Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/24/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall October 24, 2005 5:30pm COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: . Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the October 24, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy acknowledged the following positive events: ? Sustainability Award given to the City for it wireless irrigation control system ? The hard work of the Rotary Club members on the River Play area ? Innovative Channel Bank repair along the Amazon Creek. Mayor Piercy also mentioned that she and Mr. Papé just returned from trip to the City’s sister cities of Chinju, South Korea and Kakegawa, Japan. She said it was a great trip and re-emphasized the value of the Sister City program. She announced that on November 14, she and Mr. Papé would make a 30-minute presentation on the education, cultural, and economic value of the trip. Mr. Poling announced that the Cal Young Neighborhood Association meeting would be on October 27 at 7 p.m. at the Sheldon Community Center. Ms. Ortiz reported that she attended the River Road Community Organization meeting and learned that the members were excited to come back to the City Council with a new plan for River Avenue. She reported that the plan seemed to be a good compromise. Ms. Ortiz said that she would be helping the Bethel School District with its bond measure for a levy for operating expenses. Mr. Pryor reported that he and Ms. Ortiz attended the most recent Human Services Commission meeting at which the current director of Centro LatinoAmericano reported on an anonymous donation made to Centro which would help the center stay open until the end of the year. He said that this donation would allow Centro to reactivate some of the contracts that it had with the Human Services Commission. He said the commission was trying to be responsive and work with Centro. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pryor said that the Human Services Commission was doing some visioning and goal-setting to help make sure that the relationships between the different agencies was effective and working at a high level. Ms. Ortiz reported that CentroLatino Americano received a health care grant. Ms. Bettman informed the City Manager that some members of the public reported having difficulty accessing the City Council agendas on the website. She said that the problems had been persisting for several weeks and asked that staff research the source of the trouble so that people could have better access to what the council was doing. Mr. Kelly reported that at the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, an update was given about the federal Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) money for transportation. He said that the money for this region would be reduced from $3.5 million over three years to $3 million, which might mean that MPC would have to reduce some of its allocations. Mr. Kelly made a follow-up request to the City Manager for an outline in a broad form of what would be involved in reviving the former tree ordinance, chapters 6 and 9. Ms. Taylor mentioned that she was also interested in knowing about the tree ordinance. Ms. Taylor announced that her e-mail was not working. Ms. Taylor said that she received a call from one of her constituents saying when a complaint had been made to the Eugene Police Department (EPD) about a long and well-attended party on Onyx Place, the police responded that they did not have the staff to respond. Ms. Taylor said that she would like to know more about that. Ms. Taylor observed that a recent four-hour meeting attended by city councilors was held in a place in which the meeting could not be cablecast. She also noted that there was no media present. She said that she thought that the public needed to know what was going on with the City Council all the time. She said that she was also disappointed in the parking at the facility. She said that she did not understand why the meeting was not held at City Hall where everyone knew where to park and where the meeting could be cablecast to the public. Ms. Taylor also commented that it seemed to her that at this meeting, without public input, the council went a long way toward deciding that City Hall would not be remodeled but would be replaced with a new building. She reiterated that she thought that the public should know what the council was doing. Mr. Papé complimented the staff and the City Manager for receiving the International City Managers Association (ICMA) award for the City’s accounting performance measurement. He said that he thought that these measurements would be helpful in reviewing and assessing where the City was “on track” or “off track.” Mr. Papé announced that the mayor would he holding her one-on-one in Ward 5 on October 25 at 5 p.m. at the Market of Choice on Green Acres and Delta Highway. He encouraged his constituents to come and meet with the mayor. He informed Mayor Piercy that there would probably be some people there to talk about an issue on Holly Avenue. Mr. Papé said that he, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Taylor had a meeting scheduled during the week with some residents of Holly Avenue. He told the mayor that he would apprise her of the situation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Papé said that he would like to know if a fire response issue in Mr. Poling’s ward had been resolved. Mr. Taylor informed him that there had been several meetings with representatives from the Harlow neighborhood. Mr. Papé asked for a memorandum or e-mail informing the council of the final resolution. Mr. Papé said that the sister city trip was wonderful and he encouraged other councilors to participate in one if given the opportunity. He said that he looked forward to reporting on the trip on November 14. He mentioned that the visit to Holt International had been a special part of the trip. City Manager Dennis Taylor said that being awarded the 2008 Olympic Trials was huge for Eugene. He acknowledged the cooperative effort made by the City, University of Oregon, Tzbaco, the Oregon Track Club, and Lane County. He particularly acknowledged Angel Jones, the Executive Director of the Department of Library, Recreation and Cultural Services, and her staff for their outstanding work on this project. He said that while this event would take a lot of work, it was the kind of work that would build on the great track tradition in Eugene. Ms. Piercy noted that it was in keeping with the theme of “Art and the Outdoors.” City Manager Taylor joined with the mayor in thanking the Rotary Club for bringing over 100 people to work on River Play. He said that Discovery Village was constructed as well as benches, picnic tables, bike racks, and swing sets. Many trees and shrubs were planted. He said that it was a great community effort. City Manager Taylor noted that he provided the councilors with a memorandum about the first Ballot Measure 37 claim brought to the City. He said that the details of the claim would be brought before the council with a subsequent discussion scheduled for November 14. He said that staff was working to evaluate and process the claim according to the ordinance. Mr. Papé said that he would like to have a memorandum from the City Attorney on Measure 37 now that it had been invalidated by the Marion County Circuit Court. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that a confidential memorandum had been sent out and would be resent to those councilors who did not receive it the first time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 3 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study City Manager Taylor asked Neil Björklund from the Planning and Development Department to provide an update on the follow-up work done in response to testimony on the Goal 5 Natural Resources Study. City Manager Taylor noted that this was a project on which Mr. Björklund had been working for 17 years. Mr. Björklund opened his presentation by saying that the project was close to being completed. He referred councilors to their meeting packets, which contained all of the written testimony that was entered into the record, a memorandum that responded to all of the written and oral testimony, a revised ordinance that reflected the changes that staff was recommending to the ordinance based on the testimony, and the legislative findings that went with that. He noted that the councilors did not receive all of the exhibits because they had not yet all been revised as staff was waiting for direction from the council. Mr. Björklund said that staff was asking for direction from the council as to which ordinance to bring back for adoption, presumably on November 14 when the item was scheduled for action. Mr. Björklund referred councilors to two maps on the wall which reflected the recommendations being brought to the council. He said that the recommendations affected only a few sites and therefore were not readily visible on the maps. He said that he would make a PowerPoint presentation of four samples of difficult sites and how they would be addressed and then ask for questions and comments from the council. The first sample presented by Mr. Björklund was an example of when a street or building isolated a portion of the setback. The example showed an area where the setback was cut off from Amazon Creek by a street. He said that the recommendation was to not apply the provisions to those areas that were isolated by being on the opposite side of a building or a street. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Björklund said that an exhaustive analysis had not been done to determine how many sites were like this because such an analysis would be extremely time consuming. He said that he was aware of only a handful of sites like this. The next slide was a sample of the adjustment to standards with a 33 percent threshold, in which an owner would qualify for some reduction of the protected area if the setback area exclusive of the water feature takes up 33 percent of the site. Mr. Björklund said that the slide illustrated why the water feature was not counted. He said that the reduction would be based on what area was actually made unbuildable as a result of the regulations. Mr. Kelly said that what Mr. Björklund was describing was not what he read in the language. He referred to page 34 of the council packet, Section 9.8030(21)(a)(1): More than 33 percent of the development site is occupied by the combined area of the /WR conserva- tion setback and any portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward beyond the conservation setback; Mr. Kelly said that he always thought of streams, not ponds, when he pictured this statement. Mr. Björklund acknowledged that most people did the same and that was why he had shown an example of a property with a pond. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Björklund said that the setback was defined in Section 9.4920. He said that the setback, in the case of a site like the one on the slide, would be measured from the ordinary high water line or the top of bank, depending on the situation. He said that the setback was that area from the edge of water or the top of bank out the specified distance. Mr. Björklund explained the difference between the term “conservation area,” which included the resource and the setback and any riparian vegetation that extended beyond the setback and the term “conservation setback,” which was only the area measured from the resource out the specified distance and which did not include the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 4 Work Session resource itself or the riparian area that went beyond. Mr. Kelly said that he now understood the difference and would have to digest how that would affect the code. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Björklund presented the third slide showing an example of the 33 percent threshold with a stream feature. The example showed a site with a stream feature and had both wetland and riparian resources. Mr. Björklund explained that in this example, the area between the channel banks, which was essentially the area of the wetland, would not be included in the calculation of 33 percent. He said that the total lot area was .35 acres, the resource itself (the wetland boundary) was .08 acre, and the area of the setback was .15 acre. He explained that .15 was 43 percent of .35 acres and therefore the lot would qualify for the 33 percent adjustment. Mr. Kelly clarified that the setback in this provision could be reduced so that it did not occupy more than 33 percent of the lot. Mr. Papé asked what the priorities would be for reducing the setback. Mr. Björklund said that a number of standards had to be met. Ann Siegen- thaler from the Planning and Development Department said that the priorities were described on page 35 in subsection 6. Mr. Björklund showed the last example of a site in Santa Clara near Beacon Drive. He said that this was a more extreme example of a smaller lot with proportionally even more of it taken up by the resource. He said that the setback area and any riparian area that extended beyond it was 21 percent of the lot, thus not qualifying the lot for the 33 percent threshold adjustment, even though there was very little developable area left on the lot after the setback was applied. He said that it was this kind of example that led staff to add the new adjustment that was intended to address situations that staff was not able to anticipate because of the relationship between where a resource was located and the lot shape and size and other factors. He said that in previous drafts the City relied in part on provisions that Mr. Klein drafted to create a process to address any reduction of clear market value in unusual situations. He said that with that “fail safe” gone, staff introduced the new section to allow the City to look at a number of factors and make the least reduction to protection necessary to allow development of a lot. Ms. Bettman asked if all of the 445 residential acres involved were plotted with lots. She wondered if, for example, a 20-acre lot could be divided in such a way that the lots would get the maximum reduction. Mr. Björklund said that lot divisions would have to be done to City subdivision or PUD standards and current platting standards. Mr. Nystrom said that there were other criteria to consider about the buildable nature of the lots and the ability to develop them efficiently. He said that he thought that between looking at lot configuration, street design issues, etc., the City would be able to get at those issues. He added that he could not say for certain that someone could not try to manipulate some of those issues. He said that there were other mechanisms in place that would help minimize that potential. Ms. Bettman suggested putting in a caveat that this did not apply unless to the maximum extent possible, an attempt was made to avoid that potential. Ms. Bettman clarified that the recommendation for reductions did not take into account the value of the property and that the owner would qualify for it even if there was already a dwelling on the property. Mr. Björklund agreed, and added that he wished that the City had time to do a GIS analysis to know how many lots would fall into this category. He said that it was a very complex and painstaking process to identify these lots, because calculations had to be done separately for each lot. Therefore, it was difficult to answer how many of those lots there were. He said that based on examples he had looked at, the 33 percent threshold would only be met in rare situations. Mr. Kelly said that he was comfortable with the entire ordinance with the exception of the standards adjustment in 9.8030 (21) on pages 34-36 of the packet. He said that he had no problem with subsection MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 5 Work Session (c). He said that while he appreciated Mr. Björklund’s clarification of (a) and (b), he still had a problem enacting them for two reasons: 1) Mr. Björklund said that the City did not have the resources to work through this to figure the conse- quences of the provision. Given that, unless there was a compelling need for the adjustment provision, why put it in since it was not known what the consequences might be? 2) Given that it takes council approval, PPD approval, and an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (ESEE) analysis to get a setback to appear on a map, Mr. Kelly said that he had not been con- vinced of the compelling need on top of that to grant a further exception, with the exception of (d). He said that he obviously wanted to comply with the requirement to compensate under federal constitution if there was a complete taking. Mr. Björklund pointed out that the 33 percent threshold had been in the code since 1995 and the City never had anyone use it. He said it was modeled after the West Eugene Wetlands Plan regulations. He said that the current regulations before the council were modeled on what the City had been using successfully in west Eugene for ten years. Mr. Bjorklund continued by saying that the rationale was based the ESEE balancing process, in which it was determined that a resource site as a whole was significant and the resource value of the site as a whole outweighed the value of development that would be added if it was not protected, was done on a resource site level and not on a tax lot by tax lot level. He said that 100 or so analyses were done rather than 2,000 and some. In addition, the regulations were a cross between “one-size-fits-all” and offering a “custom fit.” He repeated that the City did not have the resources to do a lot-by-lot analysis. He said that the 33 percent threshold adjustment was one of the tools the City had to fine-tune protection on a finer detailed level. He added that every example he had seen where the 33 percent threshold fit was on a small lot. Mr. Kelly asked for amendment language at the adoption meeting to remove (a) and (b) and to make other necessary adjustments so it would be logically consistent. He requested a second round to talk about (d). Mr. Pryor said that while realizing he was coming to the discussion somewhat later than other councilors and staff, he thought that the staff recommendations did not weaken Goal 5 and allowed the City some flexibility. He said he was looking for standards in the goal along with flexibility, so that as conditions, perspectives, and situations changed and as information became more available, the City would have the mechanisms to adapt or adjust. Mr. Björklund responded, partly to Mr. Kelly’s concerns. He said that one of the “big picture” issues related to natural resource protection was that one did not compel, through regulation, improvement of habitat that was currently degraded. He said the reason staff included provisions in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan and in this Goal 5 proposal that would allow one to reduce setback distance and increase function was to create the net result of a more functional system. He said that because Eugene was an urban area, a lot of the waterways had been hit hard by human activities. He said that if the City provided an incentive to a property owner to restore habitat on his property by allowing a smaller setback, the biological system would be improved over time. He said that just having a distance with no building and with no plant growth for wildlife or filtering of storm water would not give the full value that the system could provide. He said that if somewhat smaller setbacks were allowed along with increased planting of plants and removal of refuse, a net benefit would be achieved over time. He said that the idea was to create an incentive for restoration. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Papé thanked staff for the memorandum answering all of the property owners’ questions and concerns. He noted that one of the examples used by Mr. Björklund was in his ward and was a lot on which a structure already existed. He said he understood that the structure was “grandfathered in.” He asked if the property owner would be able to rebuild or build something in the same footprint if the structure were destroyed. Mr. Björklund said that the owner would be able to rebuild within that footprint. He said that expanding the footprint within the conservation area would not be allowed. Mr. Papé asked if the footprint could be reconfigured. Mr. Björklund said that would have to be done through one of the adjustments, such as setback averaging. In response to another question from Mr. Papé about easements, Mr. Björklund said that in the case of the series of easements in the Lorane Highway area, some places included the stream and some places did not. He said that after careful research, the City discovered that the easements were to allow the City access to build and maintain an underground pipe. He said the stream meandered in and out of the easements and was never meant to be protected by the easements. He said the easements did not protect the vegetation. He said that the easements did restrict where a person could build but did not protect the resource. Mr. Papé asked that the people concerned be given the information. Mr. Björklund said that he would communicate with them. Mr. Papé referred to a letter from PeaceHealth on page 159 of the packet. He asked for a clarification of the Standards Review process mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the letter. Mr. Björklund explained that Standards Review was the mechanism used to administer the adjustments with certain criteria. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor about fair market value, Mr. Björklund said the provision addressing fair market value was being recommended for removal from the ordinance. Ms. Taylor asked if vacant land would be treated the same as land with a house on it. Mr. Björklund said that there was no place in the ordinance that treated one different from the other. He added that the language in Section 9.8030 (21) (d) was created to make sure the City did not create an unbuildable lot, but it did not refer to any definition of what was buildable or not. Mr. Björklund responded to other concerns from Ms. Taylor by saying that while there were provisions to allow the City to prevent an owner from dividing a lot in a way to receive reductions, there was no specific language preventing it. He added that the adjustments were a one-time deal and one of the criteria was that an owner had not received a previous adjustment. He said that owners could not keep reducing the setback through adjustments. Ms. Taylor asked what would keep people from destroying any enhancements they might have made to receive a reduction. Mr. Björklund said that would be a violation of the code and the City could require them to put it back. He said that it would be prohibited activity to remove any native vegetation in a conservation area. He said that an owner would have to show enhancement and that the property would be inspected after the enhancement was completed. He said that the long-term enforcement would rely mostly on complaints that vegetation had been removed or destroyed. Mr. Kelly said he fully supported setback averaging. He also said that he did not think that the provision under subsection (b) gave flexibility to staff but rather gave the opportunity to property owners to request the setback be reduced as long as the remaining setback was enhanced. Mr. Kelly said that he did not interpret the new adjustment subsection (d) to accomplish what staff said it would, which was to primarily to effectively address unusual site situations where the /WR provisions might otherwise prevent development on an entire lot. He said that the subsection appeared to him to be a MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 7 Work Session good deal more liberal and did not mention “unbuildable” in the provision. He said that he could imagine that there could be an imminently buildable lot that would still fall under the provision of subsection (d) as written and allow one to roll back the protection for that area. Mr. Kelly said that he was also troubled by the statement that subsection (d) was needed to satisfy the goal 9 and 10 findings. He did not think it was needed to satisfy goals 9 and 10. He said that the next to the last paragraph on page 45 said: Even supposing the provisions above were not a part of the overlay’s regulations, the overlay is being applied to such a small number of acres included in the area’s inventories of commercial and industrial lands that this ordinance overlay could not diminish the area’s supply of those lands below the projected need. He said that he would need a motion for an amendment to remove (d) or rephrase it to really address constitutional taking. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Björklund said that there was a one-time adjustment limit per property and that the land-use application would be on file in the City and would go in a data base to which the staff and the public would have access. Ms. Bettman asked if the objectives of the program - to protect water quality in resource area, to protect significant riparian corridors, upland habitat, and to ensure the survival of the area’s biologic system - would be met if the council adopted the ordinance. She also asked how success would be measured. Mr. Björklund said that staff thought the ordinance would accomplish those objectives. He said that measuring success was a difficult task. He explained that there were many factors affecting resource protection, such as maintenance. He said that this ordinance would not cause areas to be maintained by removing and controlling invasive plant species. He said the City could encourage or provide incentives for restoration, but could not legislate it. He said those kinds of things and others, such as climate change, were completely out of the City’s control. He said that in terms of what was within the City’s purview regarding Goal 5 regulations, this ordinance did accomplish the objectives. Ms. Bettman said that the answer to how success could be measured or benchmarked was that it could not be measured. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see language that would make sure the roads along the waterway, which would allow the City to maintain the area, were outside the setback area, especially if the roads were paved. She said that she was referring to page 21 of the packet. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see language that would apply the Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone to publicly zoned land. She said that existing uses were grandfathered in, but if the property was sold for housing or for another use, this would be a way to preserve natural resources as it was being conveyed into another use. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to extend the time by 10 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Papé commented that he was disturbed there was not enough time to process the new proposals from the staff. He asked if there would be another public hearing before adopting the ordinance. City Manager Taylor said no. Mr. Papé said that he was not ready to proceed with the ordinance on November 14. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 9.2751 on page 13. She requested that language be brought forth that would have the planning director “round up” to the next whole number when calculating the minimum net density required for a specific lot or development site. She said that rounding the number down would mean MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 8 Work Session a decrease in density. Mr. Björklund pointed out that was existing code language. Ms. Bettman repeated that she would still like for it to be changed. Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to direct the City Manager to prepare a revised ordinance for City Council consideration on November 14, 2005. Mr. Kelly said that while he understood Mr. Papé’s concerns about the complexity of the issue, he thought that his questions could be answered at the meeting at which action was scheduled, and he would support the motion. Mr. Papé asked how much time would be allocated to the topic on November 14. City Manager Taylor said that it would be the time that it took for the council to dispose of the issue. Mr. Papé asked if consideration of the ordinance could be placed early in the agenda. City Manager Taylor said that it could. He acknowl- edged it was a complex issue and that it was important to do it properly. He noted, however, that there were virtually no protections in place and that it would be important to move forward with the protections recommended. Mr. Poling said he would not be available for the November 14 meeting. City Manager Taylor said that he thought that all of the requested language changes would be ready and out to the council before the meeting. He said that Mr. Poling could request that the council not consider the ordinance at that meeting if he intended to vote on it. Ms. Solomon said that as well as amendment language, she would like to see a staff response as to what each amendment would mean if it was passed. City Manager Taylor said that draft language, staff analysis, and a recommendation would be provided for every intended motion dealing with the ordinance that had come in advance to the meeting. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Papé voting no. City Manager Taylor encouraged councilors to submit intended motions by October 28 in order to allow for a more elaborate staff response. C. WORK SESSION: Annual Meeting with the Human Rights Commission City Manager Taylor said that after spending time talking about natural resource protection it was time to turn to a discussion of human resource protection. He said he looked forward to the meeting every year and the opportunity to review the annual report and work plan for the Human Rights Commission (HRC). He said that the HRC was a very hard working group which put a lot of important issues before the community, the City, and the City Council. He introduced Greg Rikhoff, Manager of the Human Rights Program, Sarah Rich, outgoing chair of the HRC, and Carmen Urbina, incoming chair. A copy of the Human Rights Program Annual Report and Work Plan was provided to each councilor. Ms. Rich introduced other HRC commissioners who were in attendance: Hugh Massengill, Surendra Subramani, Jer McGowan, and Misa Joo. Ms. Urbina said that the presentation would consist of a review of the past year and a review of the 2005/06 Work Plan. She asked Mr. Massengill to report on the Human Rights Accessibility Committee (HRAC). MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Massengill described the HRAC as a very spirited group which worked on accessibility issues. He reported on the following activities of the HRAC: ? College Hill Reservoir Accessibility – worked in collaboration with the Friendly Area Neighbors to request wheelchair access to the reservoir. EWEB decided to fence off the reservoir. ? Held a Disabilities Roundtable in April attended by approximately 25 members of the community ? Worked with Lane Transit District (LTD) on issues affecting people with disabilities such as the LTD strike and expanding its half-fare program to include people with disabilities that might not be physic cal in nature. ? Met with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) about best practices for working with people with dis- abilities, the Seniors on Patrol program, and the ordinance pertaining to motor-assisted scooters. ? Met with PPD staff to explore ways the HRAC could provide feedback on the accessibility of local construction projects that were assessed by the department. Mr. Massengill listed the following upcoming projects: ? Work with City staff and officials to secure steady funding for and install accessible pedestrian signals. Mr. Massengill noted that Eugene had one accessible pedestrian signal. He said that while Eugene was a wonderful City for accessibility, there were still real problems such as crossing a street. He said that having accessible signals throughout the city would help a lot of people. ? Meet with City staff on the Public Information Team to discuss issues of accessibility to information that the organization distributes to the community. ? Work on recruiting more HRC commissioners. ? Work on issues that had emerged since the work plan was approved. He said that issues included advocating for adaptive equipment available at the Hult Center performances, and an assistive listening device in the Sloat Room. Mr. Massengill said that accessibility was sometimes a complaint-driven process and he invited anyone with a concern or problem to contact the HRAC. Mr. Subramani, chair of the Human Rights Education and Outreach Committee (HREO) said that the HREO and the HRC had the mandate to reach out and educate the community on issues of human rights. He said that one of the challenges was to address the issue of minority voices that had been stifled for a long time. He reported on the following activities: ? The War Against Memory – an event on February 16, 2005, which looked at the relationship between the minimization of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and current discrimina- tion against Muslim and Arab-Americans ? Annual International Human Rights Day Celebration in December, 2004 – City Staff Recognition Award given to Helen Towle, Human Resource and Risk Services ? Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration – MLK Jr., Leadership Award presented to Henry Luvert ? 2005 Barrier Awareness Award presented to Dwight Souers ? Study Circles on racism in Eugene in collaboration with the City Club ? Contributions to other organizations to bring about awareness through the educational process th Mr. McGowan reported from the Human Rights Support System (HRSS) and said that this was the 11 year of advocacy for the HRSS. He reported on the following activities: MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 10 Work Session ? Held a training on April 16, 2005, attended by over 50 people ? Developed plans to expand the program to the Bethel and 4J school districts ? Updated the ten-year-old video for the Paso a Paso program Mr. McGowan reported that the highest number of cases still were in relation to the EPD, with race, ethnicity, and disability cases also being high. Ms. Urbina gave an update on the HRC’s commitment to addressing emerging issues. She said that a difficult problem for the HRC was to say “no.” She said that people were always bringing issues before the commission with the expectation that the commission would do something about those issues. She repeated that these issues were important and that it was extremely difficult to say “no.” Ms. Urbina reported on the following issues which the commission did address: ? The Eugene Public Library access issue – brought forth by an HRSS advocate ? Racial Profiling/Race Relations – partnered with the City Club for Study Circles on Racism and partnered with the City to provide diversity training for City Councilors ? Held a Mental Health and Human Rights Forum on March 26, 2005 – future forums were planned ? Held a joint meeting with the Police Commission ? Worked with Communities United for Better Policing (CUBP) ? Participated in and monitored the Complaint Process and Civilian Oversight research done by the Police Commission ? Social Security Number Policy Outreach – The HRC was charged with developing and administering the $5,000 contract to coordinate outreach activities in the Latino and Spanish-speaking communities. The HRC selected Centro LatinoAmericano to conduct the project. Commissioners and EPD personnel visited six area churches and presented information to a total of 1,130 adults. This provided entire families with the opportunity to have one-on-one time with representatives from the EPD, the HRC, and the Police Commission. Ms. Rich reported on the Gender Identity Code revision work which had been ongoing since 2002. She said that the ultimate goal was to add gender identity as a protected class in the City’s anti-discrimination ordinance. She said that the process had been an extraordinary learning experience for all involved and that the more that was learned, the more it was apparent that there was much to do before passing the legislation on to the City Council. Ms. Rich said there had been wonderful community input and response. She noted the list of Gender Identity Work Group members on page 14. She thanked those members and the staff for all of their time and research. She said that the work would continue. Ms. Rich began a review of the 2005-06 Work Plan. Goal 1: Build Community Within the Human Rights Commission that Encourages Accomplishing its Community Work with Integrity Ms. Rich said that the HRC would be concentrating on actively recruiting new members for the HRC and its committees. She said that it was exciting meeting people at different events such as the Asian Celebration, informing them of the HRC and its work, and eventually having some of them become active members and participants in the program. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 11 Work Session Goal 2: Build Community Within City Government that Holds City Organization Accountable on Issues of Social Justice Ms. Urbina said the commissioners were very excited to partner with the City in the development of the issues of race and homelessness. She said the HRC could bring the voices that were not usually heard to the discussion with the City. She added that the HRC was honored to be working with the City Council on this issue. Ms. Urbina said the HRC would continue to work with executive managers and City departments on human rights issues and would continue to work to add gender identity as a protected class to the City anti- discrimination code. Goal 3: Work With Police Department and Community Members to Promote Equitable, Respectful Treatment by the Police of All People in Eugene, Particularly Vulnerable Populations Ms. Rich said that the HRC would monitor current and proposed police oversight systems. She acknowl- edged the Police Commission and its collaborative work with the HRC to create a safe community where people felt that they could come to a group that would listen. Goal 4: Respond to Discrimination, Harassment, and Incidents of Inequity Ms. Urbina said that this goal was where the HRC would react to emerging issues as necessary and where the Advocate Response Team (ART) played such an important role. She said that for example, at the Mental Health Forum, there was a great deal of testimony about unsatisfactory encounters with the EPD from people who had mental health issues. She said that a great collaborative project that could come from this forum would be training for police officers to teach skills on dealing with people who have mental health disabilities. Ms. Urbina said that the HRC was very successful and, due to that success, issues continued to be brought to the commission. She said that all of the commissioners took their position very seriously, but there would be a time when the commission would have to say “no” to someone because of limited resources. Goal 5: Encourage and Promote Community Awareness and Collaboration on Critical Human Rights Issues Ms. Rich pointed out that the commission had many allies and worked very well with other human rights organizations and groups. She noted the recent collaboration with City Club on the Study Circles. Ms. Urbina said that over 200 people signed up to participate in the Study Circles. Ms. Rich acknowledged and thanked the following people: Mayor Piercy; the Eugene City Council, ? especially David Kelly for serving as the liaison to the commission; City Manager Dennis Taylor; Assistant Manager Jim Carlson, especially for his guidance in securing one-time funding for program brochures in Spanish; Sergeant Jennifer Bills and Cindy Coleman for working with the HRSS advocates on police cases; Captain Chuck Tilby, Lieutenant Pete Kerns, and Chief Bob Lehner for their assistance in informing community members about the department’s new social security number policy; Lieutenant Carolyn McDermed and Helen Towle for serving as department liaisons to the commission; the Eugene Police Commission for including the HRC in so many parts of their work on police oversight recommendations; staff members Sue Harnley (LRCS, Adaptive Recreation), Linda Dawson (PDD), Ned Nebata (Facilities) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 12 Work Session for regular participation with the HRAC; the Minutes Recording staff for keeping accurate records; Mary Walston, Division Manager of the City Manager’s Office, for continued support of the Human Rights Program staff and commission; HRC staff Matt Beecher, who was no longer with the program; HRC staff Greg Rikhoff, Francisca Leyva-Johnson, and Karen Hyatt; and HRC volunteer James Dean. Ms. Rich asked for questions or comments from the council. Ms. Ortiz thanked the HRC commissioners for their presentation. She said that human rights work was very important to her and she was glad to see that the commissioners who had come after her had the same passion and commitment to the work as she did. She said if there was any way to increase staffing to the program, she would love to do it. Mr. Kelly said that it had been an honor and privilege to work with the commissioners. He said the commissioners and the HRC staff were an extraordinary group of people. He echoed Ms. Ortiz’s thought about resources. He reminded the council that the HRC staff was down a person from what it was a couple of years ago. He said he thought that the council should look in the next fiscal year’s budget to at least restore the previous status quo. Mr. Kelly pointed out that when the council adopted the HRC work plan, it was adopting some responsibil- ity for itself. He said that the work program called for joint work sessions between the council and the HRC on the issues of race and homelessness. He said he hoped that the commission would be involved in an early stage of the discussion as well as later on. Mr. Kelly said he had been very disturbed about the issues of library access that had been raised. He said part of what disturbed him was the seemingly “glacial” pace at which they were being addressed. He hoped that the pace would accelerate. Mr. Kelly asked for a status memorandum from the HRC staff to bring the councilors up-to-date on the library issue. Mr. Kelly thanked the commission again for its very hard work and for being the conscience of the community. Mr. Papé echoed the compliments from other councilors to the HRC. He said he appreciated his service on the commission and thought he gained a lot from it. He said that on the Sister-City trip, he noticed in both Japan and Korea that the sidewalks were built with accessible features for people with sight impairments. Mr. Poling moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to approve the Human Rights Commission Goals and Work Plan for fiscal year 2006. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Piercy said she was impressed with the work of the commission. She noted that she ran into commissioners everywhere she went. She said the commissioners were very much noticed and appreciated. She said she would look forward to working with the commission on racism and homelessness and she encouraged the commissioners to keep in contact with the council on an on-going basis. Mayor Piercy acknowledged how difficult the gender identity work had been. She said she admired the steadfastness of the commission to figure out the way to be successful in this goal. She gave the HRC kudos for that and acknowledged that the HRC took on some of the most difficult issues in the community with great courage. Mayor Piercy thanked the commissioners again and said that their work was greatly valued. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 13 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Elise Self) cc051024m1.doc MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 14 Work Session