Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Coucnil Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: November 28, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 2A 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 October 12, 2005, Work Session, and October 19, 2005, Workshop. ATTACHMENTS A.October 12, 2005, Work Session B.October 19, 2005, Workshop 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\M051128\S0511282A.doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Roolll-m--Eugene City Hall October 12,2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pape. In the absence of the Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy, Council President George Poling called the October 12,2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: ORDINANCE CONCERNING CHAMBERS SP}~CIAL AREA ZONE Senior Planner Allen Lowe of the Planning Division provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Chambers Reconsidered," which summarized the Chambers Reconsidered Project a project to imple- ment the mixed-use concept in the neighborhood. He shared a series of aerial photographs to demonstrate the boundaries of the study area and changes in the area over time, including examples of higher density infill developments that occurred and created neighborhood resistance to such developments. Mr. Lowe reviewed the history of the project, noting it began in fall 2004 with an exploration of issues and values. Participants identified variables that could be manipulated to influence neighborhood character. The process resulted in development standards intended to ensure a higher degree of compati- bility with existing development. Mr. Lowe shared slides showing the area impacted by the draft zoning code, noting not all parts of the neighborhood would be atlected by the new standards. He pointed out the area known as the East Traditional Neighborhood (ETN), the area of most concern to the members of the Chambers Area Fan1ilies for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN). The development standards would be applied to the ETN. Mr. Lowe said the aim of the project was to allow an existing developed neighborhood to intensify while preserving its essential character. Defining characteristics of the neighborhood included the grid street system, alleys, and the patterns of the sidewalks, as well as the lot sizes, building forms, and relationship of the buildings to the street. The draft code was structured around those characteristics. Mr. Lowe said as the process went on, participants realized the allowed levels of density in the R~2 zone predisposed the area to wholesale redevelopment as opposed to selective infill. Much of the study area was designated for medium-density development, which also encouraged higher densities and attached multi-family dwellings. However, the neighborhood current consistt.>d largely of detached dwellings. Mr. Lowe said the process considered building form, lot area, width, and depth, density, building height, and side yard setbacks. He said process also considered neighborhood character, such as front yard setback, MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 12, 2005 Page 1 roof pitch, street fa9ade, entry location, garage door width and height, driveway width and location, and factors related to the character of alleys. ML Lowe said the project engaged participants in a central policy issue; that of the transition of a neighborhood from one thing to another thing. At what density levels was a neighborhood, defined in part by its existing single~fami1y detached housing patterns, transfornled into a neighborhood in which multi- family attached housing dominated? The project was about how to implement Growth Management Study (GMS) Policy 6, which states that the City shall increase the density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. ML Lowe pointed out the R~2 zone allowed up to 28 units per acre. The density standard proposed tor the R-2 zoned area was 15 units per acre, which was detemlined to be compatible with the existing neighborhood as it constituted the carrying capacity for a primarily detached housing model in this specific twelve-block area. Mr. Lowe reviewed the proposed density standard, which was one unit 011 lots less than or equal to 4,500 square feet, two units 011 lots between 4,500 and 9,200 square feet, and three units on lots greater than 9,200 square feet. He shared examples of the effects of those limits. He also noted the standards related to side yard setback, height, front yard setback, garages and driveways, alley front yards, and alley open spaces, and shared examples of the impacts of those standards. Mr. Lowe briefly noted compatibility standards regarding height and fa~ade as they related to commercial development. He called attention to proposed intersection improve.me.'nts and said information about them was contained in the meeting packet. Mr. Lowe said the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the proposed code amendments and transportation improvements. Mr. Poling solicited comments and questions from the council. Ms. Taylor congratulated the residents of the neighborhood for the excellent job they did ill developing the standards. She hoped the standards could be applied to other areas of the community. She asked if parking in a front yard was currently permitted. Mr. Lowe said front-yard parking was 110t only allowed, but permitted. Most contemporary residential structures have their parking in driveways located in the front yard. Ms. Taylor asked if an entire front yard could be converted to concrete. Mr. Lowe was unaware of any prohibition to that. Ms. Taylor suggested the council should address that issue. ML Kelly expressed appreciation for the neighborhood involvement in the project and said he was impressed with the thoroughness of the effort. He also thanked staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly said he was considering the citywide implications of the project. He suggested the standards could be considered as a precedent for other neighborhoods by some residents. Mr. Kelly asked if the development standards, in the absence of a simultaneous opportunity siting study and some density allocation for the neighborhood, represented "half a loaf" He noted the Planning Commission's split vote on the issue because of two commissioners' interest ill some opportunity siting to determine where density could go. Mr. Lowe said he would, in general, agree it would be half a loaf, but in this case he did not agree. The City had identified opportunity siting in a previous planning project in 1999 and accommo- dated the reduction in density for the R-2 zone. He said that the matter was contextual, and he thought opportunity siting should be done with in conjunction with any reduction in 7'oning or anticipated density. Mr. Kelly noted his long-time support for neighborhood refmement plans. He said the proposal before the MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 12, 2005 Page 2 council seemed very different from a refinement plan. He could think of no plan other the Whiteaker Plan that rese-'lubled the proposal. He questioned whether the City was more or less likely to achieve its GMS policies related to mixed-use development if this process and outcome repeated itself for other neighbor- hoods. Mr. Lowe did not know ifhe could make a blanket statement about the issue or draw any conclusions. He noted the policy issues raised by staff in May 2005. Staff still believed those issues needed to be addressed to implement the GMS policies related to maintenance of the existing character of neighborhoods. He said the community had expressed its intention, through the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), to change the character of the neighborhood from one thing to another. That was where the con1lict arose, and where the big policy questions lie. Ms. Bettman said she also wondered whether the staff and neighborhood addressed the issue of opportu- nity siting. She recalled that in 1999, a group comprised of representatives of the Friends of Eugene, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood Leaders Council, and the Lane County Homebuilders Association worked to redesign the Chambers Node and recommended downzoning on the residential sites and recommended that density be achieved by using underused industrial sites to create mixed-use development that included housing. She hoped neighborhood representatives would speak to that issue during the public hearing. Ms. Bettman would have liked to have seen the process culminate in the identification of opportunities to create that density. Ms. BettlTh'tn noted the analysis resulted in an inventory of what was available in the neighborhood, which was also known as asset mapping. That generally preceded opportunity siting. Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of the potential application of the standards citywide, saying the process went well for this neighborhood but other neighborhoods might be at a disadvantage due to the expertise that had been available to the neighborhood and its ability to participate. She was concerned about making the project a prototype. She sugge..<;ted that in the future, there would be pressure on the City to provide more education and tools to neighborhoods to allow them to participate at an equal level. Ms. BeHman asked about the Ballot Measure 37 implications of the project. Mr. Lowe said staff did not do a fair market analysis so he could not answer the question. City Attorney Emily Jerome agreed. She said she perceived nothing in the proposal that implied a BaUot Measure 37 claim. She said she had not reviewed the proposal to see if anything in it added value to a property. Ms. Bettman asked how staff fl)resaw the issue of commercial development being addressed. Mr. Lowe reminded the council that the process was very much citizen~driven. Staffhad gone to the neighborhood with the visual preference survey to elicit specific concerns about compatibility. Almost all the issues raised by area residents related to infiH and redevelopment in the R-2 zone. Residents offered very little comment 011 the issue of commercial development. For that reason, there were limited provisions related to commercial development in the proposal. They were generally related to compatibility issues raised by the neighbors. Many other issues had been len on the table, and there were no further plans to address them at this time. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of comments and questions. M1'. Kelly noted that much national research indicated the problem with density was its appearance. He asked if staff believed a design review approach was preferable to a process quantified by hard numbers. Mr. Lowe said a design review approach could be useful. He noted that a consultant reconunended a design review process, but that recommendation was not brought forward by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly asked the council to consider further discussion on the topic of a design review process with the MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 12,2005 Page 3 potential for general application across the community. Mr. Kelly said if the project was implemented at the same time as an opportunity siting study, the City might find opportunities to signitlcantly increase density across the area. Because that had not occurred, he was nervous about the very major changes being proposed. My. Lowe said the scale of the develop- ment and the fact it worked over a twelve-block area reduced staiT's nervousness about the impacts of the proposal. If the area was larger, staff would be more concerned. Mr. Kelly reiterated his concern that the project would be a model for other neighborhoods. Ms. BeUman suggested the density that was identified for the area originally was not necessarily in the best interests of the neighborhood or the city. She said the City needed to be careful about how redevel- opment occurred in urban core neighborhoods or residents would begin to leave them for areas outside the urban growth boundary. She thought what was being proposed was modest with regard to preserving the livability of the neighborhood and stabilizing its population. She looked forward to the next step, opportunity siting. Referring to Section 9.3065(2)(a)(3), which stipulated that the original lot prior to creation of a nag lot was not subject to the minimum R-llot size, Ms. BeUman asked if that meant the primary lot could be any size at all. City Planner Gabe Flock clarified that the section removed an existing code standard that called for the original lot to have a minimum size of 13,000 square feet prior to the land division. The minimum lot size for single dwellings and attached secondary dwellings would be 4,500 square feet. Ms. Bettman confirmed with staflthat the original lot must be at least 9,000 square feet. She did not think that was clear in the text she reviewed. Responding to a question from Ms. BeUman, Mr. Lowe said that the definition of open space could be found ill the code. Ms. Bettman suggested that open space could take the fonn of concrete. Mr. Lowe said the CAFHN thought the definition of open space in the code to he misleading and it was a major issue in the process. Mr. Nystrom said that open space could be something other than lawn, like hardscape. 111ere were dimensional requirements to ensure the space was usable. Ms. Bettman indicated that was an issue for her. Ms. Taylor believed the project served to protect an established neighborhood and assisted with another council goal, that of encouraging people to live in the central part of the city. Mr. Poling solicited a third round of questions and comments. Mr. Kelly agreed about the need to protect established neighborhoods, but he did not think that meant there would be no change in those neighborhoods. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that the existing density in the neighborhood might not be appropriate, but he questioned how the council could address the neighborhood's specific issues while keeping in mind the citywide implications of the project. Mr. Kelly noted Mr. Lowe's request to the Planning Commission, reflected in the minutes of September 26, to refrain from establishing the project as a pattern for other neighborhoods without considering what was really broken~ which was the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. He asked how an examination of those districts could be made to occur soon, and questioned the relationship of that exercise to opportunity siting. Mr. Lowe said staff was anxious to address those elements of the code it believed were structurally uru;ound, but it was a work load issue. Ms. Muir said that the issue was also tied to the minor land use code amendments. She suggested the council could reprioritize the work plan to address the issue. Mr. Kelly reiterated he was nervous about moving forward aggressively to deal with smaller areas such as MINUTES~Eugene City Council Work Session October 12, 2005 Page 4 the neighborhood in question until the council had addressed the same issues citvwide. . . . Mr. Kelly expressed enthusiasm ft)r the design standards and suggested they would be appropriate for most other older Eugene neighborhoods. Mr. Lowe said the standards were crafted specit1cally by the residents for the neighborhood in question and might or might not work other places. He believed that the code could be written in a way that allowed the standards to be applied on a neighborhood basis, but it was a considerable work item and there was an immense amount of work that had been done by the neighbors that made the standards possible. To the extent other neighborhoods could do the necessary work, staff could structure follow-up projects to accommodate that effort. He shared Ms. Bettman's concern that other neighborhoods would lack the expertise needed for such an effort. Ms. Muir added that staff had learned some lessons from the process and believed one-size fits all approaches did not work. She said that working with the residents and asking specific questions of them had been very important. She emphasized the importance of buy in and participation from the residents. Ms. Bettman did not think the design standards were at all stringent and considered them a compromise in many cases that would still result in increased density. She spoke to the issue of the division's work load, recalling a pa.<;t presentation from Peter Wilcox describing a Portland model that involved a high level of neighborhood participation and which resulted in booklet of voluntary standards for new development. Developers realized that if they built to the standards,. they eliminated neighborhood resistance. She said that Portland eventually incorporated some of the standards into its code. She suggested a similar approach could be used in Eugene if the right people could be found to participate. Ms. Beltman asked about the definition of "vehicle use area." Mr. Lowe said it was generally used to refer to a paved area used by automobiles. Ms. Bettman asked if paved open space areas could be used for vehicle parking. Mr. Flock did not think so. Ms. Bettman requested additional information prior to the public hearing about maximum paved areas. Ms. Bettman reminded the council that the process was predicated on the State's requirement to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) within a certain period, leading to the mix<..>d-use approach. The neighbor- hood in question contained one of the mixed-use centers. She perceived the task as being only partly done if the City had addressed only the residential development issues in the area. She asked if the council needed to pass a motion to direct staff to engage the residents in a discussion of commercial issues and to do an opportunity siting study. Mr. Lowe said that would be useful as staff had no direction or funding to proceed. Ms. Muir suggested that the council could discuss the issue during its review of the Planning Division's work plan. Ms. Bettman was concerned about the tinung of that process, which did not occur until mid-year. Mr. Poling called for a fourth round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly said the lot aggregation prohibition prevented the combining oftwo or more lots into a single lot. He asked the impact of that, as it seemed dramatic to him, and suggested that such a prohibition assumed the current lot layout was ideal. Mr. Lowe said the prohibition was in recognition that the existing lot layout was part of the character of the neighborhood that the City was trying to be maintained. He thought the effect would be developer inflexibility, and it would tend to lock in the pattern of development that existed in the neighborhood now. Mr. Kelly suggested one way to accomplish increa.<;ed density was through row housing. He asked if the project made row housing at an appropriate density more ditllcult. Mr. Lowe said yes, reminding Mr. Kelly that the proposal was predicated on the maintenance of the existing detached housing in the MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 12, 2005 Page 5 neighborhood and was intended to limit apartment units, row houses, and other attached units. Mr. Kelly asked why there were development standards for some R-2 areas of the neighborhood but not for others. Mr. Lowe said the R-2 areas being affected had a cohesive character that other R-2 areas did not. Mr. Kelly asked if residents outside the affected area raised an objection to not having the standards. Mr. Lowe said no. Mr. Kelly asked if there was a change in the base zoning for any parcels in the affected area. Mr. Lowe said no. Mr. Kelly asked how and when the transportation improvement.,> get funded and constructed. Mr. Lowe said he would have to return to the council with that information. Ms. Bettman suggested that there were areas in the node ripe for redevelopment where row houses would be appropriate. She thought that would be indicated by an opportunity siting study. Tn regard to the issue of whether the plan for the mixed-use center was done, she did not think so. She did not want to lose the momentum created by the efforts of the neighbors. Mr. Lowe noted that the mixed-use center at this location was one of 38 areas with identified mixed-use potential. City statT had gone to the neighborhood three times attempting to work out the issues that existed to implement a plan for the mixed-use center. That etlort was blocked by the neighborhood's opposition to infiU redevelopment. The project attempted to remove the barrier of neighborhood opposition to new development by instituting standards to ensure compatible development. He believed that the City could move forward with other ideas that arose in the 1999 plan and address those. Ms. Muir said that staff heard the message being conveyed, and would attempt to scope the effort for further work prior to the public hearing scheduled on November 14. Ms. Taylor thought the project was one step toward a successful mixed-use area and the council should not lose the work that was before it. Other work could be done later. Mr. Poling thanked area residents, the Planning Commission, and staff for their work on the project. B. WORK SESSION: Minor Land Use Code Amendments The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Director Susan Muir and Senior Planner Steve Nystrom. City Manager Taylor noted that the recommendations before the council had been reviewed and forwarded by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nystrom said that the amendments before the council constituted the first of two phases of amend- ments the council would see. He termed the amendments "minor fixes" of the code. A public hearing was scheduled for October 24, with deliberation to follow in November. He recalled that in the Land Use Code Update process it was recognized that the code was not a static document and over time revisions would be made to the document as issues arose and opportunities for efficiencies were found. Mr. Nystrom said that staff had been tracking issues that arose over time and found most were fairly minor in nature. Those that were more significant were not being considered today but would be addressed in Phase 2 of the process, in addition to issues raised by the general public. Mr. Nystrom said the present phase of the project was centered on gaps in the code and all1biguous and/or conflicting code language and not on major policy concerns. He acknowledged that was somewhat subjective, and for that reason staff worked with the Planning Commission to identify those amendments the commission believed were minor in nature. That resulted in some amendments being dropped from MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session October 12, 2005 Page 6 consideration. Staff was present to ask the council to do a similar review in regard to the scope of the proposed amendments. Mr. Nystrom called the council's attention to a synopsis of the amendments. Mr. Poling called for a first round of comments and questions. Ms. Taylor did not think the code amendments represented housekeeping and did not think the council had adequate time for review of the amendments. She referred to item 8 and asked why staff proposed to allow R V sales in a C-2 zone as a permitted use. Mr. Nystrom said that currently, such uses required a conditional use permit (CUP). All other auto-related uses such as auto sales, motorcycle sales, and gasoline stations were uses permitted outright. StaffbeHeved that treating auto-related uses similarly made sense. In addition, an RV use had recently gone through the CtJP process, and staff found it was a difficult process to match to the request. Ms. Taylor suggested that all auto-related uses should require a CUP. Ms. Taylor referred to item 25 and asked why staff recommended that special standards for duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes would apply to R-l zones. Mr. Nystrom noted that the section had been in place for many years prior to the Land Use Code Update. It was an opportunity to allow for a mixture of housing types in R-l neighborhoods in larger projects. The uses were already outright uses in the other residential zones, assuming one could meet density requirements and other standards. The amendment attempted to make it clear that the code section addressed R-l zoning and that a developer could use the lot for a single-family house. Ms. Taylor referred to item 26 and asked why staff proposed to eliminate the screening for flag lots. Mr. Nystrom recalled that amendments adopted through the Land Use Code Update eliminated the require- ment, which remained in the purpose statement, had no effect, and could be confusing to the reader. Ms. Taylor thought the City should have such a screening requirement. Ms. Taylor referred to item 61 and averred it was not a good idea to allow a landscape architect rather than an arborist to provide a tree report. Mr. Nystrom suggested that the issue was situational depending on the project in question. Staff was attempting to allow some flexibility. Staff would still encourage arborists to be involved in complex projects in the south hills, for example. Ms. Taylor recalled that the Lane County Home Builders supported the change, and she did not think it was a good idea. Ms. Taylor referred to item 68 and asked why the City would require reports for transportation demand management (TDM) plans that requested adjustments to maximum parking requirements. Mr. Nystrom said that the section gave the City more authority to require such reports. He clarified that there were two adjustments a developer could seek, one f()r minimum parking and one for maximum parking. There was no requirement for an annual report to allow the City to track the exceptions. Also referring to item 61, Mr. Kelly said he liked how stafJinterpreted the section said, but he did not think it was retlected in the code language. He would prefer it if staff was specific about ,>vhat projects required an arborist. Mr. Kelly noted that the council processed at least two packages of minor code amendments following the adoption of the Land Use Code. MINUTES-----Eugene City Council Work Session October 12, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Kelly requested a copy ofthe minutes where the Planning Commission adopted the recommendations before the council for inclusion in the October 24 meeting packet. Mr. Kelly referred to item 32, which would add a provision to the code clarifying the prohibition on home occupations in flag lots, and suggested that for the purpose of encouraging compact urban development and minimizing vehicle miles traveled, the City should be doing everything it could to encourage low- impact home occupations. Ms. Bettman said the code needed to be written in a manner that allowed people to understand the impact of the code section on their property or neighborhood. She suggested that statf look to the rationale it developed for each code anlendment, which was generally in clear language, as a model. Ms. Bettman believed that the council was being asked to roll back some of the changes it adopted through the Land Use Code Update, and people did not understand the implications of what was being proposed. She said that needed to be fixed. Ms. Bettman said the purpose of the code was to create predictability and regulate uses and buildings in a way that protected public health and safety. The City also needed to implement certain local and State policies related to transp0l1ation goals and to create an environment that was cost-effective and efficient for service delivery. She perceived some of the changes as being minor but believed others constituted a slow erosion of the built environment. It seemed like the staff objective was to streamline the process, and make it easier and more pem1issive. While it was important that developers had easy-to-understand, reasonable code provisions, the element of the code related to the protection of people and neighborhoods, preservation of the existing character of the city, and the provision of cost-effective services was lost. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly spoke to the second phase, noting the time line for that process had slipped, and requesting an . update on the time line. Mr. Nystrom said staff proposed to kick-start that second phase as soon as the present phase was completed. Staff had been working with the Planning Commission on the public outreach element of that phase and preliminary planning for the process. He anticipated that staff would update the council following its work with the comlnission. Mr. Kelly asked when the public would be able to provide suggestions for changes. Mr. Nystrom anticipated that would occur around January 2006. Ms. Bettman noted her concem that items 24 (clarify that an exception to maximum lot size can be granted to protect natural resource) and 29 (eliminate requirement for site review for wetland restoration approved by the mitigation bank within the \WB and \WP overlay zones) were not minor in nature. She asked if the exception to the maximum lot size could be spurred by, for example, an expressed desire to preserve a tree that could be removed later. She said that it appeared the provision could decrease density in an expensive residential neighborhood. Item 29 appeared to defer decision-making about uses in the natural resource zones to the National Environmental Policy Act. Ms. Taylor referred to item 73 and asked why staff proposed to eliminate the requirement that a PUD design team must include a men1ber of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Mr. Nystrom said the AICP certification was not a requirement for planning professionals. He said staff questioned what value the requirement brought to the team. He suggested the council consider how many require- ments needed to be in code ~IS opposed to included in the submittal requirements, and the effectiveness of the requirement. He said staff had not found the requirement to be an effective tool in "raising the bar" for competence among members of a development team. MINUTE~Eugene City Council Work Session October 12,2005 Page 8 Ms. Muir observed that the City had two AICP planners on statT and she was one of them. She said the quality of Eugene's statfwas nonetheless high. She did not think AICP membership guaranteed a better project or proposal. Ms. Taylor was concerned because she believed staff rushed applications to approval, and the expertise of an AICP member could be valuable in slowing down the process. Ms. Taylor referred to item 80, which would revise the code to clarify that consent to a public utility easement was only required from those directly adjacent to the easement. She thought those not directly adjacent to the easement could also be affected. Mr. Nystrom said that an individual wishing to vacate a public utility easement must seek consent from anyone with direct access to or could benefit from the easement. The current code lan!,ruage required someone living on the other side of the property adjacent to the property in question to grant consent, even if they have no interest in the easement. The proposed code language gave such property owners notice and the ability to comment, but staff questioned if it made sense to ask them for consent when they were not served by or benefited from the easement. Mr. Poling recognized Ms. Bettman ft)r a motion. Ms. Beitman recalled that the council adopted a motion directing staff to retum with a proposal that allowed the City to capture the value from any City action, such as a rezoning, that added value to a property. That money would go to a fund that allowed the City to acquire property as opposed to waiving regulations in the case of a Ballot Measure 37 claim. She said the council had yet to address the subject, which she considered an overarching issue that affected the entire city, while in the meanwhile it processed such things as the minor code amendments. She thought the City was putting the cart before the horse in many ways. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to postpone coun. cil action on code, zoning, and land use changes that would likely result in increased property value, until such time that the council has considered an ordinance that enables the City to recover a portion of the increase in value bestowed on property benefiting from such action. The recaptured value will be dedicated to a fund for the sole purpose of compensating property owners with a valid Ballot Measure 37 claim in lieu ofwaiving regulations, and for acquisition of high value/priority prope11ies in lieu of waivers due to valid Ballot Measure 37 claims. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Ms. Muir said that the conncil would consider at least three and possibly four land use issues before it held a work session on the proposed compensation fund. Those included the Parks and Open Space Plan, the Chambers Reconsidered Project, Goal 5, and the minor code amendments. Mr. Pryor was reluctant to postpone the operations of the City while the council considered the compensation tl.ll1d. He did not think the City would be doing the job its citizens expected it to do. He did not oppose the concept but was opposed to stopping all work on other land use issues. Mr. Kelly had the opposite point ofvicw. He believed the motion was a goad to the City ft)!" further action rather than a halt to its work. He recalled that the council gave staff unanimous direction to stan'to develop the ordinance in question. He suggested that part of citizens' expectations included their expectation that the City would be able to do land use planning. He thought that, given the impact of BaUot Measure 37 on the City's ability to do so, the council should address it first. He pointed out that the motion merely called on the council to consider the ordinance; it might find out that tor practical reasons the ordinance could not be adopted. MINUTES~Eugene City Conncil Work Session October 12,2005 Page 9 Ms. Hettman said that the City could spend a lot of money on the Planning Division but it could not enact many regulations in a Ballot Measure 37 environment. She said the passage of the measure gave rise to the question of whether the division was needed at all. She said the motion did not stop work on other issues, but brought work on the ordinance to the forefront so the council could know if it had the compensation fund available as a tool when it moved fonvard with such things as natural resource protections. Ms. Bettman thought the issue needed to be addressed right away. If a person decided two months from now he wanted to upzone a property, such an action would have to wait until the council made a decision on the ordinance, because that was a way in which the City increased the value of a property. She said she was not saying "give us all that money back," but rather saying the City needed to "recapture" a certain amount of the increased value to onset the damage done by the voters' passage of Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Solomon did not disagree with what Ms. Bettman was saying but did disagree with holding the rest of the council's agenda hostage to a single ordinance. She did not supP0l1 the motion. Mr. Poling asked about the timeline tor enacting such an ordinance. City Manager Taylor indicated a work session was schedul{.>{{ for January 2006. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He interpreted the motion as putting everything land- use related on hold. He said that residents were trying to conduct their llOmlullives on a daily basis, and the council would telling residents '''time out" on everything related to land use actions. He did not think that was fair to the residents. He also pointed out the motion passed by the council in June directed staff to develop an ordinance, and that was already happening. There was no guarantee of the ordinance's passage. Ms. Bettman believed her motion was being mischaracterized. She reiterated that the motion did not stop everything. The motion was very specific to situations in which up7'ouing or the removal of regulations would increase a property's values. That would not stop those situations, merely postpone them. The motion elevated the priority of an ordinance establishing a compensation fund so the council had the money to pay claims rather than waive regulations. The motion "lit a fire" under staff to ensure the ordinance came fonvard soon. It was stilt up to the council to pass such an ordinance. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the meeting for three minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Speaking to Mr. Poling's comments about residents trying to conducting their normal lives, Mr. Kelly asserted that part of people's daily lives was having a sense they were living in a community that was planning and preserving important aspects of the community. For example, the CAFIIN representatives wanted assurance of what their neighborhood would look like in the future. He pointed out that some of the provisions in the Chambers Reconsidered Project could have the effect of increasing property values, and the ordinance would present an opportunity for the City to realize some revenue in order to continue to help other neighborhoods preserve their daily lives. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the comments made by other councilors, but still opposed the motion. He said that the motion was not focused on the potential liability of Ballot Measure 37, but on how to find a revenue source to address Ballot Measure 37 claims. He believed it was difficult to know whether the parks plan and the Goal 5 inventory would improve property values but the motion would halt those efforts. He believed those were major efforts that should not be postponed. MINLrrES~Eugene City Council Work Session October 12, 2005 Page lO Ms. Ortiz supported the motion because she felt the council needed to address the issue of a compensation fund before it completed work on the other issues cited by staff. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor voting no. 111e meeting adjoumed at 1 :30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES-Eugene City Council Wark Session October 12,2005 Page 11 ATTACHMENTB lVIINUTES Eugene City Council Workshop Conference Root11:--Fire Station #1 1320 Willamette Street October 19, 2005 Noon COUNCU,ORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Gary Pape. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the City Council Workshop. A. WORKSHOP: City Hall Complex Strategic Issues Jonah Hardy, architect for TI10mas Hacker Architects, Incorporated, explained that the workshop was intended to explore strategic issues. He noted that he met individually with councilors and observed many similarities in the approaches councilors wished to take to the City Hall Complex issue. He hoped to present the council with a draft proposal at a later date but no vote was expected at the current session. He underscored that the workshop would be the hasis for the proposaL He introduced the project team: · Thomas Hacker, project designer . Dana Crawford, project manager . Gary Moye, local associate architect . Doug Macey, landscape architect . K.c. Cooper, public process coordinator . Ellen Kennedy, local liaison for the process Mr. Hacker shared his excitement about the project. He called it a significant project for the City of Eugene as City Hall represented the grassroots of democracy. He hoped to create a City Hall that lived up to the unique character of Eugene. He reviewed comparable projects undertaken by Thomas Hacker Architects, Inc. in Beaverton, Ashland, and on the Columbia Gorge. He noted that approximately half of his firm's work was in restoration and renovation. Mr. Kelly wanted to be sure that the consultant team had been put together for the scoping process. He averred thatthere had been no indication to date that there would be construction at this point. City Manager Taylor atIirmed that this was correct. Mr. Hardy noted that there were eight other consultants on the team including six from the City of Eugene. Continuing, he explained that the master plan process was slated to occur in three phases: 1) policy advisement and development (the current phase) .... 2006; 2) implementation - 2007; and 3) designing and construction - 2008. MINUTES~Eugene City Council Workshop October 19,2005 Page 1 Ms. Kemledy acted as facilitator for the council discussion. She stressed the importance of being succinct. She listed the project values, a..<; thllows: · the project demonstrate fiscal responsibility; · the project should produce govemment efficiency; · the resulting building should be user-friendly; . the project should embody environmental stewardship; . the project should enhance the downtown area; . the project should inspire civic pride. Ms. Kennedy recommended that these values be shared in the public process in order to find out what they meant to members of the community. She asked the council if it would support engaging the public in a discussion of these values and, if so, if the councilors thought these were the appropriate values. Ms. Solomon responded that the values captured what she had been trying to get at. She supported them. She felt encouraging community members to talk about the values would help them move to the next level in the process. Mr. Pape opined that the fifth and sixth items seemed to move beyond values and into the territory of subjective stylistic judgments. Ms. Kennedy said' values' was a "squishy" word. She underscored that the list came from the important aspects the councilors expressed and wanted to accomplish. Mr. Pryor agreed that the values "got at" what the council sought to accomplish. He felt that the list would work for both the gent-'fal public and the technical public. Mr. Kelly liked the list. He felt it was a little broad, however. Regarding public involvement, he expressed concern that the council would be asking citizens to weigh in on something it could not deliver. He suggested the council adopt the values in some way and then go to the public to flesh the list out. Mr. Pryor said the list was what the council thought was important but there should be a "back door" in the community in the case of a sentiment that was strongly and widely felt, so that it would be heard by the counciL He proposed that the council solicit additional value input but not imply to the public that the list was not made up of key and important vales. Ms. BeHman wanted more clarity in the values. She averred they were too broad and that anything in the community would fit into them. Mr. Kelly remarked that the council would hear about it if anything in the list evoked a strong and fundamental reaction in the community. He reiterated his feeling that the council needed to approve the values in a motion in order to move forward. Mayor Piercy commented that whatever project the City undertook would embody the project values. She noted that there was a difference in values in the process versus values in the project. She wanted everyone to be certain that the resulting project came from the engagement of the puhlic. Mr. Pryor observed that the council was talking about what could be the values for the project versus what will be the value of the project. He thought the council would be "telegraphing" to the community that MINUTES~Eugene City Council Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 2 this list would be the values for the project. Ms. Kennedy asked if the cOlfficil wished to make the list more finn. Ms. Bettman surmised that it would be reasonable at this point not to do so. Ms. Taylor indicated her wish to wait 011 this action. Ms. Kelmedy observed that the council already indicated a commitment to explore the options. City Manager Taylor reiterated that staff and the consultant team hoped to come away from the workshop with a notion of the "leanings" of the council. He said the workshop would be the hasis for a summary document. Mr. Pape said while he did not espouse expansion of city government, it was noteworthy that the City had built the City Hall building 40 years ago and now, in 2005, the amount of space was very inadequate for the govenunent's needs. Ms. Ketmedy stated that the process of decision-making also had to reflect some of the values. She related that the team had been studying values.based decisions. She said, in addition to architectuntl considerations, there was a growing movement in sustainability. However, she pointed out that it cost substantially more to build a "green" building. She stressed the importance of t1eshing out all ideas, even those that were not one's own. Mr. Hardy reviewed the Matrix of Leanings. He underscored that councilors unanimously supported the incorporation of meaningful sustainable design goals. He stated that depending on the level of sustainabil. ity in the construction it could add between two and six percent in costs. In response to a question from Mr. Pape, Mr. Hardy said one could not answer specific questions regarding how expenses would be recouped over time until specific ideas were implemented. Ms. Bettman asked how the council would determine its "leanings." She pointed out that councilors had been polled separately and had not had a chance to discuss these items. Mr. Poling averred that the cOlmcil should find where its differences lay. Mr. Hardy moved on to the topic of the planning horizon. He recommended thinking of the huilding as a 1 OO~year building. He added that there was a minority opinion relating to the philosophy of no growth. He agreed that one approach would be to not increase staff and work load incrementally with the population. Mr. Hardy related that most agreed that there needed to be some room for growth. He said it should be considered whether the expansion would be vertical or horizontal. He pointed out that vertical expansion could cause trouble because it was difficult to consider space needs in advance and that horizontal expansion presented challenges in that the availability of land tended to change. He noted that the average of the councilors' views was a 28~year planning horizon. He stressed that the tirst step would be to conduct a space needs study. Mr. Pare asked what the industry norms were for space. Mr. Hardy said it was partly based on a square MINUTES-Eugene City Council Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 3 feet per person equation combined with what City standards might be. Ms. HeHman averred that space needs should be based on credible, extt,-mally justifiable figures. Mr. Hardy stated that one of the consultants was a master plan consultant for city services with a long background in this sort of work. Mr. Pryor said there were different kinds of future planning. He observed that from five years out such planning was "pretty speculative" and once the planning went beyond 20 years it was guesswork. He asserted that one had to have some kind of context for a building that was plalUled to last 50 years. Mr. Kelly thought reserving horizontal site space would provide some insurance against the unpredictabil- ity of how the land would be used in the area. He declared that whatever proposal the council arrived at should demonstrate that it would satisfy the need but not overbuild. He underscored the importance of the space needs study to demonstrate the assumptions that went into its conclusion. Mayor Piercy expressed hope that the council would not limit its vision. She stressed the importance of adequately meeting future needs. Mr. Hardy showed the Matrix of Leaning for the topic of consolidation. He clarified that consolidation in this case was considered without the Police Department. He indicated that all councilors were in agreement that City services should be consolidated. Mr. Moye showed, with the aid of a map, where services were currently located. He pointed to several inefficiencies that could be resolved by consolidation into one location. He pointed out that the City currently used 165,000 square feet and that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) used another 35,000 square feet. Mr. Carlson pointed out that some functions were meant to be in another location and not all of the services were targeted to be part of a consolidation. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Crawford clarified that the team had been "crunching lots of numbers since September 14." She stated that the special needs of certain services would be resolved, but for the present, the numbers were "squishy." Mr. Hardy showed several density models, including a four-story, full-block building, a one-half block eight- story building, multiple block two-story buildings and a combination. He stressed that consolida- tion would require a certain amount of square footage and that the exact number would not be known until the space needs study was completed. He noted that a choice to renovate the existing building would present challenges in this respect. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Hardy stated that a 300,000 square foot number had only been used for the request for proposal (RFP) process. He noted that the City would not likely need 300,000 square feet. He predicted that the space needs study would find inefficiencies in space use. Mr. Hardy proceeded into the discussion of whether to consolidate City Hall and EPD functions. He related that there was a strong interest in gaining public input on this issue. He noted that some people felt that City Hall should be open to the public and that some members of the public could find uniformed officers to be intimidating. He reiterated that the EPD facility would be required by law to be constructed MINUTES-Eugene City Council Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 4 to higher standards. He reviewed some consolidation models that could be considered. City Manager's Office employee Jan Bohman was photographing the process in order to document it. My. Kelly objected to this, stating that he "had a problem with City staff spending energy on taking pictures." No further pictures were taken. Mr Hardy stated that the next step would be to gain public input and identify the police service delivery model that the community wanted to utilize. Ms. Taylor asked if the new substations had to meet the higher seismic standards. Mr. Hardy replied that anything new had to be built to those standards. Ms. Ortiz thought there was a ditTerence between a precinct and a substation and that substations did not have to meet the higher standard. Ms. Bettman felt that before the next steps could be looked into, the City needed to consider what it could atTord. She did not believe that the consolidation issue was germane to the discu..<;sioll of the building Issue. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the models the council had been presented with. He did not believe he had sufficient material on which to base a decision at this point, however. Mr. Pape commented that he was uncertain as to what the cart was and what the horse was. He asked if the police chief was ready to get out in front of this. Police Chief Bob Lehner responded that there were more models to consider, one of which would locate police administration in City Hall and then deliver services from two precincts. He averred that the more patrols were housed in neighborhoods, the closer the City was to having a precinct model for policing. He stated that this was the most expensive model for policing. He pointed out, though, that the second most expensive model was to have all of the services in one location downtown. He added that locating everything together would also cost the most per square foot. He asked how much money the community would want to spend. He stressed that the discussion was primarily a financial one. He stated that the current model, one with a downtown station and public safety stations, was likely the most fiscally prudent. Mayor Piercy asked if the precinct models were required to be built to seismic standards. ChiefLelmer responded that when speaking of a precinct, it was understood to be a place from which patrol cars were deployed. Because of this, the precincts would have to meet the higher seismic standards. He guessed that the Records Division, as an example, would not be required to be housed in a structure built to the higher standards. Ms. Cooper caUed this conflict a perfect example of some of the quandaries that would have to be addressed. She underscored that the public wants a high level of service and at the same time people want government to be financially conservative. Ms. Bettman asked how it had been detennined that keeping the EPD in the downtown area would be the most expensive model. She commented that having two precincts might be a good idea, but she wanted the one 011 the south side of the river to be c01mected to City Hall. She wanted the police to be housed in the same area as the elected officials. Mr. Hardy responded that the space needs study would provide the council with different scenarios. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Workshop October 19,2005 Page 5 Ms. Ortiz commented that she had been thinking that it would be good to separate City Hall from the EPD, but she thought the two-precinct model was a good one. Ms. Bettman expressed concern regarding the ballot implications of a new stmcture. Mayor Piercy observed that the last time the complex had gone on the ballot it had been proposed to be shared by other service entities that dove-tailed with law enforcement. Mr. Hardy moved on to the topic of combining uses. He called the response, in the lvfatrix afLeaning a qualiiied yes. He said councilors indicated a preference for collocation over collaboration. He related that the City wanted to retain control of the space. He felt there were opportunities to collocate with the County, but such collocation probably would not work. He also noted a concern that housing private businesses could potentially compete unfairly with other downtown businesses. Ms. Bettman opined that collocating with the County was a discrete issue. Mr. Kelly agreed. He commented that this idea had been "floated around for years" and no progress had been made on it. He asserted that the council should decide one way or the other prior to initiation of a public process. Mr. Pape pointed out that the City could plan for collocation of other agencies and then as the City's space needs increased, the space would be there. Ms. Ortiz said when going to the community it was a good idea to talk about having other agencies, but the main focus should be on City government. She felt the space could be rented out after it was built but until then it should not be specific to one entity other than the City. Ms. Taylor opposed collocating with other agencies. She averred that she would not want to rent to Womenspace, tor instance, and then have to evict the agency in ten years. Mayor Piercy wanted to know what people wanted. She was uncertain what the need or viability of it was and needed to know this first. City Manager Taylor explained that the kinds of collocation that had been considered in the past had included the school district and compatible agencies that were likely to be involved with law enforcement. Mr. Pape wanted to hear from the public on this item. Ms. Bettman suggested that simplicity be listed as a value. She was not interested in collocating with other jurisdictions and wanted it to be out ofthe equation. Ms. Kennedy noted that this piece would be resolved in the November meeting. Mr. Poling surmised from the last vote on the ballot measure that the citizens did not want victim services to be collocated with the City Hall complex. Regarding parking, Mr. Hardy related that most councilors thought it would be prudent to have parking within two blocks, but that it should not be funded by the project. He said this tied in with site selection MINUTES-Eugene City Council Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 6 as parking needed to be available. He noted that most felt that public parking should be close by but staff parking could be farther away. Continuing, Mr. Hardy stated that most councilors felt that public transportation should be a high priority. He said several possibilities included the installation ofa Lane Transit District (L TD) stop or reinstitution of a "Breeze" bus line. Ms. Bettman remarked that embedded parking was a related issue. Mr. Hardy indicated that this would be a topic of later discussion. Ms. Crawford added that it would be partly affected by the site the council chose. City Manager Taylor indicated that there would be a parking study after the assumptions were better known. Mr. Poling announced that he had to leave at 2 p.m. He requested that no action be taken should a regular session of the council be convened after the executive session scheduled for 4 p.m. He exited the meeting at that po int. Ms. Hardy reviewed the Matrix qf Leaning regarding site selection. He said it indicated that councilors were open to the idea of considering other locations and, though there was support for remaining in the same location, it was less. Mr. Macey pointed to the site analysis for the public library in Olympia, Washington~ as an example of how such an analysis was conducted. He underscored that having a civic building that reinforced the downtown area was an element for consideration as well as whether a site was available and what it would cost. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Hardy explained that the determining factors for site selection would be part of the site option study. He added that the space needs study would have a big impact on it. Ms. Kennedy called for a ten~minute break. After reconvening, Mr. Hardy moved on to the Matrix of Leaning for whether to renovate the existing building or replace it. He related that there was strong sUpPOrt tor replacement of the facility. He noted that there was a strong vocal minority that supported recognition of the existing building for its historic significance. He said in order to renovate, the need for 200,000 feet of space would have to be addressed, given that the existing facility was 30,000 square feet. The existing fadlity had also been built to lower seismic standards and was not energy efficient. Mr. Pape asked why seismic standards had increased 450 percent since the 1960s. Staff explained that each increase in standards had followed an earthquake. Mr. Hardy added that it was also ba,<;ed on an increased awareness of geological time. He stated that in the 19608, the earth's history was not as well known as it is in 2005. Mr. Hardy stated that the compelling reasons to save an existing building were because of its historic value, the emotional attachment citizens had to it, or because it still met the City's needs. He stressed that it was generally more expensive to renovate than to replace a building. MINUTES----Eugene City Council Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 7 Ms. Bettman said she wanted some kind of data that would inttmn the public numerically why a decision to replace the building would be made. Mr. Kelly concurred. He noted that there had been some past studies on seismic retrofits that could be consulted. Mr. Hacker conunented that a fairly convincing study on the pros and cons of renovation could be conducted, if one was not concerned with accuracy. He said Mr. Kelly was correct with regard to the past studies and that his t1ml had copies of them. Ms. Taylor asserted that the public should be consulted about whether the City should renovate the existing building or build a new one. She avem..>d that staff should present material impartially. She also wondered if some functions, such as Human Resources and Risk Services (HRRS), could be moved out to create more space. She opined that earthquakes did not keep getting worse. Mr. Hacker reiterated that the earthquake issue was ba..<;ed in code. Mr. Pryor asserted that this issue should be "put to bed right away." He recommended presenting the public with the current and predicted square footage needs. But he thought this decision needed to be made within the body of the City Council. Ms. Taylor wanted to know what the public thought about this. She was concerned that confidence in City government could be lost. She reiterated that the workshop should have been televised. Mr. Pape commented that in accepting the project values, a renovation would have to have as a goal the desire to inspire civic pride. Ms. Ortiz wanted to remain clear in the tocus. She averred that the council should make a decision as to which direction it should take. Mr. Kelly noted that when he had spoken about using the City Hall for something else he did not mean something necessarily related to govemment. Mayor Piercy thought whether the City Hall had enough significance to save was a question for the community. She noted that there was some interest in a visual arts center in the downtown area. Ms. Kennedy suggested that this question be taken to the public in a modified way. Ms. HeUman thought the question should be whether one wanted to save the building versus whether it was worth saving. She echoed Ms. Taylor's desire to have the meetings cable-cast. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hacker stated that he would have a cost of the rough study for the next work session. Mr. Pape asked if the existing City Hall would have to be seismically upgraded for other uses. Mr. Hacker responded that it would have to be completely refitted structurally and mechanically and it would have to have electrical upgrades as well. Mr. Penwell reminded the council that much of the maintenance had been deferred over the last four tl.,) five years. MINUTES~Eugene City Council Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 8 Ms. Bettman asked if the Council Chamber could be isolated from the rest of the building. She thought if it could be separated it could be put to a bid, sold, and possibly moved. Ms. Cooper presented the public involvement process. She stressed the importance of meaningful and appropriate involvement at each phase. She listed the public participation core values, as follows: . To seek a public voice in things that affect lives. . It includes the possibility to influence the outcome. · Everyone has a voice, including thc decision-makers. · It facilitates involvemcnt of those atlected by the outcome. . The public needs to decide how they will participate. · The public is provided information on which to base decisions. · The public needs to know how they intluenced the outcome. Ms. Cooper provided an overview of Public Participation Spectntm and Tools, an attachment included in the council packet. She next reviewed the Public Involvement Draft Plan Phase 2 .... Development. She underscored the teanl's desire to initiate the process as soon as possible. Regarding Component 1, she said the first step would seek to develop a list of 40 to 50 people in the community to engage in a stakeholder process, providing them with an overview of the issues and hoping to gauge their level of interest in the existing building or moving to a new structure. She indicated that Component 2 - Community Forum was the primary way to exchange information and vet the resulting decision. She reviewed the Community FonuJl Model. She notcd that money had to be part of the equation. Mr. Kelly thought the recruitment criteria spoke against having an "average" person at the forum. Ms. Cooper replied that it was important to select names carefully. She noted that a person did not have to meet all of the criteria, rather the criteria served to identify thc areas of high interest. Ms. Kennedy underscored that this was to give direction to what would be fleshed out in November 2006. She asked if the ideas that had been presented were things the council would like to see developed for future consideration. Mayor Piercy expressed concern about the parts of Eugene that remained disengaged. She said it would be important to figure out how to engage and move the people. She noted that the Bethel area was a sizable block that would vote against any money issue. Ms. Cooper indicated that there was a wide range of levels of public relations. She likened the public outreach to cars and said they could provide the "Lambergini" of campaigns should the elected officials desire it. Mayor Piercy responded that she would not want the cheapest model for a campaign but wanted to ensure the model that was being rolled out was sustainable. Ms. Cooper commented that the team would look at how well this process tied into the Neighborhood Initiati ve. She wanted to ensure this process helped to build know ledge of how to work with the City. Mr. Pryor remarked that the greatest complaint on public processes was that they lacked sincerity and that the decision looked like it had already been made. He wished to stress to the public that the decision had not been made at this point. Ms. Cooper commented that some decisions would likely have to be made initially. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 9 Ms. Taylor said it seemed the most basic decision to replace the building and not to renovate it had already been made. Ms. Cooper responded that the question could be framed so that the people could make the choice. Mr. Kelly recommended inclusion of the 'no~bui1d' scenario in the public forum process. Ms. Bettman averred that neighborhood groups were needed as part of the model for public input. Ms. Cooper stressed that the team members conducting the public outreach had to maintain neutrality. Ms. Kennedy remarked that she like the idea of creating trust and an infrastructure for future processes. Ms. Taylor recalled that the City had conducted a growth management study ten years earlier. She thought it had been very well done and could be of use to the process. Mayor Piercy hoped that when the council nominated people to participate in the Community Forum that the team members would "push" the council to make the forum representative of the conunullity. Mr. Pape suggested finding the average citizen through the local newspaper. Mr. Kelly thought empowering the neighborhood associations would increase attendance. Mr. Hardy provided a brief overview of the Proposed Work Structure, copies of which were included in council packets. Ms. Bettman asked if the plan for four full council sessions on the process was purely for discussion or if there would be decision points through the process. Mr. Hardy replied that it seemed that there was a need for two levels of meetings. Ms. Bettman supported having meetings scheduled for decision points. She objected to individual interviews with councilors. She asserted that all of the process should be held in open sessions. She also opined that the community thrum should hold as a value that the people should get something from what each person had to say. Tn response to a question from Mr. Pape, Mr. Hardy assured him that staff was required to attend the technical work group. Mr. Kelly felt the councilor interviews were a valuable one~time experience but he agreed that it would not be appropriate to go thrward with them. Ms. Ortiz also thought the individual interviews had been valuable in the beginning. She believed one more individual interview could be good, though two seemed too many. Mayor Piercy thought individual interviews were a good exercise if they were check-ins to see how things were going. She underscored that such interviews would not be for decision making. Ms. Taylor preferred to have no more individual interviews. She thought everything should be said in the public. MINUTE~Eugene City Council Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Pape supported continuing to have individual interviews. Ms. Bettman remarked that the council represented. constituents and councilors should be comfortable speaking in public. Ms. Solomon observed that constituents could ask for councilor opinions. She was amenable to holding individual interviews. Mr. Pryor did not have a preference. Ms. Kennedy thought the council had provided enough direction to proceed and come back to the council in November. She thanked the council and her colleagues. Mr. Hacker remarked that the team saw the project, at its essence, as being about the freedom of people in the United States to participate in democracy. He hoped everyone would remain open to this participa~ tion. He wanted the end result to be a place that helped to unite people. Mayor Piercy thanked everyone for participating. B. EXECUTIVE SESSION The council entered. into executive session in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(e). The meeting adjourned at 4 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES.mnEugene City Council Workshop October 19, 2005 Page 11