Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/21/08 Public HearingM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 21, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption and Amending Sections 2,945 and 9.947 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Jon Ruiz invited questions. Councilor Bettman determined from City Manager Ruiz a work session on the agenda topic could be scheduled if the council so desired. At Councilor Bettman’s request, the council agreed to schedule a work session. City Manager Ruiz indicated it was possible a work session could be scheduled on August 13. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to take the information from the hearing, questions, and comments from the council and consider the MUPTE ordinance and criteria at a work session on August 13. Councilor Ortiz supported the motion due to the complexity of the issue. Councilor Poling did not support the motion as the council had yet to hold the public hearing. Councilor Solomon arrived. The motion was clarified for the benefit of Councilor Solomon. The motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting no. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public hearing and opened the public hearing. Terry Connelly , representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, 1401 Willamette Street, said the chamber supported the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) as a tool to attract more investment in housing in and near downtown. The chamber felt the program was having a positive effect in creating more housing units. He considered MUPTE both an incentive and a tool for the City to realize its planning goals, particularly those related to more compact urban growth and support for multi-modal modes of transportation. He did not want to see the MUPTE boundary reduced in size and suggested there might be some places where it was appropriate to expand it. In regard to the selection criteria, he suggested they be clearly spelled out for both the applicant and the City to give applicants more predictability in regard to City decision-making. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 1 Public Hearing Ginger Newman , 3285 Ligmont Drive, said the MUPTE program allowed a developer to build better design into a process. She described the process a developer must go through to use the MUPTE, and said that it took three to five years to complete a project. During the time the MUPTE had been in place the council had begun to question the MUPTE boundaries, which had a negative impact on developers. She suggested better projects with higher quality resulted in higher property taxes. She said buildings would have a longer life, and their appearance would be enhanced and there would be more open space and parking. She suggested the boundaries be left alone for a five- year period to see how the program worked, which would also give developers time to bring projects to market. Rents could be lower because of the property tax exemption. Dan Neal encouraged the council to expand the MUPTE program into the Trainsong area as it was a powerful tool for the development of multi-family structures. He said taking the West University area out of the boundaries was a mistake. He said that by the twelfth year the City would break even and by the fifteenth year it would collect twice the taxes it would have otherwise, with a commensurate effect after 20 years. He said that in some cases, councilors were correct that projects would be built; however, the council could use MUPTE to encourage developers to invest in sustainability improvements in their developments. He suggested that the result would be a win-win situation for the City and the developer. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. B. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Prohibition of Extreme Fighting; Repealing Section 4.740 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and Amending Section 4.990 of that Code Keli Osborn of the Planning and Development Department was available to answer questions. Mayor Piercy noted that no one was present to speak, and opened and closed the public hearing. C. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Downtown Public Safety Zones; and Adding Sections 4.873, 4.874, 4.875, 8.876, 4.877, and 4.878 to Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Ruiz invited questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Tom English , 2535 Fairmount Boulevard, indicated he served as a pastor and was concerned about the ordinance. He said the poor and dispossessed ended up on his church’s property and it attempted to deal with them in a loving and kind way. He did not think the ordinance would be enforceable. He preferred to see the money used for enforcement. He pointed out there was no room at the jail for the individuals who would be arrested. He spoke of the lack of social services and resources to serve those in need. He suggested the ordinance was a result of fear. Although he understood the frustration, he thought the ordinance was the wrong policy. th Deb Frisch , 2003 West 11 Avenue, offered general criticism of the police and district attorney and sarcastically indicated her support for the ordinance. John Raul , 2590 Vista, said the situation on the street downtown was deteriorating. He described the situation near his business. He was appalled that the city center was not a place where everyone felt welcome. He thought it unfortunate that there was a mix of activities involving adolescents that the City enabled through its provision of street furniture which street people claimed for their own. He supported a vital mix of people and was not interested MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 2 Public Hearing in moving to a mall. He wanted to be part of that mix but thought the City needed to rediscover a balance. He recommended it bring more positive activities and communicate a better message to those who go downtown and do not feel welcome. He knew of parents who had to ship their children out of town when they found them in the downtown scene. Misha Seymour , 1313 Lincoln Street, #307, opposed the ordinance. He criticized the ordinance as mean-spirited and criticized the City for restricting public speech and free assembly at the Eugene Library and Kesey Square. He thought the City could do better and should treat everyone with respect. He believed the ordinance was illegal. He called for a cessation of tax breaks and a society for the people. Bob Cassidy recommended that the council consider adding a sunset clause to the ordinance. Henry Luvert spoke in support of the ordinance because he had viewed video tapes from a business downtown that showed youth defecating and urinating on the business front, which was owned by a minority business person. He had spoken about the topic to the Chief of Police, who indicated budget constraints prevented anything from being done. Mr. Luvert thought urination in public places was against the law. He said the City did not have the resources to enforce the laws already on the books and he questioned how the City would enforce the ordinance being proposed. He considered it appeasement and called for something that worked. He said that events had escalated because people had now started breaking windows. He said that someone would get hurt if that was allowed to happen. He noted the pit across from the library and suggested that the council consider a community center downtown to give youth something to do other than urinating on people’s property. Betty Snowden , 125 West Broadway, noted some of the terrible things that she had been called, and said there was nothing courteous about being stalked and it had been happening for 17 years. She did not think it was courteous to be threatened. She said she had more than 50 video surveillance tapes and had to view people’s private parts and have her windows broken out. Her customers were threatened and cursed while the City talked about its downtown core. She said that such behavior was a daily thing and it was time for it to stop and for the city to be a city that loved all people. She said the City needed enough police to protect all its citizens. She gave the council an F for its actions downtown and said the ordinance was needed. She described the abuse she experienced daily in her business downtown. She said if the council did not do something, someone would get hurt. Cassandra Snowden , 125 West Broadway, said she was tired of finding vomit in her doorway and racial slurs on her doors. Her family’s rights were being violated on a daily basis and then they were told “we’re working on it.” She said that the behavior was very hurtful and constant. She thought an ordinance for repeat offenders would help because if those committing the offenses knew nothing would be done to them, they would continue to harass people. Arthur McCombs opposed the ordinance. He lived downtown and thought something needed to be done about crime downtown. He had been homeless due to his illness but was sympathetic to the business community and crime victims. He had benefited from his ability to live at First Christian Church because of the City’s programming and cleaned the parking lot and did graffiti removal. He also donated to the church and considered himself part of the solution and not part of the problem. He was concerned about the fact he both smoked marijuana and dumpster- dived and, if he was caught, he would not be allowed to do his banking, shopping, seek drug treatment at urgent care, or do anything else downtown. Kaz Ovessi , a downtown business owner, said no one distinguished between crime, poverty, and homelessness. They could not be mixed together or no problems would be solved. He felt that healthy retail depended on synergy. He did not think that the Centre Court building would realize good retail possibilities. There was not a healthy scene around his business, and that was frustrating. He owned his own building or otherwise would have moved. He saw the problems day in and day out and it affected his psyche. In regard to Kesey Square, he asked that the council address MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 3 Public Hearing the problem and send out an RFP to transform the space or allow the private sector to do something. The community needed to reclaim its downtown. Lloyd Lewis , a downtown business owner, said his business suffered from the same problems as other businesses. The graffiti was down but urination was up. He had seen both men and women squat and defecate between buildings. A certain level of tolerance had built up and everyone assumed these actions were okay. He had put up signs that had not prevented people from urinating on the back door of his business. Feedback he heard indicated it was an ongoing problem; some designers had called to request access through the rear of his business to avoid having to go through the panhandlers and alcoholics in front. He wanted to be downtown but did not want to put up with the situation much longer. He did not know if the ordinance was the answer, but anything the council could do that called on those breaking the law to be punished could not have a negative impact. He also advocated for downtown housing as a way to make people feel safer. He said that his employees did not confront downtown youth because they were afraid of window breakage, and commended the DEI guides for the work they did in getting youth to move on. Claudia Arenda supported the ordinance. She said she was a single mother and she feared for her daughter’s safety and her own safety downtown. She frequently cleaned graffiti off walls and witnessed people urinating close up. She wanted a safer environment for everyone downtown. She loved her work and did not want to leave it. Dan Neal , public defender for the Eugene Municipal Court, was sympathetic to the stories he heard and had difficulty understanding why people were not being prosecuted for their activities on the mall. He asked how well calculated the ordinance was to solve the problem; he did not think it would. He thought the City needed to prosecute people arrested for crimes on the mall. He had defended people for misdemeanor charges that paled in comparison to what he was hearing tonight. He suggested an exclusion order would not help and if a person was arrested for violating an exclusion order that person would likely be released from jail. He suggested that an effective step to reduce crime downtown would be more development. He was optimistic in that regard. In the meantime, he feared passage of the ordinance would create a new class of offenders who would not spend time in jail. He pointed out that every judge had the power to exclude people from the mall. He said the ordinance was another tool but it was less effective as it created more problems and added to the cost of public safety. rd Cathy Sigmund , 2545 West 23 Avenue, owned a business at 764 Lincoln Street. She said the downtown area had deteriorated rapidly and was now owned by street gangs and those with no purpose. They harassed her customers and her employees had to be walked to their cars. She acknowledged the ordinance was not perfect but thanked councilors Ortiz and Clark for sponsoring it. She thought it carried a message of hope to downtown business owners. She recalled a vibrant downtown and said she continued to hold out because she hoped it would be vibrant again. She said that successful proposals were inevitably delayed and fell by the wayside. She did not think that the council would get people to live downtown unless they felt safe and protected. She urged the council to act on the ordinance. Ms. Sigmund said she trusted the discretion of the young police officers she saw near her business and admired them and was amazed the City could still get young people who wanted to be officers. Claire Syrett , representing the American Civil Liberties Union, opposed the proposed ordinance. She said the ACLU opposed exclusion zones imposed through an administrative or civil procedure aimed at criminal conduct. She said the ACLU’s opposition was based on policy concerns rather than a belief such ordinances were inherently unconstitutional. She said the ACLU believed restrictions on one’s movements should be imposed only by a judge in the context of a criminal proceeding, which has requirements for legal representation. The ACLU believed the ordinance would merely shift the problems being experienced downtown to another area of town and give too much discretion to police officers to issue show cause orders. She called for an ordinance that authorized a judge to impose an exclusion order on a person as a condition of release or probation, ensuring that they would have legal representa- tion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing Ms. Syrett said the ACLU had great sympathy for those living and working downtown who faced harassment and suffered from repeated criminal acts. She appreciated the council’s attempt to find a solution. She recognized that the criminal justice system was in crisis, but still believed it was best to employ a law-enforcement based approach to problems in the downtown core. She expressed appreciation to councilors Clark and Ortiz for including the ACLU in the dialogue and looked forward to crafting a solution. Tom Kaymas , Lincoln Street, said criminal conduct was a constant downtown. There needed to be individual accountability, and he hoped that enforcement of the ordinance would do that. He did not know if it would work. He spent thousands of dollars on repair and security. He said security people spent hours chasing people away from businesses and from shooting up. Mr. Kaymas said that every year something like the ordinance was suggested, and if this ordinance would not work, what would? He said that when the police were moved from Broadway, all the street people moved back. He feared retribution from street people for his customers and himself. He noted that the developer recently selected by the City for a downtown redevelopment project had also stated that for the project to succeed, downtown security must be improved. He suggested that taxes be raised on all the vacant buildings downtown to pay the costs of increased security. David Hauser , 2168 Elkhorn Drive, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, the new contract administrator for DEI, said that DEI was the City’s partner in creating a safe, vibrant community. He thanked councilors Ortiz and Clark for their interest in the ordinance. He had spoken to the guides about the downtown environment, and they confirmed the stories the council heard at the hearing. He invited each councilor to walk with the guides and view what people were talking about. He said that he had an optimistic view of the future of downtown; there were problems that required more resources and tools. He said that the ordinance was not perfect but it was a tool that deserved a chance to succeed. He said that the increase in the number of guides and their hours, in combination with the ordinance, could make a difference in how downtown felt to those with businesses and the customers they served. Excluding repeat offenders for 90 days seemed like a modest sanction. George Brown , a downtown business owner and incoming City Councilor, was sympathetic to the intentions of the ordinance and shared the frustration of downtown business owners as a business owner himself. However, he believed the ordinance was an unnecessary complication that would not solve any problems. It required an enhanced police presence for enforcement. The resulting citations and arrests would clog the court system and would be unlikely to result in jail time for offenders. He suggested that the police presence downtown be increased with more beat officers and hours added at night. He recommended that community policing be instituted downtown as everyone knew that was the answer. Tasha Brubaker Garrison , understood the need to address the issues of the downtown area, but was concerned about the sweeping nature of the ordinance and its impact on the homeless and dispossessed. She thought people made good points about community policing and increased resources. She recommended the council think creatively and disentangle the different threads of the issue. She proposed solutions such as self-cleaning toilets. She recommended that crimes be addressed right away. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and asked for council comments and questions. Councilor Clark said his intention was to specifically address those with a proven record of bad behavior with a way to address the bad behavior. He did not propose to exclude people on the basis of how they looked. Councilor Clark understood the ACLU’s concerns and was willing to consider some modifications. He said there was no question the City needed to begin to act differently about its downtown if it wanted it to succeed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 5 Public Hearing Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Ruiz said the council was scheduled to take action on the ordinance on August 11, 2008. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for the testimony. She agreed that the problem was serious and believed the behaviors needed to be addressed, but felt the ordinance was too sweeping. Councilor Bettman asked if there were public restrooms available when the library was closed and, if not, what that would cost to provide. Councilor Bettman wanted a calculation of the increase in costs associated with the ordinance, if adopted, and then the council could discuss how to spend those resources to target the issues. She was very concerned about the public urination problem and thought that should be a fairly serious criminal offense. She wanted to know how the police responded to this because children could be exposed to the sight. She said that many issues were bundled into the issue of downtown viability. She was willing to look at an exclusion ordinance which would be only for criminal convictions. She said currently, children or teenagers downtown could be excluded simply because they were minors and were downtown. She wanted a narrowed list of violations. Councilor Bettman had the same issue in regard to enforceability, particularly if the jail was full. She asked why community service and being assigned to the road crew were not considered viable options. Councilor Ortiz said that Councilor Clark was a business person downtown and he had approached her about the potential of an exclusion zone. She said her support would depend on whether it addressed criminal issues. She was challenged by the comments made about individuals as the focus was on behavior. She wanted to know why the people downtown were there. While Councilor Ortiz did not live or work downtown, she believed it was a challeng- ing situation for those who did. She did not want to hear people say they were moving away from downtown because of the problems they experienced. She wanted downtown to be vibrant for everyone. Councilor Taylor thanked all those who spoke. She had been moved by the comments of Mr. English. She was also appalled at the things that happened to Ms. Snowden but she thought there were other ways to address them. She thought an exclusion ordinance would move the problem to another place. If the bad element was not downtown, it would be some other place. She said that much of what was discussed was already illegal, such as breaking windows. She recommended that those in support of the ordinance talk to Mr. Neal about other approaches. She supported exclusion as part of probation but said that people have to go somewhere. Councilor Taylor supported a youth center downtown because sometimes people did not have another place to be. She determined from City Attorney Emily Jerome that it is already illegal to break windows and vomit in people’s doorways. Councilor Pryor asked how many people showed up in court after being cited. He asked if an individual could be convicted in absentia to trigger the exclusion. Ms. Jerome said the ordinance provided an automatic 90-day exclusion if one failed to appear for a show-cause hearing within five to 14 days. Councilor Pryor said the ordinance raised the classic conflict between liberty and community. It appeared that community safety and individual rights were in conflict, so the council was trying to find the fairest balance to avoid impinging on liberty while doing general community good. He said that raised the question of what constituted an offensive behavior, and he called for more discussion of that topic. Councilor Pryor then spoke to the issue of enforceability and said he was concerned about creating a law the City could not enforce. He was interested in knowing more about the City’s options. Mr. Pryor suggested that in terms of outcomes, it would not be progress to just move the problems downtown to some other location. Councilor Zelenka sympathized with the victims of the behaviors mentioned. He wanted to address the problem with something that worked. He was also concerned about enforceability and agreed with Councilor Bettman that the ordinance was too sweeping. He supported exclusions as part of the criminal justice system. He suggested that MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 6 Public Hearing probation and sentencing could have tougher consequences. He encouraged those who had experienced problems to contact the District Attorney. Councilor Solomon could not imagine the council would do less than what was proposed. The council discussed how to improve downtown continually and could not hope that private development alone would accomplish that. Public safety was the City’s job, and the City needed to address the situation and improve safety downtown to facilitate development. She suggested that Mr. Davis could have concluded his remarks by saying “or why are you here?” in regard to the council. She hoped it accepted the challenge. Councilor Clark said he worked downtown and he was downtown everyday. He witnessed the behaviors mentioned everyday. The problem was so real that if there was only one staff person at the Human Rights Center or Police Auditor’s Office, their policy was to lock the door. He thought that spoke volumes about the problem. He wanted those who victimized other people to be removed from the opportunity to do it again. He pointed out that people received restraining orders all the time, and he wanted to do something similar to protect the victim from those who demonstrated a desire to victimize others. He was willing to make changes, but considered the ordinance to be a first step. Councilor Bettman wanted to see text that instituted the exclusion after the commission of the crime, and a tiered approach to the list provided with more description so the council could draw a threshold. She was looking for a more focused and targeted ordinance which she hoped would cost less money and be more effective. Councilor Bettman was astounded to hear the extent to which criminal activity was not being addressed downtown. She said people were hearing about a lack of resources, and every year since she had joined the council the City had increased its funding for public safety and in past years had targeted the downtown area, and surrounding areas, with extra police resources. She asked where that money had gone and why the crimes were not being prosecuted. She asked the City Manager to address why the City kept putting resources into the Police Department but continued to hear the mantra of “insufficient resources.” Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the comments of those who spoke and for their concern for the rights of people working and visiting downtown. She said the City had been working on the issue for many years and needed to do something different and better. The situation was being exacerbated by the County’s funding issues. She appreciated the testimony about separating crime from poverty. She said the council had asked for increased police oversight downtown with special controls. She had problems about treating people as guilty before they were found guilty. She wanted miscreants to know the City was serious. Mayor Piercy said that the council was being asked to step up to the problem and take leadership. She asked the City Manager and staff to work with the council on the issue so it could do things better and differently. She noted there was a youth center downtown, but she suggested it was too small and could serve as a seed for the future. D. PUBLIC HEARING: th An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Villard Alley Right-of-Way between East 13 Avenue and East th 15 Avenue; and th An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of East 13 Avenue Right-of-Way East of its Intersection with Franklin Boulevard City Attorney Emily Jerome provided the staff presentation, noting the request from the University of Oregon (UO) th that the City vacate a segment of Villard Alley and a segment of East 13 Avenue. She said the council would consider separate ordinances for the two vacations in the future, but would hold a combined hearing at this time. She noted the single criterion, which was whether the proposed vacations were in the public interest. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 7 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules of the hearing, which was quasi-judicial. She called for ex parte contacts on the part of the council. She first noted the contacts she had received through e-mails, letters, and in meetings with staff from the University of Oregon, which had advocated for the need for the vacation to get the arena built, as well as from neighborhood organizations asking that their concerns be addressed. She said she had submitted all e-mails and letters into the public record. Ms. Jerome clarified that anything already in the record was not an ex parte contact. Mr. Clark said he also received e-mails regarding the issue and had a meeting with UO Community Director Greg Rikhoff, who discussed the necessity of the vacations and the UO’s work with the neighborhoods. To the best of his knowledge, all that information was in the record. Councilor Bettman said she received no e-mails addressed solely to her in regard to the issue. She believed those submitted to the council had been placed in the public record and she had not read them. She had met with Mr. Rikhoff to discuss general community-University-City relationships, and during that meeting Mr. Rikhoff had mentioned the money deposited for the right-of-way, at which time she informed him that was an ex parte contact. Councilor Zelenka had received the same e-mails as other councilors but had not yet read them. He had participated in the UO-Neighborhood Liaison Committee meetings on several occasions to discuss issues related to the impact of the arena but the vacation was not discussed. Councilor Zelenka then reviewed a lengthy list of meetings that he had attended during which the vacation was not discussed or at which he halted discussion when the topic was broached. In addition, Councilor Zelenka noted he lived near the site of the proposed arena, but believed he could make a fair impartial decision. Councilor Poling noted his own discussions with Mr. Rikhoff regarding University-neighborhood issues. He had also received the same e-mails mentioned by other councilors but had not read them. He indicated he would have to leave the meeting at 10:00 p.m. and would review the record if the meeting went beyond that time. Councilor Pryor had the same declarations as other councilors, including a meeting with Mr. Rikhoff to discuss UO- neighborhood issues. He indicated he believed he could be fair and objective. Councilor Taylor had the same declarations as other councilors, including a meeting with Mr. Rikhoff during which the proposed arena and vacations were not discussed. Councilor Ortiz had the same declarations as other councilors, including a meeting with Mr. Rikhoff. People had attempted to mention the issue to her but she stopped them. Councilor Ortiz had no ex parte contacts to declare. She believed she could be fair and objective. Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules for the public hearing. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. She first called on those in support of the application. David Frohnmayer , President of the University of Oregon, represented the applicant. He was also a resident of the neighborhood near the arena. He spoke in support of the two vacation requests and asked the council to approve the vacations before its summer recess. He said the arena was a thoughtful and important community project. The replacement of MacArthur Court was imperative. He said the UO had responded to the concerns expressed by the public, particularly those of the neighbors. President Frohnmayer said the project had the promise of bringing a substantial expenditure of funds and employment to the area, which had suffered from recession in the past. The MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 8 Public Hearing bonds to support the arena had been sold and the money was in the bank. He said a conservative economic multiplier indicated that the project would generate $300 million in the community over the next 20 months. The alley vacation was crucial to the arena project. He noted the UO owned the land around the project site and the alley in question had been out of public use for some time. He said a decision was needed soon so the carefully planned construction schedule was not disrupted. President Frohnmayer noted the other approvals that preceded the request. He noted the work the UO had done with the neighbors, and agreed with them that the funding from the vacations should be used to mitigate the impact of the arena. th Deborah Frisch , 3003 West 11 Avenue, expressed support for the proposals. She acknowledged her opposition to spending money on UO sports facilities and in particular the arena. She noted that the Mayor had responded to concerns expressed about the public process related to the arena expressed by Commissioner Faye Stewart with what Ms. Frisch considered an insulting form letter because of the predevelopment meeting held between City and University representatives regarding the UO’s arena application. She questioned the cost of that. Ms. Frisch noted that a minority of Oregon legislators had opposed the arena and speculated on how many residents opposed the arena or preferred that the UO do something else with the property it owned on Franklin Boulevard. She asserted that the UO and City had “thwarted public participation.” Genie Staton , 2216 Lakeview Drive, supported the UO proposal. She said the new arena would create local jobs and boost the local economy. She said her company, Staton Companies, was one of the first local companies to benefit from the project when it was hired to do environmental work on the site. She noted that 99.5 percent of the materials from the project site were recycled. She briefly described her company’s employee base, location, and type of customers served. She commended the arena as a great project. Ms. Staton said those in the local construction industry were concerned about the next few years given the completion of the RiverBend campus and fact the residential market was in shambles. Construction delays were costly because the cost of supplies was rising daily. She said the UO was ready to build. She hoped the council would schedule its vote soon and vote to support the project. Mike Schwartz , 2390 Lariat Drive, hoped the council scheduled a vote before break. He discussed the impact of a delay and its impact on the community. He said the UO was ready to build and if forced to delay it would increase the cost of materials and could increase the cost of ticket prices. The cost of delaying the project would be $10 million for one year. He recalled his service on the Lane County Auditorium Association, which led to the passage of the funding needed for the Hult Center; he further recalled that the cost of that structure went from $15 to $23 million in the seven years it took to bring the issue to the ballot. He asked the council to consider mixed opportunities from past years, when council delays caused projects such as McKenzie-Willamette Hospital, PeaceHealth, and Whole Foods to be dropped, and jobs to be lost. He noted the lost jobs in the community that had occurred recently, and called on the council to take advantage of the opportunity created by the proposal. John Barofsky , 2010 Hubbard Lane, believed that the arena was a good project that could be successfully mitigated. For that reason, he believed the alley vacation was in the public interest. He pointed out the council could approve the vacation with monetary conditions. He acknowledged that the money from the sale of the vacations was to be used for the good of all Eugene, and he knew there were many needs, but he implored the council to consider the impacts of the project on the Fairmount neighbors and use some of the money from the project to mitigate its impact. He suggested the money could be used to improve local streets which he speculated would be affected by the project. Mr. Barofsky also suggested the council consider the property removed from the City’s tax rolls as a result of the project and attempt to recover it through one of the conditions. Steve McBride , 3810 Colony Oaks Drive, Associate Athletic Director of the U of O, shared some information about the UO’s successes in regard to event transportation management at Mac Court, Autzen Stadium, and the 2008 Olympic Trials, which involved increased alternative mode use and very high levels of transit use. He committed to MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 9 Public Hearing using that experience and to engaging the neighbors to create a plan that addressed their concerns when the new arena was in place. Betty Snowden , 125 West Broadway, supported the proposed vacations. She asked the council to hold the vote in a timely way as the UO was ready to build. MacArthur Court needed to be replaced as it was old and expensive to maintain. She thought the new arena would be a community asset that created new jobs and would boost the local economy. She pointed out that no taxpayer money was being used to fund the arena. The arena would be LEED- certified, and she pointed out “we’re very big on that.” The arena would be used for many community purposes, increase the UO’s profile, benefit the academic mission, and attract more students. She said the UO would be winning championships. Ms. Snowden said “Go Ducks!” Marvin Roevell , 2924 Adams Street, hoped the council voted to support the vacations soon. He said several members of his family had attended the UO and the university meant a lot to his family. He considered the UO and the arena to be a sustainable business. He said he owned a multi-generational company that included his son and niece and the arena would benefit small businesses such as his. He said that the arena proposal was not just about sports and commencements, it was about sustainable business. Vin Lannana , a resident of the Fairmount Neighborhood and the Associate Director of Athletics, thanked the council, Mayor, and staff for the successful collaboration between the UO and City during the recent Olympic Trials, which were a success due to that collaboration. He said much trepidation had existed around the trials in regard to parking and accommodations, but community confidence made it a success. He thought a delay on the vote would be “a crime,” as much time and energy had gone into the proposal before the council. He said that the arena would be a spectacular community addition. He supported a council vote prior to the council recess. Tom Kammas , a local business owner, urged the council to vote on the arena right away to set a precedent and demonstrate to businesses, developers, and other employers who want to come to Eugene that it was possible to work with the City. Rick Satre , Satre Associates, 101 East Broadway, reviewed the applicable criterion, that of the benefit to the public. He suggested the council ask if the two right-of-way segments were needed by the public. He thought the council could demonstrate that the public interest was served both in regard to transportation access and emergency services and utility access. In regard to transportation access and emergency services, Mr. Satre noted that the City’s Public Works Department had stated that the vacations would not compromise public safety or services. The vehicular th access previously provided by East 13 Avenue was to businesses no longer there, and the applicant was proposing a blanket pedestrian access over the alley to improve existing pedestrian access. In regard to the alley, the businesses that used the alley in the past would all soon be gone, and abutting tax lots consolidated, leaving no reason for the alley and preserving the public interest. In regard to utilities, Mr. Satre said that the affected utility providers provided letters of concurrence for the vacation. Greg Rikhoff , UO Director of Community Relations, expressed the UO’s support for collaboration with the neighborhood. He described the UO’s engagement with the neighborhood association and its establishment of the Neighborhood Arena Liaison Committee in February 2008, to discuss issues related to the arena impact. The committee had made progress toward agreements that would help inform the conditional use process (CUP) and provide additional neighborhood protection. The UO was committed to ongoing dialogue with the neighbors for improved, refined solutions over time. He said the process did not end with those processes and he was confident collaborative solutions would be found to issues related to the arena’s impact. He said there was not consensus on all issues, but dialogue would continue and the result would be a better product. He asked the council to support the vacations. He indicated the UO’s support for the neighborhood suggestion that the money from the sale of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 10 Public Hearing vacation be used on mitigating the arena’s impacts. He pointed out that the arena would also be used for volleyball, and many people, not just basketball fans, would enjoy it. A. D. Smith , 1546 Erie Lane, former Oregon basketball player, expressed his support for the arena. In general, Mr. Smith believed that public financing of arenas was a bad idea because the cost outweighed the positive aspects. In this case, he thought the UO was in a unique situation. He believed that the UO had done its homework in regard to the arena and was not asking the City to pay for the arena; it had a range of donors, large and small, giving for the arena. He said the UO was asking the City for its support for something that benefited businesses and the commu- nity. As a 20-year resident, he supported that. Mr. Smith saw the UO as a partner to Eugene. He did not think the process should be compromised, but he thought the council should facilitate the process for the UO. Bob Jensen , 86635 Pine Grove Road, called on the business community to speak with a voice of determination and resolve. He said he was a former business owner downtown and the downtown had lacked such a voice and many of the issues he faced continued to exist. He had since moved his business to Villard Street near the location of the new arena. He said this was an opportunity for the council to speak to the business community and say it was interested in doing business and interested in the welfare of the business community. The business community needed support from the council. He asked the council to set a tone that it cared about business and let it be heard throughout Eugene. He thought the arena was something to be championed, not merely supported, as it would be a state-of-the- art facility and an opportunity for the community to shine like it had at the Olympics Trials. Bev Smith , 2150 Onyx Street, a former UO student and currently the coach of the UO women’s basketball team, supported the street vacation and asked the council to cast a vote before the summer recess. She said that Mac Court was a wonderful place on game night, but the biggest reason was the people of Eugene, who could be moved into the new facility. She said George Schroeder of The Register-Guard had given the community a bird’s eye view of the underside of Mac Court, which was a “grand old dame” loved by many but which was also an aging facility in need of replacement. She shared information about the women’s locker rooms at Mac Court to illustrate the inconvenience of the facilities. She said student athletes did not complain because of their love of the UO and Eugene community. Ms. Smith asked the council to support the alley vacation so fans could enjoy the new facility and student athletes could continue to have a great experience. Ms. Smith said “Go Ducks!” Alice Plymel , 1887 Fircrest Drive, a long-time patron of women’s basketball at Mac Court, spoke to the difficulty of being a disabled fan at both women and men’s home games at the current arena in terms of parking and access to seating. She asked the council to approve the alley vacation th Elise Ironmonger , 1425 East 20 Avenue, a student athlete, spoke of the positive and energetic environment at Mac Court but said that the facility was so old it was sometime dangerous and needed to be replaced. She said students loved it but knew it needed to be replaced and the council could help make that happen. She spoke of the birds that lived in Mac Court and sometimes dropped onto the court. She agreed with Ms. Smith’s remarks about the condition of the existing locker room facilities and said that, particularly when compared to other Pac 10 facilities, they were inadequate. She said a new arena would mean functioning locker rooms for both the home and visiting teams. She asked the council to approve the proposed vacations. David Hauser , 2168 Elkhorn Drive, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said that these were exciting times for Eugene because of the Olympic Trials and the new regional hospital. Many legacy projects had been built because of vision and hard work and collaboration. He suggested the arena was another such legacy project. It would enhance the entrances to the UO and the community and provide a significant economic benefit at a time of economic unease. He said that over the last decade, several construction projects helped to provide family wage jobs for about 2,000 people working in the industry, with average wages of $40,000 yearly, contrasted to the local average wage of $31,000 yearly. In the long-term the arena would provide a great venue for events and bring MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 11 Public Hearing money in from out of town. Mr. Hauser pointed out the arena would depend on alternative modes of transportation and would be another LEED-certified building. On behalf of the chamber, he supported the project and urged the City Council to continue to be a collaborative partner with the UO and act in a timely manner. Mayor Piercy then called on those who were neutral in regard to the application. Art Paz , 86950 Cedar Flat Road, suggested the council consider the public realm and the need to preserve an interface between the building and the general public. He believed that the public realm in any great city is a dedication to the public in a way that serves all the public. He recalled the public input associated with the Franklin Boulevard project and asserted that the public had difficulty in finding out how the UO planned to preserve the infrastructure between the arena and the boulevard. He called on the council to hold a workshop to find out how that could occur. Jay Purcell , 1648 Orchard Alley, suggested the southern portion of the alley proposed for vacation should remain th open for fire, pedestrian, and bicycle access. In regard to 13 Avenue, he questioned whether the design in place was sufficiently solid to justify giving up the public right-of-way and the City’s ability to restore it to the way it was when Williams Bakery used it for truck ingress and egress. He thought the alley vacation should occur after the CUP was approved and a design was in place. Mr. Purcell “begged to differ” with those who praised the recent Olympic Trails as many business owners said they were not affected or did not have any business until late at night when the venue closed down. He speculated the same thing would occur with the arena. Mr. Purcell did not think that the EmX bus line could be likened to the transit used to get fans to football games. He said the park and ride facilities worked but there was overflow in south Eugene. Councilor Poling left the meeting. th Peter Graycroft , 19 and Orchard, thought the arena would be built and planned to use it, but was concerned there was no master plan in place for the area in question. He suggested that the City could consider Ohio State as a model to consider for what would probably happen in the area. He thought the arena would happen because it needed to, but also thought the neighborhood was correct to use the issue of the alley to raise the issue of public interest. His major concern was parking. He thought the UO wanted excellence in this arena as in all things. Mr. Graycroft said the UO needed to work on its relationship with the neighborhood and the City should use its authority to impose conditions that satisfied the neighborhood and addressed his concerns regarding the lack of a master plan. He said the UO needed to invest in structured parking, and the needs of neighbors in light of their different locations. Shelly Robertson , a Fairmount resident speaking on behalf of the Fairmount Neighborhood Arena Committee, asked that the record remain open for sufficient time to allow for traffic access and circulation studies to be done and submitted into the record. th Judy Horstman , 1835 East 28 Avenue, thought the arena would be of tremendous community benefit and for that reason the arena would be in the public benefit. However, she wanted the council to condition the vacation by stipulating the money the UO paid for the vacation would be used to mitigate any negative impacts that the arena created for the neighborhood. Mayor Piercy then called on those who were opposed to the vacations being proposed. Misha Seymour , 1313 Lincoln Street, #307, disagreed with testimony that the UO wanted to work with the community because of past actions taken by the UO in regard to UO-owned housing. He speculated that many UO MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 12 Public Hearing students did not want the arena because of other priorities, such as increasing fees and tuition. He thought there were other issues more important “for the people” that were not being addressed. He said the UO should do better in regard to affordable housing for people, asserting that people wanted the UO to continue to run the Westmoreland housing complex. Jonathan Bowers , 1149 Ferry Street, opposed the vacation because he believed the new arena was not needed and maintaining MacArthur Court better served the public interest. He asserted that those who disparaged MacArthur Court for safety reasons did not cite independent sources or studies. He said that many older arenas continued to be in use in the United States and cited some examples. They were being renovated rather than demolished. Keeping and renovating MacArthur Court served the public interest of the UO, the City, and the State as a historic remnant would be preserved and given landmark status, the UO would not have to consider taxpayer money for repayment of the bonds if that became necessary, and the UO would not be in debt for many years and could continue to use MacArthur Court at less expense over many years of time. Mark Robinowitz , PO Box 51222, Eugene, suggested the public was being diverted from larger issues by corporate sports and the community was prioritizing competition over cooperation. He said the UO was a publicly funded institute and its actions were causing people to vote no on new tax increases. He said the arena would not benefit the public but would benefit some companies and developers. He said it was perverse to call Eugene a human rights city because of Phil Knight’s role in funding the arena. He asserted that Mr. Knight exploited Indonesian girls at quasi- slave wages. He said that the EmX could not accommodate all those who would go to the arena and it would take fossil fuel to build the arena. He suggested the community would look back in regret at its decisions. Samantha Chirillo , a graduate student, opposed the arena project because she thought the UO should spend the money instead in homes for the homeless, energy security for all, and community policing. She said there was no time to lose to prepare for those things. Ms. Chiriillo said the arena and “any warping of the City Code” to accommodate the arena was foolish and a “crime against the common good and future generations.” She warned it would also set a “dangerous precedent” for City/neighborhood relations because of the work that had been done by the three entities in setting the parameters for University development. Ms. Chirillo assured the council that the UO had become a “corporate controlled, profit driven tumor” and no one could help keep it in check. She said the campus community was depending on the council to put the common good and emergency preparedness against projects such as the arena. Alice Warner , 1754 Orchard, asked the council to wait on a decision because it would not know what the public interest was until the University of Oregon went through the CUP process. As a neighbor, she did not have enough information. She did not think “this was the time.” She suggested that the request for a timely approval was a “very old trick” she was familiar with in her work as a project manager, when she frequently employed it in public testimony before public bodies. She asked the council “not to fall for it” and informed the council it could bring the issue back up after the CUP process, when all the information was in. Mayor Piercy called for applicant’s rebuttal. President Frohnmayer , on behalf of the UO, thanked the council for its courtesy and service to the public. He observed that the issue before the council was quasi-judicial, the decision was to be based on evidence in the record, and the standard was the public interest. He said the council had heard evidence about the need to replace the facility, about the economic impact, the economic sustainability of the new structure to be built, the needs of the disabled, the opportunities to be given young people as a result of the facility, about the issue of student athlete welfare, and about the lack of taxpayer funding. Money could be made available to the neighborhood to offset and mitigate the issues that affected the community. The arena would help improve the appearance of the community, including Franklin Boulevard. He said the conversation that Mr. Paz wanted was yet to be held because it was MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 13 Public Hearing premature and no one had yet discussed the use of those properties. He thought that when those properties were used, they should be used correctly. Those properties were acquired for use for the long-term public interest. He noted the testimony related to the multiple uses for the facility, and asked if the council had heard anything other than fears and opinions to the contrary. He asked if those fears and opinions were fact and if they outweighed the public interest. He believed there was time for a future discussion of conditions through the CUP process. This was a separate process. President Frohnmayer requested council approval. Ms. Jerome informed the council it had a statutory obligation to keep the record open for seven days, and there was an additional seven days that could be available to allow for rebuttal. She noted the code required the council to take action with 30 days of the close of the record, which could be difficult given the break. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman about the timeline for the CUP process, Planner Steve Ochs said the CUP was in the completeness stage. When the application was deemed complete, there would be 120 days allowed for the local decision, including an appeal to the Planning Commission. A hearing date would be set when the application was deemed complete. Councilor Bettman said it appeared that the rush for approval was an artificial rush given that the UO could not proceed without the CUP. Ms. Jerome indicated there might be some level of construction permitted as a result of the CUP, and it could be that the UO wanted to move forward with ground breaking. Councilor Bettman said she viewed her role as determining whether there was a public benefit from vacating the alley as opposed to maintaining it. Speaking to the City’s proposed assessment for the vacation, she maintained it was artificially low because it included more than the 20 feet of right-of-way. She asked the precise acreage when the alley, street, and right-of-way easements on both sides and the end were included. She wanted to see a higher number. She was not willing to use it to mitigate impacts from the arena as she thought the neighborhood organiza- tions should be negotiating with the UO to offset those costs. Councilor Bettman could justify a public benefit with more realistic estimate of property that was being conveyed to the UO and with a land exchange that was really in the public benefit, like parkland along the riverfront. Councilor Clark thanked all those who testified. He emphasized the decision was whether vacating the alley was in the public interest. He noted that Councilor Poling had asked him to request that he be contacted if the council decided to postpone the action beyond the break. Councilor Zelenka also thanked those who testified. He said the UO would like to start excavating soon and the neighbors supported that. However, both the alley vacation and a CUP were required to get to the building permit stage. The timeframe for that was November-December. He said the UO was seeking an opinion from the Attorney General allowing it to move forward with excavation without a building permit. He asked City Manager Ruiz to speak to that issue. City Manager Ruiz indicated the UO requested such an opinion, which would allow it to grade and excavate on the property without a permit. He said the City had not yet received an opinion from the Attorney General’s Office. If not granted, the UO could move forward if the alley vacation was granted because it would be the UO’s property, or the City could choose to issue a temporary or irrevocable permit for grading on the project site. Ms. Jerome added that the City had not yet determined how it would proceed with an Attorney General’s opinion. Councilor Zelenka appreciated UO concerns about cost delays but also appreciated the neighbors’ concerns about the impact of the arena, particularly post-construction impacts. They wanted those impacts mitigated to the degree possible. They were seeking a relatively modest amount to mitigate those impacts. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 14 Public Hearing Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Jerome reviewed possible timelines for closing the record and taking action. She noted that the deadline for action was September 10. Councilor Zelenka perceived that as providing time for all the processes to come together. Councilor Bettman believed the council would need more time if it was to consider anything beyond what had been submitted to this point. Speaking to the issue of the evidence on the record, she said she saw no evidence, merely statements without findings in support. She did not know what the properties were to be used for. The council could be vacating the property for a parking lot. She recalled that the application mentioned maintaining pedestrian th easements on the east-west 13 Avenue segment, but bicycles were not mentioned and the easements were not described. She wanted to know the increase in travel time for those seeking to access the EmX line. Councilor Bettman spoke to the issue of significant economic benefit and said there was no evidence of the 2,000 jobs mentioned in testimony in the findings. She asked if those were family wage jobs, and how long they would last. The application lacked traffic impact studies. She asked if the council’s decision could be appealed. Ms. Jerome said that staff had prepared two ordinances, both of which could be appealed to LUBA. Responding to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Jerome said the ordinances could not be referred to the voters. Councilor Bettman did not think the amount to be assessed reimbursed the public in regard to the connectivity that currently existed. She was very interested in a land exchange. Responding to a question from Councilor Pryor, Ms. Jerome said the council first needed to decide if it wished to keep the record open for 21 days or 14 days. She noted that the statutes grant the applicant the opportunity for seven additional days for rebuttal after that time. She noted that the UO had offered to waive that seven additional days if the council acted before the council recess. She suggested that a possible motion was to hold the record open for seven days until 5:00 p.m. on Monday July 28, during which anyone could submit written testimony; and open for another seven-day period ending 5:00 p.m. August 4 during which anyone can submit testimony rebutting evidence submitted in the past seven days. City Manager Ruiz confirmed that staff could have the information requested by the council in time for a decision prior to the recess. Ms. Jerome recommended that the council adopt a 14-day period initially. Councilor Pryor wanted to ensure that the council acted no later than September 8. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to keep the record open for 14 days, August 4, 2008, with a council decision to follow on August 11, 2008. Mr. Clark contacted Councilor Poling by telephone. Councilor Zelenka saw no need to rush a decision. He thought the council already had a very full schedule, and pointed out the alley vacation did not benefit the UO unless it received a favorable decision from the Attorney General. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to keep the record open for 21 days to August 11, 2008, and to schedule council action on September 8, 2008. Councilor Zelenka wanted staff to return with text that made the vacations contingent on the CUP for the arena to ensure the council was not vacating the alley for a parking lot. He also wanted to see the calculation behind the assessment. He noted a statement in the application that the vacations would not transfer traffic to other streets, but given the UO’s proposal to route truck traffic onto Villard Street, he wanted to see any egress/ingress studies that existed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 15 Public Hearing Speaking to the issue of the public interest, Councilor Zelenka said there were no taxpayer dollars being used to build the arena but it could have a local economic impact in the form of lost property taxes and future maintenance costs. Councilor Zelenka thanked both the UO and neighborhood residents for meeting to identify the issues of concern. He thought it was time to get to work and suggested the UO return to the next liaison committee with a very specific “straw man” proposal that addressed all the issues identified by the neighbors so those could be discussed in more detail. Councilor Ortiz said that it appeared there was a need to expedite the application, so she was somewhat challenged by the motion. She asked for more information about the Attorney General’s opinion and its impact on the decision before the council. Ms. Jerome did not have first-hand knowledge of the question posed by the UO or what to expect. She did not think the council could rely on the opinion to any degree in the decision before it. Councilor Ortiz thought the City needed to get the most “bang for its buck,” and she liked the idea of a land exchange, particularly a riparian property. She asked if there was an opportunity for a traffic impact analysis. Mr. Ochs said there was a traffic impact analysis in the CUP. He did not think staff could evaluate the alley impact in 14 days using that information. The Hearings Official would make the final determination about the analysis as part of the larger CUP. Councilor Ortiz emphasized the importance of the jobs that would be created by the arena project to her constituency and said she was unsure how she would vote. Councilor Taylor questioned whether the council had heard enough about the public interest in regard to the vacation of the street as opposed to the public interest in regard to the arena. She wanted to know how the assessment amount was arrived at, and if the council could legally ask the UO for more money. She was also interested in the land exchange mentioned by Councilor Bettman. She supported Councilor Zelenka’s motion. Councilor Bettman believed the council was being asked to make a decision before all the issues emerged and before the public had a chance to “catch on” to what the easements were. She was concerned about the easements and who would pay to move the utilities. She was not seeing enough information in the materials before the council. She reiterated her concern about the loss of connectivity and the larger impacts from the arena. People were suggesting that the City use the money to mitigate the impacts of the arena but the City did not know what those impacts were. She did not think the motion would delay the start time of the arena project, which she was confident would be built as the council had no power to stop it, and could only work to mitigate its impact and get a fair deal for its citizens. She did not think a quick turnaround before the recess would give staff and the neighborhood time to negotiate conditions with the UO. Councilor Bettman suggested the council consider an “in-lieu-of-taxes” approach to the request. Councilor Zelenka did not think the motion would unnecessarily delay the UO but would give the council time to do due diligence and address the important issues already on its schedule. He pointed out the council could attach an emergency clause to its action to facilitate the UO’s plans. Councilor Ortiz said she tried to think of the issue in terms of how it affected her constituency. While it did not sound like the world would end if the council delayed, she thought the arena could be beneficial to the community. She did not want to give mixed messages to the UO in regard to what she considered its community contributions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 16 Public Hearing Councilor Clark noted that he had Councilor Poling on the telephone. He said he favored the original motion because he thought an expedited process made more sense. Councilor Zelenka restated the motion for the benefit of Councilor Poling. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz, and Zelenka voting yes; councilors Solomon, Poling, Clark, and Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy thought that councilors and neighbors had unanswered questions and no opportunity to review conditions. She also thought the council had time to act without getting in the way of the UO and could take final action with a broad council majority. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Jerome cautioned the council and mayor present against ex parte contacts. Councilor Bettman clarified with Mr. Ochs that the record was on the City’s website and clarified the timelines for testimony with Ms. Jerome. Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Jerome indicated she would provide him with information about the use of the emergency clause prior to the time the council took action. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on the amended motion. The amended motion passed 5:3; Councilor Solomon, Councilor Poling, and Mr. Clark voting no. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 17 Public Hearing