Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: January 9, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the November 9, 2005, Work Session, November 14, 2005, Work Session, November 14, 2005, City Council Meeting, November 16, 2005, Work Session, November 23, 2005, Work Session, November 28, 2005, Work Session, and November 28, 2005, City Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A.November 9, 2005, Work Session B.November 14, 2005, Work Session C.November 14, 2005, City Council Meeting D.November 16, 2005, Work Session E.November 23, 2005, Work Session F.November 28, 2005, Work Session G.November 28, 2005, City Council Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060109\S0601093A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 9, 2005–Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: C:\User\cc051012m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYSeptember2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 12/5 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 12/13 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 12/13 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 1/1 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall November 9, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the November 9, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy recognized Mr. Papé for a motion. Mr. Papé noted the action taken by the council on October 26 to direct the City Manager to initiate work with the City’s intergovernmental partners on alternative transportation approaches in west Eugene. He recalled that he had offered a motion to the body, which failed, to review the ballot measures considered by the voters in 2001. He wished to revisit that issue as he had the opportunity to review that information in the interim. Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to reconsider the motion of the work session of October 26 directing staff to begin to work on alternative plans with Eugene’s govern- mental partners on a fix to transportation issues in west Eugene. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion to reconsider because she believed Eugene needed to get moving on some projects that were removed from consideration in order to fund the West Eugene Parkway (WEP), such as projects that would address safety and operational efficiencies. She wanted to get started on those projects immediately. If the motion to reconsider passed, she would consider a motion that strengthened the intent of the motion of October 26, which she thought was weakened by the friendly amendment offered by Mr. Papé. Ms. Bettman was not interested in further study as there were already other important transportation projects in TransPlan that were placed on the futures list because of the parkway. She wanted to look at those projects and get them “up and running and on the ground as soon as possible.” Mr. Kelly did not support the motion to reconsider because the two motions passed on October 26 had been interrelated. Passage of the first motion indicated a majority of the council no longer believed the parkway should move forward in transportation plans. The second motion acknowledged the transportation issues in west Eugene and dedicated the City to working with its intergovernmental partners on solutions to those problems. He averred that adoption of the motion would leave the council without any options for transportation issues in west Eugene at all, leaving that part of the community “in the lurch.” Mr. Pryor said he offered the motion of October 26 as an expression of his extreme frustration over the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 1 Work Session course of events. The council had chosen to respond to the problems in west Eugene by doing nothing to fix them. A council majority, using a variety of reasons and rationalizations, had chosen to go against the will of the majority of Eugene citizens who cast a ballot in support of building the parkway. He reminded the council that the public, at the same time it voted for the parkway in 2001, voted against looking at other alternatives to the parkway. He did not like being in the position of acting in opposition to the 2001 vote and acknowledged that his proposal of October 26 had done just that. He did not want to leave west Eugene with nothing, and that would be the result of the council’s action. There would be no parkway and no alternative, which was not acceptable. Mr. Pryor recalled that 61 percent of voters voted against examining alternatives to the parkway. Mr. Pryor reiterated that he proposed the October 26 motion out of intense frustration at having nothing done in west Eugene. He felt bad that the council voted against the will of the people. He was very frustrated over the position the council was in. He invited other options, suggesting one option could be to return to the voters. He was undecided on the motion due to conflicting values he had on the issue. Mayor Piercy believed Eugene needed a solution that solved its traffic problems in the west part of the community and protected the west Eugene wetlands. She averred “that was what the people really wanted” when they cast their votes. The parkway had not been built and she did not think it happen anytime soon. The City Council should look for other solutions. The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Papé, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mr. Papé asked for permission to change his vote on the motion of October 26. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that was not possible under the council’s ground rules. Mr. Papé said he was deeply troubled by the lack of integrity demonstrated by the council’s action. He recalled the old saying, “If you don’t want to know, don’t ask,” and reminded the council that it had asked the voters their opinion about the parkway. He questioned how the council could ignore the results of the ballot measure four years later without going back to the voters about their willingness to consider alternatives. A. WORK SESSION: Eugene Police Department Strategic Plan City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, noting the voters’ approval of an external police review body and external auditor the previous day. He suggested that the results of the election provided some clarity to the discussion the council had been having over the past year. He reminded the council that he had been working with Police Chief Robert Lehner on a framework for action to help the Police Department restore its trust with the community and move it to the level it needed to be to address current-day issues. He complimented Chief Lehner and his staff for the work they had done in bringing the Strategic Plan forward. Police Chief Robert Lehner provided a PowerPoint presentation on the details of the Strategic Plan. He noted a planning timeline that indicated the process was nearing its end and would flow into future budget and planning processes. He characterized the plan as a beginning rather than an end. He provided some brief history of the plan, noting the inception of the first plan in 1995, subsequent resource limitations, and changes in management that complicated the City’s ability to implement the plan. Chief Lehner noted the impact of the Magana/Lara scandal and the work done by the Police Commission with regard to complaint review. He also reminded the council of the results of the ICMA/PERF review, and noted the council’s MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 2 Work Session subsequent adoption of the Strategic Plan as a priority issue. Chief Lehner noted the major action categories in the plan: 1) Crime and Public Safety; 2) Community Policing; and 3) Service Quality and Trust. The plan was intended to provide a framework and guide for most police activities for the next four to five years and would help prioritize budgets and activities in a way that maximized police resources and helped reach the intended change outcomes. Chief Lehner reviewed the process that led to the development of the plan, noting sources of public and professional input. He highlighted and emphasized the importance of the evaluation element of the process, as well as the importance of tying budgets to the plan. Chief Lehner shared the department’s organizational values, mission statement, and neighborhood-based community policing philosophy. Chief Lehner shared the results of the work done by program teams to identify the work they did, the objectives they were trying to accomplish, and the measures they used to reach those goals. He said the teams were able to find places in the department with program overlap as well as identify services unclaimed by any program. The teams found that program responsibility had been diffuse in many cases. Chief Lehner reviewed the change element initiatives: 1) improve organizational capacity; 2) improve organizational effectiveness; and 3) improve organizational accountability. He indicated that all the change elements fell into one or more of those categories. Chief Lehner provided a list of short-, mid-, and long- term initiatives. Chief Lehner reviewed next steps in the process, which included adoption of the Strategic Plan, the incorporation of plan recommendations into the fiscal year 2007 budget, and continued development of the initiatives for incorporation into future budget processes. Mayor Piercy opened the floor to questions. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for its work on the plan, saying he liked the overall structure of the plan and much of the contents. He liked the goals and the fact the goals were specifically measurable. He endorsed the recommendation for a progress report. Mr. Kelly thought the vision statement was inspiring. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the key role of the neighborhoods and the neighborhood community- based policing philosophy. He suggested that the mission statement be amended to refer to neighborhood associations rather than organizations to reflect the terminology currently in use. Mr. Kelly thought the work being done on the programs was worthwhile and noted the priorities given them in the plan. He said the plan was silent on the issue of how much money to place toward a particular program, and he thought that would be useful information to include. Mr. Kelly noted that the materials before the council mentioned that department staff evaluated the budget to determine historical and actual allocation of resources to each program, but that information was not included in the appendix. Chief Lehner indicated that information was not yet available but would be in the future. Ms. Taylor thanked staff for its work on the plan and commended Chief Lehner’s presentation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if the sizes of Eugene neighborhoods made a difference in community policing; some were easily walked in a short time, and others were “huge.” Chief Lehner said yes, it did make a difference, and noted the relationship to the council’s priority issue related to neighborhoods. Ms. Taylor asked if neighborhood sizes would have to change to accommodate community policing. Chief Lehner believed that was an important element of the discussion regarding the neighborhood initiative, adding that the issue had a significant influence on community-based policing and the department would have a role in that discussion. Ms. Taylor asked if anything in the City’s officer hiring process would prevent the hiring of individuals such as officers Lara and Magana, who she understood had criminal records. Chief Lehner responded that was a consideration in the department’s hiring initiative. The department reviewed its background screens and had already made several adjustments to those processes. The initiative would result in a recommendation for a modified background screen. Ms. Taylor spoke to the need to reduce property crimes, saying she had been hearing about incidents of residents who arrived home to find burglars in their house. She had seen nothing in the plan on how to reduce such property crimes. Chief Lehner said that it was a long-term goal that involved not just department resources, but interagency and inter-organizational resources, and for that reason would be a difficult one to achieve. The department would have to develop strategies that included those other agencies. Ms. Taylor asked if achieving the goal would involve doing more to find burglars. Chief Lehner said that he was working with Lane County Sheriff’s Office on a target offender program with the idea of stopping repeat offenses. Ms. Taylor asked if the department took fingerprints for burglaries. Chief Lehner said yes, in most cases. Mr. Papé asked what involvement the Police Commission had in the development of the plan. Chief Lehner said that the commission was involved through its identification of issues of importance to it, and had reviewed the plan both in a subcommittee setting and as a full commission. The commission would see the plan again on November 11. Mr. Papé said he would like to see a recommendation on the plan from the Police Commission before the council saw the final draft. He would also like to see a cross-reference between the strategies and the ICMA/PERF report. Chief Lehner indicated such a matrix had been prepared. Mr. Papé asked if the department could work with the courts on some of the recommendations in the plan, as he thought the proposals would not work without their cooperation. Chief Lehner indicated that the inclusion of a goal indicated its importance to the City and gave direction to staff as it worked with other agencies. Mr. Papé referred to page 15, listing organizational values, and suggested that some terms needed definition, such as “professionalism” and “innovation.” He also thought that improved organizational something would be a value as well as something else. He asked what “service” and “teamwork” meant. Chief Lehner agreed about the need for such definitions. Mayor Piercy noted that time for the item had expired. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to extend time for the item by 15 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman supported the plan and commended the department and chief. She said that plan represented MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 4 Work Session something that needed to be done for a long time. The plan organized and documented what was being done and identified gaps. She thought it provided transparency into the actions of the department, which was an issue during budget time. Ms. Bettman said the plan represented a large, difficult, and challenging job. She thought it reflective of what the community wanted in terms of quality policing services. Noting that the council did not generally adopt such plans, Mr. Kelly thought it important that the council have a policy discussion of the department’s initiatives with the chief outside the budget process. Speaking to the initiatives, Mr. Kelly asked about the first such short-term initiative, to develop an organizational staffing plan. He said staffing levels are intimately tied to department activities, and asked how that could be done before the initiatives were fleshed out. Chief Lehner said that the plan focused on what the department was doing and what it was doing it with. He said that the gap was in terms of what the department was expected to do and what it could do. Part of the process of plan implementation was closing that gap. He anticipated it would not be a one-time thing and the plan would be reviewed annually. Chief Lehner hoped the staffing plan provided a framework for moving forward. Mr. Papé asked what “culturally competent” meant. Chief Lehner said it met an ability to operate in a culturally diverse environment. He noted his experience in Tucson, where Native American communities were part of the city and knowledge of their culture was vital to an officer’s ability to respond to calls for service from those individuals. He said a significant subculture existed in the form of the gay and lesbian community. An understanding of what was going on with the community was needed, and that occurred in joint discussions of expectations with that community. It implied a educated organization that learned about cultural and style difference, and then was competent in operating in that environment. Mr. Papé thanked Chief Lehner for the excellent explanation. He then expressed the hope the organization and the community understood the term because he was not sure he did. Mr. Papé referred to the goals of the plan and suggested that when someone reported a crime, it would be good to have a live voice on the other end of the line. Chief Lehner said he and his staff felt the same way. The issue was a resource issue in terms of the number of calls being received and the number of people available to take those calls. The issue was how to address the calls for non-emergency service that were received by the department. At the moment, staff preferred to direct calls to a telephone tree as opposed to giving callers a busy signal. Mr. Papé suggested one way to address the issue was through the goals. Chief Lehner pointed out that the issue was already addressed in a goal. Mr. Kelly said there were many good initiatives proposed, and he particularly applauded the initiatives related to the complaint-handling process, domestic violence, the broadening of the parks patrols, and the possibility of a precinct model being adopted at a future time. Mr. Kelly asked for more information about the communications review. Chief Lehner noted the continuous staffing problem in Communications, which was tied to retention. A management review was occurring to determine what could be done in regard to training and retention. The study would help inform the City as to the optimal number of staff. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the chief’s outreach to neighborhoods, which she thought was very important. She appreciated the comprehensive and responsive nature of the plan, particularly the elements tied to finding out what residents wanted. She noted the passage of the charter amendment providing for an external police auditor, and said she was interested in having the council know what the officers needed for them to feel supported by the council. She asked the chief to think about how the council could convey its appreciation and support to the department staff on a continuous basis. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Chief Lehner commended the work done by Senior Management Analyst Linda Phelps on the Strategic Plan. B. WORK SESSION: Public Safety Task Force Update The council was joined by Jim Johnson, consultant to the Public Safety Task Force process. Mayor Piercy recalled the council’s rejection of a public safety district proposal put forward by the Board of County Commissioners and its expression of willingness to work with its interjurisdictional partners on a funding solution. She called attention to the materials given to the council, which provided a review of the task force process. The task force was formed by the County in response to the reaction it received from Lane County municipalities to the public safety district proposal. City Manager Taylor said he believed the task force attempted to determine the status quo and the level of service needed to meet the demand of cities in Lane County. Several recommendations were forwarded by the task force, and he believed the Board of County Commissioners expected the council to respond to the proposal with a specific set of recommendations, which would inform its decision-making process. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Kelly, a member of the task force, to comment on the recommendations of the task force. Mr. Kelly spoke to how intertwined the elements of the public safety system were and how necessary one element of the system was to another element’s success. He considered the proposal in terms of each element of the system and what it would mean in actual practice. He believed that the mix of services in the proposal made a major difference in all the areas of the system. Mr. Kelly said that it was easy to criticize the allocation if one did not understand the interrelationships of the system, such as the expense of incarceration versus the cost of providing drug treatment beds. Mr. Kelly reported that 10 of 12 jurisdictions present at the final meeting of the task force supported an initiative to create a local sales tax, partially offset by a property tax. Some jurisdictions recommended gross receipts tax offset by property tax reduction. He commended the work of Commissioner Faye Stewart, who had taken a political risk and shown leadership by conceding there was a funding gap and proposing a solution. Mayor Piercy thought the proposal before the council had been carefully thought out. She also commended the work done by Commissioner Stewart in seeking a solution, adding that she supported his proposal and that the commissioners were now working on next steps. Mayor Piercy invited comments and questions from the council. Ms. Bettman asked who the decision-making body would be for the allocation of the revenues collected if the task force’s recommendation was adopted by the voters. She learned from Mr. Kelly it would be the Lane Board of County Commissioners, then voiced her concern with that arrangement. She asked what percentage of the $60 million was actually dedicated to prevention as opposed to enforcement. Mr. Kelly said he was not trying to avoid the question, but he did not think the statistic was particularly relevant because prevention was cheaper than enforcement. Ms. Bettman thought the figure relevant, adding that she would be interested in knowing what the current split was, and how the new money changed that ratio. Mr. Kelly responded the $60 million fix of services had a higher percent of prevention services that the current mix. Mr. Johnson said the current amount was $6 million and $14 million for incarceration. He indicated MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 6 Work Session he would respond to Ms. Bettman’s request. Ms. Bettman said she would be more supportive of a gross receipts tax than a sales tax, which touches rich and poor alike. The property tax reduction would go only to property owners, multiplying the regressive aspect of the sales tax. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the broad range of the services included in the proposal. She said that people like to choose what to vote for. Regarding prevention of services, she asked if anyone had examined the duplication of services provided by various agencies, as it was her perception that there was duplication. She was opposed to a sales tax and thought it a waste of time to place it on the ballot. She agreed with Ms. Bettman about the property tax reduction. Ms. Taylor said she thought a business license tax was preferable to the other taxes that had been considered. Mayor Piercy assured the council there was nothing set in stone at this point, and the City’s participation was purely advisory. Mr. Papé said the funding problem arose from a lack of revenues. While Lane County was one of the most populous counties in the state, it had one of the lowest revenue streams. He also commended the work of Commissioner Stewart. He said he would have loved to see a sales tax with exceptions for necessities instituted in Oregon years ago. He acknowledged the failure of other sales tax proposals but indicated he would support the one under consideration. Mr. Papé asked if there was any consideration by the County about contracting with the cities of Eugene and Springfield for services provided in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara and Glenwood. Mr. Johnson indicated that police services had not received much deliberation, adding that more discussion occurred about incarceration, treatment, and the potential of double taxation. Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the work of the task force. She had been unable to support the public safety district proposal but thought the County’s response to the City’s concerns was reasonable. Ms. Ortiz said she would support taking the proposal to a vote. Ms. Solomon asked about recent Board of County Commissioners decisions, time line, and the potential of placing more than one item on the ballot. In response, Mr. Johnson indicated that it would be possible to place more than one item on the ballot, but generally the measures got tied together and would require more than one campaign. Mr. Johnson said the Board of County Commissioners recently met to discuss the topic and the task force’s recommendations. The board discussion covered everything but the form of taxation and date of election. The board agreed to the suggested property tax reduction and basically concurred with the task force’s recommendations related to the service mix, although the board could add to the prevention and rural patrol services. The board would take up the funding issue again, and he thought it would give serious consideration to a business income tax similar to that used in Portland, as well as a personal income tax. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon about the nature of the ballot measure that would be offered to the voters, Mr. Johnson suggested the rate and purpose would be in the County Charter, which could only be changed by a vote of the people. The ballot measure related to income taxes would likely be to ask voters if an income tax should be put into place. If successful, the tax would be implemented through ordinance. He anticipated the measures could be on the May 2006 ballot. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked if the entire $32 million in property taxes currently budgeted for County public safety services would be refunded. She also asked if anyone had compared the anticipated revenue streams to determine where the largest amounts would be generated, and if the task force considered directing some of the revenues to the Eugene Police Department to help it implement its Strategic Plan and pay for police services. She believed that if the proposal was adopted, Eugene taxpayers would be helping to pay for State-mandated services that were supposed to be delivered by the County. Mr. Kelly addressed the issues that had been raised. He said that projections indicated Eugene would generate the majority of the revenue from a new taxing source. However, it was likely a plurality of drug treatment clients or those occupying jail beds would be from Eugene. Mr. Kelly said the task force had not discussed a revenue share with the cities, an idea he found intriguing. However, that would require a larger money measure. Mr. Kelly noted a multi-million dollar item to fund rural patrols had been dropped out of concern about the potential of double taxation. Mr. Kelly recalled the task force’s discussion of the gross receipts tax had always exempted smaller businesses. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s question about the property tax refund, Mr. Kelly said that if one removed the existing funding for public safety services paid for by property tax and funded through a dedicated revenue source, what the County was refunding in property tax was what one used to pay through the General Fund for part of the services. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly indicated that no additional new bureaucracy would be needed. He also indicated that the task force found more examples of service gaps than examples of duplication of service. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall November 14, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Bonny Bettman, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILOR ABSENT: George Poling. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy welcomed the special guests from Irkutsk, Russia, one of Eugene’s sister cities, who introduced themselves. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy reported on the following: ? The League of Oregon Cities met on November 12, and Mr. Papé was acknowledged for his good works; ? Residents of Kanazu, Japan, visited Kelly Middle School today (November 14); ? The Mayor’s State of the City Address had been moved from Tuesday, January 3, to Thursday, January 5. Ms. Ortiz reported that she: ? Will participate in an immigration panel with Mayor Piercy on Wednesday, November 16, at 7 p.m., at Cesar Chavez School; ? Would participate in a Latino Outreach to be held at the Chamber of Commerce; ? Attended the first meeting of the Community Standards Group. In conclusion, Ms. Ortiz referred to the November 14, 2005, memorandum sent to the City Council from the Police Commission and urged the council to approval the commission’s request to conduct research for the council as it moves forward to recruit a police auditor. Mr. Kelly reported he received an inquiry from an owner of one of the local taxi companies who voiced dismay that taxi companies were not permitted to advertise in the manner currently practiced by Lane Transit District. Mr. Kelly said that he viewed this as an equity issue and requested that staff ascertain if the City was in compliance with its code and/or Administrative Rules with such permits and non-permits. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly announced that at its October meeting, the Region 2050 Group completed its outreach around the Central County Area and the Metropolitan Policy Board (MPC) and staff would craft a draft of preferred strategies for the region between now and the year 2050. He explained that the draft would be reviewed by each city twice, once prior to the adoption by MPC, and again following presumed adoption in the form of a resolution or intergovernmental agreement. Mr. Kelly added that the Region 2050 meeting to be held on November 16 would include a presentation on legal parameters by Lane Shetterly, the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Ms. Taylor announced that the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority changed its name to the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency, and that the agency was currently crafting goals and a vision statement. Ms. Taylor spoke to the visitors from Eugene’s sister city of Irkutsk and thanked them for allowing time in their busy schedule to attend the session. She voiced hope that a delegation from Eugene would be able to visit Irkutsk next summer. In conclusion, Ms. Taylor announced that the recent League of Oregon Cities convention was one of the best in recent memory, with an excellent session devoted to the arts. Mr. Papé echoed Ms. Taylor’s comments regarding the League of Oregon Cities convention and said an excellent resource, Dr. Bill Grace, discussed leadership ethics. He then cautioned that the council needed to pay special attention to 1) attempts to usurp the council’s authority with regard to the telecommunications franchise area; and 2) the State administrative rule around water rights, which would be somewhat complicated. He stressed that the issue around “no impact to the rivers” would be a dilemma. Turning to the subject of Ward 5, Mr. Papé thanked Mayor Piercy for holding a “one on one” meeting in that area which was very much appreciated by his constituents. Mr. Papé reported that a fence would be constructed on Holly Street and asked the City Manager to advise if a permit for that construction will be necessary. City Manager Dennis Taylor announced that he was elected to the Oregon City/County Management Association Board of Directors. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to accept the recommendation of the Eugene Police Commission to proceed with the next steps of the Civilian Oversight Model as set forth in its memo to the City Council on November 14, 2005: To conduct research from other communities with police auditors and based on a compilation of that data, present 1) elements to be considered in a job description for the police auditor position that were tailored to the responsibilities as proposed in the Police Commission’s proposal; and 2) a recommendation for a set of characteristics and qualifications to be considered for the police auditor position. Additionally, to 1) assist with the development of enabling ordinance language necessary to establish the oversight system; 2) work with City staff to craft new policies and modify existing policies to ensure consistent operating practices for MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 2 Work Session the oversight system and to reflect changes in the internal affairs process; 3) develop recommendations regarding the role and organizational structure of the Police Commission with regard to the new oversight components; and 4) provide input to council on the disposition of other outstanding issues. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the recruitment of the auditor was a crucial “first step” so that he/she can assist with the design of the civilian oversight process. Mr. Papé stated that the voters have spoken and the process to implement the Civilian Oversight Model must now move forward. He questioned, however, whether Mr. Poling requested that he be present for this motion. City Manager Taylor confirmed that Mr. Poling did not make such a request on this particular motion. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the council was not made aware of the formal request of the commission prior to this meeting. She stated she would vote for approval of the motion with reservations, pointing out that the entire council needed to take the lead on this process at the earliest possible date. Mr. Kelly concurred; however, he opined that the expertise of the commission can be of great value to the council as it moves forward with this process. Mr. Pryor voiced hesitation to approve the motion as the request had not been presented to the council for discussion prior to this meeting. He stressed he had faith in the Police Commission; however, he remained firm in his caution about voting on issues that have not heretofore been discussed. City Manager Taylor reminded the council that in addition to the Police Commission and its staff, the Human Resource staff would be of assistance to the council as it develops a position description and recruitment strategy. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the motion did not move the council forward with a decision; rather, it approves the commission’s request to compile research and provide the first phase of its information to the council for consideration in January 2006. She voiced her gratitude for the expertise of the commission in this particular endeavor. The motion passed 6:1, with Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. B. REPORT ON SISTER CITY TRIP Mayor Piercy thanked the delegation that accompanied her to two of Eugene’s four sister cities, Jinju, Korea and Kakegawa, Japan: David Piercy, Mr. Papé, Ki-Won Rhew, Youn Rhew, David Funk, Duane Funk, Ken Yi , Ruth Yi, Judge Jack Billings, Tom Bickel, and Mary Walston. A slide show highlighting the trip, presented by Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston, proceeded. Mayor Piercy stated that she and Mr. Papé would be pleased to share additional information about the trip and voiced hope that others (both council members and constituents) would become involved in some manner with Eugene’s sister cities. Mr. Papé echoed Mayor Piercy’s comments and said the trip was one of the most interesting he had ever experienced due to its non-tourist form in the manner of home stays, visits to schools, and the visit to the Holt Agency. With regard to the Holt Agency, he noted his renewed MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 3 Work Session appreciation of the work of Bertha and Harry Holt, which lives on in that part of the world. Additionally, he spoke of his visit to Hynix and shared that it was looking to expand its plant in Eugene, which would be a welcome economic boost to the community. Mayor Piercy spoke of the “Slow Life Movement” that had been implemented in Kakegawa, a model that she found most impressive. Additionally, she spoke of the “connection” that presents itself with the Sister City Program and noted an example that was currently taking place in Korea in that children with disabilities were being mainstreamed into schools, which changes the services that were provided to them. Agencies were looking to the Pearl Buck Center as a model for such changes. She stressed that these community-to-community connections seem even more important in a world with many troubling issues. In conclusion, Mayor Piercy commented that she was honored to travel to these cities and share her insights with the community. She then displayed the gifts that had been bestowed to the delegation. Mr. Papé thanked the City Council for allowing the funding for the trip. C. I-5 FRANKLIN PROPOSED INTERCHANGE PROJECT UPDATE Senior Transportation Planner Lisa Gardner stated this agenda item would be the council’s third briefing on the I-5 Franklin Interchange Project. She noted that Phase 2, the input process, was nearing completion and that a series of public workshops would be scheduled in early December, with the Eugene workshop to be held on December 8, in the Eugene City Library. Following that process, Ms. Gardner explained, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) would meet with elected officials to ascertain approval of the process to date. Ms. Gardner proceeded to introduce Tom Boyatt, Senior Planner at ODOT, Sam Suskind of CH2M Hill, and Brian Ray of Kittleson Associates, who she stated would provide a project overview and answer the council’s questions. Mr. Boyatt reviewed his memorandum of November 7 entitled I-5/Franklin Proposed Interchange Update. He spoke to the interchange concepts, the study purpose, benefits of a new interchange, traffic and circulation benefits, and project issues. Mr. Boyatt opined that no transportation problems presented themselves at this time. Mr. Boyatt encouraged the council to ponder what priority it deemed prudent to set for this project. He then spoke to policy issues, namely the Major Investments Policy and the Federal Highways Policy on Access to the Interstate System and said these policies do not preclude building an interchange in the area; rather, there was a process that would need to be adhered to -- assuming it was a priority. Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. Mr. Kelly voiced appreciation for the work completed to date on this endeavor and agreed there was merit to the project. However, he spoke to the key issues, such as the impact on the river, parklands, and affected neighborhoods, which he cautioned he would carefully observe. Mr. Kelly asked whether the council could give its sanction to partial interchanges rather than the full interchanges, if it determined such action to be prudent. Ms. Gardner did not think that the council would not be expected to provide that level of detail. She clarified that the council needed only to ascertain whether it approved the continuation of the pursuit of the project, including plan amendments. Mr. Boyatt, with noted concern, asked that the council not pre- MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 4 Work Session determine the refinement planning process. He said that it was his charge to take an objective technical look at the plan. Mr. Kelly agreed that a full range of alternatives needed to be analyzed; however, he opined, it was a full range of alternatives based on ODOT’s purpose and need. He noted that the council, after review and discussion, from a City policy standpoint, could deem it prudent to condition the purpose and need in some way. Mr. Suskind stated that the goal of ODOT was to enable the council to ascertain whether the project was worthy of being included in the City’s plan but not to prejudge the design or the characteristics of the project. He added that input on the purpose and need was most appropriate and therefore a statement would be drafted to identify the issues which need further focus in the development of alternatives. Mr. Kelly agreed that it would be premature at this stage in the process for the council to approve certain alternatives. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Boyatt confirmed that a public comment report would be provided to the City Council for its review. Ms. Ortiz stated that she was not in favor of moving forward with this project. She explained that safety issues elsewhere needed to be addressed; specifically, the Beltline, which was unsafe to travel during peak times. Mr. Pryor stated he supported the project. He concurred with Ms. Ortiz that the Beltline was unsafe but he considered the project under discussion to be a high priority. Mr. Pryor explained that if Eugene was to become a metropolitan area of greater scope, it cannot have a major interstate highway that did not have a functional interchange. Mr. Papé stated it was his understanding that the federal government was responsible for the freeways, the State of Oregon was responsible for connectivity around the state, and it was the responsibility of the City and the County to resolve local transportation issues. Mr. Boyatt concurred; however, he pointed out while the federal government had delegated ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the federal interstate systems to the states, it had retained approval authority through its regulations. He continued, saying that ODOT was responsible for I-5 under the umbrella of the federal approval authority. Mr. Papé said that the council needed to discuss the project in the context of how it improved the system on a local level and with the State system. Mr. Boyatt remarked that the project should not have detrimental impact to Beltline, Franklin Boulevard, I-5, or Hwy 99. Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Ortiz’s comments that focus must be targeted to the Beltline. He added that when debating this project, consideration should be given to the area’s needs over the next 50 years. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Suskind replied that 24” x 36” diagrams designed around different themes–which would be of interest to the community and based upon the facts to be presented by Mr. Boyatt–would be made available to the community at the scheduled public meetings. Ms. Bettman then spoke of the historical process around the interchange and asserted that ODOT originally agreed to receive approval from local jurisdictions prior to developing a project that may not enjoy community support later on. Mr. Boyatt clarified that the approval being sought at this time from local jurisdictions was to move forward solely with the facility planning process. He added that following that process, it was hoped that ODOT would adopt the plan for the State system and then have the local jurisdiction adopt a facility plan into the transportation system plan which would provide an opportunity for the council to review the project once again. Mr. Boyatt stressed that it was the intent of ODOT to provide as much MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 5 Work Session information as possible on the idea itself, which stops short of developing any particular alternatives. Ms. Bettman opined that community support for this project would depend on its scale and impacts. Ms. Bettman spoke to the contamination issue at Alton Baker Park and asked how it would impact building over that site. Mr. Boyatt replied that the contamination had been identified as an issue and the details would depend on further investigation. Ms. Bettman asked if it would dictate that there must be a partial clover leaf south of the river. Mr. Boyatt replied that ODOT placed fill on the capped site as part of the detour structure and additional fill would most likely be necessary for the replacement bridge. He added that unnecessary excavation must be avoided. Ms. Bettman asked how the dedicated lanes of Bus Rapid Transit on Franklin Boulevard would be impacted. Mr. Boyatt replied that that issue was not a cross-section detail that had been reviewed; however, he opined that a design would be crafted that avoids dedicated lanes that must be respected. Ms. Gardner added that any impacts against existing conditions must be mitigated. Ms. Bettman referred to Attachment B, Initial Concepts – Category 1 – Full Interchange – Diamond 1, and asked for an explanation of possible boulevard treatments. Mr. Boyatt explained that the treatments would be for Glenwood Boulevard, west of the interchange. Ms. Gardner added that it was solely an issue to consider at a later time. Mr. Ray said that the concept of Diamond 1 was that it would take away the freeflow movements of the current Highway 99 ramps; i.e., instead of having freeflow movements near Oak Street, movements from the south would veer to the signal and therefore speeds could be reduced. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Boyatt replied that if ODOT moved forward to interchange area management planning, local approval would be necessary to continue forth with the project. Mr. Kelly stressed that prior to a council vote it was essential that it be clarified if an approval to move forward to pursue the project mandated a second approval phase following the completion of the Facility Plan. Mr. Kelly said he would send any questions regarding the technical memos that were presented to the council on this date to Ms. Gardner, who would forward them to the project management team. Mr. Kelly questioned if alternatives to mitigate the potential cut-off of the Laurel Hill Valley design have been pursued. Mr. Boyatt replied that the northbound freeway exit and the southbound freeway on-ramp both provide connections to the neighborhood. The specifics of design alternatives involving those connections have not yet been analyzed at this high level, but would be investigated in detail during refinement planning as alternative designs were compared and assessed. Mr. Boyatt remarked that the area Mr. Kelly referred to was also currently accessible by the Glenwood Interchange. Mr. Kelly pointed out that ODOT made it clear to the MPC in its discussions regarding a permanent bridge and a full interchange that they will be separate projects with two separate processes. Additionally, that ODOT, in its discussions, promised to build a permanent bridge to avoid precluding ramps. He said if additional background on the relationship between the bridge structure and the ramp structure was requested, Mr. Ray can provide that information. Mr. Papé asked where the potential “superfund” site was located. Mr. Boyatt replied it was the site of the old Goodpasture Dump. Mr. Papé pointed out that the site may have some toxic waste MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 6 Work Session and clean-up required but it was not a superfund site. Ms. Gardner concurred that the site did not appear to be a superfund site. In response to another question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Boyatt replied that the challenge for the bridge designers was how to build a bridge that may not interfere with some future connection to Franklin Boulevard. With regard to the I-5 Beltline Interchange, Mr. Boyatt stated that ODOT had not scoped the community/stakeholder input; however, due to the interest in the project locally, a robust process would ensue, beginning with the December 8 public meeting. Mr. Papé pointed out that if access to and from the Laurel Valley was cut off, fire response and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) issues must be considered. Ms. Gardner replied that that level of impact to Laurel Valley had not been reviewed at this phase. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the original intent of ODOT was to get an indication from the local jurisdictions as to whether the interchange project was a priority so the process could be merged with the bridge process. Mr. Boyatt agreed that the original idea was such a concept; however, as time progressed, it was made clear to ODOT that such a plan would be difficult. He elaborated that the chief hurdles were funding and time lines and that the bridge funding, by legislative fiat, must be tapped by 2012 and therefore ODOT found it difficult to move forward with a $80 million replacement structure which would be funded on a bond time line. Additionally, attaching it when there were no physical or horizontal geometric needs specifically attaching it to the bridge was not deemed prudent. Ms. Bettman said she understood the reasons for such a determination; however, she pointed out that as the interchange project was now a separate and discrete project, utilizing a modified process was unnecessary as it could be pursued through a traditional process. She added that there was no rush to move forward as a time line did not need to be met and that the bridge design process, which was ahead of the interchange process, would need to have a design that would not preclude the on- and off-ramp. Mr. Boyatt countered that there was a possibility some of the construction phases could very well combine at a later time. Mr. Suskind stated that, speaking as a consultant for ODOT, his charge was to inform the policymakers and keep them in charge of the process and make a determination whether to move forward to a refinement plan, regional plan amendments, and finally into the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process. Ms. Taylor stated it was her understanding that the interchange project would be combined with the bridge project. Mayor Piercy reminded the council that MPC had been informed quite some time ago that constructing the bridge at the same time as the off-ramps would not be possible. Ms. Taylor then questioned who benefitted from the construction of the interchange. Ms. Gardner replied that the question put forth by Ms. Taylor would be answered through the public process, followed by further review within the elected official domain. Mr. Kelly recognized that some of the construction could align, regardless if there were two NEPA processes. In terms of benefits, he shared that a number of his constituents voiced support for the project, as it would improve central city access for constituents and visitors. In terms of process, Mr. Kelly pointed to the Beltline/I-5 process and opined that it did in fact produce good efforts; however, the challenge was that most of the work took place in the middle of the NEPA process. With the current process, he appreciated that there was a determination to provide for more dialogue and stakeholder discussion and a series of “thumbs up/thumbs down” exercises with elected officials prior to any allocation of large sums of money. Mr. Boyatt thanked Mr. Kelly for the reminder that planning prior to the NEPA process was most prudent; in fact, essential. In conclusion, Mayor Piercy commented that attention must be paid to purpose and needs as those components guide processes thereafter. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy adjourned the regular work session at 6:47 p.m. D. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Piercy called the council into executive session in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(h) The executive session adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 8 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 14, 2005–Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: C:\User\cc051012m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYSeptember2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 12/6 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 12/21 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 12/21 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 1/2 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall November 14, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the November 14, 2005, regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Mayor Piercy presented Larry Perry of the Eugene Public Library Foundation with a plaque recognizing the foundation’s successful capital campaign. Mayor Piercy noted that the foundation recently presented a check for $65,000 to the City, representing the final payment for the Buildings for Generations Campaign. The check represented the culmination of years of dedicated work by hundreds of volunteers and the generosity of more than 2,500 donors. Mr. Perry, president of the foundation, accepted the plaque and introduced other members of the foundation who were present. He reiterated the foundation’s continuing support for the library, and reminded the public and council of the upcoming Arts and Artists fundraising event. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Steve Johnson , 1825 Longview Street, a member of the board of the Eugene Parks Foundation, urged the council to consider placing a parks bond measure on the ballot in one year. He noted the history of the previous bond measure and said the money was all spent successfully and the citizens received more than they hoped for. He noted his membership on former Mayor Jim Torrey’s Parks Planning Committee, and said the Comprehensive Parks Master Plan soon to be considered by the council indicated the City was behind national standards for parks and recreation, as well as behind local standards; the plan identified significant gaps in those areas, and a bond measure would address those gaps. He observed that in 1998, citizens considered three money measures, all of which passed by considerable margins. Eugene citizens expressed willingness to fund public needs, once they were clearly demonstrated. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 1 Regular Meeting Mr. Johnson suggested that a measure that cost about $10 million more than the past bond would be manageable by present staff. He recommended a committee be formed to identify what made the most sense to offer to the voters. Jenny Ulum , 2493 Panorama Drive, a member of the Eugene Parks Foundation Board, agreed with the comments of Mr. Johnson. She said Eugene was proud of its parks but there were improvements that could be made to the system, such as a more equal geographic distribution of parks. Parks were a valuable resource for the entire community. She offered the foundation’s assistance in fundraising for new parks. She acknowledged competing needs but believed the public would support additional parks funding. Mary Otten , 1612 Lincoln Street, expressed her concern about the proposed conversion of the signal- th controlled intersection at 10 Avenue and Olive Street to a four-way stop. She asked the council to stop that from occurring because the bus station was located close to that intersection and the ambient noise from the buses would impede the blind from crossing because they would be unable to hear to safely navigate the intersection in question. She was not opposed to four-way stops in general but thought someone could get injured at the site in question. Ms. Otten said the Human Rights Commission’s Accessibility Committee (HRAC) was not informed about the conversion but only found out about it by accident after the decision was made, and she thought there was a gap in the process that allowed that to occur. She said the committee could not properly advise the City if it was not informed. Zachery Vishanoff , a resident of Patterson Street, noted his interest in having pre-Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) meetings for those who had difficulty crossing Franklin Boulevard. He said that would allow the Lane Transit District (LTD) to make informed decisions. Speaking to the issue of planning for a new city hall, he expressed concern about the discussion he heard at the council’s meeting on the topic, in particular the discussion of public information. He said that citizens would not get a chance for meaningful opportunities to participate if they were spoon-fed information about it. He did not think the input would be used. For example, if someone suggested the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) steam plant could be a new city hall, that idea would not be considered. He advocated for firing the consultants hired for the process, who he averred would merely “mess it up.” Mr. Vishanoff said that citizens should be involved in a design contest for the courthouse neighborhood. He said such processes should be open to all. Becky Riley , 202 Hawthorne Avenue, advocated for the appointment of David Monk as a Eugene representative on the Board of Directors of the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA). She said her neighborhood was affected by the odors emitting from the J.H. Baxter Company and she attended many LRAPA board meetings in an attempt to get the situation remedied. Mr. Monk also attended those meetings and had been working to make LRAPA more responsive to the public. He had many ideas for improving LRAPA and its services. Ms. Riley believed his knowledge would be helpful to LRAPA. For those reasons, she encouraged his application to the board. Ms. Riley maintained that residents were frustrated with LRAPA and needed to know it would enforce the law and help improve air quality. Mr. Monk would help to address that issue. Jon West , 3525 High Street, director of the Lane Independent Living Alliance (LILA), called on the City to partner with its citizens on such things as the intersection signal conversion project planned at Olive Street th and 10 Avenue. He noted the decision was only recently made, and the members of the HRAC, LILA, and Commission for the Blind were only recently informed of the decision, and so had no opportunity to provide meaningful input. Mr. West hoped for a delay to the conversion, which was scheduled to happen the following day. Leslie McGuire , 420 Goodyear Street, also supported the appointment of David Monk to the LRAPA board. She noted her own attendance at LRAPA board meetings and said Mr. Monk had demonstrated MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 2 Regular Meeting excellent problem-solving skills that were much needed on the board. Mr. Monk’s background gave him considerable knowledge of the matters that LRAPA addressed. She perceived Mr. Monk as a person of integrity. She believed he could be trusted to uphold the mission of the agency. Ray Wiley , 2100 Cheadles Avenue, a member of the Board of Directors of the Sheldon-McMurphey- rdth Johnson House, said that a survey of the residents living along the 3/4 Connector indicated an interest in having the name of the connector changed to something more historic, such as McMurphey Way, in honor of the longest term residents of the Shelton-McMurphey-Johnson House, a historic structure on the face of Skinner Butte that was originally constructed in 1888. He provided a brief history of the house and spoke of his involvement in the house’s revitalization. Teresa Damron , 605 Howard Avenue, a representative of the River Road Community Organization, discussed the River Avenue stakeholder process. She thanked the council for referring the road improve- ment design project to the stakeholders. She believed the council’s purpose was to increase trust between the City, the property owners, and the River Road neighborhood. She did not think that was an outcome of the process. Ms. Damron recommended written goals and procedures for any future similar processes. She said that she was very concerned about the stormwater facilities for the project, an issue which would be addressed in the stakeholders’ minority report. She was also concerned about the tree planting associated with the project as some property owners did not want trees but her organization felt they were necessary and believed an opt-out option for the owners of the properties involved set an unwise precedent. Rob Handy , 450-½ River Road, noted the work occurring in the River Road neighborhood with regard to neighborhood preservation and planning as well as natural stormwater treatments. He asserted that such treatments tended to be less costly and he believed they enhanced the neighborhood. He urged the council to revise the recommendations of the majority of the stakeholders who participated in the process and adopt the recommendations of the two representatives of the River Road Community Organization. Mr. Handy agreed with Ms. Damron’s remarks about the tree planting associated with the project. He encouraged councilors to travel along River Road and Maxwell Drive to see why people did not like those streets. David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, spoke in support of his nomination by the mayor to the board of LRAPA. He spoke of the mission of the agency and said he had demonstrated a commitment to public health and collaboration with others. He noted his past service on Department of Environmental Quality stakeholder groups, LRAPA subcommittees, and the Eugene Toxics Board. He maintained he kept an open mind and respected others. He was an advocate for the public interest and said he was also pragmatic and understanding and was aware that reality dictated what could be accomplished. Mr. Monk noted the many public hearings he attended and testified at and said he understood what businesses needed. He hoped to bring fairness and predictability of the oversight of industry. He said he looked forward to working with other board members to improve the agency. Kevin Matthews , 1192 Lawrence Street, President of the Friends of Eugene, maintained that confusing media coverage of the public hearings regarding Goal 5 mentioned building bans. He said that was an error. He believed the ordinance before the council was too weak to provide sustainable environmental protection. The ordinance was created so that no lot was rendered unbuildable. Mr. Matthews maintained that approach minimized the impact on the residential lands building inventory, which had already taken into account the Goal 5 inventory. He believed the ordinance would have a net positive impact on the buildable lands inventory. Mr. Matthews advocated for the appointment of Mr. Monk to the LRAPA Board. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 3 Regular Meeting Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Drive, thanked the council and mayor for their careful consideration of appointees to citizen committees. He thanked the council for appointing him to the Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Advisory Committee so he could serve with David Sonnichsen, one of the mayor’s nominations to the committee. He joined in the remarks of others speaking in support of Mr. Monk. Mr. Biggs hoped that all public meetings involving Eugene appointments appeared in the City’s Public Meetings Calendar. Mr. Biggs reported that Rob Handy was a new co-chair of the Neighborhood Leaders Council. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum called for council responses to comments made in the forum. Councilor Kelly thanked all those who appeared to testify. He applauded the efforts of the Eugene Library Foundation. He noted that the Authors and Artists Fair was scheduled for December 3 at the Public Library from 7 to 10 p.m. The event was free. th Councilor Kelly asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to follow-up on the conversion of the intersection at 10 Avenue and Olive Street. He expressed disappointment that the HRAC was not notified in advance, and asked that the City work with the committee and LILA on the issue to determine if there was something that satisfied all parties. Speaking to the testimony of Mr. Wiley, Councilor Kelly recalled that the several councilors suggested the connector be named in honor of the Shelton-McMurphey Johnson House. He asked that the manager return with information about the status of that issue. Councilor Ortiz shared Councilor Kelly’s interest in the signal issue. Councilor Papé also shared Councilor Kelly’s interest in the signal issue. Councilor Papé expressed pride in the Eugene Library Foundation and noted that it raised $4 million prior to construction of the library and then realized an additional amount to fill the gap between the estimated and actual construction costs. He noted the contribution to that effort made by the late Tom Wiper. Councilor Papé spoke to the remarks made regarding the River Avenue project and said while the process was not perfect, he thought it would lead to a good outcome that could be implemented soon. Responding to a question from Councilor Papé, City Manager Taylor indicated he would follow up on the question of public notice regarding meetings conducted by other agencies that included Eugene representa- tives. Councilor Bettman also recognized the members of the Eugene Library Foundation for their contributions to the community. th Councilor Bettman requested more information about the conversion of the intersection at 10 Avenue and Olive Street and suggested a process be established for such situations that allowed for comment from the HRAC. rdth Councilor Bettman agreed it was a good time to rename the 3/4 Connector, although she preferred to name it after the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks. She asked if the City had developed a process for renaming streets, and said a process that involved the community should be used to rename any street. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 4 Regular Meeting 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes September 26, 2005, Regular Meeting September 28, 2005, Work Session October 10, 2005, Work Session October 10, 2005, Regular Meeting October 24, 2005, Work Session B. Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the Consent Calen- dar. Councilor Kelly and Councilor Bettman noted that they offered corrections to the minutes via e-mail. Mayor Piercy deemed them accepted. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 7:0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Establishing a Chambers Special Area Zone; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.1030, 9.8030, and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.3050 through 9.3065 to that Code; Amending the Effective Zoning Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Allen Lowe of the Planning Division provided the staff report. He said the hearing regarded the proposed amendments to the Eugene Code related to the Chambers Reconsidered planning process. He briefly recalled the history of the project, saying the project focused on resolving development compatibility and pedestrian safety issues in the study area. The proposed code amendments affect certain properties zoned R- 1, Low-Density Residential, R-2, Medium-Density Residential, and C-2, Community Commercial. Mr. Lowe said the majority of the amendments specifically affect certain parcels zoned R-2, and would introduce compatibility standards to be applied to new development in the area. The standards would also reduce the permitted density levels in the study area. A new zone to be known as the Chambers Special Area Zone would be created, and it would include the new standards. Mr. Lowe noted that the staff report included correspondence submitted prior to November 8. Since November 8, approximately 30 additional letters had been received, and he submitted a list of the residents who provided testimony into the public record. Mr. Lowe noted that the council was tentatively scheduled to act on the item on December 12. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Ron Schmaedict , 420 Mar Loop, noted his long-time ownership of two duplexes zoned R-2 in the area of th Taylor Street and 12 Avenue. The properties were a major part of his retirement assets. He said that as a result of the proposed zoning change, he would not be able to redevelop his property to the higher densities permitted by the R-2 zone and was unsure that the duplexes could be rebuilt if destroyed should the rezoning go forward. He said the proposed downzoning would reduce the value of his properties and would likely have a similar impact on other R-2 properties in the area. He asked if that was fair, and questioned if the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 5 Regular Meeting City would reimburse him and other owners for their lost value if Ballot Measure 37 was upheld by the courts. He said the mayor and many councilors had been very vocal about holding the current urban growth boundary (UGB) and developing to higher densities in the existing boundaries. If that was the goal, he questioned how the council could justify the zoning being proposed for the area in question. He asked the council to consider the message it was sending by approving the downzoning. Mac Curtis , 1391 West Broadway, a member of the Chambers Area Families for a Healthy Neighborhood (CAFHN), thanked the council and mayor for its consideration of the organization’s work. He also thanked Mr. Lowe, consultant Greg Brokaw, other Planning Division staff, as well as Chair John Lawless of the Planning Commission for the leadership he demonstrated. He noted the many pieces of testimony submitted by those in support of the plan. Mr. Curtis acknowledged the applicable criteria in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) related to increasing overall density in the city; however, those policies did not provide for equal density in all neighborhoods. The City’s plans also spoke to preserving existing neighborhoods, such as his. He did not think the City could create plans that overrode those policies. Mr. Curtis said the proposed special area zone preserved the neighborhood while increasing density. th Steve Pringle , 1457 West 10 Avenue, a member of CAFHN, said his organization documented the negative impacts of poor infill developments in the area on adjacent residents and the entire neighborhood. He said that those councilors who had taken a walking tour of the neighborhood were aware of those impacts. The organization determined that limiting the number of dwelling units on each lot was essential to preventing further neighborhood destabilization and was consistent with City plan policies. Mr. Pringle spoke to the issue of density, saying that the result of the zone would be an increase in density that exceeded the council’s target for mixed-use density. He said the City would be able to accommodate anticipated growth as part of its overall growth strategy and the neighborhood would be able to support it. th Carol DeFazio , 1437 West 10 Avenue, a member of CAFHN, suggested the council consider whether its decision about the zone would help Eugene grow wisely and foster a livable community. She said residents already walk the talk about density and support smart growth. However, intelligent planning should not put established neighborhoods at risk while promoting pale, nontraditional replicas of them at the periphery. She said residents welcomed positive change and supported significant increases in density accompanied by standards to ensure it occurred at a proper scale. She said the organization also encouraged diversity by allowing alley access to new affordable housing. Ms. DeFazio said the current approach to density was destabilizing the neighborhood and decreasing values. th Janice Gotchall , 1461 West 10 Avenue, a member of CAFHN, noted the supporting documentation that accompanied the proposed development standards for the special area zone. She said the neighbors opposed previous plans because they failed to address issues of compatibility and scale. They did not address the criteria related to protection of existing neighborhoods. She said the neighborhood organized many meetings, formed an e-mail discussion group, established an e-web site, met with councilors, and conducted walking tours. She said the result was a “win-win” collaboration between the City and residents that was not previously possible. Residents were prepared to help the City move forward with the Chambers mixed- use center when the standards were adopted. She thought the plan represented good citizen involvement. Residents should be given a voice in the area they lived and raised their families. Donald Brunner , 1699 Fairmount Boulevard, noted that he was not a resident of the Chambers Area but he was in support of the efforts of CAFHN. He said that he renovated a house on Adams Street that was negatively affected by an infill development that towered over his house. He and two neighbors lost all privacy and eventually all moved away. His family was no longer able to walk to downtown locations and MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 6 Regular Meeting patronize downtown businesses. He said that the City’s approach to density needed to consider existing assets and preserve owner-occupied housing in the downtown area. He believed the special area zone was a model that should be adopted and applied to other neighborhoods. Rob Handy , 455-½ River Road, spoke in favor of the proposed development standards as key to preserving the neighborhood’s character. He urged the council’s support of the amendments. Carlis Nixon , 1556 Wilson Court, said that the matter before the council was not just a concern for those who lived in the area. She supported the special area zone and urged the council to do so as well. She said the area in question had many charming structures of historic interest. The neighborhood was important to maintaining the livability of the downtown area. She thought the residents of the area had done an excellent job. She believed the development standards would help maintain the quality of the area. Jozef Siekiel-Zolzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, a member of CAFHN, said the council may be worried about lower density standards but an examination of the report would indicate a willingness to accept a higher degree of density at certain locations, if well-planned. The organization supported a viable commercial area th on West 11 Avenue between Chambers and Garfield streets so that neighbors could take advantage of commercial uses on that street. He requested the council’s support of the proposed amendments. Kevin Matthews , 1192 Lawrence Street, President of the Friends of Eugene, did not perceive any controversy in the matter before the council. The residents of the area had done an excellent job. Mr. Matthews identified several issues. He believed the neighborhood was currently zoned at what he termed excessively high densities, suggesting that had occurred because it was perceived as blighted and planners did not take into account the character of the neighborhood and potential of revitalization. He thought the Chambers node should have been “dead on arrival” as the area’s traffic patterns argued against it. He said the nodal development effort was “off track.” Mr. Matthews said the problem of inappropriate infill was not limited to the neighborhood in question. The code encouraged density without offering anything to mitigate the problems that arose. He appreciated that the council intended to consider that issue. Zachary Vishanoff , a resident of Patterson Street, averred that mixed-use development was being used to subvert neighborhoods. Not every neighborhood had an organization such as CAFHN to work with the City. He said that the City staff needed to be slowed down and the City should not allow mixed-use development to get ahead of the proposed basketball arena. He said that residents should be allowed to discuss what mixed-use development meant to them. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Taylor spoke of her admiration for the work of CAFHN and said she looked forward to approving the plan. She thought it an example of excellent citizen involvement leading to a good outcome. Councilor Papé agreed with Councilor Taylor and complimented the residents of the neighborhood for their hard work, persistence, and diplomacy. He particularly recognized the work of resident Paul Conte of CAFHN. Councilor Solomon said she had also enjoyed the products put together by the organization. She expressed appreciation to CAFHN for working with staff and to staff for its work with the organization. She determined from Mr. Lowe that all area residents and property owners received notice of the public hearing. Councilor Kelly also thanked the residents for their testimony and hard work. He called attention to the designs guideline document and commended the work, adding he wished the council was considering design MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 7 Regular Meeting guidelines rather than a proscriptive code approach. He hoped the City Council and Planning Commission would consider that work in their discussions of the alternative path. Councilor Kelly interpreted the council’s motion of October 12 as precluding action prior to its considera- tion of a Ballot Measure 37 compensation fund, scheduled for January 25. Councilor Kelly expressed interest in revising the recommendations to provide for a minimum density in the area to be zoned for 15 units per acre. He also wanted to see language for an amendment that respected the height limitation and design standards while allowing for condominiums and row houses. 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: Ordinance Vacating a Portion of the Alley th Right-of-Way Located Between 10 Avenue and Broadway, Parallel to Olive and Charnelton Streets, Providing for an Effective Date; and Providing for a Sunset Date Mayor Piercy called for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. There were none declared. She determined that no councilor had made site visits, although Councilor Papé noted he had visited the site several times. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that a casual drive-by did not constitute a site visit. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman determined from Alissa Hansen of the Planning Division that as a result of the vacation, one-quarter of the alley would go to Diamond Parking. Councilor Bettman asked what compensation the City would receive in return. Ms. Hansen clarified that the code allowed for the City Manager to make a determination of the special assessment, which would be approved by the council. The manager was not recommending an assessment in this case because the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency was initiating the vacation. That was consistent with past City actions. Councilor Bettman asserted that if the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) project did not come to fruition, the portion of the alley going to the Urban Renewal Agency would then benefit another private party. However, she supported donating that portion of right-of-way to ORI because she believed there was a large public benefit involved. Councilor Bettman asked how the manager determined there was a public benefit to “giving away” City assets to Diamond Parking. Ms. Hansen clarified that Diamond Parking had not requested the right-of-way in question. Councilor Bettman requested an amendment that tied what she termed the alley vacation “giveaway” to the ORI development and an amendment that required remuneration to the City from Diamond Parking for the vacated right-of-way. Councilor Papé asked why the issue was coming to the council at this time. City Manager Taylor said that the meeting was the first time the council’s calendar could accommodate the item. It was also consistent with the time line in the City’s agreement with ORI. Mayor Piercy suggested that action be scheduled for a future meeting. City Manager Taylor concurred. Councilor Solomon asked what happened if Diamond Parking did not want part of the alley in question, and why the entire alley was not dedicated to the Urban Renewal Agency. Mr. Klein clarified that under State law, when the City Council vacated a right-of-way, the property in question went back to the adjacent underlying owners. The council did not have the authority to deed the property to the Urban Renewal MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 8 Regular Meeting Agency. In order to assess Diamond Parking for the vacated right-of-way, the council would have to assess the Urban Renewal Agency as well. The question was whether there was a benefit from this property. Unless the council could find a factual basis for determining that there was no benefit to the Urban Renewal Agency but somehow a benefit to Diamond Parking from the vacation, he believed that Diamond Parking would probably have an equal protection claim against the City. He added that the council could make that determination because the code stipulates that the manager recommends, but the council decides whether to assess a special benefit. He was likely to suggest that if the council were to assess a special benefit, it do so on a square footage basis. Councilor Bettman said she would not oppose paying the assessment for the ORI portion from Urban Renewal Agency funds. She suggested that the City might want to retain the excess right-of-way for a pedestrian walkway to provide additional needed connectivity in downtown. Councilor Bettman recalled that when PeaceHealth had compensated the City for a previous alley vacation the cost was about $87,000. She believed the right-of-way in question was relatively valuable. Mayor Piercy called for a brief meeting break. 7. ACTION: Ordinances Concerning the Goal 5 Natural Resources Study An Ordinance Updating the Goal 5 Inventory Within the Eugene City Limits; Adopting the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan Within the Eugene City Limits; Repealing Ordinance No. 20296; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.1040, 9.2751, 9.6885, 9.7025, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.9205, 9.7230, 9.7305, 9.7810, 9.8025, 9.8030, 9.8460, 9.8465, 9.8470, 9.8855, and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding New Sections 9.8472 and 9.8474; and Adding New Sections 9.4900 through 9.4980 to that Code to Establish a Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone; Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date and An Ordinance Adopting the Goal 5 Inventory With the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Adopting the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan with the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Repealing Ordinance No. 20295; Amending Section 9.7810 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severabil- ity Clause; and Providing Effective Dates Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4905, an ordinance updating the Goal 5 inventory within the Eugene city lim- its. Councilor Papé noted that Councilor George Poling requested that the council not take action in his absence and he wished to respect that request. He said that traditionally, the council honored such requests. Councilor Solomon hoped that in the past spirit of trust and cooperation, the council would honor Mr. Poling’s request. She said that City Manager Taylor indicated to her there was time on the council calendar to accommodate the item at a future meeting. Councilor Bettman said the council had not always honored councilors’ requests to postpone action. She maintained that the council’s tradition and protocol related to such requests was that they were based on extenuating circumstances, such as a family illness or travel for other council business. She did not think a hunting trip rose to that standard. She maintained that the community was waiting for the council to take action on the item, which had long been on the council’s agenda. She would have been happy to have considered the request if it were for the reasons she previously mentioned. Councilor Bettman said that MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 9 Regular Meeting scheduling a hunting trip just because it was hunting season should not preclude the council from conducting its business in Councilor Poling’s absence. Councilor Kelly said that the council usually honored such requests, but sometimes did not. It was his recollection that the council honored such requests for the reasons mentioned by Councilor Bettman. He found it troubling that Councilor Poling knew of the schedule for at least a month prior to his vacation, and in fact, in his role as council president, offered the body a motion in late October to schedule the item for action on this date. Had Councilor Poling worked with staff at that time, he was sure staff could have rescheduled the item. That Councilor Poling requested the delay the night before the meeting Councilor Kelly found “troubling, and just a wee bit manipulative.” He believed the council’s upcoming meeting schedule was already full and he was concerned about further delay. He said that he would not have spent as much time as he had on the amendments if he knew the item would be delayed. Councilor Papé disagreed with the Councilor Bettman’s recollection. He could recall only one instance where his request for postponement was not honored. He and others had asked for action to be postponed for reasons other than those mentioned by Councilor Bettman and those requests were honored. He objected to comments casting aspersions on Councilor Poling for his request because of his own, similar past requests. He asked the council to honor its traditions. Mr. Klein noted that given a motion was on the table, a councilor would have to move to postpone the motion to a date certain to honor Mr. Poling’s request. Councilor Papé, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to postpone the item. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 4:3; councilors Papé, Solomon, and Pryor voting yes. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Motion A, which would add a new standard to all provisions in the land use code that allow lots to be divided such that a lot could not be created that would automatically qualify for an adjustment under Eugene Code (EC) 9.8030(21)(a). This adjustment is the adjustment that requires that 33 percent of the lot be either within the /WR setback area, or the area that extends landward beyond the setback. Councilor Papé asked if the amendment could prevent the subdivision of a small parcel. Natural Resources Planner Neil Björklund said that there may be certain circumstances where subdivision would be precluded, but he thought that would be unusual. One would have to have a combination of a large setback and a lot big enough to be partitioned. Without further analysis of examples, he was unable to provide a definitive answer; however, it was his sense that would be an unusual situation. Speaking to Councilor Papé’s question, Councilor Bettman said that one would still have the underlying provision allowing for adjustment if one could not avoid creating a lot with more than 33 percent in a conservation area. The amendment would apply only when one was platting a subdivision or planned unit development. The platter could not create lots intentionally to secure the adjustment. Councilor Papé asked if the adjustment was automatically granted or was a discretionary decision. Mr. Björklund indicated that one would have to apply for the adjustment through a Type II application. The motion passed, 4:3; councilors Papé, Solomon, and Pryor voting in opposition. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Motion B, a motion that would amend two sections that address whether paved roads or pathways would be allowed MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 10 Regular Meeting within the conservation area. The amendment to EC 9.4930(3)(i) would prohibit construc- tion of maintenance access roads within the conservation area, and would limit construction of paved pedestrian pathways to no more than 6 feet in width and only on streams or wet- lands that have a setback of 40 feet or more. The amendment to EC 9.4940 would make that section consistent with the language and intent of EC 9.4930(3)(i). Councilor Bettman said the proposed amendment would allow for up to a six-foot walkway in a setback area. She noted that staff supported the amendment as being consistent with the intent of the conservation area. Councilor Papé asked if the amendment allowed for bicycle paths. Mr. Björklund said that it was pointed out to staff that there were three planned bicycle paths running along waterways that had not been built yet. The standard width for such bicycle paths was 12 feet, so the amendment did represent a conflict with those bicycle paths. If the council wished to allow those paths to go forward, he recommended that staff develop some alternative language. Councilor Papé suggested that the amendment be changed to 12 feet. Councilor Bettman suggested that alternatively, the three bicycle paths be listed as exceptions that could be built to 12 feet. Councilor Bettman withdrew the motion for the time being with the concurrence of her second, Councilor Taylor. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to adopt Motion C, a motion that would revise BC 9.8030(21)(b), (c) and (d) and add a new subsection (e). EC 9.8030(21)(b), (c) and (d) provide for adjustments to the conservation area if certain stan- dards are met. The new section (21)(e) would provide standards for demonstrating that en- hancement measures increase the functions and values of the conservation area. Section (21 )(b) provides for a setback reduction of up to 20 percent on setbacks of 40 feet or more, if certain standards are met. This amendment would require an applicant for this adjustment to demonstrate that the new enhancement standards under (21)(e) are met in order to reduce the setback by 20 percent. This amendment would require an applicant for the adjustment under (21)(c) to demonstrate that the new enhancement standards under (21)( e) are met in order to use setback averaging on the site. The amendment would revise (21)(d) so that in order to qualify for the adjustment, the property would have to: (1) be undeveloped, (2) be such that the lot could not be developed without this adjustment, and (3) would have to meet the new standards in (21)(e). Councilor Kelly thanked Mr. Björklund and other staff for their work on the amendment. Councilor Kelly noted that staff supported the amendment as the changes would strengthen the intent of the adjustment provisions. The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend Subsection 9.8030(21)(a) to provide as follows: a) for any property containing a /WR conservation area due to a re- source identified as a wetland, upland wildlife habitat, or riparian site in the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan, an adjustment to the provisions of Eugene Code Section 9.4920 may be made if no previous adjustment under this section has been approved for the specific portion of the conservation area and all the following are met: MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 11 Regular Meeting 1. More than 33 percent of the development site is occupied by the combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that ex- tends landward beyond the conservation setback; 2. The proposed reduction in the /WR conservation area will result in the combined area described above constituting at least 33 percent of the developable site; 3. The parcel is not already developed with a building suitable for occupancy; 4. The area of the subject parcel is 10,000 square feet or less; 5. The portion of the development site removed from the /WR conservation area complies with Eugene Code Section 9.4980(2)(a)(4), (4)(b), (5)(a), (8), and (10); 6. The portion of the development site outside the /WR conservation area, including the area removed, complies with Eugene Code Section 9.4980(7); 7. The portion of the development site that remains in a /WR conservation setback area complies with Eugene Code Section 9.4980(1) through (5) 8. The reduction occurs first by reducing the area of any portion of the resource site that extends landyard beyond the conservation setback. If additional reduction in the /WR conservation area is needed to reduce the combined area to 33 percent of the develop- ment site area, the conservation setback described in Eugene Code Section 9.4920(1)(b) may be reduced the minimum necessary to meet the standard in subsection 2; and 9. The proposed adjustment is consistent with Eugene Code Section 9.8030(21)(e). Councilor Kelly said the amendment would primarily affect small parcels. The intent of the amendment was to avoid the creation of an undevelopable lot. The amendment fine-tuned the proposed code language by restricting it to lots of 10,000 feet or less and lots not already developed with a building suitable for occupancy. Councilor Papé noted that staff did not support the amendment. He requested an explanation. Mr. Björklund said the staff response was based on the fact that the 33-percent threshold adjustment was the only mechanism it could develop to address certain lots along the Willamette River that staff was aware of and that the council received testimony regarding. In those cases, the setback consumed more than 33 percent of a lot. Staff examined every option it could think of regarding how to provide relief in such a case. In one case, a property owner would not be able to expand a front porch by a foot because it would result in a violation of the conservation area. There were problems with every alternative staff developed. Mr. Björklund said that staff believed there would be other situations it did not anticipate where the regulations would not make sense, and staff did not want to limit the section to undeveloped parcels. For that reason, staff believed the 33 percent adjustment should be allowed to be applied to developed parcels. Councilor Papé asked if the amendment could result in lawsuits. City Attorney Emily Jerome indicated that such instances were not likely to be common but she believed the City would prevail in the case of a legal challenge. Councilor Kelly said he had indicated in his communication with staff that he did not object to exempting the specific properties along the Willamette River from the natural resource ordinance. The issue for him was that there 2,000 lots and the City was unaware of all the situations that would arise, which was his reason for proposing the amendment. It could be there was a large lot with some development that would receive a substantial reduction in the protected conservation area. Councilor Solomon expressed support for the alternative motion offered by staff. Councilor Pryor asked if the effect of the amendment would be to reduce or increase a property owner’s flexibility in developing their property. Mr. Björklund said the amendment would narrow the number of MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 12 Regular Meeting parcels that would qualify for the exemption by quite a lot. Once applied, the amendment would be the same adjustment but the question was where it would apply and to what universe it would apply. Councilor Bettman said the council was already looking at a diminished level of natural resource protection. Building in the exemption would allow a further reduction in that protection. She did not support the staff- recommended motion because it still allowed for an adjustment to reduce the conservation area even if the lot was very large. She supported the amendment. Councilor Papé agreed with the remarks of Councilor Solomon. He said that the City should consider private property rights while balancing the need for protection. Councilor Bettman agreed with Councilor Kelly that known properties could be exempted through a separate ordinance. The amendment to the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Papé, Solomon, and Pryor voting no. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson identified the bicycle paths that would be affected by the amendment previously offered by Councilor Bettman: 1) Delta Ponds path; 2) two sections of path along the Willamette River; and 3) the section of path along the Q Street Channel. Councilor Bettman indicated she was content to remove the reference to quantity and retain the text prepared by staff. Assistant City Manager Carlson clarified that existing bicycle paths would have a similar problem in the event of a preservation project that resulted in the widening of a bicycle path or removal of a bicycle path. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion with Mo- tion B on page 421 to include the text on 3(i) after it says “within the conservation area for category A, B, or C streams or Category A wetlands and no more than 12 feet for bicycle paths identified in TransPlan.” Councilor Papé wanted to ensure that the amendment was sufficiently flexible to allow for the construction of bicycle paths that met federal standards. Mr. Klein indicated that the motion would allow for that. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Jerome called attention to the effective date for the ordinances, and recommended January 1, 2006, as the effective date, rather than effective upon acknowledgement by the State. Councilor Kelly asked how long such an acknowledgement would take. Ms. Jerome indicated that staff expected an appeal to be filed and it could be six or eight months before acknowledgement could occur. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the language for Section 25 of the ordinance as suggested by legal counsel. Roll call vote; the motion passed unani- mously, 7:0. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4905, an ordinance updating the Goal 5 inventory within the Eugene city limits. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 13 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to extend time for the meeting by ten minutes. Councilor Solomon and Councilor Papé indicated they had to leave the meeting. Councilor Papé reiterated Councilor Poling’s request that action not be taken on the next agenda item. Speaking to earlier comments made by Councilor Kelly about Councilor Poling’s request to delay action on the item, Councilor Papé pointed out that when Councilor Poling made the motion to place the Goal 5 inventory item on the schedule, he did not know of the amendments that would be offered to the body. Councilor Bettman said that the council had applicants for committee positions who had “stepped up to the plate” to provide a valuable community service for no compensation, and Mr. Monk had stayed through the entire proceedings waiting to see if he was going to be appointed. She thought the council should move forward as long as it had a quorum. Mayor Piercy believed that the next item would only take a few minutes. Roll call vote; the motion to extend time passed, 5:2; councilors Solomon and Papé voting no. Councilors Solomon and Papé left the meeting. 8. ACTION: Appointment to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint David Monk to Position 3, as one of the two Eugene at-large representatives on the Lane Regional Air Pollution Agency Board of Directors for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2005, and ending on October 31, 2008. Councilor Pryor said that while he would have supported the reappointment of a candidate who had previously served, he would support the mayor’s nomination. He said the board was a governance board, not an advocacy group, and he encouraged Mr. Monk to serve in a collaborative manner. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint the mayor’s nominees to the Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee (Stephen Cooper, Ed Fredette, El- liot McIntyre, Greg Ringer, David Sonnichsen, Matthew Svobada). Roll call vote; the mo- tion passed unanimously, 5:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to appoint Bobby Lee as a business representative on the Lane Workforce Partnership for a four-year term beginning October 1, 2005, and ending on December 31, 2009. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 5:0. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 14 Regular Meeting Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 15 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 16, 2005–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Linda Henry MINUTES FILE NAME: m:\2005\central services department\city manager's office\city council\cc051116.doc BACKUP STORAGE: c:\documents and settings\cemnllh\desktop\linda\2005\11nov05\cc051116.doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 12/10/05 llh Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 12/19 & 1/3 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 12/19 & 1/3 ky Returned to Minutes Recording __1/3 ky___ Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/4 ky _______ Returned to Staff __________ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall November 16, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILOR ABSENTGeorge Poling. : Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the November 16, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Sequencing of Financial Measures to be Presented to Voters City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, stating the goal of the work session was to have a high- level discussion about when ballot measures would be brought to the council and to get feedback from the council. Mr. Carlson provided an overview of issues and options to facilitate a discussion about timing and sequencing of proposed local option levies. Mr. Carlson said it took time and effort to prepare and debate the ballot measures and to have them ready for consideration by the voters. The goal of the work session was to get feedback from the council to provide staff with sufficient information to develop the strategy for making the best use of available election dates given the currently identified needs of the City to prepare for the November 2006 election. Mr. Carlson explained that due to Ballot Measure 47/50, November in even numbered years presented opportunities for the voters to be asked to vote on money measures without requiring a double majority. He added there had been some success in taking ballot measures to the voters during the May primary elections when they were done in conjunction with other major issues. Typically, however, November elections are considered the primary opportunity. Mr. Carlson stated that as identified in the Multi-Year Financial Plan presented to the Budget Committee on January 20, 2005, the current Library Local Option levy was effective through fiscal year (FY) 2007. Additionally, Mr. Carlson said, the current four-year Youth/School-Based Services Local Option Levy was also effective through FY07. He stated that when the council placed the current levy on the ballot, councilors acknowledged that the measure was a stop-gap one until a statewide solution was found for school funding issues. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Carlson said that the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan was scheduled for City Council approval in December, and historically there had been interest in another bond measure for PROS Comprehensive Plan projects. He said staff was recommending that a PROS levy be deferred until 2008 because the PROS adoption process and subsequent project development work had not been completed. He stated that staff was seeking information on the council’s interests and priorities. Mr. Carlson said the intent of the day’s discussion was not to debate the details of any of the financial programs, but rather to provide direction to staff on which projects needed further analysis. He stated staff was seeking approval of the tentative election schedule included in the agenda packet, or direction on how the council wanted the schedule changed. Mayor Piercy invited questions and comments from the council. Ms. Taylor said there was no doubt about the need to renew both the Library and Youth/School Based Services local option levies, and she expressed confidence that they would be approved by the voters. She continued to believe this was not a good way to pay for essential services, and that tax reform or more reliable revenue sources were necessary. Ms. Taylor wanted to place a PROS measure on the 2006 ballot. She asked if adoption of the suggested motion today would preclude being able to put the parks issue on the 2006 ballot. Mr. Carlson replied that the actions taken by the council today would not dictate exactly what would be placed on the 2006 ballot. Staff was concerned about the time that would be needed through the public process for the PROS Comprehensive Plan adoption. Mr. Carlson said the council would need to consider the feasibility of the voters accepting three measures on the November 2006 ballot. Ms. Taylor recalled that the voters approved three measures in the past that were similar to those under consideration today. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Carlson said the council had until August 2006 to make a final decision on which measures to place on the November 2006 ballot. City Manager Taylor said there was sentiment on the part of some staff that going forward with the PROS bond issue as well as an operating and maintenance levy was desirable. He said the council could conclude to forward capital costs as well as operating and maintenance levies to the voters in November 2006. Ms. Taylor asked if the Oregon State Legislature resolved the school funding problem in 2007, could the City simply not collect the Youth/School Based Services local option levy. Mr. Carlson replied that current contracts with the schools districts contained a mechanism by which if the legislature raised the amount of revenue going to the school districts in 2003 or 2005 over a specified target, the amount the City levied would be reduced. Mr. Papé said that although he concurred with Ms. Taylor on the need for the school levy, he believed that the school district took too long to dispose of old school properties and Civic Stadium. Before he went forward with another levy, he wanted clear direction from the school district as to how it would get the revenue from either rent or sale of excess properties. Mr. Papé asked if it was known what measures other jurisdictions would be placing on the November 2006 ballot. Mr. Carlson said the Tentative Election Schedule in the agenda packet included all measures that staff was currently aware of. He said it did not appear that other jurisdictions would have measures on the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 2 Work Session November 2006 ballot, but Bethel School District was considering a local option levy in May 2006. He added it was conceivable that if the measure passed in May but there was no double majority, the district could bring the measure back in November. Mr. Carlson said the Eugene School District 4-J was considering taking a levy for General Obligation School Construction Bonds to the voters in 2008. Mr. Carlson confirmed that the proposed library levy would be the second renewal of the levy. Mr. Papé expressed frustration with the need for ongoing serial levies to provide basic services. He asked for a strategy on funding the library at its current level without a bond measure. Mr. Carlson replied that the basic strategy without a bond measure would be to reduce services elsewhere in the organization. He stated that the Multi-Year Financial Plan included $700,000 in the FY08 budget plan to begin to reduce the amount taken from the local option levy. Currently, the local option levy paid for almost one half of library services. Mr. Papé expressed a desire to develop options, including cutting other services, to fund the library through the General Fund operating budget. Mr. Carlson said other funding strategies, including special districts and alternative revenue sources, had been discussed in the past, but those strategies had been rejected. The alternatives under current council direction would be to reduce other services. Mr. Papé maintained the council had not been diligent in spending the money from the last PROS levy. He did not want to prejudice the needs and community effort by waiting until 2008 to put another levy on the ballot. Ms. Ortiz, as a former school board member, supported school funding. Through her experience, she learned that many operating bonds approved in the past were about equity, giving schools the ability to offer programs outside of the regular teaching day for the students who may not otherwise have access to other avenues of enrichment experiences. She expressed doubt that the State would adequately take care of all of the education issues in the next two to four years. Therefore, she would support anything to do with schools. Furthermore, she would listen carefully to conversations about other funding issues as they arose. Mr. Pryor noted that serial levies differed from bond measures in that they had different mechanisms and needs and could be used for different purposes. He said Mr. Papé raised an interesting point, in terms of how diligent an organization was in realizing revenue from its sources, such as selling excess property. He said during his tenure as a school board member, the Eugene School District 4-J did designate surplus property, and had sold some of those properties. Mr. Pryor confirmed that money from the sale of properties was used for capital expenditures rather than operating expenses. He added the levy the council was considering was a Youth/School-Based Services operating levy. Mr. Pryor agreed that the need to fund ongoing operating requirements needed to be a continuing conversa- tion by the council. He said if the levy was necessary to continue to fund current services, he would want to ensure that due diligence within the organization had been done before proceeding with the levy request. Based upon his work with staff, Mr. Pryor said he believed that it was reasonable and prudent for staff to suggest slowing down somewhat on the PROS levy. There were still many unanswered questions in the community before the necessary level of comfort was achieved. Mr. Pryor said people needed an opportu- nity to evaluate and comment on the plan. He expressed concern that moving too fast to get a levy on the ballot would hurt a good plan. He fully supported the plan, while at the same time, he fully supported doing it at a speed where it could be effectively implemented. Thus, Mr. Pryor said, 2008 was the earliest the council should go forward to the voters with a levy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Papé that serial levies were an absurd way to fund government services. He supported the need for tax reform, and wished those feelings around the table would translate into having a discussion on tax reform and tax restructuring. He said only three of nine councilors identified tax reform as a priority at the council’s strategic planning retreat in February 2005. He found it difficult to find enough City services to cut to avoid a library levy. He stated that he supported a renewal of both the Library levy and the Youth/School-Based Services levy. Mr. Kelly said the other challenge of the levy renewals was that the individual items could become a target for general dissatisfaction with the government, noting that people could love the library and the services, but vote against a levy because it was their only opportunity to weigh in on the budget. Mr. Kelly said in terms of another broad PROS measure, he understood the value of waiting until 2008. However, he was worried about lost opportunities, particularly in regard to land acquisition, noting once an area was developed it was no longer available for park uses. He was interested in giving staff direction to consider a limited PROS bond in 2006 focused on time-sensitive items such as land acquisition for future neighborhood and community parks in underserved areas, or other time sensitive projects. Ms. Bettman had a clear sense of what she thought would work, and she favored going out in 2006 for the Library local option levy and Youth/School-Based Services levy. She said the school-based services were essential in that they freed the education system to teach students. Ms. Bettman said city hall replacement needed to be a priority in 2008. This would then bump the PROS bond measure. This was not a commentary on the plan that she had not yet seen, but rather a way to sequence the vote and achieve success. She said she believed the PROS plan belonged on the 2010 ballot. Ms. Bettman was intrigued by Mr. Kelly’s idea about lost opportunities, and said she may be willing to consider a very reduced version if it would not prejudice the chance of the other bond to pass. Ms. Bettman thanked the Eugene Public Library Foundation and those who worked on the campaign for the school-based services levy, and expressed hope that the same level of energy and commitment would be demonstrated the next time the issues were put to the voters. Mayor Piercy stated that she supported both the Library and Youth/School-Based Services levies, and believed it was very important to continue to support them. She liked the idea of gradually reducing the City’s dependence on using levies for operating budgets. She said the tax restructuring question was a worthy, albeit difficult, issue. She said there was currently a lot of great thinking around the PROS issue, but she did not feel ready to make any comment on it at the present time. Mayor Piercy agreed that city hall replacement and a limited PROS measures were significant. Mayor Piercy solicited a second round of council questions and comments. In response to Mr. Pryor, Ms. Taylor said the land will not wait, and she was especially interested in natural areas, many of which were under threat of development. If they were not acquired, they will be gone. She said parks staff wanted to do it all at once because if there was something for all interest groups, the measure was more likely to pass. As far as addressing the city hall issue first, she said people would likely vote it down in 2008, resulting in it being brought up again in 2010. People were much more interested in parks than replacing city hall. Ms. Taylor asked what would be cut if the library levy were reduced or eliminated. She asked if the need for the levy would be eliminated if the branches were eliminated. She supported branches, and suggested putting branches as one issue on the ballot, with the downtown library operation as a separate issue. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Carlson said the library levy currently paid for the branches and a significant portion of the hours at the downtown library. He said staff would bring details to the council when the levy discussion took place. Mr. Carlson said the council could choose to place two library funding questions on the ballot. Mr. Papé said that although three levies had been passed at the same election in the past, he reminded the council that the 1998 election took place during the “go go” nineties, when the community was in better financial shape. Addressing Mr. Pryor’s comments, Mr. Papé said although he appreciated that proceeds from the sales of school property could go to capital purposes, it was a school board policy decision rather than a law. The school board could change its policy and use those funds for operations. He said if the funds remained in capital, those funds could be reinvested to improve insulation or systems so that operational funds for electricity could decrease. He reiterated his wish to have the school board advise the council regarding its intent with excess properties before the council decided to support the levy. Mr. Papé agreed with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly regarding missed opportunities in the area of PROS. He said the PROS Comprehensive Plan committee had completed its work, and the council could not continue to decline to act on the recommendations. Mr. Kelly said that Civic Stadium was periodically mentioned as excess Eugene School District 4-J property. He said the stadium was a valuable community asset, and hoped and expected that any Eugene School District 4-J discussion about disposition of the property could broaden into a community conversa- tion about how use of Civic Stadium could be retained, regardless of who owned the facility. Mr. Kelly said he would not support any new serial levy for any purpose, as proposed for PROS operation and maintenance funding, although he would support renewals of existing levies. He said if the council moved forward with a narrow PROS funding measure in 2006 for time-sensitive acquisitions, there would be little near-term operating and maintenance costs. Mr. Pryor said the PROS Comprehensive Plan was a visionary document with a plan for strategies over a 20-year period, noting that the list of actual capital projects had not been identified. He asserted that it would be some time before the capital projects list would be in a form that would be sufficiently vetted and discussed. A PROS measure in 2006 based upon vision and strategy, without a clear list of capital projects, may not be acceptable to the community, and risked being turned down. He was intrigued by the notion of having something specific to lost opportunities but it would have to be something of a nature that was very specific, clearly identified, and that clearly fell into the category of lost opportunities. Mr. Carlson said one of the uses of the Multi-Year Financial Plan was to remind councilors of similar items already identified. He said several park-related items, such as improvements at both Sheldon and Echo Hollow pools and roof repairs at Campbell Senior Center and the Hult Center, could be included in a bond measure and would not contribute to increased operating costs. Mr. Carlson said the parks systems development charge (SDC) that was not available 20 years ago was a funding source available to purchase land for neighborhood parks. He said the last PROS bond measure allowed the City to do a quick catch-up following a period when neighborhood park acquisitions were not up-to-date. Mayor Piercy solicited a third round of council questions and comments. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Carlson said SDCs could not be used for maintenance of parks and facilities due in part because the City did not have excess capacity in the parks and was not MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 5 Work Session currently meeting all of the standards set for the community. In response to Mr. Pryor, Ms. Taylor said there was not a need for a definite list of parks to go to the voters, but rather the list should develop with community participation as things go along. She said the City should be buying the Santa Clara School but it was not on the list. The council deviated from the list in the past and it could do so again. People in the area supported acquisition of the school. She hoped the school board would consider making concessions just as the City of Eugene had done when the Eugene School District 4-J wanted properties or help with the sports fields. Mr. Papé agreed with Mr. Pryor that the PROS proposal needed to be vetted before going to the voters. As a member of the original PROS advisory committee in 1997, he recalled that the committee did not complete its work until four or five months ahead of the bond measure election. He disagreed with Ms. Taylor, in that although the original committee did not identify specific locations for parks or specific acquisitions, the committee did specifically outline how the funds would be used. This action was critical in passage of the bond measure by such a wide margin. He opined that the work could be completed in time for the November 2006 election. Mr. Papé said if Civic Stadium was a community asset, it was not up to Eugene School District 4-J or the Bethel School District to supply community-needed stadiums. Their missions were to educate our children. If the community needed a stadium, the City needed to step up and purchase it, rather than keeping the onus on the school district to retain and maintain it. Ms. Bettman did not think the City should hold Eugene School District 4-J to a standard that the City did not itself adhere to. She said the City set aside money for capital expenditures and it was sacrosanct. There were times when the council eyed those funds for public safety and other types of services, but the organization and council had been unwilling to expend money that had been set aside for capital on operations. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the Tentative Election Schedule. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the motion to further direct the City Manager to bring specific project ideas early in the new year for a focused parks bond in 2006. The focus would be on time-sensitive items with low operations and maintenance costs. Mr. Kelly said passing this amendment was in no way deciding whether to go out to the voters with such a measure, but was asking staff to look at the draft project list and the Multi-Year Financial Plan to determine what projects could be included for review by the council. Mr. Papé said he would appreciate it if staff contacted Eugene School District 4-J to find out how the district used its capital moneys, and what it had as excess properties that could be disposed of. Ms. Bettman said she would support the amendment, but would make a subsequent motion to move the general obligation (GO) bonds for PROS and the local levy for PROS operating and maintenance costs to 2010. Otherwise, she would not be able to support the tentative schedule. The motion to amend vote was unanimous, 7:0. Ms. Bettman moved to reschedule the general obligation bonds for parks, recreation and open space projects and the local option levy to maintain parks, recreation, open space pro- MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 6 Work Session jects to the FY2010. The motion failed for lack of a second. The amended motion to approve the Tentative Election Schedule and to further direct the City Manager to bring specific project ideas early in the new year for a focused parks bond in 2006, with the focus on time-sensitive items with low operations and maintenance costs, passed 6:1, Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. B. WORK SESSION: Joint Meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission The council was joined for the item by Planning Commissioners John Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Mitzi Colbath, Randy Hledik, and John Lawless. City Manager Taylor said the purpose of the work session was to continue the discussion about City Council expectations regarding Mixed Use Centers (MUC) and the use of opportunity siting as a tool for achieving desired densities in MUCs, greater neighborhood compatibility for new growth, and determining how future populations will be allocated throughout the city. City Manager Taylor introduced Kurt Yeiter, Planning Division staff, who introduced Mitzi Colbath, Planning Commission President. Ms. Colbath thanked the City Council for providing the second opportu- nity for the commission to meet with the council. She said the commission was following up on council direction from the July 2005 meeting to address two issues: ? Direct the City Manager to incorporate opportunity siting as described in the July 19, 2005, email to the Mayor and City Council as a primary strategy for achieving density targets in mixed-use cen- ters. ? Request that opportunity siting be combined with citywide estimates of future population which will be approximately allocated to mixed-use districts and other areas in the city. Ms. Colbath said the Planning Commission looked at this joint meeting as an opportunity to discuss opportunity siting as a tool for MUC planning, to outline other proposals to implement MUCs and citywide infill strategies, and to garner additional clarity from the council to implement the commission’s work plan. Mr. Yeiter offered a PowerPoint presentation on opportunity siting, a paper copy of which was distributed to City Council members. His presentation was based upon the following topics: ? City Council direction from July 2005. ? Purpose of the joint meeting. ? Opportunity siting definition. ? Uses of opportunity siting to date. ? Lessons learned from higher density infill in MUCs. ? Current impediments to MUC implementation. ? Short term actions: support mixed-use centers. ? Continue planning identified MUCs. ? Streamline PUD process. ? Require master plans in select areas. ? Future Actions: Accommodating growth outside MUCs. ? Citywide review of infill strategies. ? Purse a citywide opportunity PUD. ? Pursue other incentives. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Yeiter said the Planning Commission developed a proposed definition of opportunity siting: Identify locations characterized by features that lend themselves to concentrated development or redevelopment that achieves the goals of Eugene’s Growth Management Policies, including but not limited to increased residential density that preserves the character of adjacent neighborhoods, and provides pedestrian access to commercial and employment centers and transit corridors, and directing growth into these locations. Planning Commissioners introduced themselves. Mr. Kelly stated that he found much to like and much to be concerned about in the Planning Commission presentation, but he supported the general direction of the proposal to look broadly at specific ideas. Mr. Kelly had a big concern that opportunity siting had been redefined by the working definition since the council and commission met jointly in July. He did not like the working definition at all, in that it did not reflect the original July 20 council motion. Mr. Kelly, referring to page 472 of the July 20 agenda packet, noted that “opportunity siting” was described as a mechanism that focused density on targeted parcels. Targeted parcels were a narrower description than locations, which could mean anything from entire neighborhoods to PUDs to cities. He asked the commission to use the council’s definition as a starting point. Mr. Kelly said he had been surprised by Mr. Yeiter’s statement that opportunity siting had been used in the original designation of mixed-use centers (MUCs) or nodes, and would again be pursued. He said the statement presented a different level of scale than the council intended. Mr. Kelly appreciated Mr. Yeiter noting that opportunity siting was done in combination with population estimate and targeting. Ms. Bettman said it seemed like the City kept going back to the same place it started in July 1995, recalling that the Land Use Measures Task Force that had worked on nodal development. There were numerous other resources to identify specifically what processes needed to be changed to achieve the council’s identified goals. Ms. Bettman said she was not opposed to doing opportunity siting out of mixed-use areas, but she was opposed to using other forms of increasing density that destroyed the fabric and texture of established neighborhoods. She said it was not possible to upzone and subdivide lots in established neighborhoods while doing opportunity siting. Opportunity siting was an alternative to the traditional methods of achieving infill and density in ways that destroyed neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman added that opportunity siting provided equity throughout the city by distributing density. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council follow the same strategy it used when reviewing the Downtown Plan, by having the mayor and two councilors meet with the Planning Commission when it addressed opportunity siting issues. Ms. Solomon said the Planning Commission did a great job of answering the questions posed by the City Council, and she expressed appreciation for the work offered in today’s presentation. She added that the presentation raised additional questions. Recognizing the realities of how development occurred in Eugene, and the market demand, the commission’s proposal was a reasonable tool to get the council moving forward. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Yeiter stated that TransPlan identified 38 or 39 potential sites, and plans were adopted for Royal, Chase, part of Chambers, and Crescent Village MUCs. He said that staff was currently working on two new sites: Walnut Station and lower River Road south of Rasor Park. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Grant funding was needed to complete the lower River Road portion of the project. Referring to the Walnut Station MUC, Ms. Solomon asked if the City would have such specific require- ments for the Romania site, currently owned by the University of Oregon (UO) Foundation. Such specific requirements would exclude many opportunities. She expressed concern about how opportunity siting would work on that parcel. Mr. Yeiter said the process used in MUCs included identification of assets, existing conditions, natural resource areas, open spaces, historic resources, and a market analysis of what could happen in the areas. He added that staff worked with property owners on opportunities for their sites. Several scenarios that offered different levels of intensification and different types of uses were being developed for analysis by neighbors and property owners for the Romania site and other developable sites in the Walnut Station MUC project,. From this analysis, a plan would be developed, through which specific sites may be targeted for specific types of development. It was conceivable that a wide range of uses would be allowed on a specific site to fit into the overall development pattern. Allen Lowe, Walnut Station MUC Project Manager, stated that Planning Commissioner John Lawless was a member of the steering committee. Mr. Lawless said the Walnut Station MUC project area was a sensitive one, and steering committee members were learning that trying to contain the project within a predefined boundary was very limiting, problematic, and not realistic. He said the impact that the surrounding areas could eventually impose on the project were enormous. He said the steering committee hoped to find a way to expand the allowance for considering what happens when a market proposal comes through adjacent to, but outside of, the boundary limit. The steering committee suggested finding mechanisms to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts, regardless of the project, property, or planning boundary source. He said there needed to be a way to make an analysis that pushed the proposal through a set of filters that identified good and bad proposals. Mr. Papé said he wanted to reconsider what the City Council did on Monday night regarding the Chambers neighborhood. He thanked the Planning Commission for its efforts in cooperating with the neighborhood. He asked what would happen if the same process was used in all neighborhoods when looking at mixed use and it was not possible to comply with citywide growth management policies and plans by achieving the prescribed densities. Mr. Papé said it may be easier to achieve density goals by looking at greenfields, such as the Royal Node, where greater flexibility may be possible than with established neighborhoods. Ms. Colbath noted that commissioners, councilors, and others were concerned with the issue. She said the Planning Commission attempted to address this concern with its third proposal, Use of opportunity siting citywide in an exercise to coordinate future populations while balancing other needs for space (e.g., parks, natural resources, other land uses) and better protecting neighborhood character. The process would include the following steps: ? Asset Mapping ? Requirements Assessment ? Review Options and Techniques ? Decisions ? Implementation MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Colbath said this process would allow the City to be flexible and react in a positive manner when proposed developments, parks plans, or Goal 5 plans were presented, and allow for a more comprehensive look at the proposed project. Mr. Papé commended the Planning Commission for its work, and asked what resources were needed to support the commission’s proposal. He wanted to assist staff in securing adequate resources and technologies to move forward. Mr. Nystrom replied that staff was hoping to continue to evolve the opportunity siting concept. He said more specific strategies would be developed following the council’s direction today, and may result in requests in the FY07 budget. He added that staff would continue to move forward with the current work program, determine where it needs to go in the future, and bring that back to the council. Mr. Lawless said that the Chambers Revisited project should not be looked at as a holistic study. He said that the council could add resources to fill out the process that looked at one fine-grain component of how infill and neighborhood quality can be measured, scoped, shaped, and evaluated in response to potential infill projects. Chambers Revisited did not go to the next step to determine how additional density can be achieved to get to the higher levels. Mr. Lawless said even old neighborhoods could absorb some density. Although they may not be able to meet the entire target, they could contribute to a positive outcome rather than degradation of both older residential and older commercial neighborhoods. Rigid interpretation of planning rules produced broken components of the process. Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Papé, noting this was an interconnected series of discussions. He said the Planning Commission helped the City Council by studying very complicated issues. He said greater flexibility and creativity had helped the process. Mr. Belcher said during his six years on the Planning Commission, it had never been found that the actions of the commission had an effect on residential, commercial, or industrial lands, because it had looked at everything in its own specific context. He said, in fact, there had been an impact on residential, commercial, and industrial lands, and asked the council to direct the commission to return with a program that looked at the big picture in a comprehensive manner to determine where the City was going with the 19 growth management policies. Mr. Carroll said it was true that the resources identified in the Chambers Reconsidered process were about the neighborhood and compatibility, but those neighbors did put their feet on the ground and looked at specific parcels within the mixed use center. He said when using the term opportunity siting, it was important to remember for whom it was an opportunity. Neighbors could help with and have ownership of the process by mapping assets. Keeping neighbors involved often and early was important. The opportunity was in finding the overlap where neighborhood goals met development/investor and growth management goals. Mr. Hledik said it would be helpful to the Planning Commission if the City Council would provide examples to illustrate how an opportunity siting idea would apply to a parcel, to enable the commission to better grasp how limiting or flexible the council wanted the commission to be in further developing this strategy. Mr. Kelly apologized to the Planning Commission for the short duration of the day’s work session. He said the commission’s idea on master planning was exciting and had much potential, citing the rail yards as an example. He agreed with previously expressed concerns regarding available resources for duplication of the Chambers Reconsidered process on a citywide basis. He said the Chambers Reconsidered project got ahead of opportunity siting and population allocation discussions and he urged the Planning Commission to get MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 10 Work Session ahead of future things to enable the council to say that it had the big picture. Mr. Kelly said the opportunity planned unit development (PUD) sounded intriguing, and liked the idea that it was a prototype for an alternative path. He asked the Planning Commission to look at it broadly, so that it was an alternative that need not be burdened by Chapter 9 standards for all development. Mr. Kelly expressed nervousness over statements like streamlining the PUD process, adding that he wanted to see focus on the issue. He said it was important to talk about neighborhood involvement rather than neighbor involvement. Ms. Bettman concurred that streamlining also made her nervous, especially since opportunity siting was predicated on involving the neighborhood and empowering the neighborhood associations through the process of developing density goals. She said the City may need to do a demonstration project. Ms. Taylor asked for more of an explanation of what the Planning Commission meant by streamlining. Ms. Colbath explained that it was not the commission’s intent to streamline past the public involvement component, but noted that time was money. The public involvement was included in the general standards to which PUDs would need to adhere. She said public involvement would come at the front end of projects, as criteria were created for the desired outcome. Mr. Belcher agreed with Ms. Colbath, noting it was important to balance development needs to streamline the process with community needs to ensure that proposed projects were good ones. He suggested that code language could include a requirement that developers needed to meet with impacted neighborhood groups at the time of application. Mr. Lawless said the current process was an eight-step process, and suggested that triaging the process by eliminating unnecessary steps prior to the application process would be beneficial. Ms. Taylor said there may also be lists of activities that developers would know were inappropriate. She was concerned about allocating a certain amount of density to each neighborhood, noting that some neighborhoods were more suited to density levels. She stated the south hills were not suited to the same density requirements as flat areas. Mr. Kelly said the density or population allocation was very important to him. He said one size did not fit all, and the appropriate density in the south hills area because of topography and natural resources would differ from the West University neighborhood. Nevertheless, there was a good way through opportunity siting to arrive at ways to add density, albeit not as much density, to south hills neighborhoods and there was a way to add density to the West University neighborhood. It was a matter of doing specific, and therefore, costly study to develop appropriate allocations. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Pape, that it was important to spend the necessary money to do the project right. Ms. Bettman reminded the Planning Commission that non-residential uses need to adhere to density standards. Additionally, she said the demographics demonstrated that densely populated neighborhoods were declining in population, which was undesirable. She expressed concern that a class society was being developed where some neighborhoods were not subject to density requirements. There are appropriate places in the south hills for density, and it is up to the neighborhood associations to determine where they choose to absorb the density. Those neighborhoods needed to accept their fair share of density. Ms. Piercy thanked the Planning Commission for attending today’s meeting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 11 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 16, 2005 Page 12 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall November 23, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY ISSUE ACTION PLAN City Manager Taylor stated that this issue initially was presented to the City Council on August 10, 2005, at which time councilors requested that, in accordance with their suggested changes, a revised action plan be crafted for further review. Public Works Executive Director Kurt Corey proceeded to review the revisions that were made at the suggestion of the council. He explained that the proposal continues to propose three key objectives (noted below) with a reduced number of individual action items from 39 to 19. ? Enhance effective public engagement activities. ? Support neighborhood involvement in problem solving. ? Focus service delivery to better meet neighborhood-identified priorities. Mr. Corey explained that the reduction in the number of action items was possible as some were 1) already in the planning stage, 2) in progress, or 3) already implemented. Additionally, related items were combined. Mr. Corey continued that at the request of the council, staff shared the proposal with the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) who commented accordingly in a letter to the council in September 2005. In conclusion, Mr. Corey thanked City staff who worked diligently to craft the proposal and respond to the suggested revisions put forth by the council. Mayor Piercy called for council and comments. Ms. Taylor pointed out that at least two neighborhood associations have not discussed the proposal under discussion and suggested that the council not proceed to adopt until such time review by all neighborhoods can occur. She then pointed to the key objectives and specifically the guiding principle “Create Partnerships,” and asked for an explanation of such partnerships. Mr. Corey replied that it was a general goal to bring diverse groups together who may not traditionally be viewed as partners. Ms. Taylor remarked that the principal under discussion was 1 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session not attached to the correct objective. She then referred to the guiding principles – “Build on strengths and assets” and “Collaborate and use existing resources” - and questioned if the latter was, in fact, redundant and therefore the two principles could be combined. Ms. Taylor moved on to Phase One- Annual Report on use of best practices in citizen involvement project. She questioned who would produce such a report. Mr. Corey stated the City Manager would provide the report on a quarterly basis. City Manager Taylor pointed out that at a recent City Council process session it was agreed that all the council priorities would be a part of the State of the City document and posted to the City’s website, followed by quarterly reporting. Ms. Taylor suggested that the neighborhood groups be involved in the crafting of such a report. Ms. Taylor referred to Phase Two, Increase number of people participating in public involvement activities. She suggested that it be moved to Phase One. Additionally she opined that an annual community survey would not provide an accurate indication of how the neighborhood perceives the plan, as many constituents do not participate in telephone surveys. She then questioned how Deliver Neighborhood priorities would unfold. Mr. Corey explained that such a measure would implement programs that include a priority-setting process from the neighborhoods themselves, rather than the City presupposing what may be effective. Mr. Kelly stated that the revised proposal was an improved step forward and voiced his appreciation to the outreach to the NLC. He took very seriously the statement in the Agenda Item Summary statement: It was not intended to be a comprehensive plan. The refinement of the plan will begin with the involvement of the neighborhood associations, and continue through the implementation of the three key objectives. Mr. Kelly commented that the next step in the process was for City staff to begin its work with the neighborhood associations by gathering feedback and revising the proposal appropriately. Mr. Kelly spoke to the annual report component. He pointed out that while the initiative was broader than the neighborhoods associations, the involvement of the associations was a critical component and therefore he requested that the reports include neighborhood association feedback as well as staff feedback. Mr. Kelly, referencing the discussion at the recent council retreat, referred to action items 16 through 19 and opined that while they were all relevant items, they were in fact less true to the intent of the Neighborhood Initiative and therefore should be treated as a lower priority. Mr. Kelly referred to Action Item 11, Shift Involvement of neighborhoods to be earlier in the land use process, and opined that the item would satisfy many objectives in the initiative and elsewhere and therefore should be raised to a higher priority. Mr. Papé voiced appreciation to the staff for its work on the revised proposal and said he hoped that such documents would be provided to the council in a more rapid manner in the future. He referred to Action Item 3: Institute “best practices” for citizen involvement, including methods for establishing clear expectations and closing the feedback loop and questioned how staff will identify appropriate “best practices.” Mr. Corey replied that resources such as the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and American Planning Association (APA) will assist in crafting best practices. He opined that best practices that were defined globally and implemented locally were the most effective for communities. Mr. Papé requested that the neighborhood associations be brought into the discussion of best practices prior to implementation. Mr. Papé said that it was prudent to name a responsible party or position for the action items. In referring to Action Item 7, Institute annual neighborhood summits with Neighborhood 2 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Associations’ boards and City elected & appointed officials, he asked what a neighborhood summit would entail. Mr. Corey replied it would be defined in the manner determined by the council. He added that opportunities such as “get togethers,” of which neighborhood services currently avail themselves, may not rise to the level of an actual summit and that following a summit, the council could determine to move the Neighborhood Initiative forward in some manner, discontinue it , or continue it as was. He added that Beth Bridges, the Neighborhood Services Manager, raised the concept of instituting some form of NLC training on “public input.” Mr. Papé opined that this action item should be incorporated into Action Item 5, Provide training on collaboration tools and leadership development/coating so that associations become forums to bring together divergent views for problem solving. Mayor Piercy recalled that she received a request from the NLC to hold a summit that would provide an opportunity to share information with City staff and elected officials. Mr. Pryor pointed out that while some neighborhoods have active associations, some do not and those inactive associations need a mechanism to contribute. He favored an investigation of various ways to gain the involvement of neighborhoods that do not enjoy an active association. Mr. Pryor opined that an annual neighborhood summit would be an opportunity to include all members of a neighborhood. With regard to surveys, Mr. Pryor opined that it was critical to statistically measure the pulse of a community along with the other components to ascertain if effective tracking was taking place. He concluded that action items 16 through 19 could be considered lower priorities; however he added that Action Item 19, Train staff to be ambassadors for service delivery in neighborhoods, would be an excellent tool to ensure that staff effectively represents the City when out in the community; additionally, it would be an excellent use of City resources. Ms. Bettman commented that some of the action items have very specific/directional provisions and others were very general in nature. She suggested that the objectives include two umbrella values; namely, empower neighborhood organizations and preserve and enhance residential property values. Mr. Corey questioned if the action plan the council wished to adopt would focus toward existing neighborhood associations or other stakeholders not necessarily represented by such associations. Ms. Bettman referred to Action Item 1, Recruit for participation via demographics profiles to ensure additional “silent” stakeholders, and opined that such an item was a policy decision. Mr. Corey explained that the language was crafted in that manner in order to respond to the council’s desire that more individuals become involved in the process. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman explained that using demographic profiles to recruit seniors, youth, and diversity groups would result in a group that reflects the community in a truer sense. City Manager Taylor added that a broader representative pool of applicants for boards and commissions was the intent of staff with regard to this language. Ms. Bettman then spoke to Action Item 5 and opined that staff’s role was to assist neighborhood associations and leaders achieve the skills necessary to build their organizations. Mr. Poling complimented staff on its effort and voiced caution that the initiative not be overly expanded. He reminded the council that it was a starting document at this phase with the intent to include the neighborhoods in the process prior to adoption. 3 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the proposed Neighborhood Initiative Action Plan. Ms. Ortiz voiced concern regarding Action Item 9, Divide Cal Young and Active Bethel Citizens into smaller associations, and asked staff to explain how the division process would be handled. Mr. Corey said staff would follow up with an explanation of that process. Ms. Taylor questioned why those particular neighborhoods were being divided as there were other large neighborhood associations in Eugene. Ms. Taylor spoke to Action Item 19 and opined it was an excellent step forward. She then referred to the section entitled Enhance Effective Public Engagement Activities and opined that the programs were vague in nature, with the exception of Increase for volunteer coordinator staffing levels. She also questioned why the revival of the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) was not included in the initiative. Ms. Taylor then commented that she viewed neighborhood associations as the spokespersons for the neighborhoods. In conclusion, she spoke to the activity of Neighborhood outreach on mixed use center planning efforts and said she hoped that this activity would become part of City policy for all neighborhoods. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Pryor’s observation that there were a number of inactive neighborhood associations and opined that the manner in which to improve such inactivity was to empower the associations which will, in turn, draw in more individuals. Mr. Kelly also concurred with Mr. Poling’s hope that the initiative not be expanded and pointed out that the neighborhood associations could make suggestions that could become replacements of action items already proposed. Mr. Kelly asked if there was interest around the table to drop action items 16 to 19 and, as he observed little interest, he said he would not put forth such an amendment. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to add language (noted in bold) in Action Item 11 – Shift involvement of neighborhood associations to be earlier in the land use process. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly spoke to the Phase One action items and said they should be regularly measured and outcomes reported to the council. Mr. Papé spoke to Action Item 9 and questioned if the division of Cal Young and Active Bethel Citizens will be acceptable to the respective associations. Mr. Papé offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to add language (noted in bold) in Action Item 9 – Consider the division of Cal Young and Active Bethel Citizens into smaller associations, in accordance with the council’s policy on neighborhood boundaries. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to replace the following language under Key Programs and Activities: Support neighborhood involvement in problem-solving Support neighborhood involvement by empowering all neighborhood associations. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to add the following objective: Preserve and enhance residential property values. 4 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Ms. Bettman explained there needed to be an overriding value so that an action will not reduce property values and therefore result in a negative impact to the neighborhoods. Mr. Papé countered that impacts to property values do not factor into the City’s relationship with neighborhood associations and therefore such a value – or filter – would not be accurate. The motion failed 2:5, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend Action Item 12 as follows: Create standards to minimize conversion from residential uses. Ms. Bettman explained that the amendment was one of three initial goals put forth by the council at its recent retreat under the discussion of neighborhood initiatives and questioned why staff proceeded to ignore this goal. She stressed that there needed to be housing support in the downtown area and currently there was unlimited conversion allowed for other uses. Mr. Corey replied that the cross-departmental group that crafted the action items was not in a position to weigh that type of policy measure within a neighborhood initiative. Therefore, he said that the appropriate manner in which to process this goal would be as Ms. Bettman proposed in her amendment. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend the discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Councilor Kelly concurred that the issue brought forward by Ms. Bettman was discussed at the council retreat and launched in the Downtown Area Housing Policy Analysis as well, which received unanimous support by council. He asked that Ms. Bettman’s amendment be changed to a friendly amendment as an added action item, with the explanation that there were regular reviewing standards for regulating and focusing infill. Ms. Bettman agreed to change the amendment to a friendly amendment which Mr. Kelly put forth as follows: Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor to retain Action Item 12 as proposed and add an additional action item as follows: Create standards to minimize conversion from residential uses. Mr. Papé voiced concern that as the city grows, residential neighborhoods could conceivably convert to commercial/industrial areas and vice versa. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the amendment stipulates minimize and does not include language such as “prohibit” or “eliminate.” Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling but not accepted by Ms. Taylor, to revise Action Item 18 as follows: Safe Streets. Ms. Bettman explained that the language in Action Item 18 as currently stated, limits improvements. She pointed out that safe streets may have a different connotation to neighborhoods than what was noted in the proposal and therefore the item should not specify in its design. Ms. Taylor stated that context-sensitive should be retained as it was not necessarily connected to safe. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to amend Action Item 18 as follows: Safe Streets. The amendment passed 5:2, with Mr. Papé and Ms. Taylor in opposition. 5 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session The main motion as amended passed unanimously. B. WORK SESSION: CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING PRIORITY ISSUE Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell distributed a corrected copy of Matrix of Leanings. He then reviewed the Agenda Item Summary and opened the floor to discussion. Mr. Kelly suggested that as staff referred to Phase 1, the language be corrected to The Policy Advisement Phase of the City Hall Complex Action Plan. Staff concurred. Mr. Kelly then turned to the Project Values, specifically Value 7, Physically manifest the principles of democracy and Value 8, Strive for simplicity, and asked to be reminded of their merit. Ms. Bettman explained those were values she put forth and that she would speak to their relevance. Mr. Kelly then stated he concured with the proposed Preliminary Task List and Schedule, Phases One and Two. He spoke to the Position Statements, specifically number 4, and recalled that th rather than stating while acknowledging reservations about the concept of 8 Avenue as the Great th Civic Street, it should read do not limit to an 8 Avenue concept for a City Hall Complex. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly referred to the City Manager’s recommendations in the Agenda Item Summary and suggested that the language “renovate or replace” should be corrected to read “renovate and replace.” He explained that preservation of the building and/or the City Council Chamber has been under discussion and will be further debated. Ms. Bettman spoke to Values 7 and 8 as noted above and explained that with regard to Value 7, the building needed to stand for the principles of democracy, specifically, to provide community meeting space, be open to the street and the city, and easily accessible to all with a high comfort level. Additionally, all the branches of City government should be located in the complex and the Mayor and City Council should have offices and maintain office hours in the building. With regard to Value 8, Ms. Bettman explained that the plan needed to be one simple, cost-efficient project and not too complicated for voters to understand. She then turned to the Position Statements and opined that Position 3 had been “watered down,” as consolidation had been an overarching objective. With regard to Position 4, Ms. Bettman reminded the council that it previously agreed City Hall should remain downtown. Mr. Pryor voiced a concern that constituents may not fully understand the meaning of the wording in Value 7 and suggested that if was incorporated into a public document, it be changed to the following language: “To maximize usability access to government and its representatives.” Mr. Papé concurred with Mr. Kelly’s comments regarding Position Statement 4. He asked that it be clarified. Additionally, in speaking to Position Statement 2, Mr. Papé said he was under the impression that the City was planning a building for the 50-year range rather than the 25-year range. Mr. Penwell explained that the intent of the language was to respond to space needs and expansion, not the life of the building. Mr. Papé stressed that the life of the building needed to be incorporated into the planning. Mr. Poling referred to Value 9 and asked for clarification. Mr. Papé explained that it spoke to both the physical growth of the building and growth of the government. Mr. Pryor commented that the City needs to plan for growth over a 50-year period and to construct a building that will last 50 years but not build the entire building initially; rather, expand as necessary. 6 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Ms. Taylor commented that the government may not need to grow; rather, it should limit itself over the years. She then spoke to public involvement and pointed out that that component had not yet been addressed with this project. Ms. Taylor referred to basic questions that have yet to be answered and said those should include public involvement, i.e., if the police building should be separate, how many police stations should be constructed and at what size, if the City should renovate or build anew, and if those decisions should be made prior to other decisions. She commented that the current City Council Chamber was the “epitome of democracy” as it was open to the public and the environment and may be adequate for the future, regardless of population increases. Mr. Poling concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments regarding Value 7, and offered new language which was noted in the motion that follows: Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the six project values presented at the October 19, 2005, City Council workshop, plus three additional project values: (7) Maximize use of City Hall public spaces by the public and access to government and its representatives; (8) Strive for simplicity; (9) Plan for the future; and further, adopt the following four position statements: (1) Incorporate meaningful sustainable design goals; (2) Utilize a long-term planning horizon of 25 years; (3) Consolidate general City services to the greatest practical extent, postponing decisions on the inclusion of police functions until further technical analysis was completed; and (4) Develop the project in consideration of the Downtown Plan while th acknowledging reservations about the concept of 8 Avenue as the Great Civic Street. Mr. Poling stressed that this motion sets the groundwork for the public process. Mr. Papé spoke once again to Value 9, and pointed out the current facility had no plan for the future, with the exception of the City Council Chamber, and therefore had poor accessibility. Ms. Bettman stated she would accept the rewording of Value 7. She then turned to Position Statement 3, and opined that the language separated police services, which she assumed would not be decided upon at this stage in the process. Mr. Penwell explained that the intent of that specific language was to recognize that there were varying police delivery models and to not preclude options. He assured the council that the option to retain the department within the City Hall Complex continues to be on the table. Ms. Bettman commented that the council awaited technical analysis on this and other issues and therefore such caveats should be omitted. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to change the language in Position Statement 3 as follows: Consolidate City services to the greatest practical extent. 7 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Mr. Kelly spoke to Value 7 and opined that the original wording sounded more like a value, whereas the revised wording sounded more in the measurable objective area. However, he stated he could accept the change as proposed. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to change the language in Position Statement 4 as follows: Develop the project in consideration of the Downtown Plan while not limiting th location choices to 8 Avenue. Mr. Papé questioned if the Police Department was moving towards a precinct model or leaning towards a downtown model. City Manager Taylor replied that such a decision was premature as the information needed to make the decision was incomplete at this time. Mr. Papé indicated that without such information the council cannot move ahead with that phase of the City Hall Complex. Jonah Hardy, architect for Thomas Hacker Architects, explained that the police design decision will certainly have an impact on the entire project; however, he pointed out that options will be identified that will allow the council to move forward. Mr. Papé indicated he did not oppose options per se; however, they must converge. He added that such a process does not stay with the simplicity theme that was necessary for the public domain. Mr. Penwell said that some of the components can be carried forward conceptually and staff understands that hard data will be necessary within the next year. To respond to the Police Department design, Police Chief Robert Lehner spoke to the Consolidation Models and said that three options have been developed around Model 5, any one of which will allow the department to deliver a precinct model. He pointed out that the decision the council must make around what to incorporate in City Hall was independent of service delivery models. Chief Lehner said that the models will be further refined for the benefit of the council at its next meeting so it can make a decision on this issue. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Chief Lehner clarified that the three options proposed for Model 5 include: (1) City Hall with the Police Department; (2) City Hall with the Police Department in close proximity; and (3) City Hall and the Police Department completely separate. However, he added that the principal of the division of a precinct, or not, will be preserved. With this clarification, Ms. Bettman asked for a postponement of the vote on the City Hall Complex on December 14, as she would not be in attendance. Ms. Bettman referred to Position Statement 3 and pointed out that as the Strategic Plan was discussed by the Police Commission, it reviewed different variations for the creation of precincts. She shared that she was informed by Chief Lehner that the City Council will make the decision on the precinct model and following that vote, that portion of the Strategic Plan will move forward. Mr. Penwell clarified that the December 14 meeting will not include an action request by staff to the City Council of the three police models. Rather, he explained that process will not converge until early in 2006. He further clarified that the action request to the council on December 14 will include the scope for the consultant team, how much technical information it should provide, and the adoption of the public involvement, and associated costs. Mr. Papé observed that staff was informing the council that it will make a decision around police operations in sight of going after facilities and he strongly suggested that how the Police Department was ultimately designed should inform the facilities. Mr. Penwell clarified that the council will determine the police delivery model and Facilities staff will include that decision in the facilities process. Mr. Taylor added that a process was in place to provide all the necessary 8 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session information for the council to make a determination prior to a facility plan. He reiterated that the additional information around specific models for police delivery will inform the decision to be made by the council. Mr. Kelly shared Mr. Papé’s concerns. Additionally, he asked staff to communicate to Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz the action items the council will be asked to debate on December 14 so they can determine if a formal request for postponement was appropriate. Councilor Kelly said that if the vote needed to be postponed, the discussion should also be postponed. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) m:\2005\central services department\city manager's office\city council\cc051123m1.doc 9 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: November 28, 2005–Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Joyce Ogden MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2005\Central Services Department\City Manager's Office\City Council\cc051128m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: Joyce# = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 12/23 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 12/23 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 1/3 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 1/4 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall November 28, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORT AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy reported that she met with representatives of the Federal Highway Administration and the Oregon Department of Transportation to discuss alternatives to the West Eugene Parkway. She shared that in the course of the conversation, the representatives were amenable to pursing alternatives within the Environmental Impact Statement and therefore a proposal to hire a consultant who would facilitate the process would be presented to the Metropolitan Policy Committee at its December 8 meeting. In conclusion, Mayor Piercy announced that the next Mayor’s “One-On-One” meeting would be held on Tuesday, November 29 in the Bethel neighborhood. Ms. Ortiz reported that she attended the following events: ? River Road/Santa Clara Task Force Outreach Program on Monday, November 21, where it was noted that the constituents were doing good work to identify the needs to retain the neighborhoods intact; ? Enterprise Zone meeting (with Mr. Pryor) and presented a request for additional funding for schools; ? Human Services Commission meeting (with Mr. Pryor), which included discussions on the Homeless Initiative and the Community Health Centers and how to incorporate the latter into the School-Based Health Centers. Mr. Kelly reported that he attended the recent Region 2050 meeting which included a discussion of policy and legal issues around an adopted regional growth strategy with Lane Shetterly, the director of the State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. He added that a staff team representing Region 2050 would meet the week of December 5 to discuss and craft a report on Mr. Shetterly’s information to be presented to the Region 2050 Policy Board in January. Mr. Kelly explained that part of the challenge for Region 2050 was the legal impact for a regional growth strategy, which falls under a State statute entitled Regional Problem-Solving. He noted that the statute was relatively new and therefore had no administrative rules and had been tested in only two Oregon communities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly proceeded to request that the City Manager provide an update on the Cultural Services Compre- hensive Plan. City Manager Taylor responded that a memorandum would be presented to the council outlining the status of the plan, which was targeted to begin early in 2006. Ms. Taylor reported that the Lane Regional Area Protection Authority received a grant from the Environ- mental Protection Agency to provide low-interest loans to truckers so they may do what was necessary to remain warm or cool, as the case may be, without idling their trucks during rest stops. She pointed out that the elimination of this practice would ensure unnecessary fuel usage and increase air quality. Mr. Papé reported that Mr. Poling, City Manager Dennis Taylor, Public Works Director Kurt Corey, and he met with representatives of Sheldon High School recently to discuss the parking issues at the school as well as access to Willagillespie Road. He requested that staff provide a status report on these issues which were impacting students. City Manager Taylor responded that a meeting was scheduled with Kurt Corey and George Russell, Superintendent of the 4J School District, to respond to the situation. Mr. Papé reported that he and Ms. Ortiz attended the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Team Meeting recently and said he was pleased with the progress of that volunteer group and that he looks forward to the transition. Mr. Papé said it was becoming clear that River Road and Santa Clara want to remain together for some of the recommendations and split on others, as applicable. Ms. Solomon announced that she would accompany Mayor Piercy to the Mayor’s “One on One” meeting on November 29 in the Bethel area. City Manager Taylor expressed special gratitude to City Manager's Office staff Mary Walston and Lynda Rose for the incredible effort they put forth during the recent short work week to ensure that the City Council received its cumbersome packet. Additionally, he drew the council’s attention to intended motions on the land use code that would be discussed at the regular City Council Meeting following the work session. B. WORK SESSION: PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN City Manager Taylor introduced Carolyn Weiss, Parks Planning Manager, who provided an overview of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Weiss introduced the components of the plan via a PowerPoint presentation, which were outlined in the Agenda Item Summary and attachments. She highlighted the strategies as follows: Recreation ? Be adaptable to the change and needs of the community. ? Identify and develop new programs. ? Continue to provide a wide range of specialized services for people with disabilities and expansion of inclusion efforts. Parks ? Provide neighborhood parks within one-half mile of most residents and community parks within two miles of most residents. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Natural Area ? Promote activity between natural areas through acquisition and development whenever feasible. ? Work with the appropriate government jurisdictions to explore feasibility of trail connections on lands outside Eugene’s urban growth boundary (UGB). Planning ? Continue to emphasize public safety and security in the design and operation of City parks, natural areas and facilities. Ms. Weiss spoke to the public outreach component since December 2004, which she reported included six public forums to gain feedback on the plan. Additionally, she reported that a meeting with the Mayor’s parks advisory committee was held in July 2005 to discuss some of the revisions noted in the plan. Ms. Weiss stated that a significant update was the addition of the Project and Priority Plan. She explained that this information was removed from the comprehensive plan as it needs to be adaptable and flexible and respond to the growth of the community and funding needs. Ms. Weiss further explained that the document would be adopted by council resolution, be subject to a public hearing, and following that process, would be included in the PROS Comprehensive Plan as an appendix. Ms. Weiss clarified that while the plan did include strategies which go beyond Eugene’s UGB, they were aspirational in nature and do not assume any authority over land in Lane County’s jurisdiction. She added that five strategies were revised to clarify that intent. Ms. Weiss spoke to the Eugene Planning Commission’s recommendation that the council approve the PROS Comprehensive Plan with seven amendments. Six of those amendments were incorporated into the revised plan. Ms. Weiss spoke to one proposed amendment that was not included in the plan: To include lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management which were purchased with land and water conservation fund dollars into the Parks and Open Space Inventory. Although this inclusion may show that the natural area of park target was met through the year 2025, other policies may require additional acquisitions within this park type. She explained that by adding the 742 acres into the City’s inventory, a false surplus of lands would be shown in the Natural Area Parks category through the year 2025. This was not consistent with input received from the public which indicated a desire for additional natural area parks. In conclusion, Ms. Weiss announced that a public hearing would be held on the plan on December 12 and following adoption, staff would present the Project and Priority List to the council in February for its review, followed by a public hearing on February 27, 2006. She added that the option of a bond measure would also be a discussion item for the council in mid-January 2006. Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. Mr. Kelly stated that Eugene had a superb parks and open space system and applauded staff, businesses, and residents, all of whom contributed to this accomplishment over many years. He pointed to the gaps which have been identified and included in the plan; additionally, a structure for the aspirations. Mr. Kelly then spoke to the complexity of the plan and questioned why it was proposed for adoption as a refinement to the Metro Plan. He pointed out that it did not appear as a refinement plan and if adopted as a council resolution, concerns around land use legalities would be eliminated. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that the plan was recommended as a refinement plan, as it replaced the existing refinement plan. He concurred MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 3 Work Session that much of the content of the plan was not of refinement plan language and conceded that legal counsel had not reviewed the document to ascertain if there was a requirement that some of the sections would be required to be included in a refinement plan. Mr. Kelly requested that counsel undertake an analysis of the document and report its findings to the council. He suggested that an ordinance to repeal the earlier policies, followed by an adoption of the new plan by resolution may be a more prudent process. Mr. Papé stated he was most impressed with the plan and expressed appreciation to staff and community members who contributed to its content. He questioned if there was intent to build on park system development charges (SDCs). Ms. Weiss replied there was no such intent and explained that once the Project and Priority List was adopted, that document would be the starting point to identify SDC projects which could be a “subset” of the larger project list. City Manager Taylor added that such processes would coincide with each other. Mr. Papé pointed out that the public had not been part of a discussion regarding SDCs. Mr. Papé then asked if other communities included parks and open space that may be owned by other jurisdictions inside their urban growth boundary. Ms. Weiss pointed to the examples of the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District and the City of Portland and said they did not include such lands that they did not own but may include facilities on such land. She added that National Recreation Parks Association (NRPA) did have standards in that regard at one time; however, such standards varied with each community and therefore it was too cumbersome a chore to administer. Ms. Weiss shared that analysis undertaken by staff revealed that Eugene fell somewhere in the middle of all communities with regard to its target-setters. Mr. Papé moved on to Page IV of the Executive Summary, Section B, Plan Highlights: Maintaining existing investments. He suggested there be some reference to future investments. Ms. Ortiz complimented the plan and asked that in its implementation, the plan be equitable for all community members. Mr. Pryor echoed comments expressed by others that the plan was well-crafted. However, he spoke to the refinement plan discussion that was raised by Mr. Kelly. He said the basic components were sound; however, he voiced a concern regarding specifics. Mr. Pryor pointed out that members of the community may be wary of a plan that committed itself without a complete vetting process. However, he conceded that the plan did allow the City adequate time to fully review the project list and that that process should be thorough and collaborative. Mr. Pryor noted that the project list would be assumed by the community as a starting point for bonding and opined that a full-scale bonding list would not be necessary if the City was thoughtful with regard to the project list. Ms. Bettman voiced her assumption that the plan would be aspirational. She pointed out that there were no policies in the plan as proposed, and if adopted, the policies in the existing plan would be eliminated. Ms. Bettman questioned how the plan can be a land use decision if there were no policies. She then asked that staff provide her with a copy of the existing plan so she could review the policies that would be eliminated. Ms. Bettman spoke to the SDC issue and pointed out that such SDCs were going to be tied to a project list rather than a level of service. She therefore questioned if the adopted project list would reflect a distinction between new capacity and filling the existing deficit of capacity and if the new capacity for new growth be allocated to the SDC and the balance put before a bond measure. Johnny Medlin, director of the Parks and Open Space Division, responded that following adoption, the project list would be a starting place for the SDC review committee, which could then craft a recommendation for a methodology that would come to the council for adoption. He explained that his understanding of the Oregon Revised Statute was that the original project list must reflect both the capital costs and percent-eligible attributable to growth for each of the projects. Mr. Medlin said that the project list would include what potentially can MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 4 Work Session be covered by SDCs as an ultimate and then staff would make a recommendation to the council to adopt the entire list, or a subset of the list. The council can then modify the list accordingly. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Weiss replied that staff had not returned to the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the above-noted amendment. Mayor Piercy questioned if the Urban Green Space, i.e.Downtown, had been preserved in the plan. Ms. Weiss replied that a park-type facility entitled Urban Plaza was included in the plan. Mayor Piercy questioned how such a space could be fully green as opposed to an area with plants, etc. She then pointed out there were varying urban parks and some have greater needs in terms of public safety and viability. She said they need to be a separate category in the plan to speak to these needs. In conclusion, Mayor Piercy spoke to Goal 9 on Page 15 of the plan, where it was concluded that parks were not part of economic development, and opined that providing a good park system was a very integral part of a model city and was certainly a key part of economic development. Ms. Taylor concurred with Mayor Piercy’s comment that parks were in fact part of economic development. She offered as an example the parks space that was built in Atlanta, Georgia, for the Olympics and pointed out that that addition revived the area with new businesses and apartment buildings. Ms. Taylor turned to Page VIII of the Executive Summary and pointed out that rivers and hills cannot be moved. Ms. Weiss responded that there were strategies to protect waterways, i.e., the Santa Clara Waterway and possibly some rural farmland parks in northern Eugene that were not fully developed with sports fields. Ms. Taylor believed that the natural areas should certainly be saved if at all possible. Ms. Taylor then referred to Page X of the Executive Summary: Management –Improve coordination between the Public Works and Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Departments. She pointed out that “parks” was spread out over three divisions and opined that a separate Parks Department was needed in the City’s organizational structure. Renee Grube, Director of Recreational Services, stated that this issue had been an ongoing topic of discussion but it was not included as a strategy in the plan. Ms. Taylor asked that staff review this issue. Ms. Taylor turned to Page XII of the Executive Summary and said it was interesting idea to title “volunteering” as a recreational activity. Mr. Kelly spoke to Ms. Bettman’s concerns regarding policies and noted they were listed in the existing ordinance on pages 11 and 12. He agreed they were important policies; however, he opined that none of them would have any affect on land use decisions. Mr. Kelly then asked if staff could consider the idea of the council adopting the plan as a resolution rather than a refinement plan. City Manager Taylor stated that the City Attorney’s Office would review the procedures and consequences of such a course of action and advise the council of its findings on December 12. Mr. Kelly asked staff to provide page citations for the Planning Commission’s recommendations to the plan. He then turned to a strategy on page 54 of the plan – I-25. – Consider willingness of seller as a key criterion when prioritizing acquisition opportunities. He said he understands such a motivation; however, he suggested the wording be changed to: Consider willingness of seller as a criterion along with other goals and strategies in the plan. He cautioned that a high-value parcel could be immediately ignored if it did not have a willing seller. Mr. Papé turned to page XII of the Executive Summary – Provide community parks within two miles of most residents. He questioned if such a statement was realistic. Ms. Weiss replied that based on that criteria, the City was only missing one community park which was located in the River Road/Santa Clara area and which staff continues to search for a suitable site. Mr. Papé turned to page XIII – Natural Areas – Prioritize natural resource acquisitions using criteria MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 5 Work Session beyond natural resources to include opportunities for recreation, education, and protection of important visual resources. He asked for an explanation of that priority. Ms. Weiss replied that the inclusion of natural resources was not the only criterion and that recreation potential must also receive attention. Mr. Papé then pointed out that the Executive Summary states there were performance measures and page 71 states they would be developed. Ms. Weiss said she would follow up on that anomaly. Ms. Bettman stated she was reluctant to repeal the existing policies if there were no replacement policies. She questioned what legal weight the strategies would have with such a document. Mr. Klein responded that that point will be addressed by a memorandum to the council. Ms. Bettman then referred to the revisions to the strategies, in particular the strategy that the City had no authority outside the city limits. She asked for clarification. Ms. Weiss responded that the strategy Ms. Bettman referred to speaks to the City not having powers of condemnation outside the city limits. She added that a number of the revised strategies do stipulate that the City did not have authority on lands outside the UGB. Mr. Klein added that such authority was shared in the urban transition area and, therefore, council cannot unilaterally adopt a document in that area; rather, a new policy must be adopted by the City and Lane County. Ms. Solomon voiced a concern regarding the properties that were not in the inventory, such as those owned by other entities and particularly those in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wetlands. She pointed out that such exclusion distorts the data and could ultimately jeopardize the success of a ballot measure. Ms. Solomon then expressed her belief that the City should not be the sole provider of all the parks, recreation, and open space services and this plan stated as much. She opined that such a philosophy undermines opportunities for partnerships and could reduce incentives to bring forward creative ideas. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to pro- ceed with the public hearing on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehen- sive Plan on December 12, 2005, with adoption set for December 14, 2005. Mr. Poling stated that a monumental effort went into this project. However, he spoke to the short timeline to adopt the plan and said that based upon the comments made at this work session and those that would be made at the public hearing on December 12, perhaps it might be prudent to postpone the December 14 adoption date at the end of the public hearing. Mr. Papé agreed, and offered the following friendly amendment: Mr. Papé offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon, to remove the December 14 adoption date from the process. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the majority of the council voiced concern over “special districts;” however, he noted that there were several paragraphs on page 69 of the plan that stipulated special districts as an option. He asked that that language be omitted from the plan as it can be discussed at a later time. Mr. Kelly further suggested that performance measures be reported to the City Council on an annual basis and noted in the plan accordingly. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. C. WORK SESSION: CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY ISSUE – HOSPITAL UPDATE City Manager Taylor reported that he, Mayor Piercy, and Planning and Development Director Susan Muir met with representatives of McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center and the President of Triad Corporation on November 15, at which time the representatives announced a proposed Eugene site they selected for construction of a hospital. Additionally, he explained that they presented a list of issues and concerns for MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 6 Work Session the City’s response, which was delivered on November 21 and included in the council packet. Ms. Muir referred to Attachment C of the Agenda Item Summary: a map of the potential hospital site. She explained it was a 42-acre site on three tax lots and that the map illustrates the location of the UGB and the city limits. Ms. Muir noted there were many questions related to transportation issues that must be addressed. She then referred the council to the table affixed to Attachment B that pointed to the annexation issues with the proposed site, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) designation labels which stipulate that the area was low-density residential, and the updated Metro Plan – under appeal by homeowners—which showed those parcels designated as parks and open space. She said that legislative amendments would need to move forward to change these designations; additionally, development applications would be required, including a conditional-use permit application. Ms. Muir stressed that the information before the council was preliminary at this time. In conclusion, Ms. Muir said that staff recommended moving forward conceptually to ascertain if in fact such a proposal was viable. City Manager Taylor reminded the council that the proposed site was not in the zone identified by it as the preferred area; however, he pointed out that after searching for sites both inside and outside the preferred area over the past several years, the current proposed site under discussion was one of two final sites that the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center would consider for a hospital and was therefore worthy of consideration. Mayor Piercy solicited council questions and comments. Ms. Taylor spoke to the quasi-judicial process, ex parte contacts and bias issues and asked Mr. Klein for an explanation of how they impact the City Council. Mr. Klein explained that a quasi-judicial process begins when an application was submitted and that the trigger date of application submittal was critical to determining when there was an ex parte communication. However, he added that the trigger date was not critical in terms of the issue of bias. For example, Mr. Klein went on, if a councilor stated he/she was opposed to any Metro Plan amendment, refinement amendment, or zone change for the property regardless what the criteria, application and testimony contained, the applicant could state that that individual could not act on those changes, as an opinion had been voiced prior to the application process. However, Mr. Klein pointed out that one could state that he/she did or did not favor a particular site, but would agree to await the criterion that governs the application and the evidence submitted prior to making a firm decision. Ms. Taylor opined that the site under discussion was not a preferable site for staff to consider. Mr. Pryor declared a direct conflict of interest around issues related to McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center and/or Triad Corporation, explaining that a family member was an employee of the medical center and that he, therefore, would not participate in the discussion or vote on the motion. Ms. Ortiz declared a potential conflict of interest around issues related to McKenzie Willamette Medical Center or Triad Corporation as she was an employee of Peace Health Medical Center. Mr. Papé shared that he was an unpaid board member of the Willamette Community Health Solutions Foundation which owned 20 percent of McKenzie Willamette-Triad Enterprise and therefore declared a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Kelly stressed that early transportation and traffic information would be critical to the process. He asked if a general transportation model could be provided to the council. City Engineer Mark Schoening MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 7 Work Session explained that a preliminary analysis had been completed for the siting of the hospital on the EWEB site and therefore the volumes of trip generations was available but not the timing or the location of the trips within a 24-hour period. He said that the applicant would normally take on such a project. He added that that information was not necessary for the EWEB site as an amendment to the Metro Plan was not a require- ment. Mr. Kelly opined there was a perception, as well as a reality, of how long it takes to travel from one location to another. He said that travel times from destinations within the city limits to the proposed site could be of value to this process. Mr. Kelly asked staff to confirm in writing if part of the hospital foot print was outside the Eugene UGB. Ms. Bettman conceded that it was the responsibility of the council to consider the application once it was submitted. However, she opined that the council should not break with precedent and provide extraordinary services or resources to this issue. Ms. Bettman then asked what the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would include. City Manager Taylor replied that it was premature to respond to that question as many specifics needed to be reviewed. He said he would request that McKenzie-Willamette identify its needs in order to locate in that site and that information would be included in the MOU for the council’s consideration. City Manager Taylor conceded that considerable staff resources would be required to respond to the number of questions put forth by the proposed applicant. Ms. Bettman suggested that the MOU include a question as to what entity would fund the necessary staff resources required for this process—particularly prior to the application submittal. She opined that the taxpayers should not be expected to absorb such costs prior to the formal application process. Additionally, she suggested that specifics around annexation agreements be included in the MOU with a question as to what entities would fund the staff resources to draw up those agreements; further, the MOU should address the disposition of the 13 acres outside the UGB. Ms. Bettman asked if a purchase agreement was dependent on the Metro Plan amendment and zone changes; additionally, she asked what the result would be if the City processed those changes and then no hospital was constructed. Ms. Bettman then asked staff to provide an estimate of the minimum timeline for the entire process. Ms. Muir responded that the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission would not address the annexation issue until early February, the Metro Plan amendment and zone changes would follow annexation, and the entire process would take approximately one year. Mr. Papé spoke to the transportation issue and questioned if the transportation improvements, if necessary, would need to be completed prior to the development of a site. Mr. Klein responded that following the Certificate of Need decision involving Peace Health, the Land Conservation and Development Commission revised the transportation planning rule. He said he would craft a memorandum for the council outlining those changes. City Manager Taylor noted that the applicant normally undertakes a Transportation Impact Study (TIA) and submitted it as part of its application. With regard to the Metro Plan amendment, he continued, the issue of what was a “significant effect” must be stated in written form by the applicant and a discussion of when and how that would take place would ensue with City staff and McKenzie-Willamette. City Manager Taylor added that it would be the recommendation of staff that the applicant process an annexation request for the part of the parcel that was located within the UGB so that the Metro Plan changes would be a single jurisdiction. Therefore, the Eugene City Council, solely, could make the changes if the property were annexed into the city. Mr. Papé asked for a status report on the EWEB site. City Manager Taylor reported that the EWEB commissioners voted to reject the offer from McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center at its last meeting. He added that the EWEB commissioners had not yet made a decision as to when and how the utility might relocate. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Poling stated he supported the council goal of locating a hospital within the preferred area; however, he said that if there was a willing seller of a property and a hospital willing to locate outside that preferred area, the application process should be allowed to move forward. He said that until additional information was provided, he could not provide a statement of support for the proposed site under discussion. Mr. Poling requested that staff provide an estimate of what the number of trips/vehicles would be if the property were to be fully developed out to its allowed density. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to begin work with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center on a Memorandum of Understand (MOU) for the proposed site of Delta Highway, north of Aires Road; further, that City Manager Taylor shall return to the City Council with significant policy or fis- cal issues that arise during this work; and further, that City Manager Taylor shall return to the City Council a review of the draft MOU. Ms. Ortiz asked if the property would revert back to its previous zoning if McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center decided, following approval of the Metro Plan amendment and zone changes, not to build on the proposed site. Ms. Muir responded that typically, the changes stay with the property but not necessarily with the use. Mr. Kelly stressed that a rapid response from staff with regard to policy and fiscal issues was critical. He then spoke to the 2003 City Council resolution which included language around incentives within the 2-½ mile radius of the central city and that the council welcomes the siting of a major hospital anywhere in the city of Eugene. Ms. Bettman suggested that the initial phase of the MOU ascertain who would fund the resources to undertake the advance preliminary work and the second phase implemented when there was an actual application. She pointed out that the council was already providing preferential treatment by dedicating staff resources and council time to the issue. Ms. Bettman spoke of the staff resources which would be taken away from other council priorities and opined that taxpayers should not subsidize this particular choice. Ms. Bettman spoke to the letter sent to City Manager Taylor from Chief Executive Officer Roy Orr of McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center, and pointed out that it stated that the hospital wanted to assure itself the property can be rezoned, the utilities would be available, that transportation would be improved, and what fees and other costs the City was willing to absorb. Mr. Bettman opined that the City should not absorb any fees or provide incentives, and that the City could not assure any of the above requests. She asked that the point be clarified in the MOU that there was a public process which must be adhered to and that there were no assurances of what the outcome would be. In terms of timelines and costs, Ms. Bettman pointed out that other sites have been rejected in the past because it had been determined there were too many obstacles or the process would be too timely Mayor Piercy observed that she would not need to cast a vote on this motion; however, she stated for the record that she voiced support to gather the information necessary to make an informed decision. Ms. Bettman pointed out there was no way to anticipate at the beginning of the process what obstacles may arise such as the resistance in the community and the costs, and therefore stated it would be prudent to incorporate a “Plan B”in the area preferred by the council. Mr. Papé questioned if McKenzie-Willamette could transfer its Certificate of Need from one site to another if a site were to be identified in the preferred area. City Manager Taylor responded that staff would research MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 9 Work Session that question and respond to the council. He added that staff had researched at least 30 sites and rigorously reviewed five in the preferred area and would continue to do so. City Manager Taylor commented that McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center wants to build a 148-bed hospital, with 100,000 square feet of medical office space, and therefore this proposal had some benefit to the City in terms of a tax base. Mayor Piercy shared that the representatives of McKenzie-Willamette Hospital made it very clear to the City that they have exhausted their search for a hospital with the two final sites at Delta Highway and Glenwood now under consideration. City Manager Taylor pointed out that the Glenwood site did not include option agreements. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the Glenwood site was yet another flood plain site. The motion passed 6-1-1 with Ms. Taylor in opposition, and Mr. Pryor abstaining. The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 10 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council Date Needed for Mail out: _________________ DATE OF MEETING: November 28, 2005–Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2005\Central Services Department\City Council\cc051128m2.doc BACKUP STORAGE: Ruth #31 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 12/8/05 rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 12/23 bf Reviewed by Staff and Returned to Minutes Recording Office (Date & Initials) _ 12/23 ky __ Received by Minutes Recording Office (Date & Initials) 1/4 ky Revised Draft Proofed/Revised (Date & Initials) 1/4 ky Final Printed and Sent to Staff By COURIER, E-MAIL, FAX, OTHER (Date & Initials) (Circle Method of Transmittal) Approved Minutes Amendments Incorporated and Sent to Staff (Date & Initials) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall November 28, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy welcomed everyone to the City Council meeting and reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. th Lauri Segel , 1210 East 29 Place, said while she was supportive of the West Eugene Wetlands Education Center, she was uncertain whether it was appropriate for the site to be on soil that supported Kincaid’s Lupine and the Fender Blue Butterfly. She remarked that it had not been mapped as habitat but she did not understand why. She thought it was a “stepping stone” site for migrating butterflies. She felt additional information was needed and this information had the potential to drive the City to consider other locations. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, reiterated his objection to the use of “less-than-lethal” weapons by the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He felt police charges against him had been retaliatory. He said the charges had cost him $90 and declared that the District Attorney should print a check for $90 to reimburse him. He commented that the only way to solve police problems was for people to come forward, “people who have been attacked and stolen from.” Mr. Vishanoff said, regarding the issue of homelessness, the City should discuss the University of Oregon’s proposal to build a basketball arena. He repeated his long-held assertion that more public input was needed regarding this issue. Joe Christison , 1535 Garfield Place, spoke regarding the University of Oregon’s announcement that it would sell its Westmoreland Student Family Housing complex. He underscored that students who lived at Westmoreland were lower income members of the community. He averred that affordable housing was a key component to upward mobility and diversity. He stressed that minority group members and non- traditional or older students had special needs. He asked the council to consider what would happen to the community if there was no access to higher education. He noted the recent riots in France, which were riots he felt were caused by despair. He hoped the council would speak out against the sale because students really needed the complex. He said there were no other affordable housing options to take the place of Westmoreland. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session th David Watson , 2131 West 16 Way, said he was also a Westmoreland Student Family Housing resident. He assumed the council already had the facts so he wished to share the personal consequences the loss of Westmoreland would bring about. He felt fortunate that he would graduate by the time the sale went through. Had Westmoreland been sold the previous year, however, he would not have been able to graduate from school. He related that he and his wife did not have a low enough income to qualify for low-income housing. He said the two of them “took a gamble” and sacrificed day-to-day amenities six years earlier in order to get educated and take a “larger piece of the pie.” He shared their struggle through college, taking small jobs such as delivering pizza to get by. He felt that, should Westmoreland become low-income housing, it would be populated with residents who lack direction and the resources to better their lives. Joe Collins , 2333 Hawkins Lane, was pleased to see that the charter amendment passed and a police oversight body would be formed. He opined that the EPD needed such oversight. He related his strong suspicions that his neighbor was a drug dealer and his experience with trying to document it and raise police awareness about it. He said the police were not responsive enough. He suggested that the District Attorney’s office and judges also needed oversight. He thought District Attorney Harcleroad and Police Chief Lehner should be fired. He said more information was available on his Web site: www.seethelawsuck.com. th Tim Whitley , 280 West 30 Avenue, spoke in support of the land transfer to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the purpose of establishing the West Eugene Wetlands Education Center. He declared the benefits of supporting the land transfer were many. He noted the land proposed to be transferred would remain in the public trust and would remain accessible to the public. He underscored that the City was working in partnership with the BLM, an agency that shared community goals, and the transfer would bring BLM management into play on the property. He said the primary purpose of the education center was as a community asset to help educate the youth and all of the community about the excellent environment that all experienced in the area. He encouraged the council to support the land transfer to help in the six-year effort to construct the West Eugene Wetlands Environmental Education Center. Teresa Damron , 605 Howard Avenue, wished to convey a River Avenue Stakeholders Group minority report. She said she had struggled to find where the win-win solution would be. She asserted that many group members wanted the work to be postponed until the plans that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had for the River Avenue connection to Beltline Highway were known. She related that she read in an email that all of the minority report requests could be incorporated into the project. She asked the council to put language in its vote on the matter that would guarantee the requests listed in the minority report would be incorporated into the River Avenue project. She averred that if the council would do so it would have her full support. Kevin Matthews , Box 1588, Eugene, president of the Friends of Eugene, declared he had “process concerns.” He averred that the Parks Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan raised significant questions. He asked the status of the plan and how it would replace the existing plan. He asked how land inventories were treated for different lands, such as wetlands. He felt these questions warranted input, but thought it would be better to answer the questions before the public hearing. Regarding the proposed land transfer for the environmental education center, he asked that the motion include language that indicated that the letter of intent would not preclude a large amount of “necessary additional research” and moving to better site and transfer options if research identified them. He called it a “nuanced thing.” He thought it would be a “little too casual” to proceed with the transfer without putting the extra language into the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session Bing Li , 1569 Garfield Place, stated that she was chairperson of the Westmoreland Tenants Council. She said without Westmoreland Student Family Housing, the University of Oregon would only offer 350 apartments for student families. She underscored that the current student population was 23,000 and increasingly fewer apartments were available. She declared that the university was disingenuous in the information it provided to the public that indicated the sale of Westmoreland was due to high maintenance costs. She asserted that the State paid for maintenance. She pointed to the University’s assertion that a two-percent return on its investment was not enough and opined that the University was not a business. She said the University alleged that there were structural problems, yet tenants heard from another consultant that the place could last another 50 to 100 years. She stated that the Westmoreland complex had a 95 percent occupancy rate and not 87 percent as reported in the news by the University. She stressed that this issue was not just about Westmoreland, it was about the whole community. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for questions and comments from the council. No comments were offered at this time. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes -October 12, 2005, Work Session -October 19, 2005, Workshop B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Home Investment Partnerships Program Funding to Acquire Existing Housing Units Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman said she submitted minutes corrections electronically. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3.ACTION: Minor Land Use Code Amendments An Ordinance Concerning Land Use; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2161, 9.2171, 9.2173, 9.2180, 9.2450, 9.2470, 9.2683, 9.2685, 9.2686, 9.2741, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.2795, 9.3220, 9.3822, 9.3910, 9.4730, 9.4830, 9.5250, 9.5350, 9.5500, 9.5750, 9.5800, 9.6105, 9.6410, 9.6420, 9.6610, 9.6615, 9.6630, 9.6640, 9.6650, 9.6670, 9.6709, 9.6730, 9.6745, 9.6805, 9.6810, 9.6815, 9.6820, 9.6830, 9.6870, 9.6885, 9.7015, 9.7020, 9.7110, 9.7605, 9.7655, 9.7805, 9.7885, 9.8010, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8090, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8310, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8410, 9.8440, 9.8515, 9.8520, 9.8700, 9.8710, 9.8715, and 9.8720 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.8335 and 9.8580 to that Code; and Providing Effective Dates City Manager Taylor stated that Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), had returned as lead staff person for the minor land use code amendments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session Mr. Nystrom called attention to the motions before the council. He thought, in general, that staff had worked with the various motions and tried to respond to council concerns or questions that had been raised. He hoped it helped to clarify or alleviate concerns that had been expressed. He said staff was in support of the amendments by and large. He asked the council to consider adoption of the ordinance with the proposed motions before it. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4910, an ordinance concerning minor land use code amendments. Councilor Papé said he did not find language on corner lots and fence heights, a concern of his constituents. Mr. Nystrom responded that an amendment regarding this item had initially been considered but enough concerns were expressed about policy issues surrounding it that it had been deferred to the second round of code amendments. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified at Councilor Kelly’s request that the Staff Recommended Motions (A) through (E) provided in Attachment A to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) could be made individually and could be referenced by letter. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (A) from page 235 of the Agenda Item Summary. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (B) from page 235 of the Agenda Item Summary. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to replace Staff Recommended Motion (B) with a motion to amend Council Bill 4910, Section 13, to remove any proposed revisions to the current code entries for lot area minimum for duplex, triplex, and fourplex lots on Eugene Code (EC) Table 9.2760. Councilor Bettman averred that policy issues were involved in Section 13 and, as such, she would prefer to have those discussions when the council talked about major land use code amendments. Councilor Solomon asked Mr. Nystrom for his input on the amendment. Mr. Nystrom responded that the City had on its books for a long time an option for people subdividing land which allowed them to create R- 1 lots for alternative housing types such as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. He said the question for staff had to do with how to address a larger lot meant for a fourplex that was sold by a developer to someone who wanted to build a single-family home and whether an exception to the lot size limit for such a home could be allowed. He stated that should the amendment not be approved, a lot designated for a duplex and so on would be required to remain so designated. He noted that PDD only saw one or two of such requests per year. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that the substitute motion would remove the original amendment’s flexibility. He reiterated that the current language was inflexible and the original amendment had sought to increase the flexibility. He thought, should the code remain the same, staff would have to be more “up front” with developers so that it was understood that a designation could not be changed at a later date. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session Councilor Kelly acknowledged that this referred to land zoned R-1, residential, only and that R-1 land had no minimum density requirements. However, he wished to underscore that the City’s growth management policy sought to promote density. He asked if the fact that a developer would label a lot for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex would have any impact on whether an application was approved or denied. Mr. Nystrom replied that it did in terms of maximum density. He said the number of units proposed could not exceed the maximum. Councilor Kelly asked why a developer would ever designate a lot for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. Mr. Nystrom replied that it was in essence a streamlined approach that would allow a developer to create such units without having to go through a planned unit development (PUD) process. Councilor Kelly indicated that he was willing to support Councilor Bettman’s amendment if only to bring it back for more discussion in the second round of amendments. Councilor Bettman averred that if flexibility such as the original amendment would allow was approved, a person who was zoned for a fourplex could build a single-family house on a 16,000 square foot lot. She felt a developer could “totally circumvent” the maximum lot size and this was antithetical to the City’s growth management policies. Councilor Papé indicated his willingness to delay the discussion. He thought he would advocate for allowing some flexibility to take things one step down, such as allowing a fourplex to be replaced by a triplex. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that the topic would be deferred to next round of potential amendments with a yes vote on Councilor Bettman’s substitute amendment. He could not say what would happen to the proposed amendment next, except that it would be placed on the list for the Planning Commission to review in the next phase. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute Councilor Bettman’s motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting in opposition. Roll call vote; the amended Staff Recommended Motion (B) passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (C) from page 236 of the Agenda Item Summary. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (D) from page 236 of the Agenda Item Summary. Councilor Kelly explained that the issue was related to cul-de-sacs and accessibility in cul-de-sacs. He appreciated Mr. Nystrom’s response to his concerns, but he still had an issue with the language. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion to replace the word ‘may’ in proposed EC 9.6820 with the word ‘shall.’ MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session Councilor Papé thought the amendment seemed reasonable, but he asked staff to respond to it. Mr. Nystrom explained that the intent was to make it clear that the ‘require’ statement had limitations, mostly to do with exactions and findings for making those exactions, and by having strong language it could read in a way that seemed to preempt the provisions. He said it was more for the reader than for anything else, because the code still had to do with “Dolan” issues and, legally speaking, the code still had to deal with those issues regardless of whether the language said ‘may’ or ‘shall.’ Roll call vote; the motion to amend Staff Recommended Motion (D) passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the amended Staff Recommended Motion (D) passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion with Staff Recommended Motion (E) from page 237 of the Agenda Item Summary. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 2, be amended to remove any proposed revisions to the current code entry for Recreational Vehicles and Heavy Truck, Sales/Rental/Service on EC Table 9.2160. Councilor Bettman expressed concern that the proposed land use code amendment, without her amendment, would permit recreational vehicle and heavy truck sales, rental, and service businesses to develop in all C-2, Commercial areas including those in the downtown area and other areas she felt would be inappropriate for that use. She noted that such a business could still apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to locate in an area that was zoned C-2 and this would allow the public to weigh in on it. Councilor Kelly commented that it was a policy issue, though a relatively minor one. He also thought it had potential to increase property value on some parcels and, as such, should be deferred until the City Council discussion on the Ballot Measure 37 “givings” tax. He indicated his support for the amendment. Councilor Pryor asked to what degree recreational vehicle and heavy truck sales, rental, and service facilities differentiated from motor vehicle sales, rental, and service facilities. He wondered if it had to do with the size of the facility or its impact on the land. Mr. Nystrom replied that he could not speak to the origin of how the two uses were separated initially as it happened “many years ago in the code.” He assumed that it had to do with the size of the vehicles and the larger visual impacts they had. He said the issue staff raised was that they were seen infrequently and tended to be in locations that had not had the kinds of concerns and issues that were raised by Councilor Bettman. He stated that they were typically in areas that were a little more impacted with other commercial uses and auto-related uses. He said a CUP typically addressed compatibility and impact issues and the reality had been that the sites that had been brought forward did not have those kinds of concerns. He felt there had not been a lot of value gained in the larger process. Councilor Pryor asked if Mr. Nystrom could think of any inherent reason why a recreational vehicle lot would be significantly different from a car lot aside from the size of the vehicle. Mr. Nystrom replied that he could not. Councilor Pryor asked if the lots themselves were considerably larger than car lots. Mr. Nystrom responded that this was not typically the case. Councilor Solomon favored the staff-recommended motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Mr. Nystrom said land zoned C-3 was typically commercial land in the downtown area and auto-related uses were discouraged in general in that area. Councilor Bettman averred that larger vehicles had an impact on the size and nature of the site and the adjacent transportation infrastructure. She felt this use should be allowed by CUP only in land that was zoned C-2. Roll call vote; the vote to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, Kelly and Taylor voting in favor and councilors Poling, Solomon, Papé, and Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 14, be amended to delete proposed subsection (5)(d) from EC 9.2761. Councilor Bettman opposed the subsection because she felt ‘natural resources’ was not defined in the language. She thought it would provide exceptions to maximum lot size on “very general, broad, and un- defined terms.” In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Nystrom stated that there were references within the criteria of approval for many of the land use applications that would be triggering this issue. He said there were ways to look at linking them. He commented that it became a “word smithing” challenge to corral what natural area issues would be. He acknowledged that to Councilor Bettman it seemed too broad. He said there was language in the code now through the land use applications that one could try to link to and he was uncertain if there was a simple amendment that would satisfy all of the council, as the language was a little different in each application as well. Councilor Kelly supported the amendment in order to add the item to the second round of land use code amendments for further discussion. Councilor Taylor asked if the natural resources could be trees. Mr. Nystrom replied that it was one of the areas that could be identified in the land use criteria. He observed that one of the concerns, if one looked at it from a “Goal 5 point-of-view,” is that it would not necessarily be inclusive enough. He said, however, that if one looked at the criteria for the underlying land use applications, it would include things like trees and some other key vegetation. Councilor Bettman opined that the language was too general. She was concerned that a developer could use such general language to gain exemptions to the maximum lot size based on a natural resource, such as a tree, and then build a house and cut down the tree. She felt there was no enforcement. She averred it was vague and unless the phrasing was wordsmithed it was a good discussion to have in the second phase. She also thought there were issues of the Goal 5 natural resources and there were provisions for adjusting setbacks according to the natural resources that were being protected. In response to question from Councilor Papé, Mr. Nystrom stated that in larger scale projects, especially a PUD, there were tools that allowed planners to look at the “balancing act” more holistically. He said it was the smaller scale projects that had less flexibility and this language sought to provide them with a little more flexibility. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session Councilor Papé said while he appreciated Councilor Bettman’s concerns, he thought the council needed to trust staff and delegate. He indicated he would oppose the motion. Roll call vote; the motion to amend failed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in favor. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 14, be amended to remove any proposed revisions to the current code entry for subsection (6) of EC 9.2761. Councilor Bettman explained that this motion accompanied the first amendment she proposed and the council had passed. Mr. Nystrom concurred. He said it was a companion piece to this and in essence was a narrative explaining the same intent. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor moved that Council Bill 4910, Section 15, be amended to remove any proposed revisions to subsection (1) “Purpose of EC 9.2775.” The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman said she would vote to oppose the motion. She thought the process had been constrained by the number of code revisions the council had to review and the time allotted to review them. She felt there was a trend toward decreasing densities in wealthier neighborhoods, allowing a code that made it easier to have larger lot sizes and less density in new development. She asserted that this differed from what the City was doing in existing neighborhoods, which was cramming in infill without design standards. She opined that the direction the code changes were headed in was toward a fundamental inequity. Councilor Bettman also requested that fewer code amendments be submitted at a time for council review. She felt most of the councilors did not even know what was in the code amendments and the impact they would have on the ground and the neighborhoods in their wards. She asked that the next batch of code amendments contain less land use amendments to consider. Councilor Kelly asked that staff let him know what the public process would be for the second round of land use code amendments as constituents had been asking him this. He agreed with Councilor Bettman’s suggestion to bundle amendments in smaller amounts. He thought the amendments should be bundled by category. Councilor Taylor agreed with Councilor Bettman’s assertion that having over 80 minor code amendments was too much. She also thought the amendments should be submitted in smaller amounts. Mayor Piercy said she was impressed by how staff walked the council through some of the amendments. Roll call vote; the main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session 4. ACTION: th An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of the Alley Right-of-Way Located Between 10 Avenue and Broadway, Parallel to Olive and Charnelton Streets; Providing for and Effective Date; and Providing for a Sunset Date Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt th Council Bill 4911, an ordinance concerning alley vacation between 10 Avenue and Broadway. City Attorney Klein noted that Attachment C on page 341 of the council packet contained an improved version of the ordinance that indicated the alley vacation would not go through should the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) deal not go through. He asked that Councilor Poling specify which version of the ordinance the council would consider adopting. Councilor Poling specified that he moved Ordinance B, from page 341 of the council packet. City Manager Taylor said this issue was a matter of some urgency as the financing for the ORI was conditioned on new market tax credits that would expire at the end of 2005. He urged the council to adopt the improved version of the ordinance and underscored its specificity to the ORI deal. Councilor Bettman supported the motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. ACTION: Land Transfer to Bureau of Land Management (Environmental Education Center) City Manager Taylor asked Sarah Medary, Natural Resources Manager for the Parks and Open Spaces Division of the Public Works Department, to speak to issues that had been raised. Ms. Medary said that staff was working through the next steps of building the Environmental Education Center (EEC). She stated that the federally owned “Red House property” had to be transferred into local ownership in order to continue working towards a multi-partner development of the site. She explained that in working with the Federal Congressional Delegation, they had been contacted by the Association of Oregon and California Counties (O & C) and it identified that the BLM site was purchased with funds generated from O & C lands. She stressed that the O & C had a “no net loss” policy with the BLM for O & C lands and asked the BLM to honor the policy. She said staff felt the land transfer would be a “win-win solution,” in that a parcel in West Eugene had been identified that had a majority of BLM funds in it as they had purchased an overlying/underlying conservation easement on it. She conveyed staff’s proposal that the City give the remaining fee title ownership on that piece of property to the BLM so that it could honor the “no net loss” policy with the O & C Counties. Ms. Medary noted that under the City ownership, the goals for the property proposed to be transferred were habitat conservation, natural resource values, recreation connections and the BLM shared those same goals. She stressed that this transfer did not represent any loss to the city. She asked the council to support the proposal, which would happen if and when the “Red House site” was legislatively transferred to the City of MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session Eugene. She added that if the City was not able to build the ECC on that site, all of the transaction would be reverted and the City would retain ownership of the Quarry Lane site, the site proposed to be transferred. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to direct the City Manager to execute a land transfer of approximately 19 acres of the Quarry Lane site to the Bureau of Land Management, if needed, to satisfy the “no net loss” policy with the Association of Oregon and California Counties. Councilor Bettman felt there was not enough information in the AIS, though it sounded like a great plan. She said to receive the questions from Mr. Matthews and Ms. Segel had been troubling and this could have been circumvented had there been adequate information in the AIS. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Medary said the “Red House” site had buildings on it, adding that this was one of the reasons it was considered an ideal site. Councilor Bettman asked what percentage of the site had buildings on it. Ms. Medary responded that most of the site was developed. Councilor Bettman asked what the comparative costs of the sites were. Ms. Medary replied that the Quarry Lane site had cost the City $28,000 and cost the BLM approximately $121,000. She said the City would be giving its $28,000 investment and receiving in return 12 acres inside the UGB at the “Red House” site. Councilor Papé questioned the equity of trading a 19-acre parcel for a 12-acre parcel. Ms. Medary responded that the portion of the site on which the BLM had a conservation easement was 19 acres. She averred that it made sense to pick a piece on which the BLM had already done the work to transfer it into their ownership. She stressed that no additional cost would be brought about by trying to subdivide or do additional survey work on the property as it stood. Councilor Papé expressed concern that this would take 19 acres out of the City’s parks inventory and would only receive 12 acres. Ms. Medary responded that the land would still be in the partnership and would still be publicly owned and tagged together with all of the parcels in West Eugene. She recognized his point, but wished to underscore that people would walk from one parcel to the next and not readily understand which government agency owned which parcel. Councilor Papé asked what it would take to partition the property and only give the BLM 12 acres. City Manager Taylor replied that he did not know what it would take but it would raise the cost and increase the timeline. He had thought the land transfer was a way to satisfy the O & C concerns and still hold the land in good stewardship. Councilor Papé asked if it would be possible for the BLM to give the City more than 12 acres in exchange for the 19 acre property. City Manager Taylor responded that this would just take longer and part of the reason this item was before the City Council at this meeting was so that the City could move forward with some of the work that was hoped to get accomplished as part of the United Lobbying Front in this next legislative cycle. Councilor Pryor remarked that this transfer might not be absolutely the most perfect deal, but he thought it was a good deal and supported it wholeheartedly. He recalled that he had been supportive of the education center when he had served on the School Board for School District 4J. He supported this motion because it brought the City and schools one step closer to getting the center “to happen.” He did not think the City was MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session exposing itself to an unreasonable level of risk on this deal because if it did not go through everything was required to revert back. Councilor Kelly appreciated Councilor Papé’s comments regarding getting a “like for like acreage.” However, given that the City was receiving a multi-million dollar value in the education center site versus the $28,000 investment the City had made in the Quarry Lane property, he was comfortable in “keeping it simple.” He noted that the Quarry Lane property was outside of the UGB. He acknowledged that it was going to take an act of Congress to transfer the land to the City and indicated he was happy to support the motion in order to bring the transfer to closure in a timely fashion. Councilor Taylor asked if there was urgency in this motion. Ms. Medary replied that there was. She stressed that it was urgent that the bill get introduced in front of Congress before the end of the year. She said much was riding on it, including the possible loss of funds from School District 4J. Councilor Taylor said Mr. Matthews and Ms. Segel brought to her attention that more time to analyze the site may be needed. She also thought more public input could be necessary. Ms. Medary underscored that at this meeting no decisions about building the education center were being made. She stated that if the land was actually critical habitat, all of the necessary steps would have to be taken and there would also be a public hearing related to zoning changes needed to build the education center at all. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser said the Oregon delegation staff had advised staff that they had 10 months to get the bill through the “labyrinth that is congressional politics” and seek passage of the bill. He stated that if it could not be done in 10 months, all of the bills in the hopper in November would expire and a new session of congress would begin when everything went back to “point zero” to start over again. He projected that this would delay the progress of the education center by one to two years. He stressed that the delegation wanted to act quickly and was prepared to introduce legislation, possibly in December. He hoped to get this issue resolved at this meeting in order to beat the 10-month window. Councilor Papé commented that the motion did not seem to contain all of the “what ifs.” He asked if there was sufficient language in the motion to ask for reversions in the document. Mr. Klein responded that the motion was sufficient to authorize the City Manager to move forward in the process and should there be reversions, there was the legislative history to back it up. Mayor Piercy averred that the center would be valuable to the community and acknowledged that many people in the community had worked for it. She encouraged the council to support it. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session