The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: December 14, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the September 30, 2009, Work Session, October 5, 2009, Boards and Commissions Interviews, October 12, 2009, City Council Meeting, October 13, 2009, Boards and Commissions Interviews, October 19, 2009, Boards and Commissions Interviews, October 19, 2009, Public Hearing, October 26, 2009, City Council Meeting, and October 26, 2009, City Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. September 30, 2009, Work Session B. October 5, 2009, Boards and Commissions Interviews C. October 12, 2009, City Council Meeting D. October 13, 2009, Boards and Commissions Interviews E. October 19, 2009, Boards and Commissions Interviews F. October 19, 2009, Public Hearing G. October 26, 2009, City Council Meeting H. October 26, 2009, City Council Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091214\S0912142A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S City Council McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon September 30, 2009 Noon PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, George Brown. ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Work Session of the Eugene City Council. She reviewed and revised the order of the agenda. A. WORK SESSION: West Eugene EmX Extension Update City Manager Jon Ruiz stated that City staff had spent much time with Lane Transit District (LTD) staff working on this key project. He stressed that staff was committed to continue working with LTD as the project moved forward. LTD Board President, Mike Eyster, said the region had made a long-term commitment to quality by reducing greenhouse gases and congestion, and ensuring that all residents had access to public transporta- tion. He stated that part of this commitment had been “crystallized” through the Transportation Plan, which had committed the region to a 62-mile build-out of a transportation spine. He recalled the City Council th motion, made in October, 2006, that asked LTD to make the West 11 Avenue area moving west of downtown the next route for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. The LTD Board had endorsed the City Council action and had initiated the studies that were needed to consider that area for the next route for EmX. He explained that the presentation sought to outline the public engagement process that had been completed to date, noting that it had been “considerable,” and to seek direction on the public engagement for the 60-day public comment period for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and to provide direction on the Joint Locally Preferred Alternative Committee process. LTD Director of Planning and Development, Tom Schwetz, gave a Powerpoint presentation on the West Eugene EmX Extension Project, hard copies of which were provided to everyone present. He explained that there had been an update in the schedule; the draft EIS would be delayed approximately five months and would not be completed in January. He said the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) had requested more data to support the Travel Demand Forecasting model. He related that they had met with FTA representa- tives on September 25, and they had given the sign-off that the model was ready to use. He stated that the FTA had also requested an extended draft EIS review time – four weeks instead of two. He projected that the EIS would be released in mid-July. Mr. Schwetz touched on the challenges they had faced with public engagement, which included the difficulties inherent in trying to communicate the comprehensive nature of the environmental analysis and the struggle the general public had in understanding complex federal requirements. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 1 Mr. Eyster observed that though LTD undertook “heavy duty” public engagement, the process was so long that the public sometimes did not remember what had happened before. He said it was challenging to keep the public engaged over time. Mr. Schwetz highlighted the Range of Environmental Disciplines to be Addressed in West Eugene EmX Extension Draft EIS. He noted that the list was somewhat standard. th Mr. Schwetz stated that the option that would have traversed 8 Avenue had been taken off the table as a result of public input. He stressed that they were trying to avoid and minimize impacts of the project. He showed five slides with lists of the different public outreach events and opportunities LTD had engaged in. He noted that the design at this point was eight to ten percent complete. He underscored that they went through this process to get to that point so that they could have what the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) experts referred to as the footprint of the project. Mr. Schwetz stated that they had been engaging the Title VI communities and had been successful in doing so. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, he explained that Title VI was related to race and poverty. LTD Board member, Greg Evans, added that it had been part of the Civil Rights Act. Mr. Schwetz highlighted the Expanded WEE Corridor Committee. Mr. Eyster added that they welcomed any recommendations the councilors might have of constituents who had an interest in participating. He underscored LTD’s desire to ensure it was an inclusive process. Mr. Schwetz reviewed the Quick Response Project, noting that they were being aided by design consultants from Cameron McCarthy Gilbert & Shiebe Landscape Architects. He showed a slide of the LPA Selection Process, which outlined the draft-decision making process for the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). He said LTD’s preference would be to hold a joint public hearing with the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and the Eugene City Council in the winter of 2010. He related that LTD was proposing to form a Joint LPA Committee (JLPAC) that would include two to three members of each of the decision-making bodies, the council, MPC, and LTD Board, and would meet once or twice before deliberating the recom- mendation for the purpose of refining it. Mayor Piercy thanked them for the presentation. She remarked that she did not think the system could “come together fast enough.” She believed that every delay added to the challenges they faced. She expressed appreciation for the breadth of the outreach they had done. She felt it had been responsive to the community’s concerns. Ms. Taylor asked if public input would make a difference in the design, given that it was currently eight to ten percent complete. Mr. Schwetz said the input had made a difference in getting to this point. He explained that once the footprint was in place, they would conduct analysis on the eight to ten percent design, and once the LPA had been selected they would invest resources in furthering the design. He stated that public comment could make a difference at that point. Mr. Eyster related that as recently as one month earlier, LTD had changed the location of one of the stops on the new Gateway EmX line based on input from Springfield residents and business owners. In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Schwetz explained that transit mode split was a term used when the TransPlan had been put together to talk about the market share of transit. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Brown asked if there was a way to verify that transit use had increased. Mr. Schwetz replied that they measured ridership with automatic passenger counts and surveys. He explained that the transit demand forecasting model utilized several pieces of software. Mr. Brown noted that he had seen the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and LTD for the Franklin Boulevard project and wondered if there was one for this project. Mr. Schwetz responded that the IGA had been put into place once the construction had been initiated. He was certain that LTD and the City would enter into another IGA when construction began on the new project. Mr. Brown advised them to do more outreach to stakeholders, especially in the affected area. He suggested that councilors representing affected wards make contact with the area business owners. Mr. Eyster noted that Mr. Pryor had done just that. Mr. Poling asked how the delay would affect the funding. Mr. Schwetz replied that they had the ability to submit a small starts application for funding in January. Mr. Poling did not think people understood how funding from the FTA occurred. He asked if Mr. Schwetz could provide a summary explanation of the process. He also suggested that the JLPAC members not be those who overlapped, such as a councilor who was already a member of the MPC. He wanted to ensure that there were “many sets of eyes” on the LPA. He added that he had been impressed by the amount of outreach in which LTD had engaged. Mr. Zelenka commented that he hoped that LTD and the council could have more joint meetings. He said it was important to keep moving forward. He averred that this was as much about the service as it was about the future. He predicted that the system would eventually become Eugene’s light rail and this was a good way to prepare for this future. He felt it was a good idea to include the Metropolitan Policy Organization Citizen Advisory Committee (MPOCAC) in the public input process. Regarding the JLPAC, he said all three bodies would ultimately vote on the LPA and questioned the need to form a “subset” of the decision makers. Mr. Schwetz stated that the concept behind the JLPAC was to provide an opportunity to work through what they had heard to date and to help summarize it for all three of the bodies. Mr. Zelenka asked them to speak about the impact on the regular service the funding for the project might have. Mr. Eyster responded that they were mostly unrelated, though it seemed related in the eyes of the public. He said cuts would be inevitable and revenues were dropping with the economy, but the funding for the EmX was not related to it except for a “tiny little bit.” He felt they were constantly challenged to weigh “the future against the now.” He underscored that they should not dare to give up on the future to address the present. He stated that as the EmX was built out the whole system would begin to look very different. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Eyster stated that currently the local contribution to the EmX project amounted to seven percent of the cost. He added that LTD hoped to find ways to gain 100 percent funding for the project. Ms. Ortiz felt that LTD had done a good job in its public outreach efforts but commented that she did not know if it was “ever enough for our community.” She asked if they were modeling the public outreach work on the proposed West Eugene route on the work they had done on a Coburg Road route. Mr. Schwetz replied that they were trying to gain the breadth of representation that the Coburg Road process had MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 3 included. He reiterated that they welcomed suggestions for additional stakeholders to include. Ms. Ortiz had attended several of the public forums in the beginning and thought they were well done. She thth said the Whiteaker Neighborhood supported the West Eugene route if it would traverse 6 and 7 Avenues and had indicated that they thought it would be an asset. She noted that the Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT) had been a very vocal group and asked if members could play a role in the outreach process. Mr. Schwetz responded that a 3RT member, Ilona Koleszar, served on the West Eugene EmX Extension Corridor Committee and that LTD staff had been to 3RT meetings. Mr. Clark thanked them for the presentation. He approved of what they had planned going forward. He noted that President Obama’s administration had put off the Federal Transportation Package for at least one more year. He asked if they would foresee a time that LTD might look for more support, should the economy not improve. Stefano Viggiano, Assistant General Manager for LTD, confirmed that the Federal Transportation Bill had expired that day. He offered his best guess for when they would see a new bill, was in approximately 18 months. He related that everything they had heard indicated that transportation was an emphasis area for the federal government, especially having to do with transit. He believed the long-term prognosis for transit funding was positive. He said without federal funding, it would be very unlikely they could move forward with the project. Mr. Eyster said when LTD representatives had participated in the United Front lobbying trip to Washington, D.C. the administration had been very interested in the EmX. He believed that what they were doing was very cutting edge in the country. He felt that in some ways it was being used as an example to illustrate to other communities a way to do transit transportation in a community of this size. Ms. Solomon also thanked LTD for the presentation. She asked if the Quick Response Project was intended to run concurrently with the preparation of the DEIS or if it was required by the DEIS. She asked for an example of what it was. Mr. Schwetz responded that the project was supplemental and not a requirement of the NEPA process. He related that he had approached the Department of Land Conservation and Develop- ment (DLCD) and asked them if there were some resources that could be made available to help them to work through issues with neighborhoods and businesses. He said the DLCD had introduced them to the Quick Response Project as a resource available to work through issues. Mayor Piercy thought the advertising space on the EmX buses could be one way to communicate to the public. She reminded everyone of the struggle the City of Portland went through when they were trying to build and establish the light rail lines. She pointed out that now the community would “fight over where the next line would be.” She stressed that light rail had brought a real economic benefit and had not taken anything away from the neighborhoods. She agreed that they needed to work both for the present and the future. She averred that Eugene was in leadership on the development of an EmX system. She also agreed that they should not overlap in the membership of the JLPAC. She shared Ms. Ortiz’s feeling that they probably could not do enough public outreach. Mr. Poling expressed concern, given that development of the line would not begin for another two years, th regarding all of the development and redevelopment that was occurring on West 11 Avenue. He said there were a lot of right-of-way concerns and strongly suggested that they work to combine the building codes with the project. Mayor Piercy concurred. She suggested that they consider instituting a “pause” in development that went into the right-of-way. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 4 Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Manager for the Public Works Department, stated that they were starting to take a closer look at this issue and had planned a meeting to consider whether the community really wanted development to be built out to the curb. Mayor Piercy thanked the members of the LTD Board for attending. B. WORK SESSION: Approval of Lease with Option to Purchase 858 Pearl Street for Network Charter School Executive Director of the Central Services Department, Kristie Hammitt, recalled that staff had brought a proposal to declare the building located at 858 Pearl Street surplus and to allow it to be sold to the council for approval during the previous spring. She reported that the City had placed the building on the market three months earlier and, to date, had received two offers that were well below the asking price. She said since then the City had been approached by the Network Charter School with a proposal for a lease/ purchase option, a two-year agreement that would provide $4,000 in rent plus 50 percent of any rental revenue they would receive from surplus office space in the building and an offer to purchase the building at the end of two years for $1.5 million. She said staff had asked that the school give an indication of whether it did intend to purchase the building after 18 months of occupancy. She stated that the lease to the school was as is. She related that the City had disclosed all of the information about the building and the school had agreed to be responsible for the costs associated with that. Mr. Ruiz noted that the business neighbors of the building had expressed support for the school’s tenancy in the building, as had the downtown police officers. Mr. Clark recalled that during the Budget Committee proceedings they had discussed surplus property. He had put a motion on the table to use any monies that came from surplus property toward additional police officers. He said he was still looking for when the council would have that discussion about what they would do with surplus properties to afford additional police officers. He hoped they would have the discussion before the end of the year. Mr. Ruiz said the money from the lease would have to be appropriated by the council. Ms. Hammitt stated that the first Budget Committee was scheduled for November, 2009. Mr. Clark responded that he had hoped that the council would address this in the current budget year and not Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. Mr. Zelenka agreed that the council needed to have a discussion about a building sale, but he thought they should wait until there was one that had a buyer. He believed that this lease proposal would not constitute a sale. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Ruiz stated that the City was not currently in negotiation for any property sales. Mr. Brown thought it was a great project and a great reuse of the building. He asked if the list of comparables that had been used in the appraisal was available. Ms. Hammitt responded that she would find out and provide it for him. Mr. Brown asked if the building deficiencies that had been discussed included that it was not built to current seismic standards. Ms. Hammitt was not certain. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 5 Mr. Brown understood the building was “well below” the current life-safety standard. He wondered if the City would have liability should the City experience an earthquake. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that Mike Penwell, Facilities Division Manager, had information on this. He said the lease had not been drafted, but it would provide that the building was being leased as is and the City would not be held liable. Mr. Brown asked if a school could legally move into a building that was not built to the life-safety standard. Mr. Klein replied that he did not know. He understood that the school intended to make a number of changes to the building so that it could be used for school purposes. Mr. Penwell stated that the school was working with the Permit Information Center to ensure they met all of the requirements. He noted that the building on Pearl Street was better than the one the school was currently housed in. He clarified that the building was not unsafe. He said it was at least as good as much of the downtown building stock, adding that the City had done much to the building including seismic work since the report that Mr. Brown had read had been issued. He explained that seismic work had been done to the roof and to the connections of all of the walls. He noted that wood frame buildings tended to perform better in an earthquake. Mr. Brown said the report he referred to had given the building a seismic rating of 0.7. He asked if staff knew what the current seismic rating was. Mr. Penwell replied that the survey he referred to had been a “windshield survey” and not an actual analysis of the building. He said it was an analysis based on the age of the building and the building type; a detailed seismic analysis of the building in its current state had not been conducted. Mr. Brown commented that those were the figures that had been used to base the decision to move the police facility to the Country Club Road site. Mr. Penwell responded that the City Hall building had undergone detailed seismic analyses done on the actual building structure and a very detailed cost analysis. Mr. Brown reiterated that his concern was in regard to safety, but he did not intend to hold up the project. Ms. Ortiz noted that the school system had “a lot of old buildings” and she did not know their seismic capabilities either. She supported the project and was glad to see it moving ahead. She thought it was a good thing to keep students downtown, especially given that Lane Community College was considering a larger presence in the downtown area. Ms. Taylor believed that the groups the school was considering subleasing to would be moving from one building in the downtown area to another and this was “in a way” a disadvantage. She believed the downtown area needed the other buildings to be occupied as well. Ms. Hammitt responded that the details of the subleasing arrangements were not yet known. Ms. Taylor wondered why the proposal included that only 50 percent of the sublease payments would be conveyed to the City. She asked why the City would not receive a greater percentage. Real Property and Lease Manager, Emmy Jenson, replied that the school wanted to keep 50 percent of the money to help manage the building, including custodial maintenance and regular maintenance. Mayor Piercy understood that the school needed to vacate its current location. She said it was not that the school was being shifted from one place to another; it was that its former location was no longer available. She hoped they could consider this to be an opportunity to work with the school and engage the students there regarding downtown public safety. MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 6 Ms. Hammitt commented that staff had discussed the expectations that the City had in regard to the students’ behavior with school director Mary Leighton. She added that she shared staff’s excitement in seeing the school’s proposal move forward. Mr. Clark agreed with the Mayor. He reiterated that the public safety issues downtown were not because of the youth there. He believed that the behavioral issues associated with some of the young people were learning opportunities and not public safety problems. He reviewed the Budget Committee motion he had cited earlier, noting that it had passed 13:1 and that it had directed the City Manager and staff to investigate the possibility of sales of surplus property and the use of proceeds to fund officers. He said other options included in the motion had included using the Eugene Water & Electric Board Contribution in Lieu of Tax (CILT) money and others, but the point had been to fund additional officers to keep in line with the public safety action plan to add them. In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Penwell said copies of the detailed studies made on the City Hall building had been provided to the councilors. Mr. Brown requested information regarding the work that had been done on the 858 Pearl Street building. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Network Charter School for a two-year lease with an option to purchase the building at 858 Pearl Street, consistent with the terms expressed in the agenda item summary. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Council Work Session at 1:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz, City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—City Council Work Session September 30, 2009 Page 7 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council 2009 Boards and Commissions Interviews McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 5, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Brown. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Mike Clark. Councilors interviewed the following applicants for appointment to the Human Rights Commission: Mat Beecher Ron Burley Iva Boslough Toni Gyatso Melissa Mona Michelle Maher Lorraine Kerwood Brian Mason Each applicant was asked to respond to the following questions: 1. What is the City government’s role in addressing human rights? 2. What are the most important human rights issues facing the City of Eugene and what are your ideas for addressing those? 3. What do you think are the differences between volunteering for a community human rights group and volunteering for the municipal Human Rights Commission? 4. We recognize that many people apply to serve on the Human Rights Commission because they are passionate about a particular group or a specific issue. It’s important that commissioners have the ability to work on a range of human rights issues. Assess your ability to work with others on issues that may not be your top concern. 5. Serving on the commission requires a significant time and energy commitment. Tell us about your ability to balance commission work with other demands in your life. Councilors interviewed the following applicants for appointment to the Sustainability Commission: Autumn Lovell Mark Nystrom Brandi Veltri J D Howell Brian Mason MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 5, 2009 Page 1 2009 Boards and Commissions Interviews Each applicant was asked to respond to the following questions: 1. What prompted you to apply for the Sustainability Commission? Based on what you know about the role of the commission, what skills, knowledge, and community connections could you bring to help the commission be successful? 2. Please tell us about any experience you have had working collectively with a group, highlighting any that have played an advisory, coordinating, or oversight role for an organization or agency. 3. What do you consider are the most important issues to address in Eugene to enable the community to become more sustainable in ways that encompass social equity, economic prosperity and envi- ronmental stewardship? 4. How can the Sustainability Commission be most effective in its role as a policy advisory body to the City Council? 5. Please share your views on how the Sustainability Commission can foster broad and diverse com- munity involvement in long-range changes to become more sustainable. Councilors interviewed the following applicant for appointment to the Planning Commission: Mark Baker The applicant was asked to respond to the following questions: 1. What key issues would you hope to address as a member of the Planning Commission? 2. The Eugene Planning Commission often works on lengthy processes and decisions as a group. Describe your prior skills and experience that will assist you in working with the Planning Commis- sion in a collective manner. 3. Please describe how you would contribute to the diversity of views on the Planning Commission. In what ways would you seek to bring the perspectives of underrepresented members of our community into the land use planning and decision process? 4. The Planning Commission must often consider and balance complex issues when reviewing planning documents and making land use decisions. As an example, parking strategies that limit density to meet infill compatibility goals can conflict with regional growth management strategies. In your opinion, what are the most important factors for the Planning Commission to consider in its deci- sion-making? Each applicant was also given an opportunity to ask questions of the council and speak to any other information that was relevant to their qualifications. Applicants were thanked for their interest and informed that appointments would be made at the council’s regular meeting on October 26, 2009. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 5, 2009 Page 2 2009 Boards and Commissions Interviews ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 12, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. John Duerscheidt , 1295 Arthur Street, said he wanted to find out information regarding the potential Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) EmX route. He was concerned about the route option along the Amazon Creek. He asked if Lane Transit District (LTD) intended to use eminent domain to take land for a new route. Cindy Clarke , 1621 Calistoga Street, stated that she lived in Ward 6, Councilor Solomon’s ward. She declared that she stood before the council as a taxpayer, a community member, a voter, and a City employee disturbed by recent decisions made by City leadership. She noted that a coworker had come before council previously to share frustrations over the recent mandatory reduction of hours. She averred that words could not express her disappoint- ment in the City’s lack of leadership in willingness to work toward long-term sustainable solutions. She underscored that they did not feel that all of the City’s employees were “in this together” as the “current mantra would lead you to believe.” She stated that after ten months of negotiations utilizing Interest Based Bargaining, a cooperative approach focused on joint interests rather than divisions, the City’s American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) local, representing approximately 680 employees, had entered into a binding employment contract. She underscored that this contract had been made with full knowledge of the budget shortfall and the imminent closure of Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. She said the City had contacted AFSCME and the other unions in March to ask them to give up their negotiated Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs). AFSCME had voluntarily met with the City to discuss sustainable options to stabilize the budget without taking away from the employees that kept the City working and functioning. She noted that she had sat at the table. She related that AFSCME offered to work with the City by using the competitive services assessment tool identified in the contract as a successful tool, and one that the City had a substantial financial investment in. She said the local also offered to take six days of unpaid furlough back to its membership for a vote of approval, but the local had been denied. She stated that the local had received notice of the intent to implement an across-the-board hours reduction, in violation of the contract. She added that the media had received notice before the local had received it. She explained that the only option was to issue a demand to bargain, which provided 90 days to negotiate with the City, but it had taken the City more than 50 days to meet with the local. Again the local offered to use the tools that were identified in the contract for service delivery and had offered ideas for cost savings. She related that while the suggestions were appreciated, they would not be applied to “AFSCME’s piece of the pie.” She said the local had offered alternative proposals, using the financial information provided by the City that would result in immediate and long-term savings. She noted that the City’s attorney had referred to the implementation as a “crap shoot” at the final meeting because a decision could go either way in arbitration. She remarked that she was not a gambling person and, as a taxpayer, she expressed MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting outrage that the City’s money was being spent on something an attorney would describe in that way and something that also resulted in an immediate loss of service and could wind up costing taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars. She emphasized AFSCME’s willingness to work with management to come up with solutions. She said working toward a sustainable solution could not be achieved by violating the trust and integrity of the employees that “keep Eugene a great place to live,” nor could it be achieved by gambling tax dollars. Troy Kreger , 95 Alberta Lane, President of AFSCME Local 1724, stated that the Local had 680 members and was the largest union local in the City of Eugene. He understood that councilors could not engage directly in bargaining, but he wanted to make them aware of the mandatory furloughs being imposed on City employees. He noted that, like the councilors, he was elected to represent others. He found it unfortunate that AFSCME had been portrayed as unreasonable and uncooperative in the process. He disputed this and pointed out that AFSCME had been the first of the City’s unions to come to the table to discuss proposals. He said the members wanted to help the City find savings and had participated in the “Think Tank” and “Victory Garden” exercises and had offered input to their supervisors. He felt the City Manager was only focused on getting the money out of the members’ household incomes. He stated that AFSCME offered to conduct a mutual review of all City work operations in order to find more cost efficiencies, but had been turned down. He underscored that a contract was a contract. He averred that the City apparently thought the current economic situation constituted an emergency and that they could disregard the contract they had just negotiated in the previous November. He was concerned that City management was making decisions that would lead everyone in the City into a costly legal battle that would ultimately be a greater cost to the citizens that the AFSCME employees served and to the taxpayers the councilors were elected to serve. He asserted that decisions like the one made by the City had cost other communities millions of dollars and that the federal court system had found such actions to be violations of bargaining contracts and had been ordering agencies to repay furloughed employees. He considered it unfortunate that the City had chosen to pursue this path. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, Councilor Zelenka’s ward, asserted that a $75 million dormitory that was proposed for the Fairmount Neighborhood would likely undermine the Walnut Station visioning process. He said a public hearing would be held on November 10 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. in the University of Oregon Longhouse. He felt the University failed to have a full conversation with the public about construction of such buildings. He had read an article in the newspaper that indicated that the University would have to find 300 parking places that the dormitory would displace. He opined that the Fairmount Neighborhood association had “failed” to adequately notify the public about the hearing. He said he was at the council meeting to give the Fairmount residents “fair warning.” He suggested that the Fairmount Neighborhood could become a historic district. He also suggested that the dormitory could be built on the old Joe Romania property, which he believed would create a “win-win” for the neighborhood. He listed a couple of other suggestions for locations for the dormitory. Sally Nunn , 1026 Jackson Street, Ward 1, Councilor Brown’s ward, said she represented the Sierra Club. She related that the board had recently approved a motion to adopt Amazon Creek because they believed that more needed to be done to protect the urban waterways. She stated that the group had planned in engaging the public about the Amazon corridor in order to encourage people to engage in greater participation in all that the urban waterways did for the community in terms of wildlife corridors and stormwater retention. She related that the Sierra Club had been especially concerned about LTD’s “plan” to establish an EmX route along the Amazon channel. She said they believed it ran counter to the City’s original plans to enhance the channel. She considered the option to be a poorly considered idea. She stressed that the club was not against mass transit, only the possibility of developing a thth route in that location. She conveyed the club’s preference for the other two options, along 11 Avenue or along 6 th and 7 Avenues. She said they hoped the corridor could be extended park status to protect it into perpetuity. Lisa Anderson , 1230 Arthur Street, Ward 1, Councilor Brown’s ward, related that LTD had met with the neighborhood in September. She remarked that there had “been fireworks” at the meeting because the neighborhood was furious about plans. She said it was the first that many neighbors had heard about these plans. She stated that neighbors were also angry about the possibility of losing portions of the greenway and/or bicycle path to the Amazon MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting thth Corridor option. She hoped that the council would choose the 6 and 7 Avenue option. th Hannah Torres , 2123 West 12 Avenue, #1, stated that she lived in the Fernwood Apartments. She did not want a bus route ten feet from her bedroom. She said she and her daughter grew peas along the fence at the edge of the property and did not want a bus driving through there. She added that many of her neighbors had not known about the Amazon Corridor EmX option until the previous week and, though they wanted to weigh in on the issue, they were unable to come because of work obligations. Kenneth Glenn , 1340 Arthur Street, Ward 1, Councilor Brown’s ward, commented that he walked by Ms. Torres yard every day and could smell the peas. He considered it a pretty place, commenting that the people who lived in the apartments were “struggling” to make an environment for themselves. He had tried to imagine having a bus come through that area and for him it was unfathomable. He had bought his house 14 years earlier and, because of the “greener Eugene concept,” he had begun planting more trees and other things. He said there was a lot of wildlife in the area that he would not want to be affected, noting that he had recently seen river otters. He had canvassed neighbors and most had no idea that LTD was considering an EmX route through that area. Kimberly Gladen , 361 West Broadway, #4, stated that she lived and worked in the downtown core. She did not own a car and walked everywhere she needed to go. She averred that her safety downtown was everyone’s safety. She did not feel that the City and the Eugene Police Department (EPD) had listened to the public. She opined that the problem was systemic and the reason things escalated, resulting in lawsuits, was because the police were not listening to the public. She believed that the downtown needed community policing, which meant the police should be talking to the people. She said it was nice that efforts to clear the area in front of the library and Kesey Square had worked, but unfortunately that traffic had moved into the parking lots. Additionally, she had noticed a lot of feces in the downtown area lately. She had also noticed people by the tree by the WOW Hall and an increase in men bringing young girls behind the building she resided in. She felt like the problems were just getting pushed around, which did not “get to the core issue.” She asserted that part of the reason for this was that the City kept getting like-minded people on their task forces instead of listening to people who were different. She believed that the women, the poor, the homeless, and people who appeared a little different were not being listened to. She felt like it was “easy to blow off” someone like her and it was easy to “blow off” someone who was homeless. She added that the sidewalk between the tavern, John Henry’s, and the corner of Charnelton Street had a rancid oil smell that needed to be attended to. She did not think Ward 7 served the downtown area; the downtown needed to be its own ward, represented by its own councilor. She declared that most democracies fail when some of the people are forgotten. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She thanked the AFSCME employees for coming and talking with the council. In response to Mr. Vishanoff’s concerns, she said they were challenged by the need for more dormitories in the campus area so that the student population did not impact neighborhoods, but trying to balance having those buildings in the neighborhood also presented challenges. Regarding the potential EmX route in west Eugene, she stressed that three options were being examined and one had not been chosen at this point. She underscored that they would try to determine the best option. She believed that having a successful transit system throughout the entire city was a citywide goal. She wanted to find the transit route that had the most positive impacts and the least negative impacts. She thanked Ms. Torres for speaking on behalf of her neighbors and also thanked Ms. Gladen for coming before the council. She noted that she was not in the downtown area late at night. She appreciated Ms. Gladen’s suggestions. She intended to pass them along. Councilor Taylor declared that everyone was important. She thought there should be a way to have some of the people who soil the downtown area clean it up. She suggested that people who committed infractions could be made to do the cleaning. She was glad many people from the Amazon Creek area had testified regarding the EmX corridor option. She believed both that area of the Amazon Creek and the Amazon headwaters were important and noted that the acquisition of the headwaters had not been completed. She thanked everyone for coming. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Ortiz appreciated the comments provided by staff and community members. Regarding the EmX corridor, she felt that LTD had done a good job of doing some outreach, but they were working on doing a better job. She hoped that people who were aware of meetings would pass the word along to those who did not know about them, in order to reach as many people as possible. She supported mass transit, adding that it had “to go somewhere.” 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - August 12, 2009, Work Session - September 15, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4988 Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (484 and 490 River Loop #1/Heather Lintz (A 08-6)) D. Adoption of Resolution 4987 Supporting and Encouraging ODOT to Construct a Retaining Wall on the West-Facing Fill Slope Between the Willamette River and Alton Baker Park Canoe Canal for the Protection of Trees E. Appointment to the Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Councilor Clark pulled Item C. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item C passed un- animously, 8:0. Councilor Clark said he wanted to pull Item C, an item having to do with annexation of property in the River Road/Santa Clara area, in order to gain the greatest possible clarity. Steve Ochs, Associate Planner for the Planning and Development Department (PDD), stated that the annexation involved a single property that was contiguous to an existing right-of-way. He said the parcel consisted of a little over half an acre. Councilor Clark ascertained that no parts of the annexation involved any public rights-of-way that were not currently annexed. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item C, adoption of Resolution 4988, a resolution to annex land to the City of Eugene, passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose Section of the Eugene-Springfield Metro- politan Area General Plan by Adding Separate Population Forecasts for the Cities of Springfield and Eugene for the Period 2010-2030 and Including the Years 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, and 2035; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date (Eugene City File MA 09-6) Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5006, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan by adding separate population forecasts for the cities of Springfield and Eugene for the period 2010-2030 and including the period 2030-2035. City Manager Jon Ruiz recapped the motion. He said the population forecasts were critical for use in ongoing planning efforts, such as the Comprehensive Lands Assessments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark understood that the numbers in the population forecast had come from Portland State University and were not the previously used statistics, which had been safe harbor numbers. City Attorney Emily Jerome affirmed this. She said once the County had adopted its own numbers, the City had no longer been in a position to use the safe harbor numbers. Councilor Clark asked the reason for the council action, given that there was no choice in the matter. Ms. Jerome responded that state law required it. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text, Chapter III, Section D, Policy #11; Adopting an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5007, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text, Chapter III, Section D, Policy #11; adopting an exception to statewide Planning Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway. City Manager Ruiz explained that the ordinance was in regard to the South Bank bicycle project and would allow some fill to be placed within the Willamette Greenway boundary. He noted that the decision was intra-jurisdictional. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. ACTION: Minor Code Amendment Project (Remand) An Ordinance Concerning Parking in the University Area; Readopting Provisions from Ordinance No. 20418 in Response to Remand; Amending Section 9.6410 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date; and An Ordinance Concerning Building Height in the University Area; Readopting Provisions from ordinance No. 20418 in Response to Remand; Amending Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5009, an ordinance concerning building height in the University area. Councilor Zelenka was interested in moving this forward immediately in order to protect the neighborhood and to strike a balance between the neighborhood and development interests. With regard to parking, he preferred to defer the item to the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Committee so they could develop a more comprehensive proposal, planned to come before the council prior to its winter break. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the motion so that it would delete the text in Section 4 of Council Bill 5009 (the ordinance concerning building height) and replace that text with the following: “An immediate effective date of this Ordinance is necessary in order to serve the important public purpose of ensuring that infill development in the affected area is compatible with the surroundings. Therefore, this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its pas- MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting sage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, retention by the Mayor for more than ten days, or re-adoption over a mayoral veto by two-thirds of all members of the City Council.” Councilor Clark asked if this amendment would be characterized as an emergency clause. Ms. Jerome confirmed this. She stated that it would require a council majority vote of six to pass. Councilor Clark ascertained from Ms. Jerome that if the council did nothing, the parking ordinance would come back automatically as a part of the ICS work that would be coming before the council. Councilor Zelenka encouraged his colleagues to vote for the amendment. He averred that if it did not go into effect immediately, it would leave the neighborhood unprotected while they were working out the details regarding building heights. Councilor Ortiz asked Ms. Jerome to clarify the motion before the council. Ms. Jerome explained that the motion only affected the height provisions. She stated that the ordinance had findings that addressed the issues that had been raised in the appeal that had gone before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). She said the amended motion would make it go into effect immediately and, without the amendment, the provision would only go into effect after another appeal had occurred, should there be one. Councilor Ortiz had thought that what was coming before the council was a height limit that had been negotiated between the South University Neighborhood and the Homebuilders Association. Ms. Jerome clarified that this was not part of the motion; what Councilor Ortiz referred to was part of what was forthcoming from the ICS Committee. She said the expectation would be that the ICS proposal, if passed by the council, would take the place of the provisions that were before them at the present meeting. Councilor Ortiz asked Councilor Zelenka to explain “what the hurry” was. Councilor Zelenka responded that his concern was that if the ordinance was adopted without his amendment, it could take months for the height limit to go into effect. He said his amendment would provide the neighborhood the protection he believed they were seeking until the ICS ordinance came before the council. When that ordinance passed, it would become the language that everyone agreed to in the ICS process. He believed that without the amended language, there could be “zero protections” for the neighborhood should someone want to develop a tall building there. Councilor Pryor understood that the limits would be adopted either way. He surmised that the question before the council was whether they wanted to pursue the standard process for adoption or did they want to declare an emergency and have it in effect in anticipation that there might be an appeal. He asked staff if there was any indication that anyone was inclined to file an appeal. Senior Planner Alissa Hansen responded that the testimony given at the public hearing had been pretty divided, but most of it had centered on the parking issue. Councilor Pryor had not heard anyone indicating intent to appeal. He asked how long the standard adoption would take and what would be in effect. Ms. Jerome wished to clarify that the only people who could appeal the issue were those who had participated in the original LUBA appeal. She said as the ordinance was currently drafted, the minor code amendment provisions would not go back into place until they were acknowledged. She explained that if no one appealed, it would take 30 days according to charter, but if it was appealed it would not go into effect until they received a ruling from the appellate body. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Pryor, Ms. Jerome stated that what would be in effect during the appeal period would be current code. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor had reason to believe that no one would appeal. He was less concerned about declaring an emergency, given that. He could appreciate the desire to ensure the height restrictions were upheld and to prevent someone from attempting to “sneak in the back door.” He did not feel a compelling need to declare an emergency, however. Mayor Piercy surmised that the amendment would allow the neighborhood to feel that they were being protected from someone developing a building that was taller than the restrictions would allow, once in place. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Jerome explained that the charter provided that an ordinance would go into effect after 30 days. She was not certain why that number of days was required, though it was a common practice across the state for resolutions to go into effect immediately and ordinances to go into effect after 30 days. Councilor Clark asked if there were any potential negative consequences of immediate adoption from an economic standpoint. Ms. Hansen replied that if someone was prepared to submit a building permit that met current code and the amendment was passed, they would have to change the application. She was not aware of any plans to submit a building permit in that area at this time. Councilor Clark said he agreed with Councilor Pryor; this was a valid thing to do but he did not feel compelled to pass the amendment on an emergency basis. Councilor Zelenka reiterated that the intent behind the amendment was to prevent someone from trying to submit an application for a building permit for a building that would exceed the height restrictions desired by the neighborhood during the 30-day waiting period. He believed that a ten-story, 120-foot high building across the street from single family neighborhoods would cause irreparable harm. He said if someone was to appeal the height restrictions, then there would be no restrictions until the LUBA process had reached its culmination. He noted that the area was the only one in the City that had land that was zoned Residential, R-1, next to land that was zoned Residential, R-4. He considered the amendment to be an interim “band-aid” to protect the neighbors in that area. Councilor Taylor supported protecting the neighbors immediately. She saw no reason not to pass the emergency clause. She felt it was crucial. Councilor Pryor asked Ms. Jerome if the main difference between the two actions was 30 days. Ms. Jerome responded that there were three options and the council was discussing the two extremes: declaring an emergency which would make it effective immediately and what was already in the ordinance, which was that it would not go into effect until it was acknowledged. She explained that this could mean that it would not go into effect until after an appeal. She said the middle ground would be to move to delete the text in Section 4 and nothing more, putting the ordinance into effect after 30 days. Councilor Pryor thought the end result would be the same either way. He felt that if it was in the interest of the neighborhood and the neighborhood wanted something done immediately, he could support it. Councilor Zelenka was concerned that someone could put in for a building permit within 30 days for a building that would violate the code change they intended to implement. He felt that they were going to enact it anyway, so they should make it in effect immediately. Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment providing for the immediate effective date was 5:3 and, therefore, did not pass. Councilors Solomon, Poling, and Clark voted in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to delete the text in Section 4 of Council Bill 5009. Councilor Zelenka ascertained from the City Attorney that the amendment would make the ordinance go into effect regardless of acknowledgement, in 30 days. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Ms. Jerome clarified that it could still be appealed, but the ordinance would go into effect in the interim. Roll call vote; the amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; the main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule the parking recommendations from the Infill Compatibility Project for public hearing and action by the City Council prior to the council’s winter break. Councilor Clark ascertained from Ms. Hansen that the item was scheduled for a public hearing on November 16, with a council work session scheduled for November 9. She stated that the item was scheduled for action on December 14. Councilor Clark asked for clarification on the purpose of the motion. Councilor Zelenka responded that the purpose was to direct staff to take on the work in a timeframe other than the one specified on the Tentative Agenda. Councilor Solomon was not opposed to the motion, but she did not want to be compelled to take action on December 14 if the council was not ready to do so. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Senior Planner Terri Harding, project manager for the Infill Compatibility Standards, stated that the Planning Commission intended to hold its public hearing on the first three items, which were parking, a revision to building height, and a special area zone for the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood, on October 20. Councilor Poling asked if staff had everything ready for the public meetings and council work session. Ms. Harding affirmed that staff was prepared. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Poling and Clark voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council 2009 Boards and Commissions Interviews McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 13, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Brown, Mike Clark. Councilors interviewed the following applicants for appointment to the Budget Committee: Aaron Walker Ramin Shojai Linda Barcus Shanda Miller Each applicant was asked to respond to the following questions: 1. In your opinion, which City issues should be given highest priority by the Budget Committee over the next four years? Which of these do you consider to be the most important issue, and why? 2. In the recent past, Eugene’s budget has faced deficits of several million dollars. In FY 10, we implemented a $12 million strategy to address some of the deficit, but we are still looking at deficits in the future. What would be your general strategy for balancing the budget? Where would you look for savings? 3. Do you have suggestions for ways to improve citizen understanding of the City’s financial condi- tions, budget priorities, and process? Councilors interviewed the following applicants for appointment to the Civilian Review Board: David Balthrop Mark Johnson Kate Wilkenson Steven Buel-McIntire Tom Kamis Rick Brissenden Eric Van Houten Each applicant was asked to respond to the following questions: 1. What can you tell us about your activities, personal attitudes and life experiences that would dem- onstrate you can make objective decisions about complaints against the police and objectively assess the completeness of Police Department internal investigations? MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2009 Page 1 2009 Boards and Commissions Interviews 2. Please describe your views on the differing roles of the Auditor’s Office, the Civilian Review Board, the Police Commission, the City Manager and the Police Chief. 3. In your opinion, what are the most important functions of the Civilian Review Board? 4. To ensure fair and thorough reviews of cases, Civilian Review Board members typically must commit numerous hours per month. Are you prepared for this commitment? 5. Have you or a family member ever participated in an organization that advocates a position regard- ing the police or the criminal justice system? Have you, a close friend, or a family member ever worked or volunteered with the criminal justice system? If yes, please describe. 6. Although the Civilian Review Board does not impose discipline, would you briefly describe what impacts you think the board can have when evaluating Police Department investigations, training, policies and procedures, and the conduct of individual officers? Each applicant was also given an opportunity to ask questions of the council and speak to any other information that was relevant to their qualifications. Applicants were thanked for their interest and informed that appointments would be made at the council’s regular meeting on October 26, 2009. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2009 Page 2 2009 Boards and Commissions Interviews ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council 2009 Boards and Commissons Interviews McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 19, 2009 7 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Brown, Mike Clark. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. Councilors interviewed the following applicant for appointment to the Civilian Review Board: Steven Broome Mr. Broome was asked to respond to the following questions: 1. What can you tell us about your activities, personal attitudes and life experiences that would dem- onstrate you can make objective decisions about complaints against the police and objectively assess the completeness of Police Department internal investigations? 2. Please describe your views on the differing roles of the Auditor’s Office, the Civilian Review Board, the Police Commission, the City Manager and the Police Chief. 3. In your opinion, what are the most important functions of the Civilian Review Board? 4. To ensure fair and thorough reviews of cases, Civilian Review Board members typically must commit numerous hours per month. Are you prepared for this commitment? 5. Have you or a family member ever participated in an organization that advocates a position regard- ing the police or the criminal justice system? Have you, a close friend, or a family member ever worked or volunteered with the criminal justice system? If yes, please describe. 6. Although the Civilian Review Board does not impose discipline, would you briefly describe what impacts you think the board can have when evaluating Police Department investigations, training, policies and procedures, and the conduct of individual officers? Mr. Broome was also given an opportunity to ask questions of the council and speak to any other informa- tion that was relevant to his qualifications. He was thanked for his interest and informed that appointments would be made at the council’s regular meeting on October 26, 2009. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2009 Page 1 2009 Boards and Commissions Interviews ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 19, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, George Brown, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) to Move Project Nos. 333 and 506 from the Future Roadway Projects List to the Financially Constrained Roadway Projects List, to Update the Project Descriptions for Project Nos. 333 and 506 and to Make Related Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. City Manager Jon Ruiz stated that the amendment would move two Oregon Department of Transportation th (ODOT) West 11 Avenue projects from the future projects list to the fiscally constrained list in TransPlan in accordance with a work plan approved by the joint elected officials and the Land Conservation and Development Commission in order to achieve compliance with state planning requirements. The council was scheduled to take action on the amendment at its November 9 meeting. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. She noted that several people had submitted written testimony on the matter. Pat Johnston, representing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), read testimony that had been th submitted in writing. She said BLM was concerned about activities related to the widening of West 11 Avenue between Green Hill Road and Terry Street, which had the potential to affect land and water conservation properties in the west Eugene wetlands and impact threatened and endangered species on BLM-administered lands. She said the proposed widening project would cross critical habitat for the Willamette daisy, which was protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. She said BLM could not allow any disturbance on BLM surfaces outside the City right-of-way in critical habitat and there could be issues related to how the road improvements would affect hydrology on the adjacent BLM-administered wetlands. th Jeff Musgrove , Bryceler Drive, Eugene, stated that his family owned two cemeteries on West 11 Avenue th and he supported the amendment. He said the intersection of West 11 Avenue and Terry Street was substandard and urgently needed the improvements planned in Project No. 333. He said adoption of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2009 Page 1 Public Hearing th amendment would not impede ongoing planning efforts for portions of West 11 Avenue to the east of the project. Kevin Matthews , president of Friends of Eugene, stated that the project was included in TransPlan just prior to the formal designation of critical habitat by relevant federal agencies. He said the relationship of critical habitat to the project was subsequently missed because the environmental screening maps only showed critical habitat for salmon-related issues. He said the project should not move forward and would not be built. He said advancing the priority of the project would allow development projects to use it as a planned transportation facility and it should not be placed on the fiscally constrained list until the environ- mental work was completed. He briefly reviewed his written testimony, which listed six categories of reasons the project should not advance. Mayor Piercy closed the hearing and called for comments from councilors. Councilor Brown asked if the council could vote separately on the two projects included in the amendment. City Attorney Emily Jerome said staff would prepare separate motions. Councilor Zelenka asked that staff provide maps of the terrain showing critical habitat and environmental work that remained to be done when the amendment came before the council for action. He also asked for information on how the projects would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Mayor Piercy asked staff to also provide information on discussions that had taken place with BLM and whether the amendment was based on a policy direction that had shifted over time. She questioned whether the amendment was being proposed prematurely. 2. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Time Extensions for Approved Developments; and Providing an Ef- fective Date Mr. Ruiz explained that the ordinance would provide a one-time automatic three-year time extension for approved land use applications that had not yet expired. As a part of the City’s economic stimulus efforts the proposal would allow projects that had already undergone an extensive public process, and received City approval, more time to be completed. He said council action on the item was scheduled for November 9. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. Jared Mason-Gere, Willamette Street, Eugene, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that the building industry was facing difficult financial times because of the economic downturn and a shortage of lenders, tenants and buyers. He said implementing the ordinance would not cost the City and would benefit a large number of people in the community. He said adoption of the ordinance would send a positive, business-friendly message to the community and those who were struggling financially. Phil Farrington, Monroe Street, Eugene, representing the Lane County Home Builders Association, expressed support for the ordinance. He said the planning process was rigorous and local economic conditions needed to be given consideration by allowing developers who had completed that process, and secured approval, additional time to finish their projects. He said other communities had enacted similar ordinances to help provide support during difficult financial periods and rejecting the proposal would cause hardship. He urged the council to approve the ordinance as nothing was better than the gift of time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2009 Page 2 Public Hearing Mayor Piercy closed the hearing and called for comments from councilors. Councilor Zelenka asked why the extension had changed from the initial proposal of two years to a three- year period. Gabe Flock, Planning Division, replied that the Planning Commission had considered testimony presented to it during a public hearing on the ordinance and recommended expanding the extension from two years to three years. He said the original proposal was based on state legislation that would have extended applications or permit approvals for a two-year period, but the Planning Commission chose to expand that based on testimony and evidence of the continuing economic downturn. He said the state legislation did not pass because of concerns related to Home Rule, but several jurisdictions had taken local action to grant extensions. Councilor Zelenka asked if other jurisdictions had granted two- or three-year extensions. Mr. Flock replied that it varied among jurisdictions and most had several different expiration periods based on the type of permit. Staff would provide that information to the council. Mayor Piercy affirmed the City’s long-term commitment to economic development. 3. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Citation Authority of University of Oregon Department of Public Safety and Amending Section 4.035 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Ruiz said the code amendment would increase citation authority for the University of Oregon Depart- ment of Public Safety (DPS) officers to enforce misdemeanors on university property, in addition to the authority they received in 2003. He said misdemeanors, unlike violations, were crimes for which the offenders could potentially be sentenced to jail or assessed fines. The amendment would streamline services, freeing Eugene police for other calls for service and reducing the number of officers assigned to the university. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. st Malcolm Wilson, East 21 Avenue, Ward 3, Eugene, representing South University Neighbors, stated that the neighborhood association favored the amendment, which would reduce duplication of services between DPS and the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and keep more Eugene officers on City streets and allow DPS officers to respond more effectively on campus. Both departments would be better able to preserve quality of life on campus and in the neighborhoods. He said South University Neighbors joined EPD in supporting the proposed code change. Emma Kallaway , Orchard Street, Eugene, University of Oregon student body president spoke in support of the code amendment. She said she felt the amendment would help build more positive relationships between students and DPS and benefits of the code change included allowing DPS officers to operate more efficiently by being able to issue citations without having to wait for a Eugene police officer, then move on to other campus duties. She said it was important to work within the university’s conduct code and giving DPS more enforcement authority would allow them more leeway when dealing with students. She said of particular importance to students was allowing DPS officers to escort off campus quickly any unwelcome non-students who violated a trespassing code. She urged the council to adopt the ordinance so that DPS officers could focus on crime prevention and use their time as wisely as possible while supporting university students. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2009 Page 3 Public Hearing Phil Farrington, Monroe Street, Eugene, representing PeaceHealth and the University Small Business Association, supported the ordinance. He said passage of the ordinance would allow EPD resources to be better spent elsewhere in the community. He commended the efforts of EPD and the university to craft a strategy that met public safety objectives in the most efficient manner possible and benefited the entire community, as well as those who lived and shopped in the university area. Paul Shang , Wendover Street, Eugene, assistant vice president of student affairs and dean of students at the University of Oregon, spoke on behalf of the university. He asked for the council’s support of the ordinance to grant enhanced citation authority to DPS officers. He said the ordinance was in the best interests of everyone concerned as it would free Eugene police officers for other service and allow campus officers to cite and release individuals, instead of detaining them until an EPD officer arrived. He said it would enable the university to take enforcement action oriented to the campus environment and aid students by allowing DPS officers to enforce the misdemeanors that impacted students – theft and trespass being high among them. He said student government and student leadership were involved in the development of the ordinance, which had a high level of student support. He thanked the council for its time and consideration. th Doug Tripp , East 15 Avenue, Eugene, University of Oregon director of public safety, said the ordinance modification being sought by DPS and EPD was very important for both the City and the university. It was the next logical step in the university’s efforts to shoulder a greater burden to address crimes and violations on campus and in the edge of the campus area. He said expansion of DPS officers’ citation authority to include certain misdemeanor offenses would help the university be more effective in responding to the needs of students, faculty, staff and guests by being able to direct immediate response to criminal activity on campus. EPD would gain greater efficiencies through elimination of the duplication that had existed. He submitted written testimony and thanked the council for considering the additional enforcement tool for DPS officers. He affirmed that the university would continue to collaborate with EPD as a partner in public safety. Mayor Piercy closed the hearing and called for comments from councilors. Councilor Clark complimented the university and EPD for their collaborative work to develop a strategy to increase public safety in an efficient way. He hoped that a similar collaborative effort could result in public safety options for the downtown area. In response to questions from Councilor Brown, EPD Captain Rich Stronach said that DPS officers were employees of the university and were not armed. Their primary responsibility was with university property, but DPS officers also spent time in the near-campus area because of the high concentration of student housing. He explained what constituted minor-in-possession and trespass violations and related enforcement activities. He said currently if DPS wanted to cite someone for trespass, EPD had to be contacted and dispatch an EPD officer to respond and write the citation; the ordinance modification would allow a DPS officer to issue the citation to the offender. Councilor Brown asked if the modification would have any impact on game days. Captain Stronach said that it would allow DPS officers to write open container citations. Councilor Zelenka asked if the ordinance modification would cover all of the violations listed in Eugene Code 4.035. Captain Stronach said the ordinance would grant DPS the authority to issue citations for certain violations; the City Manager would determine which violations would be included in the intergo- MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2009 Page 4 Public Hearing vernmental agreement (IGA) granting that citation authority. He said there were some violations that would be inappropriate or inapplicable to the IGA. He stated that the Police Chief supported the ordinance. In response to comments from Councilor Poling, Captain Stronach clarified that DPS officers had the authority to stop and search and make arrests on probable cause anywhere, not just on university property, but in practice did not engage in enforcement activities outside of the near-campus area. Councilor Poling commended DPS for moving forward and assuming more responsibility for public safety on campus and in adjacent areas. Mr. Ruiz noted that while campus officers had the authority to take action on probable cause under state law, the ordinance would only apply if a violation occurred on university property. Councilor Taylor questioned how trespass could occur if the university campus was open to the public. Captain Stronach explained that the University of Oregon was private property, but the premises were open to the public. He said DPS did not contact all campus visitors; officers concentrated on those who appeared to be engaged in inappropriate or criminal behavior. He said enforcement would be similar to the downtown exclusion ordinance, which required a violation before someone was excluded from the area. Mayor Piercy said the ordinance would be a tool for increasing public safety on and near campus and addressing the concerns of adjacent neighborhoods about the interface with students living in the area. She was pleased with the collaboration between the university and EPD and the support of neighbors for the proposed ordinance modification. She regarded it as a step toward community policing. Councilor Zelenka asked for a copy of the IGA and a list of violations that would be covered under the ordinance to be included in agenda materials when the item came before the council for action. Police Chief Pete Kerns said the violations the University of Oregon would be authorized to issue citations for had not yet been determined; those would be set forth in the IGA signed by the City Manager and the university. The initial list would be limited to those where there was the greatest need, such as criminal trespass, and expanded if necessary in the future. He said the ordinance would authorize the City to expand that agreement with the university. Councilor Zelenka asked that the agenda packet contain the current IGA and included violations, in addition to the violations that would be in the expanded list. Mayor Piercy stated that the hearings and public records were closed for items 1 and 2, which were land use matters. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2009 Page 5 Public Hearing (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 19, 2009 Page 6 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 26, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Piercy described her participation in National Make a Difference Day activities, related to fire safety improvements. She announced that the Public Works Department had received the 2009 Transportation Safety Award for its Bailey Hill Road project and Eugene had been designated as a gold level bike friendly community. She reminded the public that the neighborhood survey could still be taken. She also reported on her attendance at a performance at the Hult Center that connected with other people around the world on the issue of climate change, a pumpkin-carving contest and a town hall meeting on domestic violence. She met with visitors from Korea regarding their possible purchase of the Hynix facility. Mr. Clark thanked the Chamber of Commerce for its Business-to-Business Expo, which was a very successful event to encourage the local economy. He conveyed a request from the Police Auditor for the council to consider the idea that whenever there was a community impact case the auditor would make a presentation to the full council. He noted that he would be “principal for a day” at Cal Young Middle School on October 27. Mr. Pryor also expressed his appreciation for the Business-to-Business Expo. He felt the recent community forum went well. He said he attended the Explore Oregon tour at the University of Oregon and found the information very interesting. Ms. Taylor said she had attended a symphony concert for fourth- and fifth-graders and the students were very well behaved. She would be “principal for a day” at South Eugene High School. She asked to have formation of a committee to review the City’s assessment policies as an item on a future agenda. She said the Human Services Commission budget was stable thanks to federal stimulus funds, but funds for human services, particularly for the homeless population, were still inadequate. She hoped the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee would focus on legislation to establish homeless shelters throughout the state. She said the IGR would begin reviewing bills that were supported, but not passed, during the last session with the intent of seeing those bills in the 2011 legislative session. She said examples were bills related to counties to enacting vehicle registration fees without a vote, right of return to an equivalent job after family leave, increasing funding for footpaths and bicycle trails, and removal of the prohibition on real estate transfer taxes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for their efforts in support of the Business-to-Business Expo. She attended a River Road Community Organization meeting at which there was a comprehensive presentation on permaculture and sustainable living. She said the recommendations from the ambulance subcommittee were being finalized. She was grateful that Eugene was such a walkable city after a recent visit to Austin, Texas. Mr. Brown said he also attended the climate change event at the Hult Center and was pleased to see the large number of people downtown, particularly families with children. He also attended a benefit for the Community Alliance of Lane County and a Best of Eugene awards ceremony. He said the Planning Commission was primarily focused on infill compatibility standards at its recent meeting and thanked outgoing commissioners Philip Carroll and John Lawless for their service. Ms. Solomon announced that Active Bethel Citizens would meet on October 27. Mr. Poling encouraged the public to attend meetings of the Lane Transit District EmX Steering Committee and provide testimony. He said the Gateway EmX project was on time and on budget, with modifications to accommodate PeaceHealth’s development plans and change bus traffic patterns at the downtown station. He attended the Travel Lane County meeting at Driftwood Shores in Florence and a Cal Young Neighborhood Association meeting. Mr. Zelenka said he had met with representatives of the Korean firm interested in purchasing the Hynix property for use as a solar facility. He said the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Greenhouse Gas Tax Force held it first meeting in Salem and staff would determine the best way to provide the council with updates on the task force’s activities. He was pleased that the efforts of many in the community and City organization had resulted in a gold level designation of Eugene as a bike-friendly community. He was also pleased that the City Manager was forming a street repair review committee to determine compliance with the provisions of the bond measure and with Public Works Department’s receipt of an award for innovative and sustainable paving practices. He attended meetings of the South University Neighbors and the Sustainability Commission. City Manager Jon Ruiz announced the Arts and Business Alliance breakfast on November 6 to discuss activities during the past year and plans for the future. He said that Pete Kerns would be officially sworn in as police chief on November 6 and the first Budget Committee meeting was scheduled for November 2. He had attended a Lane Transit District strategic planning session and found it very informative. He thanked the street repair program project management and engineering team and the crime prevention team for their efforts during the past year. Mr. Clark thanked Ms. Piercy and Mr. Ruiz for scheduling a work session on downtown public safety and commended the Eugene Police Department for solving several major crimes quickly. Ms. Piercy added that she had attended a public arts workshop and noted that the Kiva had been selected as the best downtown business. She drew the council’s attention to a letter from Representative Nancy Nathanson congratulating the City for its recognition as a member of the Regional Fiber Consortium. B. WORK SESSION: Eugene Counts Update MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Ruiz introduced Terrie Monroe, City Manager’s Office, to present the update on Eugene Counts, which was a part of the council’s ongoing conversation about goals and visions and engaging the community in that process. Ms. Monroe used a slide presentation to provide a mid-course status report on Eugene Counts. She said Eugene Counts was the way that council goals were connected to concrete results the community wanted to see. She reviewed samples of responses when the community was asked what it envisioned for each of the following goals: ? Safe community ? Sustainable development ? Accessible and thriving culture and recreation ? Effective and accountable municipal government ? Fair, stable and adequate financial resources Ms. Monroe said that common results and common aspirations from diverse perspectives began to emerge as the responses were analyzed. She reviewed the data collection strategies that used multiple modes to obtain information from the community; particularly from those people who did not typically talk to the City Council and whose voices were not usually heard. She described the qualitative analysis methods that would be applied to data with quantitative rigor. She said the process would result in top ranked results for each of the goals and a set of outcomes and suggested measures, which would be presented to the council in December. She stressed there was still time for the public to provide input to Eugene Counts. She would provide survey packets to council members to distribute when they attended community events. Ms. Piercy asked about the use of focus groups in the process. Ms. Monroe replied that a recruiter was used to draw representative samples of people for focus groups. Mr. Clark thanked staff for their work on Eugene Counts. He hoped the project would be a useful tool for establishing priorities in the budget process and looked forward to having an informative tool for analyzing services and associated values and identifying the highest priorities. He asked how the City Manager envisioned using the results to guide budget decisions. Mr. Ruiz said the Eugene Counts results would be available in time to inform his budget decisions and the Budget Committee’s work; information would be provided to the Budget Committee as it became available. He said the data would be used in service profiles and priorities, and to identify gaps and fill them sustainably. He would provide a more detailed explanation at the Budget Committee meeting. Mr. Pryor was pleased with Eugene Counts and said, while informative data was very useful in the budget process, it should work in tandem with the Budget Committee process and not dominate it. He hoped that a sense of the larger priorities within the five goals would emerge from Eugene Counts. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Monroe said approximately 800 responses had been received to date. Mr. Brown asked about the source of random samples for focus groups. Ms. Monroe replied that the usual source was voter lists and the optimal size for a focus group was 10 to 12 people. She said there would be two focus groups for the population to be surveyed. Ms. Piercy observed that people’s priorities shifted over time as issues emerged in the community. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked if staff had contacted all of the neighborhood associations. Ms. Monroe said presenta- tions had been made to some groups and all neighborhood leaders had been invited to participate. Ms. Piercy commended staff’s participation in the community forum. She felt the Eugene Counts initiative was very important. Mr. Clark asked if responses were being filtered to determine if they came from Eugene residents. Ms. Monroe said survey respondents were asked to provide their zip codes. . CONSENT CALENDAR C A. Approval of City Council Minutes of September 9, 2009, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4989 Affirming the City’s Commitment to Human Rights and Choice in Mental Health Care Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Mr. Brown pulled Item C for discussion. Items A and B on the Consent Calendar were approved unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Brown spoke in support of the City’s commitment to human rights and thanked those in the community who had worked on the initiative. Mr. Clark thanked Hugh Massengill for his work on human rights and mental health care choice. Item C on the Consent Calendar was approved unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 4 Work Session ATTACHMENT H M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon October 26, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that the Consent Calendar had been approved during the preceding council work session. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Gaylyn Forster , 1955 Minda Drive, expressed concern that Rick Brissenden might not be reappointed to the Civilian Review Board (CRB). He had been following the aftermath of the tasering incident that had happened in May, 2008, and he felt that there appeared to be a lack of meaningful police oversight. He considered the loss of Mr. Brissenden to mean a loss of objectivity. He worried that the public might lose faith and to him, it felt like something was going wrong. He asserted that the City Council had a lack of willingness to have meaningful police oversight. He was concerned for the Eugene Police Department (EPD). He opined that without meaningful oversight the EPD “would pay,” and thoughtful, careful oversight was in their favor. Amy Pincus Merwin , 2220 Sandy Drive, said she had emailed her comments to the council and the Mayor. She declared that a dynamic had seemed to be “set up” since the tasering incident of May, 2008, which she believed had been “without cause.” She opined that there had been a series of “manipulations, controls, procrastinations, accusations” that had “undermined” the CRB process. She had been a witness and a speaker at the rally at which the tasering incident had occurred. She was shocked by how little understanding there seemed to be of what had actually occurred on that day, as she perceived it. She asserted that some members of the CRB were “in lockstep” with some members of the Police Commission, the council, the EPD, and the Eugene Police Employee Association (EPEA). It had been painful for her and had “re-stimulated the trauma” of witnessing the tasering incident. She feared the young man who had been tasered would never recover from having a concussion and that he would probably never exercise his civil liberties again. She felt that there was a syndrome she considered to be “battered community syndrome.” She alleged that members of the community and the City Council seemed “to be afraid” to speak up. She asserted that CRB members Rick Brissenden and Kate Wilkinson were willing to engage in dialogue and to question things, looking hard at the issues. She had heard that Mr. Brissenden’s appointment was in jeopardy. She believed that he was “just the kind of person” that should serve on the CRB. She urged the council to reappoint Mr. Brissenden. Hal Reed , 85139 Appletree Drive, stated that he had been asked by Eugene Advocates to speak up on behalf of public safety downtown. He provided two handouts, both pictorials of the significant problems and examples of the kinds of behavior no one wanted to see in the downtown area. He asked the council to review the pictures and to come up with some immediate solutions. He averred that public safety was the cornerstone of an economically viable downtown. He declared that unless they did something about it, no one with any money was going to come downtown and stay. He said the kinds of things that one sees in the downtown area scared the public away. He added that he himself felt scared away. He opined that to look at other kinds of issues without engaging in public MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting safety was “kind of disingenuous.” He said all they had to do was to walk the streets and they would see what was going on. He suggested that the council and the Mayor had to face up to the situation. He listed some of the issues that were plaguing the downtown, which included graffiti, public urination, and public indecency. He believed that there were laws on the books that could be enforced and urged the council to do what was needed to fix the public safety problem downtown. Carol Berg-Caldwell , 2510 Augusta Street, Councilor Zelenka’s ward, thanked the Mayor and council for the time and attention given to appointments to boards, committees, and commissions. She urged them to reappoint Mr. Brissenden to the CRB. She related that she had attended many CRB and Police Commission meetings to gain more understanding of police and community relations. She averred that police and the community were not separate. She asserted that Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson’s work on the CRB was driven by “the desire to restore shattered trust” and “to build bridges.” She quoted Mr. Brissenden’s application, which said he believed the goal should be that citizens and police see no distinctions between them other than occupation. She likened the division between the police and the community to a “blue wall.” She believed that Mr. Brissenden’s “words and service” call on the community to “take down the wall.” She asked the council to reward Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson and not to “punish them.” She averred that in doing so, the council would reward a community that had clearly supported external police oversight. She implored the council to reappoint Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson, so that they could “continue their good work.” David Oaks , 2000 City View Street, Ward 8 – Councilor Pryor’s ward, stated that he directed Mind Freedom International. He was present to thank the council for passing Resolution 4989, a resolution affirming the City’s commitment to human rights and choice in mental health care, in its Consent Calendar. He also thanked Holly LeMasurier, Human Rights Analyst for the City, and the Human Rights Commission (HRC) staff for making sure that the resolution had been completed and submitted for approval. He commended Mayor Piercy for being “extremely supportive” and noted that former HRC chair, Carmen Urbina, had been a “key person” in moving the resolution forward. He said two public forums and a conference had been held, with the latter co-sponsored by the City. He had been doing this work for 33 years and had not seen this type of resolution passed by other cities, because it was not just about mental health, it was a resolution that declared that there should be a range of choices available to people, including more non-drug choices. He considered the resolution unique, adding that he felt it would influence other cities and Lane County. He also wished to share that there was now a statewide coalition of mental health consumer and psychiatric survivor groups called OCSC, standing for Oregon Mental Health Consumer/Psychiatric Survivor Coalition. He reiterated his thanks to the council and Mayor for passing the resolution. th Samantha Chirillo , 3930 West 17 Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA) Steering Committee. She implored the council to “support real police oversight” by reappointing CRB members Brissenden and Wilkinson. She opined that they were the only members of the CRB who “recognized the need” for adjudication for the public impact case. She conveyed the committee’s demand for a revision of the taser policy to allow use only in place of the use of deadly force and to equip every taser with a camera. She believed that a taser camera “would have revealed the truth” about both the actions of the police and those that attended the rally in May 30, 2008. She considered herself very familiar with Mr. Brissenden as chair of the CRB. She related that she had attended a police oversight panel that he had participated in and she had also served with him on the community panel to interview police auditor candidates. Additionally, she had attended the CRB meeting at which they had considered the public impact case. She agreed with Mr. Brissenden’s assessment that it was a matter of choices on the part of the police that determined the course of events on that day. Speaking on her own behalf, she averred that the “greatness of a city” depended largely on how it treated the members of the community that had the least financial and political status. She considered this group to include youth and homeless people. She opined that “time and time again” youth were being treated in a “deplorable and immoral and illegal manner.” She felt that “politically active” youth were singled out. She did not think that they could expect a positive future in the community if youth continued to be treated this way by law enforcement. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting William A. Ivanoff , 2340 Grant Street, commented that he had been a person that had been against the EPD, but after recently working with them he had found that a lot of them were nice and helpful. He averred that with the “possible appointment of pro-police commissioners on the CRB” it seemed to him that someone was trying to make more revenue available for the City. He believed that if they stacked pro-police people on the CRB, then there would be no reason for its existence and then there would be no real reason for an auditor. He suggested that if this was true they should put it on the ballot and ask the voters if they wanted to get rid of the auditor’s office and “free up some money.” He hoped he was misinformed about the council’s “wish to put pro-police people on the CRB.” He also had noticed that there were efforts to make the downtown better, one of which was the bicycle police officers. He felt their presence had made it nicer in the downtown area. He suggested that one thing that might help to revitalize the downtown would be to reduce the streets to two lanes in either direction with parking on all downtown thth streets. He also suggested that the City “take back” 6 and 7 Avenues from the State. He believed this would make the downtown a more pedestrian-oriented place. Tracy Dumas , 2986 Oak Street, Apt. 110, Ward 2, thanked the councilors for passing the resolution for choice in the mental health system. She had been a member of the mental health system for approximately 35 years and she had seen a lot of individuals, including her, who had not been given a choice of alternatives and who had their power taken away. She wanted to thank Mayor Piercy especially because she had “been there with us since the beginning.” Diane Raack , 865 Louis Street, Councilor Solomon’s ward, stated that she routinely was asked to shoo the vagrants out of the alley that led to the front door of the business she worked for. She said sometimes she had to deal with teenagers who were skipping school and smoking in the alley and other times people hung out there to smoke pot and drink beer. She related that she tried to be respectful when she asked people to vacate the area, explaining to them that their clients needed to have access to the door. Some people had been respectful in return and others had been verbally abusive. She also related that in the past year some people had taken to “hanging out in the bushes” and making it their home. While she wanted people to have a place to go, hanging out in the bushes near the business’ front door was not the right place. She said it started with a few bags of clothes and then a tarp showed up along with human excrement. She had spoken with the people and they had left, but this type of situation was becoming more frequent. She understood that people needed a place to go, but she did not want to clean up their vomit, urine, feces, or trash. She underscored that this situation was not specific to just the area in which she worked; it was all over the downtown area. She averred that there needed to be tools “with teeth.” She added that Councilor Clark had a good idea for cleaning up the downtown area and she hoped the council would give him support for it. Ron Unger , 1770 Augusta Street, Ward 3, stated that he was a licensed clinical social worker. He thanked the council for passing the human rights and mental health resolution. He thought it would do a lot to help the mental health system toward being a friendlier more versatile system that would “fit” different people. He underscored that there was no “one size fits all” solution for people. Different approaches were needed, especially for young people who needed to be reached before they ended up in a serious crisis. He felt that the resolution would help create a mental health system that was more positive and hopeful and would help work to foster full recovery. Jorge Navarro , 1452 West Broadway, Ward 1, supported the reappointment of Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson to the CRB. He averred that they both had proven that they should continue to be on the board. He believed that they presented “that other voice.” He had followed the evolution of the CRB through the print media and as “a participant” in the process. He felt the CRB was at a “critical juncture.” He opined that Mr. Brissenden offered a voice that “sometimes makes people uncomfortable,” which was “a good sign.” He perceived Mr. Brissenden’s voice to be balanced and thoughtful. He urged the council to reappoint Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson. th Joe Alsup , 36 West 38 Avenue, Councilor Taylor’s ward, advocated for the reappointment of Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson. He thought that the jobs that they had done could be controversial, but they had that as a standard. He felt that the City should want to have this on any of its committees in which a wide range of people’s opinions MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting were sought to reflect the community. He noted that he sat on the Police Commission and was a “huge fan” of the EPD. He wanted a new facility for the officers, he wanted more officers and for them not to have to do enforced overtime, and he wanted money to come into the department that showed the respect that they deserved and earned. He averred that what the community asked the police to do was “amazing” to him and how they did it was “a point of civic pride.” He felt that the oversight system was critical to the relationship they had within the community and the department. He said if they were going to try and have the community vote for more bond measures, there had to be a level of trust. He perceived the refusal to appoint Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson as diminishing that trust. He had heard it rumored that Ms. Wilkinson might be reappointed, but Mr. Brissenden might not. He opined that the loss of either of them would put into question the council’s support of police oversight. Fred Hamlin , P.O. Box 2871, favored the empowerment of the University of Oregon’s Department of Public Safety (DPS). He believed that the council was on the right track. He thought it could be expanded significantly. He averred that “obviously in this day and age” there would not be more money for police officers or corrections facilities. He declared that the more eyes they could put on the street to do the job and free officers to do other work, the better off everyone would be. th Ronan Kelly , 660 West 20 Avenue, spoke in favor of the reappointment of Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson. She had experienced violence in her life and considered herself not to be naïve about public safety. She averred that the people she feared the most in Eugene were the police. She opined that the town needed a strong review board that was not afraid to criticize the police. Majeska Seese-Green , P.O. Box 1214, Ward 7, urged the council to support the reappointment of Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson to the CRB. She said it was necessary to have a balanced board. She opined that without the two of them, it would not be “nearly what the public would consider a balanced board.” She averred that if the board was already made up of a majority of people who thought like Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson, she would be testifying in favor of appointing people from a completely different point of view. She declared that this “kind of balance” was necessary for the public to have trust in the oversight system. She was also concerned that the community panel used to review the CRB applications seemed like it “was practically in secret.” She understood that it was not really secret, but she averred that “it might as well be when nobody knows anything about it.” She wanted them to conduct the review more publicly and transparently in the future. She said she had submitted a public records request for copies of the deliberations. She noted that one person who had served on the panel was a member of the EPD Internal Affairs (IA) division. She opined that this represented a conflict of interest, because people such as Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson had been critical of IA. She suggested that someone other than the IA employee and, perhaps, not a representative of EPD should serve on the community panel. Michael L. Quillen , 2735 Kismet Way, Ward 8, was very concerned by the “rapid use” of tasers by the EPD. He said following the community impact case and in light of the two recent cases of tasering, he would urge the council to adopt a moratorium on taser use without a reasonable belief that a deadly weapon was present. He declared that arms and feet were not weapons and police should be trained to deal with citizens; more confrontation was not needed. He asked them to imagine that it was their son or daughter who had been tasered and taken to jail. He asked them to imagine how they would feel. He cited the recent incident in which two foreign students had been tasered. He averred that this was not the image that the City would want to present to the rest of the world. He asked the council to “clean up” the taser issue. He urged the council to reappoint Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson to the CRB. He opined that any other outcome of the decision would amount “to cherry-picking pro-police members of the CRB” and this was not what external oversight was. He felt that the signal that was being sent to the community was that it was the police who were running the CRB. Randy Prince , 2990 Onyx Street, supported the reappointment of Mr. Brissenden to the CRB. He felt that some people did not think Mr. Brissenden was nice enough. He had seen the interviews and noted that Mr. Brissenden had not smiled much. He averred that Mr. Brissenden was forthright and had provoked some people. He understood that MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting a majority of the council did not intend to reappoint him. He opined that a couple of the councilors who were identified as liberal did not want someone “who pushed too hard.” He did not think this was the right approach. He asserted that inside the EPD there was a feeling of besiegement that was due to the negative public opinion after the Magaña/Lara incident in which officers were ultimately charged as criminals and sent to jail. He believed the police pushed back against the council and against the Chief of Police. He commented that he would be outraged but it “was not that out of character for police” because police were trained to show force when faced with force. He declared that it would “be a real negative” if the council responded “to pressure” from the officers “by caving in” and appointing CRB members that tried not to “hurt the cops’ feelings.” He thought they needed an objective, credible CRB that upheld discipline. He felt that Mr. Brissenden was the most knowledgeable and experienced member. He wanted both Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson to be reappointed. He predicted that the situation with tasers would be exacerbated because some felt that tasers were just an alternative to the billy club and pepper spray, meaning that more cases would come before the CRB. th Howard Bonnett , 1835 East 28 Avenue, Councilor Zelenka’s ward, said he had come before the council because he had been feeling badly. He had served on the advisory committee for the appointment of the CRB for three out of the four times the committee had been convened. He believed that the make-up of the CRB had changed. He expressed disappointment in his performance during the last convening of the committee. He had felt that the best applicant for the initial board appointment was a man who had been appointed. He believed he had demonstrated the most thorough knowledge and understanding of what the CRB was charged with and how it should function. He underscored that this was what he looked for in any applicant. He had tried to apply that rule without respect to whether an applicant held conservative or liberal viewpoints. He felt that he had allowed himself to be deluded in the last round of appointments and he had failed to cast a positive vote when he should have. He asked the council to make their own judgments as to whether the individual had upheld the purpose of the CRB and done a good job and whether there was any reason why that person should not be reappointed. He indicated his intention to decline to serve on the committee in the future. Eugene Drix , Ward 3, said he was proud of Eugene. He had spent the weekend in Seattle and had gone to a pumpkin push with his daughter, a race event involving costumes. He related that as he drove back he had passed Husky Stadium when everyone was preparing for the football game. He noted that his daughter had graduated “as a husky.” He had been requested to consider serving on the Planning Commission and, after attending a meeting, had decided to decline. He preferred to provide testimony to the council. He came before the council because he lived in America and this was a part of freedom. He said free was part of freedom and when people received free things they really appreciated it. He commented that mental issues were something he had dealt with his whole life. He related that he had watched city council meetings in other cities on his trip and there were issues facing other cities as well. He averred that there were issues that they would face that they had never faced before. He remarked that in his neighborhood, the West University Neighbors, builders were encouraged to add lights to increase the lighting in the area. He said they also had “other life forms” in their neighborhood such as raccoons, squirrels, and “no-ads,” i.e. people with no address. He stated that they could only face the future if they were all facing the same direction. He added that his last word for the evening would be ‘integrity.’ Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She thanked everyone for coming. She underscored that everyone sitting on the City Council wanted a meaningful and credible police oversight system. She announced to those with concerns about public safety in the downtown area that a meeting on the issue was scheduled for November 23. She said Volunteers in Policing were working hard on the graffiti issue. She also wanted to express to those who came in support of the mental health resolution that she had been glad to support it. She appreciated those who worked hard to get the resolution before the council. Regarding the person who spoke in support of increasing the empowerment of the University DPS, she explained that the public hearing on the item had been held and the council planned to take action on it on November 9. She also wanted to clarify that the community panel that helped to screen applicants to the CRB had been convened in the same way it had been convened in the past. She noted that the officer in question had participated in the process previously. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for speaking. She averred that they had heard things that were “inspirational, intelligent, courageous, and … with integrity.” She congratulated Mr. Oaks for his success in helping to see the resolution come forward. She felt that everyone who spoke had said something wonderful, but she wanted to call out Ms. Berg-Caldwell and Ms. Pincus Merwin for “working for what’s right.” She thought everyone had spoken well and convincingly. She agreed with people who felt that the City was in danger of negating the efficiency of the CRB. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for coming down to the meeting and for all of the emails she had received on the issues that were discussed during the evening. She underscored that her main objective was to maintain the integrity of the office of the Police Auditor and the CRB. She believed it was critical to get the right mix of people to serve on the board. She did not consider it to be “rocket science,” rather they should look at the community as a whole and try to achieve balance. She encouraged people to participate in government because it was necessary. It perturbed her to hear people question the integrity of the council and her own integrity. She noted that the only pressure she had experienced had been from people on the “progressive side.” She stressed that she took her job very seriously. She represented a mix of seven different neighborhoods in Ward 7 and she tried to consider everyone when she made any decision. She also felt that when people commented that if the council did not do one thing or another it would bring into question the work that would continue to be done on the CRB, it was disrespectful of the people who were there working. She believed they had good people working on the CRB who put a lot of hours into the work. Councilor Clark thanked everyone who came to speak to the council. He wanted to underscore how much he appreciated and respected Mr. Bonnett’s tone and manner. He said he could really respect someone who disagreed with him but did so from a position of integrity. He echoed the comments made by Councilor Ortiz. He had found it offensive to hear that if he did not agree with some of the people who testified, they could then define his motives and claim that he was “somehow ruining the system or putting it into question.” He found accusations that the council was not committed to police oversight to be harmful to the community moving forward together. He perceived the job as coming to a place of balance. He stressed that the council received a lot of input from a lot of different places in the community. He received many emails, some from the people who had testified and many from north Eugene, the ward for which he served as representative. He said the opinions he fielded were “wildly in disagreement.” He encouraged everyone to have the kind of conversation that left everyone’s integrity intact in the process of disagreeing about how they would “get there.” He also observed that a number of untrue statements had been provided as fact, particularly in regard to tasering incidents. He noted that there were cameras on the tasers that had been deployed at the May, 2008, incident. Regarding the incident, he underscored that everyone had a right to free speech and everyone had the right to be heard, but no one had the right to force people to hear them. Councilor Brown thanked everybody who had come to the meeting. He read a statement into the record. He opined that while the council wanted an independent police auditor, it sought to diminish the auditor’s authority by “a hundred small cuts” in ordinance amendments and it transferred parts of that authority to the police chief, the City Manager, and the municipal court judge. He averred that though the council said it would support the auditor, the council questioned the personal integrity and competence of the first two auditors. He asserted that though it was said that capable, experienced people were wanted to serve on the CRB, people who would conduct rigorous and thorough analysis, broaden the discussion, provoke thought, and speak “inconvenient truths,” were discarded when the council was “lucky enough” to get them. He alleged that they were doing everything they could to diminish the credibility and to ensure the failure of the civilian oversight process. He opined that their hypocrisy was subliminal, unspoken, and subconscious. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - September 9, 2009, Work Session B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting C. Adoption of Resolution 4989 Affirming the City’s Commitment to Human Rights and Choice in Mental Health Care The City Council approved the Consent Calendar during the Work Session that preceded this meeting. 3. ACTION: Appointments to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Budget Committee Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to reappoint Doug Smith to Position 3 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to reappoint Joseph Potwora to Position 5 on the Budget Committee for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Ramin Shojai to Position 7 on the Budget Committee, the unexpired term of Kate Davidson ending on June 30, 2011. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy congratulated the newly appointed member and reappointed members of the Budget Committee. Civilian Review Board Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to reappoint Kate Wilkinson to Position 5 on the Civilian Review Board, for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. The motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Solomon voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to reappoint Tim Laue to Position 4 on the Civilian Review Board, for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to substitute Rick Brissenden for Tim Laue. Mayor Piercy voiced her support of Mr. Brissenden and Ms. Wilkinson. She remarked that Mr. Laue was “doing a fine job” and she also supported him. She said when the council undertook the appointment process, those who were applying for reappointment participated in an open application process that allowed the councilors to consider all of the applicants. She noted that she had voted twice not to reappoint people in the past. She stressed that some might not like the decision, but it was the right and responsibility of the councilors to make the best decision they could under the circumstances. Councilor Taylor said she was voting to support Mr. Brissenden because of “his intelligence, his knowledge, his experience both professionally and on the board, and all of the reasons” stated by those who testified. Councilor Clark supported Mr. Laue. He felt Mr. Laue was doing a good job and he wanted to reappoint him. He indicated that he would not support Mr. Brissenden. He underscored that he had given it a great deal of thought and had received “a number of inputs” from across the community regarding Mr. Brissenden. He indicated his MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting willingness to discuss his reasoning for his vote with anyone who wished to discuss it. He believed he had balanced reasons for his vote. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute Rick Brissenden for Tim Laue failed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Taylor voting in favor. Roll call vote; the motion to reappoint Tim Laue to Position 4 on the Civilian Review Board passed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Steven Buel-McIntire to Position 3 on the Civilian Review Board, for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to substitute Rick Brissenden for Steven Buel-McIntire. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting in support. Roll call vote; the motion to appoint Steven Buel-McIntire to Position 3 on the Civilian Review Board passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Eric Van Houten to Position 1 on the Civilian Review Board, the unexpired term of Ann Marie Lemire, ending on June 30, 2011. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to substitute Steven Broome for Eric Van Houten. Councilor Poling explained that Mr. Broome had experience in all aspects of law enforcement. He said Mr. Broome had been the subject of an investigation and had conducted investigations and disciplinary hearings for officers and had an understanding of the oversight system. He believed Mr. Broome had a level of integrity and a commitment to a fair and honest law enforcement agency. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute failed, 6:2; councilors Solomon and Poling voting in support. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to substitute Rick Brissenden for Eric Van Houten. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Taylor voting in favor. Roll call vote; the motion to appoint Eric Van Houten to Position 1 on the Civilian Review Board passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy congratulated the newly appointed and reappointed members of the Civilian Review Board. Human Rights Commission Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Ron Burley to Position 2, Melissa Mona to Position 4, Michelle Maher to Position 6, Lorraine Kerwood to Position 8, Mat Beecher to Position 9, Toni Gyatso to Position 10, Autumn Lovell to Position 11, Iva Boslough to Position 12, Brian Keith Mason to Position 13, and to reappoint Linda Hamilton to Position 14 on the Human Rights Commission. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy congratulated the members appointed to the Human Rights Commission. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting Planning Commission Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Jonathan Belcher to Position 4 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2014. Councilor Ortiz moved to substitute Carla Gary for Jonathan Belcher. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Brown, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to substitute Carolyn Jacobs for Jonathan Belcher. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Taylor voting in support. Councilor Ortiz wanted to clarify that she had moved to substitute because she had hoped to “get some new blood” on the commission. She thought Mr. Belcher had done a great job during his previous tenure on the Planning Commission. Councilor Clark expressed respect for Councilor Ortiz’s position. He noted that there would likely be two new members on the commission and pointed out that the load ahead of the commission was heavier than it had been in some years. He agreed that there was value in new thoughts and new blood, but there was also a value in experience. He intended to support Mr. Belcher. Roll call vote; the motion to appoint Jonathan Belcher to Position 4 on the Planning Commission passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Lisa Warnes to Position 5 on the Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2014. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to substitute David McLean for Lisa Warnes. Councilor Poling said Mr. McLean, though fairly new to the community, had been involved in the type of work that the Planning Commission was facing. He felt that Mr. McLean was not bringing a personal agenda to the table and would have a short learning curve because of past experience on a planning commission. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Poling, Solomon, Pryor, and Clark voting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Taylor, Zelenka, and Brown voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted against the substitution and the motion failed. Roll call vote; the motion to appoint Lisa Warnes to Position 5 on the Planning Commission passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling, and Solomon voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Mark Baker to Position 6 on the Planning Commission, the unexpired term of Ann Kneeland, ending on June 30, 2011. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to substitute William Randall for Mark Baker. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Solomon, Pryor, Poling, and Clark voting MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 9 Regular Meeting in favor and councilors Ortiz, Taylor, Brown, and Zelenka voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted in favor and the motion to substitute passed. Roll call vote; the motion, amended to appoint William Randall, passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Brown voting in opposition. Sustainability Commission Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to reappoint David Funk to Position 3 on the Sustainability Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to reappoint Rusty Rexius to Position 1 on the Sustainability Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to reappoint Lisa Arkin to Position 4 on the Sustainability Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Mark Nystrom to Position 2 on the Sustainability Commission for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy extended her congratulations to the newly appointed and reappointed members of the Planning Commission and the Sustainability Commission. Toxics Board Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Maeve Sowles to Position 1, a business representative on the Toxics Board for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Holly Jacobson to Position 4, an advocacy representative on the Toxics Board for a three-year term beginning November 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2013. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy congratulated the members appointed to the Toxics Board. The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2009 Page 10 Regular Meeting