who were downtown now that were the problem, it was the “bad behavior.” She felt the bad behavior would go away with an increase in the number of people and families that went downtown to shop, eat, and participate in activities. Ms. Bettman said she was nervous because the council was discussing the criteria on the basis of the proposal because the proposal was conceptual and the components therein could “go away.” She had seen “huge caveats” in the KWG Development Partners proposal on elements such as the housing piece. She averred that the City had KWG Development on board already as the developer had been awarded the RFP th for the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street site. She thought the City should maximize the strength that each developer brought to the table and utilize it so that the broadest range of community values could be included in the proposal. She felt that if the City should go ahead with one developer with a grand concept and the community resisted the concept, the City would face delays in the project and would not be in a position to backtrack. She added that she thought Midtown Development demonstrated a vision in terms of what they had done in other communities and what they had done with commercial space. Mr. Zelenka stressed that he did not wish to delay the project. However, he desired more detail and competition in the process, especially as it related to how much the City would have to invest in the project. He noted his intention to place a substitute motion that would include KWG Development Partners, Beam Development, and Midtown Development. He averred that Midtown deserved to be in the mix because of its focus on housing. He questioned whether the community was prepared to invest $30 or $40 million in a project. Mr. Clark understood that the project would utilize tax increment financing. He did not think the City was having a discussion on asking people for money. Mr. Braud responded that the City would be using existing resources and no new tax was proposed. City Manager Taylor clarified that the scope of the financing would depend on the scope of the project and the tools that would be used. He said there was a relative ratio of private equity investment that would be leveraged by the incentives of public investment. Mr. Clark averred that the council should not be arguing about how to divide the pie; rather it should be discussing ways to “make the pie bigger.” He believed this project would do so by virtue of the fact that it would bring more successful and sustainable businesses to the City of Eugene. He underscored that the City had a working relationship with KWG Development Partners that worked well. He asked what further work the City could do to discover more about the qualifications of the developers who had responded to the RFQ if the City was only talking about qualifications and not about specific plans at this point. Mr. Braud pointed out that staff had asked for a concept as part of the response as a submission require- ment. He said if the council was looking for the financial details, it would be simpler to gain this type of detail from one entity. He added that he was unsure of how much time and effort a developer would put into further development of a project without a firm commitment. Mr. Pryor said he trusted KWG Development Partners and would support the staff recommendation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling stressed that the motion would specify that the project would be explored in greater detail and that the information would come back before the council. He reiterated that at this point the council was looking at the qualifications the developer brought to the table. Ms. Taylor commented that she was willing to support selecting Beam Development. She felt more public participation was needed before the council took its next step. She averred that tax increment money was the people’s money. Ms. Solomon felt strongly that KWG Development Partners answered the qualification question that the City put out and backed it up with a solid concept proposal. She said the proposal addressed the council’s questions and “got to the heart” of the issues the downtown presented. She acknowledged the interest at the table in Beam Development’s proposal because of the potential rehabilitation of the Washburn and Centre Court buildings. She believed that KWG also could rehabilitate the buildings and was looking toward possible reuse of those buildings. Additionally, Ms. Solomon underscored that the process was not being rushed given that it had been going prior to her tenure as a city councilor. She noted that KWG representatives were present and were hearing the concerns that were being expressed. She averred that this type of project was why the City had urban renewal districts; this was what urban renewal was “all about.” Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the KWG Development Partners proposal. She had been “moved” by the discussion of keeping two developers in play, but she also felt that Beam Development had not demonstrated that it would include a residential component in its plan. In terms of the urban renewal discussion, she acknowledged that some people perceived it as giving away public money and others believed urban renewal represented an investment. She said every time the discussion came up it was “one more circle around the block” as each side had its own perspective and was unlikely to change. Mr. Zelenka related that he had been excited by the Beam Development proposal and the company’s LEED experience and none of the other developers’ proposals had raised that level of excitement. Ms. Ortiz , seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to select KWG Development Partners and direct the Agency Director to work with KWG Development Partners to 1) explore in more detail project concepts, with opportunities for community input, and 2) bring back to the Urban Renewal Agency for review and approval the more detailed project concepts. The more detailed project concepts shall include the development footprint, feasibility of building reuse, transfer of prop- erty, project scale, mix of uses, design, and level of financial participation from the Urban Re- newal Agency. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to substitute a motion to recognize KWG Devel- opment Partners, Beam Development, and Midtown Development as qualified developers and direct the Agency Director to work with them to 1) explore in more detail project concepts, with opportunities for community input, and 2) bring back to the Urban Renewal Agency for review and approval more detailed project concepts. The more detailed project concepts shall address at least the following issues: project cost and scale, the development footprint, mix of uses, transfers of property, design and sustainability, parking requirements, feasibility of building re- use, preservation of Centre Court and Washburn Buildings, preservation of local businesses, and level of financial participation from the Urban Renewal Agency. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman supported the substitute motion. She supported the rehabilitation of existing buildings. She believed utilizing the strengths of several developers was the most prudent move. She likened choosing KWG Development Partners at this juncture to ordering “a mail-order bride.” She thought it was a “huge commitment” to one developer before the particulars of the proposal would be known. Ms. Solomon opposed the substitute motion. She did not believe having one developer would represent a consolidation of downtown because in the end there would be different owners of the buildings. She was concerned that Beam Development did not have a proposal for more than the Washburn and Centre Court Buildings. Mr. Clark reiterated his support for the staff recommendation. He did not want the project to be delayed. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Bettman voting yes and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting no. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition and the substitute motion failed. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, reiterated his substitute motion with the exception of Midtown Development. Ms. Bettman did not think Midtown Development had been discussed enough. She felt Midtown had not submitted as much information as some of the other proposals because the RFQ had not clearly indicated that they should. Mayor Piercy acknowledged Ms. Bettman’s concern, but she felt the RFQ clearly called for concepts. Mr. Clark noted that Beam Development did not have much experience with retail space. He asked staff to speak to that. Mr. Braud replied that Beam Development had done some work with retail space, but it was not their focus or their strength. Mr. Clark asked why two development entities should be kept on the table. There was no response. The vote was a tie, 4:4; Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mayor Piercy voted in fa- vor and the motion passed. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the Eugene City Council at 6:55 p.m. C. ACTION: 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 Im- mediate Effective Date; and Providing a Sunset Date (Jefferson/Far West, MA 06-5, RA 06-3, CA 06-1) City Manager Taylor stated that Terri Harding, Senior Planner for PDD, was present to respond to questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4940, an or- dinance concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to replace the first sentence of section 10 with the following: “This ordinance will be automatically repealed upon the effective date of an Ordinance adopted by the council that (a) establishes area-specific infill standards for the area regulated by the Jefferson/far West Refinement Plan Residential Area Policy 15 and (b) references section 10 of this ordinance.” Ms. Harding pointed out that the amendment changed the ordinance so that it would not have a date certain on the sunset clause and the matter could potentially be returned for council consideration. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Harding affirmed that the repeal of the ordinance would be dependent on another action, the adoption of the area specific infill standards. Ms. Solomon said she was not confident that the area specific infill standards would be completed by January 1. She preferred to leave in the automatic repeal date of 2009. Mr. Zelenka asked what the downside was to not having an automatic repeal. City Manager Taylor replied that the ordinance would have to come back before the council. Ms. Harding added that there were benefits to both approaches. Mr. Pryor liked deadlines because they helped keep an item on task. He preferred the original motion because he felt it would give the council incentive to keep moving on it. Mr. Clark concurred. He said not making the deadline would elucidate another problem that may need to be addressed at that time. He asked Ms. Bettman to clarify her intent. Ms. Bettman averred that the intent of the ordinance was to protect the area while the standards were being developed. She said rather than trying to gauge a specific date, she thought it would make more sense to tie the sunset date to the completion of the work. She asked staff if it was feasible to meet the January deadline. Ms. Harding responded that the infill standards work program had been released in a draft citizen involvement plan and it had a target date of September 2008, for developing a first round of citywide infill standards. She explained that the reason for this was that the direction for the work plan was to develop infill standards for the City as a whole. She said staff would be looking to an advisory committee and to the Planning Commission for direction regarding areas to prioritize for creating area specific standards, but had not yet received such direction. She felt it was doable, however. Ms. Bettman asked if the ordinance would come before the council if it stood without the amendment and had reached its sunset date. City Manager Taylor affirmed that staff would bring it to the council’s attention along with a progress report on where the process was in order to recommend an amendment to extend the time to a date specific. Ms. Taylor indicated her support for the amendment. Ms. Solomon commented that having standards in place would give clarity and the standards would be different by neighborhood. She predicted it would be a little convoluted given the vagaries of Eugene. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 9 Work Session had thought the issue around Area 15 was outside of the citywide infill standards process and that the area would essentially be a test case of sorts. She asked if the council could give direction to prioritize that area. Ms. Harding affirmed that such a direction would provide staff with the clarity to be confident that the deadline could be met. Ms. Solomon remarked that this was very close to micro-managing. She asked to hear more from the City Manager and staff in terms of getting to a larger goal of infill standards. City Manager Taylor indicated that he preferred to keep a date specific, but he said the amendment did not cause him concern. Mr. Clark reiterated his support for keeping the deadline. Mr. Pryor concurred. Mr. Zelenka agreed that deadlines were good. He did not think setting a deadline would make a difference as to whether the work task was completed. He felt the intent of the amendment would be to not leave the Jefferson/Westside neighborhood “hanging” should the deadline be missed. He said he deferred to Ms. Bettman because it was in her ward. The vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Tay- lor voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Clark voting in opposi- tion. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the amendment and it passed. The vote on the main motion, as amended, was unanimous, 8:0. D. ACTION: FY08-FY13 Draft Capital Improvement Program City Manager Taylor stated that before the council was the recommendation to adopt the FY08-FY13 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the FY08-FY13 Capital Improvement Pro- gram incorporating the recommendations forwarded by the Budget Committee and staff. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend the motion to direct staff to consider pub- lic testimony received during the development of the FY08-FY13 Capital Improvement Program in support of individual projects such as the Jeppesen Acres Road Project in the development of the FY10-FY15 Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Poling stated that the Jeppesen Acres Road Project had been put off for years. He wished to put it into the CIP in order to ensure that the project would not be deferred again. He said an overwhelming majority of the people on Jeppesen Acres Road supported the project. He underscored that it was time to meet those citizens’ request. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to include in the Capital Improvement Program a project to convert the Washington Park wading pool to a spray pool. Ms. Bettman explained that this was in response to public testimony on the CIP. She said many of the park improvements at Washington Park had been done by volunteers. She felt the empty wading pools, which were currently somewhat neglected, were an attractive nuisance. She underscored that the park was well- used. City Manager Taylor said staff did not recommend including this project at this time. He noted that staff comments had been sent out on this proposal. Ms. Solomon expressed concern regarding the amendment given that it had been discussed at the Budget Committee and had not gained traction there. She related that a small number of people had testified about it, but it had not been through a larger process at the neighborhood or community level. The vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Tay- lor voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposi- tion. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition of the amendment and the amendment failed. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to reduce the scope of the Dillard Road project from its current description to a project development project in the amount of $420,000. City Manager Taylor indicated that Public Works staff was amenable to the amendment as proposed. The amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 11 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: March 12, 2007—Regular Meeting TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 4/13/07rmaDraft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 5/9 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 5/9 ky Returned to Staff __ ____ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall March 12, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, George Poling. Councilors Bonny Bettman and Betty Taylor participated via speakerphone. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. Paula Hutson , 1025 Taylor Street, member of the group Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT), th stated the group’s opposition to building a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor on West 11 Avenue. She shared the group’s concerns which included impacts an EmX route would have on traffic, parking, and the number of blocks one would have to walk to the EmX stop. She felt delivery trucks would be prevented from parking adjacent to their delivery destination. She also predicted that emergency vehicles would have difficulty maneuvering around the BRT routes. She said a 3RT member had begun participating in the West Eugene Stakeholders Group. th Charles Snyder , 990 West 12 Avenue, on behalf of 3RT, related that the group had been reviewing studies on BRT, looking at maps, and examining data regarding bus routes and ridership. He said the group had concluded that there was no need to worry about how the BRT would traverse the City until it was decided what its destination would be; the group had realized that where the EmX route would terminate in west Eugene was as yet unknown. He noted that the current EmX route connected the two city centers and that the next EmX route would connect downtown Springfield with the Gateway area. He observed that when current bus service to the west side was examined it was difficult to discern what destination an EmX route should have, because the existing destinations in that area were geographically dispersed. He believed it would better serve the City and the Lane Transit District to focus on selecting a site for another Lane Transit District (LTD) terminal. Michael Carrigan , 469 Blair Boulevard, representing the Take Back America Coalition, stated that the war in Iraq was a local issue as well as a national issue. He reported that Portland and Corvallis had already passed a resolution in opposition to the war. He said he would be turning in a petition opposing the war signed by more than 450 people. He stated that the resolution called for bringing home the troops now and ceasing to spend money on the war. He asserted that the United States needed to invest its human and financial resources in the future of its own children and not in the deaths of children in Iraq. He alleged that MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting the citizens of Eugene had spent $107 million in taxes on the war. He provided examples of what that money could have paid for in local services. He urged the council to approve the resolution. Tom Mitchell , 3355 North Delta Highway, #45, indicated his support for the resolution to oppose the Iraq war. Mr. Mitchell thanked Councilor Solomon and the committee on manufactured home parks for the good work on the proposal regarding park closures. He related that the Housing Policy Board (HPB) approved the recommendations of the committee with a few amendments. He understood from staff that the City Attorney was preparing a draft ordinance and the tentative timeline called for a review by the City Council in a work session on April 18, with a possible public hearing on May 21 and possible action on June 11. He said whatever could be done to expedite action on the park closure issue would be appreciated. He hoped that the council would not delay action because of concern regarding the State preemption provision proposed by the coalition in House Bill (HB) 2735. He related that he and many manufactured home owners traveled to Salem and testified in opposition to the preemption clause. He noted that another hearing was scheduled for March 26. He attributed the groundswell of opposition by park residents to HB 2735 to underrepresentation of approximately 67,000 homeowners in the State. He related that of the 17 members of the coalition who had set forth HB 2735, only two were park residents. He asserted that 12 of them appeared to be related to park owner groups. He felt that homeowners were more fairly represented on the HPB subcommittee. Barbara Mitchell , 3355 North Delta Highway, #45, expressed support for the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) decision to oppose HB 2735 unless it was amended. She noted that the CCIGR discussion focused on elimination of the preemption provision. She said other problems with HB 2735 included “woefully inadequate” compensation for evicted residents, particularly when homes could not be moved. She called HB 2735 the “park owners’ bill.” She averred that Senate Bill (SB) 837 offered good protections for homeowners. She asked that the council support SB 837. Gordie Albi , 1696 Adkins Street, averred that the President violated the trust of the American people. She said in a democracy everyone shared a part of the responsibility. She recounted a story in which German students blamed the lack of action against Adolph Hitler on fear. It had been pointed out that people who harbored Jews were tortured and were frightened and yet they maintained their opposition. She alleged that 90 percent of the dead in wars were women and children. She felt that the council was the only voice the people of Eugene had and asked that the council please speak out against the war. Noah Mrowczynski , 795 Fremont Avenue, related that he had been to Iraq. He said it was insulting that he had been sent overseas on “nothing but lies.” He opposed the loss of the 600,000 Iraqi people and American soldiers in the war. He considered the deployment of the Oregon National Guard to be exploitation. He pointed out that many National Guardsmen do not get the benefits of the GI Bill because of the requirement that a person be on active duty for 24 months. He asserted that the National Guardsmen serve 18 months and come back to nothing. He shared some of the challenges he had faced since returning from Iraq. He supported the resolution against the war. Dan Goldrich , 2262 Birch Lane, spoke in support of the resolution against the war. He wished to emphasize the proactive clause that called for the United States government to pursue regional diplomatic efforts with bordering countries with the goal of producing regional stability. He felt the City’s resolution sought to stop the next “worst war” before it began. Stan Taylor , 1285 McLean Boulevard, stated that he taught Political Science at the Lane Community College (LCC). He said he was also working with LCC administration to create a Peace Center at LCC. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting He related that as a peace educator he had focused on the Middle East and, in particular, Iraq and the propensity of the United States government to utilize war as its primary tool for projecting its interests in the world. He opined that Iraq was just one example. He alleged that there were plans to reshape this part of the world through more war. He averred that it was time to recognize that the killing had to stop and that diplomacy was the means of bringing peace to the world; that it was time for the United States to be part of the world community. He underscored that change began at the local level. th Drix , 307-½ East 14 Avenue, reiterated his belief that the citizens of Eugene could, by pulling together, solve their problems, from the large problems such as the war in Iraq to the smaller problems like the two holes in downtown Eugene. He underscored that the people had the ideas that were needed to resolve issues. He suggested that Eugene, as a first name, could be everyone’s name in the city of Eugene and everyone who lived in the city could be called Eugene. th Madeline Smith , 594 West 11 Avenue, recommended that the people of Eugene work on using the rest of its oil wisely as there would not always be oil. She predicted that Iraq would be divided into three states. She thought Iran would be hard to control because it could bomb any oil tanker going through the Strait of Hormuz. She felt the sooner the United States decided to negotiate with Iran the better off it would be. Bayla Ostrach , 110 Mayfair Lane, member of the Eugene/Springfield Solidarity Network, read a statement she received from a friend who was serving as a marine in Iraq who was afraid to come home because he did not believe he would get the counseling he needed to recover from the war in Iraq. She asked the council to pass the resolution against the war. th Ruth Koenig , 1204 West 28 Avenue, recalled the President’s lies regarding the weapons of mass destruction and his “empty claims of success” in the conflict in Iraq. She averred that the war wrought “huge amounts of destruction.” She felt the community should speak out to its representatives in Congress. She hoped that the resolution would encourage Congress to cut off funding for the war. She felt the money that was being wasted could be better used to provide services. Majeska Seese-Green , PO Box 11692, speaking on behalf of the Whiteaker Community Council (WCC), conveyed the recent unanimous vote by the WCC to oppose the war. She said she had consulted a Web site that indicated how much tax revenue from each city had been allocated to the war in Iraq. From this information she had surmised that the Whiteaker neighborhood had spent $1 million on the war. She asked the council to imagine what “that kind of money” could do for the community. She hoped that the City Council would unanimously support the resolution in opposition to the war. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, supported the resolution calling for an end to the war. However, she primarily wished to register her opposition to a ballot measure crafted by Bill Sizemore that would eliminate the requirement for a building permit for any construction costing $35,000 or less. She averred that the populace often did not realize what they were voting for until after the vote had occurred. She believed in oversight for building standards and hoped the council was following the issue. She stressed that, as a remodeling contractor, she thought it was a bad idea. She saw potentially huge issues such as stormwater facilities being overwhelmed because of development undertaken with no oversight. Mark Rabinowitz , PO Box 51222, noted that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) selected ‘no build’ as the closeout for the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) removed the project from the state transportation list. He averred that the City owned two parcels of land as a result of planning for the project. He urged the City to transfer the land from the transportation division to the Parks and Open Space Division. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting reiterated his concerns regarding peak oil. He believed that the reason the United States engaged in war with Iraq was because of the oil reserves there. Jerry A. Harden , 1400 Candlelight Drive, #224, said he served as a member of the HPB committee on mobile home park closures. He urged the council to enact the recommendations the committee made and the HPB had approved. He acknowledged that there could be some concern on the part of the council due to the local government preemption provision in HB 2735, which would preempt all local jurisdiction ordinances related to the parks. He underscored his belief that HB 2735 would do serious harm to manufactured home park homeowners. He felt the preemption provision could be deleted, noting that the bill’s sponsor was Eugene representative Chris Edwards. He related that testimony in Salem demonstrated that there was substantial opposition to the preemption clause. He averred that Eugene needed to “grow” the existing inventory of affordable housing and not reduce it. He added that three of the local assisted living centers in the City were going to discontinue serving Medicaid clients. He asserted that this would create an even greater pressure on the existing affordable housing. Terry Holvey , PO Box 51416, conveyed a message from State Representative Paul Holvey in support of the resolution to end the United States involvement in the Iraq war. He hoped that the City of Eugene would support House Joint Resolution 9, slated to be on the floor at the State House later in the week, which requests that the United States withdraw its troop from Iraq. She stated that Mr. Holvey opposed utilization of the National Guard as a “police force for a civil war.” Ms. Holvey related that her son served in Iraq. She said it had been the “worst feeling in the world” to not know if one’s child was safe. She shared that she and Ms. Rich had been “battle buddies” when their children were serving in Iraq in an effort to give one another emotional support. She stated that her son had been awarded a bronze star for meritorious service and described the incident that he had been given the medal for. rd Sara Rich , 390 East 43 Avenue, said she was an angry mother of an Iraq combat soldier. She related that her daughter had been sexually assaulted and sexually harassed by her commander for the year she served. She felt her daughter had returned “a different girl.” She had since met many Iraq veterans who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). She also met families who lost their daughters or sons in the war in Iraq. She wanted to keep recruiters out of the high schools. She wanted the current administration to be impeached. She believed the administration was responsible for the “death and genocide” occurring in Iraq and were responsible for the over 3,200 soldiers who were dead. She noted that this did not include the suicides that occurred. She felt the war was tearing the nation and its children apart. She said she would do what she could to prevent her 12-year-old son from ever having to serve. She related that she was a social worker in Eugene and she could not think of a client who had dental or vision care. She thought the money being spent on the war could be used for a much better purpose. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for all who testified. She indicated she would support the resolution to end the war and bring the troops home and she hoped her colleagues would as well. She believed the council’s voice could influence policy. She stressed the importance of “speaking up.” Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She stated that she had raised three sons. She supported the resolution to end the war. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark thanked Drix for his testimony, as well as the others who had testified. He added that the vote on the resolution would not be unanimous as he was not persuaded that the council should take action on a national matter. He especially wanted to thank the people who testified who had served in the armed forces or who had family members who had done so. Councilor Zelenka thanked the people who testified. He said as a former member of the United States Air Force he honored the troops and their sacrifice. He had helped to craft the resolution. He averred that the war was based on lies. He had been moved by the white flag display at the University of Oregon campus. He believed that the United States was embroiled in a civil war with no end in sight. He thought it was time to stand up and ask for an end of the war in order to start rebuilding the destruction. He commended the patriotism that was embodied by dissent. Mayor Piercy thanked everyone for coming. She commented that having people in the community speak up on what they felt was important and right honored the community. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 17, 2007, Work Session - January 31, 2007, Work Session - February 12, 2007, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4906 Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent Do- main for the Acquisition of Property Interests for the Courthouse District Transportation Improvement Project (City Job 4237) D. Adoption of Resolution 4907 Urging the Cessation of Combat Operations in Iraq and the Return of United States Troops Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Cal- endar. Councilor Zelenka pulled Item D. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item D, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to make the following four changes to the reso- lution: 1) “E. The war and occupation has caused an estimated 650,000 Iraqi deaths, including men, women, and children, according to an October 11, 2006, study in the British medical jour- nal, The Lancet.” 2) “I. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq highlights our dependence on imported oil for our energy needs and uses funds that could be better allocated do developing renewable al- ternatives to fossil fuels.” 3) “J. The more than $107,500,000 spent by Eugene taxpayers to date on the war and occu- pation in Iraq could nearly eliminate our backlog of road repairs; or could have provided one year of Head Start preschool for nearly 14,000 Eugene children; or one year of medical insurance for more than 61,000 Eugene children; or one year of salary for more than 1,775 public school teachers in Eugene; or more than 900 additional housing units in Eugene; or MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting nearly 5,000 four-year scholarships at public universities in Oregon, according to the Na- tional Priorities Project.” 4) “Section 5. That the financial resource used to prosecute the war be redirected, as they be- come available, to address the urgent needs of the most vulnerable portions of our popula- tion, including education, health care and full benefits for returning veterans, as well as to fund the development of non-carbon producing renewable alternatives for our energy needs.” Councilors Ortiz and Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Poling said while he wanted to bring the troops home, he could not support the resolution as it was worded. He questioned why the council would take time to discuss an international issue when the City faced so many local problems. He related that constituents asked him this question. He stated that one reason he could not support the resolution was the statement asserting that $107 million in Eugene taxpayers’ money had been spent on the war. He pointed out that this tax revenue had not come out of the City budget; rather it was federal tax revenue. He noted that while the resolution mentioned some wonderful things that the money could be spent on, it made no mention of allocating money to public safety. Councilor Solomon wished to respectfully thank the people who spoke on behalf of the resolution. She underscored that when she ran for her position, she did so in order to make a difference in her neighborhood. She averred that if a citizen wished to influence national policy, he or she could do so by contacting Representative DeFazio, Senator Smith, and Senator Wyden. She said she had opposed these types of resolutions in the past and would oppose this one as well. Councilor Clark supported getting the troops home. He also felt his purpose was to serve local governance. He had heard constituents say that taking on an international issue was a waste of council time. He stressed that the City had pressing problems on which it could make a direct impact, while the war in Iraq was an issue it could have no direct impact on. He read a statement allegedly written by a soldier in Iraq in support of the war in Iraq. Councilor Pryor said he was 100 percent for local governance. He felt it was important to occasionally take some time to talk in regard to significant issues. He appreciated Councilor Zelenka’s amendments and he appreciated the section that advocated for providing enough funds to keep the troops safe while evacuating. He averred that if enough communities came together, a message could be sent. He indicated his support for the resolution. Councilor Ortiz declared that when she ran for the City Council it had not just been for local government. She said for her it was about the council taking a stand as leaders of the community. She stressed that her conscience indicated to her that supporting the resolution was the right thing to do. Councilor Taylor supported the resolution. She said she was grateful to the citizens who had spoken out in support of the resolution. Councilor Bettman thanked her colleagues for their comments. She averred that the City Council lobbied on national policy “all the time.” Councilor Clark reiterated his opposition to the resolution. He was concerned that Eugene would send a message that would embolden the enemies of the United States. He also expressed concern that a quick departure would cause further deterioration of the civil war situation in Iraq and would result in genocide. He noted that the Secure Rural Schools Act, the funding mechanism that would allocate $47 million to offset MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting the loss of timber revenue to Lane County, was currently attached to the Supplemental Budget to pay for the “surge.” Mayor Piercy disagreed with the notion that the deaths in Iraq were not a local issue. She stated that 200 cities across the country were joining in one voice to oppose the war. She believed this would be an influential statement. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item D, Resolution 4907 urging the cessation of combat operations in Iraq and the return of United States troops passed, 5:3; councilors Solomon, Pol- ing, and Clark voting in opposition. 3. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: Brown Measure 37 Claim (M37 06-2); Resolution 4905 Granting a Measure 37 Claim and Modify- th ing a Provision of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, for Property Located on 12 Avenue Between Charnelton and Lincoln Streets, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Map 17-03-31-42 TL 7100 – DMB Green, LLC) City Manager Taylor introduced Associate Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), Heather O’Donnell, and asked her to speak to the item. Ms. O’Donnell explained that the claimant alleged a reduction in fair market value for the lot in question and sought to waive the current 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and reimpose the previous .65 FAR. She reported that the City Manager concurred that there was a reduction in value and recommended that the current FAR be waived. She requested the council take action following the public hearing because the council was about to recess for a two-week break. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. John Brown , 1260 Charnelton Street, stated that the lot was currently a parking lot. He and his partner wished to put a building on the lot with ground floor offices and a few second floor apartments. He said with a 1.0 FAR it would not be possible to construct the project and make it economically viable. He noted that he had provided pictures of an example building in that area that was developed with ground floor offices and second floor apartments, located at 1178 Charnelton Street, and underscored that his project would include 50 percent more residential units. He wanted to construct a building that reduced the amount of parking needed in the downtown and allowed a company that had been in the downtown area for 30 years to remain. He said if he and his partner did not develop the property it would continue to be a parking lot. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman wanted to know whether the issue was really urgent. She was concerned that waiving the FAR would cause other regulations that existed before the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) to be reimposed. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that the claim sought only to waive the 1.0 FAR and reimpose the .65 FAR and nothing more. He emphasized that the resolution would not do anything more than that. He said whether the resolution was acted on at the present meeting or at the Wednesday work session would not make a tremendous amount of difference, but there was a desire not to postpone until after the council break because of the 180-day timeline on the issue. Councilor Bettman asked if acting after the council break would supercede the 180-day timeline. She wanted to know how the council could move forward without some delineation of the magnitude of the claim MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting in terms of value if the City chose not to waive the FAR. She asserted that the City had not conducted due diligence in terms of establishing what the reduction of market value would be. Mr. Klein responded that the 180-day timeline would be exceeded if the action was not taken prior to the council break. In terms of the reduction in value, he had consulted with another appraiser and the appraiser had indicated that there would be a reduction should the FAR not be waived. He said he had not asked for an appraisal. He explained that while it was a valuable tool most governments were not getting appraisals due to the expense. Councilor Bettman opined that efforts to reduce staff time were multiplying negative effects of Ballot Measure 37. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Councilor Bettman that she opposed taking action at the present meeting and action was deferred to the work session scheduled for March 14. 4. ACTION: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 6, 2007, and Direction on Legislative Policy Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions as set forth in the minutes of the February 6, 2007, meeting. Councilor Pryor requested to pull SB 187, SB 335, SB 476, HB 2465, SB 293, and HB 2140 for discus- sion. Roll call vote; the motion to ratify the Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions with the exception of six bills pulled for discussion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pryor explained that the bills that he pulled for discussion had resulted in a 2:1 vote by the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR). He thought it would be appropriate to discuss the bills in order to confirm the CCIGR vote or to take a different position if the majority so chose. SB 187 Councilor Pryor explained that SB 187 directed the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to encourage local governments to provide affordable housing. He noted that Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division of PDD, Richie Weinman, recommended that the stand should be to support the bill from an affordable housing standpoint. He asked councilors Bettman and Taylor to explain their recommendation to oppose the bill. Councilor Bettman averred that the bill leveraged a public good for something that was against the City’s legislative policy. She felt that the definition of affordable housing was very broad. She asserted that a person who made $3 million per year could be subsidized to buy a $1 million house. She alleged that the bill would force local jurisdictions to expedite the urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion process for affordable housing projects. She declared that the language in the bill was not good. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson stated that the bill had one hearing and it did not appear that the bill “had legs.” She did not anticipate that it would go anywhere. She noted that “even” the MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting Lane County Home Builders Association had problems with some of the language, though the association had come out in support of the bill. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion to support the recommendation of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to take a Priority 2 Oppose stance against SB 187 was a tie, 4:4; councilors Ortiz, Zelenka, Taylor and Bettman voting in favor and councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor, and Clark voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted to support the recommen- dation and the motion passed. SB 335 Councilor Pryor explained that SB 335 would change the planning period for the buildable land supply inside the UGB. He noted that staff recommended that the City adopt a Priority 3 Monitor stance but the CCIGR had, by a 2:1 vote, supported changing the stance to a Priority 1 Oppose. Councilor Bettman supported the CCIGR recommendation to oppose the bill. Councilor Taylor said a Priority 1 Oppose would be in concert with previous council action. Councilor Solomon asked if there was any recent news on this bill. Ms. Wilson responded that the last hearing on the bill had been on February 15. She said there was a task force put into place to address the land use issues in Oregon, but no further public hearings were planned for this bill at present. Councilor Solomon indicated that she supported the bill and would oppose the recommendation of the CCIGR. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Wilson stated that there were several groups of bills that were moving through the legislature at this time and land use was one group that was being addressed as a whole. She thought the group would be looked at in a “big picture” way, rather than as individual bills. Given that the bill had been through a hearing and had not been rescheduled for another hearing, she did not believe the bill was moving. Councilor Clark found it ironic that the City supported the latest in technology for building green buildings but it did not have the most current technology for land to put the buildings on or the technology for how to decide what the measurement of those lands were. Roll call vote; the vote on whether to support the recommendation of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to take a Priority 1 Oppose stance on SB 335 was a tie, 4:4; coun- cilors Ortiz, Zelenka, Bettman, and Taylor voting in support and councilors Clark, Poling, Solomon, and Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the motion passed. SB 476 Councilor Pryor explained that the bill was related to mass transit districts and would require election of five members and appointment of two members of boards of directors for the districts in metro areas with a population of 400,000 or fewer. He said the position of staff was to support the bill. He voted against that position and wanted to bring it to the council for further discussion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon asked if this bill would retain the districts that currently made up the Lane Transit District (LTD) board of directors. She noted that in the past LTD had found it difficult to find representa- tives for all of the districts. Ms. Wilson replied that it redefined the districts by stipulating that the districts must be nearly equal in population and it added two appointed board members. Councilor Solomon asked if the new districts would have the same requirements for ridership. She added that LTD just recently went through a lengthy process to find someone to represent the district in which she resided. Ms. Wilson replied that in the form the bill had been introduced it did not require candidates to be riders. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson stated that the current position of the CCIGR was a Priority 2 Support. Councilor Solomon asked what the benefit of having an elected board would be. Mayor Piercy responded that it related to council policy. Councilor Pryor explained that his reason for pulling the bill was because he did not know if LTD governance was something the City of Eugene should take a position on. He questioned the necessity of “wading into the fight” if it was not necessary. Councilor Bettman averred that the City had a stake in the governance of LTD. Roll call vote; the vote on whether to support the recommendation of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to take a position of Priority 2 Support on SB 476 passed, 5:3; councilors Solomon, Pryor, and Poling voting in opposition. HB 2465 Councilor Pryor explained that staff recommended that the CCIGR take a Drop position on the bill as it only applied to schools in Hood River County and, therefore, did not affect the City of Eugene. Mayor Piercy stated her opposition to this bill because she believed allowing the Hood River school district to establish a school on land within three miles of a UGB without adopting an exception to the State land use planning goal would not be good for Eugene’s land use policy. Councilor Solomon said she hoped the bill would pass and would have an effect on the City. She stated that the Bethel School District owned land outside of the UGB of Eugene and it needed to build a new high school. She averred that the bill, which was specific to the Hood River County school district, could set a precedent that would benefit the Bethel School District. Councilor Bettman asserted that the bill was inconsistent to the legislative agenda of Eugene. She averred that the Bethel School District could apply for a local exception to the statewide land use requirements. She felt the bill would set “a very bad precedent.” She urged the council to uphold the vote of the CCIGR. Councilor Zelenka concurred. He believed it was a bad precedent and a bad policy. Councilor Clark related that he had heard the concern expressed that such votes create conflict between public good and public bad. He suggested that the bill was an opportunity to remedy this. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the vote on whether to support the recommendation of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to take a position of Priority 2 Oppose was a tie, 4:4; councilors Zelenka, Ortiz, Taylor and Bettman voting in favor and councilors Solomon, Poling, Clark and Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the recommendation and it passed. SB 293 Councilor Pryor stated that a number of bills that related to the use of mobile communication while driving had been generated this session, of which this bill was one. He pulled the bill because staff expressed concerns that the bill did not exempt the use of two-way radios by police, emergency personnel, and public works staff. He said the CCIGR voted to support the bill with the amendment to provide that exemption. He suggested that the council pull the bill for later approval when a more current version came out. Ms. Wilson interjected that she believed SB 293 was now a “dead” bill. She predicted that the Legislature would focus on distracted driving as a whole issue rather than “nitpicking” each activity. Mayor Piercy ascertained that there was no objection to dropping the motion. HB 2140 Councilor Pryor explained that the bill made technical changes to public contracting code. He said major revisions of public contracting had been undertaken one year earlier. He stated that the bill would add language for contracting with government agencies, changing bid thresholds and limiting certain kinds of contracts. He related that staff felt that the bill was primarily a clean-up of wording and that it added clarifications to the revisions. He said both Mr. Perry of the Finance Division and Mr. Klope of Public Works had recommended that the City support the bill. The CCIGR voted 2:1 to oppose it. Councilor Bettman affirmed that the bill made “alleged housekeeping changes” but she felt the changes were very significant in terms of public policy. She said one would change the quote limit for transportation projects from $50,000 to $100,000. She thought this would make so that anything that was under $100,000 would not need to go out for a competitive bid. She also took issue with language regarding pilot projects. She asserted that it circumvented public accountability, as any project could be called a pilot project. Councilor Solomon asked staff to verify if the bill would change the language so that a project for $100,000 or less could not be subjected to the bid process. Mr. Klein replied that if it worked like the rest of the code, it referred to the minimum and not the maximum; in other words, the bid process would be optional for a project at that level. Councilor Solomon surmised that the City of Eugene could still require contracts to be bid out. She supported the idea. She felt pilot projects were ways of exploring a different way of doing business. She believed it to be a way to try something new without having to “cement it into an ordinance.” She averred that it was worth a try. She supported having more tools at the table that would help to save money. Councilor Clark said he wanted to support inventive ways of doing things in order to find cost savings in the process. Councilor Pryor said if one looked at Public Works law it was apparent that projects that cost $100,000 or less were already exempted from the bid requirements, with the exception of transportation projects. He explained that the bill sought to bring transportation projects in line with the rest of the public works MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting projects. He disputed the notion that the bill sought to “somehow monkey with the limit.” He agreed that pilot projects encouraged innovation and were not mechanisms to “do things underhandedly.” He thought such projects were opportunities to be creative in procurement. He underscored that the laws from one year earlier had been put in place in part to improve the monitoring and thresholds. He believed the bill represented good changes to the contracting laws. Councilor Zelenka felt that the law indicated that all that had to be shown was a belief that a pilot project would save money. He thought the bill was written so broadly that anything could be considered a pilot project. Mayor Piercy was not convinced that the bill was onerous. She indicated she would oppose the position the CCIGR had taken. Roll call vote; the vote to support the recommendation of the Council Committee on Intergov- ernmental Relations to take a position to change the recommendation on HB 2140 to Priority 2 Oppose was a tie, 4:4; councilors Ortiz, Zelenka, Taylor, and Bettman voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Poling, Solomon, and Clark voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in op- position and the staff recommendation of Priority 3 Support stood. Councilor Taylor noted that it was late in Washington, DC, and signed off. Councilor Pryor reiterated his belief that a close vote on CCIGR recommendation warranted a larger discussion at the council level. Councilor Zelenka commented that the CCIGR minutes were somewhat difficult to understand. He asked for a bill summary to aid in understanding what the bills were. Councilor Pryor stated that the CCIGR was presented with a large stack of bills and in most cases the staff recommendation was accepted. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water District and the River Road Park and Recreation District, and from the Santa Clara Water District Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4939, an ordinance providing for withdrawal of territories from special districts. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Klein ascertained from the Mayor that the ordinance that had been voted on included the amendment provided to the council prior to the meeting. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Diagram; Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Pursuant to Section 9.7750(4) of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date (Huntington Crossing) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 12 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4943, an ordinance amending the Metro Plan and Willakenzie Area Plan. Councilor Bettman expressed concern that redesignating the area would create the opportunity for commercial development, potentially including a strip mall. She asked what kind of influence the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process had and whether or not the council had any influence at this point in order to ensure that any commercial development would be small-scale. City Manager Taylor asked Associate Planner for the Planning and Development, Lydia McKinney, to speak to the question. Ms. McKinney explained that the base zone would be medium density residential use and commercial use would only be permitted in the zone district through a PUD process and would be required to be at the level at which it would serve the residents of the PUD. She said there was also a policy in the Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan that supported the limitation of commercial uses. She related that staff had sought advice from legal counsel as to how commercial uses could be further limited should the ordinance be approved because of the Willakenzie Area Plan policy that supported having some commercial use. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. McKinney stated that the area in question was comprised of seven acres. Councilor Bettman asked what the absolute minimum of dwelling units per acre there would be. Ms. McKinney responded that the minimum would be approximately 67 residential units. Councilor Bettman asked what commercial development would be permitted with the ordinance. Ms. McKinney replied that she could only think of one residential PUD that allowed commercial development, Valley River Village. She explained that it had gone through the PUD process and had commercial development that included a bagel shop and a gas station. She noted that the PUD included well over 1,000 dwelling units. Councilor Bettman asked if a gas station would be a permitted use if the council approved of the ordinance. Ms. McKinney replied that she did not believe this was a permitted use within the Willakenzie Area Refinement Plan. She also did not think the argument could be made that a gas station would be a neighborhood commercial use that would serve less than 200 residents. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. McKinney clarified that the minimum residential density would be calculated on the entire acreage and would not be calculated after commercial use was factored in. Councilor Solomon asked on behalf of a constituent how the change would reduce existing transportation impacts given that residential use would be increased. Ms. McKinney replied that the land was currently zoned Industrial and industrial uses had a much higher traffic impact than residential uses. Councilor Solomon asked if old Coburg Road would come under the jurisdiction of the City of Eugene. Ms. McKinney responded that this had not happened yet but it would be part of the process. Councilor Zelenka asked for clarification of the commercial use policies. Ms. McKinney responded that the commercial uses permitted in the PUD would have to be in the C-1 category, i.e. neighborhood commercial. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 13 Regular Meeting She explained that this would include a small neighborhood store or an office but would not include a gas station. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. 7. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2007 Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4944, an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 12, 2007 Page 14 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: April 18, 2007 TO: Vicki Cox RECORDED BY: Lynn Taylor = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 4/25 lt Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) Reviewed/Returned by Staff Returned to Minutes Recording 5/9 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 5/9 ky Returned to Staff ________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall April 18, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She recognized Ms. Taylor, who wished to place a motion before the council. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved that the City Council direct the City Manager to institute proceedings in eminent domain for the Joe Green (Map 18-03- 20-00, Tax Lot 101) and Beverly (Map 18-03-20-21, Tax lots 101,200,300,302) properties—more particularly described in Exhibits A and B and further moved that the manager or his designee prepare an authorizing ordinance for a public hear- ing on May 21, 2007. Ms. Taylor said it was a crucial time to take action as applications to build on both lots had been denied. She said reasons to acquire the property included water quality as pollution in Amazon Creek had been the subject of cleanup efforts and development on the properties would further pollute the headwaters. She said other reasons included connection to the Ridgeline Trail, protection of wildlife habitat and rare plants, and danger to potential homeowners from slides if building occurred on the sites. She referred to a letter from Art Johnson regarding the City’s liability if building was allowed in slide areas. Mr. Poling expressed dismay with the procedure as he was contacted by the neighborhood association the previous evening about the proposed motion by Ms. Taylor and the motion was not distributed by email until 4 a.m., which gave other councilors very limited time to study the issue. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to add the following language to the end of Ms. Taylor’s motion: “Finally, the City Manager shall (1) identify at the time of the public hearing a plan for adding to the urban growth boundary and the buildable lands inventory acreage that is equivalent to the acreage to be acquired by the City, and (2) delay completion of the acquisition of the property covered by this motion until the acreage is added. Mr. Poling said if both parcels, which represented approximately 65 acres, were removed from the buildable land supply within the urban growth boundary (UGB) then that amount should be replaced, although it did not need to be in the form of a single parcel. He was interested in allowing a one- or two-year period for that to occur, but had received legal advice against including a future timeframe. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 1 Work Session City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that including a future time period for addition of equivalent acreage could not be done because the council could not bind a future council, or even itself, to approve a future UGB amendment. He said the only way to ensure that the acreage was replaced was to add the additional property before the acquisition was completed, as reflected in Mr. Poling’s motion. Mr. Poling said the two parcels that would be acquired through eminent domain represented a substantial amount of land and could not be removed without affecting the existing supply of buildable land. He believed there were valid reasons for taking action to acquire the property as discussed by Ms. Taylor. He was hesitant to use eminent domain; but this was a prime example of why it was occasionally necessary. He felt that if the City moved forward to acquire the property, it was essential to replace the acreage that would be removed from the buildable land supply. Ms. Solomon asked if the City was in negotiation with the property owners to acquire the land necessary to preserve the waterways. City Manager Taylor replied that negotiations with the owners had been going on for many years under the willing seller strategy. He said the City also examined a variety of strategies to engage partners to assist with funding. He said the use of eminent domain should be rare and when the City acquired property through condemnation, a source of funding should be identified. He said there was no source of funding for the subject parcels. Ms. Solomon asked if it was premature to abandon the willing seller strategy. City Manager Taylor said he had not seen the materials distributed to councilors or discussed the action with the Public Works director. Ms. Solomon objected to the process. She realized that councilors could place any motion on the table at any time, but there was virtually no prior notification and the action should have been the subject of a work session. She did not support eminent domain. She said the transaction was one that the Nature Conser- vancy would be interested in and that organization should work with nearby property owners to acquire the parcels. She was not interested in the City acquiring more property that would come off the tax rolls unless the City sold an equal amount of acreage elsewhere that it owned. Ms. Ortiz said she did not support Mr. Poling’s motion. She said the parcels were not buildable land and several requests to build on the properties had been denied; that was why Ms. Taylor’s motion was timely. She said the Green and Beverly properties had been discussed as long as she had been on the council and the information packet provided to the council consisted of materials that had been provided on earlier occasions. She said it was important for the City to protect those areas that it could and the fact that the property was accessible by the entire community, including by bus, was an asset. She would support Ms. Taylor’s motion. Mr. Clark supported Mr. Poling’s amendment and was also concerned about the process. He had been provided information only a short time before the meeting and, as a new councilor, did not have the advantage of earlier discussions and materials. He was uncomfortable being asked to act on something when he had virtually no exposure to information necessary to make an informed decision. Mr. Clark noted that he had proposed a motion six weeks earlier, which had as its purpose engaging the council in an honest discussion about the lands that should be protected and the lands that were buildable. He wanted a discussion instead of a fight, but the council decision was to wait until the State forced it to act. He said Ms. Bettman raised a point in that discussion that zoning and classifying certain lands for protection was premature because the City did not know what it intended to do in the future with that land and it was dishonest to reclassify it. He said the same argument applied in the current situation as future building technology might enable homes to be constructed on the R-1 land in a safe manner. He questioned stealing MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 2 Work Session the value from the current owners and removing the property from the tax rolls when there might be a future opportunity to building on the currently R-1 zoned land in a safe and respectful way. He said the same standard about not building on geologically sensitive lands should be applied uniformly throughout the City, including the entire south hills; that should be followed by a discussion of what land was buildable and what land was not buildable. Ms. Bettman indicated she would support the main motion and oppose the amendment. She said it was her understanding that the neighbors had attempted to meet with all of the councilors. She said the issue was not new; Ms. Taylor proposed similar motions in the past and it had been the subject of multiple work sessions. She said that the proposed amendment to the motion would kill the acquisition by predicating it on a future expansion of the UGB, which was not a justifiable expansion according to the Metro Plan; there was no quid pro quo in State land use law. Mr. Poling agreed that the land was not buildable based on current technology, but in the future it might be. He said the property was zoned R-1 and included in the total acreage for the residential land supply. He was only asking for a replacement for that acreage. He said his first contact by the neighborhood association to meet and discuss that particular topic had happened the previous evening. He said the amendment did not kill the acquisition; it just guaranteed replacement of what was being removed from the buildable land supply. Mr. Zelenka said he fully supported a willing seller approach as the first strategy but lengthy negotiations had not resulted in the City’s acquisition for a variety of reasons, resulting in yet another unsuccessful application to build by the owners. He said use of eminent domain was not stealing, as fair market value would be paid for the property. He said eminent domain should be rare and a last resort when other strategies had failed and there should be an overriding public purpose to its use; a park was an overriding public purpose. Mr. Zelenka said he had toured the site and did not think it was buildable land; planning staff had the same opinion when the application to build on the Beverly property was denied. He noted instances of slides that endangered people and property and said that factor should be strongly considered as the City encroached into the hills. He said that should be the subject of a separate discussion. He said City acquisition would preserve an important drainage area and create a unique and beautiful place. He said the City had committed, along with Lane County and Springfield, to a process called the “little look” that would involve a series of questions, including ones related to commercial and residential land studies, the function of the UGB and the role of jurisdictions. He would not support the amendment as he did not think the site was buildable land, acquisition would be delayed for a considerable amount of time and the “little look” process was just being launched. Ms. Piercy concurred with Mr. Zelenka’s comments and the need to commit to the process with Lane County and Springfield. She said the amendment would interfere with that process. She felt the action was time-sensitive as a building proposal had been denied and the acquisition should move forward before another application was submitted. Mr. Clark reiterated that he had not been contacted or met with anyone to discuss the issue or had access to information until he was called late the previous evening. He said the issue was new to him and he did not feel he had been involved in the process to the extent that he was able to act on the particular piece of property. He was committed to the concept of an extensive “little look” process, which was why he made his motion six weeks ago. He felt the amendment was not contrary to that process and showed good faith that the area was worth protecting. He was uncomfortable with the heavy-handed eminent domain approach MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 3 Work Session but was willing to act as a gesture of good faith if the gesture also included a commitment to address the issue of a buildable land shortage by expanding the UGB in an appropriate way. Mr. Zelenka understood Mr. Clark’s concern. He would not support the amendment but was willing to commit to a “little look” process that would begin the conversation and conclude it by the end of the year. Ms. Bettman said this was the first she had heard of the “little look” and asked for a work session on the process. The vote on the amendment was tied, 4:4; voting in support were Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark and Ms Solomon and in opposition were Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka. Mayor Piercy voted against the motion and the amendment failed. Ms. Taylor agreed that the same principles about building on geologically sensitive land should be uniformly applied and she was asking for action on the parcel because it was threatened. She said the source of funding could be the parks bond, as well as stormwater funds set aside for stream corridor acquisition. She said an earlier environmental assessment of the Green property determined that development would increase the impervious service and cause stormwater problems, fragment wildlife habitat, destroy native plants and disturb the soil, which could lead to erosion. She said the parcel was one of the last pristine properties within the UGB; it was threatened and the timing was right to protect it for posterity as the ridgeline and Hendricks Park had been years ago. Mr. Clark said it was important to protect those things for posterity on which there was agreement and in some cases the heavy hand of eminent domain was justified, but there should be honesty about the process, which was taking something of significant value from someone. He said if at some future point houses could safely be built on such a piece of land that meant millions of dollars were being taken from the owner. He said that was the sort of heavy-handed action that caused 61 percent of voters to support Ballot Measure 37. He felt that more time was needed before acting. Mr. Zelenka thought the park bond funds could be used for the acquisition and there was a sufficient amount. He noted that the owners had been denied permission to build three times. He said it was not future technology that would permit building; geology was the problem and not likely to be fixed. He asked the City Manager to explain the “little look” process. City Manager Taylor said he would provide background information and an explanation of the process to the council in the form of a memorandum. Mr. Pryor stated there were two issues for him: the issue around preservation of the property and the issue of use of eminent domain and the speed of action. He said judging from the information packet, there was considerable conversation that needed to occur. He was also concerned with exercising a tool as strong as eminent domain without due process. He noted the item was not on the agenda for action and arose at the last minute. He did not like being asked to use a tool like eminent domain without more discussion. City Manager Taylor said it would be the first time in his experience where a condemnation action was initiated without it being an agenda item, having a financial plan and staff analysis or the opportunity for the public to be informed and participate. He urged that the item be postponed until those elements could be available to inform the decision-making process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor asserted there would be a public hearing and plenty of opportunity for public process. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the second part of Ms. Taylor’s motion included a process that would allow the public to weigh in on the acquisition. She said discussions had been ongoing for some time with no result and it was time for the council to take definitive action. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to bring back for council action a motion for eminent domain. Mr. Klein clarified that Ms. Taylor’s motion to direct the manager to institute proceedings in eminent domain meant the first actual step would be preparation of an authorizing ordinance for public hearing. He said that while Mr. Zelenka’s motion clarified that, it was not necessary. Mr. Zelenka withdrew his motion. Mr. Clark asked for clarification on whether the ordinance would be the subject of a work session. Mr. Klein said there would be a proposed ordinance on the May 21 meeting agenda for public hearing and action would need to be scheduled at a later date. Mr. Zelenka hoped in the interim that other councilors could be fully informed on the issue. The vote on the main motion was tied, 4:4; voting in support were Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka and in opposition were Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark and Ms Solomon. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the motion passed. A. ACTION: Resolution 4908 Concerning City Testimony on Personnel or Collective Bargaining Legislative Matters, and Amending Resolution 4139 by the Repeal of Section 7 Therefrom Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 4908 concerning City testimony on personnel or collective bargaining legislative matters and amend- ing Resolution 4139 by the repeal of Section 7 therefrom. Mr. Pryor indicated he was willing to adopt the resolution if there was public acknowledgement that more work needed to be done on other sections of Resolution 4139. Ms. Bettman said she had an initial concern about how the amendment and resolution would be tracked in the future but, based on a conversation with the City Attorney, she was satisfied with the procedure before the council. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: School/Youth Services Funding City Manager Taylor introduced Library, Recreation and Cultural Services Executive Director Renee Grube to discuss financial support for youth services. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Grube said the purpose of the work session was to solicit the council’s interest in pursuing alternative revenues to support Bethel and 4J school districts and out-of-school youth services provided by the City. She referred to agenda materials that described past council action on the issue. She noted that in June 2006, the council decided against another levy to fund youth activities because the school districts had identified alternate strategies for funding and concerns with the legal challenge relating to the Measure 5 property tax cap. She said the Supreme Court affirmed that the portion of the levy funding school-based services should be categorized as school tax for purposes of Ballot Measure 5. Ms. Grube indicated that two revenue options had been provided for the council’s consideration: a personal income tax and a business license fee. She said the agenda material included examples of how those had been implemented in other communities. Ms. Bettman thanked staff for the agenda materials and said she could support either option as an alternative funding source, but she wanted to see a clear nexus between the revenue and class size. She said the revenue needed to be spent in the classroom and dedicated to reducing class size. She said the value of a good education was evident to everyone and large class sizes were obstacles to learning. She gave the example of a math class with 47 students that would be increased to 53 students next year. She was willing to consider either option or a combination of them but wanted to see reduction of class size balanced with youth services. Mr. Clark related that he had small children in local public schools and the quality of their education was very important. He agreed that reducing class size was a significant concern. He thought recent action to reduce the library levy and bring library services into the General Fund meant trading one tax for another. He was not certain he could support looking for a new source of revenue in the form of creating a new tax and recent experience suggested that an income tax would not have public approval. Ms. Ortiz stated she was a passionate school supporter and former school board member and willing to consider ways to help the school districts, but was cautious as Bethel had twice defeated a school operating levy. She thought it was the council’s responsibility to do all it could to ensure a good education for children in the community. Ms. Piercy wondered how many trips to the well could be had. She felt there should be a discussion with school boards about the amount of revenue to be raised and how it would be allocated before making a decision. She was confident that everyone understood the importance of education and delaying action would not indicate lack of concern or commitment. Mr. Pryor said as a former school board member he was absolutely committed to children and the City should do whatever possible to assist the school districts. He thought it was appropriate to wait until the legislative session had ended and then have a joint meeting with school boards to identify critical needs. Mr. Zelenka said that education of children was a primary responsibility. He wanted to have a discussion with the school districts but was concerned with the timing. He said the subcommittee on transportation would be reporting back to the council soon with funding recommendations and there were also a new City Hall, downtown development, a Lane County income tax and legislative actions to be considered. He was interested in youth services funding but felt it should be addressed at a later date. Ms. Taylor asked if it would be legal for the City to fund youth services. Mr. Klein replied that the problem related to a property tax issue and a different mechanism would be used. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor expressed concern with large class sizes and agreed that the City should help where possible, but should wait to see what the legislature would do with K-12 funding before acting. She said that meeting with school boards was a good idea and there should be a meeting with teachers as well. Ms. Bettman remarked that State funding and other support the City could provide, such as turning over a piece of valuable property or systems development charge (SDC) forgiveness went to the school general budget but did not always result in reduced class sizes. She wanted to see how the legislature’s budget would evolve in terms of class size because large classes were the biggest obstacle to learning. She said that both of the proposed revenue sources had been excluded from the transportation subcommittee’s considera- tion and were available for other needs. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to revisit this issue after the legislature had adjourned, with direction to prepare a proposal for either an income tax option or a business license fee to provide funding to re- duce classroom size for the Eugene 4J and Bethel 52 school districts and including City youth services. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to add the phrase “after a workshop be- tween the City Council and 4J and Bethel school board members.” Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz accepted the amendment. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to add the phrase “and look at other funding options to achieve this objective.” Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz accepted the amendment. The motion as amended passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment City Manager Taylor introduced Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter and City Attorney Emily Jerome to discuss more definitive direction regarding the City’s review and decision-making on the Delta Sand and Gravel request for a Metro Plan amendment. Mr. Yeiter said that staff was requesting affirmation from the council that its decision was being imple- mented appropriately. He reviewed the council’s previous actions, which determined by straw poll that the application was complete and the site was not a significant resource by Goal 5 standards. He said that draft findings were included with the agenda item summary, which outlined the council’s options. He noted that the Lane County Board of Commissioners had met that morning and voted to postpone the issue until its May 1 meeting. He noted that Kent Howe and Stephanie Schulz of Lane County Planning Division were available to answer questions. Ms. Bettman commented that a major issue was Delta Sand and Gravel’s claim that there would be no increase in production and therefore no increase in the number of trucks. She said that should be reflected in the findings. She asked what the outcome would be if the City and County did not agree on whether there was a significant resource and, if they did agree, whether the applicant would refine the testing and sampling procedures and resubmit them. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Jerome said that code provisions regarding the Metro Plan process did not clearly answer that type of question. She said those scenarios had been discussed with County staff and legal counsel and the interpretation of the code provision that the decisions had to be identical was that the decisions had to agree but the reasons for them as expressed in findings did not need to match. She said the Metropolitan Policy Committee would step in if the City and County decisions were not in agreement. Ms. Bettman asked if making a determination on the basis of significant resource precluded deliberation on other items. Ms. Jerome said that on direction from the council, staff would prepare an ordinance that did not become effective until identical decisions were reached. She believed that until the ordinances were finally in effect, the council did have the opportunity to continue to deliberate. She said the process would end when both the City and County decisions were in agreement. City Manager Taylor said staff was recommending for the council’s consideration what was believed to be the most efficient way, based on the straw polls, to put the measure before the County. Mr. Pryor commented that the council would not need to deliberate the criteria if it knew that the application would be denied. Mr. Yeiter said staff was not recommending that the council continue with deliberation of the criteria. He said the County might continue to deliberate. Mr. Pryor said it did not make sense to spend time deliberating on something for which the outcome had already been determined. He said the County’s deliberations should be with the knowledge that from the City’s standpoint the application was denied. Ms. Jerome pointed out that in some cases the council was advised to conduct the thorough process because from a legal perspective, defending a denial was less difficult if each basis for denial had been addressed. She said the effort that would be involved in analyzing all of the criteria in this instance might not be worth the benefit and it was possible the County could proceed through the criteria and provide the analysis. She said waiting to see what the County’s outcome would be was a sound policy decision for the council. Mr. Clark asked if an appeal was possible if the City denied on sufficiency of resource and the County denied on a different basis and how would the appellate body deal with that contradiction. Ms. Jerome said City and County staff would work together to ensure that the actions, which would be in the form of ordinances, were the same. She said the respective findings would likely look different. Mr. Clark asked if denial on the basis of sufficiency of resource had been upheld in the past. Ms. Jerome said there was no precedent in the courts, but she felt there was a basis to justify the finding. Ms. Solomon said she was disturbed by the reluctance to move forward on the application in a forthright and honest manner and give the applicant all of the process that was due. Regarding the issue of resource, she believed the applicant followed all of the protocol established in State statutes and passed all of the tests. She reminded the council that it could approve with conditions and that could include strategies to ensure there was no increase in production. She believed that Delta Sand and Gravel would be willing to adhere to those conditions as it had been willing to respond to all questions during the process. She reminded the council that Delta Sand and Gravel was a local business that provided good jobs for the community and the City of Eugene was a consumer of its products. If it was shut down, the City would suffer the consequences of increased prices. Mr. Zelenka supported denying the application on the resource issue but did not understand why the council would not go through the process as there were other, more problematic issues, such as noise and dust. Mr. Yeiter said based on feedback on the County, which conducted more sand and gravel operation reviews, the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 8 Work Session process would involve between 20 and 30 hours of council deliberation to reach the same conclusion. He said it was the council’s policy and scheduling choice whether to go through the entire process if the site did not qualify. Mr. Zelenka asked if the applicant could appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) if both the City and County denied the application. Ms. Jerome said the appeal could also go above LUBA, but local decision-making would end at that point. She said LUBA could also remand the issue or if a decision became final the applicant could reapply. Mr. Clark said it strained at the idea of common sense that there was not sufficiency of resource at the site, which was only yards away from the site of decades of operation and production. Ms. Bettman said the operation was not being shut down as the applicant indicated ten years worth of aggregate remained. She shared Mr. Zelenka’s concerns about deliberating the other criteria as some of them would weigh heavily for denial of the application. She asked if the council could act on the significant resource issue with a plan to deliberate on the other criteria at a later date, perhaps following action by the County. Ms. Jerome said the County would prefer to have the City deliberate all of the criteria and was willing to postpone action until that occurred. She said legally the council could establish the plan to deliberate at a later date but was not certain how it would proceed on a practical basis. Ms. Bettman said she was only willing to take that extraordinary step if the council was willing to vote in favor of a six-hour workshop to deliberate the entire packet. Mr. Pryor said as an individual councilor he was in favor of the application, but the decision would be made by the body. He agreed with Ms. Solomon that some issues could be mitigated, but not the question of sufficiency of resource. He felt it would be unfair to deliberate further and hold out hope to the applicant that perhaps a different conclusion might be reached. Mr. Poling found it disappointing that the application was being denied without fully exploring the issues. He reminded councilors that based on the information available, the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) determined that Delta Sand and Gravel and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) consultants’ testing had underestimated the amount of resource. He noted that the Eugene Planning Commission agreed that the existence of a significant resource had been demonstrated, but an uncertified person had disagreed. He pointed out that the site was located between the current production site and the river, making it unlikely there would be no resource in that area. He said a preponderance of the scientific evidence and a recommendation from the Planning Commission indicated that there was a significant resource available. He would not support the findings and felt it was a disservice to the process to declare the issue dead at this point. Ms. Bettman stated there was no guarantee where the river would deposit its resources and that did not meet ODOT’s criteria for its aggregate. She asked if ODOT tested or sampled the site. Ms. Schulz replied that ODOT did not test, but reviewed the tests that were conducted. Ms. Bettman said she did not base her conclusions on opposition to the application; she felt the applicant’s sampling and testing was inadequate because it mixed high and low quality material and averaged the quality of the aggregate to demonstrate that the standard had been met. She did not think that was an accepted way to determine if there was a significant resource of the particular aggregate that met the standard. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Howe clarified that ODOT did conduct sampling in addition to the applicant and verified the applicant’s sampling. He said DOGAMI reviewed both ODOT and the applicant’s sampling and verified that they were done correctly and according to AASHTO provisions. He commented that under the standard practice for sampling aggregate, there were specific provisions that addressed how sampling was done. He referred to information in the packet identified as Exhibit 33, which specifically allowed the combination of samples from various locations to be reviewed for their overall ability to meet standards. He said samples were not required to be taken from one specific location and or prohibited from being combined with materials from other locations. He said the applicant’s methodology was entirely acceptable. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution that finds there is not sufficient evidence that a significant resource exists on the subject site consistent with the attached draft findings. Mr. Clark asked if all of the official agencies involved in the process stated the applicant had conducted appropriate testing and verified the results and the Planning Commission agreed the testing was acceptable and a majority agreed there was a sufficiency of resource. Mr. Yeiter said that was correct, but the findings as prepared by staff determined that the applicant’s methodology mixed such high quality materials with lower quality material that it was unacceptable. Mr. Clark asked if the applicant’s methodology met ODOT standards. Mr. Yeiter said it did. Mr. Pryor said he was proceeding on the assumption that no one would be changing their vote from the 5:4 straw poll taken previously and the application would fail. No one indicated they would change. Ms. Bettman said that findings needed to be consistent with the Metro Plan and the significance of resource according to the plan was not the same as ODOT’s standards. She said the plan required both quantity and quality. She would support the motion. City Manager Taylor asked that the language of the motion be changed from resolution to ordinance at the request of legal counsel. Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor agreed to accept the revised language as a friendly amendment. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the findings could not be sup- ported because on further review there was sufficient evidence that there was sig- nificant resource on the site and to direct the city manager to schedule work ses- sions for continued deliberations on the remaining issues. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon and Mr. Clark voting in favor. The vote on the main motion was tied, 4:4; voting in support were Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Zelenka and in opposition were Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Clark and Ms Solomon. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2007 Page 11 Work Session