Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: November 14, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov 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 26, 2005, City Council Meeting, September 28, 2005, Work Session, October 10, 2005, Work Session, October 10, 2005, City Council Meeting, and October 24, 2005, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.September 26, 2005, City Council Meeting B.September 28, 2005, Work Session C.October 10, 2005, Work Session D.October 10, 2005, City Council Meeting E.October 24, 2005, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051114\S0511143A.doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber-City Hall September 26, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Gary Pape, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz. George Poling participated by telephone. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. Angel Jones, Director of the Library, Recreation and Cultural Services Department served as acting City Manager as City Manager Dennis Taylor and Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson were unable to attend. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy welcomed everyone to the City Council meeting and reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. She explained that Councilor Poling was home recovering from surgery and would participate by telephone. Greg Lerigo, 2224 Lillian Street, thanked the council for adopting the slogan "Eugene-World's Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors" on behalf of the 29 people who attended the previous council meeting in its support. He said the advocacy group purchased a title for a Web site and that Web site was 'under construction. He hoped the council would review the site upon its completion, projected to be October 6. He stated that if it was acceptable, he wanted to link the City's page to it, as well as other related pages. He also hoped that the City would soon put up a banner with the slogan on it. He reported that 67 organizations signed up for the page; organizations that were involved in all manner of arts and outdoor activities. He noted that the City of Spokane received $75,000 in services from Comcast, which put together six broadcast advertisements promoting Spokane in Seattle. He wanted to discuss the possibility of doing something similar in Eugene. He encouraged the council to have "some sort of grand announcement" in the spring to let the public know about this. He averred that websites were as valuable to local residents as to visitors. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, opposed bulldozing the neighborhood park in the West University neighborhood. He felt the plan surfaced over the summer and interest in a neighborhood garden and a poll was expressed. He thought developers had "gotten together over the summer" and had the land appraised. He felt it would be a good decision to poll the neighborhood. Mr. Vishanoffprovided fliers to the council with articles on the University of Oregon's plans to build a basketball arena. He thought the University would try to use eminent domain and the use of eminent domain merited discussion. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 1 Mr. Vishanoff stated that the West University Neighbors endorsed his resolution. He wanted an open microphone hearing to talk about the site of the basketball arena. Deborah Healey, 360 East 15th Avenue, stated that she had been a resident of the West University neighborhood for 12 years and wanted to address the park slated to be discussed in the September 28 work session. She wanted the park to remain. She noted that it was considered a pocket park and that Officer Randy Ellis said it would be impossible to keep such a park safe. She acknowledged that 12 years earlier, one could not be in the park without having to deal with unsavory people, needles, and dogs. She thought the solution would be to extend the park to where it was more visible at Patterson Street. She felt the land swap that had been proposed was a workable solution. She noted that 13th Avenue business owners and Officer Ellis approved of it. She hoped the council would support the resolution for the land swap. Paul Conte, 1461 West lOth Avenue, member of the steering committee for the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN), said CAFHN and the Chambers Node Revisited project worked over the past year to look at ways to develop infill standards that would meet applicable land use policies including those related to density and those requiring protection of neighborhood stability and character. He felt the effort had been successful as the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt zoning code to establish a Chambers Special Area Zone that would include standards that meet both obj ectives. He conveyed the full support of CAFHN for its adoption. He averred that this success was a "small piece of the large picture." He related that CAFHN tried to show in its research and proposals that protecting the character and stability of Eugene's close-in neighborhoods was an essential element of a realistic compact growth plan. Mr. Conte thanked Planning Commission Chair John Lawless, for his leadership in the public involvement process. He encouraged the council to solicit Mr. Lawless' assessment as part of the forthcoming deliberations. Michelle Welsh, 1997 Arthur Street, thanked the City for the work that was being done on the roads and for saving Whiteaker School. She wanted the City to continue working on community issues in order for the City to remain a safe place to live. She related that her daughter was autistic and she was concerned that Eugene would not be a safe place for her to live. She was acquainted with one of the victims of former police officers Magana and Lara. She opined that "things" had been swept under the table. Ms. Welsh stated that her partner had been shot to death on Garfield Street the previous year. She said there was no investigation and the grand jury decided not to indict anyone four days after the shooting. She related that the shooter still had a permit to carry a gun. She pointed out that her partner had a medal of honor for exemplary military service. She did not feel safe in the city anymore. Lisa Dunn, 2622 Edison Street, asked how the City could have let the abuse go on for eight years. She alleged that more police officers had been abusing her and when she complained, a police car parked by her house for three and a half weeks. She said the Children's Services Division (CSD) had taken her daughter and would not return her because they alleged that the police might try to harm her and the daughter's well-being. She averred that the CSD did not think she was a good mom because of her traumatic experiences at the hands of the former officers who were now in prison. She noted that the City recently paid approximately $10 million for a new firehouse but was only paying small amounts to the women who were victimized by the police. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 2 David Thor Johnson, 4986 Hunters Glen Drive, thanked the council for its time for listening to the proposal to protect the property known by some as the "East Amazon Headwaters Forest." He urged the council to find a way to save this pristine natural resource. He said it was habitat for rare vegetation and wildlife. He wished for the City to learn from the mistakes of others and preserve the property. He thought it would be a beautiful place to preserve for a natural trail to the Ridgeline Trail. He predicted that new development on the sloped property would cause erosion which would, in turn, cause the City to pay more in the long run. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for questions and comments from the council. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for Mr. Lerigo's testimony regarding Comcast's support for "Arts and the Outdoors." She noted that Cultural Services Division Director Robb Hankins recently submitted his resignation and hoped that his next job would be rewarding. Mayor Piercy also thanked Mr. Conte and CAFHN for working so hard to find a win-win solution for that neighborhood. Councilor Pape echoed Mayor Piercy regarding CAFHN. He complimented Mr. Conte and thanked him and CAFHN for their efforts. Councilor Ortiz said she was touched by the testimony from the two women. She acknowledged that they had both been impacted by heinous events in their lives and offered to be available if either one of them wished to contact her. Councilor Taylor expressed her happiness with the results of the efforts of CAFHN. She noted that she had requested a work session on inappropriate infill. Councilor Taylor conveyed her disappointment in the outcome of the vote on a moratorium on development in natural areas. She asserted that staff seemed to be talking against trying to save the Amazon Headwaters land rather than trying to figure out ways to save it. She thought a moratorium on development would allow the City to exercise eminent domain, though she acknowledged that she had been the lone vote for it. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda B. Approval of Sale of a Portion of City Drainage Way to Oregon Department of Transportation C. Appointments to the West Eugene Enterprise Zone Community Standards Committee Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman pulled items A and C. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 3 Roll call vote; the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item B, approval of the sale of a portion of City drainage way to the Oregon Department of Transportation passed unanimously, 8:0. . Regarding Consent Calendar Item A, Councilor Bettman expressed concern that the Joint Elected Officials meeting was scheduled for October 11, a date on which several councilors and the mayor thought they would not be able to attend. She pointed out that should another councilor be unable to make it the group would lose its quorum. She averred it would be more productive to reschedule. Mayor Piercy said she would "check on the numbers." Councilor Pape asked Ms. Jones to relay a question on when a work session on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) could be scheduled. He noted that they had talked about holding such a work session two or three months earlier. Roll call vote; the motion to pass Item A, the tentative agenda, passed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding Item C, Appointments to the West Eugene Enterprise Zone Community Standards Committee, Councilor Bettman noted that although she believed all of the candidates were qualified, she was concerned that within the context of the committee, the candidates from Eugene would help make the committee extraordinarily unbalanced. She averred that the City was foregoing more tax revenue than the County, yet each had an equal number of representatives. Councilor Bettman opined that in the face of the "most egregious tax breaks," community standards would be minimized and therefore rendered moot. Mayor Piercy.reiterated that the two individuals she recommended for the committee both had been involved in the community standards discussion and both were participating with the sustainable business initiative process. She believed that both candidates brought good and clear voices and were intelligent and experienced people. She felt both supported standards that would bring living wage jobs to the community for working families. Councilor Kelly said he found Councilor Bettman's argument compelling. He could not support the process. Councilor Taylor also could not support the process. She had little hope that standards would make any difference but if there was hope, she felt other applicants would provide better balance on the committee. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item C, the Mayor's appointments to the West Eugene Enterprise Zone Community Standards Committee, passed 5:3; Councilors Bettman, Kelly and Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 4 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Updating the Goal 5 Inventory Within the Eugene City Limits; Adopting the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan Within the Eugene City Limits; Repealing Ordinance No. 20296; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.1040, 9.2751, 9.6885, 9.7025, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205,9.7230,9.7305,9.7810,9.8025,9.8030, 9.8460, 9.8465, 9.8470, 9.8855, and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding New Sections 9.8472 and 9.8474; and Adding New Sections 9.4900 Through 9.4980 to that Code to Establish a Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone; Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; And Providing an Effective Date and An Ordinance Updating the Goal 5 Inventory Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Adopting the Goal 5 Inventory Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Adopting the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Repealing Ordinance No. 20295; Amending Section 9.7820 ofthe Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; And Providing Effective Dates Mayor Piercy introduced acting City Manager Angel Jones to the meeting and welcomed her. Ms. Jones asked Senior Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD) Neil Bjorklund to provide a brief overview of the Goal 5 process. Mr. Bjorklund noted that much of the material had been covered during the prior work session. He stated that the Goal 5 study was the last task in a list of work required by the State for periodic review and the cities of Springfield and Eugene as well as Lane County were all required to conduct an inventory. He said several public hearings and workshops on Goal 5 had been held over the last two-and-a-half years. He added that there had been public hearings on the upland and riparian Goal 5 inventory before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff sent thousands of notices out to affected property owners and received approximately 800 to 1,000 phone calls from citizens who wished to understand better what the Goal 5 process meant to them. Staff met with them on their properties, in PDD offices, and exchanged "scores of emails." Mr. Bjorklund reported that, based on these contacts and testimony before the Planning Commission, many changes had been made to the original proposal. He reported that the Planning Commission held its hearing in May and subsequently spent six meetings discussing the material and making changes to the regulations and recommendations based on testimony that they heard. In closing, he applauded and thanked all of the people who participated in the process. Mayor Piercy acknowledged that much work had gone into the Goal 5 inventory. She noted that 28 people signed up for the public hearing. Councilor Kelly wondered if the council should consider postponing the last item on the agenda, the public hearing on the ordinance concerning smoking areas. Councilor Taylor averred that the council should proceed with its agenda. The council agreed to complete the agenda. Mayor Piercy read the rules that govern the public hearing. She opened the public hearing. Richard Beyerlein, 4084 Spring Knoll Boulevard, requested that his property be removed from the section of the map labeled E-32 Q-I because he believed it did not meet criteria 1-9 on Tier 1 and because it met criterion 2 on Tier 2 for exclusion. He stated that the area was extensively logged prior to his purchase of it. He said the upland side was Spring Knoll Boulevard, an impervious street, and on the MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 5 downland side was Wendell Lane and its infrastructure. He related that the Environment, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) report stated that the property met none of the criteria with the exception of possible contiguous water. He maintained that there was no water, noting that he had supplied the council with pictures of the property. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County, requested the record be kept open for a minimum of one week or ten days, if possible. She related that the Home Builders Association's (HBA) big issue was the effect it could have on the buildable land supply. She averred that the City determined the impact on an inventory that existed ten years earlier. She said the City needed to look at the impact it would have on the inventory of today. She recalled that City Attorney Glenn Klein said that running out of buildable lands would not present a legal problem but it would present a policy issue. She asserted that the City would run out of buildable land before it got out of this planning period and if the City ran out of land it would have been due to a choice the City had made. She encouraged the council, on behalf of the HBA, to take a "good look at what the problem is." Ms. Cuellar said that the study completed in 1999 using 1995 data made assumptions that were not true. She said one assumption was that every piece of vacant land would be available and would have a willing seller. She said another assumption in the study was that housing could be built at the same density on slopes as flat land, nearly seven units per net acre. She averred this just did not happen. She noted that Springfield made the assumption that it would build four units per net acre on 25 percent slopes and she felt this to be more reasonable. Ms. Cuellar said another assumption in the study was that single-family detached homes would make up 40 percent of new construction during the 20-year planning period. She countered that such homes consistently comprised 58 percent of new construction. She emphasized that the builders were running out of land and the land available was increasingly sloped instead of flat. She remarked that it took a long time to go from a decision to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB) to the point where there are new lots to build on. Doug Weber, 1330 Flint Ridge Avenue, said he was speaking as a citizen but felt he should note that he was principal engineer for Weber Eliot Engineers. He understood that State law required communities with a comprehensive plan to keep a 20-year supply of buildable lands and keep the inventory updated. He did not believe that the City of Eugene knew how much buildable lands were available. He thought it appeared that staff and council had been avoiding or ignoring this requirement. He averred that simply manipulating density figures on paper was an insult to all of the community. He said he lived in the Ferry Street Bridge area and had been looking for a buildable lot in that area with no success. He asserted that a single builder would subdivide land and keep all of the lots and because of this it was not possible for an individual to buy a lot and build for themselves. Mr. Weber observed that the cost oflots had increased dramatically and attributed this to the laws of supply and demand. He pointed out that as a civil engineer he built infrastructure to serve new housing and currently most of his business was in nearby towns such as Cottage Grove, Junction City, and Creswell. He opined that the City was directly responsible for pushing Eugene workers into outlying communities, which defeated the original intent of statewide planning goals of compact urban growth and a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. He felt the residential lands inventory needed attention and using data from 1995 as the basis for the current periodic review was evasive of public law and disingenuous on the part of the council as holders of the public trust and a "transparent attempt to stamp your agenda on the community." MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 6 Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, shared the chamber's observation regarding ESEE findings for Goal 9 Commercial and Industrial lands. He wanted to underscore that the potential impacts on buildable, commercial, and industrial lands findings were being measured against an acknowledged inventory from 1992. He hoped staffs description was accurate and that there would be no provisions in this ordinance that would leave a lot unbuildable. He said if that was not the case, the ordinance would impact 43.4 acres of commercial land and over 44 acres of industrial land. Mr. Connelly referred to a study the Chamber of Commerce conducted which determined that there were only 113 acres of commercial land remaining. He felt any provision that would actually leave some lots unbuildable would create a significant impact to the community. He supported the request to leave the record open for seven days. Chad Ruhoff, 395 Mirror Pond Way, stated that he was a second generation builder in the city of Eugene. He was concerned that his children might not be able to afford to live in the community. He averred the costs had much to do with the available land supply. He felt he was paying more for the lots to build on than he should have to because of the supply. He echoed concerns that this was driving growth out of Eugene and, as a result, defeating council goals. He also questioned the wisdom of using 10-year-old data to determine what land could be used. He stated that affordable housing no longer existed in the Eugene/Springfield area and the middle class was being pushed out. He wanted the land supply to be opened up in order to help stabilize prices. Mike Gansen, 362 Highway 99 North, #2, owner and operator of Gansen Construction Company, said his company built new homes and occasionally developed small parcels of land when he could find them. He reiterated that there was a current shortage of buildable land as evidenced by the huge rise in lot costs and the fact that builders and principals were buying without hesitation. He wished to impress upon the council that the main reason for the area having some of the highest housing prices in the country was an "artificial" shortage of buildable land. He asked that the council take a hard look at the current land supply instead of data from ten years earlier. Mr. Gansen also wished to point out that buildable lands in the hills were located on slopes greater than 15 percent, which increased costs by a minimum of$35,000. He said building on hillsides used more land because density was lower and hillside construction impacted the environment. He pointed out that some areas within the UGB did not have services and had to use wells and septic systems, which required more land per dwelling. Bruce Mulligan, 3056 Hendricks Hill Drive, vice president of the Hendricks Hill Homeowners Association, conveyed the association's support of the overlay on area 38-C and the recommendations. He wanted to bring to the council's attention the area that lay between the City limit and the UGB in that area. He provided pictures of the area to the council, noting that the cattle that usually graze by the headwaters were not in evidence on the day he took pictures. He pointed out that damage and erosion caused by the cattle was evident. He said the association supported the land swap proposal relative to the acquisition of this parcel to connect the Ridgeline Trail to Moon Mountain. He thought that in the event that the city limits were extended or the city acquired this property, it would be appropriate to address Goal 5 issues. He stated that some rehabilitation of the area was needed and he could not find in the regulations whether the grazing was a prohibited or permitted use. Mark Schutz, 4066 Spring Knoll Drive, related that when purchasing his property he thought everything had been researched. He said the Goal 5 measure was a surprise to him. He requested that his property be removed from the inventory for the following reasons: 1) over .4 acres of the 1.26 acre lot was being MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 7 rezoned and having new limits placed on it; 2) newly proposed setbacks encroach on previously built and established buildings and his home; and 3) plans for his property included retaining walls and cuts and fills in the proposed setback zones in order to create more usable space and increase the value of the property. Mr. Schutz asserted that Goal 5 measures would not allow these improvements or would add engineering and land studies which would make the costs prohibitive. He felt the retaining wall changes he and his wife wished to make were necessary due to the topography of the property. He averred that although Goal 5 measures allowed for emergency work the language was unclear or it added costly steps for preventive or protective measures. He underscored that he was not a developer and he and his family were supportive of most environmental measures. He maintained that the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for a home in this area already had adequate protection and drainage systems in place for this stream feeder zone which was targeted for the proposed ordinance. Charlotte Elizabeth Brady, 1488 Barber Street, stated that she provided information to the council on the protection of "green space" in terms of global warming. She wished to protect the City's natural lands. She supported the adoption of the ordinance to update the Goal 5 inventory. She pointed out that she was a real estate broker and averred that there were many ways to create affordable housing that would not destroy what makes Eugene a livable community. She read an excerpt from an assignment her son received at South Eugene High School called Knowing Our Place by Barbara Kingsolver. The essay highlighted the fact that as of 1996, more than half of all the human beings on the planet were urban dwellers. Jim Welsh, 90050 Killian Lane, Elmira, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors (EAR), explained that the EAR was supportive of the Goal 5 planning process and was pleased that the process would complete the final phase in the periodic review for Eugene. He said EAR maintained that Goal 1 0 had not been adequately addressed during the periodic review process. He underscored that it required local governments to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state and under implementation plans should provide for continuing review of housing need projections and a process should be established for accommodating needed revisions. Mr. Welsh averred this provision and rule established that there should be an ongoing process that should provide current information on data on the housing needs of Eugene, similar to the study conducted by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the HBA. He expressed disappointment that this information was not currently being used as it was likely the most current information available for the study. Mr. Welsh said when giving testimony before the Planning Commission, the EAR had been under the assumption that the 1992 information was being used regarding the buildable lands inventory, but now the organization understood that the City of Eugene, for the purpose of the natural resource study, used the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Study of 1999. He thought while this had been an improvement, it was not as good as the information staff could have gleaned from the LCOG study. Mr. Welsh stressed that the 1999 inventory was six years old. He felt this change in reference would provide Eugene the opportunity to sidestep its responsibility to provide a 20-year buildable lands inventory and would help to push the demand to outlying communities who were developing residential properties at a rapid pace, placing a tremendous burden on the transportation infrastructure. He asked that the record remain open for a minimum often days. John A. Willener, 2086 Norkenzie Road, supported the Planning Commission's view on the portion of property that ran behind his property that had historically been a farm. He said the irrigation ditch for the former farm had been proposed to be a riparian corridor. He disagreed, stating it had only been utilized for irrigation, taking water from the McKenzie River and channeling it to the Willamette River. He MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 8 recalled working on the farm as a youth and the ditch was kept clear of any brush at that time. He stated that the ditch was dammed in the summer and shut down in the winter and all manner of plants and trees were grown on the farm. He said there were places where the ditch had been filled in and built upon. Wayne Evans, 1423 Springwood Drive, wished to address two issues: 1) the exemption of his immediate area from the Goal 5 inventory; and 2) the management of the shoreline vegetation. He stated that he submitted testimony in May. He provided pictures of the land in question. He asserted that the greenway width in question as currently designated was more than adequate to protect the valuable resources included therein. He said his home was located in the village of Spring Creek, the initial building of which had begun over three years earlier in the Santa Clara area. Mr. Evans averred that the development was platted and approved with the valuable Spring Creek resource in the forefront of the developer's plans. He stated that lots in this development that bordered the greenway stopped at the fences and did not go to center or the edge of the creek. Mr. Evans included, for the council's review, the plot map for the development. He pointed out that the distance between the properties that bordered the creek, from back fence to back fence, was approximately 140 to 200 feet. Additionally, he noted several restrictions that were already in place regarding the cutting of existing trees. He provided pictures in order to demonstrate the magnitude of the area in the reserve. He opined the area was huge and supported a thriving wildlife population. He could not imagine that migratory fish could navigate the densely grassed waterway, however. He asserted that the existing protected area was more than adequate to cover the protection of the stream. He related that he received conflicting responses from different city entities regarding how to manage the area outside of the property in the greenway. He said the Planning Commission indicated that trees could be planted and this would help protect the waterway, but the Parks and Open Space division came through that area with weed eaters and mowers and cut down the brush. Eben Fodor, 394 East 32nd Avenue, spoke in support of the natural resources study and the ordinances before the council. He had hoped to testify in support of a temporary limit on development on some of the "highest value" resources in Eugene. He said he documented the existence of pileated woodpeckers and red legged frogs, sensitive federally listed species, on the property with which he was concerned. He stated that the property on which the the frog lived was likely to be developed soon. He acknowledged that the study was looking to protect stream corridors and wetlands, though not all of the wetlands in Eugene, given the abundance of them. He felt many things were not in any City inventory. He noted populations of rare plants, such as bugbane, in the high valley resource areas he was referring to. He asserted that the 40-foot stream corridor would not provide enough protection for the red legged frogs, among other species. He felt many of the best resources would be gone before the council realized the level of protection they needed. Cathryn Treadway, 2820 Friendly Street, vice chair for the Crest Drive Citizens Association (CDCA), conveyed the CDCA's support for a 20-foot-or-less setback instead of the proposed 40-foot setback for Goal 5 site E-81, the Lorane Highway riparian area. She related that the main issue the CDCA had with it was that the State recognized that drainage ditches of this type required no protection whatsoever. She said the property owners in this situation did not feel they had any representation in this issue. Bruce Wild, 931 Lorane Highway, observed that the original purpose of the Goal 5 process was to identify the State's natural resources, including wetlands, uplands and riparian sites. He recalled that for future preservation of significant sites, a municipality could use the Safe Harbor designation or if the city or county felt a site was endangered by property owners, a regulated setback could be applied. He said MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 9 this was the current proposal from Eugene Planning and Development Department (PDD) staff. He lived in the area designated as site E-8l, the main feature of which was a one-to-two-foot-wide drainage ditch. He stated that it had been protected by a 30-foot easement since 1969 and was a stormwater drainage ditch which ran for a few blocks and disappeared into a culvert. Mr. Wild felt calling it significant was "quite a stretch" and protecting it from its property owners was "pure overkil1." He underscored that the reason the City could designate it in the first place was because the 40-plus property owners had preserved the site intact for 40 years, practicing good stewardship. He opined that PDD now wished to protect the site from its lawful owners, the "ones who had cared for it." He said the huge setbacks would disallow owners from taking responsibility for the condition of the ditch. Mr. Wild averred that, beyond that, the ordinance would take over 30 percent of the property and would not compensate property owners in any way. He related that assurances had been made by staff that the City would not maintain any part of the site but would only regulate it. He called it ridiculous that the E-8l drainage ditch would be given half the protection the Willamette River was given. He hoped the council would consider the recommendation from the CDCA to lower setbacks to 20 feet. Bonnie Chappa, 999 Lorane Highway, stated that she had been fighting the proposed Goal 5 overlay zone that affected their home since 2003. She was outraged that 80 feet of her property was now being considered for setbacks to allegedly protect an already protected drainage ditch that ran through the property. She echoed Mr. Wild's concerns. She stated that on her property, the land around the drainage ditch had been developed and landscaped and included a pedestrian bridge. She noted there was also an exposed sewer line crossing the ditch. She said the ditch had only seasonal water in it. She predicted that an 80-foot setback would reduce the value of her property. She related that she felt deceived by PDD staff as they had stated when looking at the ditch that the setback would likely be only 20 feet on either side of it. She urged the council to vote against the larger setback for her property. Cheryl Hunter, 5320 Nectar Way, was concerned about the process being considered specifically regarding the context of the East Amazon headwaters. She thanked the council for steps taken to preserve the land. She wanted to see the process completed and the upland forest included in the recommendations for the Goal 5 inventory. She supported moving forward with the inventory in order to conduct the proper inventory of these lands, specifically because the presence of rare species required it. She noted that Mr. Fodor had spoken about this. She asserted that the East Amazon headwaters area was a high quality riparian zone. She urged a temporary moratorium on development of the higher ranked upland habitat because it was "better than continued piecemeal development." Ms. Hunter opined that creating a moratorium would be a more effective use of staff because it would allow staff to develop a standard of protection in a thoughtful and rational process that could then be applied to all Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications instead of one at a time. Ms. Hunter said whether or not the council believed the land should be developed, it would create "gridlock and uncertainty" in the land development process. She averred that instead of creating a comprehensive policy for protecting resources, the process of this protection would be forced into the PUD process. She felt staff would be forced to determine the question of protection for each parcel considered for development. She also wished to speak in support of the developers' concerns regarding working with the steep properties. Lisa Warnes, 5020 Nectar Way, wanted to speak to the motion Councilor Taylor made in the work session to place a temporary moratorium on development in areas in the Goal 5 mapping that ranked 66 points or above in natural resources. She thought the community would have an opportunity to speak on the motion. She wished to express concern about the "rushed Goal 5 process" and the development that MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 10 continued in the Goal 5 inventory. She thought it irresponsible and illogical and a waste of taxpayer's money to allow development in sensitive areas before they could be inventoried. Ms. Warnes likened it to installing smoke detectors after a house had burned down. She echoed comments regarding the rare and sensitive species whose habitat lay in the south hills. She hoped that the City's government and staff would not let developers continue to enrich themselves at the expense of natural resources. She agreed that developers impact the environment more on steep slopes. Tom Halferty, 1120 East 41 st Avenue, wished for a bigger picture look at the importance of open spaces to cities. He related that he arrived in the city of Eugene in 1971 and thought the city was beautiful. Since then, he witnessed a patchwork of development spreading over the surrounding hills. He observed that communities that had been in existence for hundreds of years had wisely chosen to protect natural areas adjacent to urban areas. He cited the Forest Park in the City of Portland as an example ofland that had been prudently set aside. He foresaw that the Willamette Valley would fill in over the next 50 years and urged protection of special natural lands, such as the land around Spencer's Butte. He noted that the pileated woodpecker had territory that wrapped around the hills. He hoped the council would consider saving larger tracts around the city. Shirley St. Clair, 5035 St. Clair Lane, submitted her testimony in writing accompanied by pictures of her property. She requested her property, purchased by her parents in 1949, be removed from the riparian setback because it was different from the neighboring properties. She maintained that a 40-foot setback from the stream would eliminate two potentially buildable lots. She related that across the stream was a developed field that her father once used for flying model planes. She felt that Ballot Measure 37 would apply to this property as this land use action would diminish property values. She added that her mother had turned 91 on the day of this hearing. Mark C. Hoyt, 475 Cottage Street, Suite 120, Salem, spoke on behalf of Joe Green, who purchased the land where the East Amazon headwaters were located. He reported that a development application had been filed earlier in the day. He said the development application involved 13 revisions to the plan and detailed analysis of the site by natural resource consultants, arborists, and civil engineers in order to minimize the impact on the site. He related that as part of that, he was able to come up with a design that would preserve more than 50 percent of the site in common ownership open space and preserved the natural riparian corridors that were identified as a natural resource on the Goal 5 inventory and a substantial amount of timber on the property. Mr. Hoyt averred it would preserve the wildlife habitat neighbors expressed concern about. He said the developer opted to propose private streets because it would allow the modification of street lighting standards. He related that as the current ordinance was written, it was unclear whether private streets could be used as part of a development. He felt public streets with street lighting standards would flood wildlife habitat with light and negatively impact the wildlife. He declared that this would accomplish what the Goal 5 ordinance sought to do and what the citizens who were protesting the development wished for, while allowing resources to be assets to developments. Lauri Segel, 1192 Lawrence Street, declared the City of Eugene and its metropolitan partners to be more than a decade behind in the effort to bring the Metro Plan into compliance with the Goal 5 rule. She asserted that the adoption of the Goal 5 policies had been planned to be concurrent with the adoption of the buildable land inventory scheduled to be adopted in 1997, but was adopted in 1999. She asserted that it was not difficult to "guess which groups" were responsible for the delay. Ms. Segal alleged that a couple of years earlier, the previous council and mayor "performed a maneuver" that had the effect of removing approximately 1,900 acres of upland habitat from the natural resource inventory. She asserted MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 11 that what was left was the Amazon Creek and some other stream segments, some with connectivity with the Amazon and some without. She proclaimed that the time was past due to adopt protection measures for "the remnants of Eugene's natural resource inventory." She supported the adoption of the proposed policies. She averred that natural resources inside the boundaries of the city of Eugene had "been imperiled for decades." She asserted that Eugene had done little or nothing to protect wildlife habitat and other natural areas beyond preserving and restoring the West Eugene Wetlands. She submitted her testimony in writing along with amendments to the proposed ordinance she wished the council to consider. Elena Montenegro, 5150 Nectar Way, member of the East Fork Preservation Group, asked the council to help the group preserve the East Amazon headwaters. She felt the council still could work to preserve the natural resources which she averred were "truly valuable." She said the natural resources in the area did much to enhance the quality of life in this area. Elizabeth Twombly, 5015 Nectar Way, echoed comments already made regarding the headwaters forest. While she applauded efforts made by developers to preserve natural resources, she felt that some properties should just not be developed. She thought properties with high resource values should continue to be inventoried. She urged the council to review natural resources studies that were publicly funded and make decisions based on the information presented. She cited the Metro Waterways study, which had yet to be completed and focused in part on the Amazon Headwaters, and asked how responsible decisions could be made at this point. She related that she looked at a United States Geological Survey landslide hazard map and it indicated that a "huge fault" ran beneath the south hills. She maintained that it was not good land to build on. Kathleen Leonard, 5020 Nectar Way, remarked that the sign in the back of the City Council Chamber said "The people are the City." She asserted that "the people" did not want development in the East Amazon headwaters area. She said only the property owner would benefit from this. She felt that the forest, with its rare plants, animals, wetlands, stream corridors, and headwaters to the Amazon Creek, would be "destroyed" by the proposed development. She recommended that the City take the time to complete the studies and not just "plow ahead" to make a profit. Carol Pearce, 5005 Nectar Way, stated that her property bordered the East Fork Amazon headwaters area. She thanked Councilor Taylor for proposing the moratorium. She regretted that the public was unable to speak before the motion had been made. She did not understand why an area that was so highly ranked for its unspoiled beauty and pristine qualities was not a priority. She questioned why the studies were done and the results were being disregarded. She supported the use of eminent domain to keep the forest in its pristine condition. She felt it was reasonable to protect the steep wetland area to minimize erosion and flooding, especially given the ramifications of the recent hurricane in the Gulf Coast area. She averred that stormwater runoff would increase due to development. Eric Kelly, 4890 Gamet Street, spoke about the East Amazon headwaters. He related that he had grown up in Portland. He said some of the civic leaders in Portland had the foresight to set aside areas like Forest Park, the largest city park in the country, Mount Tabor, and Washington Park and these parks were regarded as gems in the city that attracted residents and tourists. He observed that there was development all around those parks today and the rural areas around Portland had all become developed, areas such as Gresham and Hillsboro, and there were no notable parks. He averred that if parks were not set aside in the cities, the outlying areas such as Coburg and Creswell would develop and there would be no parks. He wanted irreplaceable parcels to be set aside. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 12 Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, 97440, stated that he was president of the Friends of Eugene and president of the Southeast Neighbors. He called the GoalS inventory a disaster. He implored the council to pass it, nonetheless. He noted the council had taken a critical action to establish a priority for "coming back and fixing it." He felt this was imperative. He blamed previous City leadership for instructing staff to produce the "absolute minimum, bureaucratic, mechanistic, anti -scientific, non- biological resource inventory they could imagine could be squeaked through state approval." He opined that this described the end result. He referred to an article written in 1969 which predicted that development would increase and use up natural areas and that the area's desirability as a place to live would be lost. He averred that the council knew the "times that our planet is facing." He said everyone should work hard to give future generations the kind of place that the present generation would want to live in. He wanted to get the present inventory "over with" and involve the public and science and conduct some "real natural resource planning." Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and thanked everyone for their testimony. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Pape, moved to leave the record open for seven days, until 5 p.m. on October 3, 2005. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6: 1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Poling was no longer available. Mayor Piercy called for a break at 9:30 p.m. Mayor Piercy reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Smoking Areas; Amending Sections 6.225, 6.230, 6.235, and 6.240 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section 6.232 of that Code; and Adding Section 6.245 to that Code Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Pape, moved to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Taylor had not yet returned to the dais. Ms. Jones introduced the item. She stated that it was scheduled for action at the work session on September 28. She asked Permit Review Manager for PDD, Keli Osborn, to provide a brief overview on the item. Ms. Osborn reviewed the history of the smoking ordinance. She said staff determined a need for more clarity on what defined an outdoor smoking area. She stated that options that had been discussed, comprised of incorporating the standards into the administrative rule regarding such areas or making the standards in the ordinance more strict or less strict. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules of the public hearing. Joel Pomerantz, 1171 Risden Place, noted he sent an e-mail to the councilors earlier. He explained that he worked for the Oregon Restaurant Association and had been contacted about this issue by members and non-members who owned bars and taverns in the city of Eugene. He asked the council to consider that MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 13 owners and operators of such establishments felt they worked successfully to comply with existing standards for smoking areas and invested in substantial structural alterations in order to comply. He asked that the council, at the very least, grandfather in existing outdoor smoking facilities. He stated that no employee or customer complaints had been heard as a result of exposure to environmental smoke. He underscored that no one felt anyone should be subjected to secondhand smoke. He wanted the council to work with both sides of the issue in order to work out some alternatives to consider and perhaps arrive at standards all sides could accept. Jill Landon, 3990 Donald Street, said she worked in the restaurant and bar industry for 16 years. She quit smoking nine years earlier. She did not believe that she had been subjected to secondhand smoke. She related that she worked while pregnant and co-workers covered the smoking area so that she would not have to be exposed to smoke. She noted that most of her co-workers were smokers. She thought making the ordinance more stringent would affect her income negatively because it would reduce business. Ms. Landon believed that Eugene had already taken progressive action to limit exposure to smoke. She wanted Eugene to "stay progressive and allow people to choose their own pleasures and vices." She added that placing smokers outside sometimes caused problems for neighborhoods. Alexandra Sianis, 1975 Hilyard Street, stated that she owned and operated a bar and restaurant since 1977. She said her business was struggling with survival due to the no smoking ordinance. She thought the councilors displayed passion on many issues, but had not done so with the smoking ban. She recalled that the initial intent of the ban was to protect employees from smoke, but no councilors visited these establishments and talked to proprietors to find ways to accomplish this protection without taking the rights away from those who smoke in designated smoking areas. She declared that 80 to 90 percent of bar and tavern employees were smokers. Ms. Sianis said it was simple to designate one person to enter a smoking area in the case of an incident. She noted that the smoking area in her business was a non-service area. She opined it was clear that the ordinance language sought to eradicate smoking altogether and was not merely centered on the protection of employees. She asked what had happened to freedom of choice and compromise. Ms. Sianis felt the council did not know or care about the "huge impact" the ordinance had on downtown businesses. She suggested that the council ask employees what they wanted. She averred that these employees would not have jobs in the future because more businesses would close. Dr. Glenn Buchanan, 2283 Avengale Drive, stated that he was an oncologist who treated several hundred patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer every year. He underscored that cancer could have a devastating impact because the condition itself, as well as some of the treatment strategies, could lead to physical impairments, emotional problems, and financial difficulties. He noted that many patients died of cancer in spite of best efforts made to cure the disease. He said he was commonly asked what caused the disease and how it could be stopped. He remarked that there were no simple answers as there was a complicated interaction between genetic factors and environmental factors. However, Dr. Buchanan averred that one of the most important and most preventable risk factors was exposure to tobacco smoke. He listed a dozen different cancers that smoking was associated with. He pointed out that secondhand smoke had been known for 20 years to be a contributing factor to cancer and that some cancers developed years or even decades following the last exposure to smoke. He stated that many of his patients who died of cancers related to smoking did have a personal history of tobacco use and others had only limited use or no personal use but significant exposure to others who smoked. He maintained that while people had the right to smoke and assume the associated risk for themselves, it would be irresponsible to fail to protect the rest. He averred it was a not an issue of liberty, rather it was an issue of public health. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 14 Dr. Martin Jones, 2300 Parkside Lane, stressed that the ordinance was "about employee safety" and had nothing to do with infringing the rights of smokers to smoke. He asked how many people would want to work for eight hours in a room in which there was cigarette smoke, knowing the risks that exist. He underscored that the risks were not "made up," rather they were well-known and well-documented. He recalled that the ordinance passed in 2000 involved discussion of an open air smoking area, like a patio and, because of the rainy nature of the area climate, a roof was thought to be necessary. He said making the community business-friendly did not mean allowing business practices that would impair workers health and cause them to be sick. He underscored that bar workers had a higher incidence of death and lung cancer from working in smoking establishments. Dr. Jones felt that when the final administrative rule had been established and the smoking areas had been built, the smoking areas were basically closed areas with little exposure to the air. He stated that there were 40 carcinogens in cigarette smoke and most of them lingered close to the ground, so that even an employee coming in later to clean up would risk a small amount of exposure. He recommended making another administrative rule, one that would dictate that the smoking area should be an area with a roof and no walls. Dr. Richard Barnhart, 91122 Oak Crest Road, said he practiced internal medicine in the community for 20 years. He noted that he recently diagnosed someone with lung cancer whose only risk factor was exposure to secondhand smoke. He agreed that it was a public health issue. He felt that the current administrative rule allowed an enclosed area with minimal exposure to the outdoors to suffice for an outdoor smoking area. He asked the council to "stick with the spirit" of the ordinance crafted in 2000. He felt that anything less than an open outdoor smoking area violated the principles of what was established with the previous ordinance. Dr. Khuram Ameen, 3153 Herald Lane, said he was a lung specialist. He stated that 50 to 70 percent of his business was smoking-related. He quipped that he should be handing out cigarette packets to everybody and encouraging them to smoke so he could be in business. However, he believed that when it came to life and health, the standards should be different than just money and business. He related that every day he treated people with first and secondhand smoke related issues. He reiterated it was a well- known fact that secondhand smoke caused a lot of problems. He related that he treated asthmatics who were exposed to smoke because they worked in sub-standard environments and were afraid to complain because they were afraid oflosing their jobs. He felt someone should stand up for those people. He pointed out that it was not only the patient who suffered, but family members as well. He said every time he had to tell someone they were dying of a preventable disease though they themselves had never smoked, it was not an easy task. He stressed that lung cancer killed more people than breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer combined and the only thing medical experts knew that would stop it was to avoid smoking. He believed people should have the right to smoke but they should not have the right to infringe on the rights of non-smokers. Dr. Raymond Englander, 774 Kristen Court, a neurologist for 27 years and Medical Director of Stroke Services at Sacred Heart Medical Center, stated that smoking was directly related to strokes and heart disease. He said strokes were the third leading cause of death in the United States and the leading cause of disability. He averred that tobacco products were a "huge risk factor" for stroke. He noted that Oregon had one of the highest rates of stroke in the country. He underscored that there was no longer a scientific debate on whether smoking was hazardous. He pointed out that the costs and increases in death and disability due to smoking could now be calculated as well as the costs to the economy from ill workers, loss of life, and extended illness. He stated that these were numbers that could be calculated with a fair amount of accuracy. He averred it was well known that without regulation, restaurant and bar workers had 50 to 60 percent more smoke byproducts in their lungs and hair than other workers. He asserted that MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 15 one of the highest callings of government was to protect citizens from harm and all citizens deserved equal protection. He urged the council to implement, maintain, and enforce the intent of the original smoking ordinance. Tony Biglan, 2324 West 28th Avenue, provided a handout to the council. He related that he had been a witness in the US Justice Department lawsuit against tobacco companies for the past four years. He noted that the handout featured a chart of the 400,000 annual deaths due to cigarette smoking but it did not indicate the 50,000 people who died of diseases related to secondhand smoke. He said tobacco companies spent $15 billion marketing their products in the last year reported, $3 billion more than they did the previous year. He stated that the cigarette companies routinely and "lavishly" funded other groups such as state restaurant associations and convenience store owners to fight restrictions on the marketing of cigarettes. He said, faced with restrictions on its marketing to teens, it expanded its marketing through bars. He observed that the cigarette industry spends huge sums of money each year to counteract the bad impression that killing 450,000 people annually made. He reviewed the tobacco industry's smoking prevention efforts and he provided written documentation to the council that the purported efforts to prevent smoking were actually focused on trying to influence opinion leaders to believe that the cigarette industry had become a good corporate citizen. He declared it had not. He said the activities of Phillip Morris locally illustrated the massive resources the company supplied to make it safe to market cigarettes. He stressed that Eugene was a college town and reiterated that the new massive marketing strategy was directed toward college students. Dr. Sarah Hendrickson, 1036 Adams Street, Lane County Public Health Officer, commended the council for approving the smoking ordinance in 2000. She underscored that the ordinance declared that employers were required to provide for all employees a place to work in which employees were not exposed to the smoking of others. She noted that after the Eugene ordinance was adopted, the tobacco industry helped to pass a law that prevented other counties and jurisdictions in Oregon from doing this "same wonderful thing" for worker protection. Dr. Hendrickson recalled that five years earlier, doctors and health care workers provided the same testimony as the council heard at the present meeting. She said the council had done a good job and passed the right law. Since then, she averred, the worker protection goals had been undermined and, under pressure, administrators made a rule that 25 percent of outdoor smoking areas should be exposed to the air. She stated that there was no scientific justification for this rule. She thought the 25 percent rule had been extended far beyond smoking porches for bar customers and pictures submitted to the council had demonstrated this. Dr. Hendrickson asserted that the complaint-driven process put employees at risk of losing their jobs and the entity that took the complaints, Lane County Public Health Department, had lost its enforcement ability when the State lost its tobacco money and had lost its focus with the tragic events of September 11. She cautioned the council against codifying a definition of the outdoors as changing that ordinance could open it to complaints against the original law. She recommended leaving it in an administrative rule. She suggested percentages be left out, as anything codified could be used as a nation-wide example and even 50 percent air exposure was not ideal. Wendy Watson, 33604 Indian Drive, Coburg, stated that she worked in the bar industry for 15 years. She recalled that five years earlier she collected over 100 signatures from restaurant and bar workers in the city of Eugene that supported the idea of being able to work in a smoke-free environment. She said this time she had collected interviews of workers, owners, and their family members, copies of which she provided to the council. She quoted Dave Lawrence, bar manager of Chantrelles, who said the ordinance had a positive influence on his health and a negligible effect on his income. She related that he felt smoking rooms were chiefly a way to circumvent the law. She also quoted Jeff Morganthaler, who worked at the Vets Club, Tiny Tavern, and Black Forest, who thought rooms not open to the open air MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 16 became nothing more than enclosed smoking boxes, defeating the purpose for which they were set up. She said he also felt business had improved because more non-smokers were going out. She thanked the City Council for taking care of the bar and restaurant industry workers from smoke. She hoped the council would vote to protect the workers who still had to go out into the enclosed smoking rooms. Rie Lee, 33604 Indian Drive, Coburg, provided a handout for the council. He stated that he worked in the restaurant industry for over 16 years, having been general manager of the Wild Duck and the 6th Street Grill among others, and he supported the smoke-free ordinance. He observed that many employers were concerned about the loss of revenue due to the law. He related that the first week the ordinance was in effect there had been a drop in lottery revenues, but they since returned to normal. Alcohol sales did not change. He averred that the real difference for him was that a winter cold came and went instead of settling into bronchitis as it had every year prior and when he witnessed fellow workers succeeding in their efforts to quit smoking. He wondered if allowing smoking rooms in which employees were not allowed to enter would be legal according to Oregon Liquor Control Commission regulations. Dr. Gary Young, 741 East 20th Avenue, said he worked in the Emergency Room at Sacred Heart Hospital. He stated that he grew up with smoking parents who both succumbed to smoking-related diseases. He related that he treated a woman earlier in the year whose asthma was exacerbated by secondhand smoke she was subjected to as a waitress. He also recalled a middle-aged patient who developed chronic lung disease due to secondhand smoke exposure. He stressed that the costs were much greater than what the patrons paid in bar tabs and lottery revenue. He expressed pride in Eugene for being the second city in Oregon to take a stand on behalf of workers exposed to secondhand smoke. He asked the council to take action to prevent the circumvention of the current regulations regarding outdoor smoking areas. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Kelly reiterated that the council would discuss this issue on September 28. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for the informative testimony. She reminded staffthat she asked for the language she would need to change the percentages in order to protect workers so that only 25 percent of an outdoor smoking area could be enclosure. She recommended that language include an allowance of one- to one-and-a-half years for existing outdoor smoking structures to comply and that permit fees should be waived. Councilor Pape recalled that Dr. Jones testified that carcinogens from smoke descended in smoking areas and asked if there was documentation in this regard. He also wished to learn how the City of Corvallis was handling implementation of its smoking ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 17 (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session September 26, 2005 Page 18 ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall September 28, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pape, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed those present. A. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Smoking Areas; Amending Sections 6.225, 6.230, 6.235, and 6.240 ofthe Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section 6.232 ofthat Code; and Adding Section 6.245 to that Code Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to request the City Manager to revise Ad- ministrative Rule 6.230 to implement new standards for outdoor smoking areas and to prepare ordinance revisions as appropriate, within a timeframe that allows new standards to be in place before December 31, 2005. Mr. Pape asked about Corvallis' experience in implementing a similar ordinance. Permit Review Manager Keli Osborn replied that the clean air ordinance for Corvallis was countywide and primarily handled by Benton County Public Health, but also administered within the City of Corvallis. She said that for Corvallis, according to staff there, three to five citations had been issued over the past three years and while citations with fines were issued when violations persisted, the usual experience was that businesses that were approached regarding a violation immediately corrected the problem. She said that outdoor smoking areas were not defined in the Benton County ordinance and staff s focus was to keep smokers ten feet or more away from building entrances and exits. She said some businesses might have a sheltered area but smoking areas were not considered enclosed. Mr. Pape asked about Eugene's experience with complaints under its ordinance. Ms. Osborn said that there had been 16 complaints related to the smoking ordinance since the first of the year; 11 related to outdoor smoking areas and 5 related to smoking indoors. She said that since July 2001, the City issued 30 correction orders, levied 12 fmes and gone to appeal hearings 9 times. Mr. Pape requested details abut the nature of the complaints related to outdoor smoking areas. Ms. Osborn said the focus of complaints was whether standards had been met and whether the area was too enclosed, given the 25 percent/75 percent rule now in place. She said the tracking system identified a complaint as related to not meeting standards but did not provide specific details; 15 of the 16 complaints received in 2005 were confidential. Mr. Pape questioned whether there was actually a problem with the outdoor smoking areas. He realized there could be problems related to compliance but was not certain that the existing ordinance failed to meet the need to protect workers and patrons in bars, taverns and restaurants. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28, 2005 Page 1 Mr. Pryor emphasized his interest in having the City do whatever it could to mitigate the costs of complying with new standards for those businesses that had, in good faith, created smoking areas that complied with the ordinance and standards created in 2000 and might now be forced to change. He urged the City to take measures to mitigate the time and costs involved for those businesses to come back into compliance. Mr. Poling, speaking to the motion, clarified that the legislative intent of ordinance revisions was to ensure there would be minor changes to bring the ordinance into alignment with the administrative rule and not to make principal changes in the ordinance. He asked how many establishments were in compliance with the existing ordinance. Ms. Osborn said that there were approximately 40 that had obtained permits to construct outdoor smoking areas. She said a strict reading of the State codes indicated that most businesses would require building permits to make the changes necessary to comply with stricter standards. Mr. Poling asked if any of the compliant smoking areas had been built without permits. Ms. Osborn replied that the City was not aware of any smoking areas that required permits but did not have them; however, some establishments did not create the type of area that triggered the requirement for a permit. She noted that the motions being considered by the council attempted to capture different suggestions from councilors to provide more specificity of direction if the administrative rule approach was used. Mr. Poling asked if the wording in the suggested motion BA in reference to the granting of legal non- conforming status meant those establishments would be grandfathered in and would not have to change as long as they were currently in compliance. Ms. Osborn agreed that was the intent of the language. Ms. Bettman said she would support the motion and stated her intent to offer motions on specific standards that would split the issues of phasing and grandfathering. She said the council intended to protect workers from the health dangers of secondhand smoke and the administrative rules that were enacted were inconsistent with that intent. She said that as long as the council was going to correct that problem it should provide full protection by returning to its position when the original ordinance was enacted, which was 75 percent open air for outdoor smoking areas. In response to a question from Mr. Pape, Mr. Poling explained that if the motion passed, staff was directed to begin with the ordinance revision as proposed and the council would then have the opportunity to address specific changes to be added. City Attorney Jerome Lidz explained that there were at least three steps in the process: 1. A decision to proceed primarily by administrative rule with ordinance changes only to make language consistent; 2. If the answer was yes, what kind of suggestions should be made to the city manager for the admin- istrative rules; and 3. How the council wants to address non-conforming uses. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to extend the discussion by 15 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to request the City Manager to revise Ad- ministrative Rule 6.230 to implement new standards for outdoor smoking areas before December 31, 2005, with provisions for a minimum 75 percent opening in wall planes for such roofed areas without allowance for screens and similar side coverings over areas counted as open. Ms. Bettman indicated that her motion was more in line with the council's intent when the ordinance was adopted that there be protected outdoor smoking areas; not that the area be a part of the bar. She stated that Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCe) statutes required employees to provide service ifpeople are out in such areas with their drinks; this would provide the greatest amount of protection in that environment. Mr. Kelly stated he would support the motion as the original intent was outdoor smoking areas and this standard came closer to a common sense idea of what was "outdoor" than the current situation at some businesses. Mr. Pape indicated he had seen no empirical evidence that the ordinance and administrative rules now in effect were not doing what the council intended four years ago to protect workers' health. He had not received complaints from either workers or patrons but received complaints from business owners about putting the ordinance into effect. He saw no clear reason to change what was currently in place and encouraged the City to maintain better records on the details and nature of each complaint. Ms. Solomon said she was inclined to support a 50 percent opening standard and referred to earlier testimony to the council that there was no statistical data to support a 75 percent opening over a 50 percent opening. She echoed Mr. Papes concern about how complaints were recorded and tracked to ensure their legitimacy. Ms. Ortiz said in the absence of statistical evidence to support either standard she would err on the side of safety. She would support a citywide ordinance to protect all people, not just those in particular occupations. She said the council should take the lead in setting a standard for expectations for the City and would support any steps that would help make Eugene smoke-free. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to read "...a mini- mum of 50 percent..." Ms. Bettman declared that the unfortunate aspect of revisiting the issue was that many people had lost the sense of urgency heard from the community when the initial ordinance was adopted. She asserted that many workers had come forward and begged the council for protection. She said councilors were not medical experts and unable to track and analyze specific health impacts of secondhand smoke. She said that medical experts confirmed the need to protect workers from the health hazards of secondhand smoke; 50 percent was still an enclosed area and would put workers in harm's way by requiring them to provide serviCe. Mr. Pryor noted that the council had been discussing a 50 percent standard for some time and he did not hear opposition to that standard in previous meetings and discussions. He recognized that any figure, whether 25, 50 or 75, was an arbitrary number but he felt that there should have been more conversation about a 75 percent standard before it was substituted for the 50 percent standard, which had been extensively discussed. He was inclined to support 50 percent now, with the understanding that a different MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28, 2005 Page 3 standard could be studied and proposed at a later date. He was very concerned about the compliance and non-compliance issue as well. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's contention that employees were required to provide service in the outdoor smoking areas, Mr. Pape said it was his understanding that the requirement was that employees had to monitor the area and be available in the case of a problem but were not required by the OLCC to enter the area to provide service. He said that a greater health hazard was posed by people smoking in homes and in cars when children were present and if the council was serious about the problem of secondhand smoke, it should consider how to protect youth from this exposure. Ms. Taylor said the council dealt with many issues and could not be expert on all of them. She trusted the experts in the medical field and would support a 75 percent standard. Ms. Bettman clarified that she raised the subject of a 75 percent standard in previous meetings. She noted that the 75 percent standard only related to wall space and did not include the roof. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pape voting in favor, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy said the City had been told by the County health department that the issue had to be addressed and she listened to those who urged protection for workers in outdoor smoking areas. The main motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Pape voting in opposition. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend the discussion by ten minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to request the City Manager to revised Admin- istrative Rule 6.230 to provide one year during which existing outdoor smoking areas that were legally created and comply with standards in effect on September 28,2005, must come into compliance with new standards. Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to request the City Manager to revised Admin- istrative Rule 6.230 to provide one year during which existing outdoor smoking areas that were legally created and comply with standards in effect on September 28,2005, must come into compliance with new standards and further moved to allocate $15,000 from Council Contingency Fund to cover building permit fees for existing, compliant outdoor smoking areas which must obtain building permits for structural changes needed to achieve conformance with new standards. Ms. Taylor agreed with helping those who were compliant and asked if there were businesses that did not comply with the original ordinance. Ms. Osborn responded that the City worked with those whose smoking areas were not compliant to bring them into compliance. She said that if the motion was adopted, it would not apply to any business that was not now in compliance. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Pape said that when businesses complied in good faith, regardless of whether it had been expensive, the council should be consistent and not place additional expense on an industry it had already burdened in 2001. He had not seen anyone come forward to ask for additional protection. Ms. Bettman asserted that the motion would create a level playing field and provide help for modifica- tions. She said that some of the outdoor smoking areas that had been built were basically extensions of the facility. She would support the motion. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged those businesses that had gone smoke-free and did not have the opportunity to provide an outdoor smoking area; she thought they should be applauded for their support of the council's efforts. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pape's remarks about businesses that had gone to considerable expense to comply with the existing ordinance. He said the changes that would need to be made under the new standards could increase their expenses once again. He appreciated having smoke-free establishments and felt the council should take into consideration the approximately 40 businesses that had gone to the time and expense to comply with the original ordinance. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to substitute the following motion: Move to request the City Manager to revise Administrative Rule 6.230 to implement new stan- dards for outdoor smoking areas before December 31, 2005, with provisions for granting of legal non-conforming status to existing outdoor smoking areas that were legally created and comply with standards in effect on September 28,2005. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tied; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pape voting in favor, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy explained she voted against the substitute motion because the effort in the original motion to provide a year to comply and provide financial resources was responsive to those businesses that complied with the existing ordinance. Mr. Poling said he would vote in favor of the motion as proposed, although he opposed the principle of forcing change, in order to give those who took the time, effort and money to comply originally a break. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: West University Park Reconfiguration Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to execute a property exchange agreement with Bob and Leslie Quinney as described above based on the points of agreements from Attachment B. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the haste in taking action, which she felt did not benefit the neighborhood so much as one developer. She could not support the provision that gave the Quinneys the right to purchase the park in the future if it was sold. She was also concerned about too much lighting in the park and felt a park was a place to have peace and quiet and not be bombarded by lighting. She thought a park should be a place to eat and read a book in a quiet comer or talk to a loved one in the MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28, 2005 Page 5 evening in a halfway dark place. She did not understand why the park had been closed in the first place instead of making enough efforts to find a way to keep it open. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the park was in his ward and neighborhood and, in the years prior to its closure a decade ago, there were Herculean efforts to try to keep it open. He said the park had been the number one priority of the West University Neighborhood Association since it was reconstituted two years ago and was a major interest of the neighborhood even before that time as it was a densely populated area without a neighborhood park. On the issue of haste, he said there were times when an opportunity requiring a response presented itself and that was the current situation; while there was a great deal of interest in having the park reopened, no one previously presented an idea that would accomplish that. He had some questions regarding details of the agreement and might offer motions to address those after a round of discussion. Referring to item 2.F in the agreement that stated the owners would have control over both properties during construction, Mr. Poling asked if there was a mechanism in place to ensure that existing trees that would be in the park area once the proposed changes were made, as well as brickwork now in the park, would be preserved and protected. Public Works landscape architect Robin Hostick said that could be addressed in the agreement once it was determined what features should be preserved. Mr. Poling also expressed reservations about item 2.G that gave the Quinneys the right of first refusal to purchase the property if the City decided to sell the reconfigured park in the future. He said the park should be sold to the highest bidder instead of giving someone that advantage. He asked if removing the provision would kill the deal. Mr. Hostick said the property owner would have to answer that question. He thought the right of first refusal provision would allow the property owner to meet any fair, legitimate bid proposed for the park. Mr. Poling requested clarification of item 4 relating to alley assessments. Mr. Hostick explained that the City would be assessed approximately $37,000 for alley construction in the current configuration. He said that if the trade was executed and the Quinneys received ownership of the portion of the property that abutted the alley, the City would have no assessment. However, the park in public ownership was counted as ten and all of the other owners on the block counted as one; if that were redistributed and the park was in private ownership and counted as one, the assessment for all property owners on the block would increase. Mr. Lidz added that the other property owners on the block would pay a higher assessment under the new configuration and the provision in the agreement was intended to prevent that by freezing the assessment as it would have been without the trade. Mr. Pape stated that he supported opening the park again. He disclosed that he was a good friend of Bob and Leslie Quinney and asked if that presented a conflict of interest given that the trade would increase the value of the Quinneys' property. Mr. Lidz replied that friendship would not create a conflict of interest and noted that the Quinneys' property value would increase by approximately $26,000 in the new configuration. Ms. Ortiz remarked that she worked in the West University neighborhood and parking along the old park when it was still open was scary. She agreed that the presence of a new park in the neighborhood was desirable and she supported the trade. Ms. Bettman said she supported reopening of the park although she did not think it would have all of the benefits the neighborhood assumed it would because it would still subject to the issues that affected many urban parks. She said the agreement contained benefits for the developer to which she could not agree. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28, 2005 Page 6 She asked if the owners planned to submit a multiple-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE) application. Mr. Hostick replied that they had expressed some interest in MUPTE. Ms. Bettman asked if trees currently on the property would be removed in the new configuration. Mr. Hostick replied that there were no heritage trees and most of the trees on the site were smaller fruit trees. Ms. Bettman asked if there was any guarantee that living spaces and windows of the new structure would be oriented to the park. She objected to the provision granting right of first refusal and to the provision related to alley assessment fees and would move to eliminate them from the agreement. She stated that if the neighborhood and neighborhood organization thought the trade was a good idea, they should be willing to absorb some of the impact and questioned why City taxpayers should pay $37,000 to improve the alley under the agreement if the taxpayers did not currently have to pay that amount. Mr. Kelly pointed out that if there was no agreement or property trade the City would still be paying $37,000 for alley assessment under the current configuration; the City would pay nothing only if the agreement was executed without the proposed alley assessment provision. He stated that the MUPTE issue was not relevant to the trade and if a MUPTE application was submitted at some future time, it would be approved or denied on a case-by-case basis, as the agreement provided no guarantee. He noted that the neighborhood included at least 50 homeowners, and that many renters, such as him, were permanent residents of the neighborhood. He asked for clarification of the right of first refusal provision and whether the Quinneys would be required to match an offer over fair market value and whether there would be efforts made to preserve the park's existing brickwork. Mr. Lidz said he thought the provision would require that the Quinneys match an offer. Parks and Open Space director Johnny Medlin explained that the right of first refusal proposed by the Quinneys and included in the agreement was based on the appraised price and not matching other offers. Mr. Kelly felt in that case the right of first refusal went too far and he would move to amend the agreement during the next round of discussion. Ms. Bettman stated her intention to amend the motion to remove the right of first refusal because it was an additional benefit given to the property owner regardless of how it was configured. She said the people bidding would know that they were bidding against someone had a first right of refusal instead of an open bidding process and there was nothing stopping the developer from bidding in an open bidding process along with every other person who might want to. She saw no reason from a public policy standpoint to elevate the playing field that one person was on. She said if the property ever came up for sale the City needed to dispose of it on the open market. She did not see why one person should be more equal than everybody else. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the agreement by removing the first right of refusal clause. Mr. Kelly said the reason that one person was more equal than others was that if the parties could not come to terms the City would continue to have a closed park. He was not willing to grant everything and noted that during development of the proposed agreement, a number of suggested points were rej ected. He said his intent was to move to amend by modifying the right of refusal so it would be consistent with Mr. Lidz's earlier description. He said the idea was that if there was competition at a fair market value the Quinneys would win over an identical bid. He said the amendment would also request consideration of saving brickwork and trees to the extent possible and clarify orientation of the building, windows and parking. He indicated he would not support Ms. Bettman's motion. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Pape questioned whether continuing the right of first refusal into the future would present a conflict with the rule of perpetuities. Mr. Lidz said he did not think there was a problem but he would research the issue. Mr. Pryor said the discussion had focused on two items of value: the ability to be at the front of the line in terms of who could buy the property and what the price of the property would be. He said that striking the phrase "based on the appraised value of the property at the time of sale" from the provision would make it consistent with Mr. Lidz's description of the common understanding of the right of first refusal and retain the first item of value but not the second item. He did not object to granting the owners right of first of refusal to the adjacent park property if they could meet a price that was acceptable to the City. He would vote against Ms. Bettman's motion to strike the entire provision but would support an amendment that would restore the City's ability to set a price on the property. Ms. Bettman agreed that the right of first refusal provision was an item of value bestowed on the property owner along with all the other values being bestowed on the property owner. She said that the City would collect the difference in the appraised value because the owners were getting a bigger piece of property but reinvest it in what would essentially be their front lawn. The motion to amend the agreement failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in fa- vor. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the agreement by striking clause 2.G and replacing it with "If the City decides to sell the property in the future, have the right of first refusal to purchase the property at the appraised value of the property at the time of sale, or the highest offer received from a third party, whichever is higher" and further to clarify in the agreement the building orientation towards the park and the parking orien- tation towards the alley and further to consider the preservation of trees in the reconfig- ured park and to consider the preservation of some of the brickwork in the reconfigured park. Ms. Bettman questioned explicitly spelling out the ability of the property owner to have the first right of refusal would be a disincentive for people to make an offer if it would only raise the price of the property. She said it would result in selling the property for less than the price could be if it was offered on the open market. She did not want to see the precedent set. Mr. Kelly said it was unfortunate that so much time was being spent on a contingency that might never come into play. He said the park had a much better chance of success with the support of the Police Department, the West University Business Association and visibility from Hilyard Street. Mr. Pape offered an amendment to grant the right of first refusal through December 31, 2045. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Poling accepted it as a friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor said she would vote for the amendment in case the agreement was approved but reiterated her objection to any right of first refusal provision and concern with "considering" the trees instead of stronger language. The motion to amend the agreement passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28,2005 Page 8 The motion to direct the City Manager to execute a property exchange agreement with Bob and Leslie Quinney based on the amended points of agreements from Attachment B passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. c. WORK SESSION: Neighborhood Initiative Priority Issue Action Plan Mayor Piercy announced that this item would be postponed to a future meeting. The meeting adj ourned at 1: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 28, 2005 Page 9 ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall October 10, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pape. In the absence of Mayor Kitty Piercy, Council President George Poling called the September 12, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that Mayor Piercy and Mr. Pape were out of the country on a visit to the City's sister cities in Korea and Japan. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Ortiz had no items Mr. Pryor reported that he recently attended the 35th Anniversary celebration dinner of Lookingglass Youth Services, and termed if a very good event for an excellent agency. Ms. Bettman said she was recently walking in the neighborhood where the Helen Park subdivision was scheduled to be constructed. She expressed concern that the City signs alerting people to the new development proposals were very flimsy and had fallen down because of the weather. She recalled the council's original discussion about the nature of the signs and said the signs being used were not stable enough or high enough to be clearly viewed. Ms. Bettman said she had reviewed the conditional approval for Helen Park and was struck by the fact that the subdivision included a special setback for future right-of-way acquisition along West 28th Avenue. She asked to what degree the City was acquiring right-of-way along the West 28th Avenue. It sounded to her like there must be a concrete plan to widen West 28th Avenue, and she asserted that was contrary to what City staff told her when the road was resurfaced and the lanes reconfigured. She asked if the City was pursuing similar right-of-way acquisitions along West 18th Avenue, and to what extent. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman about the development notification signs. Mr. Kelly briefed the council on the final meeting of the Public Safety Task Force, saying the main topic of discussion was possible financing options. The task force spent considerable time discussing Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart's proposal. Mr. Kelly credited Commissioner Stewart for his willingness to step forward with a proposal, which was to move existing public safety services outside the MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 1 County's General Fund and combine them with the task force recommendations and asked the public to fund the program with a one-percent sales tax that included some exemptions to mitigate the regressive nature of the tax. Mr. Kelly said the new sales tax would be combined with an 80 percent reduction in the County property tax rate. After discussion by task force members, 10 of 12 jurisdictions, including Eugene, supported Mr. Stewart's proposal as well as an alternative proposal for a gross receipts tax on mid-sized and larger businesses. Mr. Kelly reported that eight of twelve jurisdictions approved the alternative proposal. He noted that Commissioner Stewart also recommended that the tax be enacted by ordinance for a three-year period, followed by a public vote that would lock in the rate in the County Charter if the voters approved the measure. Ms. Taylor read excerpts of a letter from a citizen arguing for the preservation of additional land in the south hills and maintaining that it was a regional issue rather than a local neighborhood issue. The letter writer also wrote that preservation of land would benefit future generations, and argued that citizens preferred to preserve land rather than see it developed as home sites. The land would be lost to the public as well as the wildlife that used it. Ms. Taylor agreed with the letter writer, and said she believed the City should preserve all lands that contained sensitive species and provided interconnectivity for water and wildlife. She noted the failure of a motion that she offered to the council the previous week that would have directed the manager to begin the process of a establishing a building moratorium on the site known in the GoalS inventory as Site E37. She said she had shared with the manager her disappointment that City staff "seemed to be working against" the motion. Ms. Taylor asserted that it was staff's responsibil- ity to say how her motion could be made to work, rather than saying "don't do it." She also thought that pointed out the failings of the City's combined planning and development functions. Ms. Taylor believed the City needed a Planning Department. She noted that the council would later discuss the City's stormwater program and suggested that the upper Amazon Creek already exceeded TMDL (total maximum daily loads) for pollutants because of existing development in the area. More houses would make it worse. Ms. Solomon had no items. Mr. Poling reported he received calls about increased criminal activity from residents living on Holly Avenue in Mr. Pape's ward. He noted the work Mr. Pape and Captain Steve Swenson of the Eugene Police Department had done on the topic. He said he had shared with the neighbors that he would meet with City Manager Dennis Taylor on October 14, and requested a short briefing from the City Manager about the situation. He suggested that he, Mr. Pape, and the City Manager sit down to discuss potential approaches when Mr. Pape returned. City Manager Taylor thanked those who participated in the Sixth Annual Eugene Business Commute Challenge. He said that participation had been strong, spurred by high gas prices. He thanked City employee in particular, who helped the City secure top honors for participation by a public organization with more than 300 employees. City Manager Taylor reminded the council of the joint elected officials meeting scheduled for the next night. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 2 B. WORK SESSION: New Land Use Regulations and Ballot Measure 37 The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Director Susan Muir. Ms. Muir recalled the council's adoption of an ordinance to allow the City to process claims filed under Ballot Measure 37, adding that as of 3 p.m. no Ballot Measure 37 claims had been received by the City of Eugene. She briefly overviewed the adopted process, which called for the City Manager to review submitted claims and make an initial recommendation to the City Council. If the manager recommended the claim be denied and no councilor disagreed, the denial would stand. If a councilor objected or the initial staff recommendation was not to deny the claim, staff would conduct an investigation and make a recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Muir said that during the development of the GoalS protection ordinance, staff considered Ballot Measure 37 as it applied to the new land use regulations, and developed a decision tree for a variance process that was modeled on the Type III process. Staff would make a recommendation regarding a claim to the Hearings Official with an appeal right to the Planning Commission. She said the commission and the council had both expressed concern about that approach, so staff worked on another approach that provided for the Planning Commission to be the initial decision maker, with the potential of an appeal going to the City Council. City Attorney Glenn Klein was also present for the item. He asked the council first to consider whether it wanted something in the Land Use Code outside the existing Ballot Measure 37 claims process, such as a variance process. If so, what would the criteria for such a process be, and what should the process look like? In regard to the first question, Mr. Klein suggested the City would be in a better position if it adopted something in addition to the existing claims process. Mr. Klein reminded the council that the existing claims process and ordinance were developed as a result of Ballot Measure 37, which stipulated that governments could adopt such a claims processing ordinance or provisions, but those procedures were not a prerequisite to a property owner going to court for a remedy if, after 180 days after a claim was filed, a regulation was still in force as it regarded their property. He said that some might argue part of the existing claims process could be enforced, but he did not know to what extent as those issues were just beginning to be litigated. Mr. Klein said that what staff was trying to accomplish was to make it clear that a height limit, for example, would not constitute a restriction on use for purposes of Ballot Measure 37 until someone went through the new variance process staff was recommending. He said that the advantage to the City was that the approach made it more likely that the City would be able to enforce the application requirements and get the issues resolved without the risk that, should the property owner eventually prevail, he or she would receive attorney fees as was the case in the Ballot Measure 37 claims processing ordinance. Mr. Klein suggested that, given that the staff recommendation was based on a desire to avoid creating new Ballot Measure 37 claims, the criteria should be tied to the measure. In other words, if a property owner did not have a valid Ballot Measure 37 claim, he or she would not be entitled to the variance. In regard to the process, he recommended that applications be directed toward the Planning Commission accompanied by a staff recommendation. The Planning Commission would make a decision on the application, which would be final unless a councilor or the mayor wished to review the decision. Mr. Klein further recommended that the proposed variance process be applied to any regulations, MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 3 particularly new regulations, to avoid the unnecessary creation of Ballot Measure 37 claims. Mr. Klein invited questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said that staff did not recommend the council act as the initial decision maker because while the City had received no claims to this point, when the council adopted the Goal 5 protection ordinance several thousand properties would be affected, so it may receive several variance applications. Staff was attempting to avoid having the council deal with a claim if it did not wish to do so. He pointed out that if a single councilor wished to review the application, it could do so if within 14 days of the denial. Otherwise, the council would have to deal with all the applications. He did not know how many claims would be forthcoming once the Goal 5 inventory was adopted. Ms. Taylor believed the council was more responsive to the electorate than the Planning Commission and its actions were more in the public eye. She did not want the Planning Commission to make the initial decision. Mr. Pryor did not object to the Planning Commission making the initial decision given the council's role as ultimate arbiter of the issue. He determined from Mr. Klein that the focus of the discussion was on potential Ballot Measure 37 claims. Mr. Klein said that staff was suggesting to the council that the process be one that would apply not only to the Goal 5 protection ordinance, but to any new regulations the council might adopt in future years that had Ballot Measure 37 implications. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Klein clarified that the staff proposal would allow a property owner to file an application for a variance from the Goal 5 protection ordinance. The property owner would have to state why the City's action would reduce the value of a property and what they would like to do on the property. The City would review the application and the Planning Commission would make a determination to grant or not grant the variance. The City Manager would give the council notice of the decision. Speaking to the differences in what was being proposed and the existing process, Mr. Klein said in this case, the City would require the property owner to produce evidence to demonstrate their belief the ordinance would reduce a property's value. He added that under the existing Ballot Measure 37 claims process, the City told property owners they need to state why they believed a regulation reduced a property's value, but whether the City would be able to enforce that provision was unclear due to a lack of case law providing any precedent. He believed the inclusion of the variance process in the ordinance would put the City in a better position to place that burden on the applicant. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Klein said if a variance application was denied by the commission or council, the property owner could appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Speaking to Ms. Taylor's remarks, Mr. Kelly said he would oppose the proposal if it required a council majority to review a commission decision, but was comfortable with it since a single councilor or the mayor could request such a review. The only difference he perceived between the proposed and existing process was the initial decision maker. Each process included council review. He asked about other substantive differences. Mr. Klein did not perceive any. Ms. Muir pointed out that in the existing process, the City Manager's only role was in denial of an application. Mr. Kelly had no interest in a piecemeal process focused on different ordinances. He wanted something that was broader than the Goal 5 protection ordinance. Related to that interest was a question as to whether the variance should apply to new land use regulations or existing regulations and the implications MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 4 of applying the variance to existing regulations. Mr. Klein said given the lack of any claims based on existing regulations, it made more sense to him to adopt a process limited to new land use regulations. He said that the council might encounter unintended consequences if it attempted to extend the variance to all the existing regulations. He suggested the topic was more appropriately discussed in executive session. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Klein confirmed that it was staff's intent that the applica- tion would come to the council if a councilor requested a review, but the issue was one of timing and the State mandate for a decision within 120 days. Staff suggested the application go directly to the Planning Commission to compress the timeline. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Klein that when he discussed a variance, he was talking about waiving a regulation. She said that property owners still had the ability to file a legal claim under Ballot Measure 37. The City could not preempt the use of that option. Mr. Klein agreed, but said if the council adopted the ordinance and a property owner filed a claim, he would recommend to the manager that he deny the claim because the property owner would not be able to claim a restriction on use. A property owner would not know until they go through the process if the Goal 5 protection ordinance restricted their use of a property. Ms. Bettman said the variance sounded like a proactive preemption or automatic "opt out," building a "trap door" into any regulation, Goal 5-related or otherwise. In addition, the City would doing some of the work for the claimant in terms of establishing whether they have a claim. Since the process needed time, if a property owner did not like the outcome of the procedure, there was less time for the City to respond. Ms. Bettman requested a comparative time line so she could evaluate that issue. Mr. Klein clarified that the 180-day time period established by Ballot Measure 37 would not start until the property owner went through the variance process. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if a property owner attempted to go through both processes at the same time. Mr. Klein said the applicant would not be able to demonstrate that the ordinance reduced the value of their property or restricted its use. Ms. Bettman asked what if the property owner proved that. Mr. Klein said the council would waive the restrictions or pay the money. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if a property owner wished to construct a second house but was restricted as to its location by a setback from the riparian edge. Mr. Klein said the issue would be determined in court by an appraiser's testimony. If an appraiser stated a house could be constructed in spite of the restriction without a reduction in value, he believed the City could make the case there was no loss of use. He added that some economists and appraisers would argue that a property was benefited by the fact of the Goal 5 ordinance because others were precluded from building in the riparian area as well. Ms. Bettman asked if same appraiser could be required through this process. Mr. Klein said yes. Ms. Bettman asked if was possible the City could be at a disadvantage as a result of its adoption of the ordinance as case law developed and precedents were established. Mr. Klein did not think so. He said that staff envisioned a property owner would only qualify for the variance ifhe or she could prove 1) a restriction in use as defined by Ballot Measure 37 or 2) a reduction in value as that term was used in Ballot Measure 37. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling about the adoption process, Mr. Klein indicated that the variance would likely substitute for the existing Ballot Measure 37 variance language included now in the MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 5 proposed Goal 5 ordinance and would remain in effect until the council adopted a broader variance process to apply to all new land use regulations. He said that adoption of a variance that applied to all land use regulations would require a public process before both the Planning Commission and City Council. That could possibly happen before the end of 2005. Mr. Klein said staff would include the text regarding the variance was included in the Goal 5 protection ordinance to ensure it was in place when the Goal 5 protection ordinance took effect. It would be removed from the Goal 4 protection ordinance and placed in another part of the code when the more encompassing variance was adopted. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Klein envisioned that there would be a fee associated with the variance application as there was now with the Ballot Measure 37 claim application. Ms. Muir indicated that staff would establish a fee based on a cost-recovery analysis. Mr. Poling called for a second round of council questions and comments. Ms. Solomon expressed a concern that the City Council could be reviewing applications on a case-by-case basis, and if it was to do so, she wanted a set of rules by which each evaluation would be evaluated to avoid subjectivity about individual applications. Mr. Klein said the standards would be set out in the City Code, and the council would be considering applications using the same standards employed by the commission, except the council would have the ability to compensate a property owner as opposed to waiving the relevant regulation. He suggested deci~ions would be made on acase-by-case basis depending on the natural resource values of the property involved. Mr. Kelly was favorably inclined toward the ordinance as he did not like the current text proposed in the Goal 5 protection ordinance now and believed the proposed text would give people an alternative way to file a claim in a way that might have advantages for the City. He also wanted to broaden the scope of the variance beyond Goal 5. Mr. Kelly also wanted the council to consider adding some of the provisions in the existing Ballot Measure 37 claims ordinance, like notice on the Web site, notice to the effected neighborhood, and the possibility of acquisition through eminent domain. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Klein that the minor amendments the council would consider did not have Ballot Measure 37 implications. She asked if any of the amendments would benefit a property owner by increasing a property's value. Senior Planner Steve Nystrom could not say for certain but thought the amendments were sufficiently minor not to have a significant impact one way or another. Ms. Bettman asked for a specific answer to her question by the time of the council's work session on the topic scheduled for October 12. Ms. Bettman said staff had not yet made a case to her as to the benefits of the variance. She said staff indicated the intent of the ordinance was to avoid Ballot Measure 37 claims, but she thought the City should act in ways that allowed it to continue to regulate land use through the code in ways that councilors believed were in the best interest of the public and to protect natural resources that really needed to be protected for the sake of water quality, for example. She said that mention of avoiding claims made her nervous. It brought to mind visions of the Planning Commission preempting regulations just to avoid a claim. She was concerned the variance would result in a wholesale preemption of the City's ability to regulate. She thought staff was moving forward too quickly with the proposal, while work on the compensation fund had stalled. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 6 Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a variance-type process consistent with the City Manager's recommendation, and to incor- porate that process in the Goal 5 protection ordinance. Ms. Taylor indicated her second was for the purpose of discussion. Mr. Poling called for comments on the motion. Ms. Solomon and Ms. Taylor accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Kelly to add the following text: "and to later bring back language that would broaden the process to all new land use regulations." The motion then read: Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a variance-type process consistent with the City Manager's recommendation, and to incor- porate that process in the Goal 5 protection ordinance, and to later bring back language that would broaden the process to all new land use regulations. Mr. Kelly pointed out the council action merely directed staff to return with a process. At that time, he would be able to decide if he supported the process. Ms. Bettman did not support the motion because there was already a claims process in place. She was not convinced there was a reason for the variance or any benefit from it. The proposal "pivoted on a huge assumption" that the council would not lose its ability to consider such issues, and she maintained that the council "had been burned" in the past from its reliance on such assumptions. Ms. Bettman interpreted the variance process as placing more bureaucracy between the council and such decisions. She further objected that the council would have only two weeks to get the information it needed to properly evaluate a variance application. Ms. Bettman suggested the council would benefit by waiting for resolution of the issues surrounding Ballot Measure 37. She believed that the provision that one councilor or the mayor would be able to request the review of an application was significant, and pivotal to the decision before the council. She was afraid to rely on it as any ordinance in which it was included could be changed, although she acknowledged there would be a requirement for a public hearing for such a change to occur. Mr. Pryor asked if the adoption of the ordinance would result in less council involvement in such claims than currently existed. Mr. Klein said adoption of the ordinance would provide an opportunity for the same level of involvement by the council as currently existed, if a councilor decided to request council consideration of a Ballot Measure 37 claim. If the variance process was not adopted, the council would still be involved in claims approved by the manager. Mr. Klein believed the variance process gave the City more ability to require property owners to demonstrate actual reductions in value as a result of a restriction on use. Under the existing claims process, the City can request such evidence, but there was question as to whether it could require it. Under the proposed ordinance, he believed it could require that evidence to be produced. Mr. Pryor indicated that with that explanation, he would support the motion. Ms. Taylor perceived the proposal as placing the Planning Commission between the public and the council. She continued to object to the commission's involvement in the process. She did not think that 14 days was sufficient time for the council to review an application. Mr. Klein responded that there was MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 7 nothing magical about the 14 day time line or the Planning Commission. If the council preferred another time line, it could be accommodated in the ordinance. Ms. Muir said that one reason to involve the Planning Commission was agenda management if many such claims were received. Ms. Taylor averred that time after time, the council was told the Planning Commission had an over-full agenda. Ms. Solomon continued to have questions as well as reservations about the proposal, but agreed with Mr. Kelly that the council was merely directing staff to return with an ordinance. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council was confused as to the difference between the existing and proposed process. He said it would be helpful if the council received a table comparing the two ordinances in regard to the timelines and approval processes. Mr. Kelly pointed out that, with regard to the Planning Commission coming between the council and public, the manager did the same in the existing process. He underscored the effort the council made to improve the existing Ballot Measure 37 ordinance and said he would be examining the new ordinance carefully. He also suggested that staff produce a side-by-side comparison of the administrative rules for the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance. Ms. Bettman was not confused as to the difference between the two processes, but did not see any benefit to changing the existing process; in fact, she saw downsides to changing the process. Speaking to comments that the council was merely directing staff to return with a revised process, Ms. Bettman pointed out the motion directed staff to do some very expensive resource-intensive work. She said that if councilors did not intend to support the ultimate outcome, they should vote against the motion. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. c. WORK SESSION: Stormwater Permit and Program Developments City Manager Taylor reported that staff would highlight stormwater permit and program developments for the council. He recalled that the last comprehensive review of the Stormwater Program occurred in 2003, when staff raised some budget and fee issues facing the program. He said staff would discuss some of the developments in the existing service as well as in the permit renewal project and seek guidance as it prepared the fiscal year (FY) 2007 budget. The council was also joined by Peter Ruffier and Therese Walch of the Public Works Department. Ms. Walch provided a PowerPoint presentation, entitled Stormwater Permit and Program Developments. The presentation highlighted the impacts from the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued in March 2004, developments in the program that had future impacts, and options and recommendations for the future. Ms. Walch briefly noted the regulatory and policy basis for the City's stormwater program. She recalled the council's 2003 program review, impelled by a projected budget shortfall, and reminded the council that at that time it had reduced the program budget by $1.8 million to bring it line with revenues. The reduced program met the 1994 NPDES program conditions but there were uncertainties about whether it MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 8 would satisfy the renewed permit. The reduced program also extended the timelines for meeting the goals of the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Ms. Walch said that staff had evaluated the program in light of the new permit conditions. The evaluation validated core program elements, identified program gaps, and proposed program adjustments. Among the identified gaps with a fiscal impact were stormwater development standards; staff further recom- mended completion of a bacteria pilot study, expansion of the monitoring program, and the purchase of new monitoring equipment. The total cost was estimated to be approximately $307,000. Ms. Walch highlighted program developments facing the City, including the need to reduce the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) of pollutants in the Willamette River, development of water quality waterway protections, development of a stormwater basin plan for Santa Clara in conjunction with Lane County, and implementation of the stormwater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Ms. Walch recommended that the council direct staff to prepare the FY07 budget to include additional stormwater permit-related items. Mr. Poling opened the floor to questions. Mr. Kelly commended the presentation and packet materials. He said the Agenda Item Summary (AlS) mentioned the citywide policy related to pesticides and herbicides. He asked if that would apply to the City, other government agencies, the industry, or consumers. Ms. Walch said that it would apply to the City organization and would establish a consistent policy for the entire organization. She said staff found that the City had very good integrated pest management practices, but there were small differences between divisions and departments. Mr. Kelly requested a memorandum regarding the general public use or professional use of herbicides and pesticides in the community, and its relationship to the program established by the State legislature some time ago and only funded recently. He did not want to be redundant in regard to the State program, but he thought the issue had broader water quality implications. Mr. Kelly was supportive of the actions being proposed. He said he would be very interested to see the results of the protected waterways effort. He supported the option recommended by staff. Ms. Ortiz said she frequently received calls from constituents in her ward asking why they pay stormwater fees but received no stormwater service. She attempted to connect them to the appropriate staff. She wanted to know how many such residents existed, and what plans existed to get them "online." Ms. Ortiz said she was generally very supportive of the program but would find that information useful. Ms. Walch responded that staff had met with the River Road and Santa Clara community organizations. The City would identify a long-term stormwater CIP and if the City or County was responsible for construction. Long-term issues related to the continued use of dry wells would also be addressed through that process. She emphasized staff's interest in getting a lot of public involvement, and staff would work to keep those community organizations informed and involved. Mr. Pryor said it would be useful to know what would be paid for by the identified funding. He referred to the proposal for monitoring program expansion and equipment upgrades, and asked how that coordi- nated with the State's reductions in its monitoring programs. He was if the City's monitoring was MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 9 coordinated with the State's program. Ms. Walch said the local program did not compensate for the reductions in the State program. The monitoring done was what was necessary to satisfy the City's own needs. Speaking to the proposed funding, Ms. Walch said it would be used to pay for three positions related to the development standards as well as needed equipment. City Manager Taylor said the staff recommendation came about as a result of the council's decision to maintain the program within the current revenue structure as long as it met the City's comprehensive policies and ensured permit renewal. As a result of the permit renewal, staff had identified specific gaps that spurred the changes recommended. Ms. Bettman referred to $64 million in user-fee funded capital improvements, and asked what percentage of the capital projects envisioned was needed to accommodate new growth. Ms. Walch said the $64 million was not the capacity-enhancing portion of the program. The entire amount was for restoration projects, new neighborhood water quality facilities to address runoff in already developed areas, and system rehabilitation. Ms. Bettman requested information about the cost of capital projects intended to serve new development. Ms. Walch said she would follow-up. Ms. Bettman asked what type of bacteria the City would study. Ms. Walch said the City measured fecal coliform, and e-coli. Ms. Bettman asked how long it would take to correct the contamination, and suggested the City should address it immediately. Ms. Walch said that bacteria were a very challenging issue and the City was working with other large municipalities that were working on the issue. Such bacteria were generally location-specific and she did not think it would require the entire three years for staff to identify the source of such bacteria. That would occur after the first year, followed by the application of best management practices. Ms. Bettman asked which waterways were contaminated. Ms. Walch said that the Amazon Creek and Amazon Diversion channel were water-quality limited and did not meet State standards. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a fiscal year 2007 budget which includes funds for additional stormwater permit-related items; stormwater development standards; expansion of the stormwater monitoring pro- gram; upgrades for monitoring equipment; and a new three-year bacteria pilot study. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the motion. Ms. Bettman recalled that when the council cut the budget, it discussed how some of the funding could be used for stream corridor acquisition and space for green infrastructure. She did not see that reflected in the plan, and asked if that could be presented to the council as an additional option, supported by a 50 cent fee increase. Ms. Walch said that the need for additional stream corridors it did not arise in the evaluation of the permit. There was some limited funding in the budget for stream corridor acquisition. City Manager Taylor said about $160,000 was accumulated each year, and the City also had a list of potential acquisitions, based upon willing sellers. He clarified that Ms. Bettman was seeking a change in the current service level that was not related to the recommendations before the councilor the permit requirements. Ms. Bettman said that staff could "dust off' the old list and bring it back to the council for consideration. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 10 Ms. Solomon asked if the Goal 5 protections the City had discussed touched on the issue of stormwater quality. Ms. Walch said the City had identified stream corridor acquisitions that staff believed was important for water quality protection and the maintenance of existing water quality conditions and to the Goal 5 waterways inventory and determined there was about 65 percent overlap with respect to lineal miles. . There was a gap between what the stormwater staff thought needed to be protected for water quality and versus what the Goal 5 process had identified. That was the reason for the water quality waterways protection proposal. Mr. Kelly liked Ms. Bettman's suggestion of a parallel proposal for a modest stormwater fee increase for stream corridor acquisition. He asked if the maker of the motion would accept the proposal as a friendly amendment to the main motion. Ms. Solomon perceived the proposal as warranting a separate discussion. City Manager Taylor determined from Mr. Kelly that he was interested in having a discussion of whether the council should change the level of service currently being delivered through the stormwater program by accelerating the timeline for stormwater acquisitions. Mr. Kelly added that he would term it an "un- deceleration" given that the funding for such acquisitions was reduced two years ago. He thought a reexamination of the program was needed given community growth and the passage of Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by directing the man- ager to return to the council around January 1, 2006, with a Stream Corridor Acquisition Program analogous to that in effect before past reductions. City Manager Taylor indicated that what staff was recommending at this time involved expenditures needed to keep the permit; the acquisition program would be an expansion of that program, and the council could consider various alternatives, including returning to the program not implemented in the 2005 budget. He asked why the council would select a specific strategy in the absence of other types of improvements that could be secured for the same dollar amount. Mr. Kelly said that the specific strategy received considerable support in the past, and often such strategies needed to be put in place ahead of development in a particular area. He also thought Ballot Measure 37 was a factor that had not been in place before. Ms. Taylor recalled that a stream corridor acquisition program was adopted by the council but never implemented. She supported the amendment. Mr. Pryor determined from Mr. Kelly that the amendment would direct staff to return with a proposal for a reinstituted acquisition program, funding source, and implications of the funding source. Ms. Walch suggested a broader evaluation that included examination of the Capital hnprovement Program would be in order. Mr. Kelly had no objection to staff mentioning that in the Agenda Item Summary, but his focus was on the acquisition program. City Manager Taylor urged the council to have a broader discussion before it moved forward to reinstitute the program. Mr. Pryor agreed that the council needed to consider the impact of the program as it related to the larger subject of the CIP, which could create many more proposals for the council to consider. He asked ifthere was a more organized, comprehensive way to approach the subject. City Manager Taylor said he would MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 11 advocate for such an approach. If the council adopted the motion placed on the table by Ms. Solomon it would give clear direction to staff with regard to those program elements related to the NPDES permit. Staff would later return with information and recommendations related to the corridor acquisition issue. He thought the staff could do that by the end of the year. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council had voted for what she characterized as a "huge" reduction in the program, which she had opposed at that time. She said the City needed to get a start on a green infrastruc- ture acquisition program. Such a program was a discrete piece of a larger program, and it was a forward looking, sustainable approach. Ms. Bettman said continued focus on a pipe-and-fill strategy would preclude the City from building a green infrastructure. She wanted to move forward with a modest green infrastructure acquisition program. Ms. Walch noted the City already had a modest stream corridor acquisition program; about $150,000 yearly was expended through the capital budget. Mr. Poling said the original motion addressed the fact the City needed to remain in compliance with its permit and new federal regulations. He favored having a discussion focused on the subject of the amendment at some point in time, but did not want to tie today's decision to that discussion. He did not support the amendment. Ms. Taylor said the stream corridor acquisition issue was nothing new, and in her mind the council was only asking the manager to do what it wanted him to do before. She thought the program valuable for the purpose of maintaining community water quality. She pointed out that previously, the funding had been in place. Mr. Kelly clarified his amendment was not asking for the former steam corridor acquisition program to be reinstated, but rather asking for a discussion of whether the program should be reinstated at a later time. He agreed the issue was not tied to the agenda item but was raised because the council lacked a standing item entitled Stormwater Issues. He said that a new discussion would enable councilors who had not participated in the earlier discussion to receive the history of what occurred then. Ms. Solomon did not know why the council would want to have a discussion that did not encompass the entire CIP. She did not oppose having a discussion about the acquisition program, but she did not like the amendment because she believed it took the issue out of the context of the program and did not consider other equally effective approaches. She recommended that the amendment be amended to include a full discussion of those other approaches as she believed that she could then support it. Ms. Bettman opposed Ms. Solomon's recommendation. She said that she was surprised to hear Ms. Solomon mention the need to consider the entire program as it was her recollection that Ms. Solomon had voted to reduce the program by $2 million. She did not think the council would support expanding the CIP. The motion to the amendment passed, 6: 1; Mr. Poling voting no. The main motion passed, 6: 1; Ms. Solomon voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 12 Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 13 ATTACHMENTD MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber-City Hall October 10, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pape. Council President George Poling convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilor Gary Pape were not present as they were visiting Eugene's sister cities ofKakegawa, Japan, and Chinju, South Korea. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Council President Poling welcomed everyone to the City Council meeting and reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, confirmed with staff that Mayor Piercy would have access to the information he provided. He alleged that in a recent Mayor's one-on-one meeting she informed him of her request that the University of Oregon solicit public input on its plans to build a basketball arena. He wished for this to be put into writing in order to show others that she made this request. He opined that the University was "stonewalling." He believed that the issue of eminent domain had "come to a head" over the summer. He said now there was talk of an indoor track on campus. He was concerned that eminent domain would be used. He noted that Congressman Peter DeFazio was working on legislation to protect people from the frivolous use of eminent domain. He reiterated his concern that there needed to be more public input regarding the planned basketball arena. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, spoke in support of Ballot Measure 20-106. He recommended people in the audience review the Web site www.yeson20-106.org. He averred that detractors of the measure were given ample chance to state their points of view but had not come forward. He felt that what was at the center of discussion was the necessity of public transparency and that authorizing the City Manager to hire an outside auditor ran counter to this need. He urged everyone to vote in support of the ballot measure. Janet O'Bryant, 85 North Madison Street, reminded the council that she testified at prior meetings. She wished to know where the council stood on the creation of a 'quiet zone' in the Whiteaker Neighborhood so that train whistles would not be allowed to blow as frequently in the night. She related that she contacted the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and City Engineer Tom Larsen about requesting a noise study to establish the levels the train whistles reached. She asserted that trains came through her MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session October 10, 2005 Page 1 neighborhood six to ten times a night with many train whistle blasts. She said this was interrupting her sleep and affecting her health. She felt it was affecting property values as well, but she could not afford to move. She encouraged the council to be vigilant in acting to mitigate this problem and to help bring livability back to her neighborhood. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, president of Friends of Eugene, wished to comment on the work session that preceded the regular council meeting. He conveyed the point of view of Friends of Eugene on the minor code amendments. He averred that they were mostly minor, but a number of them represented readjustments through a streamlined "low involvement" process. He thought staff was correct that the minor amendments would not cause Ballot Measure 37 claims because he asserted that "virtually every one of them was a liberalization" of development standards. He alleged that the amendments would create increases in property values because they would permit development not currently allowed. Mr. Matthews thanked the council for its 6:1 vote in favor of taking a close look at the Stormwater Acquisition Plan. He surmised from the discussion that there was a 65 percent overlap between the waterways identified in the GoalS water resources process and the waterways identified by the stormwater water quality process. He thought 50 percent more length of waterways were identified for stormwater quality than was identified for GoalS quality. He felt it should be the other way around because the habitat required clean water. Mr. Matthews expressed appreciation for the City Manager's fiscal discipline. He thought it brought up the question of whether environmental stewardship was being conducted on a piecemeal basis while the City's fiscal stewardship was done on a very "sophisticated, robust basis." He asked how the community could move toward a "triple bottom line kind of sustainability concept." He asked how the City could have environmental budgeting that considered and understood the carrying capacity of its natural systems. Council President Poling closed the Public Forum and called for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for their testimony. In response to Mr. Biggs, she wished to clarify that the police union leadership attended all of the meetings she attended and were very collaborative. She related that the subcommittee of the Police Commission had also spent an hour in discussion with the union's lawyer. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes -September 12, 2005, Work Session -September 12, 2005, City Council Meeting -September 21, 2005, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Call for Public Hearing on Alley Vacation for the Urban Renewal Agency ofthe City of Eugene (VRI 04-1) Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session October 10, 2005 Page 2 Councilor Bettman said that she submitted minutes corrections electronically. She added that she articulated her issues with the other consent item with the City Manager and that she looked forward to seeing further information. Councilor Poling noted the corrections and deemed them, without objection, approved. Councilor Kelly stated that he likewise submitted corrections to the minutes electronically. Councilor Poling noted the corrections and deemed them, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSmLE ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Prohibiting Smoking in Public Structures; Amending the Sunset Provisions in Section 4 of Ordinance No. 20346; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date City Manager Taylor explained that the ordinance would extend the moratorium so that the work the council provided direction on in the ordinance of the previous meeting could "catch up" with it. Councilor Poling opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to testify, he closed the public hearing. Councilor Kelly noted that it would take at least six of the seven councilors present to vote to approve the extension of the moratorium to avoid a gap. He urged his colleagues to support the extension whether or not they agreed with the proposed changes to outdoor smoking areas to avoid developments that would be contradictory to the ordinance occurring while the moratorium had ceased. Councilor Bettman remarked that councilors had not previously held up a vote of unanimous consent because they disagreed with the outcome. She underscored that in this case the vote was strictly process. Seeing no objections to taking action at the present meeting, Councilor Poling called for a motion. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4908, an ordinance concerning prohibited smoking in public structures. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6: I; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Regular Session October 10, 2005 Page 3 ATTACHMENT E MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall October 24, 2005 5:30pm COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Pape, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the October 24, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy acknowledged the following positive events: . Sustainability Award given to the City for it wireless irrigation control system . The hard work of the Rotary Club members on the River Play area . Innovative Channel Bank repair along the Amazon Creek. Mayor Piercy also mentioned that she and Mr. Pape just returned from trip to the City's sister cities of Chinju, South Korea and Kakegawa, Japan. She said it was a great trip and re-emphasized the value of the Sister City program. She announced that on November 14, she and Mr. Pape would make a 30-minute presentation on the education, cultural, and economic value of the trip. Mr. Poling announced that the Cal Young Neighborhood Association meeting would be on October 27 at 7 p.m. at the Sheldon Community Center. Ms. Ortiz reported that she attended the River Road Community Organization meeting and learned that the members were excited to come back to the City Council with a new plan for River Avenue. She reported that the plan seemed to be a good compromise. Ms. Ortiz said that she would be helping the Bethel School District with its bond measure for a levy for operating expenses. Mr. Pryor reported that he and Ms. Ortiz attended the most recent Human Services Commission meeting at which the current director of Centro LatinoAmericano reported on an anonymous donation made to Centro which would help the center stay open until the end of the year. He said that this donation would allow Centro to reactivate some of the contracts that it had with the Human Services Commission. He said the commission was trying to be responsive and work with Centro. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 1 Mr. Pryor said that the Human Services Commission was doing some visioning and goal-setting to help make sure that the relationships between the different agencies was effective and working at a high level. Ms. Ortiz reported that CentroLatino Americano received a health care grant. Ms. Bettman informed the City Manager that some members of the public reported having difficulty accessing the City Council agendas on the website. She said that the problems had been persisting for several weeks and asked that staff research the source of the trouble so that people could have better access to what the council was doing. Mr. Kelly reported that at the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, an update was given about the federal Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) money for transportation. He said that the money for this region would be reduced from $3.5 million over three years to $3 million, which might mean that MPC would have to reduce some of its allocations. Mr. Kelly made a follow-up request to the City Manager for an outline in a broad form of what would be involved in reviving the former tree ordinance, chapters 6 and 9. Ms. Taylor mentioned that she was also interested in knowing about the tree ordinance. Ms. Taylor announced that her e-mail was not working. Ms. Taylor said that she received a call from one of her constituents saying when a complaint had been made to the Eugene Police Department (EPD) about a long and well-attended party on Onyx Place, the police responded that they did not have the staff to respond. Ms. Taylor said that she would like to know more about that. Ms. Taylor observed that a recent four-hour meeting attended by city councilors was held in a place in which the meeting could not be cablecast. She also noted that there was no media present. She said that she thought that the public needed to know what was going on with the City Council all the time. She said that she was also disappointed in the parking at the facility. She said that she did not understand why the meeting was not held at City Hall where everyone knew where to park and where the meeting could be cablecast to the public. Ms. Taylor also commented that it seemed to her that at this meeting, without public input, the council went a long way toward deciding that City Hall would not be remodeled but would be replaced with a new building. She reiterated that she thought that the public should know what the council was doing. Mr. Pape complimented the staff and the City Manager for receiving the International City Managers Association (lCMA) award for the City's accounting performance measurement. He said that he thought that these measurements would be helpful in reviewing and assessing where the City was "on track" or "off track." Mr. Pape announced that the mayor would he holding her one-on-one in Ward 5 on October 25 at 5 p.m. at the Market of Choice on Green Acres and Delta Highway. He encouraged his constituents to come and meet with the mayor. He informed Mayor Piercy that there would probably be some people there to talk about an issue on Holly Avenue. Mr. Pape said that he, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Taylor had a meeting scheduled during the week with some residents of Holly Avenue. He told the mayor that he would apprise her of the situation. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 2 Mr. Pape said that he would like to know if a fire response issue in Mr. Poling's ward had been resolved. Mr. Taylor informed him that there had been several meetings with representatives from the Harlow neighborhood. Mr. Pape asked for a memorandum or e-mail informing the council of the final resolution. Mr. Pape said that the sister city trip was wonderful and he encouraged other councilors to participate in one if given the opportunity. He said that he looked forward to reporting on the trip on November 14. He mentioned that the visit to Holt International had been a special part of the trip. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that being awarded the 2008 Olympic Trials was huge for Eugene. He acknowledged the cooperative effort made by the City, University of Oregon, Tzbaco, the Oregon Track Club, and Lane County. He particularly acknowledged Angel Jones, the Executive Director of the Department of Library, Recreation and Cultural Services, and her staff for their outstanding work on this project. He said that while this event would take a lot of work, it was the kind of work that would build on the great track tradition in Eugene. Ms. Piercy noted that it was in keeping with the theme of "Art and the Outdoors." City Manager Taylor joined with the mayor in thanking the Rotary Club for bringing over 1 00 people to work on River Play. He said that Discovery Village was constructed as well as benches, picnic tables, bike racks, and swing sets. Many trees and shrubs were planted. He said that it was a great community effort. City Manager Taylor noted that he provided the councilors with a memorandum about the first Ballot Measure 37 claim brought to the City. He said that the details of the claim would be brought before the council with a subsequent discussion scheduled for November 14. He said that staff was working to evaluate and process the claim according to the ordinance. Mr. Pape said that he would like to have a memorandum from the City Attorney on Measure 37 now that it had been invalidated by the Marion County Circuit Court. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that a confidential memorandum had been sent out and would be resent to those councilors who did not receive it the first time. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 3 B. WORK SESSION: Ordinance Concerning GoalS Natural Resources Study City Manager Taylor asked Neil Bjorklund from the Planning and Development Department to provide an update on the follow-up work done in response to testimony on the Goal 5 Natural Resources Study. City Manager Taylor noted that this was a project on which Mr. Bjorklund had been working for 17 years. Mr. Bjorklund opened his presentation by saying that the project was close to being completed. He referred councilors to their meeting packets, which contained all of the written testimony that was entered into the record, a memorandum that responded to all of the written and oral testimony, a revised ordinance that reflected the changes that staff was recommending to the ordinance based on the testimony, and the legislative findings that went with that. He noted that the councilors did not receive all of the exhibits because they had not yet all been revised as staff was waiting for direction from the council. Mr. Bjorklund said that staff was asking for direction from the council as to which ordinance to bring back for adoption, presumably on November 14 when the item was scheduled for action. Mr. Bjorklund referred councilors to two maps on the wall which reflected the recommendations being brought to the council. He said that the recommendations affected only a few sites and therefore were not readily visible on the maps. He said that he would make a PowerPoint presentation of four samples of difficult sites and how they would be addressed and then ask for questions and comments from the council. The first sample presented by Mr. Bjorklund was an example of when a street or building isolated a portion of the setback. The example showed an area where the setback was cut off from Amazon Creek by a street. He said that the recommendation was to not apply the provisions to those areas that were isolated by being on the opposite side of a building or a street. In response to a question from Mr. Pape, Mr. Bjorklund said that an exhaustive analysis had not been done to determine how many sites were like this because such an analysis would be extremely time consuming. He said that he was aware of only a handful of sites like this. The next slide was a sample of the adjustment to standards with a 33 percent threshold, in which an owner would qualify for some reduction of the protected area if the setback area exclusive of the water feature takes up 33 percent of the site. Mr. Bjorklund said that the slide illustrated why the water feature was not counted. He said that the reduction would be based on what area was actually made unbuildable as a result of the regulations. Mr. Kelly said that what Mr. Bjorklund was describing was not what he read in the language. He referred to page 34 of the council packet, Section 9.8030(21)(a)(1): More than 33 percent of the development site is occupied by the combined area of the /WR conserva- tion setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; Mr. Kelly said that he always thought of streams, not ponds, when he pictured this statement. Mr. Bjorklund acknowledged that most people did the same and that was why he had shown an example of a property with a pond. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Bjorklund said that the setback was defined in Section 9.4920. He said that the setback, in the case of a site like the one on the slide, would be measured from the ordinary high water line or the top of bank, depending on the situation. He said that the setback was that area from the edge of water or the top of bank out the specified distance. Mr. Bjorklund explained the difference between the term "conservation area," which included the resource and the setback and any riparian vegetation that extended beyond the setback and the term "conservation setback," which was only the area measured from the resource out the specified distance and which did MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 4 not include the resource itself or the riparian area that went beyond. Mr. Kelly said that he now understood the difference and would have to digest how that would affect the code. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Bjorklund presented the third slide showing an example of the 33 percent threshold with a stream feature. The example showed a site with a stream feature and had both wetland and riparian resources. Mr. Bjorklund explained that in this example, the area between the channel banks, which was essentially the area of the wetland, would not be included in the calculation of 33 percent. He said that the total lot area was .35 acres, the resource itself (the wetland boundary) was .08 acre, and the area of the setback was .15 acre. He explained that .15 was 43 percent of .35 acres and therefore the lot would qualify for the 33 percent adjustment. Mr. Kelly clarified that the setback in this provision could be reduced so that it did not occupy more than 33 percent of the lot. Mr. Pape asked what the priorities would be for reducing the setback. Mr. Bjorklund said that a number of standards had to be met. Ann Siegenthaler from the Planning and Development Department said that the priorities were described on page 35 in subsection 6. Mr. Bjorklund showed the last example of a site in Santa Clara near Beacon Drive. He said that this was a more extreme example of a smaller lot with proportionally even more of it taken up by the resource. He said that the setback area and any riparian area that extended beyond it was 21 percent of the lot, thus not qualifying the lot for the 33 percent threshold adjustment, even though there was very little developable area left on the lot after the setback was applied. He said that it was this kind of example that led staff to add the new adjustment that was intended to address situations that staff was not able to anticipate because of the relationship between where a resource was located and the lot shape and size and other factors. He said that in previous drafts the City relied in part on provisions that Mr. Klein drafted to create a process to address any reduction of clear market value in unusual situations. He said that with that "fail safe" gone, staff introduced the new section to allow the City to look at a number of factors and make the least reduction to protection necessary to allow development of a lot. Ms. Bettman asked if all of the 445 residential acres involved were plotted with lots. She wondered if, for example, a 20-acre lot could be divided in such a way that the lots would get the maximum reduction. Mr. Bjorklund said that lot divisions would have to be done to City subdivision or PUD standards and current platting standards. Mr. Nystrom said that there were other criteria to consider about the buildable nature ofthe lots and the ability to develop them efficiently. He said that he thought that between looking at lot configuration, street design issues, etc., the City would be able to get at those issues. He added that he could not say for certain that someone could not try to manipulate some of those issues. He said that there were other mechanisms in place that would help minimize that potential. Ms. Bettman suggested putting in a caveat that this did not apply unless to the maximum extent possible, an attempt was made to avoid that potential. Ms. Bettman clarified that the recommendation for reductions did not take into account the value of the property and that the owner would qualify for it even if there was already a dwelling on the property. Mr. Bjorklund agreed, and added that he wished that the City had time to do a GIS analysis to know how many lots would fall into this category. He said that it was a very complex and painstaking process to identify these lots, because calculations had to be done separately for each lot. Therefore, it was difficult to answer how many of those lots there were. He said that based on examples he had looked at, the 33 percent threshold would only be met in rare situations. Mr. Kelly said that he was comfortable with the entire ordinance with the exception of the standards adjustment in 9.8030 (21) on pages 34-36 of the packet. He said that he had no problem with subsection MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 5 (c). He said that while he appreciated Mr. Bjorklund's clarification of (a) and (b), he still had a problem enacting them for two reasons: 1) Mr. Bjorklund said that the City did not have the resources to work through this to figure the consequences of the provision. Given that, unless there was a compelling need for the adjustment provision, why put it in since it was not known what the consequences might be? 2) Given that it takes council approval, PPD approval, and an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis to get a setback to appear on a map, Mr. Kelly said that he had not been convinced of the compelling need on top of that to grant a further exception, with the exception of (d). He said that he obviously wanted to comply with the requirement to compensate under federal constitution ifthere was a complete taking. Mr. Bjorklund pointed out that the 33 percent threshold had been in the code since 1995 and the City never had anyone use it. He said it was modeled after the West Eugene Wetlands Plan regulations. He said that the current regulations before the council were modeled on what the City had been using successfully in west Eugene for ten years. Mr. Bjorklund continued by saying that the rationale was based the ESEE balancing process, in which it was determined that a resource site as a whole was significant and the resource value of the site as a whole outweighed the value of development that would be added if it was not protected, was done on a resource site level and not on a tax lot by tax lot level. He said that 100 or so analyses were done rather than 2,000 and some. In addition, the regulations were a cross between "one-size-fits-all" and offering a "custom fit." He repeated that the City did not have the resources to do a lot-by-lot analysis. He said that the 33 percent threshold adjustment was one of the tools the City had to fine-tune protection on a finer detailed level. He added that every example he had seen where the 33 percent threshold fit was on a small lot. Mr. Kelly asked for amendment language at the adoption meeting to remove (a) and (b) and to make other necessary adjustments so it would be logically consistent. He requested a second round to talk about (d). Mr. Pryor said that while realizing he was coming to the discussion somewhat later than other councilors and staff, he thought that the staff recommendations did not weaken Goal 5 and allowed the City some flexibility. He said he was looking for standards in the goal along with flexibility, so that as conditions, perspectives, and situations changed and as information became more available, the City would have the mechanisms to adapt or adjust. Mr. Bjorklund responded, partly to Mr. Kelly's concerns. He said that one of the "big picture" issues related to natural resource protection was that one did not compel, through regulation, improvement of habitat that was currently degraded. He said the reason staff included provisions in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and in this Goal 5 proposal that would allow one to reduce setback distance and increase function was to create the net result of a more functional system. He said that because Eugene was an urban area, a lot of the waterways had been hit hard by human activities. He said that if the City provided an incentive to a property owner to restore habitat on his property by allowing a smaller setback, the biological system would be improved over time. He said that just having a distance with no building and with no plant growth for wildlife or filtering of storm water would not give the full value that the system could provide. He said that if somewhat smaller setbacks were allowed along with increased planting of plants and removal of refuse, a net benefit would be achieved over time. He said that the idea was to create an incentive for restoration. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Pape thanked staff for the memorandum answering all of the property owners' questions and concerns. He noted that one of the examples used by Mr. Bjorklund was in his ward and was a lot on which a structure already existed. He said he understood that the structure was "grandfathered in." He asked if the property owner would be able to rebuild or build something in the same footprint if the structure were destroyed. Mr. Bjorklund said that the owner would be able to rebuild within that footprint. He said that expanding the footprint within the conservation area would not be allowed. Mr. Pape asked if the footprint could be reconfigured. Mr. Bjorklund said that would have to be done through one of the adjustments, such as setback averaging. In response to another question from Mr. Pape about easements, Mr. Bjorklund said that in the case of the series of easements in the Lorane Highway area, some places included the stream and some places did not. He said that after careful research, the City discovered that the easements were to allow the City access to build and maintain an underground pipe. He said the stream meandered in and out of the easements and was never meant to be protected by the easements. He said the easements did not protect the vegetation. He said that the easements did restrict where a person could build but did not protect the resource. Mr. Pape asked that the people concerned be given the information. Mr. Bjorklund said that he would communicate with them. Mr. Pape referred to a letter from PeaceHealth on page 159 of the packet. He asked for a clarification of the Standards Review process mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the letter. Mr. Bjorklund explained that Standards Review was the mechanism used to administer the adjustments with certain criteria. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor about fair market value, Mr. Bjorklund said the provision addressing fair market value was being recommended for removal from the ordinance. Ms. Taylor asked if vacant land would be treated the same as land with a house on it. Mr. Bjorklund said that there was no place in the ordinance that treated one different from the other. He added that the language in Section 9.8030 (21) (d) was created to make sure the City did not create an unbuildable lot, but it did not refer to any definition of what was buildable or not. Mr. Bjorklund responded to other concerns from Ms. Taylor by saying that while there were provisions to allow the City to prevent an owner from dividing a lot in a way to receive reductions, there was no specific language preventing it. He added that the adjustments were a one-time deal and one of the criteria was that an owner had not received a previous adjustment. He said that owners could not keep reducing the setback through adjustments. Ms. Taylor asked what would keep people from destroying any enhancements they might have made to receive a reduction. Mr. Bjorklund said that would be a violation of the code and the City could require them to put it back. He said that it would be prohibited activity to remove any native vegetation in a conservation area. He said that an owner would have to show enhancement and that the property would be inspected after the enhancement was completed. He said that the long-term enforcement would rely mostly on complaints that vegetation had been removed or destroyed. Mr. Kelly said he fully supported setback averaging. He also said that he did not think that the provision under subsection (b) gave flexibility to staff but rather gave the opportunity to property owners to request the setback be reduced as long as the remaining setback was enhanced. Mr. Kelly said that he did not interpret the new adjustment subsection (d) to accomplish what staff said it would, which was to primarily to effectively address unusual site situations where the /WR provisions might otherwise prevent development on an entire lot. He said that the subsection appeared to him to be a good deal more liberal and did not mention "unbuildable" in the provision. He said that he could imagine MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 7 that there could be an imminently buildable lot that would still fall under the provision of subsection (d) as written and allow one to roll back the protection for that area. Mr. Kelly said that he was also troubled by the statement that subsection (d) was needed to satisfy the goal 9 and 10 findings. He did not think it was needed to satisfy goals 9 and 10. He said that the next to the last paragraph on page 45 said: Even supposing the provisions above were not a part of the overlay's regulations, the overlay is being applied to such a small number of acres included in the area's invento- ries of commercial and industrial lands that this ordinance overlay could not diminish the area's supply of those lands below the projected need. He said that he would need a motion for an amendment to remove (d) or rephrase it to really address constitutional taking. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Bjorklund said that there was a one-time adjustment limit per property and that the land-use application would be on file in the City and would go in a data base to which the staff and the public would have access. Ms. Bettman asked if the objectives of the program - to protect water quality in resource area, to protect significant riparian corridors, upland habitat, and to ensure the survival of the area's biologic system - would be met if the council adopted the ordinance. She also asked how success would be measured. Mr. Bjorklund said that staff thought the ordinance would accomplish those objectives. He said that measuring success was a difficult task. He explained that there were many factors affecting resource protection, such as maintenance. He said that this ordinance would not cause areas to be maintained by removing and controlling invasive plant species. He said the City could encourage or provide incentives for restoration, but could not legislate it. He said those kinds of things and others, such as climate change, were completely out of the City's control. He said that in terms of what was within the City's purview regarding Goal 5 regulations, this ordinance did accomplish the objectives. Ms. Bettman said that the answer to how success could be measured or benchmarked was that it could not be measured. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see language that would make sure the roads along the waterway, which would allow the City to maintain the area, were outside the setback area, especially if the roads were paved. She said that she was referring to page 21 of the packet. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see language that would apply the Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone to publicly zoned land. She said that existing uses were grandfathered in, but if the property was sold for housing or for another use, this would be a way to preserve natural resources as it was being conveyed into another use. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to extend the time by 10 minutes. The mo- tion passed unanimously. Mr. Pape commented that he was disturbed there was not enough time to process the new proposals from the staff. He asked if there would be another public hearing before adopting the ordinance. City Manager Taylor said no. Mr. Pape said that he was not ready to proceed with the ordinance on November 14. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 9.2751 on page 13. She requested that language be brought forth that would have the planning director "round up" to the next whole number when calculating the minimum net density required for a specific lot or development site. She said that rounding the number down would mean a decrease in density. Mr. Bjorklund pointed out that was existing code language. Ms. Bettman repeated that she would still like for it to be changed. MINUTES---:-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24,2005 Page 8 Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to direct the City Manager to prepare a revised ordinance for City Council consideration on November 14, 2005. Mr. Kelly said that while he understood Mr. Pape's concerns about the complexity of the issue, he thought that his questions could be answered at the meeting at which action was scheduled, and he would support the motion. Mr. Pape asked how much time would be allocated to the topic on November 14. City Manager Taylor said that it would be the time that it took for the council to dispose of the issue. Mr. Pape asked if consideration of the ordinance could be placed early in the agenda. City Manager Taylor said that it could. He acknowledged it was a complex issue and that it was important to do it properly. He noted, however, that there were virtually no protections in place and that it would be important to move forward with the protections recommended. Mr. Poling said he would not be available for the November 14 meeting. City Manager Taylor said that he thought that all of the requested language changes would be ready and out to the council before the meeting. He said that Mr. Poling could request that the council not consider the ordinance at that meeting if he intended to vote on it. Ms. Solomon said that as well as amendment language, she would like to see a staff response as to what each amendment would mean if it was passed. City Manager Taylor said that draft language, staff analysis, and a recommendation would be provided for every intended motion dealing with the ordinance that had come in advance to the meeting. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Pape voting no. City Manager Taylor encouraged councilors to submit intended motions by October 28 in order to allow for a more elaborate staff response. C. WORK SESSION: Annual Meeting with the Human Rights Commission City Manager Taylor said that after spending time talking about natural resource protection it was time to turn to a discussion of human resource protection. He said he looked forward to the meeting every year and the opportunity to review the annual report and work plan for the Human Rights Commission (HRC). He said that the HRC was a very hard working group which put a lot of important issues before the community, the City, and the City Council. He introduced Greg Rikhoff, Manager of the Human Rights Program, Sarah Rich, outgoing chair of the HRC, and Carmen Urbina, incoming chair. A copy of the Human Rights Program Annual Report and Work Plan was provided to each councilor. Ms. Rich introduced other HRC commissioners who were in attendance: Hugh Massengill, Surendra Subramani, Jer McGowan, and Misa Joo. Ms. Urbina said that the presentation would consist of a review of the past year and a review of the 2005/06 Work Plan. She asked Mr. Massengill to report on the Human Rights Accessibility Committee (HRAC). Mr. Massengill described the HRAC as a very spirited group which worked on accessibility issues. He reported on the following activities of the HRAC: MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 9 · College Hill Reservoir Accessibility - worked in collaboration with the Friendly Area Neighbors to request wheelchair access to the reservoir. EWEB decided to fence off the reservoir. · Held a Disabilities Roundtable in April attended by approximately 25 members of the community · Worked with Lane Transit District (LTD) on issues affecting people with disabilities such as the LTD strike and expanding its half-fare program to include people with disabilities that might not be physic cal in nature. · Met with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) about best practices for working with people with disabilities, the Seniors on Patrol program, and the ordinance pertaining to motor-assisted scooters. · Met with PPD staff to explore ways the HRAC could provide feedback on the accessibility of local construction projects that were assessed by the department. Mr. Massengill listed the following upcoming projects: · Work with City staff and officials to secure steady funding for and install accessible pedestrian signals. Mr. Massengill noted that Eugene had one accessible pedestrian signal. He said that while Eugene was a wonderful City for accessibility, there were still real problems such as crossing a street. He said that having accessible signals throughout the city would help a lot of people. · Meet with City staff on the Public Information Team to discuss issues of accessibility to information that the organization distributes to the community. . Work on recruiting more HRC commissioners. . Work on issues that had emerged since the work plan was approved. He said that issues included advocating for adaptive equipment available at the Huh Center performances, and an assistive listen- ing device in the Sloat Room. Mr. Massengill said that accessibility was sometimes a complaint-driven process and he invited anyone with a concern or problem to contact the HRAC. Mr. Subramani, chair of the Human Rights Education and Outreach Committee (HREO) said that the HREO and the HRC had the mandate to reach out and educate the community on issues of human rights. He said that one of the challenges was to address the issue of minority voices that had been stifled for a long time. He reported on the following activities: . The War Against Memory - an event on February 16,2005, which looked at the relationship between the minimization of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and current discrimi- nation against Muslim and Arab-Americans . Annual International Human Rights Day Celebration in December, 2004 - City Staff Recognition Award given to Helen Towle, Human Resource and Risk Services . Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration - MLK Jr., Leadership Award presented to Henry Luvert . 2005 Barrier Awareness Award presented to Dwight Souers . Study Circles on racism in Eugene in collaboration with the City Club . Contributions to other organizations to bring about awareness through the educational process Mr. McGowan reported from the Human Rights Support System (HRSS) and said that this was the 11 th year of advocacy for the HRSS. He reported on the following activities: . Held a training on April 16, 2005, attended by over 50 people . Developed plans to expand the program to the Bethel and 4J school districts . Updated the ten-year-old video for the Paso a Paso program MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 10 Mr. McGowan reported that the highest number of cases still were in relation to the EPD, with race, ethnicity, and disability cases also being high. Ms. Urbina gave an update on the HRC's commitment to addressing emerging issues. She said that a difficult problem for the HRC was to say "no." She said that people were always bringing issues before the commission with the expectation that the commission would do something about those issues. She repeated that these issues were important and that it was extremely difficult to say "no." Ms. Urbina reported on the following issues which the commission did address: . The Eugene Public Library access issue - brought forth by an HRSS advocate · Racial Profiling/Race Relations - partnered with the City Club for Study Circles on Racism and partnered with the City to provide diversity training for City Councilors · Held a Mental Health and Human Rights Forum on March 26,2005 - future forums were planned . Held a joint meeting with the Police Commission . Worked with Communities United for Better Policing (CUBP) · Participated in and monitored the Complaint Process and Civilian Oversight research done by the Police Commission · Social Security Number Policy Outreach - The HRC was charged with developing and administering the $5,000 contract to coordinate outreach activities in the Latino and Spanish-speaking communities. The HRC selected Centro LatinoAmericano to conduct the project. Commissioners and EPD person- nel visited six area churches and presented information to a total of 1,130 adults. This provided entire families with the opportunity to have one-on-one time with representatives from the EPD, the HRC, and the Police Commission. Ms. Rich reported on the Gender Identity Code revision work which had been ongoing since 2002. She said that the ultimate goal was to add gender identity as a protected class in the City's anti-discrimination ordinance. She said that the process had been an extraordinary learning experience for all involved and that the more that was learned, the more it was apparent that there was much to do before passing the legislation on to the City Council. Ms. Rich said there had been wonderful community input and response. She noted the list of Gender Identity Work Group members on page 14. She thanked those members and the staff for all of their time and research. She said that the work would continue. Ms. Rich began a review ofthe 2005-06 Work Plan. Goal]: Build Community Within the Human Rights Commission that Encourages Accomplishing its Community Work with Integrity Ms. Rich said that the HRC would be concentrating on actively recruiting new members for the HRC and its committees. She said that it was exciting meeting people at different events such as the Asian Celebration, informing them of the HRC and its work, and eventually having some of them become active members and participants in the program. Goal2: Build Community Within City Government that Holds City Organization Accountable on Issues of Social Justice Ms. Urbina said the commissioners were very excited to partner with the City in the development ofthe issues of race and homelessness. She said the HRC could bring the voices that were not usually heard to MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 11 the discussion with the City. She added that the HRC was honored to be working with the City Council on this issue. Ms. Urbina said the HRC would continue to work with executive managers and City departments on human rights issues and would continue to work to add gender identity as a protected class to the City anti-discrimination code. Goal3: Work With Police Department and Community Members to Promote Equitable, Respectful Treatment by the Police of All People in Eugene, Particularly Vulnerable Populations Ms. Rich said that the HRC would monitor current and proposed police oversight systems. She acknowl- edged the Police Commission and its collaborative work with the HRC to create a safe community where people felt that they could come to a group that would listen. Goal 4: Respond to Discrimination, Harassment, and Incidents of Inequity Ms. Urbina said that this goal was where the HRC would react to emerging issues as necessary and where the Advocate Response Team (ART) played such an important role. She said that for example, at the Mental Health Forum, there was a great deal of testimony about unsatisfactory encounters with the EPD from people who had mental health issues. She said that a great collaborative project that could come from this forum would be training for police officers to teach skills on dealing with people who have mental health disabilities. Ms. Urbina said that the HRC was very successful and, due to that success, issues continued to be brought to the commission. She said that all of the commissioners took their position very seriously, but there would be a time when the commission would have to say "no" to someone because of limited resources. Goal 5: Encourage and Promote Community Awareness and Collaboration on Critical Human Rights Issues Ms. Rich pointed out that the commission had many allies and worked very well with other human rights organizations and groups. She noted the recent collaboration with City Club on the Study Circles. Ms. Urbina said that over 200 people signed up to participate in the Study Circles. · Ms. Rich acknowledged and thanked the following people: Mayor Piercy; the Eugene City Council, especially David Kelly for serving as the liaison to the commission; City Manager Dennis Taylor; Assistant Manager Jim Carlson, especially for his guidance in securing one-time funding for program brochures in Spanish; Sergeant Jennifer Bills and Cindy Coleman for working with the HRSS advocates on police cases; Captain Chuck Tilby, Lieutenant Pete Kerns, and Chief Bob Lehner for their assistance in informing community members about the department's new social security number policy; Lieutenant Carolyn McDermed and Helen Towle for serving as department liaisons to the commission; the Eugene Police Commission for including the HRC in so many parts of their work on police oversight recommendations; staff members Sue Hamley (LRCS, Adaptive Recreation), Linda Dawson (PDD), Ned Nebata (Facilities) for regular participation with the HRAC; the Minutes Recording staff for keeping accurate records; Mary Walston, Division Manager of the City Manager's Office, for continued support of the Human Rights Program staff and commission; HRC staff Matt Beecher, who was no longer with the program; HRC staff Greg Rikhoff, Francisca Leyva-Johnson, and Karen Hyatt; and HRC volunteer James Dean. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 12 Ms. Rich asked for questions or comments from the council. Ms. Ortiz thanked the HRC commissioners for their presentation. She said that human rights work was very important to her and she was glad to see that the commissioners who had come after her had the same passion and commitment to the work as she did. She said if there was any way to increase staffing to the program, she would love to do it. Mr. Kelly said that it had been an honor and privilege to work with the commissioners. He said the commissioners and the HRC staff were an extraordinary group of people. He echoed Ms. Ortiz's thought about resources. He reminded the council that the HRC staff was down a person from what it was a couple of years ago. He said he thought that the council should look in the next fiscal year's budget to at least restore the previous status quo. Mr. Kelly pointed out that when the council adopted the HRC work plan, it was adopting some responsi- bility for itself. He said that the work program called for joint work sessions between the council and the HRC on the issues of race and homelessness. He said he hoped that the commission would be involved in an early stage of the discussion as well as later on. Mr. Kelly said he had been very disturbed about the issues of library access that had been raised. He said part of what disturbed him was the seemingly "glacial" pace at which they were being addressed. He hoped that the pace would accelerate. Mr. Kelly asked for a status memorandum from the HRC staff to bring the councilors up-to-date on the library issue. Mr. Kelly thanked the commission again for its very hard work and for being the conscience of the community. Mr. Pape echoed the compliments from other councilors to the HRC. He said he appreciated his service on the commission and thought he gained a lot from it. He said that on the Sister-City trip, he noticed in both Japan and Korea that the sidewalks were built with accessible features for people with sight impairments. Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to approve the Human Rights Commission Goals and Work Plan for fiscal year 2006. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Piercy said she was impressed with the work of the commission. She noted that she ran into commissioners everywhere she went. She said the commissioners were very much noticed and appreci- ated. She said she would look forward to working with the commission on racism and homelessness and she encouraged the commissioners to keep in contact with the council on an on-going basis. Mayor Piercy acknowledged how difficult the gender identity work had been. She said she admired the steadfastness of the commission to figure out the way to be successful in this goal. She gave the HRC kudos for that and acknowledged that the HRC took on some of the most difficult issues in the community with great courage. Mayor Piercy thanked the commissioners again and said that their work was greatly valued. The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.rn. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 13 Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Elise Self) cc051024ml.doc MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 24, 2005 Page 14