Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/22/99 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Council Chamber--City Hall February 22, 1999 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, David Kelly. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr, Gary Pap~. Mayor James D. Torrey called the council meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1.PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey outlined the rules for the public forum. Pamela Carpenter, 2163 Lawrence Street, owner of Prose Dress, 13th Avenue and Lawrence Street, stated she was representing the Westside business and residential district and asked the council to retain on-street parking in the neighborhood. She had a petition to present to the council with the signatures of those in support of her position. Ms. Carpenter described the mix of businesses on 13th Avenue and questioned why it was not included in TransPlan as a business district since she believed that the neighborhood was a model for nodal development. She asserted that there was sufficient bicycle lanes in the neighborhood and asked the council to remove the striped bicycle lanes on 13th, 15th, and 17th avenues and from Washington and Jefferson streets from the City's Arterial and Street Collector Plan. Ms. Carpenter said that State law stipulated that minor arterials do not need bicycle lanes if adequate alternate bike lanes were available. Jason Elmer, stated he was homeless and a young artist. He read a poem to the council. He said that he was told by many people he was not supposed to be here but he was here because he was an artist and art was linked with healing. He said art was all around us, "everywhere, and all you have to do is live it and love it and it will take care of you." David Hinkley, 1308 Jefferson Street, stated that on-street parking was a "necessity" in residential and retail commercial areas. He said that when parking was removed, such areas were less viable, and such parking was needed for friends and guests. Mr. Hinkley said that he was working with a group on a proposal to permit row housing as infill development on arterial and collector streets, but the Homebuilders Association was concerned about locating row housing on arterials because of the potential removal of parking, which the association maintained made the row housing no longer marketable. He said that it was difficult to locate small grocery stores in neighborhoods with sufficient on-site parking, while one or two spaces in MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 1 7:30 p.m. front could meet that need. Mr. Hinkley pointed out that the retention of on-street parking avoided the construction of off-street parking. Responding to testimony regarding on-street parking, Mr. Kelly said that the challenge to the City was balancing different goals, one goal being to support convenient access to retail uses, one goal being to provide for alternative modes of transportation, and another goal being to provide for dense growth. He asked if the City had mechanisms to move parking toward closely adjacent off-street locations, or alley-entrance parking lots. 2.CONSENT CALENDAR A. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 9, 1999 B. Approve Council Minutes of November 25, 1998 Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve the Consent Calendar. Mr. Kelly asked that item A be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Torrey indicated that Ms. Taylor asked that the last sentence in paragraph 3 on page 3 of the November 25, 1998, be replaced by the following: "She said that she liked Representative Peter DeFazio but that if anything was named for him it should be after he dies or leaves office." Mayor Torrey determined there was no objection to the proposed change. The minutes of November 25, 1999, were approved as revised, 6:0. The council returned to item A. Mr. Rayor maintained that there needed to be more discussion regarding the council's federal priorities. He wanted to ensure that passage of the minutes did not constitute approval of the federal priorities. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to ratify the minutes of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations of February 9, 1999. Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by eliminating the federal priorities until the entire council could consider the priorities. Mr. Rayor said that he was primarily concerned about the parking mitigation for the federal building, and he would prefer to focus on site review and other enhancements to downtown besides parking. In addition, there was considerable discussion of Bus Rapid Transit in the priorities, and the document could be held up as the council's approval of the concept. Ms. Nathanson pointed out to Mr. Rayor that the federal priorities were not only the City's, but the City's intergovernmental partners; for example, Bus Rapid Transit was a Lane Transit District priority that fit the City's goal of compact growth and alternative modes. City goals were often MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 2 7:30 p.m. achieved by the actions of other jurisdictions. Ms. Nathanson said the federal courthouse was not a City concern one year ago; the City was now reacting to something that was already decided at another level of government that would be imposed on Eugene. She said she was very interested in working with the federal government to persuade it to acknowledge its role in adding to Eugene's community livability. Given that Vice President Al Gore had identified community livability as a goal for the federal government, she did not think there was a better place for the government to demonstrate that interest than by working with Eugene on the many impacts the courthouse would have, regardless of its location. Ms. Nathanson said that the City would discuss all those impacts with the federal government, including pedestrian and automobile access and street-level amenities. Mike Redding of the City Manager's Office noted that the document Mr. Rayor referred to was the 1998 federal priorities document, and Bus Rapid Transit was part of the community's agenda during the last session of Congress. During the current session, Lane Transit District was not asking for more federal money but was seeking money for new buses. Mr. Rayor said that he did not interpret the document in the same way as did Ms. Nathanson. He interpreted the document as placing a priority on asking the federal government to mitigate lost parking that would result from the location of the courthouse in downtown. He believed that would be a mistake. He thought the City could ask the federal government for many enhancements downtown outside of parking. Mr. Rayor said his only reason for pulling the item was his concern that the City's focus was on parking. Mr. Lee suggested that staff draft a letter reflecting Ms. Nathanson's comments that all councilors could sign. City Manager Jim Johnson said that many other issues are involved in the courthouse's location in downtown, and the description could be changed to mention all the impacts cited by Ms. Nathanson. The motion to amend failed, 2:4; Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Kelly referred to House Bill 2181 and noted his opposition to the committee's recommendation. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to amend the motion by returning HB 2181 for reconsideration to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. The motion passed, 6:0. Ms. Taylor asked why the committee opposed Senate Bill 0219. Mr. Redding responded that staff found the bill would create an unequal enforcement of building codes statewide, and may also result in later regulations requiring local jurisdictions to perform inspection services in a manufacturer's plant outside the jurisdiction, resulting in multiple jurisdiction staff doing inspections in plants or multiple contracts. Ms. Taylor was concerned that the City was opposing a homestead exemption for people over 65. She acknowledged that it was an unfunded mandate, but thought the committee previously agreed to approve a homestead exemption for everyone. Ms. Nathanson said the committee discussed Ms. Taylor's suggestion in November 1998. She suggested that the committee be MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 3 7:30 p.m. asked to reconsider the issue and add language that expressed support for the concept while continuing to oppose an unfunded mandate. The council agreed that the committee would reconsider the issue at its February 23 meeting. The motion to amend passed, 5:1, Mr. Rayor voting no. 3.PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS PLAN BY ADOPTING PLANNED TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR WETLAND DESIGNATIONS FOR CITY PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE WEST 18TM AVENUE AND WEST 11TM AVENUE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND POSSIBLE FINAL ACTION City Manager Jim Johnson introduced the item, noting that Planning Division staff was present to answer questions. Mr. Rayor declared a conflict of interest and left the dias because he was involved in the preliminary design plans for West 11th Avenue through his employment. Neil Bj0rklund, Planning and Development Department, said that the amendments before the council were quasi-judicial in nature because they addressed two specific sites. The two sites totaled half an acre; one site was on West 18th Avenue between Bertelsen and Willow Creek roads, and the other site was on the north side of West 11th Avenue between Danebo and Arrowsmith roads. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the amendments were not related to the proposed West Eugene Parkway. Mr. BjOrklund reviewed the criteria for approval of a refinement plan amendment: 1) the amendment must be consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; 2) the amendment must be consistent with the remaining portions of the refinement plan, in this case the West Eugene Wetlands Plan; and 3) the amendment must meet one or more of the following: a) it must address an error in the publication of the plan, b) a change in circumstances in a substantial manner not anticipated in the plan, c) the incorporation into the plan of new inventory material that relates to a Statewide goal, or d) a change in public policy. Mr. BjOrklund said that the Eugene Planning Commission had evaluated the plan against those criteria, and any public testimony or subsequent appeal should be focused on the criteria. He noted the amendments must be approved by the Lane County Board of County Commissioners, which would take action after the council took action. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. BjOrklund explained that mitigation for any wetland impact was governed by State and federal law. Mr. Lee asked if the Planning Commission's recommendation was unanimous. Planning Director Jan Childs said yes. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. There being no one present to speak, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4679, an ordinance to amend the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by adopting planned transportation corridor wetland MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 4 7:30 p.m. designations for City properties located within the West 18th Avenue and West 11th Avenue road improvement projects. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that Council Bill 4679, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote. The motion was adopted unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4679 by number only. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that Council Bill 4679 be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. The motion was adopted unanimously, 5:0, and became Ordinance 20147. (Mr. Rayor recused himself, Mr. Pap8 and Mr. Farr were absent.) 4.PUBLIC HEARING: WITHDRAWAL OF RECENTLY ANNEXED PROPERTIES FROM SPECIAL DISTRICTS Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4678, an ordinance to withdraw recently annexed property from special districts. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Yeiter described how the public was noticed of district withdrawals. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4678, an ordinance to withdraw recently annexed properties from special districts. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that Council Bill 4678, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4678 by number only. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that Council Bill 4678 be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0, and became Ordinance 20146. 5.PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE EXCLUDING LAW VIOLATORS FROM THE DOWNTOWN MALL; ADDING A NEW SECTION 4.874 TO THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND PROVIDING AN AUTOMATIC REPEAL AS OF MARCH 31, 1999; AND AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE DOWNTOWN MALL; AMENDING SECTION 4.680 OF MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 5 7:30 p.m. THE EUGENE CODE 1971; AND PROVIDING AN AUTOMATIC REPEAL AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 Mr. Johnson noted that the council held a work session on the ordinance and would hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance revisions. He asked Officer Scott Fellman of the Eugene Police Department to summarize the ordinance revisions. Officer Fellman provided the council with an overview of the revisions. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Jim Kovack, 60 West 22"d Avenue, said the ordinances in question did not address the severity of the problems downtown, in particular window etching, which was an increasing and expensive problem. He spoke of the difficulty and cost of finding new tenants to fill spaces downtown. He asked that the council extend the ordinance to the Charnelton Street area. He said that enforcement needed to be increased and concentrated in downtown in a manner similar to that used to disperse activity on Willamette Street "gut." Mr. Kovack said that merchants and property owners downtown should not be directed to remove graffiti, as they were removing it as fast as they could. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, Eugene, complemented staff for its work on the ordinances and hard work downtown. He referred to a letter from Russ Brink to the council in support of the ordinances and indicated his complete concurrence with Mr. Brink's remarks. He said that the problems downtown were a deterrent to business relocation, and had an effect on the broader community. Mr. Miller said the City's administration of the parking lots adjacent to Broadway had some negative aspects and were "helping to kill retail." Sue Prichard, 101 East Broadway, Suite 101, discussed her experience as a commercial real estate broker in downtown and enumerated problems she had in attempting to lease and sell properties in the area, including doors and windows smeared with human excrement and doorways used as toilets, etched windows, drug and pregnancy prevention paraphernalia, glued locks, and graffiti. Tenants were harassed on the mall by large groups of people who blocked access to space. As a result, rents downtown had dropped to less than half of what they were several years ago and there was a decrease in tenants. She said that since implementation of the mall ordinances conditions had improved significantly. Ms. Prichard acknowledged other efforts targeted downtown, and said she endorsed the revisions proposed by the Eugene Police Department to the ordinances as just one piece of a larger solution. Martin Champion, 1430 Willamette Street, #597, opposed the extension of the ordinances because they gave judicial power to the police. He said that law enforcement should be separated from the judicial system of punishment. He said that it was not due process to give an officer the authority to exclude people from the mall. Mr. Champion considered the ordinances to take away "a little piece of liberty," and asked where that would stop. Sherry Franzen, 2635 Oak Street, opposed the ordinances as a violation of people's civil liberties. She believed that the community would experience vigilantism if the police were not accountable to the law in the same way as a citizen. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 6 7:30 p.m. Polly Nelson, PO Box 50426, Eugene, Southern District Coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that her organization continued to oppose the ordinances but supported extending the sunset for a two-year period as a meaningful and appropriate way to provide time for data gathering and a thoughtful evaluation. She said that there was other data the City might want to consider; for example, if someone was excluded from the mall and then violated the exclusion and was convicted of criminal trespassing, how does that person appear in the data? Information about racial or ethnic background and economic status would also be useful. Ms. Nelson noted the ACLU's opposition to the inclusion of the mall rules in the ordinance. Misha Seymour, 1313 Lincoln Street, #306, objected to the piping of classical music on the mall. He said that people liken downtown to a park, but people can sit down in a park. He related an anecdotal incident about harassment of a pregnant woman by the Downtown Guides, who he claimed refused to allow her to sit. He termed the ordinances a "slippery slope to fascism" and said people have a right to be on the mall and to sit on benches. He suggested that classism was involved in the issue and said that the mall was not just for businesses. David Hinkley, 1308 Jefferson Street, supported the council's proposed two-year sunset of the ordinances. He opposed both ordinances, suggesting that they were a start of a "slippery slope." Mr. Hinkley said that he did not support anti-social behavior, and when such behavior violated the law, people involved should not be excluded but should be arrested and jailed. He suggested that for $1 million the City could build a 80-bed tent jail to house miscreants. Mr. Hinkley said that the mall was a public thoroughfare and he did not support closing streets and public ways. Ali Emami, 941 Willamette Street, said he owned two businesses in downtown. He said he became a citizen to enjoy the civil rights of the United States. He did not think civil rights included people urinating in his doorway or the adjacent alley, or people etching $2,000 windows. Mr. Emami said the Broadway curfew did not improve things for the Willamette Street section of downtown but had shifted problems there. He supported the revised ordinances but said if the problem shifted around it would not be possible to impose martial law on the whole downtown. Mr. Emami said that while property owners monitored the inside of buildings with alarms, property owners needed police patrol and enforcement outside. He suggested that the police set up video cameras in the area to monitor problems, and that the City impose heavy fines on those found guilty of vandalism and crime downtown. Russ Brink, Downtown Eugene, Inc., 132 East Broadway, Suite 103, said that the problems on the mall were not the youth congregated there, but rather that people did not come downtown and did not recognize the importance of a healthy downtown. Mr. Brink said that Eeugene should have a vibrant downtown it could be proud of rather than a downtown that was largely avoided by its own residents. He urged the council to show leadership and bring change about in downtown. He said that the council should not spend a great deal of time on the ordinances, which he considered relatively minor to the overall picture. He said the ordinances were tools that appeared to be effective and should be passed, but they were just tools. Randy Prince, PO Box 927, opposed the ordinances. He said that they should not be a single agenda item as there were two issues involved; whether public access to public properties should be closed at certain hours, and whether people should be excluded from downtown based on their status as unconvicted criminals. He said that the only thing connecting the two ordinances were the area concerned and the people the ordinances were targeted at. Mr. Prince said the same unconstitutional motives were behind both ordinances. Regarding the exclusion MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 7 7:30 p.m. ordinance, he said that there were other methods to address the issues involved. He said the council had the power to address those issues through the existing court system. Regarding the mall closure, Mr. Prince said that it was inappropriate to close what he termed an urban center with public transit and late night and early morning activities, such as bars, night clubs, and restaurants. He urged the council to use the existing system to address the problems on the mall. M. V. Lazar, PO Box 10241, Eugene, said he owned two businesses in downtown and supported the revised ordinances, saying they were the best thing that had happened downtown since the Willamette Street and Olive Street openings. He also suggested that Broadway Street be opened as soon as possible. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Ms. Nathanson indicated interest in hearing the circumstances surrounding Mr. Seymour's anecdotal testimony, saying on face value it "sounds astonishing." Ms. Nathanson requested information about the City's experience with video surveillance, and its feasibility and appropriateness, adding she believed that would raise other questions about civil liberties. Ms. Nathanson noted that many people called for greater use of the Municipal Court system, and asked staff to briefly discuss the likelihood of that approach given limited funding. Ms. Nathanson said she would like to hear more about selective enforcement as asserted by those offering testimony. Mr. Kelly said he was concerned about the integrity of Eugene's legal system. His concern was focused on due process. He acknowledged that the ordinances had a positive effect in many ways in downtown but he was troubled by the civil liberties aspect of the issue. Mr. Kelly noted that violation of the mall rules had been removed from the exclusion ordinance. Mr. Kelly requested suggestions from staff and those offering testimony that would strengthen the judicial review element of the exclusion ordinance so it would be made plainer to those threatened with exclusion that they could seek judicial review. Ms. Taylor was also troubled by the issue of civil liberties and supportive of changes made by the council to the ordinances. It did not seem right to her that a part of downtown should be closed at any time. Ms. Taylor suggested that problems on the mall increased at the same time the skateboard and dog ban on 13th Avenue was adopted by the council. She was sympathetic to those who complained about human excrement in alleyways but pointed out that was not on the mall. Ms. Taylor questioned whether additional rest rooms would help. She believed the additional police presence rather than ordinances had improved conditions downtown. She was bothered by the construction of fences around the planters where people used to sit. Ms. Taylor believed the mall had been a more inviting place to be in the past. Mr. Meisner asked how the exclusion ordinance's five-day appeal process was communicated to those receiving an exclusion. He also noted that the curfew was not unique to the mall, pointing out that City parks also have closing times, and asked how those curfews and exclusion orders in MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 8 7:30 p.m. the parks had worked, including how many exclusion notices have been issued, how many citations for curfew violations been issued, and for how many years. Mr. Rayor said that the issue was a very difficult one. He noted changes made to improve the ordinances by the council. Ms. Nathanson said that the intent of her questions was to ensure that there were good responses to issues raised in public testimony. She noted her previous support for the ordinances and indicated she had not changed her support. Mayor Torrey noted that the council would take final action on the issue on March 8. He briefly recessed the meeting at 9 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m. 6.ACTION: APPROVAL OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM David Reinhard of the Public Works Department reminded the council it held a public hearing on the agenda item on February 8,1999. The meeting packet included responses to issues raised at that time. He referred to page 28 of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and noted a correction regarding the Broadway- Charnelton parking garage construction, saying it should be deleted because the project had already been completed. He recommended that the council adopt the ClP with the changes recommended by the Planning Commission and Budget Committee. Ms. Nathanson said that she had been under the impression that staff would be recommending the ClP be amended with language regarding the sidewalk program. Mr. Reinhard noted that the Budget Committee had not recommended funding the program. Ms. Nathanson offered the following text: 'Missing sidewalks segments will be completed as possible considering cost and benefit, especially where a sidewalk is not available on a collector or arterial or on at least one side of a local street." She said that such language would authorize projects not currently funded for which money may be available in the future. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that it would be appropriate to include such language in the CIP, which authorized projects but did not provide fiscal authorization. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to adopt the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 2000-2005, with the modifications recommended by the Planning Commission and Budget Committee. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by deferring the $300,000 line for Airport automobile parking expansion project until fiscal year 2002, and to further direct staff to explore use of these or other funds to help provide public transportation to the airport, both door-to-door and from the downtown Lane Transit District station. Responding to a request for input from Mr. Lee, Mr. Reinhard said that the expansion project was included in the prior CIP and the existing Airport Master Plan. The council's review of the new master plan would give it another opportunity to discuss the project. He pointed out that construction was not proposed until 2001. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 9 7:30 p.m. Mr. Meisner supported the amendment. He wanted the master plan to be updated and the council to have a chance to review the plan, recommended changes, and the implications of those changes before the project went forward. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:1; Ms. Nathanson voting no. Returning to the subject of Ms. Nathanson's proposed addition to the CIP, Mr. Reinhard noted that it was not common to include such text without accompanying funding, and suggested that a small amount of the $140,000 set aside by the Budget Committee for traffic calming and street lighting could be dedicated to that purpose. Ms. Nathanson did not support such an approach because it would undermine the intent of the Budget Committee by diluting the funding available for traffic calming. She said that she would give the issue some thought and propose an amendment at a future time. Ms. Nathanson noted she was already on the record with her remarks. Mr. Johnson said that a project did not have to be in the CIP to be funded. Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by deleting $800,000 in capital improvements to serve the Riverfront Research Park until completion of a planning study to review and consider changes to the Riverfront Research Park development plan and subsequent approval by the Urban Renewal Agency for the proposed improvements. Responding to a question from Mr. Klein, Mr. Rayor indicated it was his intent to delete the funding. He confirmed it would require council action to restore the funding. Mr. Klein suggested that Mr. Rayor reword the motion to indicate the council was simply removing the funding at this time. If he wanted to express the intent to restore the funding, it was more appropriate to so through another motion at a future time. Mr. Rayor withdrew his motion. Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by deleting $800,000 in capital improvements to serve the Riverfront Research Park. Ms. Nathanson expressed her preference for the initial motion because it explained Mr. Rayor's intent and placed any expenditure on hold until the other conditions were met. She asked if passage of the amendment sent a signal to some who would be less careful about understanding the council's intent and would interpret the funding as "gone for good." Mr. Kelly agreed. He suggested that Mr. Rayor consider constructing his motion to tie the action to a specific staff direction. Mr. Klein concurred, saying it would clarify what would happen in the future. He said that the initial motion had been unclear in that it did not explain what happened upon completion of the planning study: was the money restored when the plan was completed and accepted? Mr. Rayor withdrew his motion. Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. Mr. Rayor moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by deleting $800,000 in capital improvements to serve the Riverfront Research Park, and furthermore to direct staff to work with the University of Oregon on developing a process for completing a planning study to review the Riverfront MINUTES-Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 10 7:30 p.m. Research Park development plan, and that study be approved by the Urban Renewal Agency before proposed improvements occur. Mr. Meisner said that planning studies cost money, and he asked who would pay for the study called for by Mr. Rayor. He said that such a study would be a sizeable investment, and could easily consume one-quarter of what was proposed in capital improvements. He was unable to support the motion as stated. Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Meisner and suggested that staff return to the council on March 17 with information about what such a study would entail and what it would cost. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend the amendment by deleting all text after "$800,000". Mr. Kelly said he shared Mr. Meisner's concerns but believed that there must be some amount of operating funding in the Urban Renewal Agency budget to do some level of planning. He proposed the following text: "Direct staff to work with council and the University to review the University's Review Committee conclusions and determine their implications for the City's participation in the Riverfront Research Park." Mr. Johnson said that there were no operating dollars available to undertake such a planning study in the current fiscal year. He said that the council could allocate funding for that purpose during the budget review. He believed the council's intent was clear, and pointed out that the Riverfront Research Park would be discussed again on March 17. Mayor Torrey encouraged the council to postpone the issue until the March 17 meeting. He noted that the two absent councilors were also interested in the issue. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council vote now and consider further amendments at a later date. Ms. Nathanson did not want to give the public the impression the City was no longer going to participate in the Riverfront Research Park. She believed that the council had reached this point because of concern about development north of the railroad tracks. She asked, "what's the rush?" Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the ClP was merely a planning document to help in budget preparation. She questioned why the ClP had to be adopted before March 17, and suggested the council wait a few weeks to "get it right." Mr. Lee called the question. Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. The motion to call the question passed unanimously, 6:0. The motion to amend the amendment passed unanimously, 6:0. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Torrey said that the vote should not be perceived by the public as acceptance or rejection of the development in the Riverfront Research Park, and no councilor should forget that the Riverfront Research Park was not the only thing in the district, which included everything along the river east of the Ferry Street Bridge. The City may have to do some planning contingent on what occurred with AgriPac. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 11 7:30 p.m. Mr. Klein indicated that the council could postpone final action on the ClP until March 17. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1999 Page 12 7:30 p.m.