Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/26/05 Mtg M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber—City Hall September 26, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz. George Poling participated by telephone. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. Angel Jones, Director of the Library, Recreation and Cultural Services Department served as acting City Manager as City Manager Dennis Taylor and Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson were unable to attend. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy welcomed everyone to the City Council meeting and reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. She explained that Councilor Poling was home recovering from surgery and would participate by telephone. Greg Lerigo , 2224 Lillian Street, thanked the council for adopting the slogan “Eugene–World’s Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors” on behalf of the 29 people who attended the previous council meeting in its support. He said the advocacy group purchased a title for a Web site and that Web site was under construction. He hoped the council would review the site upon its completion, projected to be October 6. He stated that if it was acceptable, he wanted to link the City’s page to it, as well as other related pages. He also hoped that the City would soon put up a banner with the slogan on it. He reported that 67 organizations signed up for the page; organizations that were involved in all manner of arts and outdoor activities. He noted that the City of Spokane received $75,000 in services from Comcast, which put together six broadcast advertisements promoting Spokane in Seattle. He wanted to discuss the possibility of doing something similar in Eugene. He encouraged the council to have “some sort of grand announcement” in the spring to let the public know about this. He averred that websites were as valuable to local residents as to visitors. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, opposed bulldozing the neighborhood park in the West University neighborhood. He felt the plan surfaced over the summer and interest in a neighborhood garden and a poll was expressed. He thought developers had “gotten together over the summer” and had the land appraised. He felt it would be a good decision to poll the neighborhood. Mr. Vishanoff provided fliers to the council with articles on the University of Oregon’s plans to build a basketball arena. He thought the University would try to use eminent domain and the use of eminent domain merited discussion. Mr. Vishanoff stated that the West University Neighbors endorsed his resolution. He wanted an open microphone hearing to talk about the site of the basketball arena. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session th Deborah Healey , 360 East 15 Avenue, stated that she had been a resident of the West University neighborhood for 12 years and wanted to address the park slated to be discussed in the September 28 work session. She wanted the park to remain. She noted that it was considered a pocket park and that Officer Randy Ellis said it would be impossible to keep such a park safe. She acknowledged that 12 years earlier, one could not be in the park without having to deal with unsavory people, needles, and dogs. She thought the solution would be to extend the park to where it was more visible at Patterson Street. She felt the land th swap that had been proposed was a workable solution. She noted that 13 Avenue business owners and Officer Ellis approved of it. She hoped the council would support the resolution for the land swap. th Paul Conte , 1461 West 10 Avenue, member of the steering committee for the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN), said CAFHN and the Chambers Node Revisited project worked over the past year to look at ways to develop infill standards that would meet applicable land use policies including those related to density and those requiring protection of neighborhood stability and character. He felt the effort had been successful as the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt zoning code to establish a Chambers Special Area Zone that would include standards that meet both objectives. He conveyed the full support of CAFHN for its adoption. He averred that this success was a “small piece of the large picture.” He related that CAFHN tried to show in its research and proposals that protecting the character and stability of Eugene’s close-in neighborhoods was an essential element of a realistic compact growth plan. Mr. Conte thanked Planning Commission Chair John Lawless, for his leadership in the public involvement process. He encouraged the council to solicit Mr. Lawless’ assessment as part of the forthcoming deliberations. Michelle Welsh , 1997 Arthur Street, thanked the City for the work that was being done on the roads and for saving Whiteaker School. She wanted the City to continue working on community issues in order for the City to remain a safe place to live. She related that her daughter was autistic and she was concerned that Eugene would not be a safe place for her to live. She was acquainted with one of the victims of former police officers Magana and Lara. She opined that “things” had been swept under the table. Ms. Welsh stated that her partner had been shot to death on Garfield Street the previous year. She said there was no investigation and the grand jury decided not to indict anyone four days after the shooting. She related that the shooter still had a permit to carry a gun. She pointed out that her partner had a medal of honor for exemplary military service. She did not feel safe in the city anymore. Lisa Dunn , 2622 Edison Street, asked how the City could have let the abuse go on for eight years. She alleged that more police officers had been abusing her and when she complained, a police car parked by her house for three and a half weeks. She said the Children’s Services Division (CSD) had taken her daughter and would not return her because they alleged that the police might try to harm her and the daughter’s well- being. She averred that the CSD did not think she was a good mom because of her traumatic experiences at the hands of the former officers who were now in prison. She noted that the City recently paid approximately $10 million for a new firehouse but was only paying small amounts to the women who were victimized by the police. David Thor Johnson , 4986 Hunters Glen Drive, thanked the council for its time for listening to the proposal to protect the property known by some as the “East Amazon Headwaters Forest.” He urged the MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session council to find a way to save this pristine natural resource. He said it was habitat for rare vegetation and wildlife. He wished for the City to learn from the mistakes of others and preserve the property. He thought it would be a beautiful place to preserve for a natural trail to the Ridgeline Trail. He predicted that new development on the sloped property would cause erosion which would, in turn, cause the City to pay more in the long run. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for questions and comments from the council. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for Mr. Lerigo’s testimony regarding Comcast’s support for “Arts and the Outdoors.” She noted that Cultural Services Division Director Robb Hankins recently submitted his resignation and hoped that his next job would be rewarding. Mayor Piercy also thanked Mr. Conte and CAFHN for working so hard to find a win-win solution for that neighborhood. Councilor Papé echoed Mayor Piercy regarding CAFHN. He complimented Mr. Conte and thanked him and CAFHN for their efforts. Councilor Ortiz said she was touched by the testimony from the two women. She acknowledged that they had both been impacted by heinous events in their lives and offered to be available if either one of them wished to contact her. Councilor Taylor expressed her happiness with the results of the efforts of CAFHN. She noted that she had requested a work session on inappropriate infill. Councilor Taylor conveyed her disappointment in the outcome of the vote on a moratorium on development in natural areas. She asserted that staff seemed to be talking against trying to save the Amazon Headwaters land rather than trying to figure out ways to save it. She thought a moratorium on development would allow the City to exercise eminent domain, though she acknowledged that she had been the lone vote for it. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda B. Approval of Sale of a Portion of City Drainage Way to Oregon Department of Transportation C. Appointments to the West Eugene Enterprise Zone Community Standards Committee Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman pulled items A and C. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item B, approval of the sale of a portion of City drainage way to the Oregon Department of Transportation passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session Regarding Consent Calendar Item A, Councilor Bettman expressed concern that the Joint Elected Officials meeting was scheduled for October 11, a date on which several councilors and the mayor thought they would not be able to attend. She pointed out that should another councilor be unable to make it the group would lose its quorum. She averred it would be more productive to reschedule. Mayor Piercy said she would “check on the numbers.” Councilor Papé asked Ms. Jones to relay a question on when a work session on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) could be scheduled. He noted that they had talked about holding such a work session two or three months earlier. Roll call vote; the motion to pass Item A, the tentative agenda, passed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding Item C, Appointments to the West Eugene Enterprise Zone Community Standards Committee, Councilor Bettman noted that although she believed all of the candidates were qualified, she was concerned that within the context of the committee, the candidates from Eugene would help make the committee extraordinarily unbalanced. She averred that the City was foregoing more tax revenue than the County, yet each had an equal number of representatives. Councilor Bettman opined that in the face of the “most egregious tax breaks,” community standards would be minimized and therefore rendered moot. Mayor Piercy reiterated that the two individuals she recommended for the committee both had been involved in the community standards discussion and both were participating with the sustainable business initiative process. She believed that both candidates brought good and clear voices and were intelligent and experienced people. She felt both supported standards that would bring living wage jobs to the community for working families. Councilor Kelly said he found Councilor Bettman’s argument compelling. He could not support the process. Councilor Taylor also could not support the process. She had little hope that standards would make any difference but if there was hope, she felt other applicants would provide better balance on the committee. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Consent Calendar Item C, the Mayor’s appointments to the West Eugene Enterprise Zone Community Standards Committee, passed 5:3; Councilors Bettman, Kelly and Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session 3.PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Updating the Goal 5 Inventory Within the Eugene City Limits; Adopting the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan Within the Eugene City Limits; Repealing Ordinance No. 20296; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.1040, 9.2751, 9.6885, 9.7025, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205, 9.7230, 9.7305, 9.7810, 9.8025, 9.8030, 9.8460, 9.8465, 9.8470, 9.8855, and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding New Sections 9.8472 and 9.8474; and Adding New Sections 9.4900 Through 9.4980 to that Code to Establish a Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone; Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; And Providing an Effective Date and An Ordinance Updating the Goal 5 Inventory Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Adopting the Goal 5 Inventory Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Adopting the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Repealing Ordinance No. 20295; Amending Section 9.7820 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; And Providing Effective Dates Mayor Piercy introduced acting City Manager Angel Jones to the meeting and welcomed her. Ms. Jones asked Senior Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD) Neil Björklund to provide a brief overview of the Goal 5 process. Mr. Björklund noted that much of the material had been covered during the prior work session. He stated that the Goal 5 study was the last task in a list of work required by the State for periodic review and the cities of Springfield and Eugene as well as Lane County were all required to conduct an inventory. He said several public hearings and workshops on Goal 5 had been held over the last two-and-a-half years. He added that there had been public hearings on the upland and riparian Goal 5 inventory before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Staff sent thousands of notices out to affected property owners and received approximately 800 to 1,000 phone calls from citizens who wished to understand better what the Goal 5 process meant to them. Staff met with them on their properties, in PDD offices, and exchanged “scores of emails.” Mr. Björklund reported that, based on these contacts and testimony before the Planning Commission, many changes had been made to the original proposal. He reported that the Planning Commission held its hearing in May and subsequently spent six meetings discussing the material and making changes to the regulations and recommendations based on testimony that they heard. In closing, he applauded and thanked all of the people who participated in the process. Mayor Piercy acknowledged that much work had gone into the Goal 5 inventory. She noted that 28 people signed up for the public hearing. Councilor Kelly wondered if the council should consider postponing the last item on the agenda, the public hearing on the ordinance concerning smoking areas. Councilor Taylor averred that the council should proceed with its agenda. The council agreed to complete the agenda. Mayor Piercy read the rules that govern the public hearing. She opened the public hearing. Richard Beyerlein , 4084 Spring Knoll Boulevard, requested that his property be removed from the section of the map labeled E-32 Q-1 because he believed it did not meet criteria 1-9 on Tier 1 and because it met criterion 2 on Tier 2 for exclusion. He stated that the area was extensively logged prior to his purchase of it. He said the upland side was Spring Knoll Boulevard, an impervious street, and on the downland side was MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session Wendell Lane and its infrastructure. He related that the Environment, Social, Economic and Energy (ESEE) report stated that the property met none of the criteria with the exception of possible contiguous water. He maintained that there was no water, noting that he had supplied the council with pictures of the property. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County, requested the record be kept open for a minimum of one week or ten days, if possible. She related that the Home Builders Association’s (HBA) big issue was the effect it could have on the buildable land supply. She averred that the City determined the impact on an inventory that existed ten years earlier. She said the City needed to look at the impact it would have on the inventory of today. She recalled that City Attorney Glenn Klein said that running out of buildable lands would not present a legal problem but it would present a policy issue. She asserted that the City would run out of buildable land before it got out of this planning period and if the City ran out of land it would have been due to a choice the City had made. She encouraged the council, on behalf of the HBA, to take a “good look at what the problem is.” Ms. Cuellar said that the study completed in 1999 using 1995 data made assumptions that were not true. She said one assumption was that every piece of vacant land would be available and would have a willing seller. She said another assumption in the study was that housing could be built at the same density on slopes as flat land, nearly seven units per net acre. She averred this just did not happen. She noted that Springfield made the assumption that it would build four units per net acre on 25 percent slopes and she felt this to be more reasonable. Ms. Cuellar said another assumption in the study was that single-family detached homes would make up 40 percent of new construction during the 20-year planning period. She countered that such homes consistently comprised 58 percent of new construction. She emphasized that the builders were running out of land and the land available was increasingly sloped instead of flat. She remarked that it took a long time to go from a decision to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB) to the point where there are new lots to build on. Doug Weber , 1330 Flint Ridge Avenue, said he was speaking as a citizen but felt he should note that he was principal engineer for Weber Eliot Engineers. He understood that State law required communities with a comprehensive plan to keep a 20-year supply of buildable lands and keep the inventory updated. He did not believe that the City of Eugene knew how much buildable lands were available. He thought it appeared that staff and council had been avoiding or ignoring this requirement. He averred that simply manipulating density figures on paper was an insult to all of the community. He said he lived in the Ferry Street Bridge area and had been looking for a buildable lot in that area with no success. He asserted that a single builder would subdivide land and keep all of the lots and because of this it was not possible for an individual to buy a lot and build for themselves. Mr. Weber observed that the cost of lots had increased dramatically and attributed this to the laws of supply and demand. He pointed out that as a civil engineer he built infrastructure to serve new housing and currently most of his business was in nearby towns such as Cottage Grove, Junction City, and Creswell. He opined that the City was directly responsible for pushing Eugene workers into outlying communities, which defeated the original intent of statewide planning goals of compact urban growth and a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. He felt the residential lands inventory needed attention and using data from 1995 as the basis for the current periodic review was evasive of public law and disingenuous on the part of the council as holders of the public trust and a “transparent attempt to stamp your agenda on the community.” Terry Connolly , 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, shared the chamber’s observation regarding ESEE findings for Goal 9 Commercial and Industrial lands. He wanted to MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session underscore that the potential impacts on buildable, commercial, and industrial lands findings were being measured against an acknowledged inventory from 1992. He hoped staff’s description was accurate and that there would be no provisions in this ordinance that would leave a lot unbuildable. He said if that was not the case, the ordinance would impact 43.4 acres of commercial land and over 44 acres of industrial land. Mr. Connelly referred to a study the Chamber of Commerce conducted which determined that there were only 113 acres of commercial land remaining. He felt any provision that would actually leave some lots unbuildable would create a significant impact to the community. He supported the request to leave the record open for seven days. Chad Ruhoff , 395 Mirror Pond Way, stated that he was a second generation builder in the city of Eugene. He was concerned that his children might not be able to afford to live in the community. He averred the costs had much to do with the available land supply. He felt he was paying more for the lots to build on than he should have to because of the supply. He echoed concerns that this was driving growth out of Eugene and, as a result, defeating council goals. He also questioned the wisdom of using 10-year-old data to determine what land could be used. He stated that affordable housing no longer existed in the Eugene/Springfield area and the middle class was being pushed out. He wanted the land supply to be opened up in order to help stabilize prices. Mike Gansen , 362 Highway 99 North, #2, owner and operator of Gansen Construction Company, said his company built new homes and occasionally developed small parcels of land when he could find them. He reiterated that there was a current shortage of buildable land as evidenced by the huge rise in lot costs and the fact that builders and principals were buying without hesitation. He wished to impress upon the council that the main reason for the area having some of the highest housing prices in the country was an “artificial” shortage of buildable land. He asked that the council take a hard look at the current land supply instead of data from ten years earlier. Mr. Gansen also wished to point out that buildable lands in the hills were located on slopes greater than 15 percent, which increased costs by a minimum of $35,000. He said building on hillsides used more land because density was lower and hillside construction impacted the environment. He pointed out that some areas within the UGB did not have services and had to use wells and septic systems, which required more land per dwelling. Bruce Mulligan , 3056 Hendricks Hill Drive, vice president of the Hendricks Hill Homeowners Association, conveyed the association’s support of the overlay on area 38-C and the recommendations. He wanted to bring to the council’s attention the area that lay between the City limit and the UGB in that area. He provided pictures of the area to the council, noting that the cattle that usually graze by the headwaters were not in evidence on the day he took pictures. He pointed out that damage and erosion caused by the cattle was evident. He said the association supported the land swap proposal relative to the acquisition of this parcel to connect the Ridgeline Trail to Moon Mountain. He thought that in the event that the city limits were extended or the city acquired this property, it would be appropriate to address Goal 5 issues. He stated that some rehabilitation of the area was needed and he could not find in the regulations whether the grazing was a prohibited or permitted use. Mark Schutz , 4066 Spring Knoll Drive, related that when purchasing his property he thought everything had been researched. He said the Goal 5 measure was a surprise to him. He requested that his property be removed from the inventory for the following reasons: 1) over .4 acres of the 1.26 acre lot was being rezoned and having new limits placed on it; 2) newly proposed setbacks encroach on previously built and established buildings and his home; and 3) plans for his property included retaining walls and cuts and fills MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session in the proposed setback zones in order to create more usable space and increase the value of the property. Mr. Schutz asserted that Goal 5 measures would not allow these improvements or would add engineering and land studies which would make the costs prohibitive. He felt the retaining wall changes he and his wife wished to make were necessary due to the topography of the property. He averred that although Goal 5 measures allowed for emergency work the language was unclear or it added costly steps for preventive or protective measures. He underscored that he was not a developer and he and his family were supportive of most environmental measures. He maintained that the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for a home in this area already had adequate protection and drainage systems in place for this stream feeder zone which was targeted for the proposed ordinance. Charlotte Elizabeth Brady , 1488 Barber Street, stated that she provided information to the council on the protection of “green space” in terms of global warming. She wished to protect the City’s natural lands. She supported the adoption of the ordinance to update the Goal 5 inventory. She pointed out that she was a real estate broker and averred that there were many ways to create affordable housing that would not destroy what makes Eugene a livable community. She read an excerpt from an assignment her son received at South Eugene High School called Knowing Our Place by Barbara Kingsolver. The essay highlighted the fact that as of 1996, more than half of all the human beings on the planet were urban dwellers. Jim Welsh , 90050 Killian Lane, Elmira, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors (EAR), explained that the EAR was supportive of the Goal 5 planning process and was pleased that the process would complete the final phase in the periodic review for Eugene. He said EAR maintained that Goal 10 had not been adequately addressed during the periodic review process. He underscored that it required local governments to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state and under implementation plans should provide for continuing review of housing need projections and a process should be established for accommodating needed revisions. Mr. Welsh averred this provision and rule established that there should be an ongoing process that should provide current information on data on the housing needs of Eugene, similar to the study conducted by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the HBA. He expressed disappointment that this information was not currently being used as it was likely the most current information available for the study. Mr. Welsh said when giving testimony before the Planning Commission, the EAR had been under the assumption that the 1992 information was being used regarding the buildable lands inventory, but now the organization understood that the City of Eugene, for the purpose of the natural resource study, used the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Lands and Housing Study of 1999. He thought while this had been an improvement, it was not as good as the information staff could have gleaned from the LCOG study. Mr. Welsh stressed that the 1999 inventory was six years old. He felt this change in reference would provide Eugene the opportunity to sidestep its responsibility to provide a 20-year buildable lands inventory and would help to push the demand to outlying communities who were developing residential properties at a rapid pace, placing a tremendous burden on the transportation infrastructure. He asked that the record remain open for a minimum of ten days. John A. Willener , 2086 Norkenzie Road, supported the Planning Commission’s view on the portion of property that ran behind his property that had historically been a farm. He said the irrigation ditch for the former farm had been proposed to be a riparian corridor. He disagreed, stating it had only been utilized for irrigation, taking water from the McKenzie River and channeling it to the Willamette River. He recalled working on the farm as a youth and the ditch was kept clear of any brush at that time. He stated that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session ditch was dammed in the summer and shut down in the winter and all manner of plants and trees were grown on the farm. He said there were places where the ditch had been filled in and built upon. Wayne Evans , 1423 Springwood Drive, wished to address two issues: 1) the exemption of his immediate area from the Goal 5 inventory; and 2) the management of the shoreline vegetation. He stated that he submitted testimony in May. He provided pictures of the land in question. He asserted that the greenway width in question as currently designated was more than adequate to protect the valuable resources included therein. He said his home was located in the village of Spring Creek, the initial building of which had begun over three years earlier in the Santa Clara area. Mr. Evans averred that the development was platted and approved with the valuable Spring Creek resource in the forefront of the developer’s plans. He stated that lots in this development that bordered the greenway stopped at the fences and did not go to center or the edge of the creek. Mr. Evans included, for the council’s review, the plot map for the development. He pointed out that the distance between the properties that bordered the creek, from back fence to back fence, was approximately 140 to 200 feet. Additionally, he noted several restrictions that were already in place regarding the cutting of existing trees. He provided pictures in order to demonstrate the magnitude of the area in the reserve. He opined the area was huge and supported a thriving wildlife population. He could not imagine that migratory fish could navigate the densely grassed waterway, however. He asserted that the existing protected area was more than adequate to cover the protection of the stream. He related that he received conflicting responses from different city entities regarding how to manage the area outside of the property in the greenway. He said the Planning Commission indicated that trees could be planted and this would help protect the waterway, but the Parks and Open Space division came through that area with weed eaters and mowers and cut down the brush. nd Eben Fodor , 394 East 32 Avenue, spoke in support of the natural resources study and the ordinances before the council. He had hoped to testify in support of a temporary limit on development on some of the “highest value” resources in Eugene. He said he documented the existence of pileated woodpeckers and red legged frogs, sensitive federally listed species, on the property with which he was concerned. He stated that the property on which the the frog lived was likely to be developed soon. He acknowledged that the study was looking to protect stream corridors and wetlands, though not all of the wetlands in Eugene, given the abundance of them. He felt many things were not in any City inventory. He noted populations of rare plants, such as bugbane, in the high valley resource areas he was referring to. He asserted that the 40-foot stream corridor would not provide enough protection for the red legged frogs, among other species. He felt many of the best resources would be gone before the council realized the level of protection they needed. Cathryn Treadway , 2820 Friendly Street, vice chair for the Crest Drive Citizens Association (CDCA), conveyed the CDCA’s support for a 20-foot-or-less setback instead of the proposed 40-foot setback for Goal 5 site E-81, the Lorane Highway riparian area. She related that the main issue the CDCA had with it was that the State recognized that drainage ditches of this type required no protection whatsoever. She said the property owners in this situation did not feel they had any representation in this issue. Bruce Wild , 931 Lorane Highway, observed that the original purpose of the Goal 5 process was to identify the State’s natural resources, including wetlands, uplands and riparian sites. He recalled that for future preservation of significant sites, a municipality could use the Safe Harbor designation or if the city or county felt a site was endangered by property owners, a regulated setback could be applied. He said this was the current proposal from Eugene Planning and Development Department (PDD) staff. He lived in the area MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session designated as site E-81, the main feature of which was a one-to-two-foot-wide drainage ditch. He stated that it had been protected by a 30-foot easement since 1969 and was a stormwater drainage ditch which ran for a few blocks and disappeared into a culvert. Mr. Wild felt calling it significant was “quite a stretch” and protecting it from its property owners was “pure overkill.” He underscored that the reason the City could designate it in the first place was because the 40-plus property owners had preserved the site intact for 40 years, practicing good stewardship. He opined that PDD now wished to protect the site from its lawful owners, the “ones who had cared for it.” He said the huge setbacks would disallow owners from taking responsibility for the condition of the ditch. Mr. Wild averred that, beyond that, the ordinance would take over 30 percent of the property and would not compensate property owners in any way. He related that assurances had been made by staff that the City would not maintain any part of the site but would only regulate it. He called it ridiculous that the E-81 drainage ditch would be given half the protection the Willamette River was given. He hoped the council would consider the recommendation from the CDCA to lower setbacks to 20 feet. Bonnie Chappa , 999 Lorane Highway, stated that she had been fighting the proposed Goal 5 overlay zone that affected their home since 2003. She was outraged that 80 feet of her property was now being considered for setbacks to allegedly protect an already protected drainage ditch that ran through the property. She echoed Mr. Wild’s concerns. She stated that on her property, the land around the drainage ditch had been developed and landscaped and included a pedestrian bridge. She noted there was also an exposed sewer line crossing the ditch. She said the ditch had only seasonal water in it. She predicted that an 80-foot setback would reduce the value of her property. She related that she felt deceived by PDD staff as they had stated when looking at the ditch that the setback would likely be only 20 feet on either side of it. She urged the council to vote against the larger setback for her property. Cheryl Hunter , 5320 Nectar Way, was concerned about the process being considered specifically regarding the context of the East Amazon headwaters. She thanked the council for steps taken to preserve the land. She wanted to see the process completed and the upland forest included in the recommendations for the Goal 5 inventory. She supported moving forward with the inventory in order to conduct the proper inventory of these lands, specifically because the presence of rare species required it. She noted that Mr. Fodor had spoken about this. She asserted that the East Amazon headwaters area was a high quality riparian zone. She urged a temporary moratorium on development of the higher ranked upland habitat because it was “better than continued piecemeal development.” Ms. Hunter opined that creating a moratorium would be a more effective use of staff because it would allow staff to develop a standard of protection in a thoughtful and rational process that could then be applied to all Planned Unit Development (PUD) applications instead of one at a time. Ms. Hunter said whether or not the council believed the land should be developed, it would create “gridlock and uncertainty” in the land development process. She averred that instead of creating a comprehensive policy for protecting resources, the process of this protection would be forced into the PUD process. She felt staff would be forced to determine the question of protection for each parcel considered for development. She also wished to speak in support of the developers’ concerns regarding working with the steep properties. Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, wanted to speak to the motion Councilor Taylor made in the work session to place a temporary moratorium on development in areas in the Goal 5 mapping that ranked 66 points or above in natural resources. She thought the community would have an opportunity to speak on the motion. She wished to express concern about the “rushed Goal 5 process” and the development that continued in the Goal 5 inventory. She thought it irresponsible and illogical and a waste of taxpayer’s money to allow MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session development in sensitive areas before they could be inventoried. Ms. Warnes likened it to installing smoke detectors after a house had burned down. She echoed comments regarding the rare and sensitive species whose habitat lay in the south hills. She hoped that the City’s government and staff would not let developers continue to enrich themselves at the expense of natural resources. She agreed that developers impact the environment more on steep slopes. st Tom Halferty , 1120 East 41 Avenue, wished for a bigger picture look at the importance of open spaces to cities. He related that he arrived in the city of Eugene in 1971 and thought the city was beautiful. Since then, he witnessed a patchwork of development spreading over the surrounding hills. He observed that communities that had been in existence for hundreds of years had wisely chosen to protect natural areas adjacent to urban areas. He cited the Forest Park in the City of Portland as an example of land that had been prudently set aside. He foresaw that the Willamette Valley would fill in over the next 50 years and urged protection of special natural lands, such as the land around Spencer’s Butte. He noted that the pileated woodpecker had territory that wrapped around the hills. He hoped the council would consider saving larger tracts around the city. Shirley St. Clair , 5035 St. Clair Lane, submitted her testimony in writing accompanied by pictures of her property. She requested her property, purchased by her parents in 1949, be removed from the riparian setback because it was different from the neighboring properties. She maintained that a 40-foot setback from the stream would eliminate two potentially buildable lots. She related that across the stream was a developed field that her father once used for flying model planes. She felt that Ballot Measure 37 would apply to this property as this land use action would diminish property values. She added that her mother had turned 91 on the day of this hearing. Mark C. Hoyt , 475 Cottage Street, Suite 120, Salem, spoke on behalf of Joe Green, who purchased the land where the East Amazon headwaters were located. He reported that a development application had been filed earlier in the day. He said the development application involved 13 revisions to the plan and detailed analysis of the site by natural resource consultants, arborists, and civil engineers in order to minimize the impact on the site. He related that as part of that, he was able to come up with a design that would preserve more than 50 percent of the site in common ownership open space and preserved the natural riparian corridors that were identified as a natural resource on the Goal 5 inventory and a substantial amount of timber on the property. Mr. Hoyt averred it would preserve the wildlife habitat neighbors expressed concern about. He said the developer opted to propose private streets because it would allow the modification of street lighting standards. He related that as the current ordinance was written, it was unclear whether private streets could be used as part of a development. He felt public streets with street lighting standards would flood wildlife habitat with light and negatively impact the wildlife. He declared that this would accomplish what the Goal 5 ordinance sought to do and what the citizens who were protesting the development wished for, while allowing resources to be assets to developments. Lauri Segel , 1192 Lawrence Street, declared the City of Eugene and its metropolitan partners to be more than a decade behind in the effort to bring the Metro Plan into compliance with the Goal 5 rule. She asserted that the adoption of the Goal 5 policies had been planned to be concurrent with the adoption of the buildable land inventory scheduled to be adopted in 1997, but was adopted in 1999. She asserted that it was not difficult to “guess which groups” were responsible for the delay. Ms. Segal alleged that a couple of years earlier, the previous council and mayor “performed a maneuver” that had the effect of removing approximately 1,900 acres of upland habitat from the natural resource inventory. She asserted that what was left was the Amazon Creek and some other stream segments, some with connectivity with the Amazon MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session and some without. She proclaimed that the time was past due to adopt protection measures for “the remnants of Eugene’s natural resource inventory.” She supported the adoption of the proposed policies. She averred that natural resources inside the boundaries of the city of Eugene had “been imperiled for decades.” She asserted that Eugene had done little or nothing to protect wildlife habitat and other natural areas beyond preserving and restoring the West Eugene Wetlands. She submitted her testimony in writing along with amendments to the proposed ordinance she wished the council to consider. Elena Montenegro , 5150 Nectar Way, member of the East Fork Preservation Group, asked the council to help the group preserve the East Amazon headwaters. She felt the council still could work to preserve the natural resources which she averred were “truly valuable.” She said the natural resources in the area did much to enhance the quality of life in this area. Elizabeth Twombly , 5015 Nectar Way, echoed comments already made regarding the headwaters forest. While she applauded efforts made by developers to preserve natural resources, she felt that some properties should just not be developed. She thought properties with high resource values should continue to be inventoried. She urged the council to review natural resources studies that were publicly funded and make decisions based on the information presented. She cited the Metro Waterways study, which had yet to be completed and focused in part on the Amazon Headwaters, and asked how responsible decisions could be made at this point. She related that she looked at a United States Geological Survey landslide hazard map and it indicated that a “huge fault” ran beneath the south hills. She maintained that it was not good land to build on. Kathleen Leonard , 5020 Nectar Way, remarked that the sign in the back of the City Council Chamber said “The people are the City.” She asserted that “the people” did not want development in the East Amazon headwaters area. She said only the property owner would benefit from this. She felt that the forest, with its rare plants, animals, wetlands, stream corridors, and headwaters to the Amazon Creek, would be “destroyed” by the proposed development. She recommended that the City take the time to complete the studies and not just “plow ahead” to make a profit. Carol Pearce , 5005 Nectar Way, stated that her property bordered the East Fork Amazon headwaters area. She thanked Councilor Taylor for proposing the moratorium. She regretted that the public was unable to speak before the motion had been made. She did not understand why an area that was so highly ranked for its unspoiled beauty and pristine qualities was not a priority. She questioned why the studies were done and the results were being disregarded. She supported the use of eminent domain to keep the forest in its pristine condition. She felt it was reasonable to protect the steep wetland area to minimize erosion and flooding, especially given the ramifications of the recent hurricane in the Gulf Coast area. She averred that stormwater runoff would increase due to development. Eric Kelly , 4890 Garnet Street, spoke about the East Amazon headwaters. He related that he had grown up in Portland. He said some of the civic leaders in Portland had the foresight to set aside areas like Forest Park, the largest city park in the country, Mount Tabor, and Washington Park and these parks were regarded as gems in the city that attracted residents and tourists. He observed that there was development all around those parks today and the rural areas around Portland had all become developed, areas such as Gresham and Hillsboro, and there were no notable parks. He averred that if parks were not set aside in the cities, the outlying areas such as Coburg and Creswell would develop and there would be no parks. He wanted irreplaceable parcels to be set aside. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session Kevin Matthews , PO Box 1588, Eugene, 97440, stated that he was president of the Friends of Eugene and president of the Southeast Neighbors. He called the Goal 5 inventory a disaster. He implored the council to pass it, nonetheless. He noted the council had taken a critical action to establish a priority for “coming back and fixing it.” He felt this was imperative. He blamed previous City leadership for instructing staff to produce the “absolute minimum, bureaucratic, mechanistic, anti-scientific, non-biological resource inventory they could imagine could be squeaked through state approval.” He opined that this described the end result. He referred to an article written in 1969 which predicted that development would increase and use up natural areas and that the area’s desirability as a place to live would be lost. He averred that the council knew the “times that our planet is facing.” He said everyone should work hard to give future generations the kind of place that the present generation would want to live in. He wanted to get the present inventory “over with” and involve the public and science and conduct some “real natural resource planning.” Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and thanked everyone for their testimony. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to leave the record open for seven days, until 5 p.m. on October 3, 2005. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Poling was no longer available. Mayor Piercy called for a break at 9:30 p.m. Mayor Piercy reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Smoking Areas; Amending Sections 6.225, 6.230, 6.235, and 6.240 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section 6.232 of that Code; and Adding Section 6.245 to that Code Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Taylor had not yet returned to the dais. Ms. Jones introduced the item. She stated that it was scheduled for action at the work session on September 28. She asked Permit Review Manager for PDD, Keli Osborn, to provide a brief overview on the item. Ms. Osborn reviewed the history of the smoking ordinance. She said staff determined a need for more clarity on what defined an outdoor smoking area. She stated that options that had been discussed, comprised of incorporating the standards into the administrative rule regarding such areas or making the standards in the ordinance more strict or less strict. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the rules of the public hearing. Joel Pomerantz , 1171 Risden Place, noted he sent an e-mail to the councilors earlier. He explained that he worked for the Oregon Restaurant Association and had been contacted about this issue by members and non-members who owned bars and taverns in the city of Eugene. He asked the council to consider that owners and operators of such establishments felt they worked successfully to comply with existing standards for smoking areas and invested in substantial structural alterations in order to comply. He asked that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session council, at the very least, grandfather in existing outdoor smoking facilities. He stated that no employee or customer complaints had been heard as a result of exposure to environmental smoke. He underscored that no one felt anyone should be subjected to secondhand smoke. He wanted the council to work with both sides of the issue in order to work out some alternatives to consider and perhaps arrive at standards all sides could accept. Jill Landon , 3990 Donald Street, said she worked in the restaurant and bar industry for 16 years. She quit smoking nine years earlier. She did not believe that she had been subjected to secondhand smoke. She related that she worked while pregnant and co-workers covered the smoking area so that she would not have to be exposed to smoke. She noted that most of her co-workers were smokers. She thought making the ordinance more stringent would affect her income negatively because it would reduce business. Ms. Landon believed that Eugene had already taken progressive action to limit exposure to smoke. She wanted Eugene to “stay progressive and allow people to choose their own pleasures and vices.” She added that placing smokers outside sometimes caused problems for neighborhoods. Alexandra Sianis , 1975 Hilyard Street, stated that she owned and operated a bar and restaurant since 1977. She said her business was struggling with survival due to the no smoking ordinance. She thought the councilors displayed passion on many issues, but had not done so with the smoking ban. She recalled that the initial intent of the ban was to protect employees from smoke, but no councilors visited these establishments and talked to proprietors to find ways to accomplish this protection without taking the rights away from those who smoke in designated smoking areas. She declared that 80 to 90 percent of bar and tavern employees were smokers. Ms. Sianis said it was simple to designate one person to enter a smoking area in the case of an incident. She noted that the smoking area in her business was a non-service area. She opined it was clear that the ordinance language sought to eradicate smoking altogether and was not merely centered on the protection of employees. She asked what had happened to freedom of choice and compromise. Ms. Sianis felt the council did not know or care about the “huge impact” the ordinance had on downtown businesses. She suggested that the council ask employees what they wanted. She averred that these employees would not have jobs in the future because more businesses would close. Dr. Glenn Buchanan , 2283 Avengale Drive, stated that he was an oncologist who treated several hundred patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer every year. He underscored that cancer could have a devastating impact because the condition itself, as well as some of the treatment strategies, could lead to physical impairments, emotional problems, and financial difficulties. He noted that many patients died of cancer in spite of best efforts made to cure the disease. He said he was commonly asked what caused the disease and how it could be stopped. He remarked that there were no simple answers as there was a complicated interaction between genetic factors and environmental factors. However, Dr. Buchanan averred that one of the most important and most preventable risk factors was exposure to tobacco smoke. He listed a dozen different cancers that smoking was associated with. He pointed out that secondhand smoke had been known for 20 years to be a contributing factor to cancer and that some cancers developed years or even decades following the last exposure to smoke. He stated that many of his patients who died of cancers related to smoking did have a personal history of tobacco use and others had only limited use or no personal use but significant exposure to others who smoked. He maintained that while people had the right to smoke and assume the associated risk for themselves, it would be irresponsible to fail to protect the rest. He averred it was a not an issue of liberty, rather it was an issue of public health. Dr. Martin Jones , 2300 Parkside Lane, stressed that the ordinance was “about employee safety” and had nothing to do with infringing the rights of smokers to smoke. He asked how many people would want to MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session work for eight hours in a room in which there was cigarette smoke, knowing the risks that exist. He underscored that the risks were not “made up,” rather they were well-known and well-documented. He recalled that the ordinance passed in 2000 involved discussion of an open air smoking area, like a patio and, because of the rainy nature of the area climate, a roof was thought to be necessary. He said making the community business-friendly did not mean allowing business practices that would impair workers health and cause them to be sick. He underscored that bar workers had a higher incidence of death and lung cancer from working in smoking establishments. Dr. Jones felt that when the final administrative rule had been established and the smoking areas had been built, the smoking areas were basically closed areas with little exposure to the air. He stated that there were 40 carcinogens in cigarette smoke and most of them lingered close to the ground, so that even an employee coming in later to clean up would risk a small amount of exposure. He recommended making another administrative rule, one that would dictate that the smoking area should be an area with a roof and no walls. Dr. Richard Barnhart , 91122 Oak Crest Road, said he practiced internal medicine in the community for 20 years. He noted that he recently diagnosed someone with lung cancer whose only risk factor was exposure to secondhand smoke. He agreed that it was a public health issue. He felt that the current administrative rule allowed an enclosed area with minimal exposure to the outdoors to suffice for an outdoor smoking area. He asked the council to “stick with the spirit” of the ordinance crafted in 2000. He felt that anything less than an open outdoor smoking area violated the principles of what was established with the previous ordinance. Dr. Khuram Ameen , 3153 Herald Lane, said he was a lung specialist. He stated that 50 to 70 percent of his business was smoking-related. He quipped that he should be handing out cigarette packets to everybody and encouraging them to smoke so he could be in business. However, he believed that when it came to life and health, the standards should be different than just money and business. He related that every day he treated people with first and secondhand smoke related issues. He reiterated it was a well-known fact that secondhand smoke caused a lot of problems. He related that he treated asthmatics who were exposed to smoke because they worked in sub-standard environments and were afraid to complain because they were afraid of losing their jobs. He felt someone should stand up for those people. He pointed out that it was not only the patient who suffered, but family members as well. He said every time he had to tell someone they were dying of a preventable disease though they themselves had never smoked, it was not an easy task. He stressed that lung cancer killed more people than breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer combined and the only thing medical experts knew that would stop it was to avoid smoking. He believed people should have the right to smoke but they should not have the right to infringe on the rights of non-smokers. Dr. Raymond Englander , 774 Kristen Court, a neurologist for 27 years and Medical Director of Stroke Services at Sacred Heart Medical Center, stated that smoking was directly related to strokes and heart disease. He said strokes were the third leading cause of death in the United States and the leading cause of disability. He averred that tobacco products were a “huge risk factor” for stroke. He noted that Oregon had one of the highest rates of stroke in the country. He underscored that there was no longer a scientific debate on whether smoking was hazardous. He pointed out that the costs and increases in death and disability due to smoking could now be calculated as well as the costs to the economy from ill workers, loss of life, and extended illness. He stated that these were numbers that could be calculated with a fair amount of accuracy. He averred it was well known that without regulation, restaurant and bar workers had 50 to 60 percent more smoke byproducts in their lungs and hair than other workers. He asserted that one of the highest callings of government was to protect citizens from harm and all citizens deserved equal protection. He urged the council to implement, maintain, and enforce the intent of the original smoking ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session th Tony Biglan , 2324 West 28 Avenue, provided a handout to the council. He related that he had been a witness in the US Justice Department lawsuit against tobacco companies for the past four years. He noted that the handout featured a chart of the 400,000 annual deaths due to cigarette smoking but it did not indicate the 50,000 people who died of diseases related to secondhand smoke. He said tobacco companies spent $15 billion marketing their products in the last year reported, $3 billion more than they did the previous year. He stated that the cigarette companies routinely and “lavishly” funded other groups such as state restaurant associations and convenience store owners to fight restrictions on the marketing of cigarettes. He said, faced with restrictions on its marketing to teens, it expanded its marketing through bars. He observed that the cigarette industry spends huge sums of money each year to counteract the bad impression that killing 450,000 people annually made. He reviewed the tobacco industry’s smoking prevention efforts and he provided written documentation to the council that the purported efforts to prevent smoking were actually focused on trying to influence opinion leaders to believe that the cigarette industry had become a good corporate citizen. He declared it had not. He said the activities of Phillip Morris locally illustrated the massive resources the company supplied to make it safe to market cigarettes. He stressed that Eugene was a college town and reiterated that the new massive marketing strategy was directed toward college students. Dr. Sarah Hendrickson , 1036 Adams Street, Lane County Public Health Officer, commended the council for approving the smoking ordinance in 2000. She underscored that the ordinance declared that employers were required to provide for all employees a place to work in which employees were not exposed to the smoking of others. She noted that after the Eugene ordinance was adopted, the tobacco industry helped to pass a law that prevented other counties and jurisdictions in Oregon from doing this “same wonderful thing” for worker protection. Dr. Hendrickson recalled that five years earlier, doctors and health care workers provided the same testimony as the council heard at the present meeting. She said the council had done a good job and passed the right law. Since then, she averred, the worker protection goals had been undermined and, under pressure, administrators made a rule that 25 percent of outdoor smoking areas should be exposed to the air. She stated that there was no scientific justification for this rule. She thought the 25 percent rule had been extended far beyond smoking porches for bar customers and pictures submitted to the council had demonstrated this. Dr. Hendrickson asserted that the complaint-driven process put employees at risk of losing their jobs and the entity that took the complaints, Lane County Public Health Department, had lost its enforcement ability when the State lost its tobacco money and had lost its focus with the tragic events of September 11. She cautioned the council against codifying a definition of the outdoors as changing that ordinance could open it to complaints against the original law. She recommended leaving it in an administrative rule. She suggested percentages be left out, as anything codified could be used as a nation-wide example and even 50 percent air exposure was not ideal. Wendy Watson , 33604 Indian Drive, Coburg, stated that she worked in the bar industry for 15 years. She recalled that five years earlier she collected over 100 signatures from restaurant and bar workers in the city of Eugene that supported the idea of being able to work in a smoke-free environment. She said this time she had collected interviews of workers, owners, and their family members, copies of which she provided to the council. She quoted Dave Lawrence, bar manager of Chantrelles, who said the ordinance had a positive influence on his health and a negligible effect on his income. She related that he felt smoking rooms were chiefly a way to circumvent the law. She also quoted Jeff Morganthaler, who worked at the Vets Club, Tiny Tavern, and Black Forest, who thought rooms not open to the open air became nothing more than enclosed smoking boxes, defeating the purpose for which they were set up. She said he also felt business had improved because more non-smokers were going out. She thanked the City Council for taking care of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 16 Regular Session bar and restaurant industry workers from smoke. She hoped the council would vote to protect the workers who still had to go out into the enclosed smoking rooms. Ric Lee , 33604 Indian Drive, Coburg, provided a handout for the council. He stated that he worked in the th restaurant industry for over 16 years, having been general manager of the Wild Duck and the 6 Street Grill among others, and he supported the smoke-free ordinance. He observed that many employers were concerned about the loss of revenue due to the law. He related that the first week the ordinance was in effect there had been a drop in lottery revenues, but they since returned to normal. Alcohol sales did not change. He averred that the real difference for him was that a winter cold came and went instead of settling into bronchitis as it had every year prior and when he witnessed fellow workers succeeding in their efforts to quit smoking. He wondered if allowing smoking rooms in which employees were not allowed to enter would be legal according to Oregon Liquor Control Commission regulations. th Dr. Gary Young , 741 East 20 Avenue, said he worked in the Emergency Room at Sacred Heart Hospital. He stated that he grew up with smoking parents who both succumbed to smoking-related diseases. He related that he treated a woman earlier in the year whose asthma was exacerbated by secondhand smoke she was subjected to as a waitress. He also recalled a middle-aged patient who developed chronic lung disease due to secondhand smoke exposure. He stressed that the costs were much greater than what the patrons paid in bar tabs and lottery revenue. He expressed pride in Eugene for being the second city in Oregon to take a stand on behalf of workers exposed to secondhand smoke. He asked the council to take action to prevent the circumvention of the current regulations regarding outdoor smoking areas. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Kelly reiterated that the council would discuss this issue on September 28. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for the informative testimony. She reminded staff that she asked for the language she would need to change the percentages in order to protect workers so that only 25 percent of an outdoor smoking area could be enclosure. She recommended that language include an allowance of one- to one-and-a-half years for existing outdoor smoking structures to comply and that permit fees should be waived. Councilor Papé recalled that Dr. Jones testified that carcinogens from smoke descended in smoking areas and asked if there was documentation in this regard. He also wished to learn how the City of Corvallis was handling implementation of its smoking ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 26, 2005 Page 17 Regular Session