Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 2A - Minutes Approval
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: May 24, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the March 31, 2004, Work Session, April 7, 2004, Process Session, April 12, 2004, Work Session, April 14, 2004, Work Session, April 21, 2004, Work Session, and April 28, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. March 31, 2004, Work Session B. April 7, 2004, Process Session C. April 12, 2004, Work Session D. April 14, 2004, Work Session E. April 21, 2004, Work Session F. April 28, 2004, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040524\S0405242A. doc MINUTES Eugene City Council Special Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall March 31, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. HEARING AND ACTION: Appeal of Ballot Title for the Referendum on Ordinance Amending Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan Mayor Torrey asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to speak to the appeal of the ballot title for the referen- dum. Mr. Taylor asked City Attorney Jerry Lidz to explain the nature of the hearing. Mr. Lidz stated that, pursuant to Eugene Code Section 2.977, the City Attorney's Office drafted a ballot title for the referendum on an ordinance amending the Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan. Within five days after it was delivered to the City Recorder's Office, Paul Nicholson filed an appeal of the ballot title. He explained that, under the code, the City Council must hold a hearing within ten days to consider the appeal. He instructed the council to listen to a statement from Mr. Nicholson at the present hearing and consider whether or not the ballot title submitted by the City Attorney's office was satisfactory. If it was not satisfactory, the council's charge was to produce a neutral description of the ordinance. He underscored that the charge was not to craft policy. Mayor Torrey said Councilor Nathanson was unable to attend the public hearing because of a family emergency and another councilor had indicated she could only attend until 12:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey invited Mr. Nicholson to present his appeal. Mr. Nicholson stated that he when he made the appeal he did not have the requirements. Subsequent to receiving the requirements, he submitted two versions of his proposals for changes in the ballot title on March 29. Mayor Torrey determined that all members of the council did not have copies of the revised versions of the appeal. Staff was dispatched to make copies. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 1 Special Meeting Mr. Nicholson read aloud the questions in the two versions. He felt his was a much more fair description because, although the ordinance did establish a maximum indebtedness, it was not central as the plan did not require that this be the amount borrowed, or that if borrowed once it could be borrowed, paid back and borrowed again, and the money could be spent on other things aside from the indebtedness. He opined that the central issue was that the district was being extended and was continuing to divert property taxes for whatever activities occurred in the district. He thought the voters should know that the urban renewal district involved the use of tax moneys. Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office circulated copies of the two versions of Mr. Nicholson's statements and the council reviewed them. Mr. Nicholson pointed out that the urban renewal district would allow the agency to spend up to $250,000 on projects without council approval. He wished to indicate that in the statement on the ballot title. Mayor Torrey asked the legal counsel to respond. Mr. Lidz said the issues in the question were clear. The fact that the ordinance established maximum indebtedness was significant and the issues that Mr. Nicholson discussed were well-described in the summary. He questioned the use of the word ~divert," noting it was in both versions. He stated that the opinion of the City Attorney was that the connotation of the word was not neutral. He added that diversion implied that there was an existing stream of revenue that was being diverted when, in fact, a new stream of revenue was being created through the new development. Mr. Lidz addressed the issue of the $250,000. He averred that, as written, it was more accurate as the council would have already approved the expenditure within a budget and questioned whether the council needed to approve particular projects. Mayor Torrey recommended that the council president submit to the council a motion to amend. Mr. Nicholson suggested that the word ~diverted" be changed to the word "used" in version 2 to address the concerns of legal counsel. Councilor Kelly asked if the council could have a %ne-minute bullet round." Mayor Torrey responded that, given time constraints, it would be advisable to expedite the process and introduce a motion first. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to adopt the second version of the appealed language with the question reading, as follows: %hould Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan be amended expanding renewal district, and increasing time property taxes used to pay for plan?" Councilor Bettman agreed that what was being aimed for was neutrality, but she believed the bulk of the text was not neutral. She said she would be recommending some changes when the council arrived at that point in the proceedings. She felt that the issue was ~about money" and this was not explicit in the statement. She believed the statement read ~like a commercial for everything that was good about urban renewal." She commented that she wished to propose to amend the text so that the word %timulating" would be replaced by %ubsidizing." MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 2 Special Meeting Councilor Taylor averred that the word ;;diversion" was appropriate. She felt the language was not neutral and that it gave the impression that the City was creating money. She said she would support the motion. Councilor Kelly expressed discomfort at the statement in the second version. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to vote on the question and the statement in the ballot title separately. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Poling voting no. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to change the wording of the question, as fol- lows: .. increasing time property taxes used to pay ~or p,an projects. Councilor Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Pap6 asked legal counsel if the proposed version was a radical change from the version crafted by the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Lidz said the question to the council was whether it considered it more important to call out the maximum indebtedness or the increase in time that property tax dollars would be used in the ballot title question, given that it had a 20-word limit. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to substitute the version produced by staff and the legal counsel. Mayor Torrey read the question from the substitute motion, as follows: %hould Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan be amended to expand renewal area, establish maximum indebtedness amount, and increase time for projects. Councilor Kelly opined it was disingenuous not to include the phrase ~property taxes" in the question on a measure that did affect it. He opposed the motion on this basis, adding that with only 20 words it was paramount to choose the most important parts. Councilor Bettman could not support the motion. She asserted it was not clear what the voters were getting. She said the fact that property taxes were being used to pay for the projects in the plan and that the timeline for repayment was being expanded should be highlighted. Councilor Solomon commented that the words ~property taxes" appeared in the statement. She agreed with legal counsel that it came down to what should be called out within the 20-word limit. She supported the motion. Councilor Taylor felt, with limited words, the focus should be on what was most important. She opined that the most important were the time for repayment and the use of property taxes. She conveyed her opposition to the motion as it stood. Councilor Pap~ offered the following as a friendly amendment: %hould Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan r, ..... ~ ,^ .............. expand renewal area, establish maximum indebtedness,,,,,,,,,,,,,* and increase time property taxes are used for pro- jects.'' MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 3 Special Meeting Councilor Poling accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Bettman asked if there was significance to removing the language ~amended to." Mr. Lidz responded that, while he felt it significant, he did not think there was legal significance nor did he think that it would invalidate the language. Councilor Bettman offered the following as a friendly amendment: ~... establish max/mum $34.8 million of indebtedness..." Mr. Lidz advised the council that the plan did not establish that indebtedness. Councilor Pap~ did not accept the friendly amendment. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Councilor Pap~ said the number amount was more appropriately placed in the statement. Councilor Taylor said she would likely vote for the amendment, but that she wished there was assurance that the amount would be included in the statement. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Solomon was excused. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to substitute the word %timulat- ing" with the word %ubsidizing" in the statement from version 2, as submitted by Mr. Nicholson. Councilor Kelly opined that neither %timulating" nor %ubsidizing" were neutral. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~, Mr. Lidz said the statement could be no longer than 175 words. Mr. Nicholson asked for and received permission to speak. He felt the amount of the maximum indebted- ness could not be included as there was already existing debt. Councilor Pap~ agreed with Councilor Kelly regarding the aforementioned two words. Councilor Pap~ said property taxes were not being diverted in entirety. He stressed that the amount in question was an incremental amount and without such a district the increase in property value which would increase the property tax revenue would not be realized. Councilor Taylor opined that the word %ubsidize" was %lear and honest." MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 4 Special Meeting Councilor Meisner said he was also not enthusiastic for using either "subsidize" or "stimulate" in the statement. He noted he would be interested in amending the statement to strike the word "diverted" in the last line. Councilor Bettman agreed the word "diverted" should be changed to conform to the question. She reiterated that the word "subsidize" in lieu of the word "stimulate" was most appropriate. She asserted that Mr. Nicholson had left intact most of the text provided by legal staff. Councilor Taylor commented that the City subsidized things "all the time" and citizens knew it. She agreed with Councilor Bettman, that the statement as submitted by legal counsel was biased. Councilor Meisner said he would not support the amendment as it read. He suggested striking the word "stimulating" altogether and not editorializing on which word to use. Mayor Torrey called for a vote on Councilor Bettman's motion to substitute the word "subsidizing" for the word "stimulating." The vote on the motion was 3:3 tie; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in favor and councilors Poling, Pap~, and Meisner voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey voted against the motion and the motion failed on a final vote of 4:3. Councilor Meisner, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the statement in version 2, as submitted by Mr. Nicholson, by striking the word "stimulating" in line 4, adding the word "incremental" between the words "that" and "property" in the next to the last line, changing the word "diverted" to "used" in the same line, and correcting the spelling of ordi- nance in the last line. Councilor Bettman did not think the word "incremental" was necessary as the wording did not quantify anything else in the text. Councilor Bettman asked what the true number for maximum indebtedness would be. Mr. Taylor responded that he did not have the answer before him. Councilor Bettman asked him to call City staff Sue Cutsogeorge or Mike Sullivan and ask about this. Mayor Torrey asked the council if it wished to adjourn until this number could be determined. He noted that this was not the issue that had been appealed by Mr. Nicholson and the inclusion of the amount had not been recommended by legal counsel. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to consider the addition of the word "incremental" separately from the rest of the body of Councilor Meisner's motion. The motion failed, 4:2; Councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in favor. Mr. Nicholson requested, once again, to address the council. Mayor Torrey granted the request. Mr. Nicholson asserted that the amended text, as offered in Councilor Meisner's motion, was not true. He alleged there were no incremental taxes as there was only incremental value and also the establishment of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 5 Special Meeting maximum indebtedness meant this maximum could be incurred whether or not there was an increment. In that case, he declared it would have to be repaid even if there were no proceeds from the increment. Mr. Lidz commented that the issues raised were far enough beyond the appeal that he could not respond. He stressed that nothing raised in the appeal required the council to address these issues at this time, as the only thing the council was mandated to do was to adopt the ballot title. He underscored that this did not affect the substance of the revisions or amendments to the Urban Renewal Plan. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Lidz stated emphatically that it would not be incorrect to say in the text "incremental property taxes." Mr. Taylor asked Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge to speak to what the ordinance provided in terms of maximum indebtedness and the caveats explained within the text of section 1300. He underscored that he was trying to avoid having this appeal of the language become a debate of the ordinance. Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the ordinance set the maximum indebtedness at $34.8 million. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that there was existing indebtedness in the amount of $3,030,000, used to purchase the Chiquita site. She added that it was not included in the maximum indebtedness. Councilor Kelly asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to speak to the concept of incremental property taxes. Ms. Cutsogeorge stated that, while it may be true that there was no definition of incremental property taxes in the urban renewal statutes, it was the concept upon which urban renewal was based. She felt the use of those words was not inaccurate. Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment to substitute "of $34.8 million" for "amount" in the third to the last line of the statement. The maker and the second for the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to strike the word "incremental" from the proposed amended text. Councilor Meisner declined to accept the friendly amendment. Mayor Torrey stated that, in the face of a tie, he intended to vote for the motion. He commented that he would have been hard-pressed to support the motion had the word "increment" been stricken. He said the intent of the ballot title was to ensure the public knew what was happening, which was that there was a base of tax on the property in question, the amount above the base was the increment, and the tax increment was what would generate the revenue. As such, he felt it imperative to retain this word. Councilor Meisner made a friendly amendment to his motion, reworded slightly by legal counsel, to substitute the words "incremental value are used" for the words "are diverted" in the next to the last line of the statement. Councilor Poling accepted the friendly amendment. Mayor Torrey called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed, 5:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 6 Special Meeting Councilor Kelly noted that the original version of the statement had, in the fourth line, indicated that the major changes would include "revising and expanding the plan's list of project activities" but in the version before the council the words "revising and" had been excluded. He wished to add them back to the text. He also wished to clarify that the plan called for all manner of connections to the downtown area. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Papd, moved to add "revising and" before "ex- panding'' in line 4 of the statement text and to change the wording in line 6 so that it read, as follows: b ildi d th ' " ~^~ * ....... * connections between wntown, "... u ng new ....... ,~,~...,,,~ o e river... Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment to include the words "including roads" in the latter change. Councilor Kelly declined and offered an alternative friendly amendment, as follows: ,,... r,..a~,~v ~**~***~ including roads te~,~,,...~,~,* bicycle and pedestrian connections.. ." Mr. Taylor noted that legal staff had tried to keep the text relatively simple. Councilor Taylor felt roads should be included in the text as building roads was part of the plan. Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment to substitute "building new transportation projects" for the word "roads." Councilor Kelly and Councilor Papd accepted the friendly amendment. Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the statement from version 2 as submitted by Mr. Nicholson, now proposed to read, as follows: "Ordinance No. 20313 amends the urban renewal plan for the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. Major changes include: adding approximately 30 acres to the Riverfront renewal district, including the area immediately to the south and west of Franklin between Hilyard and Pearl, revising and expanding the plan's list of project activities to includeo~*:~"~.,,~,~.~*:-~ development activities near the new federal courthouse and the area occupied by EWEB (should EWEB relocate), building new re, ads transporta- tion projects to connect downtown, the river and the university, authorizing the Urban Renewal Agency to provide loans to property owners wishing to develop or redevelop property within the renewal area, requiring the City Council (acting as the Urban Renewal Agency) to approve all projects in excess of $250,000, establishing maximum indebtedness amount of $34.8 million, and extending the time that property taxes' are diveged incremental value are used to pay for administration of, debts of, or projects in the district. A "yes" vote approves ©rdenance Ordinance No. 20313 and its plan amend- ments.'' The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Torrey called for the vote on the revised language of the Ballot Title in its entirety. The City Council by a unanimous vote, 6:0, approved the amended language of the Ballot Title for the referendum on the ordinance amending the Riverfront Urban Renewal District plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 7 Special Meeting The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 8 Special Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Bascom Room -- Eugene Public Library 100 West l0th Avenue April 7, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Process Session The City Council was joined by the executive managers for the process session. City Manager Dennis Taylor explained that the process session was convened after spring break, as per usual. He commented that it was an opportunity for the executive management and council to learn together. Local consultants Drs. Peter and Susan Glaser began the meeting with a presentation of examples of their model for positive interaction between staff and elected officials. Ms. Glaser stressed that the way staff and the councilors interact has a huge impact on the community. Mr. Glaser added that voting was secondary to civil discourse. The councilors and executive managers took a ten-minute break, reconvening at 6:45 p.m. Lane County Human Resources Director Greta Utecht and Director of the Lane County Department of Children and Families Alicia Hays facilitated the next segment of the process session. Ms. Hays provided an outline of the small group process the session would include. Ms. Utecht explained the process was intended to help the council and managers to determine its top three expectations from the lists developed by two groups. Those present broke into small groups consisting of staff and elected officials. Executive management and elected officials reconvened as a whole at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Pap6 and Ms. Nathanson left the meeting. Ms. Utecht explained the ground rules: 1) the group presenter will list the group's top priority; 2). those listening may ask clarifying questions but there would be no debate; and 3) if a priority had been cited by one group, it could not be cited again. Mr. Poling spoke on behalf of the first group of councilors, which included Ms. Bettman and Ms. Solomon. He said the top priority from the list of What Council Expects from Staff chosen by the first group was that staff memoranda and agenda item summaries (ALS) provide a range of options. He advocated for greater understanding of possible directions the council could take in order to provide more informed MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 7, 2004 Page 1 Process Session decisions. Mr. Taylor asked if what was desired was a discussion of the range of options or just an articulation of options. Mr. Poling responded that the councilors wished for presentation of the options accompanied by points of view, but not the underpinnings. He commented that what was often heard was staff's opinion on an issue and the council wished to hear arguments against staff opinion as well. Ms. Bettman remarked that a range of options meant everything from a decision to do nothing to doing ;;everything." The first staff group consisted of Mr. Chouinard and Mr. Carlson. Mr. Carlson commented that staff had a shorter list from which to choose. Mr. Carlson explained that the expectation that the council should act as a body was the top priority. He stated that staff implements all council decisions with equal verve, whether the vote was unanimous or split. Mr. Kelly asserted that the council did act as a body. He asked what Mr. Carlson meant by acting as a body. Mr. Carlson replied that sometimes councilors who are not on the prevailing side continue to ask for help in overturning a decision or delaying its implementation. Mr. Kelly opined that it would be a ;;nightmare" if it became a constant that once things were settled, they were never revisited. He wondered if people were discovering new information and were trying to gain traction with their colleagues. He felt the problem was overstated. He added that he had heard from constituents regarding the urban renewal district issues and averred it was equally valid to represent the continuing angst over such an item. Mr. Chouinard cited, as an example, a hypothetical situation in which the executive manager makes a decision for the staff team and the manager on the staff team gives a different direction to those who work under his or her supervision. He underscored the importance of maintaining the good of the whole. Ms. Bettman commented that the example Mr. Kelly brought up pointed to the other decisions that get made as a result of the first decision, such as funding, etc. She felt that issues are not just settled and done at any given point; that is not the way politics works. Ms. Hays surmised that the priority had arisen because of the feeling that the continuation of decisions slowed the City's process down. Ms. Taylor represented the second group, which included Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Pap6. She recognized the instructions were to cite a new priority from the list but wished to note that the top priority for the group had been identical to the first group's top priority. In lieu of that, she shared the group's second priority which was that staff should follow City Council policy and not try to influence it. Mr. Carlson said typically the Agenda Item Summary included staff recommendations. He asked if it was the council's wish that such recommendations not be included. Ms. Taylor suggested that staff not make strong recommendations but, rather, provide options only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 7, 2004 Page 2 Process Session Mr. Poling felt it was a good idea for staff to provide recommendations accompanied by other options. Mr. Meisner concurred, adding that he wanted staff recommendations, but not memoranda in which staff makes conclusive statements. He reiterated that knowing both the options and staff recommendations on options accompanied their by reasons was his preference. Ms. Solomon liked recommendations from staff. She felt informed by them. She echoed Mr. Meisner and Mr. Poling's comments regarding options. In response to Mr. Chouinard, Mr. Meisner cited as an example that the work session on alley assessments had resulted in a clear majority vote on the first item and a need for ~tweaking" on the second item. Staff provided a memorandum to the council that stated empirically that it was not possible to ~tweak" the second item, but it did not give the reasons why it could not be done. Mr. Kelly asserted that another way staff influenced or %ent" council policy was by not responding to City Council recommendations. He cited the stormwater issue as an example and stated that it had not been implemented. Further, he cited the salmon Endangered Species Act strategy, and said the council had formulated a list of priorities that were approved and the list had not been followed through with. Mr. Taylor pointed out that staff was often guided by the TransPlan, the Metro Plan, or budget documents in its recommendations. He asked whether councilors could trump such documents with their directives. Ms. Bettman alleged that staff took certain actions because it wanted to do them. She felt the plans the City Manager referred to were flexible documents. Mr. Meisner noted that in previous years, when no motion was on the floor, the council would use a formalized head nod to indicate support or opposition to an item. He felt that staff had, in a couple of work sessions, paraphrased to a certain extent what had transpired. Mr. Taylor commented that staff sometimes triaged things because of the hierarchy of decision. Mr. Meisner responded that when staff saw such a hierarchy, it should be brought to the attention of the councilors. Ms. Bettman felt the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO) was largely staff-driven and had influence over how road funds were spent. She reiterated her concern that the City Council had prioritized road preservation but the Metropolitan Policy Committee, acting as the MPO, had circumvented the priority of the City and recommended funding other projects. Mr. Tallon spoke on behalf of the second group of staff people, which included Ms. Hamm and Mr. Corey. He related that his group had also placed working together as a body as its highest priority. He said all executive staff had the opportunity to work on three teams: with the executive managers, with the City Council, and within their departments. He conveyed that once group consensus was achieved, staff had to support the decisions made. He stated that being able to advocate for a position and to listen were both important skills. Mr. Meisner provided the top priority for the third group, which included Mayor Torrey and Mr. Kelly. He explained that his group felt that imagination and creativity were what they expected most from staff. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 7, 2004 Page 3 Process Session suggested staff ask itself what it was doing, what was missing, and what was working as an integral part of the daily work. Mr. Poling noted that it was his group's third priority. Mr. Kelly related that staff at Google was required to spend 20 percent of its time on work that was unrelated to any current projects. He felt this helped increase creativity an individual would then utilize at work. Mr. Carlson supported having more chance to be creative in work. Mr. Meisner thought such time could be built into the calendar. Mr. Kelly left the meeting because of a commitment. Ms. Hays thought staff should do this as a cultural shift. Mr. Carlson asked councilors if they did not think that staff was using creativity. Mr. Meisner noted that Ms. Jones had, when looking at youth recreation, stepped back and looked at all options and then developed an innovative plan. Ms. Solomon asked if executive staff went to professional conferences. Mr. Taylor responded that all executive staff members were very active in their appropriate professional organizations. He noted that time constraints interfered with the ideal in which they spent more time thinking at a higher level and in reference to longer-term goals. Ms. Bettman felt innovation tied into the range of options. She opined that within a universe of ideas, "we do the same things." Mr. Lehner said the top priority of the third group, which included Mr. Coyle and Mr. Taylor, was clear policy direction from the council. He felt this cut across all of the other priority items. He commented that sometimes there was more clarity regarding policy that drew a 5:4 vote accompanied by vigorous discussion than there was from a unanimous vote with no discussion. He underscored that staff want its work plan to be understandable at a "gut level." Ms. Hays asked what other issues rose to the top. Mr. Poling noted that his group had also called out the need for a list of specific descriptions of the services, help or '~tasks" available to any, and therefore all, councilors. Mr. Chouinard said he and Mr. Carlson had wanted council to identify strategic issues and goals. Ms. Taylor remarked that her group had also expected staff to have good technical skills to get answers resolved quickly and to be knowledgeable in their field. Mr. Tallon conveyed that his group also wanted the council to focus on "ends" and practice policy MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 7, 2004 Page 4 Process Session govemance. Mr. Meisner indicated that Mr. Kelly wanted to emphasize that council direction should be remembered by staff and should not ~fall through the cracks" for months and years. Mayor Torrey said his group agreed with Mr. Poling's group, but had bundled the need for clarity and concise answers with the need for timely responses and the ability to respond during work sessions and meetings. Mr. Lehner indicated that his group shared Mr. Chouinard and Mr. Carlson's expectation from the council that strategic issues and goals be identified. Ms. Hays thanked participants for the opportunity to conduct the exercise. Mr. Glaser commended the group for the communication and listening skills members exhibited. Mr. Taylor said the executive team would have a two- to six-hour session with the Glasers. He stated that staff would come back to a work session or subsequent process session with anything that arose from it. Ms. Rose asked the council to look over the Eugene City Council Operating Agreements: Draft with Proposed Amendments 4/1/04. She explained that the suggestion had been made that the operating agreements be revisited at the February retreat. She highlighted the proposed changes. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Rose indicated that the legal opinion on section 9.03 was included as Attachment B: Inter-Departmental Memorandum; City Attorney - Civil Department. Mr. Meisner was uncertain of the language regarding meeting length. He opined it was too absolute and could be construed to allow an item to be debated until 3 a.m. Ms. Bettman commented that extending the meeting by five to ten minutes was fine, but that the meetings should not be extended longer than that. Regarding Section 9.03, Ms. Bettman acknowledged it was a difficult issue. She advocated for any budgetary issue that would be moved through the MPC to also come before the City Council. Mr. Poling felt it was not clear in the definition at what point the proceedings became deliberations. Ms. Solomon expressed satisfaction with the current system of determining whether or not to extend the meeting time by a vote. Ms. Rose noted that the draft language was purely in response to councilor's requests at the February retreat. Ms. Solomon indicated she would not support a change. Ms. Taylor conveyed her preference for no stopping time. She felt there were other ways to keep a meeting from lasting too long, such as councilors making a motion to adjourn or the mayor taking control of the meeting. She opined that it was sometimes appropriate to get through an issue, even if it took until 11:30 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 7, 2004 Page 5 Process Session p.m. Regarding the MPC, Ms. Taylor echoed Ms. Bettman's wish to have funding issues to be considered by the MPC to come before the City Council first. Mr. Carlson clarified that the underlying section was not recommended by staff, but it reflected what the City Council said. Ms. Bettman suggested it would simplify things if public hearings were always held on the same night. Mr. Meisner left the meeting and the quorum was lost. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 7, 2004 Page 6 Process Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 12, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Pap6 reported that the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) was considering new services to expand membership, including a legal services office. He said the LOC was proposing to develop model ordinances and a model charter. He regretted the council had not had the advantage of the model charter when it considered charter changes in 2001. He said he would share the information with the council. Mr. Meisner had no items. Mr. Poling noted a recent article in The Register-Guard regarding a zoning issue faced by a "doggy day care" that wished to operate in Eugene. It appeared that the use in question did not fit clearly in any particular zoning or use category. He suggested it was time for the council to reconsider some of the zoning code categories and definitions and to consider additional flexibility to accommodate changing technologies and times. Mr. Poling said he recently toured the new Hult Elementary School and looked forward to its opening. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Solomon requested an update on the road funding situation. City Manager Dennis Taylor said the Lane County Board of County Commissioners expressed interest in having further discussion about the issue with Lane County cities sometime in April. He had no staff recommendation or board recommendation to share at this time. Ms. Bettman said the Police Commission was embarking on a review of the police complaints process. The commission would be collecting information to frame the issues. The commission proposed to hold a comprehensive public forum in advance of that effort and wished to do so before the end of the University school year. She asked for permission for the commission to hold the forum in advance of the council's approval of the commission's work program in July. There was no objection. Ms. Bettman said she would request a work session on transportation project priority setting prior to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Metropolitan Policy Committee taking action on the State Transportation Improvement Program. Speaking to Mr. Poling's remarks, Ms. Bettman said doggy day care was identified as an item to be addressed in the post-Land Use Code Update work program item. Unfortunately, because of other priorities, that work was postponed. Ms. Taylor shared Mr. Poling's interest in the doggy day care situation. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about increases in the cost of a pool pass, suggesting the increases would make some people unable to afford to use a City pool. She said that there were many people who did not meet the low-income threshold to qualify for City scholarships. She was concerned about that. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the council as quickly as State statutes allow an ordinance to establish a moratorium on accepting or processing applications for retail establishments in ex- cess of 50,000 square feet. Ms. Taylor said she was attempting to protect local businesses and workers. She had heard concerns from those employed at local establishments who feared for their jobs. Ms. Taylor emphasized the motion called for a moratorium, rather than a prohibition, on such establishments. The details could be discussed when the council held its work session. She offered the motion now because it would take a long time to accomplish. She wanted the City to be ready to respond to such development proposals in the future. Mr. Kelly supported the motion because it gave the council time to discuss the issues involved with big box retail uses before a new application was made. He thought it made sense to put a temporary moratorium in place, citing evidence that big box retail establishments hurt local businesses. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Taylor said her focus was on single-use retail establishments. Mr. Pap6 asked if the City would be required to notify property owners potentially affected by such an ordinance. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said 45 days notice would be required, but he was unsure of the scope of the notice without consulting the relevant statutes. Mr. Pap6 wanted to know more about the costs to the City and the impact on existing property rights from such an ordinance if the motion passed Mr. Meisner wanted more information about what the council could regulate or prohibit in terms of nonlocal businesses of a certain size. He questioned the need for an ordinance apart from an ordinance that might arise from the council's upcoming work session, and also wanted information about the impact of the motion on the Planning Division's work program. City Manager Dennis Taylor said State statutes required the City craft findings to accompany any ordinance instituting a moratorium. He noted the time line required for the process, which included a Planning Commission hearing as well as notice to the State, and said it would be difficult for staff to implement without more information about findings and what retail establishments the council proposed to prohibit, and why. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Solomon said the motion felt very anti-business to her. The council had a lot of work to do, and she was not anxious to add more to its workload. She pointed out that people outside Eugene also shopped at Wal-Mart. She believed that Wal-Mart provided a valuable service for many citizens in the community. Mr. Poling was concerned about the legal issues around the issue. He also noted the upcoming work session on the subject of big box retail, and considered the motion a way of circumventing the council's established process. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to table the motion to May 24, 2004. Mr. Poling said without more information, he was unprepared to move forward. He wanted to proceed in a legal and cautious manner. Ms. Nathanson also noted the upcoming work session on the issue. She said such a moratorium would affect any entity wanting to do business in Eugene, not just Wal-Mart. The moratorium would also proceed the council's work session, and she considered that to be premature. She recalled the council's recent discussion of council goals, and said it appeared work on those priorities would have to stop to facilitate work on the ordinance called for in Ms. Taylor's motion. Ms. Bettman believed the council's work session on big box retail uses would stimulate a flurry of applications and if the moratorium was not in place it would send a message that those applications should be made. She noted that other communities had adopted moratoriums, and they were not considered a ~taking." The community spent considerable time on economic development to create jobs, and she thought the council could take action to protect existing jobs. She pointed out the council was not taking action on an ordinance, but rather a proposal to place a moratorium on big box development until a policy was in place. Mayor Torrey supported the motion to table. He noted for the benefit of the public that the motion offered by Ms. Taylor would not affect the Wal-Mart expansion on 11th Avenue, and Wal-Mart would have the right to move forward and expand that store. The moratorium would apply only to future applications. Ms. Taylor said that the process of instituting such an ordinance took time, which was why she offered the motion now. The motion did not commit the council to any action. Mr. Meisner determined from Ms. Taylor the motion did not direct the manager to bring an ordinance back to the council's May work session. Mr. Papd noted that the issue had not made it to the top of the council's priority list for the Planning Division's work program. Mr. Kelly referred to the 45-day notice mandated by the State and determined from Mr. Lidz that it was 45 days from that notice to the public hearing. Mr. Kelly pointed out that time period would expire after the council's May 24 work session, so Ms. Taylor's motion merely %tarted the clock." City Manager Taylor reiterated his concern about the need for findings, and suggested the work session would provide more direction to both the council and staff. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly said by its nature, the moratorium was temporary, and gave the council a chance to look at what other communities had done in terms of regulating big box retail uses. Speaking to Mr. Pap6's remarks, Mr. Kelly pointed out the council had yet to adopt the Planning Division's work program, and the adoption of the motion would inform that discussion. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Lidz if Ms. Taylor's motion provided enough information to "get the clock running" given that the State statute required notice of the kind of findings that would support the moratorium. Mr. Lidz said no. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Lidz if the motion was sufficiently specific to allow him to write a notice of intent to hold a public hearing on accepting or processing applications for a retail establishment in excess of 50,000 feet, and if not, was there something that could be added to the motion. Mr. Lidz did not think the motion was sufficiently specific. He said if the goal was to get such an ordinance in place as soon as possible, beginning to write it now facilitated the goal. The motion to table the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting in support. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion to table, and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Speaking to Mr. Poling's comments about the code, Mr. Kelly said there had been considerable work done on definitions during the update process. He believed that there would always be too many types of businesses for a land use code to contain an exhaustive list, meaning there would be judgment calls on the part of staff. He suggested another approach was the alternate path the council had previously expressed interest in. That could encompass performance-based zoning. He hoped to make the alternate path a higher priority for the Planning Division. Mr. Kelly said he understood the mayor's advisory committee on parks planning wanted the council to place a bond measure for parks on an upcoming ballot. He asked how the council could make it clear it wanted to see polling done on such an issue or on the issue of a new police building before it proceeded to take action. City Manager Taylor agreed that a timely assessment of the support for such a measure was important. Mr. Kelly said if there was any question in the manager's mind that he did not possess the authority to proceed with such a survey, he wanted to know. Ms. Nathanson said the motion to table Ms. Taylor's motion regarding a moratorium on big box retail uses did not take the council's work session on the subject off the table. She said the council needed to discuss whether the issue was local ownership, transportation, jobs, or land use; depending on the subject, the focus would be different. Ms. Nathanson noted the motion offered to the mayor's advisory parks planning committee came up two minutes before the meeting was to adjourn and the committee had expressed interest in a survey. She said that such a survey was reliable only when it was specific enough to give good information, and the committee had yet to develop a specific proposal to offer the voters, which would make the results of polling more scientific. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Taylor thanked the councilors for attending the groundbreaking for the new federal courthouse. He recognized the effort of Mike Sullivan and the staff of the Planning and Development Department, who had been working on the issue for five years. Mr. Taylor reported that the signatures for the repeal of the ordinance related to the urban renewal district had been turned over to the Lane County Elections Office for verification. He did not know if the petitioners had been successful in gathering the needed number of signatures. Mr. Taylor noted that he had arrived in Eugene to assume the position of City Manager one year ago and thanked the council for an enjoyable and challenging year. Mr. Meisner requested a background report on the parks planning committee and its analysis of co-relating maintenance costs to such a bond. He did not want to acquire land that the City could not afford to maintain. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Lidz that the appeal of the ballot title did not affect the collection of signatures. Mayor Torrey said the tree planting event on Saturday went very well and the City received compliments for its efforts. B. ACTION: Downtown Plan Update and Related Metro Plan and Code Amendments An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Add the ND Symbol to the Eugene Downtown Plan Area; Redesignating the Federal Court- house Site from Heavy Industrial to Commercial; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Provid- ing an Effective Date; and An Ordinance Adopting a New Eugene Downtown Plan as a Refinement of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 3882 and the Eugene Downtown Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.9540 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date The council was joined by Associate Planner Nan Laurence for the item. She noted the public hearing that had occurred on the item and the testimony heard by the council. She requested approval of the two ordinances that begin to implement the Downtown Plan. Ms. Laurence reported that staff would return on May 10 with a downtown work plan. Ms. Laurence referred the council to the plan, which reflected the changes suggested by councilors in legislative format. She thanked the council for its work on the plan. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve the Downtown Plan as revised and to direct staff to prepare a graphic copy for publica- tion. Referring to page 19 of the plan, Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the mention of 8th Avenue as the location for a new civic center was too restrictive. Ms. Laurence said the text in question was a project example and it suggested that ~where possible" such buildings should be located on 8th Avenue. She referred Mr. Pap~ to MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Policy 2 on page 18 of the plan, which encouraged the location of significant government buildings along 8th Avenue. She said the text in question was not in the ordinance. Ms. Laurence believed there were reasons to reinforce the idea of a civic street. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the plan by revising it to read ~...along East 8th Avenue and other locations..." Mr. Kelly was somewhat comfortable broadening the language given the recent design charette, which placed a preference on the 8th Avenue location but did not preclude other locations. He indicated he would await the comments of other councilors before deciding his position. Ms. Bettman said the text was aspirational. Though there were specific implementation projects she did not agree with, there were others she would like to see strengthened. However, since the council was only adopting the policies and had the final word on all projects, she thought that calling out such issues was ~word-smithing." For example, she would like to reinforce the Parks Blocks as a location for the Saturday Market and Farmers Market, but declined to do so because of the aspirational nature of the plan. Ms. Bettman characterized the policies as relatively broad and generally positive, and said she would not support the motion. Mr. Taylor indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. Ms. Taylor agreed. She said there were things in the plan she would like to change, but there were many good things in the plan as well, such as pedestrian amenities. Mr. Pap~ agreed the council should not wordsmith aspirational language, and asked the City Manager how he would interpret the project text and Implementation Strategy 2(D), %eek funding and develop a plan for a new City Hall and police station along East 8th Avenue." Mr. Taylor distinguished between the policy and implementation strategy and said he would interpret the text as general guidance. Ms. Laurence concurred. Mr. Taylor did not interpret the text as restricting his ability to offer the council another site in downtown. He thought it gave him great latitude. The amendment to the motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Ms. Bettman referred to Policy 3(B) on page 30 of the plan, which indicated the Eugene Water & Electric Board's (EWEB) master plan would be processed as a Type II application, which was a Planning Director decision, as opposed to a Type III decision, which was a quasi-judicial decision. She asked staff how that affected the greenway permit process. She wanted to know if a master plan application would trigger a modified permit (Type II application) or a new application (Type III application). Mr. Yeiter said that depended on the interpretation of whether the permit was being modified. Mr. Kelly confirmed with Mr. Yeiter that whether or the text in question was in the plan, the greenway permit rules were applied separately. He questioned whether a decision about the master plan would influence the Planning Director in terms of how he or she interpreted the nature of the greenway permit. Mr. Kelly was convinced a healthy vibrant downtown was a prerequisite for a healthy and vibrant Eugene. He said that the plan contained some things he did not like, but it contained other elements he was pleased with. He supported the plan. He was also pleased to hear the Downtown Plan Action Plan would come MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 6 Work Session back soon as much of the plan's success depended on its implementation. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 regarding the public input that would go into the master plan application, Ms. Laurence said there would not necessarily be a lot of public involvement in the master plan, as the plan was written with the premise that once the council adopted the principles for the master plan, staff would review the application to ensure it was consistent with those principles. Mr. Meisner asked how the policies facilitated the council's interest in siting a hospital on EWEB's property, pointing out one policy required the development to be multi-use. He asked if that prevented the council from negotiating its highest goal. Ms. Laurence said by practice, hospitals were multi-use. Mr. Meisner questioned but accepted that. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Laurence to double-check the spelling of "Eugeneans." Ms. Bettman said she would still support the plan in spite of the fact the Planning Director had review approval for the master plan. The text in question simplified the process. She felt confident there were enough people in the community concerned about the greenway that the master plan would receive scrutiny. She hoped the City moved forward with the plan, and that it did not become so aspirational or broad that it was misinterpreted. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4857, amending the Metro Plan Diagram. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4858, adopting a new Eugene Downtown Plan. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey thanked staff, and the council applauded staff's efforts. C. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning the Downtown Area; and Proposed Amendments to Sections 3.344, 4.871, and 4.872 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Police Chief Bob Lehner was present to discuss the ordinance. Chief Lehner reported that, in response to council direction, the Police Department had worked to resolve some of the differences between commercial and noncommercial activities relative to the ordinance passed in November 2003. As part of that effort, Police staff met with a community coalition that included the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union. The text before the council revised the ordinance by removing the "25 person or more" language from the ordinance adopted in December 2003. The goal of the ordinance was to draw a "bright line" between commercial and noncommercial activities. He said he reviewed the council's discussions on the topic and believed the proposed changes addressed the council's concerns. Chief Lehner said that staff and the community coalition discussed the fact that many of the issues that created the confusion between commercial and noncommercial activities were also a concern in regard to MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 7 Work Session another ordinance, the parade ordinance. He said those subjects were more applicable to the noncommercial parade ordinance than to the commercial elements of the downtown ordinance. Staff believed the changes adequately addressed those issues. Chief Lehner said he believed the council would hear support from the community coalition for the changes being proposed. He looked forward to working with the coalition again when the department worked on the parade ordinance. He invited questions. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor said if the council had not passed the ordinance initially, it would not have had to spend time and money revising it. She asked if the lingering prohibition on the plaza past 11 p.m. was discussed by the coalition. Chief Lehner said yes. He said the City had a legitimate interest in regulating park spaces. He said the administrative rules will clearly distinguish between affected areas. Ms. Taylor thought that unfortunate as she thought people should be encouraged to use the space, and she did not consider 11 p.m. to be late. Mr. Kelly was supportive of the revised text and thanked Chief Lehner and other City for addressing the issue and working with the community coalition. He thanked the chief and the coalition for their efforts. Mr. Kelly hoped the department and coalition would be sensitive to free speech issues when working on the parade ordinance. Mr. Kelly thought community ill-will would have been eliminated if the council had adopted the amendments being contemplated at an earlier time. Mr. Pap~ thanked Chief Lehner for his work on the ordinance. He supported moving the ordinance forward to a public hearing. He determined from Ms. Bettman the Police Commission had not reviewed the ordinance. Chief Lehner said the commission received progress reports but did not participate in discussions with the community coalition. He said the more inclusive the drafting process was, the more the City was able to deal upfront with potentially controversial issues. Mr. Pap~ encouraged Chief Lehner to include the commission in the review of the parade ordinance as it was his belief the commission was charged to do such reviews. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Pap~, Ms. Bettman said the Police Commission did not normally review ordinances, and the ordinance in question was the subject of direction from the council to the manager. The commission had been interested in the process. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the work of the department and the community coalition and hoped that members of the coalition would continue to be involved, as well as other community members. Ms. Bettman said she heard about the curfew issue from one person, and looked forward to the public hearing to see how the issue resonated with the community. She said there were good reasons for restricting hours, as well as reasons such restrictions were disliked by the public. She suggested that 11 p.m. might be a little early for downtown, although she would postpone judgment until she heard from the public. Mr. Meisner concurred with the comments of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pap~. He said the changes being suggested MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 8 Work Session made a great deal of sense. Speaking to the issue of involving the Police Commission, he said that he spoke to downtown business owners and residents who objected that they were not included in a review of the ordinance. He suggested that the chief consider forming a subcommittee of commission members to publicly process the parade ordinance. Chief Lehner reminded the council that it had directed the City Manager to revise the ordinance and he had received clear directions about the clarifications being sought. Mr. Kelly suggested Chief Lehner consider involving the downtown neighborhood association in the development of the parade ordinance. Mayor Torrey asked how things were going downtown in general. Chief Lehner said it was his understand- ing that criminal activities downtown were generally weather-dependent. There was a spike in hate speech and hate crime recently in downtown, which created a problem. That appeared to be an emerging trend but could be associated with the weather. With regard to crime levels, he said those issues continued to be a major concern for Downtown Eugene, Incorporated, and for downtown residents. He had met with groups with a downtown presence to discuss those issues, and was meeting soon with the downtown neighborhood association. Chief Lehner said the department's ability to provide policing services downtown was somewhat affected by its definition of service delivery. A conversation about that topic needed to happen. The neighborhoods wanted to discuss appropriate levels of service delivery throughout the community. He promised the council an inclusive process would occur, likely in the context of the next budget. Mayor Torrey said that several people in the Broadway Plaza area indicated to him that they did not feel as comfortable at night downtown recently as they had in the past. Chief Lehner said he heard the same, and passed those comments onto staff. He said that the department needed to work with the downtown in an inclusive way; that process had started and would continue. Mr. Meisner observed that the forums on downtown policing were occurring but they had not been well- advertised. He suggested the department may have to repeat the process to get the public involved. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 9 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 14, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey was excused from the meeting. Council President Bettman convened the work session. A. WORK SESSION: Continued Discussion on Priorities for the Planning Division Work Program City Manager Dennis Taylor explained that much work was waiting until the priorities were clarified and motions were adopted. He called on Planning and Development Department (PDD) Director Tom Coyle, to speak to the item. Mr. Coyle recalled the council's earlier consideration of the item in a February work session, at which it had ranked some items. He said the list of six to eight items was included as Attachment A for reference purposes. Ms. Bettman indicated the council was starting with a motion that had been tabled. Mr. Kelly recapped the work session, stating that he had moved to move items 5(b): Buildable Land Supply and 5(c): Service Provision and Special Districts to the ~Other" list. He explained that he had made the motion regarding the former because there were State requirements regarding buildable land supply that were contained within periodic review, and those requirements had been satisfied during the most recent periodic review. He felt there were other priorities that rose to a higher level. He said he would like to see Growth Management Policy 1, which spoke to increasing density and using existing vacant land, in place of 5(b). He added, in response to concerns that an expanding land supply was needed to ensure adequate housing and/or tax revenue, research indicated that comparable cities that developed expansively and cities that dominantly developed infill did not experience much difference in housing prices or employment levels. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Coyle clarified that the buildable land issue was intended to acknowledge the necessary consultation on project-specific and citywide issues as they relate to buildable lands. He stated that the Planning Commission had formed a subcommittee that was working on infill strategies. He assured Mr. Meisner that the work would not cease should the issue be placed on the ~Other" list. Mr. Meisner asked if there had been a sense from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) regarding how that agency felt about the buildable lands inventory. Susan Muir, Planning Division MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Manager, responded that a caveat in the statute could kick an inventory process into motion with any project. In addition, a Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) policy existed that required an annual update of the residential buildable lands supply. Mr. Meisner indicated his intention to support the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Coyle stated that PDD was undergoing the periodic review process. Ms. Muir added that the department was currently behind in this work. Mr. Poling asked when the assessment of the 2001 residential lands supply would be completed. Ms. Muir replied that it had been completed, but was required to be done every two years. Mr. Poling asked how approval of the motion would affect the discussion held earlier regarding the joint effort on the survey, in that it was being funded by the three governmental bodies. Mr. Coyle thought the buildable land survey issue would stand by itself. He added that staff would be available to answer questions, but not to actually conduct the work. He said approval of the item without approval of the project would represent a misalignment. Mr. Poling conveyed his concern that the City would fall behind in State-mandated work. Ms. Nathanson agreed, stating that the City was several years behind already. She asked when the survey was due to be completed. Ms. Muir replied that ~the clock would not start ticking" until the next year. Ms. Nathanson felt the project should be finished. She opined that when pet projects were prioritized above projects designated by law, it ended up placing the latter on a back burner. She said it was not possible to identify 27 things as top priorities. Mr. Pap~ wondered if there would be adequate staff and budget to meet the needs of the six top priorities. Mr. Coyle affirmed there would be. Ms. Muir clarified that the portion of the survey she had spoken to was a requirement of the Metro Plan and was to be conducted annually. Mr. Pap~ related that Commissioner Worrix of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and Lane Shetterly, department head of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), were aware of the periodic review requirements and that staffing and funding requirements for such reviews were burdensome for all jurisdictions. He added, anecdotally, that the municipality of Brookings was twelve years into its periodic review and expected to work for three more years to complete it. Ms. Taylor favored the motion. She thought there were more urgent items the Planning Division should work on, such as item 41, which prioritized dealing with the Land Use Board of Appeals' remand of the City's Land Use Code Update (LUCU) concerning Goals 9 and 10 and the Chapter 6 tree provisions. She emphasized that this item was once at the top of the list and that it needed to be done. She expressed concern that the discussion referred to what Jack Roberts of the Metro Partnership wanted but did not refer to recommendations made by 1,000 Friends of Oregon. Ms. Bettman felt confused as she thought the council was to reprioritize specific issues that the council directed the organization to pursue. She asserted the list was de facto approval of all items listed. She said MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 2 Work Session some issues were broadly worded, such as suggestions included in the buildable land supply. It sounded to her as though the council was giving the Metro Partnership's proposal de facto approval without adequate discussion. She cited the special districts issue, noting there was no council action when the discussion on the item had been held and yet it was on the list. She also felt that language that suggested other projects would be approved for prioritization along with economic development and the hospital siting was nebulous. She suggested this would leave to the discretion of the Planning Division what major projects would be prioritized. She commented that prioritization of the periodic review need not occur in this process as it was within the parameters of the regular duties the Planning Division performed and, as such, not unlike the issuing of permits which needed no mention in the list. Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to reword 5 (b) to read, as follows: "Buildable Lands Supply issue, not including industrial or commercial land study." Mr. Meisner questioned the phrasing, stating it would bar staff from having anything to do with commercial or industrial lands. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Bettman's concerns regarding the lack of discussion at the council level on such lands. Mr. Coyle responded that adding that phrase to the item provided an additional level of clarification that would acknowledge Mr. Roberts' project if and when it came before the council. Ms. Nathanson remarked that the question of whether there was enough land was key to many other debates and discussions. She said the change did clarify the item but questioned the necessity of such a clarification. She preferred to work with the list as presented. Ms. Bettman said she did not want the prioritization process to circumvent normal work session protocol. She opined that, as stated, this list bypassed council discussion of an important issue. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Coyle explained that item 5(b) intended to acknowledge the %onsultative capacity of the Planning Division as it relates to buildable lands within the City." He said the division would not take from this direction approval or denial of the work project. Mr. Taylor added that is was not included in the current fiscal budget, nor was it proposed for the next one. Mr. Coyle remarked that the item provided the council the opportunity to resolve the issue of the commercial and industrial land survey. Ms. Bettman supported Mr. Kelly's motion. She commented that it seemed that such consulting work occurred anyway and the council would look at such resource issues were when the council made the decision to proceed. She felt the item would not take as many resources as nodal development or other items on the list. She thought it should be a function of Planning Division staff to talk to people such as Jack Roberts when they decided they wanted to change the use of, for example, a school site. Mr. Meisner surmised from the discussion that the inclusion of Mr. Kelly's motion would have no ultimate net effect. Mr. Coyle affirmed this. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion. He asked what prospects were for funding the buildable commercial land survey. Mr. Coyle replied that this would be covered in discussions yet to come. Mr. Kelly stated that the amendment indicated what part of the list was not a priority for the council. He commented that the Metro Partnership study was ill-defined and whether he supported it was dependent upon what lands were included in the study. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bett- man voting yes; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Pap6 voting no. Mayor Torrey was not present to cast a deciding vote and the motion failed. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to move item 5(c) regarding the service provi- sion/special district issue to the "Other" list. Mr. Meisner said staff resistance to special districts was so great it was not worth maintaining the item as a priority. Ms. Solomon questioned why the item was on the priority list. She related that, in earlier discussions, compression had weighed heavily on the issue. Mr. Taylor explained that most of the concern regarding special districts seemed to arise from the issue of service provision and declining or capped resources. He said people looked to special district service provision as a way to provide for new revenues. He added that in this situation evidence had been presented that indicated special districts would not provide the same flexibility as other jurisdictions because of the problem with compression due to the ceiling imposed by Ballot Measure 5. Mr. Carlson stated that compression was an issue for local government entities. He related that the reason it was on the list was that a joint meeting of elected officials had directed staff to develop a work program and bring it back to the Metropolitan Policy Committee. He emphasized that the impetus behind it had been the move by the City of Springfield to provide fire and emergency medical services through such a district. Mr. Pap6 hoped revisions to the Metro Plan could occur so that all services did not all have to be provided by municipalities only. He noted that he was working with elected officials in Springfield to try and put forth amendments to the Metro Plan. He asked if this item would only apply to the Metro Plan. Mr. Coyle responded that the item would acknowledge that the Planning Division would have to be consulted in connection with land use decisions that would result from any Metro Plan amendments. Mr. Taylor commented that service delivery was a large question and would take much staff time and resources, even if the work was undertaken by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). He noted a similar discussion on what the level of services should be and how this should be addressed in the Metro Plan had been held in 1995. Ms. Bettman asserted that the joint elected officials had determined that it would be beneficial to have a sense of the scope of the work involved to take to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). Instead the council was given a specific and expedited timeline. She called this ;~jumping the gun," and questioned the wisdom of prioritizing this issue above many City priorities. She supported the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor remarked that passing the item did not mean it was thrown out ~forever," only that it was not a priority at this time. Ms. Solomon reminded councilors that this item did not only address service districts, but also encompassed service provision. She advocated for allowing the flexibility in the planning schedule to look at service provision. Mr. Coyle said, due to past decisions, the special district issue was embedded in the Land Use Code and would make the item work-intensive to change should that time come. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to extend the discussion by ten minutes. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Nathanson commented that she was unconcerned that the item would affect service provision. Mr. Meisner voiced his support for the motion. He thought it would in no way preclude staff finding efficiencies in City services. He noted that previous items having to do with special service districts ~went nowhere" and had taken staff time. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to raise Item 39, which would prioritize investi- gation of an alternate path review process parallel to the prescriptive code, to a high prior- ity. Mr. Kelly said this was in response to the recent closure of a ~doggy daycare" facility. He wished to provide a more flexible way for such a business to be established through the Land Use Code. He noted it had been a council directive to give this a high priority after LUCU was completed. Mr. Meisner expressed support for the motion. He encouraged staff to look into how other cities handled such items and save themselves some work. Mr. Coyle affirmed, in response to Mr. Pap~, that the Planning Division had the resources to address Item 39 should it be given a high priority. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman asked, regarding Item 5(d), what other major projects were being approved should the list be approved. Mr. Coyle responded that this would acknowledge the consultative work that Planning Division would do with the Development Division. Ms. Bettman asked if this would cover projects given a high priority by the City Council. Mr. Coyle replied that any project having to do with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site or siting a new hospital would be given highest consideration by staff. He said the aim would be to be able to answer any questions regarding a property such as the EWEB property, but not to expend resources to assist with the development of the property. He noted, regarding the latter, that he would have to return to the City Manager for direction in such a situation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor reiterated her concern that Item 41 would not be addressed. Mr. Coyle assured her that it was not ~way down" the list as items 20 to 42 had not been ranked. Ms. Bettman called for the vote to affirm the work program in Attachment A. The motion passed unanimously, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Cell Tower Siting Ms. Muir reviewed the purposes of the Telecommunication Ordinance code language, adopted in 1997, that addressed cell tower siting, as follows: - to minimize the number of towers throughout the community; - to encourage collocation facilities; - to encourage the use of existing buildings and poles as opposed to constructing new ones; - to recognize the need of providers to build out their systems; - to ensure that facilities were designed to minimize the visual impacts on the immediate surround- ings and throughout the community, and minimize public inconvenience and disruption. Ms. Muir indicated, with the assistance of tables, there were 27 cell towers permitted to be constructed since the advent of the Telecommunications Ordinance. Ms. Muir referenced a map on display that showed buffers currently in the Lane County code applied to the City. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to initiate amendments to Section 9.5750 of the Eugene Code to 1) extend setbacks for new cell towers to 1,000 feet from the nearest school and 800 feet from the nearest residences; and 2) codify the requirement for independent consultant review and verification; and 3) codify zero tolerance for interference with public safety commu- nications. Ms. Nathanson stated from her experience with this issue at a national level that the key drivers were capacity and coverage. She stressed that more people wanted cellular phone service everywhere. She noted that the city of Eugene posed topographical challenges to the provision of adequate coverage. She recognized there would be new requests to build cell towers as providers sought to keep abreast of demand. She felt more staff analysis was needed on proposed setbacks. Ms. Nathanson said she was a big proponent of the Third Amendment. She warned that there could be extensive legal work due to a lawsuit in another county which had attempted to adopt a zero interference ordinance. She related that the Federal Communi- cations Commission (FCC) had insisted the federal government should be in charge of who should regulate broadcasting. She disagreed, stating that it should be a local matter. Mr. Pap~ said he had not seen evidence that cell towers posed a safety hazard. He suggested that a safety hazard posed by cell towers would also be posed by telephone lines and electro-magnetic fields generated by large power lines. He commented that there was no analysis before the council with regard to the 1996 federal act and without this information it would be difficult to anticipate the legal ramifications of the motion to initiate amendments. Mr. Pap~ noted that there were providers willing to work with the City and the City had yet to work with them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 6 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that the Federal Telecommunica- tions Act would need to be reviewed to ensure any proposed changes would be consistent with it. Courts have rendered a variety of decisions, sometimes conflicting, all over the country. He clarified that acting on the motion it would not adopt anything nor would it open the City to any sort of legal action. He said staff would take direction from the motion and try to develop the changes and analyze whether they could give rise to challenges. Mr. Taylor added that any amendments would have to go before the Planning Commission and at least two public hearings would occur on the matter. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion to include any other code amendments recommended by staff. Ms. Nathanson welcomed the amendment because there were areas of concern such as siting the utility boxes on private property or public rights-of-way. She noted she had not liked what she had seen in other parts of the country. She wanted there to be more adequate safety measures as well as thorough screening prior to installation. Mr. Kelly did not support the amendment, noting there were few resources in the Planning Division to address it. He preferred achieving success on the three items before them before proceeding to broaden the burden on staff. He noted Lane County had passed setback requirements. Ms. Bettman asked how much the amendment would increase the scope of work. Ms. Muir replied that, should the directive require a broad audit, it would be time-consuming. Mr. Meisner indicated he would not support the amendment. He commented that he was unsure about the main motion due to the potential legal ramifications. Ms. Taylor supported the motion and was inclined to support the amendment. Ms. Muir stated that there was a provision in the existing code that may require the posting of an open- ended bond and there was also a requirement that the recovery of fees from the City's cost in retaining consultants for the purposes of verifying applications. She added that the latter had not been consistently enforced, but the division was now enforcing it in all cases. Mr. Pap6 hoped to allow staff the ability to do some research and craft the appropriate language so that it would not need to return for revision in five years. Ms. Nathanson thought it would not take long for staff to do a ';quick literature search" to find out what other cities had done to shore up gaps in their cell tower ordinances. She indicated she intended the research to primarily focus on problems the cities had experienced. Mr. Kelly felt tightening the language could easily fall into minor updates to the Land Use Code, but if it was more substantive, he was concerned the amendment would %pen things up too far." He added that Citizens for Responsible Placement of Cell Phone Towers (CRPCPT) had provided the council with a document in 2002 that could prove to be a good reference. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Klein said, in response to Ms. Bettman, that legal counsel could craft language for such an ordinance within 30 to 45 days. Ms. Bettman called for the vote on the amendment. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Nathanson, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mr. Meisner asked staff to determine how many of the existing cell towers would not have been placed had the proposed requirements already been passed. Mr. Poling commented, regarding the third proposed amendment, that he would not tolerate any interference with public safety employees' radios. He hoped that the legal challenges that had been raised would become clearer in time. He thanked the CRPCPT for its information. Mr. Kelly voiced his support for the main motion. He recalled that in his ward several cell tower placements had generated well over 100 citizen comments. He thought zoning did not adequately influence cell tower siting as it was possible to live on land that was zoned R-1 that was immediately adjacent to land that was zoned I on which a cell tower could more easily be placed. Mr. Meisner recalled the amount of staff time and outside legal counsel required in the development of the Telecommunications Ordinance and expressed hope that the City could approach cell tower citing much more efficiently. Mr. Taylor noted that the mobile data terminals in police cars ran on cell tower technology. Ms. Bettman supported the motion. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 8 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 21, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Comcast Franchise Fee Review Franchise Manager Pam Berrian of Information Services joined the council for the item. She introduced Milo Mecham of Lane Council of Governments, Patty Boyle of Finance Services, and City Attorney Jerome Lidz, who were also present for the item. Ms. Berrian said the issue was governed by the City's franchise agreement with Comcast, a mutually negotiated contract outlining the conditions under which the cable company was permitted to make nonexclusive commercial use of public rights-of-way. The contents and enforcement of the agreement are governed by local, state, and federal law, and address things such as compensation for the private use of the public right-of-way, customer service standards, construction requirements and the like. Continuing, Ms. Berrian said the franchise fees were a percentage of revenue earned in the service territory. An unresolved dispute exists over a category of Comcast revenue earned in the local franchise service area. An independent financial review indicated Comcast underpaid franchise fees from advertising commissions and program launch revenues for a period of three years and a debt was owed to the City as well as to Lane County and Springfield because of their franchise agreements with the company. Comcast disputed the review's findings but the three jurisdictions did not accept the rationale offered by the organization. Because the dispute could not be resolved, staff was seeking authority from the council to enter into binding arbitration with Comcast in accordance with the franchise. She said the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), which acts as the Cable Commission, would consider the matter in May. Ms. Berrian noted that the Lane Board of County Commissioners authorized County staff to enter into arbitration, and the City of Springfield had held an informational work session on the subject. Ms. Berrian reported that Comcast asked staff to delay initiating binding arbitration until one or more other municipal arbitration cases were resolved. She recommended against that because staff believed the review's findings were valid, a year had been spent attempting to reach resolution, and staff had yet to receive the third-party agreements Comcast had with other agencies that it requested. Additionally, other arbitration decisions could not be applicable outside the specific jurisdictions in question unless Comcast specifically agreed to abide by the decisions in those cases. There was no guarantee that would occur. Finally, the franchise agreement requires Comcast to reimburse the City for its arbitration costs if the City MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 1 Work Session prevailed; Comcast does not receive compensation if it prevailed, but under Oregon statutes Comcast could attempt to collect those costs. Ms. Berrian recommended the council proceed with binding arbitration as being in the public interest. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve that binding arbitration be initi- ated as provided in the franchise, that the decision be relayed to the Metropolitan Policy Committee, and that arbitration costs be proportionately split between participating juris- dictions. Mayor Torrey called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the background materials. She asked if Springfield would take action before the next MPC meeting. Ms. Berrian did not think so. She said that Springfield held a work session without providing specific direction to its representatives on the MPC. No motion was presented. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Berrian that the costs of binding arbitration would be divided proportion- ately between the three jurisdictions on the basis of franchise revenues received. Ms. Bettman did not think the legal costs should be predicated on proportionality, but because the amount was relatively small would not oppose the motion on that basis. She was prepared to support the motion because she thought the City should be a strong advocate for its contracts and its citizens. Ms. Taylor supported the motion for the reasons stated by Ms. Bettman. She asked if future franchise agreements could include the option of franchise termination. Ms. Berrian said yes, noting the franchise agreement sunsets in 2008 and renegotiations could begin as early as 2005. Ms. Taylor favored the inclusion of such an option in future agreements. Mr. Pap~ determined from City Attorney Glenn Klein that legal counsel supported the staff recommenda- tion. He further determined from Ms. Berrian that all three jurisdictions would participate in a single arbitration, as they hold identical but separate franchises. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Berrian said Comcast assumed the agreement negotiated with the former franchise holder, AT&T. Federal law dictated the revenues earned in the service category, and that included launch revenues and advertising commissions. Comcast disputed what a third party received, but that third party is wholly owned by Comcast, which was the root of the dispute. She indicated there was some cross-over of underpayment between the current and previous franchise holder. Mr. Pap6 indicated support for the motion. Mr. Meisner indicated agreement with the remarks of Ms. Bettman and support for the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding what recourse Comcast had under State law to pursue compensation for its legal costs, Mr. Klein said Oregon had a statute stipulating contracts which provide for prevailing fees to one party must also provide them to the other party. Mr. Poling determined from Ms. Berrian that staff recommended the three jurisdictions divide the legal costs in the event they did not prevail. Mr. Poling asked if the decisions reached in other arbitration cases could MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 2 Work Session be used to give more weight to the City's arguments once arbitration between the three jurisdictions and Comcast commenced. Mr. Lidz indicated the City could employ other decisions for persuasive value, but they were not legally binding on anyone other than the parties subject to them. Mr. Poling said he had initially planned to oppose the motion as he did not think the net gain would be worth the damage done to a good corporate citizen. However, based on legal advice and the background materials, he would support the motion at this time. Ms. Solomon said she would not support the motion. It ~felt hostile" to her and was not business-friendly toward a good corporate citizen. Mr. Meisner said the City needed to enforce its agreements. He confirmed with Mr. Klein that the outcome of binding arbitration was legally enforceable. Mr. Meisner asked about the potential of an appeal. Mr. Mecham indicated the franchise agreement does not provide for an appeal. Ms. Nathanson agreed with the remarks of Mr. Poling. She appreciated Comcast's community contribu- tions, but the situation at hand regarded a specific contractual issue. Mayor Torrey agreed Comcast was a good community citizen. However, he believed it was in the best interest of both parties that the issue be resolved before the next franchise agreement was negotiated. The motion passed, 7:1, Ms. Solomon voting no. B. An Ordinance Concerning Multiple Unit Housing and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Taylor introduced the item, reminding the council that it recently adopted the Downtown Plan, and an important element to realizing the plan's vision was downtown housing. The Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) was a tool to help stimulate downtown housing. Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman was present for the item. Mr. Weinman said the MUPTE was designed to induce new housing in downtown. Improvements were exempted for ten years while the land continued to be taxed. State statutes govern the MUPTE, and stipulate any development receiving the exemption must prove it would not have been built without the exemption. Mr. Weinman reported that the community had examples of developments that returned in taxes more the first year after the exemption ended than was foregone the previous ten years, had the project not been constructed. Mr. Weinman recalled the public hearing that was held on the ordinance and the ten people who testified in favor of the program. Four requested specific border modifications and two supported additional standards. Mr. Weinman noted the options before the council: Option 1 replaced the public benefits portion of the current application with one that referenced seven quality standards; Option 2 placed those quality standards in the preamble of the application with the expectation the applicant would address them; Option 3 retained MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 3 Work Session the public benefits portion as is; and Option 4 did not require any additional standards above those current contained in the code. Mr. Weinman recommended Option 2. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt Council Bill 4862, Option l(a), re- placing the ;;public benefits" portion of the MUPTE application with one referencing seven quality standards, adding new standards 8) ;;Designed for home ownership" and 9) %olici- tation of Comments from the relevant neighborhood association," and stipulating MUPTE applications must meet five of nine standards. Ms. Taylor asked how a developer would prove a project would not be built. Mr. Weinman said a financial analysis must be provided to the City. Ms. Taylor asked if the exemption would apply to vacant land. Mr. Weinman said the exemption applied to vacant land and already developed land. He cited cases where several small buildings were removed from a site and replaced with a larger building; the land continued to be taxed, but the small income from the three structures was taken from the tax roll over the ten year period. Ms. Taylor wanted to see a requirement that the projects constructed with the aid of the MUPTE have single rooms and studio apartments for low-income people. Mr. Weinman pointed out that each MUPTE application came to the council for approval and it could condition the incentive if it chose. Mr. Meisner said he wished to preserve the view shed before the Shelton-McMurphy Johnson House. He did not want to encourage development on the lot, and noted it was proposed for acquisition by the City at some point in the future. However, the lot still appeared to be in the boundaries on the maps before the council. Mr. Klein indicated the appropriate boundaries were reflected in Boundary Change Option C, and the lot would be deleted. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to amend the motion by substituting Option 2a for Option la, replacing the public benefits portion of the application with new language in the preamble, adding new standards 8 and 9, and including Boundary Change Option C. Ms. Nathanson supported the amendment. She determined that Mr. Meisner and Mr. Papd would accept a friendly amendment to the amendment to replace Standard 8 with "Number of units that are identified or designed for home ownership." Ms. Nathanson did not want to give applicants the impression the City was requiring that 100 percent of a project be designed for homeownership. Mr. Kelly opposed the amendment as he wanted to include the standards in the ordinance. He supported the original motion. He wanted to encourage downtown housing and wanted incentives that created good quality housing. Mr. Kelly said because each application was reviewed by the council, he wanted some sort of a ~floor" that each applicant must meet before the application reached the council to avoid creating a perception that the council was acting on an ad hoc, project-by-project basis. He did not think the standards in question were onerous and pointed out that not all needed to be met. Mr. Kelly said ifa project did not meet five of nine standards, he did not want to provide tax incentives for it. Ms. Bettman said she supported the MUPTE in the core because housing would not occur there without public assistance. She disagreed that the area in question was in the core of downtown; only some of it was. Since the City would be foregoing needed school and General Fund revenues to provide the MUPTE MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 4 Work Session incentive, it needed to be targeted to what was needed, and that was downtown as opposed to the West University Neighborhood, which she termed a ~hot market for student rentals." Ms. Bettman said that if the council did not include the standards in the ordinance, it would not see high- quality housing in the area in question. She said that the City would be giving some developers an incentive and not others, and given the oversupply of rental units and the existing nature of the neighborhood, she did not think the City would leverage any owner-occupied or long-term residency there. She thought the motion was counter to what the council was attempting to achieve in the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman moved to amend the amendment to the motion by substituting Boundary Change Option D. The amendment to the amendment to the motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman stated she would vote against the amendment. Mr. Papd asked if Mr. Meisner was willing to accept the addition of Boundary Change Option B and Boundary Change Option C as a friendly amendment to the amendment to the motion. Mr. Meisner said yes. Mr. Papd emphasized the fact all the applications would be reviewed by the council and he did not think the council would accept poor development. He thought the tool was one of the few options the City had to encourage housing in downtown. Mr. Meisner asked if developers had expressed interest in making MUPTE applications. Mr. Weinman said staff received informal contacts. At the request of Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner described the impact of the amendment to the motion as it applied to the boundaries. Ms. Bettman said the Jefferson Westside Neighbors were promised there would be no extension of the MUPTE beyond Lincoln Street. She did not believe people living at 17th Avenue and Alder Street thought they lived downtown. She reiterated her previous remarks regarding foregone revenues. Ms. Bettman maintained the council would approve all MUPTE applications in spite of their quality. The developments would put a demand on City services without paying any taxes. Ms. Taylor thought the boundaries to which the MUPTE would be applied created less incentive for building in the downtown core because development on the fringe of downtown would be subsidized. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by revis- ing the MUPTE boundary to Boundary Change Option D. Mr. Kelly said if the MUPTE was a central city housing incentive, it needed to be applied to the center of the city. He said the City needed to be careful about the incentives it offered in tight financial times. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor supported the amendment as she thought it made the MUPTE less onerous. Ms. Nathanson said the area in question was a neighborhood in distress and the properties it contained were in decline. She noted the council's many goals for the neighborhood and its recent adoption of a report forwarded by the University of Oregon-City of Eugene Joint Task Force on the West University Neighbor- hood. She asked about the condition of housing stock in the area proposed to be removed from the MUPTE boundaries. Mr. Weinman said the area in question contained a considerable amount of substandard housing. There was also the potential of condominium ownership with the MUPTE. Ms. Nathanson noted the 2002 riots took place in the area in question. For that reason, she would probably not support the motion. Mr. Pap6 said that during graduate school, his daughter lived in the area in substandard housing. He said the MUPTE was a tool to help the City improve the area, and emphasized the council could reject an application if it did not believe the public would benefit. Mr. Meisner was inclined to support the amendment. He said that there were several multi-unit develop- ments constructed in the area without a subsidy, citing specifically the development at 14th Avenue and Hilyard Street. Mr. Weinman said that development was constructed with the use of the MUPTE. The alley project near 18th Avenue and Hilyard Street was not built with the assistance of the MUPTE, but he would not characterize it as high-quality development. Mr. Kelly acknowledged there was substandard housing in the neighborhood but did not think the council would be helping the neighborhood if it defeated the motion. He noted that the West University Neighbor- hood Association indicated its support for the MUPTE was based on the inclusion of the standards. The joint task force had recommended the MUPTE as a tool, but as a tool to diversify the housing stock. Without standards, the final decision on applications was ~up to the whim" of the council. Ms. Bettman supported the boundary reduction. She thought expanding the boundary would defeat the purpose of having the MUPTE downtown. Removal of the standards gave the council no leverage over housing quality. She feared that existing housing would be tom down to accommodate higher density housing in an already dense area. Ms. Bettman said the council should adopt housing standards if it was concerned about substandard housing. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the standards were not deleted but merely placed in another part of the application. The applications would be evaluated by the council on a project-by-project basis to ensure the public benefit outweighed the temporary loss of tax revenue. The standards continued to exist; if a project did not meet the standards, the council did not have to grant the exemption. Ms. Nathanson asked staff if they had ever discouraged an application from coming to the council because it did not meet the standards. Mr. Weinman said no. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Nathanson's remarks. He wanted to see redevelopment of substandard housing in the West University Neighborhood and thought one of the ways to encourage that was through use of the MUPTE. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor questioned what proportion of the taxes on a two-story single-family large house would be applied to the land and which to the structure. Ms. Nathanson suggested the condition of the house was a factor. Mr. Weinman estimated a ratio of approximately 4:1 for the structure to land proportion. Ms. Taylor said the house could be in good enough condition to live in, but could be torn down to make way for a multi-family project, leading to the loss of needed low-cost rental property. Mayor Torrey said he would oppose the amendment in the case of a tie. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman voting yes, and Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in op- position to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the council's use of tax incentives. He said that it seemed the council had ~no restraint whatsoever" in its application of tax incentives. He said tax revenues were very limited, and the approach of %ome-one, come-all" could not be supported by the budget and he did not think it would be supported by the public. He hoped future councils exercised some discretion in their review of applications, but he would not have supported exemptions for about half of the projects that had already received the MUPTE. They were, at best, ~adequate" rather than distinctive and did not diversify the housing stock. He believed the public would get the wrong message, leading to defeat of money measures at the polls. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's remarks, Ms. Nathanson said that it was essential for the council to follow through on the goals it had for the West University Neighborhood and improve housing in that area and downtown. It would be a disservice to the community to do nothing. She said that for him to say the council had no restraint was a vast overstatement. She asked what percentage of the land area of the city was in question. She pointed out the City was not extending the exemption citywide, rather on a focused and targeted area that had been identified consistently as a place where the City wanted to see improvement. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against the main motion because of her previously stated remarks about lost revenues and subsidies to student rentals that would be built anyway. She did not think that condomin- ium development or home ownership was viable in the area given the current state of affairs. The City had taken no steps in the process to encourage quality housing or long-term residency. Mr. Meisner noted the council had modified the ordinance to target a specific area, and he hoped that meant something in the long-term. Mr. Meisner said future decisions about applications would be made by future councils, which might decide to deny applications on the basis of quality or location. He did not want to predict what a future council would do. The main motion as amended passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 7 Work Session C. An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chap- ter III-C: Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter, Carol Heinkel of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), and Planning Director Susan Muir were present for the item. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4860, an ordinance amending the Metro Plan to adopt house- keeping revisions as part of Periodic Review. Ms. Bettman asked about the status of the Westmoreland School property. Mr. Yeiter said the Metro Plan Diagram represented the staff recommendation for both schools and medium-density residential zoning on the Westmoreland site. The neighborhood association's appeal to the Planning Commission was denied and had not been appealed further. The Hearings Official's decision was effective as of 5 p.m. on April 20. There was no further avenue for appeal. The Santa Clara School site was proposed for low-density development. He noted that School District 4J had indicated a preference for commercial zoning on the site. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the motion as the appeals process had been exhausted. Mr. Pap~ said he would have liked to have seen some amendments providing flexibility in the way services could be delivered, but he understood a different process was being employed for that. Ms. Taylor asked if the lack of further appeals meant there was no hope of public open space at the Westmoreland site. Mr. Yeiter said a public park could occur on a medium-density residential designation. Mr. Klein called the council's attention to an amendment to the findings proposed by Lane County. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Poling accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment to the motion. Mayor Torrey asked what the school district could do to secure the commercial zoning it sought on the Santa Clara property. Mr. Yeiter said the district could seek concurrent amendments to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and neighborhood refinement plan. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 8 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 28, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: David Kelly. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. WORK SESSION: Civic Center Update City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, noting an advisory committee, the Civic Center Visioning Committee, had been formed to oversee the civic center planning process and was in the process of completing its work. The committee's last meeting would occur on May 18, and the council would hold a work session on its recommendations on June 16, 2004. He noted that Facilities Manager Glen Svendsen and Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge were present for the item. Mr. Pap~ arrived. Ms. Cutsogeorge said staff was in the process of determining the scope of the civic center project and did not yet know costs or how the project would be financed. She anticipated staff would have a recommenda- tion on June 16, although the details may not all be fixed. Ms. Cutsogeorge discussed financing options for a civic center. She called the council's attention to Attachment B in the meeting packet, which was a list of the various sources of funds and the purposes for which they could be used. Attachment C was a list of direct borrowing methods. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the only borrowing method that came with any money attached to it was general obligation bonds. Other borrowing methods required the City to have funding available in the budget to make annual payments. She thought it would be impossible to fund the project without some general obligation bonding unless the council wanted to save for the purpose, meaning the cost of the project would be greater in the future, or the council could reprioritize services and place more money in a capital reserve. She thought the cost of the latter option would be too high, but indicated she would bring such an option back in June. Speaking to the issue of borrowing, Ms. Cutsogeorge said it was important to first determine what money would be used to pay for the project; either up-front cash, or make payments over time. She said Oregon was fortunate in that municipalities had access to various direct borrowing methods. Once the scope of the project was known and the council had decided the source of funds for repayment of loans, staff could determine the exact vehicle to employ for borrowing for the project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nathanson arrived. Mr. Svendsen referred the council to two handouts distributed prior to the meeting: 1) Comparison of Civic Center/Police Facility Projects; and 2) How to Get the Best Value for Your Construction Dollars A Primer on Construction Delivery Methods. He distinguished between construction methods and pub- lic/private partnerships. He said that the City's construction management method involved the private sector in design or construction. He believed that when some people discussed public/private partnerships, they were discussing a situation in which the private sector had equity in a project. That was independent of the construction method employed. Referring the council to the second document, Mr. Svendsen briefly noted some of the different construction delivery methods and called the council's attention to some of the advantages and disadvantages listed under each. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments. Mr. Meisner discussed what he wanted to see in a civic center. He wanted a center that brought together City government operations, and that had implications for what City properties could be sold and what moneys were assembled. He said that raised the question of what the City's capital priorities were. Mr. Meisner suggested that had the council decided the center was a high priority two years ago it was likely it would not have voted to fund some other capital projects. He asked if, in fact, the civic center represented the City's highest capital priority, and further asked how the City could focus on that and begin to move away from maintenance of downtown facilities. Mr. Svendsen said the goal of the process was to consolidate staff and sell assets in downtown, as well as get staff out of leased spaces downtown. He thought a decision on the Atrium Building had yet to be made. Mr. Meisner requested information about the amount of square feet needed in a civic center to replace the space used by the City in the Atrium building, what would be realized from the sale, and what would be saved if the City stopped putting money into improvements into it. He also wanted to know what the City could realize from bonding against leases. He wanted a sense of how much money the City could ultimately assemble. Mr. Papd wanted Mr. Meisner's information request extended to include other City properties downtown. He wanted to have all staff housed in one place. Mr. Pap~ suggested that another approach was to have a developer build the project and then lease it to the City with a 20-year minimum lease with a dollar option. Mr. Svendsen said that was a financing strategy as opposed to a construction methodology. Mr. Pap~ said that construction management would be turned over to a developer. Mr. Svendsen said that was similar to what occurred with the Pearl Street Garage, which the City merely paid for when complete, although it was somewhat involved in the design of the facility. Mr. Pap~ believed the City wanted to be involved in the design, but beyond that thought a private developer could take over and deliver the product. Mr. Svendsen said that approach was a combination of the last two methods in the comparison, ~Design/Build (Possible Leaseback)" and ~Bridging." Ms. Bettman thought a combined police station/city hall was the City's highest capital priority. She wanted to know what it would take to succeed in getting such a facility built. She agreed with a committee member MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 2 Work Session who called for the development of a master plan to illustrate to the public what it was purchasing. She agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner regarding ways to offset the cost through the sale of assets and bonding against leases. That made the project more fiscally responsible and acceptable to the community. Ms. Bettman thought the project needed to be the City's police headquarters and City Hall. She thought it important to preserve the identity of the municipality. She said if the City was to build the center it had to be a City facility, although it may contain additional capacity that could be rented to other jurisdictions until needed. She thought the City needed to distinguish between public and private space and to place people- intensive uses instead of storage, for example, in downtown. Ms. Taylor thought the council should first discover if the public wanted new buildings. She did not think that had been determined. She said that there were many people who thought the existing city hall could be retrofitted and retained, but that idea seemed to have been dropped. She wanted to know how much space the building could accommodate when the police and fire staff were relocated to other facilities. She agreed with Ms. Bettman about people-intensive uses downtown. Ms. Taylor said the City Council should not consider putting a police station bond measure on the ballot unless it was sure it would succeed. She said the council needed to consider whether the time was right. Mayor Torrey said he would like to see a matrix of projects the City had done over the last five years showing the impact of interest rates on the bond. He said that now was a favorable financial time to construct a building because of low interest rates, and the council should consider taking advantage of that in face of the needs that existed. Mayor Torrey said that no one had taken the current building off the list of options. He wanted to know if the building was strong enough to sustain multi-story development on the north edge. He liked a concept he had heard at the design forum regarding possible modifications that could be made to the building. Speaking to Mr. Papa's comments, Mayor Torrey pointed out his suggestion about the 20-year dollar arrangement included a lease-back, and the money that supported the lease would come out of the General Fund; he questioned how the City would pay for that. He acknowledged that cities do take that approach, but it then became an operating cost for those who use the facilities. Ms. Nathanson thought there were internal and organizational efficiencies to be gained from a new civic center. She raised the question of what services were located in a civic center downtown, where the land values and construction costs were high. While she agreed with the goal of consolidating services to the extent possible, Ms. Nathanson suggested that some services did not need to be downtown because their presence did not contribute to organizational efficiency or were unnecessary in downtown. She anticipated the City would continue to have several buildings and not all services would be housed in one place. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City had ever employed a combined general obligation/revenue bond approach to fund a project. Ms. Cutsogeorge said yes, in the case of the airport. She said more than one kind of bond could be used, and confirmed, in response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, that staff was developing such scenarios. Ms. Bettman looked forward to seeing the ~framework of facts" Mr. Carlson had promised the advisory committee. She was also interested in seeing a project time line. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman shared the mayor's interest in the idea to renovate City Hall that had been raised at the design charette. She questioned how a transition to a new city hall would happen, how much time that would take, and how that impacted the financing. City Manager Taylor agreed that project phasing was an issue. Ms. Bettman asked for some "ballpark" projections. Ms. Bettman said that in terms of financial strategies, the "simpler the better." She preferred the "Competi- tive Bid" and "Competitive Sealed Proposals" construction methods as they would give the public an idea of how the project would look. She thought the council needed to give the public some good reasons for a well- defined project. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding the need for a well-defined project. He did not agree with Ms. Taylor about the current City Hall. Although he thought the renovation idea was interesting, he also thought it would be very costly. He had no desire to maintain the facility in its current condition as it was obsolete and could not easily accommodate new technology. No one knew where the front door was. It did not serve the public well. If it was to be preserved and not remodeled, the building should be sold. Mr. Pap~ suggested the council visit some of the sites listed by staff to see what different communities had done. Mr. Meisner wanted the organization to act as efficiently as possible and did not want staff in many different locations. He reminded the council that the City built a fourth floor on the library for expansion by bonding against the rents of the Information Services and Finance divisions, and further noted those services would need a new home in ten years when the space was needed for library services. Mr. Meisner wanted to ensure that space planning was done in conjunction with service planning and projections. He did not want to build a civic center complex for services the City was in the process of contracting and reducing on an annual basis. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Pap~ that a field trip would be a good idea. Speaking to the issue of the existing City Hall, she said she did not want to discard a building that could still be used, and pointed out the acoustics were better in the McNutt Room than in the new Bascom-Tykeson Room at the library. Mayor Torrey agreed about the acoustics of the library meeting room. Ms. Bettman also endorsed the idea of a field trip. She asked for some information about City Hall, and whether it could be renovated and reused. She questioned the building's marketability in light of Mr. Papa's comments. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see council offices included in a new city hall, which she thought would help the council to serve the community better. Mr. Svendsen indicated the primary issue related to the renovation of the existing city hall was that of cost. He said he would return with information on that issue. Mayor Torrey questioned whether the City could find a better site for a new city hall than the site of the existing City Hall. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 4 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Amending the November 1999 Street Classification Map Adopted by Ordinance No. 20181 to Designate Collector Streets in the Crest Drive Neighbor- hood Gary McNeel and Chris Henry of the Public Works Department were present for the item. Mr. McNeel reviewed the history of the Street Classification Study and noted that during the study adoption process in 1999, the council had directed staff to do a separate study of Crest Drive area streets because of controversy about the study. That had been done, and the study had been processed through the Planning Commission. The results of that work were before the council. The study identified one north-south corridor and one east- west corridor through the area for neighborhood collector classification. He said adoption of the ordinance would complete the classification of all streets in Eugene. Mr. McNeel called attention to Figure 60, the Street Classification Map, in the meeting packet and used the map to illustrate the staff recommendation. Mr. McNeel said the study focused on design characteristics for the roadways in question, which were located in a steep wooded area. Staff had identified the need for context-sensitive design standards intended to ensure future roadway construction in the area preserved and protected natural resources. Changes to the standards would not be included in the action taken by the council. Mr. McNeel noted the three options before the council: 1) proceed with the public hearing scheduled for May 10, 2004; 2) table the issue, thereby making no changes to the Street Classification Map; and 3) identify additional modifications to the November 1999 Street Classification Map and draft ordinances that staff should address prior to the hearing. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor acknowledged the amount of staff and citizen effort that had gone into the process, but said some of those affected by the classification only knew about the project for a couple of months. She agreed the improvements were needed and commended the context-sensitive standards but said many who supported some level of improvement doubted the need for Crest Drive to be a collector and believed the extension of Chambers Street would address the need. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to table the item until July 12, 2004. Ms. Taylor said the council and affected citizens should see the standards before the public hearing. That would also give the neighborhood time to hold its neighborhood meeting. Delay would give people time to become acquainted with the issue, and the councilors could tour the area. Mr. Pap~ did not think the public was ready for the street designation. He hoped the City would embark on a process to make the neighborhood familiar with the options and the consequences. He favored slowing the process down so the council could consider alternatives. Mr. Pap~ did not think some of the citizens in the area wanted the streets improved, and wanted to ensure that there was at a minimum safe bicycle and pedestrian passage through the area. Ms. Bettman declared a potential conflict of interest given her residence at the north end of Friendly Street, MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 6 Work Session which might be affected by the project. Ms. Bettman supported the motion to postpone the item. She thought the street could be designed in a way that provided mobility while maintaining livability. She thought the City needed to be clear with residents about what they would get before the ordinance was adopted. She wanted to know what the standards looked like and whether they would do what was needed. Mayor Torrey expressed concern that the motion brought the item back to the council too quickly. He suggested a two-part process involving a meeting between the council and residents with staff present; the concerns could be recorded, and then another meeting could be scheduled to bring about a feeling of trust. He said the roads in question were terrible, but the residents did not trust the council, and he wanted to address the trust issue before the road issue was addressed. While the council and residents might not eventually agree, at least the residents would feel heard. Ms. Taylor favored postponing the item until November, and commended the mayor's suggestion. She said the issue of who paid for the improvements was also an issue for some people. They were concerned both about the character of the neighborhood and cost. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pap~ agreed to change the date in the motion to October 25, 2004. Ms. Solomon determined from staff that the change in classification was only that and the ordinance would not lead to a project. Mr. McNeel said that no money was available for modernization projects at this time. There was a process to initiate a project, but it was a long-term process. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Taylor that more neighborhood awareness was needed, and given how long it would take for the street to be improved, she thought a few months' more delay insignificant. Mr. Meisner also supported the motion. He said the classifications made sense given how traffic moved through the neighborhood, but the standards needed to be made clear to the public in a public process. He hoped that the City looked at context-friendly street design standards on a community-wide basis. Mr. McNeel said that was what was envisioned. Mr. Meisner said he had been contacted by citizens who hoped that %ontext-friendly" was not limited to natural resources, but to residents' front yards as well. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. McNeel said the City was building narrower streets. The street that would be built in this area would be narrow and would be designed in a way that communicated it was a residential street. In addition, traffic calming efforts were included in such projects to avoid future retrofits that might have unintended consequences. Open ditch areas could be retained with the use of slotted curbs, helping to retain the rural character. Sidewalks would be installed on one side of the roadway. Staff intended to keep all improvements within the existing right-of-way and the existing roadway prism. He said the City's standard was for set-back sidewalks, but it might be possible that the sidewalk would be a curbside sidewalk given geographic constraints. Mr. Pap~ requested a memorandum from staff within 30 days regarding what was planned in terms of communicating with the residents of the area. Ms. Nathanson noted that Warren Street in her own neighborhood faced similar issues. She said it was another good example of where context-sensitive standards would be used. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Nathanson suggested the potential for pull-outs for parking on narrow streets to accommodate visitors. She said when thinking of competing goals, there was that of safer feel of setback sidewalks and the fact that meandering sidewalks can discourage use, particularly when someone was actually trying to get somewhere quickly. Ms. Bettman said the ordinance, if adopted, did not initiate a project but it enabled a project to occur. She said the only money available for the project at this time was the assessment that would be paid by the property owners. Ms. Bettman asked the width of the existing right-of-way. Mr. McNeel said that generally it was 50 or 55 feet. There were some segments with 60 feet of right-of-way. Ms. Bettman asked if the entire right-of-way would be used in all segments. Ms. Bettman reiterated her interest in seeing the design standards, once available. Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor that it was critical the residents felt listened to. She said it was also important to take their input into account. She thought there was a way to meet all the needs that existed. She thought that was also the approach to be taken to the two-way conversion of Willamette Street. Ms. Taylor said even though an improvement project was not scheduled, people were still concerned about the project costs. Mr. Pap6 saw no reason for haste given that the area in question was not experiencing much development and was largely already developed. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the nature of context-sensitive design standards, Mr. McNeel said that the affected public would be extensively consulted so the roadway fit the surround- ings. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 8 Work Session