Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/10/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall February 10, 1999 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, David Kelly. In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Scott Meisner called the council to order at 11:30 a.m. 1.ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Taylor raised the issue of who received council meeting packets and suggested that each councilor be allowed to choose one organization or individual to receive the packet. City Manager Jim Johnson indicated that because the City planned to put the meeting packet contents on its Web site, it did not intend to send the meeting packet to any outside organization. He noted that the packets were also at the Eugene Public Library and could be accessed on the Web at the library as well. Mr. Johnson added that the Chamber of Commerce, the only organization receiving the packet, was the only organization that had requested it. Mr. Pap~ said that he had been contacted by constituents regarding dogs at large in the greenway. He said that there were no signs regarding the need to keep dogs on leash. Mr. Johnson noted that 2-1/2 animal control officers were available to serve the Eugene area, and the law was primarily enforced on a call-for-service basis. He noted that he had also received calls and intended to ask Animal Control to concentrate on the area periodically for enforcement. Mr. Kelly thanked the City Manager for placing the council meeting packets on the Web. Ms. Nathanson expressed appreciation for the open and pleasant discussions that had occurred at the council's recent process sessions. She anticipated the public would see changes in the way the council conducted its business as result of the sessions. Mr. Fart said he was pleased with the dialogue that occurred between councilors at the process sessions, and he was optimistic about the way the council would work together in the future. He said that he had included on his council "legacy" list the hope that residents of the Bethel-Danebo felt well-served, as they were, by the City. Mr. Fart said that the burden was on him to some degree to make the residents of the area understand what the City was doing for them. He noted the City's grant applications for funding bicycle paths that will link three parks in the area to the new schools, and the extension of the Emerald Canal bicycle path. Mr. Lee passed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1999 Page 1 11:30 a.m. Mr. Rayor said that he had been tracking the Rest Haven Memorial Park tree felling permit process and called it an exercise in good government in terms of how it was being handled by the City. Mr. Johnson called the council's attention to the council goals process session, tentatively scheduled on February 19, 1999, if the council choose to proceed with six members present. After a brief discussion about existing councilor conflicts on that date, Mr. Johnson indicated staff would poll for another date. Mr. Johnson reviewed the City's procedures in addressing the snowfall earlier that morning. Mr. Meisner asked for an update on the traffic study for the Whiteaker Plan amendment related to A&K Development. Mr. Meisner responded to questions asked by Mr. Pap8 at an earlier meeting regarding whether the existing rail station was the wisest choice for high-speed rail and if other sites were considered. He said yes; the Lane Council of Governments had convened a committee to study station sites for high-speed's rail southern terminus. The committee's conclusion was that the existing station was the best site. He offered to make copies of the report available to interested councilors. Mr. Meisner announced that the tentative date for the joint elected officials meeting was April 14, 1999. He noted that the council had a lunch meeting scheduled for earlier that day. He asked the council to let staff know if they were unable to attend the joint elected officials meeting. Ms. Taylor responded to Mr. PapS's earlier remarks about dogs off leash by saying that she frequently received constituent calls complaining about Animal Control harassing dog owners. 2.RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK REVIEW PROCESS Cathy Briner, Planning and Development Department, introduced the topic, saying that a significant review of the Riverfront Research Park had occurred on campus. She noted the presence of members of the Riverfront Research Park Commission, Dan Giustina, Jane Scheidecker, and Gil Achterhof. She also introduced Theodore Palmer, Professor of Mathematics, who served as chair of the University's review committee, which was asked by President Dave Frohnmayer to look at the Riverfront Research Park; Frank Giunta, principal with Connassaince International, a consulting firm hired by the review committee to assist in its review; and Tom Dyke, Provost for Research for the University of Oregon. Dr. Palmer briefly reviewed the history of the Riverfront Research Park, noting it had been a matter of controversy since its inception. In response to a petition submitted to him last year from faculty and students, President Frohnmayer had appointed an eight-person committee to consider the park. Dr. Palmer noted his own lack of connection to the park in the past. He said that when President Frohnmayer appointed him chair of the committee, he had been promised by the President that the committee would have the freedom to present whatever it found. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1999 Page 2 11:30 a.m. Dr. Palmer said that the committee found, in contrast to the "buzz" on campus, that the park was doing okay. The area was initially a gravel extraction area refilled in the 1970s with the debris from the downtown mall. He believed the land was a major asset of the University because of its potential availability for campus purposes. Dr. Palmer reminded the council that the park was started at a time of recession, and President Paul ©lum was seeking to bolster University-City relations and address the economic issues facing the community at the time by proposing the park. Dr. Palmer said that the review committee recommended that the park be continued generally in accordance with the detailed master plan developed in the past. One of the master plan's points called for the preservation of the river front. Dr. Palmer said that the committee was committed to that cause, although he acknowledged that preservation meant different things to different people. The master plan included many restrictions on what could occur next to the river, because the drafters of the plan did not want to see the river front destroyed. Mr. Giunta, consultant to the committee, described President Frohnmayer's charge to the committee, saying he had asked the committee to consider best practices for research park development nationally and internationally, to evaluate how well the park had done in comparison to other parks, to review the business terms, and to identify opportunities for the future. The committee had reviewed the extensive public record, including the feasibility studies performed for the park at its inception. Mr. Giunta said that, while the committee found the feasibility studies may have been overly optimistic in the beginning, through time they had not been inaccurate. Mr. Giunta provided the council with data comparing the progress of the River front Research Park and other research parks, specifically: 1) the University of Colorado in Boulder; 2) Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois; 3) the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Mr. Giunta said the communities were chosen for the resemblance to Eugene's park in terms of size of the community, location of the park, and association between the college and community. He said his findings indicated the Riverfront Research Park compared very well with those parks, as well as with a composite comparison of 400 parks completed by the accounting firm, Coopers & Lybrand. Mr. Giunta summarized accomplishments in the Riverfront Research Park over the past ten years. Mr. Giunta described how the master plan protected the riparian environment along the river front, noting that more than one-half of the developable land in the park was preserved as open space. Mr. Giunta said that the park's objectives were very much in line with Eugene's recently adopted Growth Management Study policies; he pointed out the parks objectives were mapped to those policies in his report. He said that the park objectives directly supported 11 of the 18 Growth Management Study policies. Mr. Giunta noted that the park objectives also complemented the University's Strategic Plan for the 21st Century. Mr. Giunta briefly discussed public oversight of the management of the park. Mr. Giunta described other research parks and noted their locations in their communities in terms of distance from a college campus. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1999 Page 3 11:30 a.m. Mr. Giunta noted the interdisciplinary connections between the University and the research park, saying there were approximately 20, and those were the areas where new enterprises would arise in the future. Mr. Giunta noted challenges to the park, including the need for careful planning for future growth, and reported that the review committee considered three growth scenarios for the park: 1) organic growth, coming from within the University; 2) a more accelerated growth rate; and 3) a rapid growth rate. Each scenario had different implications. Mr. Giunta said that another challenge was the lack of a speculative real estate market in Eugene and difficulties in financing building construction. The need to cultivate a greater community understanding and support of the park was a major challenge to the park. Mr. Giunta said that the community may not have a good understanding of the value of the asset the park represented as a lever for the growth Eugene might want to see in the future. Another challenge was getting more companies from the University in an incubator environment in the park, and retaining companies in the park and in the region. Mr. Dyke discussed the University's plans for the research park. He said that the University believed the park had been successful, was moving along at a good pace, and that there were many benefits from the park. The University did not expect to make a lot of money from the park, but anticipated the park would be crucial for the technology transfer efforts of the University and its faculty and students. Mr. Dyke said the park would be crucial for attracting and retaining high- tech and knowledge-based companies to Eugene and would help diversify the local economy. He said that the University considered its partnership in the park with the City to be important and valuable, and symbolic of the benefits of the park. Mr. Dyke used a map of the park to describe the buildings located in the park and their tenants. Mr. Dyke described the University's zebra fish cloning program and its purposes. He noted the technological spinoffs the University expected from the program, and indicated a building would be constructed to house the program. Mr. Dyke used the map to identify future development areas in the park. He discussed start-up companies locating to the park. Mr. Dyke described how the review committee's recommendations would impact the park's build- out, reporting that as recommended, the University would finish the build-out in the Silva sector before embarking on careful evaluation and planning in the Gateway and Riverview sectors of the park. He said the University valued the advice of the review committee and wished to preserve the environment of the Riverview sector. Mr. Dyke expressed the hope the council would see the value of the partnership between the University and City, and assist the University as it went into the planning process for the remaining areas of the park. Mr. Meisner invited questions and requests for information from the councilors. Ms. Taylor asked how soon the Riverfront Parkway would be constructed, and with what money. Mr. Dyke responded the planning process would include an examination of what infrastructure was needed in the park, including the parkway. Ms. Taylor indicated interest in knowing more later about the funding source. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1999 Page 4 11:30 a.m. Ms. Taylor asked what percentage of the jobs in the park came from other areas of Eugene. She asked what the fifth building in the Silva sector would be for, and if the zebra fish program facility was dependent on yet-to-be constructed infrastructure. Mr. Kelly noted his long-term support for the University of Oregon and university/business partnerships. However, he said in his own experience at the Massachuset Institute of Technology, a research park was not necessary for such partnerships to be successful. He suggested that the council separate the issue of university/business partnerships from how the park itself promoted those activities. Mr. Kelly noted the fact that companies from within Eugene had relocated to the park, meaning that the park did not create new jobs that would not have necessarily existed otherwise. Mr. Dyke said that the economic development lever from the park was that the companies involved had elected to remain and grow in Eugene. One company had seriously considered leaving the state. Mr. Kelly asked if Mr. Giunta was aware of any situations where the park had hurt an existing commercial business park; for example, Percon relocated from another business park because of the substantially lower rent in the research park. Mr. Giunta responded that the case was just the opposite; the park itself would act as an incubator, and as companies outgrew those facilities they could relocate in commercial business parks in the area. Regarding the subject of proximity to the campus, Mr. Kelly questioned whether it was necessary to have the research park so close to the University. Mr. Giunta said that proximity was vital. He said that professors working with companies not located in the park, such as Molecular Probes, complained that it was difficult to travel so far to reach the company and vice versa. He said that it was important to build a critical mass of companies, the University, faculty, and staff to facilitate the exchange of ideas and concepts. Dr. Palmer said that the University had few students working in jobs related to their majors, which was another reason the research park was needed. The University did not have the same opportunities offered by MIT to its students, and needed to do more to create them. Mr. Rayor asked for an overview of the urban renewal district and how the park fit into the district in terms of funding. He asked about existing overlay zones in the park and how those zones would be affected if the City eliminated its support for the park. He requested a percentage breakdown of open space north and south of the tracks, the percentage of paved areas, and the percentage of building footprint occupying the park. He wanted to know if streets were counted as open space. Mr. Rayor suggested that the council needed a revised master plan showing a 100-foot setback from the river and the location of parking garages. He noted his concern over the potential loss of open space along the river front. Mr. Rayor requested a history of the former pole yard. Mr. Rayor noted his dislike for Percon's building, saying it was a danger signal for him and he wanted more information about whether the park's site standards were relaxed to allow that construction type. Ms. Nathanson asked what documents would the City need to change if the University decided to change its development plans for the park. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1999 Page 5 11:30 a.m. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the existence of the park made the river front more accessible to the community, and requested information about access as it existed before the park was established and who took advantage of that access, and what access existed now, who took advantage of it, and what experience those individuals taking access were having. Mr. Fart asked if was possible for the council to see a pictorial history of the area north of the railroad tracks. Mr. Fart asked for more details about how the master plan could accommodate an attractive river front on the south bank of the Willamette River north of the tracks. Mr. Fart requested information on the existing zoning for the area north of the railroad tracks, and if the University was obliged to comply with City zoning regulations in that area. He also requested what development the University was likely to pursue on the river front if the City dissolved its partnership with the University. Mr. Fart asked Dr. Palmer if the committee's recommendations represented committee consensus. Dr. Palmer said that all the committee members unanimously agreed on the contents of the report. Mr. Fart asked if shod statements to that effect could be secured from each member of the committee. Mr. Meisner asked for statistical information confirming the desirability of geographic proximity between the park and University, particularly as it compared to other opportunities for interaction between the University and business in other pads of Eugene. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Rayor's concern about the design of the Percon building, and requested a report on how the Riverfront Research Park Commission and staff expected to balance the "well-designed, well-built" commitment and attract businesses with Iow rents. Mr. Meisner asked how for information on how the other research parks discussed by Mr. Giunta that were not involved in a city-university partnership were funded. Mr. Meisner asked if the turf surrounding buildings was considered open space. Mr. Meisner expressed the hope the review committee's report and related documents were available at the public library. Mr. Pap~ expressed appreciation that the University granted citizens access to the river across its property. He thanked Dr. Palmer for his involvement in the review committee. Mr. Pap~ asked Mr. Dyke or Dr. Palmer to provide information representative of campus sentiment to the council. Mr. Johnson reviewed questions posed by the council regarding the research park at its hearing on February 8, 1999. Mr. Meisner thanked Dr. Palmer, Mr. Giunta, and Mr. Dyke for their presentations. 3.DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO THE MALL EXCLUSION/MALL CLOSURES ORDINANCES Lieutenant Carolyn McDermed of the Eugene Police Department provided the staff presentation. She provided background on the mall exclusion and mall closures ordinances and reminded the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1999 Page 6 11:30 a.m. council that the ordinances were due to expire March 31, 1999. She introduced the officer assigned to the downtown mall, Scott Fellman. Lieutenant McDermed provided a presentation to the council on the impacts of the ordinances since their adoption in 1998, comparing crime statistics on the mall for 1998 and 1999. Officer Fellman described how the ordinances were implemented by the department. He provided statistics on the number of exclusions issued on the mall. Officer Fellman discussed the mall closure ordinance, reporting it had been violated rarely. Officer Fellman highlighted ongoing problems in the mall, including drug sales and use, graffiti and vandalism, and potential issues on the mall, including the proximity of the new library to the mall and the completion of the Broadway Place development. He discussed methods the department used to address those issues. Officer Fellman urged the council to retain and make permanent the mall exclusion and mall closure ordinances, saying they were an important tool in eliminating the problems of failure to appear at courts, preventing huge crowds from forming on the mall, and promoting responsible use of the public space. He noted a proposed revision to the mall closure ordinance eliminating an alley 160 feet off Willamette Street from the provisions of the ordinance, and a proposed revision to add one block of Broadway from Willamette to Oak streets to the mall exclusion ordinance. He also asked the council to include wilful violation of the mall rules to the exclusion ordinance. Mr. Lee suggested that crime rate comparisons of July to December 1997 and July to December 1998 indicated the crime rate had decreased by 30 percent. He asked how that was accomplished. Officer Fellman suggested it was the result of hard work. Mr. Lee asked why the ordinances were needed if the crime rate was falling. Officer Fellman said that his recommendation was based on the specific decrease in activity on the mall after the ordinances were enacted. Mr. Lee pointed out that all areas of the city had experienced decreases in crime. Officer Fellman said that the ordinances were not the only factor in reducing crime, but they had a significant impact and he did not think staff would have made the progress it had on the mall without the ordinances. He said that he would have to look at all areas more specifically to answer Mr. Lee's questions more fully. Lieutenant McDermed said that in other pads of the city the department had implemented other prevention-related measures to reduce the level of crime. She said that the mall was a unique area that required additional tools. Officer Fellman said that reducing crime activity on the mall may have reduced crime in other areas. Mr. Lee asked if the Municipal Court judge had thrown out any mall exclusions. Officer Fellman said one exclusion was thrown out because the officer was not notified of the hearing. Lieutenant McDermed added that the use of the ordinances was limited to the beat officers on the mall to ensure consistency in how they were used. Ms. Nathanson was pleased that the Municipal Court judge and staff were involved in the ordinance review. She suggested that staff would not have recommended inclusion of the willful violation of the mall rules in the ordinance unless it had experienced such violations. Officer Fellman concurred. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1999 Page 7 11:30 a.m. Ms. Nathanson said that it appeared the ordinances were being applied on the basis of behavior, not appearance. Officer Fellman concurred. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to direct staff to amend the ordinances to remove the sunset clause, modify Ordinance 20121 to add "wilful violation which applies only to repeat violations of mall rules, not the first violation of any given rule."; and to expand the geographic boundaries of Ordinance 20122. Mr. Farr noted his previously expressed concern that the impact of the exclusion ordinance would be to drive people to gather in other parts of the community, but that had not happened. He said that if he could be assured that the ordinances were not targeted at appearance but rather at behaviors, he could support them. Officer Fellman assured Mr. Farr that the ordinances were enforced on the basis of behavior. Responding to a request from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Johnson indicated staff could schedule completion of the discussion on February 17, 1999. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to table the motion to February 17, 1999. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Farr left the meeting. Mr. Rayor wanted to know who wrote the mall rules. Mr. Johnson said that the City wrote the rules. Mr. Rayor noted his concern about including the mall rules in the ordinance. Mr. Kelly asked that the council be given three motions revising the ordinances at the February 17 meeting: one to deal with the sunset, one to add the mall rule violations, and one to deal with the expansion of the nighttime closure area. Mr. Kelly reported he had a conversation with a representative of the Americans Civil Liberties Union, who noted concerns about the proposed revisions, particularly the elimination of the sunset date. Ms. Taylor said she did not want to eliminate the sunset, but perhaps extend it. She wanted more information about the mall rules, which she suggested were probably insignificant. She did not believe that a well-dressed man wearing a tie would be treated in the same manner as a shaggy-haired youth. The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1999 Page 8 11:30 a.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) IR:\'1999\CMO\City Council\cc9902'l Om '1. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 1999 Page 9 11:30 a.m.