Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/14/08 MeetingM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall July 14, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Drix , West 14th Avenue, was happy with the cleanup of the hole on Willamette Street. He recounted the experience and thanked Mayor Piercy for participating. He declared that through nothing they had gained something. He said they needed to be sure that what was built at that site was good. He noted that he lived in the University district, where the young people did not always know not to have parties. He tried to share a sense of integrity with them. He also related that he had attended the Olympics and interviewed people asking them what they knew of Eugene. He said perceptions were that the City was smart, green, and supportive of track activities. Roger Condos , 3281 Wintercreek Drive, spoke regarding Consent Calendar Item D, a proposed annexation. He related that a major windstorm had caused a tree to fall into his house in 2002. He said an arborist that had come out in the aftermath told him that the trees in the area proposed to be annexed had helped keep the other trees standing as a wind barrier. He feared that if the annexation went through it would put his house at risk again. He noted that there were ten 80-foot fir trees in his backyard as well as numerous animals. He stated that west of his residence a new development had been opened up and approximately 180 homes were supposed to be built, but only two lots had sold thus far. He averred that now was not a good time to add more lots. James Irwin , 3259 Wintercreek Drive, also wished to speak about the annexation request for Westfair Associates (A 08-2). He related that he and his wife had purchased their property five years earlier for the view, the wildlife, and the privacy. He felt the proposed annexation would “finish all that off.” He explained that they would have a buffer zone of approximately 35 feet, which was not enough to mitigate what he considered to be “a clear-cutting event.” He read the following bullet points into the record: ? The land zoned R-1, Residential was approximately 50 feet and the land behind it was zoned A, Agricultural; ? No provisions had been made with regard to the retention pond, which fed the wildlife; ? Based on the developers past track record, he feared the land would be cleared of all trees; ? The City had a reputation of not allowing the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to be expanded. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting He averred that the property would not support the services needed for development. Ben Mondragon , 3265 Wintercreek Drive, also spoke in opposition to the annexation item. He said when he and his wife bought their home they had been led to believe they were not within the UGB. He underscored that they had purchased it because they wanted a “certain lifestyle and ambiance.” He echoed Mr. Irwin’s concern regarding the possible loss of the pond. He averred that in looking at some of the developers’ projects he felt they had a “scorched earth policy,” removing every tree and then asking the new home buyers to replant with trees not native to the area. He was also concerned there would be issues with the runoff. He believed there was currently an excess housing inventory in the south hills. He also expressed concern there would not be adequate access for emergency vehicles. He requested that the council deny the annexation. Del Johnson , 3247 Wintercreek Drive, spoke in tandem with the previous three speakers. He had bought his house ten years earlier and had been assured at that time that the land behind him would not be developed. This had contributed to the decision to purchase his home. He felt like they lived in a wildlife refuge. He expressed concern about the underground springs in the area, noting there were flooding issues in one area of his yard. He declared that this annexation flew in the face of what Eugene stood for. He said there were developments all around his property. He felt traffic would be an issue as well. He urged the councilors to vote against Consent Calendar Item D. Micheal M. Reeder , 800 Willamette Street, Suite 800, indicated he represented the owners of the properties on Wintercreek Drive. He said staff had suggested the item be pulled and allowed to go to a public hearing in September. He believed the annexation request represented an end run on the UGB expansion process in violation of Goal 14 and the Eugene Code (EC) 9.7825(1). He noted that he had submitted a packet of information to the council that included a diagram of the property and the UGB. He alleged that what was being proposed would expand the UGB to the south and would erroneously enter potentially developable property without going through the UGB expansion process. He reiterated the residents’ request for the council to deny the annexation. He also took issue with the application, averring that it was “quite incomplete.” He asserted that it did not show that services could be adequately provided to the property. He referred the council to Exhibit 3 in the written testimony. Zachary Vishanoff , somewhere on Patterson Street, declared that the council’s public hearing scheduled for July 21 was “incredibly important.” He alleged that the University’s arena project could “balloon” to $300 million. He did not believe the project would be built. He hoped everyone would come and testify at the hearings for alley vacations. He believed any decision could be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals th (LUBA) for a nominal fee. He said a dorm had “popped up” over the course of the summer at 16 Avenue and Moss Street. He felt that the University’s style of development was “unilateral and secretive” and “spiraling out of control.” He predicted that the dorm would throw the arena project off. He also asserted that the person chairing the Historic Review Board had a conflict of interest because she was the Univer- sity’s “developer.” He believed the University was breaking the law and the City was abetting. Joe Collins , PO Box 24417, related that he had visited a Web site that featured vocabulary multiple choice tests and for each word defined correctly, 20 grains of rice would allegedly be donated to poor people. He had also gone to a breast cancer site that provided free mammograms for women based on the number of clicks. He thought it would be great to have a site like that wherein every time someone clicked in a penny would be donated by sponsors to the needy of Eugene. He said there could be sites for people whose needs were not being met for dental or medical care, for addiction services, to hire a cop or fix a pothole, to find a job, repair glasses, and to provide free showers, bathrooms, and beds. He averred that these were things that MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting the Mayor and City Councilors would not provide because they were primarily interested in development, downtown redevelopment, and tax breaks and tax exemptions for developers. th Steven Bennett , 494 East 15 Avenue, thanked the council for establishing the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) in his neighborhood. He believed that the incentive, pursuant to State law, encour- aged a higher quality of housing. He said the City had taken that “higher quality concept and ran with it” in 2004, adding standards that reflected the values of the community. He stated that as the councilors had read in the materials submitted, the North Park proposal exceeded the council’s requirements. He thought it should be supported by the council as it included the required use of green building techniques, sustainable construction practices, excellent Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility, maximum density design, and use of non- or low-toxic materials. He added that use of solar power was being considered. He believed that the proposal went beyond requirements stipulated in the application, integrating additional features requested by the neighborhood such as having more parking than required and making it hidden. He averred that the building would serve as a buffer from a “massive” over-park. He showed pictures of the area, noting that it would be a secure building for the safety of the tenants. He agreed that each application for a MUPTE should be diligently reviewed. He was concerned that for some applications denial would be automatic. He quoted Mayor Piercy, who had said denying developers’ applications set an “unfair situation for those people who thought they were playing by the rules.” He stressed that the North Park project was designed to meet the needs of the community and would be split between students and non-students. He closed by underscoring that the site was underdeveloped and the value currently lay in the land. Jim Lewis , 1555 Washington Street, stated that he worked for GLAS Architects, the architects hired for the North Park Apartment project. He echoed Mr. Bennett’s comments. He averred that the project would be vital to the needs of the community. He pointed out that it was fully supported by the neighborhood and was the kind of development they were looking for. He said the location was convenient to the University, the th hospital, and the commercial area on 13 Avenue. He hoped the apartments would appeal to both students and the general public. He stated that previous neighborhood concerns would be addressed by the provision of extra parking and by keeping the building at three stories so that it fit the scale of what was already there. He believed the project would improve the neighborhood. He noted that the existing big leaf maple tree would be preserved. He related that they were looking at a high quality design, with an elevator to provide accessibility, and they hoped to achieve a Leading in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard of silver or gold. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, thanked the City for co-sponsoring the Olympic Trials. He thought local businesses had not fared as well as they had anticipated and hoped the City would work to promote them more when the trials were next hosted by the City. Mr. Siekel-Zdizienicki stated that the Lane Transit District (LTD) had held workshops the previous week. thth He said the first workshop was for plans for the 6 and 7 Avenues section of the future EmX expansion th and the second one focused on 13 Avenue. He related that the workshops broke people into groups and residents were discussing the streets, traffic patterns, and what would or would not help. He complained about the lack of City staff presence. Also Mr. Siekel-Zdizienicki wanted to encourage the council to support the Minor Code Amendments as they were presented. th Randolph Stenersen , 159 East 15 Avenue, showed an area photo of downtown Eugene, which he believed depicted “lots of buildings, streets, and parking places.” He averred that many of these facilities were MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting vacant and underutilized. He felt the City’s response to this was to engage in “development schemes” in order to bring another building downtown. He said the reasoning was based on the “field of dreams/Taj Mahal theory” of development: if the City would build just the right development people would “flock” downtown to see it. He averred that the money the City had left, a “paltry $40 million or so,” left the City with developments that were “instead of vast, half-vast.” He recalled the construction of Broadway Place, once considered justification for cutting down “beautiful trees,” which was supposed to be Mixed Use, Residential and Retail development. He had visited it the previous week and found it to be very quiet. He remarked that using the subsidy to promote student housing would create an “unfortunate side effect,” in that the University campus was far away and the Lane Community College (LCC) campus was even farther. He said by taking 472 student bodies and multiplying that by their weight it meant that there would be 20 to 30 tons of students to put on the LTD system, which was already struggling because of rising fuel costs. He noted that he frequently rode on the EmX and it was crowded. He suggested that instead of bringing another building downtown, the solution would be to make downtown more pleasant. He suggested that the City should put a park in the “pit.” He thought much of the cost could be offset by the same type of donation system that supported the library. George Brown , 1740 Graham Street, spoke in support of the Beam Development proposal for the Sears site. He commented that the process to get a building on that site had been long and frustrating. He encouraged the council to reflect on both proposals and to consider possibly including a park there. He averred that a lot of people would be disappointed and angry if there was no park space. He also wanted to be sure the apartments would not be solely reserved for University of Oregon students. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called on the council for questions and remarks. Councilor Clark thanked everyone who spoke. He indicated his intention to pull Item D on the Consent Calendar. He agreed with testimony regarding the possibility of a park in the downtown area. He thought the opportunity for expansion or to develop more fully the Park Blocks area might meet that need. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - April 16, 2008, Work Session - May 12, 2008, Work Session - May 12, 2008, City Council Meeting - May 14, 2008, Work Session - May 19, 2008, Public Hearing - May 27, 2008, Work Session - May 28, 2008, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Annexation Request for Eugene School District 4J (A 008-1) D. Annexation Request for Westfair Associates (A 08-2) E. Approval of Police Auditor Cost of Living Adjustment Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the items on the Con- sent Calendar. Councilor Taylor pulled Items C and D. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman indicated that she had submitted minutes corrections via email. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items C and D passed unani- mously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to hold a public hearing for Item C, Annexation Request for Eugene School District 4J (A 008-1). Councilor Ortiz asked what the purpose of holding a public hearing on the school district’s request would be. Lydia McKinney, Associate Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), responded that the School District 4J request was straight forward and the property was already entirely within city limits. She underscored that the item was coming before the council as a result of the ordinance that had abolished the Boundary Commission in Lane County. Councilor Ortiz asked what would be accomplished by the annexation. Ms. McKinney replied that staff was responding to the applicant’s request to annex and the applicant had no specific plans at this time for development. Councilor Zelenka asked why they would not choose to hold a public hearing. He averred that annexations were a “big deal.” In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. McKinney confirmed that the annexation had been noticed according to law, but she did not know how many notices had been sent. She indicated she would find out and let Councilor Bettman know. Councilor Bettman remarked that the objective for annexing could be for the purpose of building a school or it could be to bring the property into the City and then sell it. She saw no reason for not holding a public hearing. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Clark and Poling voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy called for discussion of Item D. Councilor Taylor opined that neither annexation request was suitable for the Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to deny Item D, theAnnexation Request for Westfair Associates (A 08-2). Councilor Bettman declared that a UGB expansion was a land use issue, with a process specific to it. She supported denying the application and then the applicant could undertake the process for a MetroPlan amendment. Ms. McKinney explained that an annexation in cases like this would be the process that would set the UGB. She said one of the reasons staff recommended a public hearing in this instance was that it was not just an annexation, it also included a determination of where the UGB lay. She underscored that they were still trying to determine whether the UGB fell where the neighbors thought it did or where the applicant thought it did. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 5 Regular Meeting City Attorney Glenn Klein informed the council that a denial had to be supported by findings. He stated that the council would need to direct staff to provide said findings. Councilor Taylor amended her motion to reflect counsel’s advice. Councilor Clark reiter- ated his second. Councilor Bettman did not understand why an annexation that would add acreage to the UGB would not trigger a land use process. City Attorney Emily Jerome confirmed that the addition of acreage would trigger a land use process. She said they needed to determine if the annexation would do so. She recommended either tabling the motion or scheduling a public hearing. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to table the motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Solomon and Poling voted in opposition. 3. ACTION: Resolution 4949 Calling a City Election on November 4, 2008, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Amending Section 15-A. External Review of Police, of the Eugene Charter of 2002 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 4949 calling a City election on November 4, 2008, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure amending Section 15-A. External Review of Police, of the Eugene Charter of 2002. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the motion to add the words “the July 10 version of the” in front of the Resolution. Councilor Clark understood that this would solve the concerns of the City’s legal staff. He did not want to cause unintended consequences. Councilor Bettman opposed the amendment. She felt the council was taking its authority and delegating it to the Police Auditor. She declared that the amendment would take prescriptive operational language in the ordinance and insert it into the charter. She disagreed with the City Attorney’s interpretation that there would be unintended consequences. She said the language she provided would maintain the auditor’s authority as vested by the charter in the office and make it mandatory instead of optional. She felt this would make it so political changes would not affect the police auditor system. She asserted that the amendment would take the language out of the ordinance and put it into the charter. She averred that the auditor had the ability by charter to monitor internal police investigations and the council then put parameters around it in its ordinance. Councilor Pryor understood that changing ‘may’ to ‘shall’ was creating more of a requirement for the auditor to perform certain functions. He asked if the City Attorney was recommending that the council retain the discretion to choose whether to require. Mr. Klein responded that at present the auditor was authorized to participate in interviews for administrative investigations and the council dictated that the auditor “shall not” participate in criminal investigations until they were completed; making this language change with respect to what the council either could or must authorize the auditor to do would require the council to authorize the auditor to participate in interviews related to criminal investigations. He under- MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 6 Regular Meeting scored that this would require the council to change the existing ordinance. He stated that the language that the auditor and the City’s counsel had come up with was not intended to narrow the council’s flexibility or authorization; it was intended to retain the authorization and the power the council currently had without a requirement to change the ordinance to allow the auditor to participate in such an investigation. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Pryor, Mr. Klein stated that the change in Attachment A directed the council to change the ordinance to authorize what it had presently prohibited the auditor from doing, which was participating in criminal interviews. He averred that changing it this way would require, post the voters’ approval, that the council revise the ordinance. He said adopting the July 10 version of the Resolution would mean the council would not need to change the ordinance as it would preserve what currently existed in the ordinance. He reiterated that the council had the authority to change the ordinance but if the Resolution was passed as it was presented in Attachment A it would require the council to change it. Councilor Pryor asked if the council have to also add all of the additional language if they did not change the second part to ‘shall’ and just left it as ‘may.’ Mr. Klein replied that this would still require the council to appoint an auditor, but it would continue to say that the council ‘may’ authorize the duties and powers of the auditor. Councilor Pryor did not think anyone had a problem with the first ‘shall,’ it was the second ‘shall’ that would make changes; if it went forward with the charter vote as such it would be a much simpler measure to put forward. Mr. Klein affirmed that this was correct. Councilor Zelenka did not believe that ‘shall monitor’ would mean the auditor would be required to be involved in every criminal investigation. He asked if the language included the second ‘shall’ whether they would also be required to include the subsection (b) of that section – that the City would also contract with persons or entities to perform outside investigations of such complaints. Mr. Klein affirmed that it would but pointed out that the ordinance already authorized the auditor to contract for outside investigations. He said the council would not be requiring the auditor to be involved in criminal investigations, instead the council would be required to allow the auditor to be involved in criminal investigations. Councilor Zelenka asked why the principle of subsection (b) would not apply to subsection (c) which stated that the auditor was allowed to participate in criminal investigations but the auditor did not have to. Mr. Klein replied that this symmetry was in the charter amendment but it did not exist in the ordinance the council passed. He reiterated that the ordinance currently in place required the auditor to be involved in administrative investigations and prohibited the auditor from being involved in criminal investigations. He stressed that the difference in this was that the language change would require the ordinance to change to allow this and presently the ordinance prohibited it. Councilor Zelenka asked whether approval of the July 10 version would prohibit the auditor from participating in criminal investigations. Mr. Klein responded that it would allow the council to retain the flexibility to decide what a review of a criminal investigation would include, whether it would be a review after the fact or if it would be undertaken throughout the process. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Klein explained that ‘monitor’ was not absolutely defined in the language, the council had the discretion to allow it or not. Councilor Clark was in favor of the idea. He averred that the people had spoken clearly – the City needed a strong police review process. He agreed that they should strengthen the language to state that the City MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 7 Regular Meeting ‘shall’ have a police auditor. He was not interested in adding Councilor Bettman’s language because he believed it would bind future City Councils. He did not want to add prescriptive language, adding his feeling that the language proposed by his colleague would change the nature of what the auditor was doing. Councilor Poling concurred. He thanked the Mayor for being able to see the possible unintended conse- quences and making the request that the legal staff work to determine those potential consequences. He felt that the City Attorney had worked out the issues in the language and the Police Auditor was agreeable with the wording in the July 10 version. Councilor Bettman asserted that the July 10 language prohibited the authority by specifically limiting the oversight to administrative investigations. She disagreed with the City Attorney’s legal opinion that changing the language from ‘may’ to ‘shall’ would then require the council to give the auditor full authority to participate in investigations. She declared that it was up to the council to put operational parameters around the office. She asserted that the legal counsel had changed his mind before regarding language in this ordinance and she questioned his interpretation. She declared it was inconsistent between the two provisions. She likened Councilor Clark’s motion to “splitting the baby.” She alleged that the language in the July 10 version of the Resolution would make it so that the authority vested by the voters in the police auditor would be “optional according to who was in office at the moment.” She opined that this could mean the City would be paying a lot of taxpayer money for the Police Auditor and it would be a “completely illusory” form of oversight because there would be no authority behind it. She indicated she would oppose that version. Councilor Zelenka agreed with Councilor Bettman; he would support the original language because he believed the language regarding the auditor should be set in the charter and should not be subject to changes by the council. Councilor Solomon said she would put credence in the work that Police Auditor Cris Beamud and the City’s legal counsel had done together and that Ms. Beamud was amenable to it. She felt that because the auditor’s position was new it had been tough for Ms. Beamud. She was nervous about making a “whole lot of charter amendments.” Councilor Pryor understood and agreed with a lot of Councilor Bettman’s sentiment and what she was trying to do. He pointed out that whatever version was passed by the council would still go to the voters for approval. He averred that he would not lose sleep given that the public would ultimately decide on it. For him it came down to the employer/employee relationship and to what degree the employer wanted to maintain discretion with regard to what they wanted an employee to do. He said philosophically he did not want to “go down a road” that would add language that would direct the employee to make such decisions and not the employer. He indicated he would support the amended version, knowing that Ms. Beamud and Mr. Klein had worked on it. Councilor Clark appreciated Councilor Pryor’s point. He reiterated that either way this would be posed to the voters and the amended version was the version worked out by the Police Auditor and the City Attorney. He believed it would strengthen the piece that indicated Eugene would have a Police Auditor. He averred that the original version created another contentious political issue, in trying to pass something in contradic- tion to what the auditor and attorney had suggested. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 8 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy related that she had spoken with Ms. Beamud about the amendment and Ms. Beamud had indicated that she was amenable to the version presently before the council and she would not take issue if the council wished to change it as it was the council’s purview to do so. Councilor Bettman wanted to “preserve” the Charter language as it stands and make it mandatory instead of “optional.” She opined that the authority of the auditor was “minimal.” Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Solomon, and Poling voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Bettman, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition of the amendment and it failed. Councilor Poling said he would vote for the Resolution so that it would go before the voters but he could not support it as it was currently written. He declared it to be a mistake not to have gone with the July 10 version. Councilor Clark echoed Councilor Poling. He added his feeling that Councilor Bettman was wrong in her analysis. He averred that the wording going forward did not preserve the ordinance, rather it changed it in a way that would be detrimental to the function of the Police Auditor. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 9:02 p.m. 4. ACTION: Termination of Purchase Option on Roberts (Taco Time) Property Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to authorize the Agency Director to terminate the purchase option agreement on the Roberts property upon receipt of the pro- posed $500 payment from the property owner. Councilor Taylor asked why the City was only receiving $500. Division Manager for the Community Development Division, Mike Sullivan, responded that it represented a prorated amount, which meant that much of the option period had gone by and it was the value of the period remaining. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy closed the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened the Eugene City Council. 5. ACTION th Application for a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption – 16 Avenue and Hilyard Street Apartments Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt a resolution denying a th multiple-unit property tax exemption for residential property located at 693 East 16 Ave- nue, Eugene, Oregon (Corey Development, LLC/applicant). MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor indicated his opposition to the denial. Mayor Piercy remarked that the applications were being submitted prior to the council’s consideration of potential changes to the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE). She had thought about them and it seemed to her the applications met a lot of the objectives that had been in place when the applications had been made, such as density in the urban core, green building features, and a higher quality of product that could not happen without the MUPTE. She noted that the neighborhood approved of them. Councilor Bettman supported the denial. She reiterated her belief that the MUPTE took money out of the tax rolls. She stressed that each MUPTE came before the council and the council was not bound to approve them. Councilor Taylor concurred. She said the council was never obligated to grant the exemption. She averred that a MUPTE should only be granted if there was a definite advantage to the City. In response to a question from Councilor Poling, Mr. Klein explained that a substitute motion to approve the MUPTE was contained in Attachment A. He underscored that the council could only adopt a motion to deny or a motion to approve in this case. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to substitute the resolution ap- proving a multiple-unit property tax exemption for residential property located at 693 East th 16 Avenue as written, per Attachment A on page 263 of the City Council agenda packet. Councilor Pryor commented that he was conscious of the City’s and the County’s budget situations, but he did not want to say that the procedure would only apply until the City needed money. He stressed that the council had put a procedure in place that said if the requirements were fulfilled an applicant would qualify for a MUPTE. He likened it to the Enterprise Zone and wondered why the council should not grant the MUPTE. One of the reasons he had heard was that projects would be built anyway. He said this could be true, but for him a non-persuasive reason was that the MUPTE should not be granted because the City needed the money. He averred that this was not part of the procedure; it was based on whether the project would benefit the community and whether the tax benefit would produce a better project. He agreed that the project could potentially be built without the tax exemption but he believed it would not be as nice a project and would not have as many of the things the City was seeking in terms of redevelopment and community improvement. Councilor Zelenka said the purpose of the MUPTE was to create an incentive in an area needing it for development. He did not think the University neighborhood needed this incentive anymore and projects would be built anyway. He thought incentives were appropriate only for development in the downtown area. He echoed Councilor Bettmans’s concern about the “budget picture” for the City, the County, and the school districts. He declared that the total of the three MUPTE exemptions was $240,000 over a ten-year period. He supported denial of all three of the MUPTE applications before the council. Councilor Bettman did not agree that denial of the MUPTE was a change in the rules. She reiterated that the rules were that a threshold should be met and then it was up to the discretion of the council. She believed the projects would be built without an exemption. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 10 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor emphasized her belief that the council did not need a reason to deny the tax exemptions. She averred that they needed a compelling reason to grant the exemptions and there was no compelling reason to do so in this case. Councilor Solomon opined that the “tired, old, rundown housing” on these sites was a compelling reason to grant the MUPTE applications. She said Councilor Zelenka only told “half of the story” of what the City would forego over ten years, as the exemption was only on the improvements made to the property. She stressed that the owner would pay property taxes on the land but would be exempted from paying on the improvements for ten years; at the end of ten years the owner paid taxes on the improved property and the City would soon regain the revenue it did not receive. She also pointed out that the MUPTE would enable better housing to be built in the University area for students and the City wanted students to live in the University area. She said helping these three local developers would benefit the City. Councilor Clark called it a wise long-term investment in the livability and financial health of the community. He opined that to define it any other way was wrong. He remarked that the City routinely did a six-year financial forecast and the most recent one did not look very good. He said if they looked at a 20-year forecast the picture was even “bleaker.” He acknowledged that the City would forego some tax income on the improvements for ten years, but he underscored that at the end of that period the City received “multiple returns” over the 40- or 50-year lifetime of the building which would add to the financial stability of the community. Mayor Piercy felt the tools should be used sparingly and to achieve what they wanted to achieve in the community. She underscored that the people proposing the projects had worked with the neighbors and garnered neighborhood support for them. She agreed that the University area would still be a focus for construction projects but she did not think they would be built with the high quality or livability that was desired for the community without the MUPTE. She was willing to support this tool to achieve those ends for the community. Councilor Bettman declared that the tax issue was important to the public. She noted that up for council consideration was a possible measure to place on the ballot to put $81 million into fixing the roads. She opined that granting the tax exemption was akin to saying that everyone else would pay for those roads, but for ten years these projects would not have to. She asserted that in a situation in which the City was asking for higher fees, higher rates, and higher taxes because it could not pay for services, “making a prettier façade to a building should not qualify as a justification to not pay taxes.” Councilor Pryor remarked that when talking about the degree to which the City wanted to participate with other partners on tax revenues, MUPTE was one incentive but there were others such as downtown redevelopment and enterprise zones. He underscored that there were a variety of different ways that cities provide financial incentives. He averred that in this case the MUPTE was as reasonable as another incentive in terms of what the community would get out of it. He said the MUPTE projects were attractive to the neighborhood because they were able to put in additional amenities and parking and other things they could not do without such an incentive. He felt this was why the neighborhoods were supportive of the projects; they knew that they would get a nicer building that worked better in the long-term. He was supportive of the City participating as a tax incentive partner to help that happen. Councilor Poling said to characterize the developments that were going in as adding a pretty façade to the neighborhood was a “slap in the face” to the developer and an “injustice.” He underscored that the applicants were local people who had gone to the area neighborhood associations and gotten their approval. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 11 Regular Meeting He pointed out that one of the applicants had been born and raised within walking distance of where he wanted to put in a small “redeveloped good-looking” housing project. He stated that the applicants would continue to pay taxes and the tax incentive was an investment in the future. Councilor Zelenka clarified that he was not characterizing the developers in any way. For him it was a matter of what the role of government should be and how it should use tax incentives and tax dollars. Councilor Taylor declared that the council did not know whether or not these projects would be built without tax incentives. She also asserted that they did not know how many people were present at the neighborhood meetings at which the applicants had garnered neighborhood approval. She opined that the City wanted people to build good things but that should not mean they did not have to pay taxes. Roll call vote; the vote to substitute the motion was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Pryor, Solomon, and Clark voting in favor and councilors Zelenka, Taylor, Ortiz, and Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the substitution and it passed. Roll call vote; the vote on the substitute motion was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Pryor, Solomon, and Clark voting in favor and councilors Zelenka, Taylor, Ortiz, and Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the substitution and it passed. 6. ACTION: Application for a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption – North Park Apartments Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt a resolution approving a multiple-unit property tax exemption for residential property located at the northwest corner th of 14 Avenue and Hilyard Street, Eugene, Oregon (Stephen Bennett/applicant-owner). Councilor Bettman reiterated her opposition. She pointed out that she seconded the motion because it was part of the office of council vice president. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Pryor, Solomon, and Clark voting in favor and councilors Zelenka, Taylor, Ortiz, and Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the motion and it passed. 7. ACTION: Application for a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption – The Fenway Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt a resolution denying a th multiple-unit property tax exemption for residential property located at 450 East 14 Ave- nue, Eugene, Oregon (Twenty LLC, applicant-owner). Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to substitute a resolution approving th a multiple-unit property tax exemption for residential property located at 450 East 14 Avenue, per Attachment A on page 307 of the City Council agenda packet. Roll call vote; the vote on the substitution was a tie, 4:4; councilors Solomon, Poling, Clark, and Pryor voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Zelenka, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the substitution and the motion passed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 12 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the vote on the substitute motion was a tie, 4:4; councilors Solomon, Poling, Clark, and Pryor voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Zelenka, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor of the substitute motion and it passed. 8. ACTION: Downtown Code Amendments An Ordinance Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.2161, and 9.4530, of the Eugene Code, 1971, Adding a New Map 9.2161(6) (Downtown Plan Map) to that Code; and Amending Map 9.4510 and Figure 9.4530(3) Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4980, an ordinance concerning downtown code amendments. Councilor Bettman indicated that she had a list of intended amendments to the ordinance amending downtown codes. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to delete Section 1 of the Ordi- nance, to delete the proposed changes to EC 9.4530(3)(b) in Section 3 of the Ordinance, and to delete the proposed changes to EC 9.4530(3)(d) in Section 3 of the Ordinance. Councilor Bettman asked Nan Laurence, Associate Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), to describe what her amendment would alter in the ordinance. Ms. Laurence understood that the changes had to do with counting the basement as part of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and would keep the code the way it is regarding the basement; regardless of how the basement was used it would not be allowed to be counted as part of the floor area in determining the FAR. Councilor Bettman was concerned that counting the basement regardless of what was in it would further decrease the density that would be realized in the downtown area. Councilor Solomon found all of Councilor Bettman’s amendments to be “utterly hostile” to the businesses and people who had worked “so honestly and thoughtfully” to improve the situation in the downtown area. She averred that the downtown area had been deteriorating since the codes they were seeking to amend were instituted. She said the proposed changes had come from “a group of folks who worked downtown and tried to make downtown happen.” She declared that these were items that those people had identified that were doable, workable, and would help improve the situation. She pointed out that they had received a lot of testimony about buildings that existed in the downtown area that could not be built under today’s code. She was disappointed in the hostile nature of the amendments. Councilor Clark respected Councilor Bettman’s desire to make amendments she felt would add strength to the code. He said, however, the City had made code revisions a number of years earlier that were not working. He respected the number of people who had worked on the code amendments. He looked to experts such as Hugh Prichard who had been speaking to as many people as possible about the value of making minor alterations to what the council had done years earlier in order to make the possibility of success in the downtown area more probable. He felt the Beam project and the work the council had initiated at its earlier work session had started some momentum to change the downtown. He did not want to “step backwards.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka indicated he would be offering an amendment after Councilor Bettman’s amendment was voted on. He did not think that a basement that was unimproved in any way should be counted in the FAR. He thought that if the basement was improved into retail or office spaces or underground parking it should be counted. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in fa- vor. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the ordinance to un- delete what had been deleted in Section 1, and to undelete what was deleted in Section 3(d) under 9.4530 and to include the words ‘and underground parking.’ Roll call vote; the mo- tion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Poling, Clark, and Solomon voting in opposition. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, called for the question. Councilor Bettman said she had issues; there were some portions of the ordinance she could support and some portions she could not support. She opposed calling the question. Roll call vote; the vote on calling the question was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Solomon, Clark and Poling voting in favor and councilors Taylor, Ortiz, Bettman, and Zelenka voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in opposition and the motion failed. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to delete the proposed change to EC 9.2161(5) in Section 2 of the Ordinance to retain the last sentence of that subsection. Councilor Bettman averred that without this amendment people would have an incentive to tear down buildings and develop surface parking lots. Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; councilors Taylor, Ortiz, Bettman, and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Solomon, Clark and Poling voting in op- position. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the amendment passed. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to delete the proposed changes to EC 9.4530(3)(a) in Section 3 of the Ordinance that reduce the FAR from 1.0 to 0.65 and delete the references to Map 9.4510 and Figure 9.4530(3) in Section 4 of the Ordinance. Councilor Bettman remarked that this affected a specific boundary with the Transit-oriented District, TD/ Zone. She felt that without her amendment the code changes would allow lower-density single-floor development in the urban core. She said this had been cited in a letter from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), which had called this “suburban development densities in an urban environment.” She averred that they had a limited amount of land in the urban core and could not afford not to have it developed as densely as possible. She felt her amendment would help the urban core meet the City’s sustainability goals, land use goals, and growth management policy goals. Councilor Zelenka asked Ms. Laurence to respond to the letter from DLCD. Ms. Laurence stated that staff had conversed with DLCD and pointed out areas in which their letter was not correct. She noted that DLCD did not have regulations regarding what the City had to have as a certain FAR, though they wanted the City to comply with growth management goals. She clarified that this change applied to the area outside the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 14 Regular Meeting urban core considered the greater downtown area. She underscored that much of the area that would be covered by the 1.0 FAR was actually within neighborhoods other than the downtown area. She said the change they were looking at would change the floor and not the ceiling – a development could be as dense as economics allowed. She noted that the Newman’s Fish Market building block had been developed to a .4 FAR; a .65 FAR would add 50 percent more density to blocks like that. Councilor Clark asked when the original changes to the code had been instituted that had brought in the 1.0 FAR in the greater downtown area and 2.0 FAR in the core. Ms. Laurence replied that the 2.0 FAR had been in place since 1993 and the density had been increased from a .65 FAR to a 1.0 FAR in the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) of 2001. Councilor Clark remarked that the market was not getting there. He acknowledged that it was the goal to get more density but he felt that moving the FAR to 1.0 begged the question of why they should not move it to 5.0. He thought it would be equally impossible to get development done at the higher FAR. While he agreed that the City should move toward greater density in its core, he did not feel the speed at which they were increasing density requirements was something the market could keep up with. Councilor Solomon commented that no development had happened since the FAR had been increased from .65 to 1.0. Councilor Bettman disputed the assertion that nothing had happened. She averred that people had the ability to renovate their properties and so the change in FAR would not be blocking development. She opined that if the FAR was reduced there would be regular suburban development and asked, if that was the case, why the City would have a TD/ district at all. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in fa- vor. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, as amended, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting in oppo- sition. 9. ACTION: Minor Code Amendments Ordinance A: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Sections 9.0020, 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2450, 9.2630, 9.2683, 9.2740, 9.2741, 9.2751, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.3310, 9.3810, 9.3910, 9.5500, 9.6790, 9.6791, 9.7010, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205, 9. 7230, 9.8320, 9.8430, 9.8555, and 4.330 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding a New Section 9.7007 to that Code; and Providing an Effective Date Ordinance B: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971; to that Code; and Providing an Effective Date This item was deferred because of the time. The meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 15 Regular Meeting Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 14, 2008 Page 16 Regular Meeting