HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
c
Approval of City Council Minutes
Meeting Date: October 10, 2005
Department: City Manager's Office
www.eugene-or.gov
Agenda Item Number: 2A
Staff Contact: Lynda Rose
Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017
ISSUE STATEMENT
This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2005, Work Session, September 12, 2005, City
Council Meeting, and September 21,2005, Work Session.
ATTACHMENTS
A. September 12, 2005, Work Session
B. September 12, 2005, City Council Meeting
C. September 21,2005, Work Session
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Lynda Rose
Telephone: 682-5017
Staff E-Mail: lynda.1.rose@ci.eugene.or.us
LICMOl200S Council AgendasIMOSIOIOISOSIOI02A.doc
MINUTES
ATTACHMENT A
Eugene City Council
\Vork Session
l\.tcNutt Room----Eugene en.y Hall
September J 2. 2005
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT:
George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Donny Bettman, Da\id Kelly, Betty
Taylor, Gary Pape, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor.
Mayor Kitty Piercy called the September 12. 2005, work ses~,i~m of the Eugene City Coundl to order.
A., COMMITTEE REPORTS AND lTEi\lS OF INTEREST FROMMA V'Of{. CITY
COUNCIl.,. AND CITY MANAGER
tAaynr Piercy expressed appreciation for the oppnrtunity to attend the "privilege" training in which the
~~ouncd recentiy participated.
1\113yor Piercy expressed appreciation for City empl()yecs' response to the victims of 11urricane Katrina in
the Gulf Coast area. She said many community members were inVOlved ''liJh assisting the victims in what
"vas becoming an eH<:.;rmous humanitarian dlixL
Mayor Piercy said she attended the opening of the Mayor"s Art Show on Sepk1'nber ') and had selected as
the Mayor's Choice a picce of art that represented new beginnings and lots ofposslbiJities ahead. She
enc~)uraged the council tovievv her selection at the show,
Ms, Solomon had no items.
Ms. Taylor said she attended the Southeast Neighbors picnic the previous day aswell as the t<Jhor union
picnic on Labor Day, both of \vhich she enjoyed, She said the labor union picnic rcmmded her of the need
for the council to \'lurk on a Jiving wage ordinance. She noted her attendance at a Cuthbert .Amphitheater
event following the neighborhood picnic, and Said the music and the weather were both good. She was
accol:opanied hy two 1J-year Old h)ys who enjoyed the event as much as the adults in attendance. Ms.
Taylor regretted that the (:ity was charging $5 for parking at the amphitheater.
Ms. Taylor said on Septenlher 25 she \I/Otl1d attend thc last meeting of the National Le<1gue of Cities task
fnrce on the No Child Len Behind Act, <Jt \vhich members ,vould be finalizing their recommendations for
lobbying when the act comcs up f()f renewal. She inVited those with ideas about needed changes to the act
to contact her.
!vk Kelly reported on the .most recent meeting of the Lane County 'fask Force nn Public Safety. on which
he and Mayor Piercy served. He said that the County and municipal representatives re<Jchcd consensus
about the desirability of a mix of services to cover the Shorti:1Hs in a varidy of areas. Th()sc present
agn:,cd a reasonable Jlrst step was to attempt to achieve half nfthe needed fundlng, which was estimated to
be $38 million annu<JlJy.Represelltatives also reached consensus that a property tax was not the desired
funding mechanism. Although the recent meeting was intended to he the task force's last. one morc
meeting would occur on September 2;;) to discuss what sort of funding mechanlsm would be w,ed. Those
MINUTES-Eugene City Council
\Vork Session
Septemher 12, 2005
Page 1
mecbanisms receiving most discussion were a mix of personal (Joel corporate incomc taxes or a sales t,IX.
~.fr. Kelly determined frum an int<:ilTnal poll of councilors that the council bad interest in a work se:~sion
regarding possible funding sources for public safety services before that date.
fvh ReHman thaoked st(Jff for including the agcnda iterns fix the neighborhood group meetings on tbe
public meetings calendar. She had already found it useful information.
lVls. Bettman shared lViayor Pierc~:"s appreciation for City ernployees who contributed botb their muney
(Jnd ski1ls t() the vict,rns of Hurricane Katrina. She considered the Jesson~~ of the hlltTicmle as they
regarded Eugene and had consulted ber hazard plan, 'vvhich was recently updated and distributed on
cornpUler disk to save paper. 1\15. Bettmall pointed out that in a disa~~ter \vhere the electricity \vas lost, it
was not likely that computers would be available, She suggested the City balance the need to save paper
against the need [or a document accessible to all people during a disaster. She suggested the council
discuss next steps at a later time.
Mr. Pryor said the l.Jurnan Services Commission schedukd a meeting bct\veen partners to discuss roles but
it had to be canceled and vv~)Uld be rc,schedulcd. He looked fonvanl to that discussion. which he thought
would be impOtiant in clarifying how all pmtncrs v,'Orked together.
1\1r. Pryor said the ivkKenzic \Vatershed Council met the previ{Yus vv'eek and hemd a presentation on the
Coburg vnstewater tre{ltment system proposal.
Mr. Pryor also commended the recent privilege training.
fvIr. Pryor said he had becn updating the council about the discus~~ions he was having with citizens about
parks, and he was making a concerted effort to let people kno\v that the entire council '\-VGuld have t.o agree
on any proposals that were made with regard to parks or parks planning.
J\;ls. Ortiz said she recently attended the National \\feed and Sced Conference in southern California. She
noted the City's Weed and Seed grant \vas expiring soon, and it had provided valuable funding in the
Bethel area for a variety l)fpUlvoses. She tl.clt empowered as a citizen by her participation on the \Veed
and Seed Board and thought the \\Teed and Sced effort had been very \votih''lhik
!vls. Ortiz: s{lid the Trainsong Neighborhood would have a cookout on September 21, to which aU v.;ere
invited.
fvIr. Poling repl)ned on sevcwl upcoming meetings, including a meeting on the Surre1 Way traffic..calming
project at the Spiritual Gn:i\\ith Center at 7 p.m. on September 2 J, a meeting of the Harlow Neighbors at
Monroe Middle School on Sept.ember 21, and a meeting regarding the Arcadia Street improvement..;; on
September 22 between 6 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. at the Garden Way Church on North Gardcn Way.
ML PoIing annonnced the FireiErnergency Medical Services graduation would occur on September 16 at 2
p.m. at 2"d Avenue and Chambers Street. He regretted his inability to attend the graduation and {lskedFtre
and Emcrgency Medical Services Chief TOll1 Tallon to c~mvey his congratulations to the new firefighters
and thank them f()f their service to the community.
!vlr. Poling reminded the viewing audience th(Jt school was back in session and asked drivers to be carefllL
fvllNUTES uuEugene City Council
\Vork Session
September 12. 2005
Page 2
Mr. Poiing thm1ked PublicWork.s Depanrncnt st(lfffor the street impr~)\'enwnts adjacent to Bertha HoH
Eki:oentary School and thank.ed Schonl District 4.1 for improving the school parking lot. He noted that the
construction of ('al Young Middle School was progressing \vclL
Mr, Po1ing noted a house fire that occurred on Chateau Meadows Drive on August 16 and said he had
heard from seveml constituents about the event He stated for the record that the issue '.vas not rebted to
hard boundaries and the response \vas not politically motivated. A mistake had been made and <1
dispatcher failed to ti)Ho'vv dispatch protocol, delaying the fire truck's arriv(ll on the scene. \fr. Poling
said residents \'l,mtcd to ensure that the error did not oc\~ur again, and wanted to know what supervision
\-vas in place when the event occurred. tIe requested a response from the Cit.y Manager. City Manager
Taylor indicated he \vas looking into the incident and would f()llow up on Mr. Poiing' s questIons.
Mr. Poling said he phoned in a report on graffiti recently and later learned that the location that had been
recorded f...if the incident by the police was in Springfield n:lther than in Eugene, Ilv'here the actua.l incident
\-vas located, He questioned hO\.v the error occurred and requested that the manager f~Jllow up.
j\;lr. Pape <11so expressed appreciation fix the recent diverSIty training and n:gTetted he was unable t~)
attend the entire training became he needed to attend a meeting of the Oregon Le<1gue of Cities Board of
Directurs in Salem. IIe said the board voted to disband its resolutions committee and have a11 resolutions
come to the board directly on the Thursday before the annual League of Oregon Citics meeting, Be was
working to em:llre that those who wished to advocate fix a particular resolution were welcome to that.
board meeting.
1\tr. Pape reported he attended the Oregon Brownfields Conference and had heen very imprcssed by the
conference. particularly a Held l1ip h) River Place, which Vi(lS located nn brownfidds and developed as a
result of cooperati~m betv.reen thc Department of Environmental Quality, private intercsts, and thc
Portland Development Commission.
tvlr. Pape said he had been meeting with constituents ab()ut parks issues and frequently relied on the City's
election infomlation prepared fix the campaign for the parks and open space b())ld and offered to pruvide
copies to interested councilors.
\'lr. Papt: thanked City Manager Taylor for fl)flning the River Avenue Committce, saying that proccss
seemed to he going wel1.
Mr. rape announced that. the new Madison j\liddlc School opened earlier that day.
Mr. Pape shared Mr. Poling's intercst in knowing ,vhat went \.vrong with the fire response,
1\fr. Ke11y expressed concern that the upcoming joint elccted officials meeting regarding the Coburg
wastewater proposal had been scheduled on a date when it appeared t.hree councilors were unable tn
attend. He asked that staff attempt to reschedule the meeting. City Manager Taylor noted that the date
selected ,vas the earliest possible availab1e date, and was the date that accommodat.ed the rnost decwd
officials.
City Manager Taylor introduced new Planning and Development Department Director Susan Muir, \vho
\-vas <1ppointed t.o the position fo!1owing a competitive process after serving as interim director.
MINUTES -----Eugene City Council
Work Session
September 12, 2005
Page 3
B. WORK SESSION: Initiating Code- Amendments for Downtown-Relate-a Zoning
City Manager Taylor recalled that the item \lias scheduled for a \vork session after the council ren::uved it
from the July 18 eonsent Calendar. He introduced Nan Laurence of the Planning and Development
Department, \vho provided the council with a PowerPoint presentation on initiating code amendments for
do\vntovm-related zoning regulations.
Ms. Laurence provided some background, explaining that the idea for a new zone for downtmvn <lrose
fwm the Downto',vn Vision and was supported by the Dmvntmvn Plan, \vhich "vas <ldopted by the c()uncil
in April 2004. Implementing the DowntO\vn Plan was a council prionty issue. At the direction of the
Planning Commission, swffworked with the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC'). a
council-appointed committee, to identify some issues related to development under the current code.
Follovvmg a review of that "vork, the commission expressed eunsensus that the City Hceded to reexamine
some of the requirements in the cnde.
IVfs. Laurence identified two goals fnr the project: 1) to align the Land Use Code With Cirowth Manage-
ment Policies and the policies in the Downtown Plan; and 2) to SUpp~)f[, encourage, and reinf~Jrce <l
vihrant, active, densely developed dCl\vmown. The City's overall goal was to develop znning regulations
that aHowed ,in intensity and density of uses downtown and helped to implement the Downtown Plan.
Ms. Laurence said the commi~:;sion found there were gaps and overlaps in the regulations as "vcll as
connicts. The commission agreed the code necded to be more consistent and cfti.cctive in implementing
the I)owntown Plan, Downt(Win was at a competitive disadvantage to parts of the community in regard to
costs and existing regulations increased that cost.
Ms. Laurencc shared mi3.ps of the exL;ting downtmvn zones \vith the council h) dlustrate the complexity of
the various zoncs and ()verlays,
Ms. Laurence emphasized that the commission communicated to staff the message that nexibility was key
to successful facilit<ltion of creative projects. The commission Vias looking to create a baI<lnce in
implementing the council's direction as expressed in the Land Use (\)(1e adopted in 2002, and the
Downtown Plan, adopted in 2004. 'l'he commission believed there wcre areas ot'the code that c~mld be
improved.
Ivls. Laurence shared a preJirninary list of issues that the commissi()n helievcd warranted further
examinati()n, suggesting that the council and public would likely add more items to the Iist. The list
included: 1) transit-oriented development (TOO) overlay; 2) requirement fix nonresidential uses on the
gnxmd noor; 3) limitation nn surface parking; and 4} bicycle parking.
lVIs. Laurence elaborated on each issue, beginning ',,'lith the 'rOD overlay. She said the overlay included a
density requirement, or Floor }\rea R<ltio (FAR) that may not be producing the desired results. and staff
wished to take a closer look at that. Another C~)l1cern in regard to the TOD overlay \vas its boundaries,
which did not include an of downtown and extended outside downtown.
Speaking to the issue of the FAR, \{s. Laurence shared two examples of development th<lt represented the
same amount of density: one example covered the entire development site with a onc-f1lKir building, while
the second exan::pJe sho\ved a two-story structure occupying half the development site.
MJNUTES -----Eugene City Council
Work Session
September 12, 2005
Page 4
Ms. Laurence spoke of the examples that arose during the commission's discussion, including the US
B . B 'Jd'. 1F"J . .., A "Ill At. 1 .. . '-J -, -, I
· ant(: U1. Il1g on h'l1 amette ;:-}treet anu (\ t'<. venue, \VtHC 1 at elgtlt ~~tones was les~, t lan 2.\) h\H. tIe
librRrY, which at four stories was bardy 2,0 FAR, and Broadway Place, v.;hid1 at thrce stories was less
than 2.0 FAR (1.55) because of the open space included in the development to add 1iv<lbiJity. The Beron
BuiJding was brought out to the street alld had parking located behind the building, achieving urban design
goals but resulting in <llowcr FAR ~)f 1.47.
Ms. Laurence shared examples oft\vo possible developments on the present US Bank site t() demonstrate
bow a low-rise cornmercial developmcnt and a high-rise comroercial development at the same density
w~mld occupy the same ~:;ik. She suggested the high.rise commercial development \\icmld produce <1 result
more in line with the recommendations nfthe DOi'I-'Dtovm Plan, because \vhile II included surbce parKmg
on a portion of the site, the surLlce parking could be redeveloped as another building,
jvls. Laurcnce showed the council a slide of the TOD bnundaries and identified where 1.0 and 2.0 FAR
was required. She said the comrnission agrecd the City should considcr the long-term consequence of
requiring a higher fAH outside the downtown core, as it could encourage development outside the core
that the community might prefer to keep in the core.
~-Is. Laurence discussed the City's requirernent fnr nomcsidential uses on ground Honrs in residential
structures in the C-2 z()ne. The commission agreed that the C'ity needed to take a lo~)k at the requirement
and reconsider its application in dO'vvntuwn. ~y1s, Laurence said the commission believed the City needed
to balance its desire for ground. floor commercial \vith its desire for downtown residential development.
She noted the many vacant storefwnts that already existed in downtown, and said tile requirement
increased the cost of residential dcvelopment in downtovm, which was already higher than in other areas
ofthe cormnunity. In addition, the n~quirement encouraged developrnent on streets that were not
designated as Great Streets and, given existing vacancies the community \'iOuld have difficulty filling
vacancies even on the Great Streets.
Ms. Laurence discw;sed the limitatIon on sl1rbce parking contamed in the C-:) zone. She suggested the
issue required a balance of values; parking was needed to support comrnercwl uses downtown, but the
City had a desire for a densely developed downtov.ri1. Some surface pmking might be needed to facilitate
~~ommercial development, with the proviso that such parking W<lS not permanent. Ms. Laurence said the
commission discussed the provision uf such parking as a Iandbanking strategy, and agreed the entire js~,.ue
needed hlrther reexamination.
Vfs. Laurence discussed the issue of long..term bicycle parking reqllirernents. She said the code !'equired a
number of lung~term spaces be located in a budding, but there could be more than one way to park
bicycles. The City was working with the Vniversity of Oregon's Community Planning Workshop and the
c~)l1ltnunity's bicycling community on a survey to explore the issue. She asked if it was possible t~) have a
code that was sufficiently flexible to accommodate bicycle ridership while aJl~)wing f(,r a project to have a
different response to the rcquirement for long-term parking.
1\.15. Laurence sought council initiatinn of the code amendments so staff could move forward with the
!111plementat ion of the code amendments, heginnmg with a public process. She noted the next steps in the
process, and emphasized th<lt the council would be the final decision makcL
Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions.
MINUTES nnEugene City Council
\Vurk Session
September] 2, 2005
Page 5
Iv1r. Kelly questioned t.he necd f()r the i.nitiation of the code amendments. He pointed out that the Planning
Division" s "\fork program included the mmor Land Use Code arnendments, and he did n~)t recall that the
council had to imtiate those amendments. For that reason, he qiKstioned \-vhy the l~ouncil needed to act in
this case. Ms. Laurence said staff was requesting the council initiate the action to en~;urc the process
began in an l)pen pnblic forum and the council was a\vare of w-hat staff ivas iH.kmpting to accon::pl ish, It
Vias possible that qm::stions and is~;ues could arise that were not yet identified. 1\1s, Laurence recalled t.hat
some of the pre-vious min.or code arnendments had represented '"cleaIH.lp'" actions as OprYlsed to
substantive changes. While statfhad bdicvcd it had diredion in the Dmvntown Plan to pr~'ceed with the
arnendrnents, it seemed that greater clarity ,yould be given to the c:ffort if the emmcil took formal adion,
~'fr. KeUy suggested th<lt council action to initiate the amendments would be a pnlitical choice as opposed
to a legal cboice. He said glven the lack of legal direction. it seemed a political or m<lnagernent judgment.
lvi:;. Muir suggested it was a process judgment. Staff believed the more formal action was required
because the \vork plan item called hr implementation of the DovmtO\vn Pl;:m.
JVlr Kelly said tbat given the swtrresp~)r:se and Ms. Laurenl~e',s remarks about the need for greater clarity
in regard to the process, he thought it important vvhatcyer amendments the council initiated be bound by
council direction in some way. If the commission or public identified neVi i::;sues duri ng the public
process, the commission could send the council a !J1emorandurn asking if it objected to adding the new
issue t() the process.
Me KeHy believed it W3.S "way overstating" to say that there was consensus among the Planning
(\)lmnissioners abuut any changes, as the min.ute~:; provided to the council indi.cated there was consensus
to discuss the identlfied areas of concern hut no consensus about the ultim3tt solntions. \Vith regard to
the role of the ER.A.C, Mr. Kelly agreed that ER/\C \-vas <1 stakeholder but \vas n.ot representative \If all
staKeholders.
Ms, Taylor wondered \vhy the item was initially put on tbe Consent Caiendar when it deserved further
dIscussion. Ms. Laurence said [1. Vias an. implementation item in the Downtown Plan and a logical
extension ofthe work program. l'vls. Taylor hoped anything controversial or that represented a substantial
change would be discussed by the council in a work session rather than placed on the Consent Calendae
She hoped the council discussed each item identified by the cornmisslon separately.
Ms. Solomon found the staff presentation useful <lnd informative. She cxpressed apprcciation for tlw
questions being asked by the commission, and wanted to give the commission and staff free rein to do the
needed work. She thought a great deal of effort was involved, but that the issues identified vvere a key to
the future of d~n\fntown.
!\lr. P~lpe concurred with }yIs. Solomon about the value of the presentation. He said th~~ council should
consider how it could make the code \vork better and help realize its vision fur do\vntown. He reitcrakd a
previous suggestion that the City consider angled parkmg in its downtown to accommodate rame
autonlobiJcs.
Mr. Pap\.~ Llvored looking at not only downtown, but at the courthouse area as ivdL
JVls, Bettnlan thought it a stretch to say the four issucs before the council implemented thc DOWtltO\\iH
Plan, which was conceptual in Juany ways. She puinted out that none l)fthe initiatives impkmented the
trolley system, which was also included in the Downtown Plan. She suggested that a couple of the issues
were counter-productive to the realization of the plan.
MINUTES-I'~ugene City Council
WOl'k Session
September 12, 2005
Page 6
In regard to the TOD, Ms. BeUman said transit-oriented development was nodal developtnent. The idea
behind nodal development was to have frequent, efficient transit in res,dential and cornmcrcial densities
and intensities that fadlitated the w;e of transit.
Ms. Bettman ~;upporti'::d reconsideration of the requirement for nonresidential uses on first Doors ill the ('~2
district downtown. Speaking to the issue of bicycle parking, tv1s. Hettman thought there 'vvere \vays tn
externalize bicycle parking from the building to maximize the intcnsity of use in the building itself.
Ms. Bettman objected that the only interest group 'Nith input into the list was the I:':RAC. She thought that
c~m1n::ittee already got iL; "very narmvily defined" issucs on the table and other groups needed lObe given
that opportunity tLl put their issues on the table so the council could pick and choose among them those
things it believed would help implement the highest priOrIties in the Downto\vn Plan. She thought that
needed to occur bd(xe the council initiated an expensive code anlendment process. Ms. Bettman\.v~mted
an idea of 'vvhere that process would go before ;:;he voted to support it.
May~)r Piercy solicited a second round of council questions and comments.
Mr. Kelly liked 1\.015. Bettman's suggest JOn that the City solicit other ideas and suggestions from the public
through a brief public process and that the council winnow those suggestions.
Speaking to the four issues beii-!['e the council. M1'. K.elly agrecd '':'l,th J'vrs. Bettman about the reexamina-
tion of the gTOund lloor requirement in the ('-2 zone in downtov.m. He likened the bicyck parking issue to
the parking exempt 7.one for automobiles and suggested that if a developer W3S not required to construct
bicycle parking, th,~re should be readily avaibblc shared bicycle parking.
~vrr. Kelly agreed that the boundary issues associated with the 'fOD should be resolved. He supported
sirnplified and consistent boundarI($.
Ms. Bellman recalled that the council discussed creating a Ballot Measure 37 compensation [i.me! so that,
f~lr example, if it wanted to regulate for design st3:ndards it would have the ability to do so, H~ through
changes in the development regubtion process, the City bestowed a financial advantage on a property
owner, there \vmild be a 'vvay for the City to recapture a portion of that benefit in the form of cash and
place it ill the Ballot tvfcasure 37 fund, or it could work out some sort of exchange with the property owner
for design standards. She pointed out that the COllncil had planned to consider design ~,tandards to
accomplish some of the initiatives in the DowntO\vn Pkm and now the council's hands were tied by the
passage ofthe measure. The fact that fund. had n~)t been created prior tn this process was an issue for 1\15.
Bellman.
Nk Bettman ~,poke to the issue of surflcc parking tots in the C.] zone and the relationship to the FAR,
and empbasized the imporiance of having multi-story buildings downtown. Such buildings were key to
the TOD for creating an intensity of use If the City densiiied residential uses, it should be equitable and
dcnsity- other uses as well. The City lost the advantage of residential densification when it al[owed other
sprawling development in downtO'vvn. Ms. BeUman questioned if the code would aHo'vv someone to
combine properties, demolish the existing buildings, and instal[ surL=,ce parking lot on a portion of the Slle.
Ms. Laurence said there was a limitation in the ('-3 zone that precluded more tban 20 surh1ce spaces. The
current code would preclude what },;ls. Bettrnan suggested. Ms. Laurence added that if the City was to
make a change to the code, staff'vvanted to ensure it knC'vv what the issues were and then attempt to
determine the correct solution. She did not think that the right solution was wholesale allowance of
fVllNUTES nnEugene City Council
\V ork Session
September 12, 2005
Page 7
surface parking; rather, it could be a timing restriction in regard to development phases, an increase m
parking tied to an increase in density, or a prohibition on surface parking on properties located on Great
Streets. Ms. Heitman said she WOUld need to seernore information about the issue because she thought
limiting surface parking in dmvntmvn \vas also esscntial to downtown.
Ms. Taylor asked why the City would want to al1o\v rnore parking. She thought the goal in the DO'yvntG\vn
Plan was to reduce surbce p;::,rking. Ivh Laurence sugge~;ted there was a balance between the needs of
dcvelopment and the City's desires fi.lr a dense and active downtown. Sorne uses needed a certain amount
of surfnce parkingbdore they could be persuaded to locate dmvmovvn. tJs. Laurence said there was no
tlexibility aboUlthe issue in the code, and the commission \vas questioning whethcr the selected number
vms the right number. She said that it could be th<lt the solution was not a code amendment, but the issue
kcpt surfacing as something that should be examined.
Ms, Taylor agreed with Ms. HeHman and IV1r. Kelly that more people should be asked to nffer ideas. She
expressed intcrest in having more information about the reason that ideas \vtTe proposed and \vh~) was
behind the proposals so the council could discuss the proposals with them, She thought adjustments to the
Ton boundaries and the issue of commercial uses ~)n ground floors could be addressed quickly, but the
other items on the list needed a Jot more discussion,
t,rr. Papc expressed appreci;::.tion fl~H' Ms. Laurence's response toMs. TaYlor's question rcg.arding suri~lce
parking. He be1ieved that the c~)uncil had attempted to push the market in regard h) the (larden \Vay node
rather than he flexible in regard to market demands, and the result was a development that was not that
desired by the neighbors. Mr.Papc urged the council 1.0 be nexible in its requirerncnts to allow the market
to act. He did not think the council could drive the market.
Mr. Pap(~ asked if other examples had brought the issues before the conndl to the forefront. l'vls. Laurence
cited St. Vincent de Paul's Aurora Building <lS an example of a residential building with commercial space
on the ground f100r for \vhich it had a diHlcult time finding a tenant. The same was true of Broac1\vay
Place. City !\hnager Taylor added staffwa~; prornpted to add the item to the Consent Calendar as a ',vay to
align the D~)\vntown Plan and the code. He did not tl)reSee a process that ,vas limIted to the issues bctixe
the counci1.
1\1r. Pape believed that all councilors \vished to havc an active and lively dovvntown, and suggested that
Eugene's dmvntown would look different than that ofPonland or Seattle because of its dIfferent size and
marketplace, He thought the community was on the verge of seeing some real downtown revitalization
because of the announced plans of downtown property owners, and hoped Eugene did not miss the
opportunity.
Mayor Piercy solicited a third round of comments and questions.
IVIr. KellY said he did not expect to see actual code language beti:!l'e the council initiated a code amend-
ment, but he believed it was important to have a dear scope of work. He had been concerned because,
while he agreed with the goal of simplifying the code and makmg it consi,<;;tent with the Downtown Pian,
therc were items with the potential of going the opposite direction, such as changes to the FAR or surface
parking requirements. He Heeded to get ovcr that concern to feel comfortable in going forward.
Mr. Kelly also expressed appreciation tl)r },rls. Laurence's remarks regarding surface parking but pointed
out there was already a lot of surf::tce parking in downtown and hc was reluctant to create more. He
suggested tbat may be better ways to employ existing surface parking, such as shared parking arrang.e-
MINUTES~Eugcne City C:ounciJ
'Work Session
September l2, 2005
Page 8
mt~nt-",Mr. Kelly said "neeir' was an interesting word: \vLuh.:: the US Dank Building "needed" surface
parking, there vvere eight.story banks in many locations without surface parking that thrived. He said
market needs and )and use needs must be balanced.
fV1r. Kelly had no interest in reducing the FAR but \h)uId like to have a discussiun in Vv'hich it wa~> recast
(JS two functional t1oors.
tAs. Ortiz que~~tioned \vhether the downtown needed l1:1ore parking, but she did believe downtovm needed
longer term parking. She asked if three..hour parking could be tried, pninting out that most of her
constituents had to drive to downtown rather than \valk or ride their bicycles and were unk\ppy whcn they
received tickets, which kept them from corning back dm-vntown.
Mayor Piercy suggested that the council needed to have a broader conversation about parking in genernl to
determine what \vas working. hi regard to the development of first Hoors, she expressed concern that the
City would react to past patterns as opposed to thinking about the future. Mayor Picrcy did n(jt knmv
'.A/hat VlOU ld bappen if development downtown accclerated and downtown became rnore energized. She
suggested that eould change huw mucb people wanted to have the storefronts.
Me Polmg, sect)n{kd hyJ'vls. Solomon, moved to extend timc for the item hy ten minutes.
The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, T\.1r. Kelly, and Ms. Bdtman voting n~).
fv1r. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to initiate amendments t~) Eugene Cnck
Chapter q to more closely align the Land Use Code 'with the Dm",ntuwn Plan.
Me Poling pointed out the motion merely started a puhhc process that cmiId lead to possible changes to
the codc.
tvls. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly moved to amend thc motion to initiate a scoping
proccss tn bring a broader range of Eugene Code Chapter 9 options back to the cotUlcil to
more closely align the Land Use Code with the Downtown Plan.
Ms. Hettman questioncd the cornmission's decision to charge the ERAC ,vith identi fying issues related to
the code and dowmovvn, as the cmnmittcc had a nJTrovAy defined charge and the land use issues wcre of
grcat interest to many residents. She believed there were more options the council should be considering,
and she \vanted to see those options and give morc clear direction to statThefore doing something as
serious as initiating amendments to the code. Ms. Dettman said the proc<.::ss being proposed seemed
premature.
Ms. Solomon thought the amendment undermined the work already done by the Flan!lmg Commission.
Shc pointed out that the commission had receli/ed input from a councd..directed CCHl1mittee that was
invcsted with the task of considering the downtown. Ms. Solomon thought that input W{JS appropriate.
She thought the proposed process a good start, and broadening the scope would threaten the commission'~>
ability to do the needed work. tv1s, Solomon trusted the work done by the commission and prefcrred to
stick to the topics identified by the commission first.
Mr. Kelly said the minutes indicated that commission had not determined that the issues identified by
ERAe were priorities, merely that they deserved further examinatinn. 'fhe commission only spent a small
amount of meeting time on the issue. He supported the amendment becaw~e staff \vas asking f~")r direction
on the next steps in the process and he thought the amendment provided that direction. He suggested
jyHj\lnES~Eugcne City Council
Work Session
September 12, 2005
Page 9
adoption ofthe motion 'vvas m~)re likely to ensure what W:lS eventually proposed w()uld be ad~)ptcd by the
council.
Nlr. Kelly said that it was often said that downtmvIl was everyone's neighborhood, but the "ERAC 'vvas not
everybody, by a long shot." He said he respected the c~)mmittee's work. but it vvas primarily forIncd to
consider urban rene,val district. issues, and it had "a particular kind of approach to it." Adding everyone's
persp~~dive in a brief but deep outreach process would give the council a richer n:ux of approaches to
accomplish the goa I of Illore closely aligning the goals of the code with the Dmvntown Plan.
l\/lr. Pap0 noted his interest in having a publiC hearing eady in the process to hear what the puhlic thought
about some of the items.
'fhe vote on the amendment to the motion wns a 4:<1 tie;M.s T"yloc Mr. Kelly, [vis. Belt-
man, and Ms. Ortit: voting yes; Mr. Pape. iv1s. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and\fr. Pryor voting
no. lvlayor Piercy east a vote in support of the mnendroent, and it p"ssed Oil a final vote of
5:4.
The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
C. WORK SESSION: Standards for Outdoor Smokin~ Areas
1he council was joined by Kdi Osborn of the Planning and Deve1~)pment Department for the item. Ivls.
Osborn reminded the council it requested an additional work session on the subject prior to the pubhc
hearing scheduled on September 26. Ms. Osborn revicv,ed several issues that remained to be resolved.
The fi.rst was, if uutdoor smoking area", '.vere to be allo'v\ied, where were they tp he al1mved') She said staff
recommended they be allowed at establishments that scrve f{XX1 and beverages. She did not know how
many such husmesscs 'vvere involved, but noted that the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLeC)
indicated there were about 220 businesses in Eugene with on-prerlllSC liquor licenses.
T'he second [S,""lle was if' outdoor smoking areas ",ere alkl\ved, hO\o\i open should thcy be'! lv1s. Osborn said
that council's responses had beeu mixed, hut there seemed to be somc suppun for 50 per;.;ent \vall
coverage. That. percentage wns included in the proposed ordinance. She acknowledged there was no
scientific basis to that percentage. She noted that the ()rdinance attempted to address Side coverings and
'vvall coverings to nvoid sorne of the cOnftlsion that arose over the 75/25 percent rule, which \vas Hot clear
as to what was allowed.
The third issue was how to address ventilati{m.Ms. Osborn said staff had provided some examples of
how the issue was addressed in British Columbia and at the State of Oregon, but had provided no
recommendation that such systems he pruvided in outdoor smoking areas.
Iv1s. Osbom discussed the issue of what happened to existing nutdoor smoking are"s i.f the council adopted
new standards. She said that approximately 40 businesses had to secure a building penuit {\)r outdoor
smoking areas while others were installed withnut permit because they required no structural changes.
She said the ordinance suggested that after 12 months. all businesses must comply: alternatively, that
penod could he shorter, longer, or such husinesses could be grandfathcred in as kgaJ nonconforming
structures. Ms. Osbom bc1ie\'ed that most of the establishments that had secured permitswollld [(;quire
another building permit to reach a 50 percent opennes~, standard.
MrNUTES ----Eugene City Council
Work Session
September 12, 2005
Pagc 10
l\'! s. Oshorn nuted the council's adoption of a moratorium on new outdoor smoking faciln.ies that expired
on October 31. She said in order to av()id having the moratorium expire 'vvithout slandards in plaec, the
council must adopt a Hew ordinance with new standards by September 30 or enact an ordinance in October
\vith an nnmdiate effective date. She said if the moralOriulJl expired, the City would not be inhibited
from enacting tighter standards and requiring busincsses with outdoor sm~)kiHg D1eilities to make
additional modifications.
]\115. Osborn noted tlwt some councilors expressed interest in whether some of the changes being
contemplated (~uuld be accomplished through administrative rule rather than through ordinance.
Background information on that issue \vas included in the council mceting packet City Attorney Jerry
Lidz was present to answer questions about that issue.
M3.yor Piercy called for council questions and cnrmnents.
tyi;;. Taylor was not interested in grandtathering any establishments' outdoor smoking h,cilities. She did
n~)t understand why a councilor would prd{~r using administrative rules as opposed to an ordinance as
administrative ruks \verc easicr to relax. Mr. Lidz clarified that approach was suggested by a councilor
rather than staff. Prom a legal perspective, he recommended an ordinance that set a stand<1rd while
allO\ving the City Manager to act administratively to implement the ordinance as there were some
dements probably better addressed by administrative rules, such as modification:, to the 25 percent ruk
made nccessary by physical circumstances. Other than that, he had no reason to bdieveit \\ias better to
act administratively rather than through an ~mlinance.
Mr. Kelly said anolher legal opinion that exi:,ted suggested it would be more straightforward and
defensible to make the changes being contemplated through the City's administrative rules. He proposed
that rather than di~,cuss the ordinance's potental legal v11lncrabilities in open session, the council discuss
them in 3n executive ,"esslon. Be suggested that the council also be given an opportunity to extend the
moratorium to the end of the year.
fvlr. Kelly was comi{:dabk with the overall direction staff was taking. He did not want indoor areas that
happened to bll outdoors under the current defi.nition to be grandfathered forever. He thought a year was
a reasonable amount of time. Mr. KeUy thanked staff for responding to questiDrlS and for seeking
clarification ii'o;:a the council about its previous comments.
Mr. KeJIy suggested that ~;on1ehow the implcnl<:ntation of the original ordinance failed t,) uJpture the
council's original intent that in general, smoking was prohibited in \vork places but one could smoke in
outdoor areas, and he hoped wh3kver \vas proposed would rdum to and clarify thm origin<;] intent.
lVIr. Pape recalled that the council's goal in adopting the ordinance had been to protect the public,
particularly youth, and employees from second-hand smoke, rather than to stop people ii'om smoking, He
rernindcd the council that people had the right to smoke. Mr. Pape \-vas concerned that the council's f<.wus
'vvas on physical structures, and suggcsted the City remind employers that employees were not required to
go into <1reas where smoking \vas allowed. He understood that a window !l1 a \vall or dnor that allowcd
physical vlcwing or the area in question complied with OLCC regulations. ~ds. Osborn said thc City had
experienced some entixcement issues related to situations IV here mal1<1gers had instruc:ed employers to
sign "',!<livers about bcing in a srnohng environment when that was not the choice of the employee, but
they felt compelled to do so. J\k 1>ape thought the City needed to deal with that issue and require the
employer to inlonn the employees ()f their rights through its administrative l1lks, Ms. Osborn clarified
that. City had addres,"ed those situation when they arose.
~.lINUTES-Eugene City Council
\Vork Session
September 12, 2005
Page 11
Mr. Papc expressed apprccmtion for the background itlf~)rmation provided to the council, in particular the
infpnnatlOn from the American So~~icty of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAF), \vhich indicated that complete separation and isolation of smoking room~, can control
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure in nonsmoking arcas of the same building. He said the City
sh~)uJ.d allo\v such areas if they \vcre contained and ventilatcd in such a manner.
?v1r. Pape supported nllowing existing smoking rooms to be grandLlthered, noting that some establish-
mentshad spent considerable moncy on building permits to build outdoor smoking rooms just a short
\vhilc ago.
Ms. Ortiz commended the background information, She "vas glad that the original ordinance had been
adopted and wished that the council could prohibit smoking every",,.-here, a1th~)ugh she acknowledged that
people had the right to smoke. She also did not want to have to force bustness o\.....ners to spend more
Inoney and wanted to see if there Vi/as a way to honor those Cl\vners \vho complied with the spirit of the law
and constructed separate omdoor smoking facilities.
Ms, Solomon echoed the comments of Mr. Pape and cXDressed concern about attenlDtinr,: to mah, anv
.. -"- .. ~~. ,.I
changes through the administrative rules. She thought any amendments to the original ordinance ~~hould
be made through another ordinance so that therc \vas a dear public process that aUo'vved business
establislmlems t() make COl:nrnents and offer input.
i"vIr. Poling asked h~)\v many estahlishments applied fix building pem1its to build a smoking area. Tvis.
Osborn said about 40 businesses had made such applications. Gi yen the number of bus messes in Eugene
with liquor licenses, it was likely tbere \vere other establishments that probably had outdoor smoking areas
that had not required a building permit or for whom business O\vners had Hot sought a pennit. Mr. Poling
asked if there was a 'Nay to give a break to businesses that had filed applications f()r 8 building permit
previously, should the council decide not to grandfather such establishments. ivls. Osborn pointed out that
her departrnent \vas supposed to be 100 percent reliant on fees, and she defelTed to the council on tbat
Issue,
Mr. Ppling suggested that staff needed to be dear at the public hearing that the proposed alternativt:
lang1lage for noncont~mning situations ret1ected m Attachment D could be fmiher altered and changed.
He said that those establishments that confclrmed to the original ordinance and spent the money needed to
comply with an ordinance that was essentially forced upon them should be grandfat.hered in. If the
smoking arca was not mcd within a period of time or the ownership changed, that could make the business
subject to the cun-em code. Mr. Poling looked f();ward to hearing public te~~timony on the issue.
JVIr. Pryor said his first instinct was to m8ke the changes through ordinance, hut he !lad been persuaded
that. some of the less scientifically based and more creative changes could be better implemented through
administrative rule. He did not 'Jiant. t.o short~circuit the public input process but thought that issue could
be addressed. Regarding the issue of grandl~llhering, Mr. Pryor was concerned that those establishments
\vho had "played by the rules" did llot feel shotichanged or stuck with an additional expense. He
suggested that a fee consideration or some SOli ,jf assistance be considered fe,r those who complied to get
theln were they needed t~) be, He \vanted to see some options in that regard.
Ms. Bettman s:ud she had initially favored making changes through an ordinance, but had some concerns
about legal issues that she wanted to discuss with legal counsel more fully. She asked if the council could
hold an executive session prior to the public hearing.
MINUTESuuuEugene City Council
IN ork Session
September 12, 2005
Page 12.
Ms. Hettman said rhe c~)Uncd's original illtent \vas rcHectcdin Section 6.2300) of the code. \-vhIc]}
required aU employers to provide a place of employment for all ernployees in which crnrlnyecs were not
exposed to the smoking of others. She said that secondhand smoke kiJL<;.Workers were not exposed to
other toxic substances rhat jeopardized their health and should not be exposed to secondhand smoke
either. She bdicved everything f()lj~)Vvcd frorn that core v<llue. For that reason, she thought the City
should be considering 75 percent open space and 25 percent enclosure. She helieved that a 50 percent
endosure with a roof was "very enclosed" and exposed workers to ~,ecolldhand smoke. t."is. Bcttman
indicated she would seek amendments to the ordinance to that effect.
Spcaking to the issue of assisting businesses to transition to new bcilities, I\1s. BeUman said she
supported such 8ss1stance as long as the business in question was transltioning to snmething that ftl1fiJled
the objective uCthe original ordil1<mce. She suggested the eouncillonk to the Risk Fund fm those dollars.
City Manager Ta.ylor indicated thnt an executive session could occur later that evening if time nUov,'ed,
f()llowing the regular meeting scheduled at 7:30 p.m.
Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, City 'Ma.nager Taylor indicated he \-vould prep8re an ordinance
to extend the moratorium for the council's consideration on September 26.
Mr. Kelly said he liked the idea of offering businesses assistance to ease requirernent-, and suggest.ed the
councIl could also look to the General Fund Contingency as another funding source.J:-Ie pointed out that
in some cases, those businesses the council was discussing grandfathering in had consciously looked for
loopholes in the regulations, He was n,)t wiJJing to "play Santa Cbus endlessly" to such busincssc~,.
Mr. Kelly liked the point made by J'v1s. Orti~~ in regard to honoring those businesses th8t went by the spirit
and the letter of tne jaw and wanted to do Uwt in any way the Cit.y could. He suggested the City give those
businesses recognition.
Mr. Pare noted that the council kepr discussing percentages for wall openings, and sug,gested that that the
ratio of the f100r area to the waH area and the existing ventilation capacity should be taken into account as
well.
Mr. Pape sUPPOlicd grandf:1thering in the L:tcilities of those businesses thdt complied with the original
ordinance but liked Mr. Pryor"s idea of ~)ffenng assistance to those businesses iJthc council did not take
thar approach.
1\.011'. Pape thought the council already compromised on the moratorium extension and he did not fwor any
moratorium exten;;;ion at this time.
JY[s, l'aylor pointed out that someone had to clean up the smoking 8reas in question even ifthey were
located outdoors, and people could be exposed to secondhand smoke whi1e cleaning up. She liked the
idea of honoring those businesses that complied \vith the law and did not try to subvert it.
The meeting adjourned at 7: J 5 p.llI.
Respectfully submitted,
MINUTES~Eugcne City Council
\Vork Session
September 12, 2005
Page 13
Dennis j'vL 1'(1)/101'
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES-f::ugene City Council
'vVork Session
Septemberl2, 2005
Page 14
ATTACHMENT B
MINlJTES
Eugene City Council
Regular Session
Council Chamber ~City Hall
September 12, 2005
7:30 p,m.
COUNCILORS PRESriNT:
George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Ekttnwn, David Kelly, Gary
Pape, Chris Pryor, Betty TaYlor, Andrea Ortiz.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City COtm.:iL
1. PUBLIC ~FORUM
Mayor Piercy wekonlcd everyone to the City Council meeting and reviewed the rnks of the Puhlic
Forum,
Zachary Vishanof( Patterson Street, suggested that the Human Rights Commission look into the "tazer
issue," He opposed the use oftazers by the Eugene Police Depntirnent (EPD),
J\Tr Vishanoff asked if a parking g<lrage was goi ng to be built on the lntemationai House of Pancakes
properr.yand whether it would be designed by an architect employed by Nike. He suspected the City's
Request for Proposal (RFP) processwouJd he circumvented.
Mr. Vishanoff asseried that the Broadway Place structure was a "'failure:'
NIL Vishano[[ thought a mixed-use development ()]1 the property fl)rmerly mvned by Joe Romania
Chevrolet in the Fairrnount Boulevard area was linked to the University of Oregon's proposal f~)r a
basketball arena.
William J. Jones, 1660 Iviill Street, spoke un behalf of himseJf and his neighb01'~, He said his
neighborhood was iI'aught with obnoxious parties due to it~~ proximity to the University of Oregon
campus. He repOlied two incidences of fire in the last month and said that noi~e issues included fighting
in the street, bottles breaking, and the use of a bullhorn. He related that the bicycle patrols helped, but he
hoped that there could be more "party patrol." He heard that the Eugene Police Depatiment (EPD)
received a list of the beer kegs that were sold and '.vondered ifpolice could drive by keg parties. He also
heard that one tack used in the past "va;; to charge a landlord vvho had three police calls to his or her
building He felt such a charge would be an effective way to address the problem. He noted that some
landlords included a "no keg" clause in !cases.
James Crabbe, 2080 East. 27'h Avenue, spoke of the significance of Civic Stadium as a local landmark for
the citizens of .Eugene, He thought selling the Civic Stadium site for possible development would be
cmmnously short-sighted. He averred that Civic Stadium should be owned by the City of Eugene and
protec.tcd as the cultural and histonc landmark that it is. He felt its great popula.rity with the citizenry
MINUTES-Eugene City Council
Regular Session
September 12, 2005
Page 1
alone rnerited the stmhum's preservation. He noted that the Eugene Emeralds minor league baseball tearn
had average attcndance of j 20,,000 f~m~, per summer t~1r as for back as he cuuld find attendance records.
He staled that the "Ems" consistently had one of the top three atkndancc draws of tht Nl)rth\.vest Baseba\l
League, despite consistently having a k1sing record. lie nttrlbuted this to the stadium \vhich he caned a
"great place to sit back and enjoy a warm sumrner's evening.'" lk related that 8aseball America vot<:d
Civic Stadium one of the top ten pbccs to watch a basehall game in the entire rninor leagues. He
proclaimed the view itself to be 'INorth the price of adrnission. FIe underscored the diversity of the baseball
audience, He soid everyone in Eugene had a connection to the basebaU stadimn and needed it in order to
ren:1<lin connected 'with the City's hist~)l)' and to grOlv as a community that values its pubiic places, He
urged the City to purchase Civic Stadium, possibly utilizing public--private partncrship or by f(;rming a
non-profit organization to restore the stadiunL
John Hotson, 2447 Canterbury Strcet, spokc on behalf of the Santn Cbra Comm.ittee f~:l!' Parks and Open
Spaces (SCCPOS) .which was pursHlng the acquisition of the Santa Clara Elementary School property for
a special use facility or a community center project. He thanked the Mayor, City Council, and City
Manager (~;r their support and insight. l-k also wished to thank the Parks and Open Space Division
director Johnny Medlin and staff for accepting the work projects involving iands and acreage in the Santa
Clara area. He statcd that the commitke was in the process of developing more pledges to work toward
the purchase of the school. He sald the committee was working with the hopes and dreams of Santa Clanl
citizens.
Kate Perle, 4740\Vendover Street, also representing the SCCPOS, called the Santa Clara Elenlentary
School the "cultural centcr ufthe [Santa Clara] community t~)r generations." She said th~)Ugh a fire had
danwged the building earlier in the ye..ir, much of it was structurally sound and usable. She stated that the
site was made up of six tax lots, totaling a little over seven acres of which the sch()ol footprint comprised
approximately three acres. The site was de~,ignated for guvemrnent and educational purposes in the Santa
Clara Refinement Plan, consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Geneml Plan {fvldro
Plan). She underscored the community's desire to preserve the site, rebuild the structure, and create a
special use facility for Santa Clara. She noted the site was surrounded by five Metropolitan Aff~)fl:lable
Housing projects and three senior residence facilities 'Yvlth no other park options \vithin unc..half mile.
The committee wanted to partner with School District 4J and the City of Eugene to "make a significant,
positive difference in the comnrunity." She c<..mveyed the committee's proposal to purchase the tax Jot
vvith the historic building, create the facility, and providc Tor its ongoing programming and for the City to
purchase the other five lots to provide a neighborhood park in the area, She suggcsted that the community
facility could house the Santa Clara branch of the iihrary, a public saiety station, after-school activities [or
youth, continuing education for adults, and rneeting roorflS. among other uses. She reiterated that the
Santa Clara area was greatly underserved according to the Parks aud Open Space Draft Comprehensive
Plan. She noted the plan called for the creation of a conmnmity center in the area. She underscored that
citizens ofthe area 'vvere ready to conduct the funding and outreach and alread.y had a committed prinnfY
donor. She said tlK~ broad-based community..initiated en~)[t was a great opportunity for the City of
Eugene.
Teny Connolly, 1401 Wil1mnette Street rcpresenting the Eugene Area Charnbef of Commerce,
<..~xpressed appreciation for the earlier \vork session <..1n the tlo\vntown zoning regulations. He said the
charnber thought constructive diologue had transpired. He avened that in order to implement the
Downtown Plan, it would t:Jke the cOlmniunent of the City of Eugene through either a regulatory approach
or an enabling approach. He recommended the City take the enabling approach to '"encourage good things
to happen" downtmvn. Hc thought part of this conversatlon should include the n<..~ed to align the hmd use
MINlJTES-.--Eugene City Council
Regular Session
September 12,2005
Page 2
code with the do\vntown plan and, perhaps, to align the Land lJsc Codelvith "market realities" for a city
of Eugene's size.
Nfr. Connolly expressed the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce's support for adoption of the slogan
"'World's Greatest City for the Arts & OutdoGrs:' He felt there \vere many themes from ',vhlch a city hkc
Eugcne could choose, but this had been sd forth with so much enthusiasm and with the wisdom I.)flinking
the theme to the socio-econornie benefits to the community. It had taken no time at an fix the leadership
of the charnber to endorse the theme.
Randy Princl', PO Box 927, recapped his previous testlmonies regarding the Eugcne area"s emergency
prepnredness. He averred that fear interfered with the ability to do what was necessary. He did not
believe the comrnunity was hilly inf(xmed on the ramifications of a potential disaster. such ns the
possibiiity of a Hash Hood caused by a dam giving way afler an earthquake. H.e asserted that the Army
Corps of Engineers (/\COE) refused to study the specifics on whether area dams would stand up shOUld an
earthquah~ occur or whether seismic retrofitting was needed. He submitted an article from The IY,:,v York
Times regarding tht; extensive American Indian legend documenting the last major emihquake in this
cycle. He suggested that J311uary 25 sh()uld be set aside to think about the emthquake and ho\ov it affectcd
the axc;::,.
David Hinkley, 1350 Lawrence Strcet, #1, said the existing neighborhood program was the most
suctessful citizen involvementmovernel1l in the city. He commcnted that too often therc was an "us
VI.~rsus them" relat.ionship bet\veen the neighborhood associations and CIty of Eugene staff. He caUed the
council's Neighborhood Initintive another "top-dovm process." He urged the council to scuttle the initial
process and start. anew with a group that consisted of an cqual number of neighborhood leaders and City
staff
Kathie Brown, 2224 Lillian Street, suppolted the adoption oftl:w "World's Greatest City of the Alis &
Outdoors" as the slogan f()r Eugenc, She noted the slogan was now being used by the Convention &
Visitors Ass(jci31i~)n of Lane County, Oregon (C\lALCO) in its visitor guides and Do\Vntowl1 Eugen~" Inc.
(DEI) on its banners, and had been referred to by Mayor Piercy jn her State oCthe City address. She
stated that the Hult Center for the Perfonning Arts was home to t.he Eugene BaBet Company, Eugene
Concert Choir, Eugene Opera, Oregon Bach Festival, Eugt~ne Symphony, Oregon Mozart Piayers, Oregon
Festival of American Music, and Willarnette Repertory Theater. She asked where else one could go and
ski all day and then attcnd a world class :uts event in the evening, She noted that Eugene was the
birthplace ofNike and every year it hosted the Prefontaine Classic. Sht' asserted that the (knvntown
"pulsated" with arts activities and she list.ed some of the smaller venues for perfo!111ing nndvisual arts.
She relat.ed that the Rolling Stone Afagazinc called the city of Eugene one of the best live music college
towns in America. She pointed out that Eugene had 105 parks and 250 rni les of bicyclc paths and one
could drive in any direction to go tly-fishing or snowboarding among many other activities.
Tom Jordan, 2110 Fairmount Boulevard, introduced himself as the Meet Director for thc Prefontaine
ClassJC track and Held event. \Vhile he believed that Eugene was the track capitol of Anwrica, he declared
that the city was more than H SpOliS oriented town. He suppotted the adoption of the slogan "Eugene ~
World's Greatest City ofthe Arts & Outdoors." He urged the City Council to adopt this as Eugenc's
official slogan. He read the names of 29 community members into the record as being in support of
official adoption of the slogan and asked them to stand as he recited their names.
MINUTES... . Eugene City Council
Regular Session
September 12, 2005
Page 3
Greg Lerigo, 2224 LiLbn Street. remarked that one voice could easily be lost in the "melees of the body
politic.'" lie indicated that he spoke on behalf ofthc comrmmity melnners ',,,,hose names WlTe listed by
tv1r. Jordan, adding that the group selected hilT\ in order to not have aU 29 come and speak at the Public
Forum. He related that he had found on the Weh that the City of Eugene had approximatelY i05 venues
j"{)r performing and visual ;uis. I-Io\vever when he had k)okcd on the City \Veb site only one, the Hult
Center for the Performing Arts, had been listed, He called it unbir to suggest that this comrnunity only
had one perfor1l1ing arts center. He added his voice to those in support of official adoption ~)f the slogan
"\Vorld's Greatest City of the Arts 8:: Outdoors," He said this\vas a statement to make to the community.
both reSIdent and visiting, a.nd that the City shl)Uld make tIllS its challenge to be the \vorld's greatest city
of the arts and outdoors, He averred that many people moved to the city of Eugene by choice and not
because it was a career mov~~. He declared that Eugene had. "so much to offer" It needed to have the
slugan a~; an umbrella.
Robb Hankim. 3060 I::l:endricks Hill Drive, spoKe as a private citizen. Be pointed out that he \-vas
wearing his I-shirt thnt said "World' s Greatest City of the A_rts & Outdoors," as he had for the last 15
months. He said nine out of every ten citizens who read his t-shirt surmised this referred to the city of
Eugene, He rdated that he 'vVould respond, "I think Sl), but it's stiH not offIcial." lIe averred the slogan
,:vas t1exible, because shy people could say "Eugene, City of the Arts & Outdoors" while those who wen?
sure could say "Eugene _u World's Greatest City of the Axts 8:.. Outdoors," He called Eugene a smaU city
and opined that small was beautiful and that Eugene "vas the best and most unique for conni.."Ctlng tbe arts
and thc outdoors. He reiterated that eVALeO had printed the slogan lm 120,000 visitor guides, though it
had yet to be officia1. He rdated that the Mayur referred to it in her State of the eity speech, though it
was still not otl1cial. He said he read the slogan in an in f1ight magazine in Chicago, but the slogan had
yet to be officially adopted. He stated that the slogan had been flashing 720 times per day on the HuH
Center for thc Pcrforming Arts marquee ti:ll' the last year, though it was not officiaL IJe asserted that city
departments were using this slogan to recruit employees, though it was not offIcial. He rdated that hc
attended the concert at the Cuthbert Amphitheater the previous evening and someone had asked him
where they could get <'I I-shirt l:ke his and he had responded that one could not get such a shirt because it
was "stiU not offIciaL"
Maym Piercy ch)scd the Public Forum and called for questions and comments from the counciL
Councilor Kelly thanked everyone for their testirnony. He ask(~d, regarding the nOlse complnints from
Mil! Stred residents, f()r a memorandum on the current statlls of the "party patroL"
AddJtionaHy, C'ouncih)r Kelly agreed" 1 00 percent" \vithML Crabbe regarding Civic Stadium. H_c ashx1
for reassurance by mernorandmn that the ("ity \vas in regular touch \vlth the School Distrkt 4.1 regarding a
potential sale ofthe stadium.
Councilor KeLly stated, regarding the Neighborhood Initiative, that the council had given specific
dircction to staff to he in contact with the Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC) regarding the work.
Councilor Kelly observed that the slogan "Wodd's Greatest City for th~~ Arts & Outdoors" had been under
diseussion for some time.
Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Solomon, rooved to adopt the "World's Greatest
City of the Alis & Outdoors" as the official slogan of Eugene.
-f\tlNUfES----uEugene City Council
R . <' .
eguIar 0eSSlOn
September] 2, 2005
Page 4
Councilor Beitman indicated her support for the slogan.
Councilor Pare thanked J'vtr. Lerlgo for coming. He c~mlmer:ted that the slogan had "come up the right
way" as it had come frorn the community,
Councilor Taylor expressed hope that the slogan \vouJd be aspirationa! and that it would cause the
community to H10\/e toward making the arts more accessible. She suggested that one thing that could be
done to fUtthcr accessibility would be to reduce the parking fee at the amphitheater. She maintained that
the city could do better with regard to open space and should make sure that prime open space would not
be ";eaten up by development'" She asse!ted that the Nectar.Dillard forest and the 'Nest Amazon
Headwaters should not. be developed.
IVlayor Piercy said she was happy to see so many peop1c present in suppo;t of adoption of the s]ogml.
Roll can vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
City Manager Tayl()f related that he had found stationery from the turn of the century that had referred the
Eugene as "The City of Radiation."
Councilor Taylor shared her admiration for the people from Santa Clara for sticking to their goals and
\'.lorking hard for them. She hoped the council would do what it could to help out.
Councilor HeHman concurred \vith Councilor Kelly's comment::; regarding the "party patrol." Regarding
the Neighborhood Initiative, ~:;he assured Jvfr. Hinkley that it \vas a council initiative and had not come
from staff. She commented tbat had it been a neighborhood program revision she would not have
supported it. She said the council would be presented a revised draft of the initiative tbat she did not thin}.;.
would he a revision of the neighborhood program. She underscored that her goal with such an initiative
'..vas to put on-the-ground improvements into place, such as increased bicycle patrols in urb<ln parks and
addressing the conversion of residential houses to commercial and oilice space adjacent to the downtmvn
area.
Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone f...,r coming down. She said her concern lay with bringing a motion
fonvard and pa~;sing it in the same night without opportunity for public comment. She did not want
people to get the impression that the council was not treating all of its constituents the ~:;ame when they
\vere coming f()l"\.vard with such a request. She appreciated Councilor Taylor's comments about the need
for more accessibility to the arts in the community.
Councilor Pryor agreed that it should not be the normal practice to bring an item up and vote on it in the
same night, but jn this case he felt it W<lS f<lir to m<lke an exception.
Regarding Civic Stadiur..'1, eouncilof Pryor remarked that he understood it to have a deed restriction
dictating that it had to be used for educational purposes and could not be sold for another purpose. He
said the stadium was only being used by the Eugene Emeralds because tbe school district also used it for
gnmes. He tbought it would be interesting to see what sorts of opportunities there were within the
restrictions on the pwpelty, but he did not believe that it would be possible t~) build condominiums on the
property.
Councilor Pape observed that the Mayor's Ali Show was free and accessible to the public,
MINUTES ----Eugene City Council
Regular Session
September 12, 2005
Page 5
Councilor Pape sharei..! that he had an uneasy feeling when hearing the ~~onctrns about carnpw, parties. He
related that the City had experienced troubles in the past with fires and SOlIle riots. I-Ie \vanted the City to
"get its hands arOlmd" the situation bdore any serious problems arose.
Continuing, Councilor Pape s;ud he was glad to hear from Santa Clara parks supporters. He said thc
elementary school and the baseball stadium Vler(~ "quasi-publicly owned.'" He reminded everyone that the
school district's mission was not to subsidize local property but rather it was to educatc ttw comnn.mity's
children. He observed that the district was experiencing financial challenges and would need to get '"top
dollar" for its properties should it opt to selL He thought if the City ciJuld accomm~)(1ate buying those
properties given its limited budget, it should certainly do so, Hc hoped the SCCSPOS was successful in
its fundraising endeavor.
Mayor Picrcy commented that one result from the country's experience with HWTicane Katrina had been
that she had consulted with staff regarding the City of Eugene's disaster preparedness. She was infonned
of regular disaster exercises the Ci ty undertook. She asserted that more eduGltion of the public in disaster
preparedness shOUld occur. She thought the on\~ lesson learned froro th\~ disaster in the sout.h was that the
City should have a plan for moving those who did not have the fi.nancial Hwans to leave. She felt the City
was takmg steps in that dIrection
2. CONS.ENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Coundl Minutes
July 1 ft 2005, City Council Meeting
July 20, 2005, Work Session
,July 25, 2005. \-Vork Session
July 25, 2005, City Council Meeting
July 27.2005 Work Session
August 8, 2005, \Vork Session
August 8, 2005. City Council Meeting
August 10. ZOOS, Work Session
R Approv~ll of Tcntative 'Working Agenda
Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, rnoved approval d the Consent
Calendar.
Councilor Kelly stated that he had submitted corrections to the minutes electronically. Mayor Piercy
deemed them, without objection, approved.
Councilor Hettman said she previously submitted minutes corrections. Mayor Piercy noted the corrections
and deemed them accepted.
Councilor Pape WIshed to pull the Septernber 13 process session from the 'fentative Agenda, City
Manager Taylor responded that the btcst iteration of the Tentative Agenda did not include the cancelled
process seSSlOn.
MINUTES ..Eugene City Council
Regular Session
September 12. 2005
Page <}
Councilor Pape reiterated the discussion from the earlier work ,,;ession regarding postp()llement of the joint
elected officials meeting, scheduled for October 11, due to Mayor Piercy's and his abscnce,
('ounciJor Taylor stated that she had submitted a correction to the minutes.~vJayor Piercy accepted the
correction, without objecti()]1s.
Roil caU votc; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0.
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
City Hall Complex
City IVianager Taylor introduced Principal Facility Project Manager for the Facilities Division, Mike
Penwell, and asked him to frame the issue prior to the public lH.-"ring.
Mr. Penwell stated that the heanng m"rked the beginning of a community-based master planning process
to determine the future of City Hall. He underscored that the Eugcne City BaU was approaching the end
of its useful life without significant capital reinvestment into the building. He said the building was
completed in 1964 and contained appmximateJy 78,000 useab1e square fee( of space as well as parking for
200 vehicles, He noted that it had originally housed all of the city's downtown functions but now only
housed the Eugene Police Department (EPD), Municipal Court, City I\1"nager's Office (.CfVI0), and
Human Resources and Risk Services (HRRS).
Mr. Penwell s"id the problems with the building lay in the millions of dollars worth of defi:.~ITed
maintenance. He underscored that major reinvestment ,vould be required to continue using the building
well into the future. lIe stated that the building was inefficient to operate and fnaintain and had weJl..
known structural deficiencies th"t left it vulnembk to earthquakes. He stressed th"t even a rnoderate
earthquake would flatten the building which had real consequences in terms of emergency response, given
thatEPD was housed there.
Mr. Penwell asserted that the building had outlived its usefulness. He said rdated issues included that city
offices \vere now spread all over the dmvntown area. He explained that "pproxirnatdy j 00,000 square
feet of office area was outside of City Ball in a combination of owned and leased space. He thought better
service delivery would result from consolidatinn,
In closing, 1\1r. Penwell reiterated that the hearing was the first step in a comrmmity-hased master planning
process and \\iotdd provide an oppOtiunity to listen to what the community had to say about thc issue. He
said the process of hiring an expert consultant team had been undertaken and tbree finalists w()uld be
intcrvic\vtxl on Septernber 13. He indicated that the consultants would explore and quant.ify the technical
issues such as sp"ce needs, operational requirements, remodeling options, compliance \'lith adopted plans,
and estlmdt.ed costs, among others. tie added that finalists were also expected to be expelis in public
participation to help explore the values in the community.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th l\venue, invited the City ('ouncll to attend the Eugene City Club presentation
on the subject ofthe CityHal1 building planned f()1" September 16. He rccaUed that the main thrusts nfthe
arguments f{)r a new building were that the existing building was overcrm;vded and that it \vould not
MINUTESum Eugene City Council
Regular Session
September 12. 2005
Page '7
survive an em~t.hquake. He ,vas puzzled by the former, given that tbe Fire Department and <I portion oCthe
EPD had moved. (.utAs for the threat of an earthquake, he 'vvas not \vorried, He comrllented that there
were all kinds of emergencies tbat could come up, He suggested that City Ban could be somewhere other
than the center of town where land was most valuable. He thougbt the Eugene Watcr &. Electric Board
(EWE13) building would rnake a good sit<: for the city hajj should [WEB choose to sel] it.
nan Herbert:, 1913 Potter Street, thanked the council lor opening up the citizen participation process so
soon. Be asked the council and staff if they were familiar with the Public P<Jrticipation Spectrum
published by the International Associat.ion of Public Participation. He said ~.;Ir.PemvcJI provided copies
of it Jar the group that had interviewwl the consultants, which included himself. He wished to recommend
that public participation include coHectivdy pitching sueh participation to the "midnlc\/eJ of those
involved," in which the public participation goal was to work directly with the public througbout the
process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations were consistently understood and considered. lie
underscored the need l(n transparency in the process.
Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, opined that the public notice for the hearing was short. I-Ie also
opposed holding a hearing before the university year bad begun as he averred students ;;;hould have the
opportunity to weigh in on this,H.e did not think a big building project sbould be undertaken in the face
of the $93 million backh\~; in street repairs.
J\k Vishanoff opposed any pubEdprivatc partnerships. He also opposed siting a new City Hall near the
riverfront He reiterated his concern with the excessive use of video cameras fOr surveillance. He likened
pbcernent of the en.y Hall in proximity of the new courthouse building to an "Onvellian overdose."
Gary Rayor, 2373 Washington Street, stated that he had worked as a structural engineer l()r 32 years. He
said he designed highway hridges, water storage reservoirs, huildings, and other large projects. He
averred that tbere were political and structural 3.spects to consider when lookmg at the current City Hall.
Regarding the political realm, he recommended sh()wing thc public that good due diligence had been
conducted for the current City Hall bef(m.' abandoning it. He said the biggest selling point in leaving the
building was that it \vas going to pancake and destroy all of the police vebicles and other tbings st()red
beneath it. He stated that in 1964 the building had been designed to a six percent lateral load while the
current design criteria was that the base shear was approximately 19 percent of gravity and the l,OOO year
return interval \ovas about 25 percent. He declared this to be equivalent to a subduction zone earthquake or
a nearby crustal earthquake and such earthquakes would destroy the building. He thought whether the
consultants \vould recommend "junking" the building depended on what questions were asked. He felt
that basing que;;;tions on only structural aspects would lead to the answer that the building could work and
be serviceabkHe averred that the rnain reason the "soft story"be1ow the Council Chamber was not
rc.-pairablewas because the perimeter columns w-ere only halfofthe height ot'the otber columns and would
receive the brunt of an earthquake causing a progressive failure. He suggested isolating the perimeter
footings and making them fun height and adding steel x-hracing in thc downstairs with either some "high-
tech" dampers, similar to those used in the DeFazio Bicycle Bridge main span, or :~ome basic plates bolted
together tightly, though not so tight that they would not absorb some of the movement energy generated by
an earthquake. He fi.:lt the columns could he wunded Ollt and carbon..wrapped and the base shear of the
columns could be prevented b:y mounting x..braces to the slab using the entire slah as a "huge diaphragm
on grade," He indicated he had read aU of the rep~)rf.s and had not seen the questions asked correctly so
that consultants would consider how they would go about saving the building. He submitted his testimony
in writing.
MiNUTES -----Eugene City Council
Regular Session
September 12, 2005
Page 8
DavidUinkJey, 1350 Lawrence Street, if1, averred that the public needed to know from the begmning
what their level of participation would bc He opined that the quickest way t() ruin public participation
would be to give the public greater expectations of their participation level than would actually be granted,
He rccommended inviting the public to comment early and often. He wanted the structure to be designed
ti:!r reasonable growtb, kn' sustainabiJ!ty and to be built economically, He thought the current City Hall
\ovas "possibly one of the ugliest buildings in the City," but nonetheless it \\!<lS one of the fe\v surviving
examples of this architectural style,Hc felt it ,,;hou!d be protected, He wished for the hmlding to be
retained as much as possible, l:k suggested that the nGlib side of the building h~ razed and replaced by a
multi-story building and that the perimeter be maintained. He cited, as an example, a building built in San
Francisco that was an exact replica of a ternporary structure that the public wished to retain, He thought
the City ltall could be copied, In dosing, he felt another option \vould be to sdl the building to the
hospitaL
William Ivanoff, 1810 Harris Street. #328, asked that the City Hall be kept or rebuilt on the current site.
jJe supported leaving the City HaLl close to the County, State, and federal buildings.H.e said any ncw
construction should be built according to earthquake standards and that while the construction was
underway a partnership shOll Id be tl:nTned with the firm of Conner and W ooJley so that the City could
utilize space in buildings the paJincrship owned that were largely' empty. He recommended that a new
City Hall should include the CMO, Uwt Planning and Development Department (PDD), the Finance
Division, Mu.nicipal Court, the e,ty Council and Mayor, and possibly the EPD.
Charles Biggs, 540 Antelopc Way, opposed the construction of a new city hall. He observed that the
.police facilitv had been voted dCl\vn three times and the citv was vet unsure ofwhClher the centralizcd
-/ ../ ~.
model or the decentralized rnodel, i.e, precincts, was the most prudent distribution of public safety
services. He asked why the City of Eugene WOUld want to build more otlice space given the abundance of
empty office space in the downto'vvn core. He questioned the sustainability of this, He maintained there
"vere higher priorities such as road repair or the need for more police officers that the $29 mi11ion the
project \vas estimated to cost could be used for. He read his written testimony into the record and
submitted it to the council. He felt it had been diffi.cult to find inli:IlTnation on the master planning
process, He expressed concems that consolidation of City offices into one location would vacate large
portions of the do\'mtown and have a negative impact on the downtown economy,
Kevin Matthews, PO Box l588, Eugene, 97440, stated that he \vas president of the Friends of Eugene,
president of the Southeast Neighbors, and editor-in-chief of Architecture rVeek Magazine. Additionally,
he declared he had a Masters Degree in architecture from Berkeley and had much disaster review
experience. He agreed 'vvith comments on tlK' cultural sih'11ifi.cance of the building and opined that
comments on the real estate issues were 'vvorthy of consideration. He felt the City ,vas working hard to
improve its public process. He asserted that in order to include the promise that the public could influence
the final decision on the potential City Hall the first two phases of the process should be readjusted. He
thought the first phase, six months for polley input, included "minimal" public input and this phas(~ could
include the deciSIon on whether to retain the current building. He urged the councilors to give up some of
their "t1at legal ability to call the shots," He thought the result 'vvould be a city hall th<lt everynne believed
ill and would vote for.
Mayor Piercy dosed the public hearing and called f~Jr comments frorn the City Council.
NlfNUTES-- Eugene City Council
Rei:,'l.dar Session
September 12, 2005
Page 9
Councilor Kelly noted that the City Council would be adjourning to an executive se,,;sion. He said he
would not comment at this time given that there was a work session scheduled on this topi\.~ in the near
future.
Councilor Taylor co;:omended the c()mments. She felt another public hearing \vas warranted. She liked
1v1r. Rayor's comment that the questions needed to he asked correctly. She encouraged everyone to attend
the City Club presentation on this topic.
Mayor Piercy appreciated the etlort m;;1de to publicize the public hearing, noting it had been advertised
t\vice in the newspaper. She looked fonvard to more opportunities to move this isstw ahead.
Councilor Sohm10n noted that a four-hour ,vork session had been scheduled for Odobcr 19 on this topic.
She asked the lvlayor to outline what the meeting suught to accomplish and whether she wanted input on it
at this time to help prepare f(x that. She also wondered if there could be a pubJicinput component added
to it,
City Manager Taylor asked Mr. Pen'vvdl to respond.
fvlr. Penwell averred that f()ur huurs was a lim.itcd amount of time, He n:;}ted that he had listed ten. issues
in the action plan but he expected more Issues to arise. He hoped to get an indication of where the council
'yvas leaning individually ilnd co.lJectivdy on ce!1;Jin issues in order to use it as the "kick off" for the pubtic
participation process and engage the community in the value-based issues with smne inclination from the
council.
City Manager Taylor thought narw'vving the possibilities would help to eng<1ge the public.
ivlr. PenweU expressed his preference for documenting the work session weU in urder to get that
inhmnation out to the pubhc and offer them the chance to respond.
Councilor Hettman stated that she had asked for this hearing because she believed it was good to identify
any issues that could be out there that were overlooked 'Vvhen putting the process together. She thought
doing general scoping betorehand \vould help gain public input up front. She opined that it wm; n~)t fair to
go out. to the public and decbre that anyi:hing was possible. Rath.:.r, she felt it was prudent to define the
boundaries of the issue.
The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p,m.
Respectfully subn::itted,
DennisM. Taylor
City.t>,;ianager
(Recorded by Ruth Akherson)
MINtlTES-.---Eugene City Council
Regular Session
September 12, 2005
Page 10
MINUTES
ATTACHMENT C
Eugene City C~)uncil
V/ork Session
McNutt Roorn unEugene City Hal!
Septernber 21 , 2005
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT:
George Poling, Jenoifer Snlmnon, BOriny HeHman, David Kelly, Betty
l'ayloL Gary Pap6, Andrea Ortiz, ehris Pryor.
Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and reported that Hem B,
Public Safety Task Team Upd8le, had becn postponed and an executive session was added.
~,'b. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend the time for Hcm A to J: 15 p.m. to
allow thc cmmcil to consider hvo motions having h) do with the Nnvember ballot measure
and related mailings. That would extend the meeting end time to l:4S p.m.
M1'. Papt; indicated he did not think he would be able to stay past the 1 :30 p.m. deadl:ne due to a previous
connict.
The motion passed, 6:2; lVls. Solomon and Mr Pape voting no.
A. WORK SESSION: GoalS Natuml Resources Study
City Manager Taylor introduced the item, noting the City's Goal 5 Natural Resources Study was J.cl yeafs
in the making and was a part of the City's partnership 'vvith its other regional partners in the Eugene~
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Springfield and Lane County The study was a result of
State-mandated periodic rcview of the Metro Plan, He introduced Natural Resources Planner Neil
Bjorklund, who provided a PmverPoint presentation entitled Cioa! 5 Natural Resow'ccs Conscrl'utin}l
{)}''(!/ect.
Mr. Bj()rklund reminded the council that Oregon's land use planning program \vas designed around 19
goals, of 'vvhich GoalS was one, The Natural Resources Study involved only natural resources and
8ddressed only a few ofthc natmallTsouTces in thc cormmmity. ft interacted \vith (!~)al 9, Economic
Development, and Goal lO,Housing, GoalS discussed how to addTcss natural resources inside the
pl8nning area. He said the guidelines lor implementing Goal 9 spz.xifically mcntwned the necd to
consider the canying capacity of the air, land, and water resources of a planning area as a major
detem1immt, ;:md stipulated that land conservation and developrnent action:~ provided by planning
documents should not exceed the carrying capaeit.y of those resources. J'vIr. Bjorldund said the three goals
worked together to balance development and economic needs with natural resources protection needs
, .. .
l1lsWe an urban area,
]'v1r. Bj~)rklund discuss,~d sornc of the economic and social benefits of protecting natural respurces, \vhich
included increased pnyperty values, reduced costs of rDai otaining water quality, physical and mental health
benefits, recreational experiences for those who could not afford to t.ravel outside the city, and attracting
MlNlJfES-mEugene City Council
"Vork Session
September 21, 2005
Page 1
and kecping employers and employees in the area.
Mr. Bjorklund said the (loal 5 inventory under consideration consisted mainly of water resources,
including \vetlands, ponds, rivers, and streams. He emphasized the value of riparian meas and wetlands to
maintaining ,vater quality, and said that healthy water systems provide hmnans ',vith dean water and
SUpP~)rt \vildlifc, j\;1r. Bjorklund reminded the council that water that passed through thc connnunity was
used by other communities such as Corvallis for drinking water, and the City's actions affccted those
individuals as well. lIe noted the wLldIife diversity in the comnnmity, saying that there were few major
roammals other than deer in the metropolitan area but other species, such as birds, plants, fish, and insects.
were dIverse and numerous.
Mr. Bjorklund discussed t.he Goal 5 process, noting that periodic review work program item was focllsed
on three res~)urce types: l) riparian cOITidors; 2) upland wildlife habitat; and 3) wetlands. Lie hriet1y
described the characteristics of each resource type. He reviewed the steps in the process, \vhich callcd for
the City to map the resources, identify conHicting land uses, desIgnate impact arcas, analyze the
Economic, Social, EnvironmentaL and Energy (ESEE) consequences, determine which sites to protect.
and adopt and apply protection measures.
l\1r. BjiSrklund reviewed past key daleS in the Goal 5 inventory process and key dates in the GoalS ESEE
process. 1-1e emphasized the considerable contact hetween staff and affected property ~)wners over the past
few years.
Mr. Bjikklul1d said that the council would consider adoption of the 10caJ wetland inventory and Goal S
inventory of significant \;\/dlands, minor corrections to the riparian and \vildlife habitat inventory, the
ESEE analysis and site recommendations, code amendments h) create the \WR \Vater Resources
Conservation Overlay Z,one, and legislative changes to apply the \WR overlay.
Mr. Bjorklund called the council's attcntion to a n,ap on the meeting room \ovall that depicted corrections
to the inventory since 2003 made p<.)ssible by more precise mapping t<.)()ls and new inf(mnation.
Mr. Bj;:n'klund revinved the Planning Commission's recommendations. Vlith regard to significant
riparian areas, there \Vere 950 total site acres in question and the commIssion nx:on:lmendcd 886 acres for
cnnservation. \:>lith regard to significant upland habitat, there were 177 total site acres and the commis--
sion recommended 152 acres l()r conservation. With regard to significant wetlands, there were 619 total
site acrcs and the commission recommended 33l acres for consenration.
Me Bj6rklund reviewed the exhibits accompanying the ordinances bdbre the COUIK!l, noting that
Ordinance 1 applied inside the city J imits and Ordinance 2 applied to the areas outside the city Jin1!ts yet
within the urban growth boundary. He said the Lane Board of ('ounty Commissioners ,vould also have to
adopt the recOlnmendations f()r those areas outside the city limits.
Mr. Bj6rklund overviewed tbe proposed Goal 5 regulatiom~, noting they were based on regulations already
in place in the West Eugene \Vetbnds Plan area, He said they included f1exib1e conservation setbacks !'()r
protected Goal .5 resources, 'fhe flexibility included a setback averaging option and ,.vhat he termed a
"reduce and restore" option that allowed a developer to reduce a setback in one area in exchange for
restoration of the remaining conservation area. He indicated that previously exi;;;ting development was
proposed to excrnpt from the regulations.
Mr. BjlJrlJund provided aWe)) site for additional infonnation: W).>(~y',<;:~gQnl::tUtQJ:g.
MfNUTES-- -Eugene (:ity Council
Work Session
September 21, 2()05
Page 2
Mr. Bjt,rldund acknowledged the contribution of Ann Siegemhaler to the ,,;taffwurk i11\'ol\\x1 in preparing
the rnaterials before the council.
Mayor Piercy asked how many of acres recommended tOr protection were located outside the city limits
j\;1L Bjorklund estimated th~lt 75 percent were located inside the city limits, and 25 percent were located
outside the city limits.
Mayor Piercy invited questions and comments from the council.
Mr. Kelly commended the thorough staff work and thanked I'v1L Bji)rklund and all othcr Planning Di\'ision
staff involved in the preparation of the materials before the council, as\veH as the Planning Commission
for its review.
My. Kelly asked if the commission automatically reco111mended the \WR overlay for sites that the ESEE
analysis indicated met the criteria for limIting cont1iding uses or if there were such sites l(lr which the
overlay was not re~~or(Jrnemkd, Mr. Bj<Jrklund said that where the ESEE analysis concluded that uses
should be limited, the Planning Commission recommended the application of the \ViR overlay. Mr. Kelly
asLed if the commission recon1mended that uses be prohibited on any site. Mr. Bjorklund said the
commission did not recommend any sites fiJr that designation because some of the uses allowed by the
regulations include low-impact trails and, subject to standards review, interpretaii\'e kiosks or other
inte111retativt; facilities, rvfinor impacts were allowed within the protected areas that would not be allowed
on a site that feH into the category of"'prohibit conflicted uses."'
Mr. KeHy liked the \ \VR overlay concept but was concerned about the adjustment review process. He
offered as an example of his concern the case ~)f a lot that included an established con~;crvation easement.
tfthe overby was applied to the lot, it appeared the process allowed the conservation area to he reduced t.o
one.third of the lot. even ifbefige the process it covered a rnllch greater percentage ~)fthe lot. [>..,1;-.
Bjiirk1und concurred. Mr. Kelly said that similarly, the ordinance al10wed a reduction of the setback by
20 perccnt, including the setback along the WiHamettc River. Mr. BjiirkItmd c~)ncurred. fvlr. Kelly Said
his problem with that was that it concerned sites that were already declared significant.
Ms. Solomon thanked Me Bji)rklund for his presentation. She clarified that the acres lTcOnlmel](kd fCll'
conservation did not mean those acres were being completely protected from development. Mr. Bj6rklund
said the acre numbers he shared were acreages of the site; because the protected area included the site and
a setback that could extend beyond thc site, the total area in the conservation area \Nould bc somewhat
greater than the figures he shared. Hmvcver, the fkxibJe provisions he had described made ;t difficult to
say \vhat exact number of acres would be no longer availabk f~)j" development Ms. Solomon asked hO\\7
that atlected the completion ofbuildab1e lands inventory given that staff did not. appear to know how
many acres remained buildable. My. Bj('Irklund said staffnmst analyze the impacts of the l:ommission's
recommendations against the existing inventory. He pointed out that. because of the WaY the reguiations
were \vritten, they would not result in an unbuildabk lot. If every lot could be built on, the City had not
subtracted from the buildable lands inventory. In addition, \vhen land was divided it ',','as generally
divided along 'vvat.envays, so the resources were at the back end of the lot and. the developers placed the
house on the front of a l<)t so the functional "buiklability" of those Jots was not lost Mr. Bj6rldund said
staff also analyzed the acreage assuming the entire conservation area was unbui ldable, and fCHmd there
were still excess acres of buildable land based on adopted land inventories.
Ms. Solomon referred to the Bethel Community Park site and said there was a wetland running through
MINUTES nmEugene City Council
Work Session
September 21,2005
Page 3
the park in the area that the ('ity had promised residents through the parks and open space bond measure
would bceonK' an ofT. leash dog park. That park was not being built as promised and f\1s. Solomon asked
ifit \vas because of the wetland designation. Mr. Bj6rklund did not know. The site had not been
recommended fl.x protection by staff or the Planning Commission. He noted that the City \vould have to
go through the State and federal permitting proccss to rill the wetlands on the site.
Ms, Taylor noted her conceI1l about two propetiies cOlltaining the Amawn Creek headwaters, and asked if
those entire properties, rather than just pans of them, could be designated fl.-)r c~mlp1ctc protection From
development. \{c Bjorklund ~;aid the portion of those properties on the GoalS inventory \vas recom-
mended llJr protection. The reroainder of the properties would be studicd through the upcommg South
HiUs study. Ms. Taylor said the sites contained rare plnnts that would not be protccted if development
occurred.. and the sites were also important fl.lr the purpose of connectivity T()r wildlife.
Referring to Mr. Bjl:lrldulld's statement that the regulations would result in no unhuildable lots.. Ms.
Taylor asked if the owner nf a large lot \vould be able to develop a second house on the lot If they had a
seasonal stream on their property. Me Bjorklund indicated it would depend on the situation.
Speaking to Ms. Taylor's earlier remarks, Mr. Bjorklund noted that connectivity (0 other open spaces was
conSIdered by staff and the comrnission in their deliberations, and connectivity led to cCliain sites be
recommended for more proted.I~)n,
ivls. Taylor asked if l\k Bj.:jrklund's statement that there would be no unbuild8ble lots meant that the
owner of a large parcel 'Nould be ahlc (0 build on as maJiY Jots as fit on the parcel. She cited the propeliy
on Nectar \Vay and Dillard as an example. jyk Bjorklund said such a property wouJdhave to go through
the planned unit development (PUD) process to be developed. He recalled that J U to 11 acres of the 45-
acre sitc was in the GoalS inventory, so a large part of thc site was not impacted by the study, and the
G()cd 5 regubtions would not affect those acres, Ms. Taylor 8sked if existing requests to de\.'cJop would
be exempt from the ordinance. City Attorney E:mily Jerome said State Im,v governed the issue and it
stipulated that eornpkte applications mw,t be considered under the standards and criteria in place at the
time the applicationwa~~ submitted, She pointed out that the Planning CommiSSion bad added some
prOVisions for existing application approvals that the council might wish to review.
I"vls, Taylor indicated she would offer thc council a motion to establish a development moratorium _for site
E37 on September 26.
Mr. Poling determined li'Orn Mr. Bjikklund that affected propetiy owners living outside the city limits had
t\vice received direct notIce of the zoning actions being contemplated. Mr. BjDrklund added that he had
talked to many, many property owners who lived outside the city limits.
At tbe request of:Mr. Poling, Me Bjbrklund explained the Significance ofthe two maps mounted on the
meeting room, expJainmg that one showed corrections in mapping by nlaking the location of sites more
accurate and the second depicted the Planning ('ommission's recommendations,
Responding to a question fromMr. Poling, [>vir. Bjbrklund said the maps could. be found on the Web site
and were posted in the Atrium Building, In addition, staff had e-mailcd copies ofthc map to many
propeIiy ovvners.
Me Pape detern1ined thHll ~vlr. Bj<<5rklund that the wuncil\; action to change the City's approach in the
uplands inventory in the south hiHs did not affect the study bet(lre the counciL \Vork on the uplands study
MINUTESm--Eugene City Council
\Vork Session
September 21.. 2005
Page 4
had not begun. Mr. Pape asked if <1dditional protections could arise frorn tbat work. Mr. Bjorklund said
yes. NIr. Papc det.em-lined from Mr. Bj6rklund that some'..vhere bct'v',1een 5,00n and 7,000 lots would be
affected by the uplands invent.ory in the south hiHs. }vir. Pap6 asked if the City ',voukl notify the property
owners of t.he council's action. NIL Bjorklund said yes, VI/hen the staff embarked on tbat work.
At the request of ;\1r, Pape, Mr.BF1rklund reviewed the different levels of protection bemg proposed at
this time. He said that adjustmcnts were <1vaibblc in each category, but t.hey were keyed to the category
and the type of resource ill the category. The commission wanted to avoid a situation ,vhere the setback
was reduced so hr that the resource was not adequately protected.
Mr. Pape asked about the impact of Ballot Measure 37 on the regulations, suggesting tbat additional
setbacks could impair a developer's abitity to divide a site into as many lots as previous. Mr. Bji.'lrklund
concmred, but pointed out that in the case of subdivisions that had been developed in the past five years,
developers were generaJ1y designing them to maintain such corridors <1S an amenity to the development
Mr. Pape scud if the City was tabng land out of the 20-year land supply by protecting more acreage, it
may have an issue wit.h the existmg buildable land supply. JVls. Jerorne responded that the City could not
adopt a land use regulation without domg an analysis of that issue. She reiterated that staff did a worst-
care ~~cenario an<11ysi<; that indicated a surplus still existed in aH three categories of buildable land.
Ms. Bettman ~~olXlmended staff fen its v{ork on the issue. She recalled the council's motionlO estabhsh <1
conservation fund to pay for natural resource sites, and asked when the council would sce the results of
that work. eity Mal1<1gerTayJor indicated the City Attorney's Officc \Vas doing the required work.
Ms. Gettman referred to the "reduce and restore" option and asked ho\o',1 the City lI1onitored the restoration
and setb<1ck when the property changed hands. Mr. Bj6rklund said the City \vould take the same approach
as it did to cDde enforcement violations, 'vvhich \-vas frequently complaint-driven. He suggested that
education was the key to cnmpliance with the ordinance, He said staff would continue to \-\lork with
propeny owners to educate them about the regulations, and with Parks and Open Space staff~ for e'{ample,
on such tbings as community education regarding native plants.
J\h. Bettman asked if the property deed would ret1ect the \WR overlay, or if there would be any
documentation of the overlay thm was carried with the ownership of the property. J\;1L Bjorklund said the
City had limited opportunities to at1-ect deeds, but it. would track that infonnation.
J\:ts. Beltman suggested the 20-year buildable lands inventory \vas less predicated on lots than on h~)Using
units, and that was a density issue. She questioned why, in Section 9.2751, Special Development
Standmds for Table 9,1040, stafT proposed that the Planning Director round down the acreage or land to
the previous \vhole nurnber to calculate the mininmm net density, which could diminish the potential
density on largc lots.
Mayor ho'cy solicited a second round of council questions and comrnents.
Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. BeUman's request for t()llmv-up rcgarding the proposed compensation fund.
Mr. Kelly returned t.o his concerns about the t1exibl1ity provided by adjustment review. Mr. Bji.}rklund
referred him to Section 9.8030(2l)(a)(1), and explained that the 33 percent calculation v.;as not 3:') percent
of everything on the site; one did not get to factor in the pond, stream, or wetland itself in the 33 percent.
He added that staff found only a couple of sites where the .)3 percent would apply. In those cases, staff
MINUTES mEugene City Council
\-Vork Session
September 21, 2005
Page 5
found the regulation:, could alhw 8 reduction in the setback and rerouting of the watcnvay while
enhancing the waterway's functions. The situation arose in oniy the small lots, rather than the large
parcels. Me Kelly suggested rephrasing might help with better understanding and asked for a diagram
illustrating .Mr. Bj6rklund's remarks. He also suggested a GIS nm of real world exampks would also be
use ful
Ms. HeUman suggested that staff could address the density issue in a memorandum but she would bring it
up at the public hearing. She asked what happened if the Hoard nf County Commissitmers refused to take
action. fvk Bjorklund said there was no guarantee of adoption, but if the C\mnty did not adopt something,
it would have fai1ed to have rnet its periodic review obligations. The board could decide to adopt
somet.hmg different. Staff"\vould initiate the board adoption pwcess fnHmving council action.
B. VO'[ERS P AM PlILET
Ms. Bettn::an. seconded by Ms. Ortiz, for the purpose of directing and informing the pub-
lic that the Eugene City C\)uncl.l has placed Measure 21-06 on the b8Hot, \-vbat ihemeas-
un: is, "when the election is, where and hmv to 'v\)te, and important dates and deadlines:
moved to direct the City Manager tn expedite a neutral infomlational mailing in a k;nnat
consist.ent 'Nlth previous City informati@al mailings describing City measures, to be
mailed no latCf than October 5. The infcirmation shaH include the question and summary
of the bal10t memmre, and a copy ~)fthe chmier amendment. The informa1ion shan also
include ekctlon time1ines and logistics, including the dates that ballots and Voter's Panl-
phlets arc mailed, and a \Veb address, and other points of access to review the Pnhce
Commission's rcpoti of July 25. This motion also al10cates up to $20,000 to complete the
mailing from the Council C\)ntingency Fund.
Ms. Heitman said a precedent existed in past City mailings regarding past ballot rneasures. She believed
that the date of October 5 could be achieved. She said she would not object if the mailmg ~Kellrrcd a fc\v
days either beforc or after that date.
Ms. Walston suggested the poknti81 of an insert in The Register-Guard and the Eugene lj/f'ek!r.fvls.
HeHman believed that would reduce the number of people who received the information.
j'vls. Oriiz supported the motion because it represented what had been done in the past. The council was
not askmg fix anything speciaL
Ms. Solomon asked vihat the existing City policy was, and hmv the motion diffi.:red from policy. She
asked why the council \-vas discussing the issue if it was the ease that such infc\rmation was provided in the
past. ivts. Walston recalled that the issue was discussed on August 8 when thc resolution to place the
mca~;ure on the ball()t was adopted. Hmvever, there \vas no motion to go t~~H'ward at that time. Staff
beJicved, on the advice of the attorney, that it would be difficult to produce a neutral piece because of the
fact the ejection involved a charter amendment and staff could not point to facts such as what would be
purchased, as occurred with a bond measure, t~Jr example.
Cit.y Attorney Glenn Klein clarified there was no existing policy about such mailings, but there \vas past
practice. In most cases, the City prepared some sort of pamphlet or brochure. He h(ld advised on August
8 that he did not think the City could do a traditional explanatory pamphlet bet.:ause the measure was not
factual to the same extent as a bond measure. The kind of information Ms. HeHman rnentioned in her
MINUTES ..Eugene City Council
\\iork Session
September 21 , 2005
Page ()
111Ot1on was the type ofint~m:nation that would be included in a \loters' p(Jmphkt. so he did not have the
same concern about the City spending public resources to publish it. Mr. Klein vvas somewhat concerned
about the reference to the Police Commission report, hut suggested to counter that, the Cit.y could provide
infonnatlon in its materials about \vhere to secure infonnation, pro and con, about the measure.~vIs.
Solornon thought that was bir if the City was tndy trying t() be neutral.
Mr. Kelly expressed concern about providing inforrnati'Jn pointing people to sources of non.neutral
advice, pro or con, in a factual rnaiJing. He prefcrred to drop the reterence to the commiSSlClJl report [ather
than reference ini<mnation from the proponents or opponcnts of the measure.
Mr. Kkin said it \vas 1m opinion that the City could not make copies of the Police (~onunission report and
distribute them because the rep~)rt was not neutral information.
~v1r. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, accepted. by the maker and second to the motion, to drop the
reference in the motion to the Web address and access to the Police Commission report.
Responding to a question il-om Mr. Pape, Ms. \Valston said the City \vould contr(Jct for the printing and
might have to seek more than was allocated in the motion.I\tr.Papc asked what the total was vvhen
combined with the funding adopted on August B. fYh \ValstoH estimated around $25,000. ~fr. Pape did
not suppori the amount being pwposed.
Mayor Piercy expressed support for thc motion because she thought it irnportant the public received t.he
information in a timety manner.
The motion passed, 5:3; Ms, S010mnn, Mr. Poling, and T'v1r. Pape voting no,
Ms. Bdtman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City lvlanager to expedite the
pnxluc!.lon of the Voters' Parnphlet to guarantee that it was mailed by (ktober 17 befGre
the ballots \vere mailed.
Ms. HeUman noted that the h,ueline fl.)r getting the pamphlet out was longer than typical, and it had
become dear that many voters w()uJd have their baUots and \'iould be able to cast their votes bdixe they
received all the information. She thanked ~'1s. Walston t()r her aSSIstance in developing the motion.
J'vls, Ortiz asked about the cost of the effort. Ms. Walston said that there \vould be an increase in costs
because it was likely overtime vvould be required to do the \vorL Responding to a follow-up question
from Ms. (>J1iz, Ms. Walston said the ballots would be mailed on October 21 and if the City could get. the
pamphlets to the post olli.ce on October 17 they should be delivered prior to the ballots.
Mr. Pape requested a post-election accounting of City costs related to the ejection.
Ms. BeHman detcnnincd fromMs, Walston that Lane County did not [nail Voters' Pamphlets to out-of-
state voters or voters living in other countries, and she did not think Eugene had llwiled such pamphlets in
the past either.
'1'he motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
MINUTES~Eugene City Council
Work Session
Septcmher 21, 2005
Page 7
C. WORK SESSION: Puhlic Safety Task Force (Jpdate
Mr, Poling, seconded by Ms. SOlomon, r!lovcd to postpone tbe item t~) September 26,
2005. The rnntion passed unaninmusly. 8:0.
H. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The council entered into executive session in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2){e).
~,'layor Piercy rccessed the executive session and caUed the council back into pubiic session.
Mr. Poling, seconded by [',Irs. SolOlnon, rnoved to exknd the meeting for ten minutcs.fhc
motion passed, 7: 1; JVfr. Pape voting no,
"[vIr. KellY, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the Citylvlannger to immediately
begin a s\.vift, high.-priority initiative to discuss a signable purchase option on Peacel-Iealth
property and that of other property O\.vners in the vicinity of l2th A venue and \V iUamette
Street. The City Manager should call on the assistance of local private sector individuals
with real estate expeliise to expcdite the process.
"i'vlr. Kelly said it was clear from the earlier discussion that the council \vas very interested in the site and
the manager indicated steps would be takell to detenninc the site's suitabitity for McKenzie-
Wiilamette/Triad, He said the motion did not mean the City had to take the options, hut would work \'lith
NkKenzie..Vv'ilJarnctte!Triad in the near-term. He believed it was necessary to send a visible signal to
McKenzie-Willamcttei'I'riad and the phy<;icians that the coullcil was taking a leadership rok in this
situation.
Mr. Klein noted the conflict of interest declared by Mr. Pryor and iV1s. Ortiz during the executi\'e session
and indicated tbat declaration carried over into the present meeting. He furthcr opined tbat. as it regarded
the substance of the motion, ;\1r. Pryor and Ms. Ortiz had potential conflicts as upposed to actual conflicts
of interest.
Ms. Solomon determined from City Managcr Taylor that he did not intcq)ret the motion as authorizing
hirfl to doing more than working with the involved parties to determine if there \ovas interest in proceeding
with options. Ms. Solomon asked if that reflected Tv1r. Kelly's intent. Mr. Kelly said yes, pointing out that
given the sholi time line facing the City, nothing \vould corne to fl1lition in the time before McKenzie-
\Villamdte/Triad returned. He \ovas merely trying to get out in front of the issue. Mr. Klein added that
there was nothing in the motion authorizing the rnanager to sign an option agreement that committed City
money without council consent.
Mr. Pape thought it critical that representatives of'PeaeeBealth bc inVOlved in any discussions and that the
City secure an option from Peacd-Icalth first before attempting to assemhle the srnaUer parcels armmd it.
He asked \ovhy, if the issue was so impmiant now, the council had not taken a similar action with regard to
the EWEB property.
Responding to a que:,tion frotH Ms. BeHman, 1',11'. Kelly agreed to accept a f['iendly arnendment to change
the w~)rd "discuss" to "pursue."
MINUfES-Eugene City Council
Work Session
September 21, 2005
Page 8
~v'lr. Poling said he was hesitant to see the elty get involved in the necessary real estate transactions.
While the [(lotion a!lmved the council to demonstrate its seriousness about the site in question, he believed
a for-profit hospital such as McKen.zic~Wil1amctteiTriad should be able to purchase the propcrti~~s in
question without the ('ity's assistance. He said the City was doing a lot of the worK for J'vlcKenzie-
\VmmnetteiTriad if the cO\lIlCil adopted the motion on the table, Mr. Poling said someone \.V<lS reany
going to have to convinl.~e him tt1 persuade hitn the C1ty should buy the properties.
fVk Bdtnlan said a hospital at the l2;;: Avenue and Willamette Street site 'vvould be a S200 million
investment in downtown <lnd would also ensure the community had a full-service en::.crg,~lKY WC\Hl for
residents lIving south and \vest of the WilJarnette River. She believed the City Couucil had created a
precedent for the motion through its facilltdtlon of the c~)nstlllction of the federa1 courthouse. Ms.
Bcttrnan pointed nut the elty lacked large sites in downtown l()f such a redevelopment. yet such a
redevelopment ,vas a key to the success of downtown. She said that to create such opportunities_ the
councIl rnust step in and SIKH^! leadership in the same way as it did when it aggre,~si\dy pursued the
purchase of the courthouse site. The community no\v had a courthouse to show for that effort.
Mayor Piercy supported the dirccti()n refleckd in the motion as being in the best interests of the
community. She thought it important that Eugene have a hospital where babies could he born and
irnpnnant that it be on the south side of the riwr. Health care 'vvas important on both sides of the river.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
The meeting adjourned at 1:55 p.rn.
Respectfully submitted,
Detmis 1',,1. Taylor
City Nbnager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MiNUTES ~~Eugene City Council
Work Session
Septemher 21 , 2005
Page 9