Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC MInutes - 12/11/00 Meeting
MINUTES Eugene City Council Council Chamber--City Hall December 11, 2000 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Bonny Bettman, Gary Rayor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson (after 7:40), Gary Pap~, Betty Taylor, (after 7:40). COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Fart Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. I.PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey noted that there were 22 people wishing to speak at the public forum which, council ground rules allow 30 minutes for the Public Forum. He noted that allowing three minutes for each person would not allow time for all of the people signed up to speak. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to extend the time of the public forum by 15 minutes and allow two minutes for each speaker. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:1, with Councilor Pap6 voting in opposition. Tom Snyder, 1143 Monroe Street, spoke in favor of the Downtown Visioning plan to extend downtown to the bank of the Willamette River. He suggested creating a scale model of the riverfront so that projects could be envisioned and offered his services in creating it. Councilors Nathanson and Taylor arrived at the meeting. Steve Wildish, 2021 Morning View Drive, said that he was troubled with the City Manager's decision on Christmas trees. He opined that it was a poor and unfortunate decision and called for the City Manager to reverse it. Beth Little, 1560 Grant Street, thanked the City Council for its support of the Saturday Market. Lee Duncan, 88806 Greenhill Road, spoke against the City Manager's decision regarding Christmas Trees. He turned his back on the Council and displayed a lit Christmas tree strapped to his back. Nick Urhausen, 2858 Warren Street, stated his belief that the Christmas tree was not a religious symbol and spoke against the City Manager's decision. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 1 Regular Meeting Meg Trendler, 735 West 23rd Avenue, raised concern over the parking issue between WISTEC and the University of Oregon. She called for approval of the code amendment without naming a site for the transit station and said that WISTEC would have to close if it lost its parking revenues. Jan Savelich, 1452 Luella Street, spoke against the City Manager's decision on Christmas trees. She said that the decision missed "a balance of tolerance" in the community. Sam Miller, 3422 Videra Drive, spoke as a member of the WISTEC Board of Directors. He urged the council to come to a development decision that did not hurt WISTEC. He commented that education was at the heart of the problems in the community and added that WISTEC was a place where every member of a family could go and learn. Betsy Halpern, 3990 Blanton Road, stated that WISTEC would close if the University of Oregon proposal was passed by the City Council. She remarked that a transit station could be placed in other locations than the parking lot used by WISTEC and added that passage of the University's version of the plan would send a bad message to children that sporting events meant more to the community than their education. Kevin Burgess, 30984 Fox Hollow Road, spoke as a WISTEC board member. He stated that WISTEC would close if parking revenue was taken away by the City Council and a transit station built in place of the parking lot that WISTEC patrons used. Para Whyte, 10 Monroe Street, spoke as a member of the WISTEC Board of Directors. She raised concern over WISTEC's perilous future and stated that the parking revenue that WISTEC received kept it from closing. She urged the council to find an alternate spot for the transit station proposed by the University of Oregon. Mark Baldwin, 2167 Kincaid Street, raised concern over the Citizen Charter Review Committee selection process. He opined that Councilor Pap~ had a conflict of interest in the selection process, due to his financial interest in SaniPac, which had a contract with the City of Eugene. He stressed that he was not calling the integrity of Councilor Pap~ into question, but wanted to eliminate even the question of a conflict of interest. He called for Councilor Pap~ to recuse himself from the selection process. Melvin Cahill, University of Oregon, spoke against the City Manager's decision regarding Christmas trees. He called it a misguided policy of exclusion. Kevin Hornbuckle, 375 Adams Street, raised concern over the selection process of the Citizen Charter Review Committee. He requested that Councilor Pap~ recuse himself from the appointment process for the committee. He said that one of the applicants, John Arnold, was a partner in a firm that did work for Councilor Papa's firm. Mr. Hornbuckle opined that Councilor Papa's seat on the council was not legal and raised the question that his appointments to the Citizen Charter Review Committee would taint the process by trying to legalize his own position on the council. Mr. Hornbuckle requested that the council allocate funding for the Citizen Charter Review Committee to hire its own legal representation since one of its decisions was to decide whether the council had the right to hire and fire its legal counsel. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 2 Regular Meeting James Dean, 665 West 5th Avenue, spoke in support of the City Manager's decision on Christmas trees. He raised concern over the divisiveness in the community that the decision caused. Doug Black, 4994 Center Way, seconded the testimony of Mr. Hornbuckle and Mr. Baldwin. He raised concern that there was a conflict of interest in the law firm currently representing the City. He urged the City to find another law firm to do its legal work. Laura M. Ohanian, 840-1/2 Lawrence Street, thanked the council for its consideration in revising the City Charter. She raised concern over legal council for the Citizen Charter Review Committee and the City. She expressed a hope that the City Council would be able to hire an in-house attorney to address questions of conflict of interest that could arise if the its legal counsel was also representing other interests in the community. Rick Szakalski, 2115 Brittany Street, commented that the City Manager's Policy on Christmas trees was a mistake. He commented that the City represented the people and expressed his feelings that the reluctance to reverse the decision was a lack of proper representation. John Herberg, 568 Fenster Street, reiterated previous testimony regarding the desire to see the Council allotting funding for the Charter Review Committee to have its own legal counsel. He also reiterated the request for the Council to hire its own in-house attorney. Jan Spencer, 212 Benjamin Street, expressed concern over the Citizen Charter Review Committee and its lack of independent legal counsel. He shared the concern about conflicts of interest expressed by Mr. Baldwin. Regarding TransPlan, Mr. Spencer remarked that the Oregon Department of Transportation was just a lobbying delegation for building more roads. He stressed the importance of encouraging alternative modes of transportation in the plan. Bayard McConnaughey, 1653 Fairmount Boulevard, maintained that the West Eugene Parkway was the worst proposal ever to be considered by City officials. He said that it was unnecessary and would destroy one of the City's most valuable remaining wetlands as well as being expensive, increasing traffic, and pollution. He called for a new vote or rejection of the plan. Mayor Torrey called for council remarks. Councilor Nathanson did not agree with the testimony of the people representing WISTEC. She said that the testimony offered an incomplete picture and noted that both the City and the University of Oregon had made offers to make up the parking revenue that would be lost. Regarding the decision over Christmas trees, Councilor Nathanson stated that it was the City Manager's job to maintain order in the work place as well as in the streets of the City. She noted that there had been a serious issue and concern raised by employees and stressed the importance of fair and nondiscriminatory treatment of workers. Councilor Nathanson said that she did not view the Christmas tree as a religious symbol but viewed it as a symbol of a holiday where people remember family and friends in an otherwise dark and bleak season of the year. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor expressed a hope to delay the WISTEC decision until a better solution could be found. Regarding the Christmas tree decision, Councilor Taylor said that she was disappointed to hear about the decision and requested the City Manager reconsider it. She said that, to her, a Christmas tree was not a religious symbol, but a symbol of light and happiness and fun. Councilor Rayor noted that WISTEC's proposed budget included parking revenue from the area where the transit station was proposed as well as an unpaved area that was a wild area of a public park. He said that WISTEC was counting 500 spaces when it only had a legal right to count 200. Regarding conflicts of interest, Councilor Rayor said that the fact that one of the applicants for the Citizen Charter Review Committee had a firm that represented a one of the businesses that a City Councilor was involved in was not a conflict of interest in any way. He remarked that it was almost cruel to frame such a relationship that way. He stressed that it was incorrect both legally and ethically. Regarding the Christmas tree decision, Councilor Rayor said that if people wanted Christmas trees they should put one in their homes. Councilor Kelly said that there was no right or wrong answer for the Christmas tree issue. He said that the root question was whether the Christmas tree was a religious symbol. He said that he personally viewed Christmas trees as a religious symbol. He went on to say that religion in the work place was a difficult thing to discuss, much less make a decision over. He stressed the importance of having a mutually respectful inclusiveness in future years. Councilor Pap8 said that he would check in with legal counsel before the appointment process of the Citizen Charter Review Committee and would recuse himself if necessary. Addressing the use of other legal counsel for the Citizen Charter Review Committee, Councilor Meisner said that one of the roles of the committee was to examine the question of separate legal representation. He opined that the Citizen Charter Review Committee would not need its own legal counsel for its meetings, but added that when a final recommendation was made, separate legal representation might be in order. Regarding the tree issue, Councilor Meisner concurred with Councilor Kelly. Councilor Bettman supported the City Manager's decision on Christmas trees. She opined that City offices should be religious-neutral zones. Mayor Torrey stressed the fact that he respected the City Manager but said that he had disagreed with the Christmas tree decision from the beginning. He said that he had received comments from people outside the Christian faith to protest the Christmas tree ban because they did not want to be blamed for the decision and added that the overwhelming majority of communications that he had received had been against the ban. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 4 Regular Meeting II.CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Council Minutes November 13, 2000, Regular Meeting November 15, 2000, Work Session November 27, 2000, Work Session November 29, 2000, Special Public Hearing B. Approval of Tentative Agenda C. A Resolution Amending Resolution 4616 and Authorizing the City of Eugene, Acting by and Through the Eugene Water & Electric Board, to Enter into a Revolving Line of Credit D. Neighborhood Matching Grants Projects: Fall 2000 E. Approval of HOME Funding for Low-Income Housing Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly pulled item 2 (b). Councilor Kelly offered the following minutes corrections: · Referring to the minutes of November 13, he said the time of the meeting was incorrect and should be changed to 7:30 p.m. Referring to page 11 of the same meeting, he noted a redundant paragraph and asked that it be deleted. On page 16 of the same meeting, Councilor Kelly asked that the phrase in paragraph 3, "ordinance would be applied," be changed to "ordinance had been applied." Referring to paragraph 5 on page 18 of the same meeting, he asked that the phrase "both internal and external" be added after the word "accountability." · Referring to paragraph 6 on page 7 of the minutes of November 15, Councilor Kelly asked that "plans be codified" be changed to read "plan policies to be directly included in the land use code." Councilor Bettman offered the following minutes corrections: · Referring to page 9 of the minutes of November 15, she suggested that the last sentence of the paragraph 1 be changed to read "...underwrite the costs of alternate transportation strategies like access management, sidewalks, and nodal development which increase capacity without adding lanes..." · Referring to page 10 of the November 27 minutes, Councilor Bettman asked that the word "park" be replaced by "City's interest." On page 11 of the same meeting, she suggested that the wording in the first paragraph be changed to read "She thought a parking structure could replace the displaced parking from the transit site, surrounding neighborhoods, and areas where parking should be phased out, such as the park." MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 5 Regular Meeting · Regarding the minutes of November 29, Councilor Bettman asked that paragraph 9 on page 3 be changed to read "...in public workplaces..." rather than "...in public and work places..." Councilor Nathanson offered the following minutes corrections: · Referring to the minutes of November 13, Councilor Nathanson said that the word "ordinance" in paragraph 11 should be replaced by "penalty." · Councilor Nathanson asked that paragraph 3 on page 7 of the minutes of November 15 be modified by replacing the word "audience" with the phrase "different audiences." · Referring to page 2 of the minutes of November 27, Councilor Nathanson asked that the minutes be revised by replacing the phrase "hauler's return on investment" with "...implementing a system that would support a reasonable return on investment." In addition to minutes corrections, Councilor Nathanson also suggested the following clarifications to the record: · For the minutes of November 13, Councilor Nathanson suggested the following substitute text for paragraph 5 on page 5: "Councilor Nathanson commented about the ramifications of Ballot Measure 7, potentially involving more than traditional land use and zoning code changes." Councilor Rayor offered the following minutes corrections: · Referring to page 6 of the minutes of November 13, Councilor Rayor asked that third sentence in paragraph 2 be replaced by the following text: "He said the idea behind the amendments was to get people to park their cars in the garages downtown and to get people to walk around the rest of downtown." Regarding item B on the Consent Calendar, Councilor Kelly said that he had a question that he had raised with the City Manager related to a modification to penalties for posting signs such that the responsible party would be held responsible. City Manager Jim Johnson said that the question was on the agenda for after the first of the year. Regarding Item b, Councilor Pap8 said that he had a timing conflict for the meeting on January 27, and would like that meeting to be removed from the tentative schedule. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. III.PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2000 and Ending June 30, 2001. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing and called for questions/comments from the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to approve Resolution 4657, adopting a supplemental budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2000, and ending June 30, 2001. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly regarding an allocation toward the Hult Center Acoustic Renovation Project, City Manager Johnson said that the allocation did not mean that the project was moving forward. He said that it was staff's request to authorize a possible expenditure. He said that council would receive a memo with information on the project. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the City Council and called a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency to order. IV. URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2000 and Ending June 30, 2001. Mr. Torrey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, he closed the public hearing and asked for agency member questions/comments. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to approve Resolution 1010, adopting a supplemental budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2000, and ending June 30, 2001. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the River Front Capital Development Trust Fund, Paul Farmer said that the transfer of funds to the University of Oregon had to do with funds received from the State of Oregon for grants in the Riverfront District. Because of previous decisions made by the council regarding the district, those grant funds were being transferred to the University to carry out its mission. In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding an allocation to study the Franklin Boulevard/ Willamette River Corridor, City Manager Johnson said that it was not a full transportation study but was the dollars allocated for Phase 2 of the downtown visioning process in addition to work on pedestrian movement and items related to the proposed new federal courthouse location. He noted that the study was being done in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Transportation. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the urban renewal agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. V. ACTION: Approval of the 2001 Legislative Policies Document MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to adopt the 2001 Legislative Policies Report, and to direct staff to make editorial changes which may be necessary for publication. Councilor Nathanson said that there were two questions before the council. The first was, "What to do with the report?" The second was, "Does the council wish to select top priorities for lobbying? And, if so, did it want to adopt them that night or wait until another date?" She recommended setting priorities at that meeting. She also recommending adopting the report that evening. She said that the document reflected what the State legislative program would be, but as Measure 7 becomes more clear and other issues develop, then the program might involve more than what was in the document. She said that the report was not the sum total of the legislative program and added that next year's Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) would consider a number of things not in the document. Councilor Kelly made the following suggested changes to the document to general consensus: · He suggested that, in the "Planning Policies" section of the document, language be inserted that used revisiting the needed housing rule and the requirement that all refinement plan criteria be directly in the land use code as examples of cases where the State was overstepping local zoning authority. · He noted that there was no transportation package at the legislature for the upcoming session and remarked that the document needed to be changed to reflect that. · He expressed a desire to see language included in the document regarding funding for nodal development initiatives. Councilor Kelly noted that the 1999 document language strongly supported the Oregon Transportation Plan and questioned the changed language that said that the City supported the Plan as long as it was consistent with City policies. He suggested that the language of the 1999 be examined to see if the language was still what the City wanted to support. Sara Hamlen, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, said that a number of the transportation elements that were proposed as a package in the last legislative session were not being brought forward by the League of Oregon Cities or the Association of Oregon Counties in the upcoming session, although there would be a transportation package offered. Councilor Nathanson raised concern that reviewing the 1999 document language, reviewing new staff proposed language, and going over the Oregon Transportation Plan would be a very long process. She stressed the need for adopting the report by the conclusion of council business that Wednesday. She said that the CClGR did not have time to review the Oregon Transportation Plan independent of staff analysis and determine if it was still consistent before the close of the Wednesday meeting. Councilor Kelly raised concern that the language was simply brought forward from the 1999 document without a closer review. Councilor Bettman said that the language in the document was reassuring to her. She suggested that if the language "...consistent with City policy" was removed from the document the council might be viewed as supporting things that were not consistent with City policy. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Nathanson suggested, to general consensus, changing the first line in Section 2 of the document to "The City has strongly supported the Oregon Transportation Plan..." Moving on, Councilor Kelly noted that there was no language regarding the Oregon Livability Initiative in the current legislative document. He expressed a desire to retain some of the policies from the Initiative that still had merit. He cited expansion of the Transportation Growth Management program and potential financial incentives for infill development as examples. He suggested, to general consensus, that staff re-examine those policies. Councilor Taylor thanked Ms. Hamlen for getting the information to the councilors that were in Boston so that they would be informed for the current meeting. She expressed her appreciation that she had a better chance to review the document than she had had in the past. Councilor Taylor raised concern over language in the document regarding strengthening the City's ability to levy an admissions tax. She commented that there had been no agreement that an admissions tax was desired. In response to a question from Councilor Taylor regarding why the City was opposing a certification for firefighters, Ms. Hamlen said that it was a local control issue since the City already had its own certification standards for firefighters. Mayor Torrey said that legislation regarding an admissions tax was necessary because, should the City choose to have one, it needed the ability to levy it. Councilor Meisner expressed his appreciation for the staff work involved in the document. He also expressed his pleasure in being able to discuss the items in the document more than had been done in previous years. He said that the broad policies of the document reflected the council's discussions. Councilor Meisner raised a concern with setting priorities for the document at the current time. He noted that the CClGR had not yet met with the legislative delegation and went on to say that the Legislature was only just organizing for the new session. He raised a concern with "locking in priorities" when legislative direction could change the need for those priorities in the first day of the session. He suggested adopting the document as a general conceptual and policy direction document and allow priorities to develop as the session progressed. Councilor Pap8 supported the document. He said that he respected Councilor Meisner's comments but stressed the need for setting some priorities. He cited high-speed rail as a priority, since Eugene would be the southern terminus of any high speed rail that was developed. Councilor Rayor referred the council to the contracting section of the document. He said that he had numerous conversations with the Public Works Department regarding how to word the section. He asserted that the statement "For these services local government would not be allowed to consider price of a proposal until after a consultant was selected" was incorrect. Councilor Rayor said that price was always present as a secondary criterion. He raised concern with having conflicting information in the document. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman said that the document should be a reflection of City policy and a way for lobbyists to represent what was in the City's best interest. She called attention to page 7 of the document and asked if the City of Eugene was on record as supporting electric utility deregulation. Councilor Nathanson said that it was not the City Council's choice to support or oppose deregulation since it was something that would be imposed by the federal government and State legislature. She said that, in the past, the City had worked with public utility districts and Congressman Peter DeFazio's office on developing proposals for how the State would actually implement deregulation. She commented that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) had a different perspective on what the solution should be, so the current document's language needed to show that the City would act to protect the broad constituency that the council represented and not actually support specific proposals. She stressed that the council was not on record supporting deregulation but wanted to participate in shaping its administration. Councilor Bettman said that the language in the document could be stronger to reflect Councilor Nathanson's comments. Councilor Bettman called attention to Item b on page 21 of the document. She said that the text ".establishes system maintenance, preservation, and operation as a top, but not the only, priority for funding" did not fit the definition of a top priority. She suggested, "operation as a priority for funding" as alternative language. Calling attention to item f. of the same section, Councilor Bettman suggested strengthening the language to address implementation and call out specific efficiencies and alternatives like nodal development. There was general consensus. Moving on to page 22, Councilor Bettman called attention to recommendation 2. She said that it was premature to cite the downtown visioning document in legislative policies since there had been no work session on it yet and it had not been adopted as a plan. She called for the references to the downtown visioning document to be removed from the legislative policies. Mayor Torrey stressed the need for practicality in what the council asked its staff to do in Salem. He said he met earlier in the day with staff from the Oregon Department of Transportation and believed the legislature would be lucky if it managed to deal with the issue of transportation financing. If it did, he believed that any additional moneys allocated would be strictly targeted. Councilor Bettman called attention to page 26 of the document regarding congestion pricing. She said that congestion pricing was a viable strategy but that it never rose to the top of the list of strategies and having it present in the document took away from some of the other language that she was suggesting and some of the other priorities that had been brought up at City Council meetings. She believed that it diluted the rest of the recommendations. Mayor Torrey suggested taking the entire transportation question and send it back to staff or to the CCIGR to review it and finalize it. He commented that, at the current time, "It was just a bunch of words." Ms. Hamlen said that the Transportation package was currently being discussed at the legislature and was one of the subjects, along with Ballot Measure 7, that was changing on a daily basis. She suggested either making the section comprehensive for the many new legislators who would MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 10 Regular Meeting be just arriving in Salem, or streamlining the section to focus on rail and transportation strategies that the City of Eugene particularly wanted for focused attention. Councilor Nathanson said that congestion pricing was in the document because, in the past, the council had supported the concept of congestion pricing. She did appreciate Councilor Bettman's comments regarding things that were likely not achievable watering down the document from what was achievable. She suggested a motion to strike Section C or strike recommendation C(1). Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the motion by amending the funding for streets, highways, and transit section (recommendation B on page 21) by striking "but not the only." The amendment passed, 5:1, with Councilor Nathanson voting in opposition. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the motion by amending the funding for streets, highways and transit section (recommendation l(f)) to read; "...encourages the coordination of land use and transportation planning like nodal development, and implementation to realize efficiencies in transportation systems and to maintain livable communities." Councilor Kelly commented that if every single word of the document was going to "word smithed" then the council was going to be in session for a very long time. He suggested stating the motion not in terms of specific word changes. He suggested; "...add language supportive of nodal development funding" and recommended that all the rest of the amendments be in that concept level. Councilor Bettman withdrew her motion. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend the motion by adding language to recommendation l(f) to strengthen the implementation aspect and added language regarding nodal development. Councilor Pap8 raised concern about the length of the process and said that none of the State legislators were going to read the recommendations anyway. City Manager Johnson said that the document was council policy on an issue that gave direction to staff regarding what it did or did not testify on. Councilor Nathanson stressed that the document should be distributed, in its entirety, to the legislative delegation. She conceded that maybe none of them would read the entire document but noted that if there was a particular topic that the City was lobbying for, the legislator would seek detailed information in the document. The amendment passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion by amending Oregon Transportation Plan Recommendation 2 to delete language referencing the specific example of Franklin Boulevard and the downtown visioning process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly supported the motion because of the fact that there had been no work session or adoption of the Greater Downtown Visioning document. Councilor Pap~ opposed the motion. He expressed his appreciation of the work that the Greater Downtown Visioning Committee did and stressed the importance of trusting the members of the committee who went through the process. Councilor Bettman reiterated that the downtown visioning document had not been adopted by the council. The amendment failed, 4:3, with councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in favor. Councilor Kelly called the council's attention to the General Government Section of the legislative document. He noted that in the 1999 document there was a section on the use of the initiative process that urged reforms of the initiative process that came from a City Club of Eugene study. He cited raising signature levels for constitutional amendments as an example. He opined that those policies were at least as important as they were in 1999 and expressed a desire to discuss why those items were dropped from the current document. There was general consensus to reinstate a streamlined form of that language. Councilor Kelly expressed concern over picking top priorities for the document that evening. He suggested that the CClGR make a recommendation to the entire council after the first of the year. Councilor Nathanson suggested, to general consensus, to authorize staff to write a brief general statement describing the City's position on Ballot Measure 7, including mention of the vote of the citizens of Eugene so that it was clear that the council was representing their constituency. She said that such a section would justify all of the City's lobbying efforts in the coming months. Councilor Nathanson said that the priorities of the document should be to protecting the City budget, protecting home rule, and protecting livability. Councilor Rayor, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved to remove the entire section on personal services and quality-based selection. Councilor Rayor said that he went out of his way to work with Public Works Staff and was disappointed in his inability to get staff to move on the subject. Councilor Nathanson said that the section in question was not describing the current situation, but was describing what would happen if the new mandates, possibly being sponsored in the legislature, were to come into effect. She said that the section was to direct a lobbying instruction that would oppose efforts that would prohibit cities from using cost as one of the criteria for a project. Councilor Rayor reiterated his disappointment in the lack of staff response to his concerns. City Manager Johnson suggested deleting the last paragraph on page 61 of the document of the document and the first paragraph on page 62 as a way of addressing Councilor Rayor's concerns. There was general consensus from the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 12 Regular Meeting With the permission of his second, Councilor Rayor withdrew his motion. The main motion passed, 6:1, with Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. VI.ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Parking Requirements and Amending Sections 9.015, 9.585, and 9.586 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Councilor Nathanson acknowledged that she did work for the University of Oregon, but said that she did not have a conflict of interest regarding the agenda item. She said that she had checked with legal counsel and there was no legal conflict of interest. Regarding her personal feelings, Councilor Nathanson said that she worked for the ©RBIS Library Consortium which had a separate governing body from the University. She stressed that there was no way for her to gain or lose by expressing opinions on the topic. Councilor Kelly suggested that five to ten minutes of discussion on the item before any motions were made would be fruitful. He commented that he disagreed with some of the positions that WISTEC, City staff, the University of Oregon, and the East Alton Baker Park Citizen Planning Committee had taken. He stressed the importance of looking at the big picture. He said that there had been progress made since the council had gotten involved in September but noted that significant progress had only been made in the previous 7-10 days. He suggested that the best course of action might be to delay action until the first Monday meeting in January. He said that he would rather not vote up or down on a specific option since he had goals in mind that did not fit with those options. Councilor Meisner raised concern over the way Option 5 was presented to the council. He called for a general summary of Option 5. City Manager Johnson said that Option 5 (the West Alton-Baker Park Development Plan) proposed a new parking lot just east of the WISTEC building. He said that Option 5 involved building an transit station at that location, using for passengers in the same way that the asphalt parking lot would have been used, and still constructing the transit station along Leo Harris Parkway in the same way that it would have been constructed near the asphalt parking lot. City Manager Johnson said that the second part of the option would be to work with the University of Oregon to place the parking on lots 8 and 9, in the East Alton Baker Park area, behind the existing WISTEC building, thereby releasing lots 8 and 9 for park uses. City Manager Johnson noted that the Alton Baker Park Master Plan would need amendments in a number of areas for the option to be possible. He said that Option 5 presented a number of advantages to the University in that the transit station would be located closer to Autzen Stadium and the hope was that the closer the transit station was to the stadium, the greater the number of game attendees would use it. He added that lots 8 and 9 would be returned to East Alton Baker Park the most quickly with that option. City Manager Johnson said there were also some down sides to the option. He cited councilor resistance to parking on the grassy area behind WISTEC as an example. In response to a question from Councilor Meisner as to how the option would solve WISTEC's revenue problems, City Manager Johnson said that WISTEC's revenue would come from the parking on the asphalt lot. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 13 Regular Meeting In response to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding the reason why lots 8 and 9 would have to change hands, City Manager Johnson said that 432 parking spaces would be hard to relocate any other place besides to the rear of the WISTEC facility. In response to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding the use of lots 8 and 9 in Option 5, City Manager Johnson said that paragraph 1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) concepts stated that the University of Oregon had to certify that it had 4,749 spaces each year. He said that those spaces did not include lots 8 and 9. He note that, while lots 8 and 9 were not in the computations at the current time, they were critical to the use by the University for staff, concessionaires, and the media, etc. Councilor Rayor stressed that WISTEC's budget should not go beyond the rights that it was given in the park. He raised concern over codifying that by allowing Option 5, saying that it was not good policy. In response to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding the number of bicycle parking spaces allowed, City Manager Johnson said that the signed IGA took precedence since it was higher than the code required. In response to a comment from Councilor Rayor that City Code required a bicycle parking space for every 20 seats in the stadium, Planning and Development Department staff Allen Lowe said that staff concluded that the ratios, allocated for Autzen Stadium currently, were incorrect. He said that there was much more bicycle parking currently required than was needed. He said that the initial analysis lead staff to that conclusion. He reiterated that the 1:20 bicycle parking ratio was simply not necessary. Councilor Taylor said that more time was needed to consider Option 5 as well as the interests of the East Alton Baker Park Citizen Planning Committee, WISTEC, and the University of Oregon. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to table the item until a time certain, that date being January 22, 2001. City Manager Johnson mentioned that the delay could impact the construction schedule for the University. Councilor Rayor called for detailed plans for Option 5 decoupled from moving lots 8 and 9. Councilor Meisner raised concern over delaying. He said that the motion to delay could result in the closing of WISTEC. Mayor Torrey stressed that if the motion were to pass, no one should walk away from the meeting with a perception of any particular outcome. Councilor Nathanson noted that the council did not have to choose a specific option and could remain silent leaving all options open. She added that it could exclude options. City Manager Johnson suggested a motion to accept a transit location so long as that location would function as well as Option 1 in maximizing transit use consistent with the transit goals in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and approved by the City Manager. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 14 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly expressed nervousness about acting too quickly on the item. He noted that there was, currently, no assurance that East Alton Baker Park would be protected in the given options. He said that he would support the motion. He called for more detail on Option 5. He expressed a desire to see the impacts of the plan. City Manager Johnson said that he was not convinced that an agreement could be reached by January 22, even given the recent progress. Councilor Kelly said that he was having trouble crafting a motion that could clearly state the goals that the council was trying to accomplish. City Manager Johnson said that the University of Oregon needed certainty for its Willamette Greenway permit application. He said that unless the University knows where the proposed transit station was going to go, it could not complete the application. Councilor Kelly remarked that there was only a small chance that delaying a month would adversely impact the University's construction timeline. Paul Farmer said that 3 acres would be needed to accommodate the 350 cars that were being proposed behind the WISTEC facility. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly regarding how large the current WISTEC parking lot was, Mr. Farmer said that it was approximately 1-1/2 acres. Councilor Kelly noted that the proposed replacement lot was twice as large as the current lot. Councilor Bettman said that she would have voted in favor of delaying if there was a possibility of looking at a wide range of options. She said that focusing efforts on only Option 5 was not acceptable. In response to a question from Councilor Pap8 regarding the consequences of delaying action, City Manager Johnson said that there was a potential impact on construction and completion of Phase 1 of the project on schedule. In response to a question from Councilor Pap8 regarding the possibility of taking action without locating a transit station, City Manager Johnson reiterated that it would cause difficulties for the University of Oregon's Willamette Greenway permit application. He noted that all of the proposed project was in the Greenway. In response to a question from Councilor Pap8 regarding the possibility of changing a decision, made that evening, at a later date, City Manager Johnson said that the council would have to restart the entire process. Councilor Taylor clarified that if the item were postponed to a date certain, any number of options could be looked at. City Manager Johnson stressed that staff would need direction as to what options to prepare information for. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 15 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly reiterated Councilor Taylor's statements and said that council could give direction to staff as to what kind of information it wanted to see when the item was taken up again. He stressed that voting to delay the decision did not limit options to consider in any way. Mayor Torrey opined that there were not enough votes to pass a specific option at that time and urged that the council pass the motion to postpone the item and give its direction to staff about data that it wanted to consider. In response to a question from Councilor Nathanson regarding the chance that construction would not go through regardless of what the council decided that evening, City Manager Johnson said that there were a number of phases to the University's expansion plans. He noted that a transit station was part of the Phase 1 plans and added that even if none of the other phases came into fruition there would still be some improvements made on the site. In response to a question from Councilor Nathanson regarding whether the University had funding for Phase 1 to proceed, City Manager Johnson said that he believed that there was. In response to a question from Councilor Nathanson regarding modifying a Greenway Permit application before the review process, Jan Childs said that it could possibly be changed prior to City staff sending out notice and outreach to the affected property owners. She said that once notice had been sent out and the public process begun, it would be much more difficult. In response to a question from Councilor Rayor regarding the capacity of the parking area behind the WlSTEC facility, City Manager Johnson said that the capacity was for 350 cars. Councilor Rayor raised concern that parking in that area would negatively impact the riparian growth nearby. He said that he would be strongly against parking in that area because it would harm salmon recovery. He said that he would vote to postpone. City Manager Johnson stressed that any parking in the area would need to comply with the 1995 administrative rule that controlled parking on grassy areas. He said that the Public Works permit process established areas where parking could and could not occur. Roll call vote; the motion to delay passed, 4:3, with councilors PapS, Nathanson, and Meisner voting in opposition. Councilor Kelly noted that there was still the matter of providing staff with direction as to what options the council wanted to consider when they took up the item in January. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to include provisions in the Intergovernmental agreement which would: A. Phase out parking on lots 8 and 9 no later than January 2004. B. Reimburse the City of Eugene for all parking on the Leo Harris Parkway at the market rate, the revenue of which shall be used to offset the loss to WISTEC from parking on parkland and for natural restoration of lots 8 and 9. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 16 Regular Meeting C. Clarify that the option chosen for the transit site was one that did not impede the City's right or ability to control the use of Leo Harris Parkway for parking and collection of maximum revenue. D. Establish a park monitoring program which was consistent with the goals of the East Alton Baker Park Citizen Planning Committee. Regarding Item B of the motion, Councilor Meisner said that the revenue would not be enough to pay for restoration of lots 8 and 9 as well as offsetting the loss of revenue to WISTEC. He asked for a clarification of priorities. City Manager Johnson noted that there was, currently, no money being charged for parking on Leo Harris Parkway. Councilor Bettman said that the problems with options 1, 2, and 5 were that they all obscured parking on Leo Harris Parkway and used it for other uses. She commented that the University was letting its largest donors utilize that parking as a benefit. She said that Leo Harris Parkway was a City facility and that the City should benefit from the parking on that facility. She said that the City could dictate how the revenue from the parking was allocated. Councilor Kelly reiterated that the motion was not intended to go into precise detail on how any revenue was spent. He suggested a friendly amendment that stated that the revenue from parking on the Leo Harris Parkway would be used toward offsetting..., etc. The friendly amendment was accepted by Councilor Bettman. In response to a question from Councilor Nathanson regarding whether continued discussion was in order, City Manager Johnson said that the item was postponed and the council was now providing guidance to staff. Councilor Pap~ raised concern over the precedent set by including WISTEC in any of the motions. He said that its interests had already been discussed at length at prior meetings. City Manager Johnson reiterated that there had never been any charge for parking on Leo Harris Parkway. He asked for a definition of market rate. Councilor Bettman said there was precedent in the current price of paid parking in other locations as well as the rate that WISTEC was charging during game days. She said that the City should be getting whatever price the market would bear. Councilor Rayor raised concern over Item A of the motion. He said that the existing Intergovernmental agreement between the University and the City tied up lots 8 and 9 until 2007. Councilor Rayor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to amend the motion by deleting Item A. Councilor Bettman noted that council had been repeatedly told that a new IGA would supercede the old IGA. She said that the council could make the University's exemption be contingent on her ideas being in the new IGA. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 17 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly was against the idea of deleting A from the motion. He suggested directing the City Manager to gradually phase out parking on lots 8 and 9 as part of a new IGA. Councilor Meisner raised a point of order for the legal counsel saying that there was no motion to table a motion. The motion was to postpone a discussion of the item. He clarified, with concurrence of legal counsel, that it was inappropriate for the counsel to have any further discussion of the item until the date specified. The discussion ceased and council moved on to the next agenda item. VII.ACTION: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Councilor Rayor excused himself from the meeting. Lane Regional Air Pollution Authori _ty Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to appoint Shannon McCarthy to Position 1, a Eugene at-large position for a term of 3 years; November 1, 2000, through October 31, 2003. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. East Alton-Baker Park Citizen Planning Committee Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to appoint Betsy Ford to Position number 10 for a term of 3 years; November 1, 2000, through October 31, 2003. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to re-appoint Charlotte Behm to Position 12, an at-large position representing Springfield, for a term of 3 years; November 1, 2000, through October 31, 2003. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Historic Review Board Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to appoint Gunnar Schlieder to Position 1 for a term of November 1, 2000, through October 31, 2004. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to appoint Karen Seidel to Position 7 for a term of November 1, 2000, through October 31, 2004. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Rayor returned to the meeting. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to re-appoint Christine Taylor Thompson to Position 3 for a term of November 1, 2000, through October 31, 2004. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0 Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to re-appoint Teresa Giustina to Position 5 for a term of November 1, 2000, through October 31, 2004. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 18 Regular Meeting MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 19 Regular Meeting VIII.ACTION: Appointments to Citizen Charter Review Committee Councilor Taylor noted that there was a clear vote for nine people on the committee and said that she would make one motion to appoint all of them. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to appoint to the Citizen Charter Review Committee the following people: · Jon Belcher · Robert Cassidy · Marlene Colbath · Matthew Donahue · Freeman Holmer · Bern Johnson · Robert O'Brien · Ken Tollenaar · Kevin Wells Councilor Pap~ clarified with legal counsel that he did not have any conflict of interest in the agenda item and could proceed with the vote. Councilor Nathanson thanked staff for its prompt work on the conflict of interest issue. She expressed her pleasure with some aspects of the ballot results, like the wide geographical range of members as well as diversity in age. She raised a concern that there was only one female nominee, and she was also concerned that one of the nominees lived outside the city limits. Councilor Rayor noted that the nominee outside of the city limits was within the urban growth boundary and was located only a short distance away from the city limits. He opined that the nominee would soon be within the City in any event. He stressed that the River Road area would be affected by the City Charter and that the applicant helped fill out geographic representation for the area. Councilor Papd concurred with Councilor Nathanson about both of her concerns. He noted that people from the River Road/Santa Clara area could participate through the public comment process of the committee. Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to amend the motion by removing Robert O'Brien's name and substituting Virginia Thompson's. Councilor Bettman opposed the amendment. She said that she had faced the same issue on the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee. She noted that the residence of the applicant would be urbanized in the life of the charter and stressed that he was an acceptable applicant. Councilor Kelly opposed the amendment. He reiterated Councilor Bettman's statement that the question had been addressed previously and found to be acceptable policy. He added that someone who was only a short distance from the city limits was very likely to be within the city limits within the life of a new charter. He also said that the "soft touch and approach" of Mr. O'Brien would help in the deliberations of the committee. He went on to note that City Code, with regard to committee appointments, specifically stated that nominees reside within the urban growth boundary and did not mention the city limits. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 20 Regular Meeting Councilor Meisner also raised concern over the lack of female nominees for the committee. He stressed the importance of a breadth of constituencies that were represented on the committee. He expressed his respect for Mr. O'Brien and acknowledged that his property would, most likely, be within the city limits within the life of the charter. He supported the motion. Councilor Bettman raised concern with making decisions based first on gender or location. She said that she looked at expertise and ability first. She commented that women were under-represented in the applicant pool, and therefore would be underrepresented on the committee, but she did not see that as a reason to change votes at the last minute. Councilor Taylor also said that gender was not her first criterion in making a decision to appoint someone to a committee. Councilor Rayor said that he would support the motion because Virginia Thompson would represent a better balance of what he thought the temperament of the committee would be. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed, 4:3, with Councilors Kelly, Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. The main motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 21 Regular Meeting