10/09/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- - -- -'~--- - . - - . - u.__._."<"-''''''' - -.- - . . - . C.Counci1 Position, Charter Amendment Proposed by Initiative Petition Requiring Voter Approval of Controlled or Limited Access Street Construction - Copies of the pro- 'posed Charter amendment were previously distributed to Council members. Assistant Manager commented on staff review of the language of the proposal, trying to deter- mine meaning of the language and kinds of problems which it might create. He noted . specific words and phrases which appear ambiguous and said that although it is possible they may be somewhat clarified through Council legislation, adopting the amendment in ordinance form, it would still be subject to court tests. Lack of definition for terms such .as "any agreement approving or facilitating construction" (Section 1) could be interpreted as an agreement for acquisition of right-of-way to entering into a contract with the State for their modification of arterial streets in the Ci ty . There is no legal or technical definition for the term "throughway." He called attention to the use of the words "hi ghway," "freeway," and "throughway" in the first part of Section 1, then only the term "highway" used later in the sec- tion when it speaks of a vote. Also, in Section 3(A) it would be difficult to identify what is meant by reference to cross-traffic "intersecting such highways" 'or "servi ce roads or streets." The term "fu11y disclose" by public notice could mean a penciled line on an assessor's map to full engineering set of specifications. :Assistant Manager continued that generally technical engineering expertise is neces- ;say in determination of transportation routes rather than public examination. In- creased cost of projects is possible since the time between initial design of a I route, estimates for construction, etc., could go beyond the year within which voter ,approval is required by the proposed amendment. Also, it is reasonable to expect property speculation if there is full disclosure of right-of-way prior to its ,acquisition. . Orval Etter, City Attorney's office, referred to similar restrictions adopted by voters in 1961 and later repealed which appeared more detailed than the present 1Proposa1. And although this amendment appears more general, whether it encompasses substantially the same points in the previous amendment would be a matter of court I decision. The.phraseo10gy, he said, would be a matter of legal question. I .-"'- 'Assistant Manager said in reviewing the terms of the proposed amendment it-was con- sidered conceivable, if it is adopted, that voter approval would be required before' entering into a contract with the State, second voter approval before acquisition of right-of-way, and third voter approval at time of construction. Whether terms of the amendment would apply to only freeways would be a matter for the courts to 'decide; it is broad enough to require voter approval for acquisition of right-of- way for improvement of the 29th and Wi11amette intersection. Manager said there would not appear to be difficulty in reaching agreement with sponsors of the amendment wi th regard to where voter approval is required. He said' -theh-azarcl of having- the amendment in the Charter is that'.pro}ects in the future' could be delayed by people whose properties are affected by the projects and who' ,have entirely different motives than the proponents of the amendment, i.e., loss 'of land through access or particular access design rather than real concern as to . whether a facility is desirable for the City itself. ,Councilman Hershner asked how time sequence for the proposed voter approval on this : type construction would be affected by requirements for environmental impact studies Assistant Manager referred to Highway 126 and said that the probable intent of this amendment was to make impact statements a part~of the plans and design of a project, and presented to the public prior to any vote. Councilman Williams commented on exp1ici t wording in the a1!lendment requiring voter approval within one year prior to any proposed project, and the possibility of having to go back to the voters for approval for creation of any new access or c../ frontage roads. He said it could be construed to limit the number of curb cuts arid possibly prevent construction of City streets. Manager said it clearly applies to any arterial street, and "pub1ic highway" applies to any public street in some 'parts of the Oregon statutes. Mr. Etter said one difference between the 1961 amend- ment and this one is that the previous one specifically applied to "streets," there-: ,fore, there would be some reason to believe this proposal does not apply to streets. .But in Oregon statutes "highway" is a comprehensive term encompassing all public thoroughfares. .-/ Mrs. Bea1 wondered who would pay for .any_ Council statement in the voter's pamphlet '. ,wi th regard to this measure. She said she feels sponsors of the initiative petition should have the opportunity to express their viewpoint, and if the Council's posi- - :, tion is paid for wi th Ci ty funds, then proponents should not be charged for their 'statement. 1 :Mr. Hershner said there is a point beyond which the electorate as a whole is not 'properly involved in making decisions which should be made by elected representa- ! ti ves . He does not favor voter consideration in this type of thing. Mr. Williams ~9~ 10/9/72 - 4,