Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/28/08 MeetingM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 28, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Susan M. Truax said although she had patronized downtown businesses for many years, was involved as a volunteer with the Eugene Celebration, and spent considerable time downtown, when she read the recent article in The Register-Guard about the experience of Betty Snowden, she realized she did not know what was going on downtown. She called the treatment of Ms. Snowden unacceptable. She wanted to participate in a solution and was ready to act, including sitting down in front of Ms. Snowden’s business to demonstrate support. She asked the council to give her direction. Kathy Saranpa , representing the Crest Drive Community Advisory Group, noted the council’s passage of a motion calling for the Planning Commission to investigate the potential of reclassifying the street and said she had since learned from City Manager Jon Ruiz and Public Works Director Kurt Corey that the council could take that action without input from the commission. She asked the council to take that action. Jim Torrey , 3393 Arlington Avenue, spoke in support of the exclusion ordinance as a means to respond to the racial harassment experienced by resident Betty Snowden and others. He thanked councilors Ortiz and Clark for raising the issue. He acknowledged that the proposed ordinance might not be perfect but suggested to do anything less was not acceptable. He believed that the offense of failure to appear was not an acceptable approach. He noted the recent successful Olympic Trials and said the volunteer committee, which he had chaired, had worked long and hard to determine how each visitor to Eugene felt welcome. He asked the council to consider the impact the article about Ms. Snowden’s experiences in The Register-Guard would have had on visitors had it appeared during the event. He did not think that the City could fail to deal with the situation. He called on the council to take responsibility and deal with the issue or it would send a message he did not believe the citizens supported. He said that “Justice delayed was justice denied.” Zach Vishanoff , a resident living on Patterson Street, questioned what prompted the council to change the closing date for public comment for the University of Oregon’s arena project. He asked “what’s the rush” and why the University could not wait until September. He raised the issue of a new dormitory proposed to be built one block south of the existing arena, which would impact housing. He believed that too many development projects were going forward at the same time. Mr. Vishanoff also noted a proposal to build a new laboratory in the Riverfront Research Park and suggested that would have an impact on the arena MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 1 Meeting because the University intended to use the parking there for the arena. He invited the council to explain to him why it had changed its mind. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. In regard to the downtown issue raised by Mr. Torrey, she said that she had sent a message to the City’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the organization Clergy and Laity Concerned (CALC) about the potential of those entities doing public education about how unaccept- able such behavior was in Eugene. She had suggested the HRC and CALC could lead in that regard given their past roles. She had received a good response to her inquiries and was hopeful about future action. Mayor Piercy thought that prolonged action would be necessary to create change. She said she was willing to be part of the community that stood up for Ms. Snowden. Councilor Taylor likened the downtown exclusion ordinance to the county’s response to the events of September 11, 2001, which resulted in a war in Iraq rather than a solution to the actual problem. She thought the council needed to look for what was causing the problem and who was causing the problem rather than punishing large groups of people. She was also interested in the concerns shared by the residents of the Crest-Storey area. Councilor Taylor asked if the council could approve a street designation without input from the Planning Commission. City Manager Jon Ruiz referred Councilor Taylor’s question to City Attorney Glenn Klein. He recalled that another element of the discussion was a funding source for the improvements being contemplated; the neighborhood was not interested in having the streets designated as collectors, which would make the streets eligible for the use of systems development charges (SDCs). Staff continued to examine that issue. City Attorney Klein said that the street designation involved a plan amendment, which must first be processed by the City’s Planning Commission. City Manager Ruiz indicated he told the neighbors no Planning Commission process was needed in error. Responding to a follow-up question from Councilor Taylor, City Manager Ruiz said he would find out when the Planning Commission would consider the matter. Councilor Taylor hoped the process could commence soon, and noted the long process the neighbors had already gone through. Councilor Clark expressed appreciation to those who testified and, speaking to the comments of Councilor Taylor, said he worked downtown and the problems downtown were clear to him and others who worked downtown, and the proposed exclusion ordinance was a clear and specific attempt to respond to those problems. He invited further debate on the issue. He thanked the mayor for her communication with the HRC and said the commission, of which he was a member, had worked on the issue quite a while and he expected there was more work to come. He welcomed any citizens’ input and assistance. He invited Ms. Truax to contact him directly. Councilor Bettman suggested the City could expedite the Planning Commission process to make up for some of the inconvenience suffered by the Crest-Storey area residents. Councilor Bettman endorsed Ms. Truax’s idea and expressed appreciation to her for it and agreed that people could take turns sitting in front of the store to discourage bad behavior. She volunteered to sign up for a shift and said she would encourage others to do so as well. She encouraged Ms. Truax to contact the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 2 Meeting Councilor Ortiz thanked those who testified and said she would be interested in a quick turnaround on Councilor Taylor’s questions because she anticipated she would be working with a group of citizens on a similar issue in regard to the Elmira-Maple project. Councilor Ortiz invited Mr. Vishanoff to contact her for more information about the council’s decision in regard to the closing date for comment for the vacations requested by the University. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes April 23, 2008, Work Session May 21, 2008, Work Session May 27, 2008, City Council Meeting June 4, 2008, Work Session B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Appointment to Toxics Board Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Councilor Clark pulled Item C. Councilor Bettman noted that she had e-mailed changes to the minutes, which Mayor Piercy deemed approved without objection. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar, excepting Item C, passed unanimously, 8:0. Speaking to Item C, Councilor Clark asked that the item be postponed because he did not receive a copy of the recommended nominee’s application. Management Analyst Glen Potter of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services indicated that could be done. Councilor Bettman determined from Mr. Potter that the Toxics Board did not meet again until September 4, 2008, leaving the council time to act. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to withdraw Item C from the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Resolution 4953 Calling a City Election on November 4, 2008, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Authorizing the Issuance of a Maximum of $81.1 or $35.9 Million of General Obligation Bonds to Fund Street Preservation Projects Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Resolution 4953 Calling a City Election on November 4, 2008, for the Purpose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Authorizing the Issuance of a Maximum of $35.9 Million of General Obligation Bonds to Fund Street Preservation Projects as outlined in Revised At- tachment D. Councilor Clark recommended the council delay any election until May 2009. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 3 Meeting Councilor Poling supported the delay mentioned by Councilor Clark and also supported a ten-year package rather than five-year package because a five-year package did not address the need. In addition, he did not think the council could build the trust that would allow a five-year package to be renewed within the next five years, as evidenced by the fate of past proposals. Councilor Solomon noted a typographical error in Section F of the revised resolution reflected in Attachment D, which referred to a ten-year, rather than five-year, measure. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutso- george agreed that was an error. Councilor Solomon agreed with Councilor Poling about the extent of the problem and said that a ten-year bond did not get the City where it wanted to be. However, since the council’s last discussion she had heard information that suggested to her that the five-year bond would have more support and she was willing to support that. She hoped it had unanimous council support. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation to the staff for its answers to her questions. She said she supported the motion and would vote for the bond as well as campaign for it. She thought that would be a key piece in passing a measure. Councilor Bettman pointed out the council had few options to choose from in solving the problem. However, she believed that the council had the momentum to get the measure passed and discerned majority support on the council, if not a super majority, for the resolution. She observed that the task force that recommended the proposal to the council included those who might have otherwise been against the measure. Ms. Cutsogeorge noted some changes made to Section 4 of Attachment D reflecting the findings and stating that bond would not be used for new capacity and would be audited by an outside auditor. Councilor Pryor made a friendly amendment, seconded by Councilor Bettman, to change Section F of Attachment D by changing the word “ten” to “five.” Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, City Manager Ruiz noted the task force’s unanimous support for the five-year measure and the outside auditor. He indicated his own support for the five-year measure as a means to start down the road of addressing the larger problem. He thought the Public Works Department could make a significant impact on the maintenance backlog over five years and could demonstrate it could steward and manage those dollars before the council asked the community to support a longer-term solution. He believed the council’s unanimous support would send a strong and positive message to the community. At the request of Mayor Piercy, City Manager Ruiz reviewed the list of task force members, which included citizens Dave Hauser, Ron Tyree, Janet Calvert, Kurt Corey, Rich Gaston, John Kirk, Bob Kline, Marvin Revoal, Greg Rikhoff, Romange Sogage, and Rob Zako. He believed the task force represented a wide variety of viewpoints in the community and reiterated that its recommendation had been unanimous and was represented in the resolution before the council. Councilor Pryor said he was facing the issue of what he supported and what he could live with. He recalled the council transportation funding subcommittee process, where the members had to compromise and sought a middle ground. He said the council needed to reestablish the community’s faith and trust in it, and if the council could use the five years appropriately, aggressively, and effectively, he thought that could occur. He wanted to see something happen right away and hoped the council could support the resolution and do what MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 4 Meeting it said it would do. He said five years was not his first choice but he thought it was the choice that would work. Councilor Ortiz commended City Manager Ruiz for securing the consultant he had for the community survey because of the understandable information that he presented. She hoped the council could support the resolution and thought the five-year approach was fiscally conservative. Councilor Zelenka thought the council needed to be pragmatic. He said the problem facing the council was huge and there were no perfect solutions. He said supporting the bond levy was a compromise for him because of the lack of nexus between households and street use. He also commended the manager for the earlier presentation. He said the problem was not new and it was a result of inaction on the council’s part. He said if the council could pass a five-year bond it should go for it. He liked the idea of the external auditor and thought the distribution of street improvement projects gave everyone in the community something. He noted a letter to the editor regarding the current gas tax and asked the manager to confirm the entire gas tax was used to maintain the road system, which City Manager Ruiz did. Councilor Zelenka did not think there was value in waiting. Councilor Taylor supported the motion although she had previously favored the ten-year measure and heard from constituents who also supported it. However, given what she heard from the survey results, she supported the motion and liked the audit that had been included. Councilor Clark was tired of the status of City roads but thought the trust issue was based on factors the council had to address. He had hoped the council would take action over the past year to do so, but he did not think that occurred. He was concerned that that the solution to the problem included a bond, and if it failed, it would be more difficult to pass a future bond. He thought it would be easier to pass a larger measure in May 2009 and thought the larger measure would do more to fix the problem. He did not think he could support the five-year measure but indicated he would not campaign against such a measure. Councilor Poling agreed with Councilor Clark. He did not support the motion but would not actively campaign against it. He said that the consultant indicated a ten-year measure would not pass but a five-year measure would pass. He did not think a five-year measure would pass either. He asked what percentage of the projects contemplated in the bond were south of the Willamette River. Mr. Corey said that the five-year list included a balance of projects across the city with high visibility and included more street reconstruction. He did not think the list of projects heavily balanced one way or another, pointing out that the roads south of the river were older and in greater disrepair than roads north of the river. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; Councilors Poling and Clark voting no. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to authorize the expenditure of $25,000 from the General Fund Contingency account to produce an information-neutral tabloid to be sent to all households in the city. Councilor Bettman asked if the City’s two ballot measures could be discussed in one tabloid to reduce expense. She believed it was past tradition to produce one such publication. City Attorney Klein did not believe there was a legal issue precluding that approach. City Manager Ruiz did not believe passage of the motion precluded the production of a single tabloid. Councilor Zelenka also wanted to combine the two issues in one tabloid to be as economical as possible. City Manager Ruiz said he would discuss the issue with staff. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 5 Meeting Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy recognized Councilor Bettman for a motion on an unrelated matter. Councilor Bettman distributed copies of the resolution passed by the council in regard to the police auditor, and indicated she would offer a motion to repeal the previous ballot title. She thanked City Manager Ruiz and City Attorney Klein for their assistance in developing the new ballot title. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to repeal Resolution No. 4949, a resolution calling a City election. Responding to a question from Councilor Clark, City Attorney Klein said that the council could not change the certified ballot title unless someone filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court; the motion would allow him to prepare a new ballot title in keeping with Councilor Bettman’s wishes. Councilor Clark asked if a vote in favor of the motion would allow for a council work session to review the new title. City Attorney Klein said no; he would have to certify the ballot title by August 4, and invited council input prior to that time via e- mail. Responding to a question from City Attorney Klein, City Recorder Mary Feldman reviewed the process timeline. Councilor Clark asked how the resolution would affect City Attorney Klein’s judgment on the ballot title. City Attorney Klein suggested that drafting a ballot title was an art rather than a science, and one could have 100 reasonable ballot titles for one measure. He thought his title was reasonable, and that the title Councilor Bettman included in her e-mail was appropriate to include in a title, although perhaps not absolutely necessary. He reiterated his invitation for additional input. He said the title must be consistent with State law, and that was his goal. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Solomon, Poling, and Clark voting no. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution No. 4954, which shall consist of the same title and provisions as were in Resolution No. 4949. Roll call vote; the motion passed 5:3; councilors Solomon, Poling, and Clark voting no. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to di- rect legal counsel to adopt a ballot title, caption, question, and summary generally consis- tent with the language provided in her e-mail dated July 28, 2008. Councilor Clark said that the e-mail contained language that concerned him. He determined from City Attorney Klein that he would interpret the motion as the council’s indication of what it would like the ballot title to be. Councilor Clark thought the language provided by Councilor Bettman offered greater clarity in some regards, but he thought it less clear in regard to the duties of the auditor. He had hoped for more specificity with the intent reflected in the title, but was unclear as to how to accomplish that. He indicated he would have to vote in opposition to the motion because the time for discussion was not adequate. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 6 Meeting Councilor Zelenka suggested the text in Councilor Bettman’s e-mail was in keeping with the council’s last conversation on the topic. Councilor Pryor was willing to allow the attorney to do more work on the ballot title but was not willing to support the motion because other councilors might also want to provide input. He did not want the motion to reflect the “officially voted on version.” Councilor Bettman said that she took to heart the fact that the council could not tell the attorney what to write, but a majority of councilors could express their opinion that they believed her suggestion was in keeping with the resolution and was clear and neutral. She pointed out that after a period of time, any one could challenge the title in Circuit Court. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Zelenka voting yes; councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor, and Clark voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. 4. ACTION: Approval of Motions Related to Production of a Voters’ Pamphlet for the November 4, 2008, Election Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to publish and distribute a local voters’ pamphlet for the election scheduled for November 4, 2008, and to authorize the expenditure of funds from the General Fund Contingency ac- count that are required to produce the voter’s pamphlet. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to appoint councilors Bettman, Zelenka, and Ortiz to the Voter’s Pamphlet Proponent Committee for the Police Auditor Charter Amendment. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to appoint Councilors Pyror, Solomon, and Taylor to the Voter’s Pamphlet Proponent Committee, on the general obliga- tion bond measure. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Prohibition of Extreme Fighting; Repealing Section 4.740 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and Amending Section 4.990 of that Code Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4984, an ordinance concerning prohibition of extreme fighting. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Denying Proposal to Amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Revise the Goal 5 Significant Mineral and Aggregate Resources Inven- tory and Redesignate from “Agriculture” to “Sand & Gravel”; and Providing an MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 7 Meeting Effective Date Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4971, an ordinance denying the proposal to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Councilor Clark opposed the motion. He had not changed his mind about the sufficiency of the resource contained on the property in question as demonstrated by the applicant’s experts, who he thought made a compelling case in that regard. He said the council had not had a discussion of the findings prepared by staff, and he was not comfortable accepting those findings without more discussion of some of the specifics. Councilor Solomon said that what the council proposed to do to Eugene Sand and Gravel was shameful. She said the firm was a productive company that had contributed family wage jobs and supported its employees in their volunteer efforts. She thought the action contemplated was contrary to the City’s stated goal of sustainability. She pointed out the wear and tear on the roads that would result in the community needing to import its gravel from other communities. She did not know how Lane County could get to “yes” on the application but Eugene could not. She said the council was supposed to be helping local companies grow. Both the public and private sectors needed gravel and the company in question could provide it at a reasonable price in the community’s backyard. Councilor Poling recalled that he also supported the applicant in regard to the question of the sufficiency of resources to be found on the property. He believed the applicant had overwhelmingly proved that. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to change the findings in regard to noise (page 157) to read “We find that potential noise conflicts from the proposed mining of the expansion area can be minimized as required by Goal 5.” Councilor Poling believed the applicant had addressed the issue of noise mitigation and he disagreed with the staff findings. He could not understand the decision in regard to the applicant’s proposed mitigation. City Attorney Emily Jerome noted that the issue was mentioned throughout the findings as the findings built upon one another. She suggested that instead, Councilor Poling direct staff to return with alternative findings that found that the noise from the site could be mitigated. Councilors Poling and Solomon accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor. Councilor Pryor indicated his opposition to the motion and his support for Councilor Poling’s motion. Councilor Bettman would not support the motion as change would reverberate throughout the findings. She thanked the staff for its work in addressing the voluminous testimony and council discussion. Councilor Bettman said the City came to a different conclusion than the Lane Board of County Commis- sioners because of the operation’s impact on City residents. She said that past planning had allowed for residential development up to the buffer of the property but the company had not objected. She agreed it was a good location for gravel mining, but not for the residents living so near. That fact created many conflicts. She asserted that other conflicts were not mentioned because the applicant refused to do a traffic impact analysis. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 8 Meeting In regard to noise, Councilor Bettman said that a mining operation would be operating within 150 feet of people’s houses, creating noise, dust, and other impacts. She maintained that the decision would not put the company out of business as it had additional resources. In regard to the sufficiency of the resource, Councilor Bettman said the issue was whether it was adequate to justify the elimination of farm land and the impact on the neighbors. Councilor Clark supported Councilor Poling’s motion. While he acknowledged the applicant’s interest in completing the process, after the loss of Hynix and its jobs he did not want to see the council act too quickly without considering all the issues thoroughly. He thought the council should take the time to get each element of the decision right. Councilor Solomon thought it was a sad day when the City punished a company for something it had allowed. She pointed out that the home buyers in this case were not victims as they had bought their property with knowledge of the mining operation. She said that anyone who toured the site would see the site was quite large and production was moving away from the home sites back onto the deeper part of the property. Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor, and Clark voting yes, and councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Zelenka voting no, Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to Delta Sand and Gravel for all the jobs it provided and for the materials it provided to the community, but she agreed with the staff. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the vote on the main motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Zelenka voting yes, and councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor, and Clark voting yes; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Text; Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Text; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; Adopting Severability and Saving Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date (I-5 Willamette Bridge Project, Eugene Files MA 07-03, RA 08-01; Springfield file LRP2007- 00010; Lane County file PA08-5230); and An Ordinance Amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Text in the Willamette Greenway Section; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; and Adopting a Severability Clause Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4981, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Gen- eral Plan (Metro Plan) text. City Attorney Jerome reported that staff had learned of an ex parte contact that occurred in regard to the item, which had been noticed to the public for the purpose of rebuttal. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 9 Meeting Mayor Piercy noted her ex parte contact that occurred at the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting on July 10, 2008, during which a presentation on the bridge project was made by staff of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). She summarized what was presented by ODOT and said that citizens were given an opportunity to view the broadcast. Councilor Zelenka, who was also at the MPC meeting, declared the same ex parte contact. Mayor Piercy determined there was no one present who wished to rebut the information provided by ODOT. Councilor Bettman averred that while technically the council was being asked to approve fill inside the greenway, it was also being asked to approve the project as described in terms of scope, cost, and capacity. While she acknowledged there were no local funds involved, the council was “enabling” the State and federal government in constructing a bridge she maintained was larger and more expensive than would be needed for many years and which might never be used to full capacity because that capacity was predicated on widening I-5, which might not occur given the expense and lack of funding sources. The funding for the bridge, while not local, was still taxpayer money, and would be tied up in a bridge and not available for other projects on the State or federal system. She objected to that as being inefficient and wasteful given the needs that existed. For that reason, she would oppose the motion. Councilor Bettman recalled that Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken had indicated at the MPC meeting that he had an ex parte contact with Representative Peter DeFazio about the potential of adding ramps serving Franklin Boulevard to the bridge. The staff notes indicated that ramps could be accommodated, and she asked if there had been public discussion about that. Heather O’Donnell, associate planner, said that because staff hadn’t actually reviewed a design, she had been unable to respond to the question about ramps at the Joint Elected Officials meeting because there was nothing in the record in that regard. The applicant indicated they were only adjusting the existing ramps to make sure the new alignment would work. She indicated there was a comment in the applicant’s materials in the packet, which stated that it will be able to accommodate future ramps but that there’s no further information about that. Councilor Bettman said that the addition of ramps represented a “huge change” in the scope of the project. She asked if the council was “de facto” approving that by its approval of the motion. She questioned whether such ramps would require additional piers and river crossings. Councilor Bettman maintained that the issue of such ramps was “put to bed” during her first United Front trip, and expressed surprise that Mayor Leiken had been having high level discussions about it when the community did not know about it and such ramps would change the assumptions related to the bridge project. Ms. O’Donnell said that ODOT stated in its materials that the revision of the alignment of the ramps to meet the new bridges would not prohibit additional ramps that would be part of a different, future project. Councilor Bettman asked if that would cost additional money beyond that proposed. Councilor Bettman asked for a legal opinion as to whether council approval of the amendment conveyed any approval related to future ramps. City Attorney Jerome said no. She said the council was not being asked to approve any particular design through its approval of the Goal 15 exception. Councilor Bettman asked who approved the design. City Attorney Jerome did not know, noting that discussion of the bridge design was next on the agenda. Councilor Bettman asked if the council could condition its decision on future council approval of the proposed design to ensure they were not approving ramps, and that decision would have to be brought back to council. City Attorney Jerome did not think so. She believed this was the council’s sole decision point. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 10 Meeting Councilor Bettman averred that the council’s approval would mean tacit approval of the ramps desired by Mayor Leiken. Ms. O’Donnell said that if the addition of new ramps required Metro Plan changes, the council would then have an opportunity to weigh in on that decision. Councilor Bettman suggested that ODOT could argue that the council already approved those ramps by adopting the resolution. City Attorney Jerome said no. The resolution did not anticipate a particular design outside the greenway area exception to accommodate the bridge. Design is more appropriately discussed under the next agenda item. Councilor Zelenka said that when he asked ODOT staff at the MPC meeting if the design accommodated ramps at Franklin, staff indicated it did not and also that the costs for such ramps were not included. He was concerned by Councilor Bettman’s remarks, however, and wanted to modify the ordinance to state that reconstruction of roadway approaches to the bridges involved only the existing ramps. City Attorney Jerome pointed out that the three entities with jurisdiction over the matter—Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County—needed to agree on the text in the ordinance. Springfield had already passed the same ordinance as the ordinance before the council; Lane County had yet to take action. Councilor Zelenka did not support on-ramps at Franklin Boulevard because of the impact it would have on the neighborhood he represented. He maintained that Mayor Leiken’s suggestion was a “dumb way to do it” because fixing the Glenwood intersection accomplished “almost the exact same thing” at half the price. He indicated his intent to offer an amendment that would require Springfield to change the text it adopted. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to add “existing” before the word “ramps” to the line on page 13. Councilor Bettman believed that the findings as well as the ordinance would need to be changed anywhere which referred to ramps. Ms. O’Donnell indicated she believed there needed to be clarification on the different ramps being discussed to avoid confusion. It was stated as a clarification, any on- or off-ramps to Franklin are within the greenway therefore changes to those would trigger a greenway permit and would thus trigger a Metro Plan amendment which would go before council. So this would come before the council as a project in the future. Although he sympathized with Councilor Zelenka’s desire to protect a neighborhood in his ward, Councilor Clark could not support the amendment because he did not want to contribute yet another story about how the council would not cooperate and coordinate with Springfield, which was a major concern for City residents. Mayor Piercy understood what councilors Zelenka and Bettman were trying to achieve, but questioned whether there was another way to address the issue that did not require Springfield to readopt the ordinance. City Attorney Jerome volunteered to return with a legal memorandum on the topic. She did not think approving the Metro Plan amendment authorized future additional ramps. She did not think ramps could be constructed without being placed in the greenway, which would require council action or a Metro Plan amendment. Mayor Piercy asked if the item was time-sensitive. City Attorney Jerome said that the council could not hear the next item pending resolution of the item before the council because of the ex parte issue. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 11 Meeting Ms. O’Donnell indicated that ODOT would like to move forward as soon as possible given its concerns about the time limits for doing the necessary in-water work . ODOT hoped to have action by the council break. Councilor Ortiz understood the concerns expressed by Councilors Zelenka and Bettman but was also worried about the message being sent to Springfield. She believed the council would have an opportunity to act at a later time in regard to the ramps and wanted to move ahead at this time. Councilor Bettman said she would be happy to defer action until the council had more specific legal advice that council approval would not be “de facto” approval of future on-ramps. She believed a delay would give the City Manager time to communicate with Springfield and “smooth the way” without precipitous action. Councilor Bettman said if the amendment failed she would move to table the item for action prior to the council recess. She said that everyone was in a hurry, but such projects took “years and decades.” Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Bettman voting yes. Councilor Pryor supported the motion on the table. He did not think anyone could “sneak ramps in” because they would require an additional approval process. In addition, the last time he talked with ODOT staff, it had indicated such ramps were not in ODOT’s plans and that, if requested, Eugene and Springfield would have to pay for them. He did not believe the local community had the money to pay for such ramps. He suggested that the proposal to add ramps had little probability of occurring. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to delay the vote to give the City Manager time to talk to the Springfield City Manager about the con- cern’s regarding the new ramps. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman, and Zelenka voting yes. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4982, an ordinance amending the Willakenzie Area Plan Text in the Willamette Green- way Section. Councilor Bettman indicated she had seconded the motion in her role as council vice president but would vote against it. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:1:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no, and Councilor Solomon being out of the room when the vote was taken. 7. DISCUSSION: I-5 Willamette River Bridge—Bridge Design Type Selection Tim Dodson of ODOT provided an overview of the bridge design selection process. He first noted the public involvement process, reviewed the integrated project timeline, and shared information about the bridge types under consideration. Mr. Dodson discussed the evaluation process for the bridge design, noting a Citizen Advisory Group decision was anticipated in early August. He noted the final authority for the design rested with the Major Projects Branch of ODOT. He reviewed the input that would be considered in MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 12 Meeting the selection process by the Project Design Team; that team’s recommendation would be endorsed by the manager of the Major Projects Branch. Mr. Dodson invited questions about the process. Mayor Piercy appreciated the thorough community outreach effort done by ODOT and its attention to environmental concerns. She liked the through-arch design. Councilor Solomon said she took the Web survey and thought it was fun. She asked which design emerged as the public favorite. Ms. Dodson said 55 percent of first place votes went to the through-arch bridge, which also had 25 percent of the last place votes. The deck arch bridge had 35 percent of first place votes and 70 percent of the combined first and second place votes, and only three percent of the last place votes. Councilor Poling expressed support for the through-arch as a first preference to the deck-arch, his second preference, and asked about the difference in costs between the options. Mr. Dodd said that staff was still discussing the costs of the options and he hoped to have that information available by August 5, 2008. He added that one of the most affordable bridges appeared to be the deck-arch bridge and the most expensive the through-rch bridge. He reiterated that those estimates were premature. Councilor Poling asked which bridge had the least impact on the river and riverbank. Mr. Dodson said that they all had the same pier locations and number of piers and were the same in that regard as to impact. The deck options had an additional pier south of Franklin Boulevard between the road and the river. Councilor Zelenka also liked the through-arch with the deck-arch a second choice. He raised the issue of storm water, which was of importance to his constituents. He said the issue of drainage was important to them, and he hoped ODOT addressed it. Mr. Dodson said that ODOT had storm water specialists and he would pass that information on to them. He asked Councilor Zelenka if he could share any specifics about what problems he hoped to solve. Councilor Zelenka had nothing specific to offer Mr. Dodson but thought there was a problem that ODOT should address. Mr. Dodson said he would appreciate more specific guidance about any problems that existed. Councilor Zelenka believed the project development team was working on the issue. Mr. Dodson said the engineering details in regard to drainage were being worked out by ODOT’s consultant. Councilor Zelenka promised to get back to Mr. Dodson with specifics. Councilor Bettman asked if the half-arch could be a whole-arch so it did not look so off-center and asymmetrical, and asked if ODOT had considered replacing the two large arches with one larger arch, and placing the piers farther apart. Mr. Dodson said that the only way to accomplish a single span would be through a suspension bridge. He added that the higher the span, the higher the cost per square foot. Councilor Bettman also liked the through-arch because of the element of Franklin Boulevard and hoped something could be done to beautify the view from Franklin Boulevard as well as from the river. Councilor Bettman asked how the design elements accommodated future new ramps. Mr. Dodson said ODOT did not contemplate accommodating new ramps, but accommodating any type of interchange design for the Glenwood-Franklin with a hole under Franklin Boulevard wide and high enough to accommodate up to seven extra lanes of traffic. However, it was very unlikely that one would ever have seven lanes. He noted that the AIA study of the Franklin Boulevard corridor did not contemplate seven lanes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 13 Meeting Councilor Bettman wanted the bridge design to be adequate to accommodate the reconstruction of the existing ramps, not new ramps. Mr. Dodson pointed out the findings called for reconstruction of the existing ramps. Chris Henry of the Public Works Department clarified the scope of the project, which did not include ramps at Franklin Boulevard. He said that ODOT’s reference to ramps was to reconstruction of existing ramps to allow it to connect to a new elevation of I-5. Councilor Pryor expressed appreciation for the work done by ODOT and recalled his earlier support for the deck-arch bridge, although he thought it had safety issues. He thought the deck-arch had the same potential but believed they could be mitigated. He liked the through-arch design as well and indicated it would be his first choice now. Councilor Clark noted his support for the through-arch design first, followed by the box girder design because of the views they provided to the river. He asked if ODOT had done an analysis of safety concerns as regarded the design. Mr. Dodson thought it was possible to design and secure the bridge in a manner that made it difficult for people to access from the ground. He agreed with Councilor Clark that it was a point of consideration for the bridge design. The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 28, 2008 Page 14 Meeting