Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 02/09/04 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall February 9, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Papd, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS · Recognition of Captain ThadBuchanan City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that the City was taking this opportunity to commend Captain Thad Buchanan for stepping in as interim police chief until a new chief could be selected. He said Capt. Buchanan acted as Chief of Police for two years, serving with dedication, distinction, and integrity. He listed some of the good works to which Capt. Buchanan's participation had been integral. Mr. Taylor asked Capt. Buchanan to come forward and accept the certificate of recognition. He read the certificate into the record and thanked Capt. Buchanan for his service. Mayor Torrey and Mr. Taylor presented the certificate to Capt. Buchanan. He then received a standing ovation. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey explained the rules for the Public Forum. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, Eugene, supported the creation and implementation of a student housing code. He suggested that it be modeled after the student housing code in the City of Corvallis. Mr. Miller repeated his recommendation that Mayor Torrey apply to be Dean of the University of Oregon School of Business. Roger J. Bidwell, PO Box 24333, Eugene, explained that he was a member of the Lane County Homebuilders Association and owner of a fence-building company. He expressed concern that the information sheet supplied by the Permit Information Center (PIC) did not match code language. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 1 Regular Meeting related that he had to take code language and incorporate it into contracts for his clients, but that much of it was open to interpretation. He asked the City to close the gap between expectations and practice. He opined that, based on interpretation, 95 percent of what he built for clients could be construed to be in violation of the code. Jesse Harding, 625 East 16th Avenue, noted that he had served on the City of Eugene-University of Oregon Joint Task Force on the West University Neighborhood along with Councilor Kelly. He felt that a housing standard should be a key issue and suggested that a general code dealing with leaking roofs and the need for working heat be crafted in a way that was easy for citizens to comprehend He urged the council to make the code a priority and not to defer the item to a work session in June. He felt holding the work session in June would preclude student input. David Hansen, 2738 Kismet Way, wished to address the community need for housing standards. He asserted that the City Council moved to put off the issue by scheduling the work session on the item for June. He felt it was a move to kill the issue. He thought the issue should be addressed as a City priority as evidenced by the joint task force's long-term recommendation to Mayor Torrey and University of Oregon President David Frohnmayer. Mr. Hansen declared the city of Eugene to have 30,000 rental units. He expressed concern that renters did not have adequate access to legal action and stated that the implementa- tion of housing standards was not costly. He said the cities of Salem and Corvallis had proven, self- sustaining models based on small yearly fees that had were successful in providing renters with protection. He asserted there were no protections for renters in Eugene. Shannon Tarvin, 1330 Oak Patch Road, #64, spoke on behalf of Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards (ECHS), a local group of citizens concerned about the lack of safe rental housing in the city. She stated that between 1966 and 1983, the City had a housing code and, after its repeal, renters had no protection. Having researched housing codes across the state of Oregon, she recommended modeling a housing code after the code adopted by the City of Corvallis which was mostly supported by a per-unit fee of $8 per year. She explained that the fee also paid for a rental housing program that all residents and landlords had access to. She felt the make-up of the two cities were similar in that they both had large college popula- tions. She alleged that some basic needs were not being met in Eugene and conveyed the request of ECHS for minimum habitability standards that addressed plumbing, heating, structural integrity, and weather- proofing. Ms. Tarvin averred that a housing standard code should both educate renters on their rights and ensure compliance to habitability standards. She asserted there were 54,000 renters in Eugene and asked the council to consider what the top council priority should be, based on the needs of its citizen electorate. Maddy Melton, 957 Chambers Street, thanked the council for addressing the need for housing standards, but felt that it should not be delayed until June. She asked if councilors remembered that the students' only issue with code change that allowed campus public safety officers to issue citations was that the hearing on it was held in the summer when the fewet number of students were on campus. She stressed that housing standards were a primary issue for students and added that she had helped, as the student body president, to register circa 4,000 students. She stated that the students were voters in this community. Evan Fransted, 732 West 10th Avenue, stated that the only protection for renters in the city of Eugene was the Landlord Tenant Act in State Code and asserted it had been proven to be inadequate. He averred that a complaint with a landlord had to be taken to Civil Court. He said Ballot Measure 28 had caused the court MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 2 Regular Meeting system to cut back its schedule from five days to four, causing housing complaints to be deferred. Mr. Fransted noted, with irony, that the same system gives evictions a higher priority. He urged the council to take action on this issue sooner than June. Councilor Bettman congratulated Capt. Buchanan. She said it was admirable that he had stepped into a position that he did not want and had served two years and done an excellent job. Councilor Bettman thanked the students for attending the meeting and speaking in the Public Forum. She felt confident that, though the work session on housing standards was scheduled for June, no action would be taken before the following fall. Councilor Kelly thanked those who spoke at the Public Forum. He lauded the work that Capt. Buchanan had done as interim police chief, stating that he had done an admirable job. Councilor Kelly asked staff to follow up with Mr. Bidwell's concern regarding the accuracy of the information sheets available at the PIC. Mr. Taylor affirmed that staff would look into this. Councilor Kelly expressed his disappointment that the council, by a "bare majority," had voted to defer the work session on housing standards until June. He agreed, however, that the issue would not likely reach the level of a public hearing and subsequent action until fall or winter. He opined that a renter should be entitled to a house with heat and whose roof did not leak without having to take court action. Councilor Solomon thanked the City Manager for following up on Mr. Bidwell's request. Councilor Solomon objected to the characterization of the council's prioritization of housing standards as having sloughed them off. She related there had been confusion as to what the issue entailed and the work session was to provide scope to the question in order to facilitate meaningful discussion. She thought the Salem and Corvallis codes were likely effective, but was sure the codes had been subject to the same sort of political process that housing standards would face in Eugene. Councilor Nathanson stated that she had a great interest in housing standards ever since she had worked on the third revised edition of The Renters' Handbook as part of her work in Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG). She felt it should be expanded to examine how renters should be treated fairly across the city. She said the prioritization process had actually '~jumped" this issue ahead of other issues. She asserted that the real question was whether a local code or an enforcement mechanism was needed. She reminded those present that a public hearing would be held and she assured them it would be scheduled at the "right and appropriate time." Councilor Pap~ added his accolades to those already given to Capt. Buchanan. He stated that Capt. Buchanan "stepped up" to the position and did the right thing. Councilor Pap~ thanked those present for bringing the housing standards issue to the forefront. He clarified that the prioritization exercise conducted in the work session was for the Planning Division only. He felt it should not be left to only the Planning Division, as it was of a larger scope. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor appreciated the work of the students on the housing standards issue. She felt the subject of housing standards to be very important. She advocated for taking action that affected the University of Oregon campus during the school year. Councilor Meisner joined his colleagues in thanking Capt. Buchanan for his service. He was proud to have worked with him. Councilor Meisner expressed his support for making housing standards a high priority. He also thought, given the slowness of the ordinance and ordinance revision process, public hearings would likely take place during the school year. He opined that having the work session in June might have actually moved action on the issue up. He felt that it was not the housing standards per se that were of greatest concern, but rather how enforcement would occur. He noted that there had been flurry of phone messages and emails in the last several weeks, adding that prior to this activity, he had received one complaint in seven years regarding housing standards. Councilor Poling congratulated Capt. Buchanan on a job well done. Councilor Poling thanked Mr. Hansen for bringing housing standards to his attention. He thought the discussion would focus on developing a program to facilitate action on substandard housing. He noted that he had been a poor student in substandard housing at one point in his life. Mayor Torrey described one of the first houses he and his wife had rented, noting that it was a refurbished garage and without heat. He opined that Councilor Nathanson's motion had been the most expedient way to handle the issue. Mayor Torrey asked Ms. Melton to call his office and ensure that she, as student body president, was included on the list of interested parties. He supported holding hearings when all affected parties would be in attendance, i.e., during the school year. He stressed that all people were heard at the Public Forum, adding that this was the first time he had seen so many University of Oregon students in the Council Chamber. Mayor Torrey stated that he had seen a great deal of student participation one other time, when the After- School Initiative was being voted upon. He credited the students for being part of the momentum that passed the initiative. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 12, 2004, City Council Meeting - January 14, 2004, Process Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 4 Regular Meeting MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Kelly stated that he had previously submitted corrections to the minutes via email. Mayor Torrey said the corrections had been reviewed and that, without objection, they were deemed approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed by unanimous vote, 8:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: Proposed Revisions to Traffic and Ordinance Offenses An Ordinance Concerning Criminal Trespass and Interference with a Firefighter; Amending Sections 4.805, 4.808, and 4.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Renumbering Section 4.810 of that Code to Section 4.812; Adding Sections 4.810 and 4.941 to that Code; and Providing an Im- mediate Effective Date and An Ordinance Concerning State Traffic Laws; Amending Sections 5.005 and 5.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date Mr. Taylor introduced Marilyn Nelson, Court Administrator, who spoke to this issue. Ms. Nelson explained, as heard at the January 26 work session, that the first ordinance had to do with legislative updates to Chapter 4, part of which was to update language for the offense of criminal trespass and to add two new offenses, that of interfering with a firefighter or emergency medical services personnel and also trespassing at a sporting event. She stated that these were passed into State law and should be reflected in the City Code as well. She said the other ordinance would put into City Code all of the traffic updates from the last state legislative session. She added that it would also propose a new City penalty section that would retain local control over the City's traffic fines. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Randy Rogers, 1980 Gilham Road, spoke as a representative of Kidsports in support of the ordinances. He related that Kidsports had been successful in controlling the sporting environment. He noted that, in 10 years of basketball games, only three people needed to be removed by the police. He felt the new measure would assist by providing more ;'teeth" to the process. He said Kidsports had written a sportsman's pledge, which was now read before every game, to remind those present to play with consideration. He stressed that the organization took responsibility for having sports events without unsportsmanlike conduct very seriously. Tim Laue, 124 Spencers Crest Drive, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Police Commission to testify in support of the two ordinances. He stated that traffic violations in neighborhoods in this community had consistently topped citizens' list of concerns over the years. He said House Bill 2759 constrained the Municipal Court's ability to make penalties fit the crimes. He advocated for passage of the ordinance in order to provide the court more flexibility and more local control in the adjudication of traffic offenses. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Seeing no questions or comments from the council, Mayor Torrey asked if there were objections to taking MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 6 Regular Meeting action at the present meeting. There was none. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4864, an ordinance concerning criminal trespass and interference with a firefighter. Councilor Pap~ thanked Mr. Rogers and Mr. Laue for speaking to the issue. He also commended Mr. Laue for his service to the community both on the council and now on the Police Commission. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4861, an ordinance concerning state traffic laws. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Multiple-Unit Housing and Amending Section 2.945 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Taylor called Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Depart- ment, to the podium to speak to the issue. Mr. Weinman explained that the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) was a ten-year property tax exemption for housing, new construction of five units or more designed to encourage development in the urban core. The proposal before the council sought to expand the boundary for MUPTE. He opined that without help to "level the playing field" and provide assistance, it was unlikely the City would see new multi-family housing developed in the downtown area. He said, after ten years, the City would see substantial benefit from developments built with the MUPTE incentive. Councilor Kelly noted that, on the second page of the ordinance, the section that had required that a development meet "at least four of" the design features listed in subsection (2) was not in the present draft. He stated that, for action, he thought it should be included. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Deborah Healey, 360 East 15th Avenue, reported that the executive committee of the West University Neighbors (WUN), of which she was a member, had met twice to discuss the issue. She related that the WUN did support actions that would improve housing standards in the neighborhood. She submitted two additions to the seven quality standards mentioned in option one, proposed by the WUN, as follows: 1) Approval by the appropriate neighborhood association would be required; 2) That the proposed development should be designed for home ownership. She stated that the WUN wanted to be part of the MUPTE process. She added that, should the two additions be included, the WUN would advocate for requiring that five of nine of the design features be met rather than four of seven of them. Mark Steven Baker, 360 East 15th Avenue, noted that he was a community member appointed to the joint MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 7 Regular Meeting task force. He attributed the problems the neighborhood experienced to the lack of stability caused by the transient nature of neighborhood residents due to the abundance of rentals and the fact that the population was largely made up of students. He asked the council to craft policies that would encourage some diversity of occupancy in the neighborhood in order to increase stability. Mr. Baker commented that the low level of maintenance done on properties in the neighborhood contributed to the problem. He felt that rental owners were holding property, investing as little as possible, and getting the highest rents they could based on the assumption that the property would eventually become part of the university or the hospital. Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, voiced his support of the staff recommendation. He felt that, because the projects would come before the City Council, there would be opportunities to determine the quality of the project. He did not think that the City would want to get into design contests on a neighborhood basis. Regarding the proposed boundary, he urged the council to move it so that it butted up against Washington Street allowing development to look out over the park. Russ Brink, 214 East 30th Avenue, executive director of Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI), called attention to the memorandum included in the council packet, which was the result of a meeting of developers who had built in the downtown area, City staff, and a representative of the architect group. He encouraged the council to read the memorandum. He conveyed the organization's support for the expanded boundary and the staff recommendation for the language on design standards. He noted that staff indicated that the existing Land Use Code was adequate to provide the quality projects the City was seeking. He added that DE1 also supported the elimination of the low-income housing fee connected to MUPTE applications in the past. Mr. Brink asserted that downtown development was some of the most expensive development to pursue. Regarding the concern expressed by some that the MUPTE would represent lost tax revenue, Mr. Brink stressed that undeveloped property did not increase tax revenue, while development eventually increased the tax rolls. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the support of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce for the expanded MUPTE boundary. He called it a tool to help achieve the vision set forth by the Downtown Plan. He asserted that trying to densify the core population of the City would help revitalize the downtown area. He underscored that the City Council had the final say on a project and a prudent investor or developer would realize that there would be an expectation of quality in the application, so the extent that Option (2) provided in the preamble that the council looked for quality, it represented a directional guideline an applicant would want to pursue. Mr. Connolly asked the council to "demonstrate commitment to the Downtown Plan Update" and approve the MUPTE ordinances before it in conjunction with Option (2). Micheal Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, supported the need to ensure that tax dollars and tax exemptions were spent to the best benefit possible. To that end, he felt the addition of the seven public benefit standards should be approved. He asserted that the City Council would be able to judge the projects using these standards as goals and provide the most benefit for the public dollars. Mr. Roberts said there was a "real need for this exemption" to make downtown development viable and asked the council to support Option (2) in order to given the community the design standards needed and the flexibility. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 8 Regular Meeting Hugh Prichard, 101 East Broadway Street, explained that he was a co-developer of the Broadway Place, a mixed-use development that benefitted from the MUPTE it was granted in 1996. He urged the council to expand the boundary and to keep it simple. He felt the process was a "good, transparent" public process. He described the process, stating that the developer submitted its construction costs in a public work session and in two l~roformc~s. Mr. Prichard said that developer was required to justify the tax relief and suggested that, as the numbers were not completely known at this point, the council go back to the two largest developments constructed to date and analyze their actual financial performance. He related that what would be found was that both Broadway Place and High Street Terrace were overly optimistic in the l~roformc~s submitted prior to development. What was thought to be a nine-percent return had become less than a four-percent return. He alleged that the project would now be losing money should it have been made to pay full property taxes. Mr. Prichard stressed that no project could withstand sustained losses and added that Broadway Place had been a success with occupancy that has mn no lower than 92 percent over time, though it has the highest rents in Eugene. Mr. Prichard underscored that land in the downtown area cost as much as ten times the cost of multi-family zoned land in the suburbs. Additionally, the collective vision for development was that downtown housing should be multi-story, mixed use, steel and masonry, and with embedded parking. He stressed that this made construction costs more than double that of construction of suburban wooden dwellings. He asserted that rental rates to cover the costs were currently impossible to achieve. He encouraged the council to keep and expand MUPTE and continue to try to "level the playing field." Martin Henner, 984 Lincoln Street, stated that he was part of a group that was seeking to build co- housing, a cooperative housing with a "Danish flavor", in downtown Eugene. He related that his group tied down a parcel of land on the comer of 11th Avenue and Lincoln Street that appeared to be suitable for this. Noting that downtown development was very expensive, he stressed that while the council was expanding the MUPTE boundary in other directions, it was not being expanded in the area of this property. He conveyed the desire of the group to increase residency in the downtown area. He asserted there was no reason not to expand the boundary to the west. He recommended extending the boundary to Lawrence Street or to Washington Street. He expressed hope that the council wanted to see more owner-occupied residences downtown and not just rental units. Elizabeth Lyon, 2123 Marlow Lane, spoke as part of the potential co-housing development. She related that she had raised her family in a single-family dwelling and they were now grown. She stated that she was an author with four books and had an editing company. She expressed her desire to be part of a co- housing development now that her children were grown, but felt her position was tenuous. She opined that both low-income and high-income people received benefits for housing in the downtown area but middle- income people like herself received none. She urged the council to help the people "in the middle" who want to contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. Jenny Gussett, 535 West 20th Avenue, testified on behalf of the co-housing group. She said she had a long-held interest in the community and in enhancing the sustainability and livability of the downtown area. She felt the co-housing development had a unique take on the fulfillment of the downtown goals as it featured multi-family, multi-generational housing and would be an opportunity to model how people could live in a community and have ownership at the same time. She added that it would encourage people to use cars less and walk more and asked that the boundary be expanded to include the site at 11th Avenue and Lincoln Street. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 9 Regular Meeting Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute break at 8:52 p.m. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Weinman clarified that the staff recommendation was that low-income housing would no longer be counted as a public benefit by charging the fee, because it was preferable to see the project quality increase. Councilor Bettman felt the ECO Northwest study did not apply to the West University Neighborhood, as the data was different. She asserted the neighborhood was not a downtown neighborhood. She stated that she had supported the MUPTE for the downtown core, adding that she would support further incentives for that specific area. Councilor Meisner supported the MUPTE proposal as presented before the council, including its boundaries. For those who requested the boundary be extended to Lawrence Street or farther, he stressed that the discussion had been, for years, focused on the preservation of the neighborhood there. He asked if the co-housing proposal could be allowed to benefit from the MUPTE. Mr. Weinman responded that the boundary could be extended to include that property. Councilor Nathanson expressed her support for the reinvigoration of the incentive. She asked staff to look into and present information on what it would take to extend the boundary to allow the co-housing development to benefit from the MUPTE and also to include the area between 1st Avenue and 5th or 6th avenues. She said, while true that the council had been explicit about not changing the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the edge of downtown, the northern edge seemed to be of a separate development type. Mr. Weinman agreed to look into this and provide the information. Councilor Kelly said the staff response to a parcel specific inclusion in the MUPTE boundary was also of interest to him. Councilor Kelly asked staff to prepare an amendment for the adoption meeting that would include the WUN recommendations. Additionally, Councilor Kelly commented that, if the City was not expanding the boundary beyond the downtown core, he would not feel a need for the standards that had been added. He supported them because the boundary had been expanded into the West University Neighborhood. He opined that, should the City be granting public funds to developers, high standards of development needed to be upheld in that area. In response to a question from Councilor Papd, Mr. Weinman explained that the Ya-Po-Ah Terrace was a HUD 202 federal project and was tax-exempt because it was a Department of Housing and Urban Development project to build low-income housing. Councilor Papd supported the inclusion of the co-housing development project in the MUPTE boundary. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, in response to Councilor Papd, stated that the Eugene area covered 43 square miles. Councilor Papd remarked that the project-by-project approval would prevent the West University Neighborhood from having a shoddy development built within its parameters with the benefit of MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 10 Regular Meeting MUPTE. He said that when counting city blocks, the MUPTE boundary seemed to encompass approxi- mately one square mile and was not excessive. Councilor Taylor strongly believed that everyone should share the tax burden and if people are excused from taxes, it should be for a definite benefit. She supported a tax incentive for the core of the city. She opined that the Broadway Place development had not contributed to making the core of the downtown area more vibrant. She advocated for making all of the standards of quality required. She predicted that any proposed MUPTE would be submitted to the City Council in the Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor asserted that people pay property taxes wherever they live. She thought the idea that a MUPTE was an investment in tax revenue that would otherwise not be collected was erroneous. Councilor Taylor said that new housing just moves tenants from one place to another. Mr. Weinman responded that the population was growing by two percent per year and the need for housing was increasing. He reiterated that increasing the level of development increased the property tax rolls. Mayor Torrey supported the concept of home ownership and incentives that promote home ownership in all areas and in the University area in particular. He recommended ';thinking outside the box" and allowing, for instance, the co-housing development to qualify for the MUPTE. Councilor Bettman reminded the public that taxing jurisdictions including schools now forego revenue when property is exempted from taxes for ten years. She opined that people would not support forgoing money that would pay for school and core essential services in order to support student housing in the West University neighborhood. Mr. Weinman, in response to Councilor Kelly, affirmed that the council could only approve or reject a MUPTE and could not grant a partial MUPTE. Councilor Bettman predicted that residential housing would be displaced should a developer build on a site. She asked staff to bring back an amendment to delete the expanded district south of 13th Avenue and west of Lincoln Street. Councilor Pap~ asked if an applicant could reapply should the City Council turn a MUPTE down. Mr. Weinman replied that it could. In response to a further question from Councilor Pap~, Mr. Weinman stated that the land on which a development was being built would remain on the property tax rolls during the ten-year exemption period. Mayor Torrey closed the hearing. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan Adopted by Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985 Mr. Taylor stated that Mr. Weinman would briefly outline the changes that were proposed to the urban renewal plan and that were the subject of the hearing before the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 11 Regular Meeting Mr. Weinman underscored that this was a public hearing on amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan and that the council had discussed it six times during 2003. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Betty Thompson, 1644 West 19th Avenue, commented that, at present, many taxpayers were almost being taxed out of their houses. She said this also impacted renters as the landlords passed tax increases on to them. She asserted that, since the district would not produce revenue, it represented excessive spending in this time of recession. Ms. Thompson expressed concern that the project would exacerbate traffic congestion on Franklin Boulevard. She attributed the closing of stores in the downtown area to urban renewal and opined that urban renewal was not necessarily a good thing. She asked if the urban renewal district would raise property taxes and, if so, to what degree. Carlis Nixon, 1556 Willamette Street, remarked that it was difficult not to see this development through the "filter of the research park development" and opined the development had not been an enrichment to Eugene. She asked that all possible care be taken to ensure the natural area adjacent to the river not be environmentally damaged and that unnecessary development of open spaces and natural areas be kept to a minimum. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, requested the record be left open for an additional seven days. He asserted that the Riverfront Research District had been conceived of 20 years ago. He questioned whether the debt and the projections made regarding in the district the present proposal were being truthful to the public. He thought it could take 60 years to achieve the full build-out. He questioned the merit of taking the revenue from the schools and the City. Jana Rygas, 2476 Nixon Street, was concerned about the removal of some of this land from the tax rolls which support the things the community needs such as fire, police, and aquatic facilities - all supported by the General Fund. She averred that, should the land be taken off the tax rolls, there needed to be accountability and that the City should be able to reliably predict that this move would benefit the community in the long-run. She suggested that there had been a "mixed track record" in the City of Eugene and some projects had worked well and some had not. She felt there were not enough safeguards in place. She disputed the language that referred to "blight" in the neighborhood, stating that though there were parking lots there was also a substantial natural area along the river. Ms. Rygas alleged that the plans called for a road to be situated next to the river. She opposed this, as the Willamette Greenway should be protected. She urged the council to build in more control "up front" to guide very specifically which projects should go forward and which priorities should be adopted. Mayor Torrey stated that, barring objections from staff and the City Council, action on Agenda Item (9) would be deferred to a later meeting due to time constraints. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. He called urban renewal districts one of the few tools that a city had to help with redevelopment and revitalization. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 12 Regular Meeting Regarding the riverfront district, Mr. Connolly asserted that the development of the courthouse would serve as a catalyst for new development and extending the boundary to the courthouse area would provide the City with the tools necessary to bring the planning concepts to fruition. Ray Wolfe, 1473 Luella Street, submitted documents into the record. He opined that the timing of the urban renewal district could not be worse as Ballot Measure 30 had so recently been defeated. He alleged there had never been an objective study of the urban renewal results from past projects. He felt it would be prudent to allow the ad hoc committee on economic development to fulfill its charge prior to embarking on such a project. He asserted that tax increment financing would set a preemptive priority on sacrosanct tax increment funds. He thought there were other items in the General Fund budget that held a greater priority. He called attention to the bicycle tunnel built under the railroad tracks by the Riverfront Research Park and called it an example of poor spending priorities. Russ Brink, 132 East Broadway Street, of Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) echoed the comments of Mr. Connolly. He agreed that urban renewal could be controversial, but asserted that the only way some of the things that had been discussed for the courthouse neighborhood could be achieved would be through this funding mechanism. He asserted that there had been a change in focus as it was no longer the Riverfront Research Park but was now the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. He opined that this council and councils to come in the future would change the track record of earlier urban renewal efforts for the better. Cynthia Kokis, 2465 Jefferson Street, asked whose idea the urban renewal district was, who stood to profit from it, how it would affect the "powerless," if it would impact funds for schools or the General Fund, and how would it impact the river. She wondered if this district would use money from highway funds. She thought the Willamette Greenway permit study should be reinstated. She highlighted the history of the downtown developments since 1973, noting that things had been built and torn down. Nishan Vanatta, 3435 Potter Street, echoed comments made in support of keeping the eco-system safe. She also agreed with remarks made with regard to the timing of the district and "dollars." She did not object to improvements in general, but would not support an increase in tax rates. She noted that when the library had been voted down, the City found private and matching funds to build it. She proposed that the City do the same for the urban renewal district and suggested that anyone able to raise funds should be paid a percentage of the monies they raised, including City Councilors. She reiterated that citizens had repeatedly voted down tax increases. In closing, she thanked the City Council for the good work that it had done for the community. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, echoed comments about adjustments made to the urban renewal district and how some of these adjustments had been "corrosive" to public trust. He questioned whether the district was actually "blighted," given that a significant portion of the area was Willamette Greenway. He opposed "gerrymandering" funds to be spent outside of the regular approval process through an urban renewal district. He alleged there was an "ill-advised" transportation project planned to locate a portion of Highway 99 next to the river. He stated that the City was behind in the Willamette Greenway planning. Bryn Anderson, 2277 Friendly Street, expressed concern regarding the Riverfront Research Park and asserted that there was a lack of attention being paid toward some elements of campus in order to build MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 13 Regular Meeting others. She alleged that a new dormitory was being built while other dormitories were run down and in need of repair. Noting the Bus Rapid Transit corridor down the center of Franklin Boulevard, Ms. Anderson questioned whether the safety of pedestrians and students would be addressed. She asked what the development in the Riverfront Research Park would mean and why students were not being asked to contribute input. She urged the City and the University to examine the issues and not create more by extending the Riverfront Research Park. Al Urquhart, 1045 East 20th Avenue, agreed that the purpose of the amendment was to change the focus of the Urban Renewal District from that of a Riverfront Research Park to that of supporting a courthouse and the downtown area. He opposed the inclusion of the present area of the Riverfront Research Park in the new addition because the City would need to evaluate what has happened there. He averred the area was still blighted according to the report, and listed some of the reasons given in the report for the blight. He called the Riverfront Research Park a failure as a tax increment district. Drix Drixman, 307-½ East 14th Avenue, said Eugene was a magic town and that he had recently returned to live here. He remembered the river and the greenway from the 1970s, calling them precious. He asserted that the City was now thinking of taking a chunk of it and giving it to the private sector so someone could have a view from their office. He told the story of how he had shared a dormitory room with a boring person when he had attended college. He had decorated his side of the room in a lively manner while his boring roommate had done nothing. He related how, when he had finished decorating, he was stuck looking at the ~dumb" side of the room while his roommate looked at his festively decorated side of the room. He urged the city to consider that, while the office might have a beautiful view, the people from across the river would look at a building. He suggested everyone present float down the river in an inner tube during the summer and enjoy the greenery along the river. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Meisner, moved to keep the record open for seven days. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Meisner asked staff to respond to the following questions: 1) What would be the consequences or effects both financially and in potential development terms for the University of Oregon if the eastern portion of the district was removed from the urban re- newal district? 2) Is the Highway 99 couplet in the Willamette Greenway? 3) Could some information be compiled for the public to read on urban renewal and Ballot Measure 50, as tax rates could no longer be adjusted or increased with exemptions? Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly moved to direct the City Manager to bring back for final action the Riverfront Urban Renewal District with the follow- ing modification: - for A-1 public improvements, curb and sidewalk improvements: improvements within the renewal area will require construction and reconstruction of curb and sidewalks within the project area; the renewal agency would participate in funding sidewalk improvements including design, redesign, construction, repair, and acquisi- tion of right-of-way for sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle paths when there was no MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 14 Regular Meeting other eligible funding source available; - projects to be undertaken would include curb and sidewalk improvements identified in the Eugene Capital Improvement Program and the Vision for a Greater Downtown Eugene report and the Courthouse District Concept Plan and other curbside walk im- provements identified by the renewal agency. - the plan to provide that the urban renewal district would be amended to reflect that revenue shall not be spent on projects or activities for which existing funding mecha- nisms are traditionally used, such as assessments, fees, or systems development charges, or to pay expenses incurred by or for another jurisdiction such as the State, County, or Federal government; - Item (6) shall be deleted from the language. Councilor Bettman noted that it was often heard that the City could not fund schools or human services because funding was dedicated for roads. She asserted that the urban renewal district would take funding that could be used for these things and spend it on roads. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to table the motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey, noting the time, deferred the last items on the agenda. The meeting adjourned at 10:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) M: 120041Central Services DepartmentlCity CouncillccO40209m2. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 15 Regular Meeting