Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/1974 Meeting MINUTES EUGENE CITY COUNCIL September 9, 1974 e Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon of September 9, 1974 was carried over to September 16, 1974 because of lack of quorum. M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL September 16, 1974 , Regular meeting - carried over from September 9, '1974 - of the Common Council .of the city I of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on September 16, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Tom Williams, H. C. McDonald, Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood. Council membe~s James Hershner and Wickes Beal,were absent. (0001 ) Mayor Anderson called attention to the electronic voting mechanism recently installed and explained to Council members its.use and method of operation. e L - Public Hearings A. Appeal, Zoning Board of Appeals August 1, 1974 decision allowing six-foot high wooden fence at 2233 Potter Street (Hugh Ford) - Ben Lansdale, 2275 Potter. Manager explained that the ftncewas constructed within five feet of the property line by_Hugh Ford to replace a thick laurel hedge killed by freezing weather. Appeal for removal of the fence by Ben Lansdale to the Zoning Board of Appeals resulted in decision on August 1, 1974 to allow the fence to remain. Copies of minutes of that meeting together with copies of letter of appeal ,to~l\the Council were previously distributed to Council members. Manager noted letter received from Mr. Lansdale suggesting that it was not appropriate for the Council to judge .this- type of appeal. He wrote,that if the ordinance was not appropriate then it should be amended. Council was reminded that the Code provided that in the event there was an appeal to the Council, it was the final arbiter. Public hearing was opened. Hugh Ford, 1114 East 22nd Avenue, asked Council approval of Zoning Board action allowing the fence to stay. He said ivy would be growing. over the fence in a few years and would make a better appearance than the laurel hedge it replaced. - Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Manager said that since the question of precedent had been raised in the appeal it slnuld be noted that there were a number of fences of similar height within a block or so of this property although none were.ofsimilar length hiding as much property. (0419) Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to deny the appeal and uphold , the Zoning Board of Appeals decision allowing the fence tOl stay. . Councilwoman Campbell opposed the motion' on the basis that"she had encountered the same situation in her neighborhood where a fence_had not been allowed higher than the neighbors wanted. She felt it would be hypocritical _for her to vote for a fence higher than regulations provided for in anotner neighborhood and she.. wondered how many exceptions to the Code as a consequence would be:nequested. Councilman McDonald asked if the fence was on a corner lot and whether it would interfere with traffic~ Manager explained that the fence was located on the upper edge of a bank, several feet above sidewalk grade, and would not constitute a traffic hazard. Photographs of the fence were distributed for Council information. (0472) Councilman Murray was in favor of the motion. He said he understood Mrs. . Campbell's position but thought the ordinance might be unduly restrictive and that its revision might be appropriate. Councilman Williams said the fence in Mr. Campbell's neighborhood about which she spoke was a different situation- it was a fence proposed for construction down- hill from view property and would have resulted in a_substantial number of the neighbors having to look at the fence. He said in this instance view property was not a concern and the- fence would not obstruct anyone-' s view. 't, ~ 1. 9/9/74 - 1 ~\@) 9/16/74 - 1 , Councilman Wood felt the fence should be allowed. He thought it was one of many instances where variances were appropriate to provide privacy, protect gardens, hinder dogs, etc. e Councilwoman Campbell wondered if people_ were allowed to -build any type of fence (0518) they wanted and why they weren't i~formed about height restrictions. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, advised that permits were required -for. fences higher than six feet. Difficulty in making that information available was pri- marily because permits weren't required for fences unless their construction would be in violation of the zoning ordinance. Councilman McDonald mentioned a fence on West 28th which had to be removed because it was in violation and wondered what the rules and regulations were. Manager explained that the Council did approve an appeal on West 28th where a fence had been constructed higher than the 2-1/2 foot limitation in the front yard setback. The Council, he said, had viewed :the property and apparently concluded'that the overheight fence interfered with the neighbors' enjoyment of their properties. He said an ordinance undoubtedly could be developed over a period of time, setting, criteria for fence heights different from that now in the zoning ordinance. However, he thought it would become very complicated because of the many variations in cir- cumstances affecting locations, heights, contours, building locations, etc. There would probably be just as many' appeals as under existing regulations ,'- he said, so that deciding on an individual basis would still appear to be less cumbersome. Councilman Keller was in favor of allowing the fence, to stay. He thought the fact . that it was a replacement for the hedge rather than complet'ely new. ::construction should have some weight. And he thought after a couple of years the fence would age and b~ an attractive structure even without an ivy covering. Vote was taken on the motion to deny the appeal and allow the- fence to remain. Motion carried, all Council 'members present voting aye, except Councilwoman Campbell voting no. B. Appeal, Sign Code Board of Appeals July 15, 1974 denial 'of identity sign on east (0600) building wall - Ricketts Baldwin Pianos, 2880 Willamette ~ h__._ .________.._ _ _ _ _____.._._______ _~. ___ _...... . .__ n_ _. --. "'-"-.. -~ '_.~_.~.._ .._.... __.~___. _ '. '''''_'''__'__'_ __~ .____ ~_... _. +_.~_ _ _. __...._~._ _ __u.' _."_ . ---~,---~ Appeal, Ricketts-Baldwin Pianos Sign, 2880 South Willamette - Copies of a summary; I of enforcement action at 17 locations in the South Willamette area undertaken by " , ! staff were previously furnished to Council members. \ t Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Wood to reschedule discussion of the Ricketts appeal for the September 16, 1974 Council meeting. Conun Motion carried unanimously. 9/4/74 rub IILllg Manager noted list of nonconforming signs in the South Willamette area, copies of, .- which had been furnished to Council members, and the action proposed by the building department to bring them into compliance with the Code. He suggested administrative action would bring the 17 nonconforming signs into compliance thereby putting all businesses in that area on an equal basis, unless the Council should direct other- wise--such as allowing the nonconforming signs to remain or authorizing a five-year amortization period. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to deny the appeal and uphold the Sign Code Board of Appeals denial of identity sign on east building wall at 2880 Wil- lamette. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Council- man Williams abstaining. After further discussion the motion was amended with the consent of the second and other Council members to include findings in support of the denial as set out in Sign Code Board of Appeals minutes of July 15,,1974. Wayne Wagner, owner and operator of Ricketts Baldwin Pianos, said he was under the impression that the issue was postponed to October 14, 1974.' Now he wondered what he should do if -';his sign was disallowed and competitors' signs were allowed to (0704 ) remain. Proposed administrative action was further explained which would bring other signs in the area into conformance with the Code. Mr. Wagner was given a copy of the . list of signs and out-line of el).forcement action which would take place. Manager stated his understanding of previous action was to continue to no later than October 14, 1974 to give staff opportunity to make a reconunendation on other nonconforming signs in the area.' ...__h _ C. "A--;;;";;~s~e;';t "De-TeL- raT' Program --::'-cop~ 7:ts"or - proposed' or(iiiiai}(ieuon-a-s;~ss-;;'~;;~-'deferra1 '\ (0732) .in hardship cases requested by the CouncH in lioe with its adopted pol'cy wer) previously distributed to Counc~l members. Conun Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to schedule public hearing on 9/4/74 Mrs. Pub 1:Irng the or<;1inance. Motion carried unanimously. -,--~ '3. 9/16/74 - -'2 Manager revi~wed proposal for which monies were budgeted whereby assessments would be deferred and not collected by the city until property changed ownership or until the owner was in position to pay the assessment or no longer eligible for, hardship deferrment. Council previously received copies of'a study containing recommendations' which w.ould provide for deferral for people 62 years and older with household incomes less than $4000 afo!, one person, $5~OO fo:- c: couple, ~lus $~OO for each additional dependent, and less than _ $2_0,_000 In assets In addItIon to theIr resIdence. Interest on the deferred amount would be charged at the rate of 3%. When the assessment became collectible, he said, it would be treated as a new assessment in terms of being eligible for Bancrofting (paying in installments) . (8766) Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council, Bill No. 646 - Amending City Code by adding Sections 7.190, 7.191, 7.192, 7.,193, and 7.194 re: As'sessment Deferral in Hardship Cases was read by council bill number,and title only, there being' no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. -- I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilman Mc~onald -said he would vote against second reading, realizing it would hold passage until .the next ,Council meeting. He, wanted more information with regard to deferral eligibility and said he thought if there were only nine or ten instances where the ordi- nance would be applicable it might be "opening the door" . Councilman Murray expressed, ~ surprise at Mr. McDonald's opposition when as a member of the 'suQcommittee with Council- ., men Keller and Murray he had voted approval. Councilw.oman Campbell asked what property value would'be considered in determining eligibility. Manager an-swered that value of one's home would not be' a consideration, ,only that assets not exceed $20,000 in addition to the home. , . Vote was taken on second reading. Lacking unanimous consent, Councilman McDonald voting no, the council bill was held over for second reading at the next Council meeting. D. Bids 1. Public Works Department - Opened August 30 and September 4, 1974 ~- N f B' '_l ,~-' P . C t C Co~t to - .'.,"ount I am 0 ,,,.or n...j rOJect ontrac ost Ab\lttWg Prop. Cost to City Budgetod 'ALLEY ?AVING: i 1-. Betl,een hillamette Street & Oak Street : from 13th to 14th (1086) . I 1. l'iilcish Constnction Company...................$_10.757.00..:..............14' Alley Pay. $16.13/Fr.Ft..................0 COMPLETION DATE: October 15. 1974 .-----.----------------.-------------------------------_._---------_._-~------------------------------------------------------~----------------~-----------, : 2. East-,!est alley be tween 5th and 6th. Charnel ton St. to Olive St. (905) _ : i. flildish Ccnstruction Company...................$ 9.148.00..............................0...........................$ 9.148.00..........56.119.00 I. COMPLETION DATE: O,:tober ,15. 1974 .._~-_________________..________________________4_.__._______________.___________________..._____________________________~____________~____________________. iSAN lTAPY SEy.ER: 3~:;t-7\Venue frcm approx. 1400 ft. West of i Seneca Road to 1200 ft. East (l001) i _ 1. Forrester ConstructionCompany.................$13.988.24.................San. Swr. Lat...$ O.056/Sq.Ft..-.............0 2. Ivildish Construction Company...................$14,491.00 I 3. Ivick Bros. Excavation..........................$lS,170.00 , 4. Shur-h'ay Contractors, Inc......................$19.415.16 : 5. l.G. Van Over Construction.....................$29.638.68 CO~iPlETION DATE: October 15'.1974 . " ' !~:--~~-~;;~;-~;;-~~~~-;;;:-~;;:-;;;:-~;;-~~~---------------------------------------------~" --_._-------------------------------~----_.__._._--_..~"-_._-' r 30th P,I/enue near Agate St. (1084) C't P t ' . 1 Y roper Y 1. Wi1dish Construction Company,..................$ 7,719.00.................San. Swr. Lat...S O.15S/Sq.Ft..........$ 2,200.00...~.........0 i 2. L,D. Van Over Construct.ion.....................$ 8,699.20 (G 1f C ) 3. Shur-Ylay Contrilctors. Inc......:................$ 9.516.45 0 ourse , ,CO~IPLETlON DATE: October 15. 1974 1_- ~,- -.. -- - - --... -,-.- -- --- - ~,,-~- - - ....- -- -..- - - -... -... - - -- - - - --... -... - -- - --- -... -- ---- .._____ -.--.....-...- -____...______ ~.-....."':.-<-,...,..._:- _...... .._~_.. __,-. ~.... "':._'" _ _~__ -.e- _ ~.~~.~...,,"'!. _~"'"-:-- _.~ _ _.... __.. _..... _ _ _ j !~. South of Storey Blvd., East of Frjend1y - ,- 5trs2t; West of ~iew Lane (1085) I I. r;OI"" G:"2en Co Sons..............................$ 3.60S.95..................San. Swr, Lat...$ O.08S/Sq.Ft................0 2. cCi"r(!ster Ccr.struction Cor.;pe.ny.....,...........$ 3.619.31 I ,,',-!-:lj-sil Co"stnlctio~ CcTp2ny...................$ 4.865.50 , .~ L.D. ':un Over' Construct;on.....................$ 4,993.08 , :i. Sh;:r-',:,,>, Contr2ctors. 1nc......................$ 4,992.82 CQt.1PlETION DP,TE: October 15,1974 J ~-...-.________..____...__...______..._________________________-...-.-----.....-..--......---....------------------.---.._____-----..------_~________...____________...____...___._ .._ '(. Trunk s~\'er to sei'V2 the \':il1agil-lespie~ . *- f:u5set a:.nexJtion area betl'ieen Goodpasture \ Isl.::.r:-:: .~C-ud 0:; N., ~:cr'kenzie Road on E., , CSl:~t,,:, Ci"~ Road on S., Delta Hl!)n\1ilY c; II. (:,"8) BASIC ALTERNATE i. 51 ~,'-::a... Co~';>,a:tors. Inc....... ...$330,067.60... .$316.139.15............ .San. Swr. Lat...$ O.l1/Sq.Ft."........ ..$97,500.00...... .532,835.00. t. \-:;~jis~-CQ::-::-J:tion COr'1pany.......I\!c Bid.........$337.COl.24 Service.........$675.DO/Each . Ca!:i~~ Ditc~jr;...................S3S0,415.52.._..S365,2D8.29 _ CO~IPlETION DATE: December 15. 1974 July 15. 1975 . - ~~.~.~_~.-:::...- :e. ~ ::~;.-" ':".:"'_ -.-:=_-.::..."':.::....:...:'"....... ~.-_-..~ ~ ":' - -.-_-'" -;:.~ - - ~ :-_~...:....!". "": -:. ..._-; -; :'~=-~ ~.'='"':.~~..1"'~~~_..=--.o"l.:-...:...-_....~~_~IfIl.:1Il,.....~~_~'IU't~~.~~~~_-_.... --.- -.....'"t.J'l -.~.e~ ~.~-"~_-_~~.-.....:".~,,~'"...,............._ -- -- -_... ..._.~_........~ 9/16/74 - 3 ~2o _.~--~---~_. A7.lDunt Cost to t~..:s ...~f ~iu:jpr .:~:1 ~r.0ject Contract Cost Abutting Prop. Cost to City Budgeted :: 1 l::t; 'f~~ <: ~-" .. ;T~----;.:~~;: :,)::2 of ~Ji1e.l Lar.Q from Coburg 4< '::~:0 ,50 fee" colt (1039) , I L ,,'::disl: ':o~s:r'J:tion Ccr:;~any...................S 3.326.00.................4" C.W..........$ 1.74/Sq.Ft................ .0 e 5" Ul..........$ 2.0Q/Sq.Ft. COr~PLETION DATE: October 1. 1974 .......- --~ --- -..--.. - -- --.- - --.. ----- -....... -- --.. --_ - ___....____f'U'O_ __ __.._ __ ____ ------.... -------------....----------------..------------------------------- Public Works Director reviewed the bids. Award of contracts was recommended to the .low bidder on each project except that Item 7 (sidewalk south side of Bailey Lane) be re- jected as excessively high, and Item 6 (Willagillespie/Russett trunk sewer) be awarded for only that portion with a com~letion date of December 15, 1974 in the amount of $280,762. Public Works Director estimated the cost on that portion at 10.4~ per square foot and $585 for each private connection. He added that about 100 noti~es had been sent to property owners notifying of this public hearing. - -- . . Jack Madison, Georgia-Pacific Company, said that Georgia-Pacific property involved was served by an existing sewer and the Company wanted to make: the Council aware of its objection to the proposed installation. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to award contracts to the low "- bidder on each-project, except that on Item 6 (Willagillespie/Russet trunk .-- --' sewer) the contract be awarded to the low bidder on a modified. basis of $280,762 with a completion date of December 15, 1974; and that Item.7 (sidewalk south side of Bailey Lane) be rejected. - - . In resp'onse to Councilman Wi ll,iams , Public Works Director explained' that portions e of the Willagillespie trunk sewer. project were upstream from existing' sewer necessi- tating construction .past,Georgia_Pacific property to sewer all the property in the area. Georgia Pacific, he said, paid a sewer assessment but only to, a l60-foot depth of their property, the balance would be covered by this contract. Mr~ Williams said he was under the impression the Council had authorized condemnation on property to allow construction of the sidewalk on Bailey Lane and wondered if dis- cussion was in order in view of recommendation to reject the bid. Manager explained that formalization of the condemnation was an item on the consent calendar on this agenda, and staff would ask that that action be withdrawn. tHe said.staff.would con-, tinue negotiation and study alternatives~ TIlere -was no time element involved although it was recognized the sidewalk was needed. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. 2. Parks Department - Remodeling Park Maintenance and Planning Offices (0955) Opened September 6, 1974 H. J. Burrows Construction Company Basic Bid $17,740.00 e Alternate 1 - Add vinyl floor Rms 2.3,4,5,7,8,9,10 888.90 Alternate 2 - Add for relights 400.00 $19,028.00 Minority Systems, Inc. (No bid) W. E. Youel Construction Company (No bid) Office Estimate: Basic Bid $18,458.00 Alternatecl- Add vinyl floor Rms 2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 923.00 Alternate 2 - Add for relights - 650.00 $20,031.00 Staff recommended award of contract to H. J. Burrows Construction Company. -- Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. '--- Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to award contract as recommended '.1 on basic bid plus Alternates 1 and 2 in the amount of $19,028.00. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. - ~.~_':- --... t ' ,..' ~ - ,<r' "=;. - -.-.,.", ...."...-- . - . - .'..' --- --- - 9/16/74 - 4 i,~ 32-' II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed in committee meeting on August 28, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Williams, Her.shner, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and ~ September 4, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson (left early); Council members Williams, _ Hershner (left early), Beal, Campbell, Keller (left early), Murray, and Wood.) . Minutes of those 'meetings are printed below in italics. A. Fee Revision Committee Report_ - Accept (carried from August 26 Council) Approve Discussed in Committee on August 14, 1974 and carried over from the August 26, 1974 Council meeting (see Council minutes August 26, 1974 for committee minutes)': Annabel Kitzhaber, ~peaking for the League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement in favor of the proposed fee revision with reservations. The League felt fees should reflect the costs of services provided and that those bene- fitting from .,the, s.ervic"es should pay tHe rees~-wi th exemptioh's-~mly,;in 'sp~~i.al . cases such as for CIR housing. Also that the-maj ority of planning tim-e--s'hould be spent on long-range planning and that type of planning should take pre- cedence so far as funds were concerned. The city should not subsidize indivi- ,dual developers and builders to the extent it has in the past. (1043) Austin Pitcher, 175 East 36th Avenue, speaking for the Associated General Con":': tractors, said the .AGC approved the proposed revision of fees. (~6) B~tty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, me~b~r of the Pe~ Revision commit~ee disag:eed ... wlth the League of Women Voters~ posltlon. She sald'that although lncrease ln costs to the developer appeared trivial it would r'esult in an increase in housing costs to the consumer, and as a ~atter of principle the city should be doing everything it could to-avoid any more increase in cost of housing than was absolutely necessary. She said the com~itiee felt it not unreasonable to take the point of view that the public benefit constituted a very large share of the benefit derived from planning activities, .so that the public should be sharing a substantial amount of the cost. . Lee Penny, 2355 Birch Lane, also a member of.,the -Pee Revision committee, thought tre proposed fee schedule a good start toward equalizing benefit to costs. It established the policy of charging fees based on a percentage of costs involved in various planning activities. Also review and revision of fees was encouraged to ensure future protection against a wide disparity between fees charged and actual costs involved. She noted the homebu~lders had suggested phasing. the increase over a two-year period and_she hoped that in future consideration of any fee revision there would be mole data available on the actual impact of increased fees on housing costs., _ She felt the committee was guessing somewhat in that regard, and said she was. not sure the impact would be as great as may have been estimated. ~51) In response to Councilwoman Campbell with regard to the proposed revision pro~ cedure, Manager explained that the committee recommended that the resolution adopting the fees include provision for staff review and recommendation to the Commission and Council should they feel changes were appropriate. (1160) Councilman Murray said he woull'vote for the proposed schedule. However, he thought it almost repugnant that '-'neighbors should be expected to subsidize a $40,000 home." He felt if fees were to be paid by the public iil the interest of lowering the cost of housing there shoulq be more money devoted to that, but it seemed to him-a roundabout way of dealing with housing costs. (1175) Councilman McDonald thought t~at the general public should not have to pay costs benefitting individual builders. Councilman Wood recognized that any increase (1197) in costs to developers would be passed on to the consumer. However, he said, the growth study under consideration by the Council would give the necessary infor- mation for a more objective evaluation and give the opportunity for reassessment of the fee schedule. He expressed support for proposed revision and hoped the new fees would be adopted. ~ -. --~-.. B. :Alley Directional Change between Oak and Pe,arl, Broadway and 10th , . j Commission on August 6, 1974 reco,rnmended changing traffic on north/south alley __ t tween Oak and Pearl, Broadway; and~'l Oth from southbound onl y to northbound onl y to 'facilitate traffic f19w generated by new buildings in that area. No objec~ions I were received from property owners or tenants of existing buildings. Staff had ' I some concern that a portion of the median planter on the Broadway mall between IOak p.nd Pear I 'would have to be removed to e'nable ease in turning from the alley lonto Broadway, but that would not be done- unless experience proved it necessary. If it was necessary, it was staff's understanding that Citizens Bank was prepared 'to pay the cost of anll modification in the median. ~ _ __________ J ._.~ . - -----.0. __. __" ___ _. a _.~ _.... ~~~ 9/16/74 - 5 ~ . - . --- - --- -- - d_ .. -- --- ~ -- - --.-.->--.- ~ --._- . .,- ....- -... -- , .Councilman williams wondered whether any conflict on his part would be involvea :because of his interest in Citizens Bank. Assistant City Attorney could see no . :problem since the buildings were owned by others. 8/2~/;: e ' d ' t' 'iPHove Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve the traff~c ~rec ~o change as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. - -.. .., -~ ... -,-- C. Truck Route Signing - Council was asked t; adopt resolution, copies o-i---;;i-;i-ch -;;?:Z::e---\ ; previously furnished, prohibiting through truck t;,...-.--,-.-fic on portions of 11th, 13th, \ , Kincaid, Washington, and Jefferson. Official designation would make legal enforce-; ment of the truck prohibition possible. Assistant Manager explained the reason \ for not identifying other streets in like manner, such a 6th and 7th, was because I they were State highways and the Council had no jurisdiction. He cautioned that enforr.ement under the proposed designation might not be too successful because it would require police officers' following trucks t~ough an entire route to de- termine whether they were using it as a through route or only to reach a destina- : tion within the' city. Al Williams, traffi c engi leer, explained tha t a . "motor truck" as defined under State law was a vehicle something in excess of 6000 pounds. He said that advisory signing installed by the State was in place on I-l05 with one yet to be installed for southbound traffic approaching the 6th and 7th interchange, one that he felt I I would have significant: impact. The State could not sign I-5 for northbound traffic I through Glenwood onto Franklin, he said, so he felt there was nothing to be gained e ! by pursuing that. A short study of truck traffic on 7th east of Washington re- l vealed that about 15% of the trucks were using that street as a through !oute. He ~added that the City Attorney's office felt the city could regulate through truck . traffic on that route, so it was hoped something could be worked out. . Traffic Gngineer continued .that the resolution proposed here concerned truck traffic Ion 11th and 13th. He said he didn't expect a great change in the present situ~tion, since only about 1% of the trucks were using 11th and 13th as a through route. How- ever, designating it for "no thrc'lgh motor trucks" w'uld prevent the possibili ty of its becoming used as a ~~rough route. He noted that the advisory signing on I-l05 appeared effective ror traffic from the west, but movement off I-105 onto .6th and 7th would involve major enforcement and public .relations problem~. He 1 added tf'3t all major trucking associations were notified of the proposal for 11th ;a~d 13th with no contact, either positive or negative, and staff had no reason to . believe it would not be acceptable to the. trucking industry. In answer to Assistant !Manager, Traffic Engineer said the State Highway Department had been contacted ~several times with regard to signing on I-5 to no avail. Coullcilwoman Beal wondered if trucks could /:e stopped' to det~rmine their destina- Ition and to inform them they were not to us" the streets as through routps. She ,also as}~edwhat the penal ty would be for v_iolation if the streets wen: designated e lfor no through traffic. She questioned whether logg~ng trucks would h&ve Dusiness iWithin the city requiring use of streets other than truck routes. Assistant IManager thought stopping trucks to determine their destination would be difficult I to justify if there were only one or two using the city streets under discussion Ii as through routes. . The State b~cause of restrictio~s could. not place addi tion~l I! signing at the I-5 ~nterchange ~nto Glenwood, he sa~d, but ~t was hoped scmeth~ng !could be worked out between the City Attorney's office and the Traffic Engineer i to regulate Franklin. Traff~c Engineer added that there could be problem spots with logging trucks southbound on Jefferson approaching 11th or eastbound on 7th, 'but if that occurred the companies could be contacted. Stan Long, assistnat city attorney, said any citation would more than likely be very modest, in line with I : that for disobeying traffic signs or signals. Corom 8/28/74 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood tc adopt the resolution. ApproVe Motion carried unanimously. .---- " '..-' Pat Stinson, Eugene Sand & Gravel, was in favor of the intent of designating the (1221) truck route, but wondered about the definition of a "through" truck. He was thi:l1l<ing of deliveries and pickups witl1in the city- al1d even service stops for a truck itself. He noted the problem of trucks reaching the South Hills area coming across the River on the Jefferson Street bridge. Manager defined a "through" . . truck as one following an entire route designated for trucks with no apparent need for a stop or stay within any segment of that route. He said a truck coming across the Jefferson Street bridge to reach the South Hills could travel Jefferson, west.., on 6th, -.and south on Garfield rather than traveling 11th west. - -- --.? .~ ~~ ----"---- -'-""'.. .. - - - - ~- -- -' ~ - - 9/16/74 - '6 ....~ . ~ 323 (1280) Councilman McDonald wondered if there were plans to widen Garfield if traffic on that street increased because of its designation as a truck route. He also noted comments received from Westmoreland housing occupants about the truck traffic. Al Williams, A traf~ic engineer, felt the numbers of trucks traveling Garfield would cause no ,., partIcular problem. And he said a request had been received from the University to close Garfield south of 13th to truck traffic because of the University housing there. r O. (Electrical Code Amendment - Copies of June 21, 1974 minutes of Electrical Code jBoard of Appeals action were previously distributed rc~ommending dAletion of ! Section 210-7, paragraph 3, of the National Electrical Code (Eugene Electrical Code). The amendment would delete requirement for installation of ground fault I circuit interrupters, which act like circuit breakers should power tools short out, on construction sites. Public Works Director explained that the provision had been deleted from State law and staff felt the recommendation to delete from the City Code was sound. ; Comm Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to amend the Electrial Code 8/28/74 as rec:~mrnended. Motion carried unanimously. - Approve E. ,Improvement petitions ,:-1. Paving alley between 4th and 5th from Washington to Lawrence - Peti tioned by i ! owners of 62% of property to be assessed; estimated cost $15/front foot. \ Assistant Manager explained that the petitionin~T properties were commercial, and that there were two single-family dwellings abutting the alley - one a tit r,ental, occupied; the other, vacant. :, ' 2. Paving alley between Pearl and High from 14th to 15th - Petitioned by owners \ of 69% of property to be assessed; estimated cost $l5/front foot. Assistant Manager explained that properties abutting the alley were predominantly com- mercial. Two single-family dwellings would be assessed, one a rental and \ occupied, the other a well-eared-for owner occupied dwelling. Couucilwoman Beal suggested tabling the peti tions until appointment of a replace- \ ment for Ray Bradshaw on the subcommittee studying assessment policy so a new : formula for assessments could be developed. She explained on questioning from I " the Mayor that the subcommi ttee had never reached firm agreement on an assessment I \ formula. It was decided to postpone action until after the election deleting \ it-om the Charter the front-foot basis for assessment calculation, since any I formula would have been dependent upon the success of that Charter amendment. \ Now, she said, the subcommittee could proceed with that work upon appointment of \ a third member. Assistant Manager explained that approval of the petition would I ; allow engineering work to continue while the assessment formula was being resolved. \' : He said that commercially zoned properties were pr_imarily involved in improvements :to these two alleys which carried fairly high volumes of traffic Staff would I be concerned about holding the petitions where there was some concern for traffic A safety, he said, and there was no assuran~e that any formula devised would affect ~ assessments for these two improvements. He called attention to the percentages :~arried on the petitions - 62% and 69%. iCouncilman Williams thought the staff position was sound in view of the percentages represented on the ;;>etitions. He didn't think it proper to ignore improvement petitions while. a new assessment policy was being considered, and he thought delay would also have an impact on the cost to those who would be paying for the improvement Councilwoman Beal mentioned that the subcommittee discussed not only zoning as a basis for assessment, but also actual land use, and she recognized possibility of ; higher costs in delaying the project. But she was concerned about single-family !properties having to pay a substantial portion of the improvement for traffic I i generated by commercial properties. She didn't think it was right, even though . , 'public need was important, to hurt_residential property owners just because they : , lived in a zone that had changed. , Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve the peti tion. Comf I 8/28/74 ; Councilmen Murray and Wood were in favor of the motion, although they rec~pro~e nized the inequities a~d hoped the subcommittee would be able to develop a new ;1 . formula soon. , I .. . d 11 C '1 / I Vote was taken on the mot~on as stated. Mot~on carr~e , a ounc~ , 1 members__~r~~e_~_~_ "o.~i_Il.~___aye, exc~I>t Councilwoman Beal voting no. ,I _ ....._ ..~. ".___b__ __ 9/16/74 - 7 "32.. 4} I;J .- - ~ --." . .~__ '0' _ __ "_ .._. - .. _ +~n 3.; Petition, Paving alley between 15th and 16th, Hilyard to Alder - Petitioned by i owners of 55% of property to be assessed. Manager said there were no single-family; : dwellings 1nvolved. All of the properties to be assessed were occupied either by : , apartment or sorority house -uses. Staff recommended proceeding. ,/ - Corom / Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve the petition. 9/4!JA Motion carried unanimously. Approve --'--'. " .:~ ..-.'- . ..-. -...-"', -.- F. l. Condemnation, Sidewalk on south side of Bailey Lane from Coburg Road east 355.3't - { Authorization requested' for additional street right-of-way for sidewalk construction 'along property in the ownership of Ethel Gustafson, 30 Bailey Lane. Connn I .' 8/28/74/ I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to authorize condemnation. . ----- Motion carried unanimously. See B~ It wa.s understood tha.t this item would be placed on file since the bid on the sidewalk had been rejected as being too high. . :... ...... + ---".. -<." - ..--_.. --- --- 2. Condemna-tiC;;n for sani tary sewer easement sputh from south end of Happy Lane -, south of Goodpasture Island Road (Happy Lan~ Development, Ltd.) ___ Authorization was requested for the condemnation of a l4-foot easement (60-foot : construction easement) for the Willakenzie trunk sanitary sewer system over land i I owned by Happy Lane Development. \ Connn . . 9/4/74: . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood to author~ze the condemnat~on as S B 1 : ee e ow requested. Motion carried unanimoUSly. j It was understood that this item would be placed on file since a negotiated settle- ment was achieved. G. ,iResol~ti6n, Na"t;l"onaFifnei?FTPolic-rj - Councilwoman--campb~il- ;'e~d a prepared-; istatement requesting the Council to instruct staff to prepare a resolution for !Council adoption at its next meeting expr~ssing the city's views on the National: iEnergy Policy.' She said the National League of Cities Environmental Committee, ,of which she was a member, was urging cities to present testimony at Federal ; Energy Administration hearings throughout the country questioning whether the ~\ iNationalenergy policy should focus on the single goal of energy independence. ------- ;She said she would like the Council to consider having representation at the r ~ !hearing in Portland on September 13 to at least read the proposed resolution \ 'asking that the National policy pursue other ways of minimizing environmental ! damage and pollution, and urging conservation and judicious uses of energy not : being considered at the present time. Also, that a paper could be prepared i : in more detail to be forwarded to the NLC Comrr.dttee, ahd to John Sawhill, I administrator of the FEA, New Postoffice Building, 1200 Independence Avenue, I Washington, D. C ., 20461. - Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to instruct staff to '. prepare a resolution stating the city's position with regard to Corom National- Energy Policy for Cotmcil consid.eration at its next 9/4/74 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Approve \ It was understood materials with regard to the National policy would be repro-,' duced and distributed to Council members prior to t~e next Council meeting. / (**See Itemp-E) / "'0'''''' n _'__'__'. _no"' H. iHousing Disper;~i Policy Plan - . Discus;;ion continued from previous committee -~-e~tin-g iwith Councilman Williams restating that the impetus for the report was housing Ipolicy statements previously made on the desirability of dispersing low-income ~ ihousing to the extent it could be done throughout the city to provide social inter- faction between people of socioeconomic spectrums. Councilman Wood asked for some \ I evaluation of the rela,tionship of the proposed dispersal policy wi th - the new ,Housing' and Community Develop~ent Act of 1974. 'Betty Niven, member of the Joint Housing Committee, said that the new law provided :for a limit of 80% of the median income for eligibility in any subsidized program. ! ~In the Eugene area, she said, that would mean an upper income limit of about $9600 .. lfor low-income housing, with the only constraint being that 30% must be rented to :families having income below half the median. Also, the requirement for a resolu- 'tion of the governing body authorizing a housing authority to undertake any type of program was deleted. Instead, the governing body is notified of an.application i 'and given an opportunity to comment on the proposal on the basis of its adopted I ~ 9/16/74 - 8 325 t !housing plan. Preparation ,of a housing plan was dependent upon adoption ofa d'is=---: 'persal plan, she said, so to be eligible for funds when they were appropriated under Ithe new law it would be necessary to move along with the dispersal plan. She added I ithat questions should be directed toward specific changes which the Committee would I - ;be able to make, recogni zing that it was not possible to disperse low-income families,: that only location of low-cost housing could be controlled. In response to Council~ I 'woman Beal, Mrs. Niven said the new Federal program had no requirement at this time ,for housing dispersal. ICouncilman Murray supported the proposed policy so far as interest in dispersal of ; IIow-cost housing for achievement of social goals and avoidance of economic ghettoes. iHowever, he said, he had serious philosophical reservations that the plan presented iwould not further the desired goals. He said history had shown that low-income ;people as a rule did not choose concentration in certain areas, rather they were i !left behind by others. He felt the answer lay not in dispersing low-income house- holds but in providing some kind of direction and j[ncentives to those moving olit of !low-income housing areas to return. He suggested that consideration should be :given to the impact of zoning policies and speculative and debilitating land use i !practices, traffic patterns and ways the city complicated those problems, the nega- ! , : tive impact of property taxation and of the assessment system, education staffing I ,(recognizing that was not a city government issue), access to certain areas, and high quality of social amenities. Aside ,from philosophical reservations, he said, 'he was concerned that the Joint Housing Commi ttee ,had left behind most low-cost 'housing in switching from "lower income housing" in the introductory paragraph to e ; the Plan to "subsidized housing." He said there was no.low-cost housing in Eugene ;except subsidized housing and the Plan did not tak,e, into account nonsubsidized low-income units. , I Mr. Murray distributed to other Council members statistics and maps illustrating I concentrations of persons paying rents of $79 per month or less and owner-occupied f , homes having an assessed value of less than $10,000, based on 1970 census data. He called attention to the disparity between figures therein with regard to concen- I trations of low-income housing and planning district concentrations, shown in the proposed Dispersal Plan which led him to "radically different conclusions" than those of the report. He recognized elimination oE elderly and students in the report's stat}.stics, but thought the same patterns would emerge were they taken linto consideration. He said he was not persuaded that low-income people were (living where they preferred to live rather than where the low-cost housing was. He_thought existing low-cost housing should be considered in any housing dispersal; ithat the proposed Plan recommended location of more of that type housing in planning J districts already having a concentration, and that other areas not having low-cost l~ousin~ were not ,mentioned: ~e felt to adopt such a plan would be going backwards i ~n try~ng to ach~ eve the c~ ty s goals. ' _ ,__ -- --- -- __ __ --~----- ,,', .---~. ,-,~ ..... . _ - .-' ,0 ~ _ "_...ll.. . Mayo~ Anderson suggested that discussion be kept to information in the report, ~ :leav~ng lengthy discussion to public hearing which would be necessary in formula- \ :tion of a policy of this sort. He recognized Mrs. Niven who responded to Mr. Murray's comments on data in the report. She said the study referred only to ;dispersal of subsidized housing, not all low-cost housing. And that the definition " "of housing uni ts should be considered. It could be that low-cost uni ts, might in- :clude a number of single rooms rather than housing units in which families Could ,:live. She added that there were limitations too because of funding requirements \ on capacity for moving people into low-cost housing even if it was available. She 'recognized the proposed plan would not solve the housing problem, but if funds were forthcoming the plan would say where to locat,e low-cost housing. The' Housing ! Committee felt the central planning district as set out in the report, for instance, iwould be best for walking to nearby services, and she didn't feel it was fair to ,lOW-income people if they wanted to live close in to say they couldn't. -I -,I Councilman Murray said he appreciated the number of rental uni ts comprising single '-, , rooms, but felt that that consideration would not greatly affect the patterns of q c(:mcentration. His concerns were graver! he said, in that he thought the ci ty would be going backwards 'in its social goals, and "it would riot be a change, it would be a mistake." He accepted the Housing Committee's findings that subsidized housing was all that could be influenced, but he also thought existing low~cost Ihousing could not be ignored, nor could the people living in that housing be ignored. . I iHe was not in favor of the Council's acting on this plan; he did favor the Housing icommittee~s looking at it again to see if there was some way to build into the dis- :persal formula for district allocations some consideration of existing low~cost units. i --------- ..... -. . _h___. -----...--.-- -., -c-._~.- . ~--"~ -.~ - ..... -.0. .-. . '-,. -. . ~ - - ~.'.,"'. .._~ 9/16/74 - 9 ~2.b u - Councilman Williams disagreed to some extent with the opinion that ghettoes ~ere-the function of low-cost housing rather than the function of people irrespective of the economic value of housing in an area. He said the Committee decided that "defeat" of the elderly was not a major social concern in numbers, also that there was a e high level of "voluntary poor" in the student population - they would not neces- , I /sarily remain in that group. The Committee's main concern, he said, was for faml11es I with children; dispersal of that group they felt was critically important. He added ithat funds would 'be available for low-cost housing and the city would have to decide Iwhere it would be located. For that reason the Committee dealt with subsidized !housing specificall~. Mr. Murray mo~ed seconded by Mrs. Beal to refer the proposed Housing ! Dispersal Policy Plan back to the Joint Housing Committee with the re- i quest that they consider including within the formula for distribution of low-cost housing the issue of existing nonsubsidized low-cost housing~ ;Mrsa Niven asked ,for Council direction for the iterim if the motion carried because lof the need to know where to locate subsidized housing and the fact that where it I ; was located would affect any future dispersal policy. ,Councilman Wood was opposed to the motion. He said if there were to be revisions ! or consideration of additional information to add to the present policy he could support it b'~cause it did speak to many of the problems unique to subsidized housing such as maintenance, management, repairs. etc., particularly as they concerned the southwest planning district. He suggested that a publiohearing on the report would . be appropriate, that many of Mr. Murray's concerns - tax base, zoning, transportation, routes - should be discussed. In response to Mrs. Beal's inquiry as to why an immediate decision was needed, Mrs.. Niven said Federal funds had been requested and people soon would be wanting to know where to locate low-cost housing. . . Mayo.r Anderson left the meeting, turning the Chair over to'Council President Williams. Councilmen Hershner and Keller also left the i meeting. i Councilwoman Beal asked about land costs in the central and east planning districts as shown in the report and was told that they were higher than in other areas. She . suggested as a temporary measure that low-cost housing be authorized in any of the : planning districts except the central and east until a dispersal plan was adopted. Councilman Murray said he would accept that as an amendment to his motion. Mrs. Beal 'i as the second gave her consent. Manager said it seemed the amendment would be contrary to the original motion, that :it would disperse low-cost housing and at the same time refer the dispersal policy. :The Chair ruled that the two would be handled as separate motions and voted upon . 'separately. Councilman Wood thought both motions were unrealistic and repeated his opinion that I, , .4, 'scheduling a public hearing would be tlle aI?propriate ac,t.iC?n tq _prov.~i1e an'LPpportunity' iforfull discussion of-the proposed pian, especially with regard to multiple units vis-a-vis individua.1 units. He thought greater problems would be created if the , . motion carried prohibiting low-cost housing temporarily in the central and east i j districts. Councilman Murray thought it would be a mistake to adopt a policy .with the possj- I bility of future amendment which could reverse the entire policy initially decided upon. He commented that the "time bind" seemed always to be present and that he 'would not go for this policy at this time. Vote was taken on the motion as stated and repeated by the Chair to Comm refer the proposed plan to the Joint Housing Committee. Motion 9/4/74 i carried, Council members Beal, Campbell, and Murray voting aye; See Be1ow' Council members Williams and Wood voting no. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to authorize, pending adoption of a permanent policy on housing dispersal, low-cost or subsidized - housing in any area of the city except the central and east planning districts as shown in the plan. ._L 8/16/74 - 10 327 Mr. Murray stated that his second was in the interest of having an interim dispersal policy. Mrs. Beal said she thought to place subsidized housing in the east and : central districts where there existed a concentration of poor people would nullify e the purpose of the dispersal plan. Mr. Williams commented that as an interim i ;1 "',j' 'poli9Y the motion would completely ignore the student population which the Committee Ji 1 :,\ !decided not to include as well as the southwest and northwest areas where there were \ , , I t, I: concerns. He agreed with Councilman Wood who thought the motion was worthless in ,relation to what was to be achieved. In response to Councilwoman Campbell, Mrs.Niven; I : said they would continue to locate low-co~t housing as they had if there was no i : direction given. And Mr. Wood added that he -was primarily concerned with the con- :centration of low-income people in the southwestern section of the city. I I 1 : Vote was taken on the motion to prohibit on an interim basis location I ! ;'<i ! of low-cost housing in the central and east planning districts. The Corrnn ", -/ ! 'i! Chair ruled the motion failed on a tie vote - Council members Beal and 9/4/74 : - ? ',t' . ':2' Murray voting aye; Council members Williams and Wood voting no; See -'Below Councilwoman Campbell abstaining. At the conclusion of other business, Manager suggested, since there probably would : be further discussion of the 'Housing Dispersal Policy PI.an at the September 16'-' "- : meeting, that that item no~ be placed on the consent, calendar. Councilman Williams .~f~ :said unless there were objections the item would be scheduled separat~l~ for dis- I"J cussion. Councilman Murray did object. He said it appeared that when someone's " ~I .....,. 'will other than his own was not followed the procedures were juggled, and he took ./ " '. e exception to its being done so often. Mr. Williams responded that the request merely simplified the process of asking separation of committee items for discus- , sion, it involved no final substantive change. Councilman Wood said his impression' was that an item on the consent calendar would not attract as much attention as Ci,,-, ,) public hearing and he fel t 'commerits- on the Plan should be invi ted. Manager said ~,-,I ' '"1 that since it was his judgment that was challenged he felt he should comment that ! his understanding of the purpose of the consent calendar. was to try to dispose of , :nondebatable items, or those not anticipating debclte, with one motion, and not di- :recting any particular emphasis to anyone item. He said in his judgment there would be further debate on the Dispersal Plan, hence the suggestion to segregate it. The Chair 'ruled the 'item would not be segregated, that it would appear on the September 16 Council agenda as an item on the consent calendar. '.. .-- - . -- _ ._....,.. .." . ~._...~ H" Betty Niven, chairman of the Joint Housing Committee, presented a position paper (dated September 13, 1974) in answer to concerns expressed by the Council with regard to concentrations of low-income families in nonsubsidized housing. The Joint Housing ,Corrnnittee proposed a limitation on addition of subsidized housing in areas where ~ concentration of low-income families was evident by encouraging subsidized housing in any planning district containing more than twice the citywide proportion of families in poverty with children under 18 (calculated on Federal income eligibility - criteria). Another ,Council concern - enhancing quality ~f neighborhoods to attract higher income families - would be addressed by neighborhood organizations on the basis of Corrnnunity Goals statements and through Council action at the neighborhoods' requests. Some site selection\guidelines were recorrnnended for addition to the Plan: (l) En- _ .,:. courage only small housing projects in the central and east planning districts, . :\ (2) give highest priority for subsidized housing sites to planning districts having '} both a low proportion "of subsidized family units and a low concentration of low- income families with children under 18, (3) give second priority to plan~ing districts having a low concentration of subsid.ized family housing, avoiding locations within those districts where there appeared to be a concentration of low-income families. Revisions suggested were (1) to rewrite sections of the Plan to incorporate the added guidelines including a table showing presence of poverty-level families with children under 18, (2) to delete the section of the Plan dealing with exceptions to the spacing .!"J " criteria and the central district as an exception. (1408) Councilman Murray expressed satisfaction with the proposed changes in the Plan and said they responded to the'many concerns he had. He said he was not completely con- vinced that housing for students and the elderly was not relevant to the total issue of housing dispersal and thought at some future time the Council might want to consider housing in that category. And he hoped that the issue of attracting .moderate- and higher-income people back to deserted areas would not be left entirely to neigh- _. borhood groups on the basis of the Corrnnunity Goals statements, rather that the city might take action on its own initiative. (1460) Councilman McDonald said that based on analyses by financial experts it appeared that people Hrving in the core areas were the ones who would benefit, fiTlaricia11y. He asked what amount would define "higher income." Mrs. Niven answered that in terms of attracting people into an area in order to restore it probably "higher income" would be considered that over $25,000, the median was about $12,000. 9/16/74 - '11 '3 Ze, Counc~lwoman Campb~llc~mm~nted on ~he serious commitment being made by the city in adoptlon.of a hou~lng,dlspersal POllCY and the difficulty which might be faced in the future when applYlngl t because of probable neighborhood obj ections. . Mr. ~illi~s moved seconded by Mr. Wood to give conceptual approval to the ~ Houslng D~spersal Plan ~s presented and amended in line with the memo presented ' and ~xplaln~d by Mr:. N~ven, and to a~~horize staff to allocate any subsidized houslng pro] ec~ comlng lnto the commutl1ty on the basis._ of that Plan as amended, and,that th~ flnal ~lan as amended be brought- to the Council for,final adoption. Motlon carrled unanlmously. r--------..------- ____. __.. __ __ - - - __ ..-' .--.'- - _hh - ----- - _n ,---- I. 'vacation, Gilbert public utility easement (west of Danebo from Barger to Candlelight)-, Originally, hearing was called for Qctober 14, 1974. With rescheduling of that / meeting, Counci1~s authorization to reschedule hearing on the easement vacation / was requested. Corrol 9/4/74 Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Wood _to reschedule the vacation hearing Appr6ve ~ (October 29, 1974). Motion carried unanimously. ~ J. Appointment, MAPAC for balance of term ending June 30, 1975 - Eleano: Mulder, 2775 Emerald Street Approve K. Council minutes, July 22, lQ74 as circulated. Approve L. ~~vLrigston & Blayney Commerciiil Study - Councilman Murray reported- he Mid'the a impression from discussion in Planning Comndssion meetings that the Blayney ,., report had not yet in any official way been transmitted to Lane County or the city of Springfie~d. He thought it should be sent to them. Assistant Manager verified the fact that the report had not officially been transmitted; However, ,he said, it was his understanding that a request was to be made for inclusion of more information and that perhaps a final document as prepared for discussion i iby the three agencies would be more appropriate to distribute to the other : 'agencies. Councilman Williams' recollection was that Lane County and Spring- ,Comm ifleld wel'e to be included in the discussions before the Planning Commission. 8(128/74 'It was agreed copies of the commercial study in its present form would be for- Affirm warded to Lane County and to the city of Springfield. ---- - M. Resolution, Initiating Growth Study - At the request of Councilman Murray a resolution drafted liy himself and Councilwoman Beal which would authorize initia- tion of a growth study was to be placed on the September 4 committee a~enda of Comm discussion. It was understood copies of the reso1u~ion would be distr~buted t08/28/74 '::>ther Council members. Affirm , --_.-." ... .'~- . N. Appointments, Metropolitan Area ~l~nning Advisory Committee - Council President, Williams scheduled executive session of the Council for 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday" ~ September 4, for selection of MAPAC appointee to replace Al Tussing; resigned. ~ i He suggested that Council members wishing to suggest names submit them to staff' Comm : before Friday, August 30, to permi t distribuL.on wi th the September 4 committee 8/28/74 : agenda.' J Affirm O. :Schedulinq Council Meetinqs -A show of ha~ds indicated a quorum would nOt be , present for the September 9, 1974 Council meeting because of NLC seminar in : Seattle with regard to new Federal community block grant legislation. It was I agreed that Council meeting would beheld instead on September 16, 1974. i I i Councilwoman Campbell was concerned that delay in action on the energy resolution ; she proposed (see Item I-B) would prevent its being presented at the September 13- : hearing. Manager suggested, and Council agreed, that the resolution be prepared I and distributed to individual Council members for signing prior to the weekend ~ to enable its presentation at the hearing. I ! Manager said he and Assistant Manager would be attending the annual conference / of the International City Management Association the week of October 14 and i Comm suggested changing the Council meeting scheduled for that date to October 7. f/28~?4 He also called attention to Federal recognition of Veterans Day holiday on . Afflrm . October 28 and rescheduling that meeting to October 29 (Tuesday) as provided I ~ by ordinance. There was no objection to the proposed scheduling. 'e P. II' cC;;~;;ci~iAg~nda :' Cou~cilwomarinBeid sUrJ.geStf=dspilfdng-'i:Jie Council agenda when I a meeting was expected to be lengthy so that part could be considered on' the \ . ! Monday following the regular Monday meeting. She hoped to avoid another "til \ , midnight" meeting as occurred on August 26. Assistant Manager explained that : C : because the Monday following the August 26 meeting was a hol~da~ it was decided8f28/~ to ,proceed with the agenda as prepared. He expressed apprec~at~on for the I File Council's endurance. 9/16/74 - 12 ~2.~ Q. Housing Dispersal Policy Plan - Planning Commission on July 22, 1974 recommended I Coun~il approval by resolution of Housing Dispersal Policu Plan submitted by the \ Joint Housing Committee, copies of which were distributed to Council members. i e Assistant Manager proposed scheduling discussion ot' the Plan at.the September 4 I committee meeting. Pat Decker, comprehensive planning, reviewed the policy statements submitted. :She said it W?lS proposed that dispersed housing would be restricted to subsidized ,housing for families having annual incomes less than $7,000, excluding elderly I , .and student populations because needs of those two groups appeared to call for I ! 'concentrations near specific types of services. Subsidized housing-sliou-lq be ! ,discouraged in- planning districts (defined and mapped in the plan document) in j which existing subsidized housing exceeded twice the percentage for the city~as---J. a whole (2x4.4% in 1973). Also, any planning distjrict with subsidized housing I I 'units less than one-half the city's percentage would be considered high priprity I ! distri,cts-for- location of subsidized housing. With regard to spacing within dis- , r&r~cts, it was pro~osed that .subsidized units would-constitute no more than 20% of the units in'a -si-ngye-famil-y-,subdivision, no mO.re than three such units could I I adjoin, and there would be no size_lj,mit on single-family supdiv:ision-containing I subsidized units. Further, that wi th}n~subsi-di-:ieamu':' t1.pte-::'famiIy developm~nts I there would be no more than 80 units, and no project of more than 40 units would f be located wi thin a one-half mile radius of any existing project of more .than i 40 units, and no more than two small projects could be located within a one-ha~f imile radius of each other. e Ms. Decker explained further additional criteria for spacing and proportionate I number of subsidized units in individual multiple-family structures. And the Joint Housing Committee, in the plan document, recommended a continued policy of budgeting city funds to assist in }~nd acquisition or de~elopment costs in high priority dispersal areas, and amendment to CIR. r-rovisisions of the City Code to i refer more specifically to the Housing Dispersal policy Plan. o ,- i Councilman Williams, member of the Joint Housing Committee, said one of the main I , , concerns of the Committee was ghettoization in the city. Development of the Plan, I ,he said, was an attempt to respond to those concel'ns. He favored delay of further I . ,discussion to give the opportunity for Shldy of the Plan. Councilman Murray (agreed and expressed the hope that ampl8 time would be provided on the September 4 lcommi ttee agenda for discussion. Councilwoman Campbell though t the discussion ~hould include some ide~'of costs involved and maImer of implementing the Plan. Councilwoman Beal applauded the attempt: to prevent formation of ghettoes hut : Comm i wondered w~at would be d~ne about those now in existence. . counc~~man Williams 8/28/74 : noted prec~se treatment ~n the Plan document of the quest~ons ra~sed and sug- : File gested delay of detailed review until the next week's committee meeting. It wasl understood ample time would be allowed on that _9qenda. ..,...__ ."' .0"" -' - ----q R. Workshop, Hou:;ing and Communi ty DevelopmentJlct of 1974 - Septemher 9--11, 1974 i~ Seattle, sponsored by Lea:1ve of Oregon Ci til's wi th other leagues in Federal Region X ' and National League of Cities, to review the new legiSlation on revenue sharing. -: Council members interested in attending were asked to contact the M~nager's officeCo~m so that registration and reservations could betaken care of. 8/28/7 4 / . ....'.U _". .....__... _ ~,... .-- ----'.__._._.~ -~- ,. ~._ .n'. . ....... _. ~.. _' _ ~ - + ...." ..-..... _n~' ~. ... _._.._.._.__._.._~. .0" - ---'File S. i Distribution - Copies of letters were distributed from, . ~ 1. IJason Lee, attorney, 495 State Street, Salem dated August 19, 1974 re: lomm \Renaming 13th Avenue "Wayne Morse Avenue." 9/4{74 ! F~le . I 2. :Iridependent phi Beta Kappa Environmental Study Group received August 23, 1974 \ ,. urging rejection of Nelson Rockefelle_r _~~ vice president of the United States. i .l .. H'.' .. --__.. '.._' _. ~. -'--'.--0::--' - ..... " ~ .. ..-'"- p'--'.~ T. !Field Burning - Mayor Anderson commented on anbther "black Tuesday" (September 3) tand the State's "smoke management program" which resulted in an extremely in- :tolerable situation in the Eugene area because of' seed field burning. He said he /was impatient with the inconsistent propaganda with regard to value of the seed . : industry and its efforts to develop machinery to counteract. the smoke problem. iHe thought the people of Eugene had been patient but that the density of smoke in this area on the 3rd had strengthened their resolve that there should be no extension of the ban on field burning. He noted a statement he had prepared (copies to be made available to those interested) calling on Eugene people to ! ~contact their legislators and other people responsible for eradication of the I Iproblem to make them aware of its severity. He asked Council members to en- icourage their constituents to write, realizing that further protests from govern- .ing bodies were repetitive and lacked the necessary impact on the DEO.to get 'action from the smoke management office and to make sure the problem would soon be alleviated. ~......-"'---------"---- ~-.,.__. - -- .-.-,_.----_._._-~--~~.. - --- -........ ----,-, "',.".", .-----.. ~30 9/16/74 - 13 , .. ~Cou~ci1woman Beal noted that Lane Regipnal Air Pollutiop telephone lines were , !' jammed wi th calls protesting the smoke. She suggested written protests would , . Cqnnn :be more apt to get through. - 9/4/74 IAn urlidentified person in the audience wondered if the city's asking for a de- File e icrease in acreage quota would be beneficial. The Mayor replied that the city's !position was that technical aspects were better left to the State authorities, ~that a policy solution was really what was being pursued. The city, he said, !would stand firm in its resolve to see that field burning eventually was / !eradicated. I U. 'Quad Development - Councilwoman Beal wondered 'whether consideration had been' i given to traffic congestion between willamette and the University in allowing 'development of quads in that area (mUltiple-bedroom units with common kitchen land living area). Manager replied that staff was aware that the quads were :creating traffic and parking problems since most of the ones in that area were ,occupied by students, and the one and a half parking spaces for every four adults; !were not sufficient. However, quads were being de~eloped in other areas for :elderly people, many not owning automobiles, ,so there were ramifications. He said the staff was doing some research on number of cars per occupancy and would bring ,a proposal to the Planning Comadssion before long. Com~ 9/4/74! " V. 'TV Translator - Councilman Williams reported a great deal of support from the File Icommunity with regard to his proposal for a translator as an alternative to e cable teevee se~vice. In one instance, even, a check was received to start a 'fund for pursuing the project (to be returned, he said). He thought the Council / would be interested in the type of support the proposal had created in the communi ty. ornm 9/4/74 File Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through E, Item G, and Items I through V, noting separate action on Items F and H. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 602 - Amending Sections 8.725 (a}(c) and 8.804 (3) of City Code and deleting Section 8.820 (2) re: Permit fees for signs and appeals on signs and for change of sign district boundary - to be set by Council resolution, was read the first time on July 8, 1974 and held pending completion of fee study, and brought back for Council-eonsideration aNd ~ ):'ead the second time by council bill- number and':-title only, ~here -being no council- man present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final - passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17171. Council Bill No. 642 - Amending Sections 9.850 and 9.852 and repealing Section 9.854 of City Code re: Planning Fees was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. lvir. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council and that enacment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17172. Council Bill No. 643 - Amending Section 7.595 and 7.600 of City Code re:., Filing fees for vacation of streets and alleys was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. . " . . . Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council and that enactment be c~nsiuered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill he approved and given final passage. Rol.lcall vote. All Council members present -vot'ing aye, -the bill__was declared passed and numbered 17173 9/16/74 - 14 33' Council Bill No. 647 - Amending Section 8.075 of City Code re: Deletion of require- ment for installation of ground fault circuit interrupters on construction sites was read the first time by council bill number and title only - there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, ,with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered;17174. Council Bill No. 648 - Amending Ordinance 17169 re: Rescheduling hearing for 'vacation of Gilbert public utility easement west of Danebo from Barger Drive to Candlelight for October 29, 1974 was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no' councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, -the bill was declared passed and numbered 17175. Council Bill N~ 649 - Paving alley between 4th: Avenue and ,5th Avenue from., , ' , Washington Street to Lawrence Str.eet was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that ,the bill be read the se'cond time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be Gonsidered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second tim~ by council bil~ number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17176. Council Bill No. 650 - Adopting plans- and specifications for paving alley between 4th and 5th Avenue from Washington Street - to Lawrence Street was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number. only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17177. Council Bill No. 651 - Paving alley between Pearl Street and High Street from 14th Avenue to 15th Avenue was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in~full. I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. - Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17178. Council B~ll No. ,652 - Adopting plan~ and ~pecifications, for pavi,:qg al~ey between Pearl Street and High Street from l4~r Avenue to 15th Avenue was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. \ 9/16/74 - 15 332 -- Mr. Williams moved seconded by-Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. - Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17179. Council Bill No. 653 - Paving alley between 15th Avenue and 16th Avenue from Hilyard Street to Alder. Street was read the.first time by council bill number' and title only, there-being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with-unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the. bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approve_~~~~~~~ final passage. Rollcall vote.. All' Council members. present voting aye, the bilf was declared passed and numbered 17180. Council Bill No. 654 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving alley between 15th Avenue and 16 Avenue from Hilyard Street to:Alder - Street was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs.sCampbell that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17181. r ~ ----. "'" ~- - IV - Resolutions Resolution No. 2322 - Establishing fees for various planning applications was read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution;~ Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 2323 - Establishing fees for street and alley vacation applications. . was read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 2324 - Amending Resolution 2250 re: Fee schedule for land sub- division was read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 2328 - Establishing fee schedule for Sign Code was read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 2329 - Stating city's position with regard to National Energy Policy was read by number and title. Councilwoman Campbell expressed appreciation for Council approval of the resolution on an e emergency basis. She said the resolution was presented at the FEA hearing in Portland on September 13 and was made a part of the record. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. 9/16/74 - 16 333 - Resolution No. 2331 - Authorizing one-way traffic northbound only on north/ south alley between Broadway and, 10th, Oak and Pearl was read by number and _title only. . Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 2332 - Designatirgportions of 11th Avenue, 13th Avenue, Kincaid Street, Washington Street, and Jefferson Street for "No Through Motor Trucks" was read by number and title only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. . Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. ! Resolution No. 2334 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims and progress payments for perio dAugust 26 through September 16, 1974 was read by number and title only. In response to Councilman McDonald's inquiry about $1500 payment to Montgomery Ward, Manager explained that it was a credit given for assessment for the 10th and Oak Overpark, passed through the city from the Downtown Development Board to Montgomery Ward_. . Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. e Motion carried unanimously. As a matter of information, Manager advised Council that latest calculations based on information from the County Assessor's office indicated the tax rate for 1974-75 would be about $8.90. The rate estimated when the last proposed levy outside the 6% limitation was submitted was about $9.27. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, September 23, 1974. 1 e :7~c ~ . McKinley City Manager - - e 9/16/74 - 17 3"!>+