Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/12/05 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber—City Hall December 12, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman. Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. She noted that Linda Dawson, Grants Manager for the Community Development Division, had been awarded the City of Eugene International Human Rights Day Staff Recognition Award on December 10. She said each year the Human Rights Commission recognized a City of Eugene work unit or employee for their contribution in the area of human rights and in the promotion of social justice. She related that Ms. Dawson oversaw the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee. She spoke glowingly of the work that Ms. Dawson did on behalf of the community and its residents. Ms. Dawson was given a round of applause. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - International City County Management Association Performance Measurement Award City Manager Dennis Taylor was pleased to acknowledge the receipt of the certificate of distinction from the Center for Performance Management. He said the City of Eugene took performance management seriously and had been a national leader in this effort for 10 years. He stated that Eugene was one of a handful of communities to receive this certificate. He commended the efforts of staff across the organization in gathering the data, using it to inform their decision-making, and communicating with the community about it. He said a publication called Community Snapshots would be published by the end of the month and would contain some of the key measures for performance in the City. City Manager Taylor listed some examples of the leadership the City of Eugene demonstrated in promoting the effective use of performance management: ? The City of Eugene helped launch a new Oregon Performance Consortium that would allow the City to share high quality comparative data with 13 other Oregon communities. ? The City of Eugene founded, in collaboration with the Oregon Progress Board, a new organization that brought together people from state and local government to improve the practice of performance measurement in the state. ? The City was awarded a Trailblazer Grant from the National Center for Civic Innovation to improve performance reporting to share what had been learned with other communities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session City Manager Taylor lauded Service Improvement Manager, Terrie Monroe, and all of the people in City’s departments who work hard to make performance management a part of the City’s culture. Those present applauded. Mayor Piercy shared her pride in the award and thanked those responsible for their work. Mayor Piercy reported that Councilor Bettman and Councilor Ortiz were attending a conference on civilian review boards. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy welcomed everyone to the City Council meeting and reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, asserted that Westmoreland residents had begun to move to avoid a rush. He was unhappy with the council because he wanted them to speak out about it. He opined that closing Westmoreland student housing was racist and would make the city a future hotbed for Ku Klux Klan activity. He felt the City should not ignore the actions of the University of Oregon in closing the student housing. He urged the councilors to speak about it. He averred that silence was “enabling a dictatorship.” th Melissa Mona , East 16 Avenue, shared her support for the Council Priority on Homelessness. She said unlike many cities, Eugene had not begun to formulate a 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness. She was concerned the City was missing a valuable opportunity for technical support and cooperation by “side- stepping this option.” She related that the task force assigned to this priority worked closely with the Human Services Commission (HSC), a County organization, and at a forum homeless people had been asked to provide ideas of small things that would help them. She felt the forum was not an opportunity for the homeless people to identify their most basic and urgent need, which was housing. She labeled it a “political dog and pony show.” She underscored that the best way to prevent homelessness was to provide housing. She called housing a form of health care and a basic need. Ms. Mona commented that by not providing a secular shelter, the City abdicated the oversight and planning of any homeless shelter to a private religious organization. She said while she respected the Eugene Mission’s efforts, because it did not receive public money it was not held to the standards of human rights as outlined in the City of Eugene’s human rights code. She felt homeless people were being coerced into a situation that was unacceptable by making it illegal for homeless people to sleep outdoors. In closing, Ms. Mona observed that it was cold outside. She said as a social service worker, she had worked with over 200 chronically homeless people in the last 12 months, most of whom were permanent residents and fellow citizens of the city. She submitted her testimony in writing. Norman Riddle , 1238 Crest Drive, agreed with Ms. Mona. He stated that he had been a homeless outreach worker, counselor, and case manager for 18 years. He remarked that he sometimes felt he had a “magic bag of tricks,” but one thing that was missing from those tricks was the ability to convey to the council that a portion of the homeless population was being ignored. He said it was 29 degrees outside and approximately 25 people were wandering around trying to stay awake in order to keep from freezing. He shared that the sadness and pain was “unbearable.” He had reviewed the plan on homelessness and did not see anything in the plan for the people he wanted to serve. He felt he would have to continue to answer questions from MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session people about why there was no place for them to live. Mr. Riddle did not believe economics was truly a part of the equation as his clients used “incredible amounts” of emergency room time and money, police department time and money, and jail space. He said both Portland and Seattle had realized that it was cheaper to open a shelter. He urged the council to consider the prudence of this idea. It was hoped that a forum of homeless people could be held in January or February to have them share their experiences and information. He stated that a National Homeless Person’s Memorial Day observance would be held on December 21 as part of the national effort to provide healthcare to homeless people at which the names of people who had died on the streets in the past year would be read. He said candles would be lit for them. Russ Brink , 132 East Broadway, speaking on behalf of Downtown Eugene, Incorporated (DEI), said the council would hear from several downtown business and property owners at this meeting and then more after the break. He predicted that 2006 would be a critical year for the downtown area. He averred that the City and private sector and non-profit organizations in the downtown area needed to come together and make some of the development projects happen. He said perceptions needed to be changed among community residents about the present and future downtown and public safety needed to be improved. He recommended that the City elevate the development of the safety and cleanliness in the downtown area as well its effectiveness and viability back onto the council’s list of priorities. Thomas Emmons , 859 Willamette Street, Suite 500, Vice President of Lunar Logic Finance Administration, stated that Lunar Logic was a software company headquartered in the Park Place building and employing 150 people in the area at several locations. He related that Lunar Logic had looked forward to relocating its headquarters to the downtown area, but during that time some employees brought up concerns about security and parking. He said most of the concern revolved around the increased cost of parking and parking in garages located two blocks away. He stated that the company helped alleviate concerns by continuing to support alternative modes of transportation, such as bus passes and subsidized parking, as well as a secured bicycle room. Mr. Emmons reported that employees had experienced, since the move, several vehicle crimes ranging from property damage to vehicle theft. Additionally, he related that some employees questioned their personal safety especially in leaving the building after dark. He wanted to be able to let employees know that the City of Eugene was doing something about these safety problems. He stated that Lunar Logic wished to continue to expand its business in the downtown area. He believed that public safety played a critical role in developing the economic health and sustainability of all downtown Eugene businesses. He looked forward to increased security measures in the area. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Home Builders Association, said she had testified in support of the recommendation on the Chambers Area special area zone and she had failed to do so in front of council. She wanted to make the council aware of the association’s support for it and urged the council to support it as well. She applauded the process by which the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) worked with the City. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, commented that the River Avenue improvements may not need to be built to regular standards for a multi-use path. He thought significant savings could be realized if asphalt was used instead of concrete. He suggested that this money could be redirected to build parking access for the Willamette Greenway bicycle system. He also expressed concern about the pedestrian crossing by the post office on River Avenue. He said significant efforts should be made to provide for greater awareness of pedestrians in the form of better signage and possibly rumble strips and different colored pavement. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session John Rowell , One East Broadway, spoke on behalf of Kazem Oveissi and Greg Brokaw, with whom he co- owns the building at the aforementioned location. He stated that the three businessmen recently remodeled and moved their small family businesses there. He related that he observed much activity in that area between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. while working late. He requested more police presence there as he rarely saw patrols coming through that area. He noted that they had been advised to call 9-1-1, but were reluctant to do so as their lights were frequently the only ones on and they were concern there would be retaliation. He reported that all of the store windows had been damaged, plants had been pulled out, windows had been spit on, and drug transactions had been witnessed in the parking lot within the last four or five months. He added that sun shades they had installed had been climbed on and damaged. He expressed concern about the risk in investing in the downtown area. He stressed that if the City wished to see small investors mixing in with the larger ones, the City needed to help out and make the downtown area a safe place to invest in. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Kelly commented that Ms. Mona’s point regarding the formation of a 10-year plan for ending chronic homelessness was well-taken. He recalled that when the council discussed the initiative earlier in the year, it had been told that Lane County had begun that process. He had requested a report on their progress. He said he had yet to receive this report. He wished to ensure that the County was moving forward aggressively in its efforts in this endeavor and that the City’s efforts were a complement to those made by the County. City Manager Taylor noted that he was meeting with Lane County Director of Human Services, Steve Manela, on the following day. He said he would make this the first topic of discussion. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes -October 24, 2005, City Council Meeting -October 26, 2005, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Appointment to Human Services Commission Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Mayor Piercy noted Councilor Bettman’s corrections to the minutes, submitted electronically. Councilor Papé recalled a discussion earlier in the year about having a presentation on Leadership on Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. He wondered if it could be scheduled for early in 2006. City Manager Taylor said it was on the list of things that would be placed on the schedule and he was relatively certain the discussion would be timely. Councilor Kelly stated that he had submitted a correction to the minutes electronically. Mayor Piercy deemed the correction, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session 4.PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adopting a New Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (“PROS Comprehensive Plan”) as a Refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 4127 and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section 9.9550 of that Code; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date City Manager Taylor asked Parks Planning Manager for the Parks and Open Space Division, Carolyn Weiss, to present the outline of the new Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Weiss stated that the PROS plan provided concepts, goals, and strategies to guide the enhancement and preservation of Eugene’s parks, recreation, and open space system for the next 20 years. She underscored that the plan was the result of over three years of planning and public involvement, overseen by a Mayor’s advisory committee made up of eleven community members. She stated that extensive public outreach formed the basis of the plan including a statistically valid survey, a youth questionnaire, speakers’ bureau presentations to over 44 groups, and 7 community-wide forums, among others. Staff also met with the Lane County Board of County Commissioners and the Lane County Planning Commission, as well as the Eugene Planning Commission, which held a public hearing on October 11. She reiterated the Eugene Planning Commission’s approval of the plan with amendments. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Home Builders Association (LCHBA) and the Home Builders Construction Company, underscored the LCHBA’s support for parks. However, the LCHBA did not support the PROS Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the document contained all of the projects and maps included in it originally, but the list had been removed. She asserted this would allow staff to promote a “legal fiction.” She said though there was an identified need for 1,626 additional acres, assumed to be acquired within the existing urban growth boundary (UGB), the plan assumed there would be no impact on the current land supply. She alleged that staff said it was “just a plan” and that the plan would not do anything. She said the project list that would come before the City Council to adopt by resolution in March would not be a land use measure. She felt this meant there would be no discussion on the impact on the land supply. She thought staff was saying that the City of Eugene could purchase “every single acre” of land designated for residential use inside the UGB with no such impact. She called this an abandonment of the basic concepts of the State land use system. She declared that the process should include how the plan would impact other land uses. John Dotson , 2447 Canterbury Street, said the reason he had come to testify was that he had not had time to read the plan. He was uncertain the plan was a step forward. He thought merely broadening the interpretation of what was planned might not be a good way to make progress. He felt there should be incremental ways to know the plan was moving forward and making progress. He said there needed to be performance standards to measure against. He requested more time for public input. Kate Perle , 4740 Wendover Street, requested that the record be left open for seven days. She related that members of her neighborhood organization had difficulty gaining access to the plan because it was only available online or through an office copy kept in the Public Works Department office. She averred that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session original PROS plan had been created for a project list since “removed” from the plan, but now the plan was “insufficient to stand alone” as the guiding document for Eugene’s parks for the next 20 years. She thought it was made up of a long list of possible park improvements and acquisitions accompanied by a long list of potential funding sources with no real plan for implementation. She did not think the plan should be adopted in its present state. She claimed the plan continued to pay lip service to the idea of creating a balanced, equitable system of parks and recreation services, but did little advance this aim. She referred to Table B-2, which delineated the planning sub-area of River Road and Santa Clara. She underscored that Santa Clara was grossly underserved. She submitted her testimony in writing. Ellen Hyman , 3863 Dorchester Lane, said there were no major differences between the first draft of the plan and the one that was before the council except that the entire priority list had been eliminated. She opined that this rendered the document useless “except as nicely worded fluff.” She observed that since the 1970s there had been public record conversations about the need for parks and opens spaces in Santa Clara. She thought in reading the documents one would think there was a huge commitment to ensure the core values of equitable distribution of parks and open spaces within the community. She did not think the PROS Plan indicated how this equity would be achieved. She reiterated the need for more park area in Santa Clara. She opined that if the PROS Plan was the blueprint for a bond measure, then the 1998 bond measure clearly delineated what funds should be spent on. She stated that according to expenditures, $3 million had not been spent, including spending designated for four planned projects. She said money from the bond measure was used for planning, including $33,000 for signage, nearly $250,000 for the PROS plan ($104,000 from SDCs), and almost $500,000 for projects that were not identified or approved in the original bond measure. She averred that this did not include $8 million in SDC money, much of which was collected from Santa Clara. She declared that of the $25 million in the bond measure, only $387,000 had been spent in Santa Clara for the development of two parks. She commented that she would be hard-pressed to support another bond measure for parks given how the money had been spent thus far. Larry Reed , of JRH Transportation Engineering at 4765 Village Plaza Loop, submitted his testimony in writing. He opined that the PROS Plan was fatally flawed. He based his position on three premises: 1. The plan did not take into account the open space owned by the County, State, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area nor the Willamette Greenway. It also overlooked the park space located at school sites. He thought this could open the door for lawsuits as these lands were required to be included in the inventory by law. 2. The plan was premature and out of balance and was not done in conjunction with other planning elements such as community housing, homelessness, economic development, job growth and transportation. 3. If the City adopted this plan, the City Council’s hands would be tied in the future as the City staff would instruct the council that it could not revisit these goals and policies. Mr. Reed asked the council to send the plan back to the staff with the direction to review, incorporate, and coordinate this “great vision” into the community’s broader land use planning. Debbie Jeffries , 3800 North Delta Highway, concurred with the remarks of Mr. Reed. She thought the main flaw of the PROS plan was that it lacked a foundation of facts. She said the plan omitted almost 3,000 acres including the McKenzie River and the Willamette River, both of which were within the planning region outside the City and metropolitan planning area. She wished to remind people that her property was not inside the city boundaries and she had not received any notice about the plan, although it included land outside the city. She averred that the process had not defined that it was going outside the city’s boundaries MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session and the metropolitan area. She said it had not included any participation by Lane County. She commented that as a property owner with property within the UGB but outside the city’s boundary, the council’s decision did impact her property. Ms. Jeffries stated that the council had its priorities and its priorities should be infrastructure and public safety. She opined that parks and open space would not make a “hill of beans” worth of difference if Eugene was not a safe place to be and there was not a safe way to get to the park. She suggested the council revisit it and return it to the Planning Commission. Terry Connolly , 1401 Willamette Street, on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, wished to reaffirm that parks made a positive contribution to the overall quality of life of the community including the economy. He said from a land use planning aspect and in consideration of the limited amount of land available within the UGB, the PROS plan was not a comprehensive plan as it was not being integrated with other ongoing planning activities such as the Goal 5 Natural Resources Inventory. He reiterated that it also did not take into account existing public lands such as the West Eugene Wetlands. He conveyed the chamber’s concern on what the potential impact would be on the buildable land supply within the UGB if the PROS plan was implemented. He thought a truly comprehensive plan would include such an analysis. He predicted that at the conclusion of the PROS plan, the City would have undergone another planning exercise that would ultimately result in actions that would reduce the buildable land inventory. He thought the council would take a comprehensive look to determine what impacts might be relative to existing inventory and then other planning activities would have been skipped on the technicality that the PROS plan and its project list were completely separate no matter how much future acquisition of land resembled implementation of the PROS document. He said the chamber wished the Planning Commission had been a little more assertive in its advice that the PROS Plan fell short of being a truly comprehensive plan. th Bill Kloos , 375 West 4 Avenue, Suite 204, speaking on behalf of the LCHBA, provided copies of a two- page letter he submitted to the City Manager. He shared the four points in the letter: 1. Adoption of the PROS Plan would bring other laws into play as the plan had to meet legal standards found in State statutes, Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) rules, the definition of a comprehensive plan, and in the Metro Plan. The City needed to follow through with the plan and state how it would be implemented. 2. The plan would debit the inventory of buildable lands and had already done so. 3. The plan extended parks planning “deep into Lane County.” He remarked that Lane County was not happy with the City of Eugene and was thinking it should co-adopt the plan with the city. 4. There was a surprising lack of funding for the plan. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, read a letter into the record. He opined that the 1989 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan was more clear and concise than the present PROS plan. He thought the plan could not be called comprehensive without a project list. He noted the 1989 plan included such a list. He opined that the plan lacked policies, adding that he had listed 103 policies contained in the 1989 plan. He asked how many 1989 projects had not been built and wondered if they should not be moved to the top of the list. He echoed previous testimony regarding the removal of the project list. He asked if the PROS plan would be subject to annual review. He suggested that in the next 20 years, the City should include plant and animal habitat in the title and give it the recognition and attention it deserved. He questioned the methodology used to inventory lands and the goal of equitable distribution of park resource types as proposed. He objected specifically to the development of Striker Field in the Willakenzie area. He averred that this proposed project had not been supported by data received during public comment on the draft MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session PROS plan when it went into the separate project district areas. He was appalled that a neighborhood park could be redesignated to a community park without due public process. He called it excessive to have three sports park facilities within a two-mile radius. He submitted his testimony in writing. He requested the record remain open until the project list and the PROS plan could be considered at the same time. Charles Moss , 4255 Burrywood Drive, stated that it had cost him $15 to obtain a copy of the PROS Plan. He noted that the copy available at the Public Works Department was a draft, dated July 2005. He felt there had been big changes from the draft to the final copy, including the following changes: ? Chapter 4 changed from strategies and actions to only strategies; ? Chapter 5 changed to funding options and did not explain where the money would be spent; ? Chapter 6 included performance measures that, as indicated, still needed development. Mr. Moss said he would like to see where the money would be spent and then he would be able to measure performance. He noted that Appendix A described the benefits of a public plaza including that it provides positive community identity. He opined that if community identity was so important, why were the City and School District 4J standing by the decision to raze the Santa Clara Elementary School building? He asserted that residents wanted the historic building as part of their community identity. Mr. Moss reviewed Appendix B, which delineated the proportion of population to developed acres of park by areas of the community. He underscored that the Santa Clara/River Road area of the City contained 18 percent of the population and one percent of developed park acres. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, echoed the comments made in previous testimony. He averred that the City’s parks had been stolen from the people. He reiterated concerns he made in the summer regarding the park in the University area. He blamed the media for not paying better attention to the issue. He felt that developers wanted to do public/private partnerships outside the UGB and that parks were a “trick” to get people to agree to “break” the UGB in order to further development. He repeated his objections to the River Play playground development under construction in Skinner Butte Park. He said the City needed to stop using parks as “weapons against neighborhoods.” Jerry Finigan , 1250 Irvington Drive, said he was a resident in Santa Clara and had been a stakeholder in the 1989 parks plan. He underscored that 15 years later, not much had happened. He had been encouraged by the PROS plan, but after reading it he did not feel it told him very much. He agreed that without a project list, the plan did not hold as much weight. Dan Arkin , 655 Goodpasture Island Road, #28, stated that he had served on the committee that developed the PROS plan. He said the citizens who sat on the committee for 2-1/2 years tried to do their best job. He thought the one word that would sum up the goal the committee tried to keep in mind for the process was “balance.” He hoped that even Ms. Cuellar would admit that. He commented that it was an impossible goal to achieve perfection. He was proud of what the committee had done, as it was the best it could be. He underscored that it was impossible to please everyone but he believed the committee had done a “damned good job” in its attempt to do so. He said the committee was very aware that the City had no right to dictate to jurisdictions outside of the boundaries of Eugene what would happen to property, but nonetheless, the committee sought to create a whole plan that needed to be integrated into a region and coordinated with what was going on and available in other areas. The concept was to do this through negotiation, cooperation, and mutual assistance. He wished to address two other issues and did so in written testimony submitted to the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and called for comments and questions from the council. Councilor Kelly stated that the packet included a follow-up to questions raised in the work session, one of which was whether the plan should be adopted as a refinement plan. He asked the City Manager if council direction was needed as to what option for adoption of the plan should be used. City Manager Taylor stated that the recommended option was Option B, though there were no strong feelings in opposition to Option C. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to keep the record open until December 30, 2005. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Weiss indicated that leaving the record open for two weeks would be sufficient. Councilor Poling asked why the project list had been removed from the plan. Ms. Weiss responded that the list needed to be flexible and able to adapt as new funding mechanisms became available. She stressed that the amendment process would be extensive; should the project list be included and need to be changed, and would take a lot of resources. She conveyed staff’s feeling that the plan should be a “living document.” City Attorney Jerry Lidz reiterated that the idea behind the plan was that it would provide the guidance and the vision, while the project list would remain a living document. He said the hope was that staff and the council would be able to be “lighter on their feet” in terms of amending the project list to respond to opportunities that may arise. Roll call vote; the motion to keep the record open until December 30 passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Papé asked if the PROS plan would be reintegrated into the Metro Plan. He questioned the wisdom of having both exist separately. Ms. Weiss replied that the current recommendation was to adopt the PROS plan as a refinement to the Metro Plan. City Manager Taylor clarified that, should the council direct it, Option C would be a strategy that would be equally viable. He reiterated that the way staff was recommending adoption was the traditional way, similar to the 1989 plan, but council requested some legal foundation for another way of adopting the plan. Councilor Papé asked how the council could approach its governmental partners and ask how they liked the City’s aspirations without a project list. Ms. Weiss replied that the project list was available for review on the City’s Web site. She underscored that the intent was that the resolution process by which the project and priority plan would be adopted would include a public hearing and then the list would be inserted into the PROS plan as an appendix. She stated that the whole document would then read as one, but the plan and the list were undergoing separate adoption processes so that it would facilitate amendment to the list as needed. City Manager Taylor stated that there had been council direction to bring back smaller lists sooner with regard to bond issues. He said the process that had been recommended was to have the PROS plan MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session discussion and then a short list of bond issue projects would be brought for consideration in November 2006. Subsequent to this, the project list would be brought to before the council for approval. Councilor Papé asked what was happening with the plan for a community park in the Santa Clara area. Ms. Weiss responded that staff was currently evaluating different options and looking at smaller parcels both within and outside the UGB. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Papé, Ms. Weiss agreed that the number of existing acres of park in the Santa Clara area was not equitable. She said within the proposed parks plan there would be additions to the neighborhood and community park categories in that area. She reiterated that the project list pointed this out. Councilor Pryor observed that the part of the driving force for wanting to get the PROS plan adopted sooner rather than later had to do with the upcoming bond discussion. Ms. Weiss affirmed this. Councilor Pryor surmised from testimony and from input from the community that there was a real lack of trust with regard to having the PROS plan and the project list as two separate pieces. He did not perceive that people thought that the parks plan project list would be distributed equitably. He said the notion that the acres envisioned for future parks coming out of some place also needed to be fully vetted. He thought the list should be refined and recalled a council discussion on a bond project list. He recalled an earlier version, also called a PROS plan, which created so much controversy it wound up being adopted as an internal document. Because of this, he felt very aware of how distrust could actually “shoot one in the foot.” In addition to leaving the record open, he suggested the council discuss whether it should allow a bond measure to compel it to put out the plan prematurely. He felt the project list could be left a separate document if that was necessary, but it needed to be kept to a parallel course. Councilor Kelly asked what happened to the 1998 bond measure and the project list that went with it. Ms. Weiss replied that the 1998 bond measure process had taken a long time. She recalled that the committee met at length, having started from scratch. She said they did not have an initial project list or priorities. Councilor Kelly asked if the process for the bond measure had utilized the project list from the 1989 plan. Parks and Open Space Director Johnny Medlin responded that the land use arena was different now than it was at that time. As far as the process for the bond, he said the plan from 1989 was ten years old and contained a number of projects that had been implemented and also some projects that, as time passed and the community changed, seemed less prudent to pursue. He recalled the “Field of Dreams” group which tried to get the community moving around the issue of sports facilities. He said this “snowballed” into more conversation about a bond. He noted that, at that time, there had been council and staff discussions about whether to launch a bond or conduct an update of the parks plan prior to launching a bond. He hoped that the PROS Plan process provided an improved foundation with strategies and framework in the document and then a large community effort on the project generation that would come in the subsequent document. He acknowledged that the project list was large and indicated that the comments and direction from the council, particularly on whether there would be a short list of projects in a bond, would be critical to the modification of the list for adoption. Mayor Piercy adjourned the City Council at 9:03 p.m. Mayor Piercy convened the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 9:10 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session 5. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: Resolution 1036 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2005 and Ending June 30, 2006 Budget Manager Kitty Murdoch explained that this first supplemental budget of the year sought to reconcile the estimates put into the budget. She said in the case of the Urban Renewal Agency (URA), the two estimates that were being reconciled were the beginning working capital estimate and the capital carryover estimate. She noted one other transaction: the rebudgeting of the $500,000 that had been appropriated for the Patterson Underpass. She stated that this money would go to the City of Eugene should there be an agreement in the future on doing such a project. She stressed that these funds would not be spent until staff received further direction. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, felt there had been a lack of dialogue regarding URA spending. He said he had no idea what the URA was doing and he thought the media did not know anything about it either. He expressed concern that the Willamette Greenway would be lost because of urban renewal projects. He called urban renewal a “negative thing in this community.” Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Urban Renewal Agency President Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to adopt Resolution 1036 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. Mayor Piercy reconvened the Eugene City Council at 9:15 p.m. 6. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION: Resolution 4855 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2005, and Ending June 30, 2006 Ms. Murdoch explained that this supplemental budget would reconcile three estimates that were in the adopted budget: beginning working capital; the reserve for encumbrance; and the capital carryover estimate. She described the three reconciliations. She noted one new budget request of $22,748 not previously discussed from the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, which sought to pay backfill for emergency service workers who were called to the Gulf of Mexico area. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak on the item, Mayor Piercy closed the hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session Councilor Papé asked if there was a way to “tighten up” the budget process so that there would not be $1 million that was not budgeted at the end of the year. Ms. Murdoch replied that the $1.8 million represented between one and two percent of the total General Fund and was actually less of a variance than the previous year. She commented that the Finance Division felt uncomfortable in going below a one percent variance in its estimates. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to adopt Resolution 4855 adopting a Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend the supplemental budget resolution to increase the Planning and Development Department’s General Fund expenditure by $8,617 and decrease the General Fund Contingency account by the same amount in order for the department to pay Downtown Eugene, Incorporated (DEI) a “fifth quarter” payment on City-owned properties for support of the organization’s downtown marketing efforts. Councilor Kelly pointed out that DEI had been working to expand its mission in “branding” the downtown and, as of three weeks ago, more than 60 percent of the downtown property owners had agreed to the “fifth quarter” payment. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed unanimously, 6:0. Roll call vote; the main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 6:0. 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Requesting That Jurisdiction Over Portions of County Road Nos. 1313, 32, 543, 636, 1695, 1697, 1696, 1511, 1430, 1557, 2097, 2050, 1003, 2143, 2228, 200, 1123, 1500, 2236, and 548 Be Transferred to the City of Eugene Within a Specified Period of Time City Manager Taylor asked City Engineer Mark Schoening, to explain the ordinance. Mr. Schoening stated that the ordinance being considered would initiate the process of transferring jurisdiction of 21 different road segments totaling 4.27 miles from the County to the City. He said the roads had been annexed to the City over the past 13 years and, in general, served City residents. He reported that the Metro Plan provided the policy framework for this jurisdictional transfer in that it declared the City the logical service provider within the UGB. He recommended the council move forward with adoption of the ordinance should there be no testimony at the Public Hearing. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, she closed the public hearing. In response to a question from Councilor Papé, Mr. Schoening said some of the roads were improved and some were unimproved. Councilor Papé asked if the City of Eugene would take over and assume maintenance responsibility for the roads and whether any “money was coming with it.” Mr. Schoening responded that there was not money MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session coming from the County, but there was an existing agreement with the County that divided the maintenance of roads based more on logical geographic boundaries than jurisdictional boundaries. He noted that some of the roads in the River Road/Santa Clara area were already maintained by the City and others were not. Councilor Papé asked if the City had talked with the County about how it was “giving us sour milk.” Mr. Schoening replied that City/County funding of road improvements was an ongoing conversation. Councilor Papé indicated he would not support the ordinance because he did not believe the City and the County had reached an agreement that meted out funding for road maintenance equitably. Mayor Piercy ascertained from the council that there were no objections to taking action at the present meeting. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4913, an ordinance requesting transfer of jurisdiction of County roads to the City of Eugene. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:2; councilors Papé and Kelly voting in opposition. Councilor Solomon asked if there was a way to stop annexing roads until the issue Councilor Papé raised could be addressed. City Manager Taylor replied that it was not annexation, in that the roads affected by the ordinance were already within the incorporated city limits. He felt the ordinance was part of a rationalization of how the City provided road maintenance. He reminded the council that there was an agreement with the County that had come with the transfer of jurisdiction, the partnership funding from the County Road Fund. He said the City benefited from this partnership and expressed hope that the County would continue this. Councilor Solomon asked why it was not possible to stop. City Manager Taylor said he would provide her with follow-up information from the Public Works Director and from the City Engineer about why it was thought to be a good policy to continue to pursue this and what the consequences would be if the City stopped assuming jurisdiction for the County roads that lay within the City limits. Councilor Solomon said she wished the City could stop assuming responsibility for roads until the County came to the table with some money. 8. ACTION: An Ordinance Establishing a Chambers Special Area Zone; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.1030, 9.8030, and 9.8865 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.3050 Through 9.3065 to That Code; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4912, an ordinance establishing a Chambers Special Area Zone. Councilor Kelly moved to amend proposed Eugene Code Section 9.3065(3)(a) to delete the following words from the first sentence of paragraph (a): “there is no minimum density requirement regardless of lot size, and…” The motion died for lack of a second. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session Councilor Kelly thought that rowhouse and condominium development could be compatible for the neighborhood. He noted that staff indicated that this change in language would necessitate development of additional design standards. Because of this, he provided an amendment to the motion in this regard and a separate motion to give staff direction to develop those standards. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend proposed Eugene Code Section 9.3065(3)(h) by deleting part 7 from paragraph (h). Councilor Solomon asked if it would be necessary to pass the amendment for the stand-alone motion to be made. Councilor Kelly replied that it would be pointless to direct staff to develop additional design standards without approval of the amendment. Councilor Solomon acknowledged the work and dedication of the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) and said she could not support the amendment on the face of it. She could, however, support the directive to staff should it be so moved. Councilor Papé asked Councilor Kelly what the City would have with the passage of this amendment. Councilor Kelly replied that lot aggregation and lot adjustments would then be the same in this area as in other areas of the City. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Papé, Senior Planner Allen Lowe stated that the language had been placed in this ordinance to ensure that any new development, redevelopment, and infill occurring in the neighborhood would be consistent with the driving feature of the neighborhood - the establishment and continuance of single-family detached dwellings. He underscored that this was the description of the character of the neighborhood. He said removal of the lot aggregation clause would permit acquisition and combination of a series of lots for the purpose of erecting rowhouse developments which, in the opinions of CAFHN members and staff, would be inconsistent with the existing character of the 12-block area. Councilor Taylor opposed the amendment. She said it would negate the whole effect of the plan to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:1; Councilor Kelly voting in favor. Councilor Poling commended the work of the CAFHN group and staff on this issue. He particularly appreciated that the approach of the CAFHN group had been very professional, characterizing it as “low- key in one way, but high pressure in another.” He cited it as an example of what could be done when people worked as a neighborhood or a community toward a common goal. He commented that he could not praise the work done on the project enough. Councilor Kelly said while he appreciated the process that CAFHN undertook, he thought the goal of compact urban development needed to be balanced against the desires of the neighborhood. He was concerned that the change that came with growth would become a great deal of “sprawl.” He thought the Chambers Area project felt like a “half project” and would be a small step toward the breakdown of land use planning. Councilor Papé echoed the comments of Councilor Poling. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session Mayor Piercy remarked that she would support the ordinance in the unlikely event there would be a tie. She commended CAFHN and staff for the work they had done. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:1; Councilor Kelly voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy wished everyone happy holidays. She adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 12, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session