Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/1989 Meeting - e - M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Council Chamber--City Hall February 27, 1989 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Robert Bennett, Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman, Bobby Green, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue. The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING A CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME HARDSHIP PERMITS (CA 88-05) City Manager Mike ~leason introduced the topic. Jean Hahn, Planning, Development, and Building Department said the hardship permit process would allow the temporary placement of a mobile home on a developed residential lot for the purposes of housing an ailing, physically or mentally disabled family member. The proposal under consideration was recommended to the council by the Planning Commission at its February 13, 1989, meeting. The process differs from that which is currently administered by the City in the urban transition area in that the City would send written notification to adjacent properties that a request to locate a temporary mobile home has been submitted for review by the Planning Director. The administrative decision on the request would be based on the submission of written proof by a medical professional, compliance with 17 development standards (included as part of the ordinance), and the compatibility with the surroundings, particularly when residential in character. The Planning Director's decision could be appealed to the Eugene Hearings Official. 'Ms. Hahn explained that the approved mobile, home hardship permit would be valid for two years and could be renewed by applying for renewal with the Planning Office. The permit would be a binding, contractual agreement between the City and the applicant. Ms. Hahn said that the standards included in the ordinance were developed to address concerns regarding compatibility of the temporary mobile home with existing residential areas and generalized mobile home siting concerns. Ms. Hahn encouraged councilors to direct questions regarding enforcement to Marsha Miller of the Building Division who has prior experience with the issuance of temporary mobile home hardship permits and enforcing violations of those permits as a former Lane County employee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 1 e Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Miller explained that the County issues permits based on whether a medical hardship exists and a family member is involved, and does not have many of the standards being proposed in the ordinance. The County has no conditions for siting nor any conditions for removal. Ms. Schue asked about the number of residential lots in Eugene that would meet the requirements outlined in the ordinance. Ms. Hahn replied that a map plotted by the Lane Council of Governments indicates that a large number of parcels in the city exceed the square footage requirement. Answering an inquiry from Mr. Holmer, Ms. Hahn said that the mlnlmum residential lot size is 4,500 square feet. Currently, mobile homes can only locate in mobile home parks and subdivisions. Ms. Hahn clarified that the ordinance will not affect modular homes. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. Lauri Thomas, 830 Larch Street, spoke in favor of the ordinance. Describing her personal situation, which involves a grandmother unable to maintain her own residence and unable to afford other care arrangements, Ms. Thomas maintained that th~ ordinance would move the community in the direction of caring for its members who are elderly, or who have suffered a head injury or major illness and are attempting to re-enter an independent living situation. e There being no additional requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Mr. Green asked about monitoring the hardship to determine the ongoing need for the mobile home permit. Ms. Hahn responded that the permit will be valid for two years. She anticipated that the City would develop a tracking system for existing permits and would notify permit-holders of the need to resubmit their applications or lose the permit after two years. She said it would be possible to reduce the permit period to less than two years. While he commended the desire to care for family members, Mr. Bennett wondered if the requirement that a lot be at least 8,000 square feet would have the effect of encouraging larger lots and defeat the commitment to compact urban growth. Mr. Bennett considered the concept of off-site open space important in issues surrounding multi-family site development and he expressed concern that mobile homes in back yards could disrupt homogenous neighborhood plans and adversely affect property values. Mr. Bennett also questioned how a two-year permit period with the option of renewal could be considered a temporary situation. Responding to Ms. Ehrman's questions about enforcement measures, Ms. Miller explained that the Municipal Court system would be used for this type of contract violation. She pointed out that enforcement activity would focus more on achieving compliance than on collecting a fine. Referring to e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 2 e Ms. Hahn's earlier comment regarding the permit period, Ms. Miller said it could be changed to one year. Mr. Rutan encouraged councilors to vote against the ordinance because he considered it contrary to what the City has attempted to achieve in its residential zoning regulations. He also said there were numerous major flaws in the ordinance. Finally, Mr. Rutan considered complaint-based enforcement ineffective and unrealistic. Mr. Boles considered the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission fair and adequately protective of the City and of contiguous property owners. Ms. Ehrman anticipated minimal use of the ordinance and viewed it less as a zoning issue than as a social response to housing problems. She said she would support changing the permit period to one year. Ms. Bascom called the ordinance cumbersome and concurred with councilors Rutan and Bennett's observations that it was not an effective way of encouraging density on undeveloped space. Ms. Bascom questioned whether moving mobile homes on and off lots would be a wise use of resources. Ms. Schue viewed the proposed ordinance as an experiment that could help address one aspect of the community's housing problems and she encouraged council support. e Mr. Bennett did not favor addressing the housing situation in ways that could change the character of entire neighborhoods and suggested that other alternatives may better meet the environmental goals of the community. Answering Mr. Holmer1s questions, Ms. Hahn said modular homes are permitted as primary or accessory homes if they meet Uniform Building Code standards. She explained that the enforcement method preferred by the Planning Commission is a performance agreement to be contractually binding and enforced through the court system. Mr. Green requested a comparison of costs between housing an ailing family member in a mobile home and in a nursing home. He preferred the mobile home option because he thought it would be less costly and would better retain the person's dignity. Mr. Green shared the reservations of other councilors regarding the recommended two-year permit period. CB 4128--An ordinance concerning Mobile Home Hardship Permits; amending Section 9.806 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and adding a new Section 9.820 of that code. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 3 e Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to amend the bill to specify a one-year, rather than a two-year, permit period. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The amended Council Bill 4128 was read the second time by council bill number and title only. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion carrying 5:4, with councilors Ehrman, Schue, Boles, Green, and Mayor Miller voting aye and councilors Rutan, Bascom, Bennett, and Holmer voting against, the bill was declared passed (and become Ordinance No. 19608). II. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCES RELATED TO MALL ACTIVITIES City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Jan Bohman, Planning, Development, and Building Department explained that the three ordinances under consideration were developed to facilitate management of the mall and other central down~own areas. e Ms. Bohman reported that the Downtown Commission recommended adoption of the ordinances reviewed at the council's January 11 work session. Since that time, minor modifications have been made to the ordinance concerning the Downtown Pedestrian Mall. Ms. Bohman described those changes as clarification of the language and purpose of the ordinance involving an expansion of the findings section which explains the purposes of the mall and describes issues and behaviors inadequately addressed by the current ordinance. More substantive changes made as a result of the council's work session involve the expansion of the definition of commercial pursuits to include solicitation for money or fund-raising. The ordinance will require mall use permits for merchandising or cafe seating, entertainment events, street entertainers, construction-staging, noise disturbances, and any event expected to attract more than 25 people. The ordinance also regulates interference with authorized activities and gives preference to abutting mall businesses in mall use. Ms. Bohman described the ordinance concerning noise disturbance as a housekeeping measure which exempts from the noise ordinance those activities allowed by mall activity permits. Ms. Bohman said the ordinance concerning skateboards will prohibit skateboards on downtown sidewalks where bicycles are already prohibited, in an area bounded by Charnel ton Street, 6th Avenue, Pearl Street, and 11th Avenue, and including the parking structures. She pointed out that skateboards are already prohibited on the mall itself. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 4 e Mr. Holmer referred to a provision in the skateboarding ordinance regarding impounding of bicycles or skateboards and asked whether owners will be required to register skateboards and bicycles. Ms. Bohman indicated that more information is needed about this point. Responding to Ms. Ehrman's inquiry, Ms. Bohman said fees were included under the regulations rather than as part of the ordinance and would be set and enacted by the manager following the council's action. Ms. Ehrman requested council review of proposed fees before their enactment. Ms. Bascom reported interest in other communities about Eugene's mall and expressed hope that increased commercial activity in the center of the mall will not be excluded (particularly pushcarts). Ms. Bohman responded that commercial activity on the mall will be allowed, but the ordinance will require separation between activities and will prevent them from interfering with each other. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. Charles Burke, 455 East 13th Avenue, suggested that skateboards should be allowed to cross the mall along with bicycles. He pointed out that pedestrians are able to hear skateboards approaching. e George Schaefer, 15552 Old Stagecoach, reported that many mall businesses are struggling financially and he encouraged establishing a fee structure that will provide incentives to enhance the appearance and accessibility of the mall. He opposed the assessment of burdensome fees that will discourage businesses from activity designed to attract more people to the area. Dave Rogers, 2057 Willamette Street, questioned the legality of impounding skateboards and asked whether bicycles would also be impounded for violations. Mr. Rogers suggested reserving an area as a skate park if skateboards are made illegal in an increasingly large area. Stephen Davee, 1827 Harris Street, #305, identified himself as a University student for whom a skateboard provides essential transportation. He pointed out that bicyclists can use streets, but skateboarders lack that option. Peter T. Wotton, 350 Pearl Street, #202, said he was a member of the Commission on the Rights of the Aging and a resident of Ya-Po-Ah Terrace. As a bicycle rider, Mr. Wotton said his safety was endangered by other bicycles because of their quiet operation. He opposed allowing skateboards where bicycles are not permitted. Mr. Wotton emphasized the importance of providing young people with options and said he supports the ordinance on the condition that a skateboard park is established and that a schedule for that establishment is set by the council immediately. Russ Brink, 132 East Broadway, spoke as a representative of Downtown Eugene, Incorporated, whose mission is to enhance downtown and maintain its position as the center of the community. Mr. Brink considered the proposed ordinance a key element in accomplishing that mission and he directed the council1s e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 5 -- . attention to the findings which explain why the ordinance is necessary. He asked that the mall be recognized primarily as a commercial district and said it should afford individuals freedom from intimidation and fear of assault. Cheryl Zwillinger, 892 West 23rd Avenue, represented the Commission on the Rights of Youth which she said recognizes safety concerns associated with skateboarding on the mall and also views skateboarding as a positive recreational activity of young people. If the council adopts the ordinance, she encouraged the provision of options for skateboarders, such as a skateboard park, and she requested that the council commit to a time line for its construction. Ms. Zwillinger said the Youth Commission, with assistance from City staff members, could develop a skateboarding brochure. John Williams, 1668 Moss, said he uses a skateboard for transportation and he supported the development of a skateboard park. John Harding, 2263 Minnesota, said he relies on skateboarding for transportation and he encouraged the City to develop a covered skateboarding area. Mike Nichols, 1233 Taylor Street, urged the council to provide an alternative location where skateboarding would be acceptable. e Christian Gunther, Agate Street, spoke as a business person who serves young people. Mr. Gunther recognized skateboarding as a legitimate means of transportation and said that a skateboard park would not address transportation needs. He considered impounding young people's means of transportation and recreation to be unjust and urged the council to avoid taking action that could alienate a segment of society. Cynthia Muntwyler, 131 North Grant Street, expressed concern regarding the community's attitude toward skateboarders and encouraged the council to avoid action that will be discriminatory toward a legitimate means of transportation and healthy sport. While she supported the development of a skateboard park, Ms . Muntwyler did not consider it a reasonable solution to problems associated with skateboarding as transportation. Anneliese Boughton, 395-1/2 West 5th Avenue, said she uses a skateboard for transportation to her downtown place of employment, and the proposed ordinance would prohibit her from traveling through an area she must cross. Lenore Young, 1670 Alder Street, urged the council to address criminal activities as crimes and not to make skateboarding a crime. Ms. Young uses a skateboard for transportation and considers herself a courteous user of sidewalks. Adam Freeman, 395-1/2 West 5th Avenue, described himself as a courteous skateboarder and said the boundary of the area being considered is too large. Richard Wright, 1043 Mill Street, identified himself as a bicyclist and not a skateboarder. He said it is difficult to cross the downtown core area as a e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 6 e bicyclist without riding on sidewalks, detouring an unreasonable distance, or using 10th Avenue which he described as dangerous. Mr. Wright asked councilors not to restrict access to downtown and to support diverse types of transportation. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Regarding mall use permit fees, Ms. Bohman indicated that staff recommended a minimal annual fee to recoup some administrative and maintenance costs. Ms. Bohman proposed deleting reference to registration of bicycles and skateboards from the ordinance. Ms. Bohman reported that impounding is used only in extreme cases of violation of the law. She noted that the skateboard park issue is addressed in the draft Parks Master Plan which the council will y'eview later this year. Ms. Bohman explained that the area affected by the ordinance is one where bicycles are already prohibited on sidewalks and where hazardous conditions exist because of heavy use by pedestrians. She said Lane Transit District (LTD) originally requested that something be done about skateboarding on sidewalks adjacent to the mall. Ms. Ehrman suggested that Oak Street would be a more logical eastern boundary than Pearl Street. ( Ms. Bascom requested more information from Downtown Eugene, Incorporated, regarding the areas of greatest concern and suggested that the boundaries could be reduced. e Mayor Miller asked whether skateboarders can use bike lanes. Lieutenant Vic Mann responded that skateboards are not considered vehicles so skateboarders cannot use the roadway (including bike lanes). Mr. Holmer asked if any other ordinances would penalize a skateboarder or bicyclist for not being polite and failing to exercise due care on the sidewalk. Ms. Bohman indicated that provisions in the motor vehicle code are applicable to bicyclists but not skateboarders. Lieutenant Mann added that special rules apply to bicyclists both on sidewalks and roads. He said skateboards are not defined in the motor vehicle code, so pedestrian rules are applied. Answering Ms. Ehrman's inquiry about enforcement, Ms. Bohman said the ordinance will allow notice of a skateboard and bicycle prohibition to be posted, which she expected would decrease the incidence of those activities on the affected sidewalks and streets. Mr. Green suggested exploring the possibility of creating special skateboard paths through the area in question. Mr. Gleason noted that skateboarding is allowed on bike paths and on sidewalks in other areas of the city. He said the idea of a skateboard park is an issue that should be addressed in the context of capital improvements in the update of the Parks Master Plan and not as part of the discussion of transportation through the mall. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 7 e At Ms. Schue's request, consideration of Council Bill 4131, concerning skateboards, was held over to a future council agenda. Mr. Rutan commented that without the mall, many of the problems the ordinances attempt to address would not exist. Mr. Bennett said the mall is under-used public space. He objected to some of the language in the findings of the proposed mall ordinance (CB 4129), specifically reference to the renewal area as vital, as being an inviting pedestrian environment used by a broad segment of the community, and as providing a beautiful environment in the downtown core area that lends identity to the community. He maintained that the mall is none of these and said the type of regulations proposed in the ordinance will not ensure the purposes for which the mall was constructed. Mr. Bennett disagreed that the pushcart program and kiosks ensure the quality of merchandising. He asked for further consideration of the statement regarding the exclusion of vehicular traffic (Section 4.870). Ms. Bohman responded that the findings referred to by Mr. Bennett are new language intended to make a case for why the regulations in the ordinance are needed. Mr. Bennett said he would support the ordinance despite his concern that the language of the findings does not describe accurately the existing condition or perfopmance of the mall. Mr. Boles said the findings describe what is being sought with the mall rather than existing conditions. He stated that reopening the mall to vehicular traffic is not necessarily a solution that will achieve an effective and vital downtown core area. e Mr. Holmer indicated he would support the mall and noise ordinances, but shared Mr. Bennett1s concern with the language of the findings. He encouraged the council to avoid adding political rhetoric to its ordinances as a means of providing background and rationale for regulations. CB 4129--An ordinance concerning the Downtown Pedestrian Mall; amending Sections 4.870, 4.871, 4.872, 4.876, 4.877, and 4.879 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Section 4.878 of that code; adding Sections 4.880 and 4.881 to that code; and declaring an emergency. CB 4130--An ordinance concerning noise disturbance; amending Section 4.084 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bills, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill numbers only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 8 e Council Bills 4129 and 4130 were read the second time by council bill numbers and titles only. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Mr. Holmer pointed out that the second ordinance being considered (CB 4130) does not include findings. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bills were declared passed (and become Ordinance No. 19605 and Ordinance No. 19606). Mayor Miller asked that issues involving LTD be considered in conjunction with the skateboarding ordinance at a council work session. Mr. Gleason introduced B'ill Gary of the City Attorney's Office who explained why findings were included in the mall ordinance. Mr. Gary explained that findings were determined to be necessary based upon Oregon Supreme Court decisions, particularly State vs. Tidyman. In interpreting the State constitutional free speech provisions, Mr. Gary said the court has made clear that when a state or city seeks to regulate in an area protected by the State Constitution, it m~st do so carefully and is encouraged to set forth the reasons for taking that action so the court can measure the reasons given for the regulation against the actions taken to determine whether the ordinance has gone too far in intruding into areas protected by the Constitution. ~ Mr. Bennett encouraged the selection of language for findings that will state the purpose without making specific statements as to the current conditions which he equated to a value judgment. Mr. Gary responded that the findings in question were intended to represent the City1s objective in the mall rather than its current condition. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANKLIN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF HENDERSON AVENUE (LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT) (AZ 89-1) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Neil Bjorklund, Planning, Development, and Building Department, presented the staff report. Mr. Bjorklund reported that the annexation was initiated by LTD for the site of its bus maintenance and administrative facilities on Glenwood Boulevard. Annexation is sought in order to obtain municipal services and to comply with the requirements of a site review that was approved for the construction on the site. Mr. Bjorklund pointed out that this annexation differs from others that have come before the council in that the double majority process, approved by the Legislature in its last session, is being used. This process requires that over half the electors living within the annexation area support the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 9 e e e annexation. In this case there are no electors living in the area. Second, owners of over half the area must support the annexation. In this case, all the owners in the area support it. Additionally, the process requires that if the City solicits consent to annexation within this area, an intent to annex must first be filed with the boundary commission. In this case, the City did not solicit any consent. Therefore, Mr. Bjorklund said all the criteria of the double majority statute have been met. He added that this particular statute does not require a 45-day remonstrance period following the boundary commission's hearing. On February 7, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this annexation and rezoning request. At the hearing, a representative of LTD spoke in favor of the proposal and there was no other testimony. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval. Mr. Bjorklund said if the council approves the proposal, staff intends to submit it to the boundary commission as an expedited procedure (no public hearing would be held by the boundary commission unless requested by one of the bodies to whom the matter is referred). Mr. Bjorklund reviewed a minor change to the site review criteria shown on page 8 of the staff notes: the words "where necessary" should be included under item 1 in reference to creation of a ten-foot buffer zone. Mayor Miller called for any ex parte contracts or conflicts of interest. There were none declared. Mayor Miller entered the staff notes and minutes into the record. Ms. Bascom pointed out that the annexation would be advantageous to LTD but would provide no new tax revenue for the City. Mr. Gleason commented that the annexation is consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Metropolitan Plan. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. Jim Saul, III West 7th Avenue, spoke on behalf of LTD. Mr. Saul endorsed the modification to the staff notes approved by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that while LTD would not contribute taxes to the City as a result of the annexation, LTD has contributed substantially to off-site storm sewer and other improvements in the area as part of the site improvements. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 10 e Res. No. 4113--A resolution furthering annexation to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Service District for property located south of Franklin Boulevard and west of Henderson Avenue. Final Order AZ 89-1--A final order rezoning property located south of Franklin boulevard and west of Henderson Avenue from Lane County 1-2/UL to City of Eugene 1-2/SR Light Medium Industrial District with Site Review Subdistrict, with a change from County Industrial Sign District to City Industrial Sign District. The resolution and final order were read by number and title only. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to adopt the resolution and final order. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. ( IV. PUBLIC HEARING: PEDESTRIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, LOCATED BETWEEN CHIPPENDALE DRIVE AND 1-5 FREEWAY (DONALD SCHROEDER) (PV 88-1) e City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Donna Stegner, Planning, Development, and Building Department, reported that at the time the Chippendale Subdivision was platted, a pedestrian walkway was dedicated for the purpose of providing access to a planned bike path that is to be located parallel and along the 1-5 Freeway. Subsequent to the original dedication, a concrete sound barrier was constructed along the eastern border of the site which blocks the access to the proposed bike path. The applicant proposes a new walkway 70 feet north of the subject site and has provided the City with a deed to that right-of-way. Ms. Stegner reported one telephone call from an owner of property located approximately 900 feet from the site whose objection to the walkway appeared to be related to the sound barrier and not relevant to the walkway vacation. Ms. Stegner said the Transportation Division has reviewed the request and has no objection to the vacation and approves the new location. Responding to Mr. Rutan1s inquiry about compensation, Ms. Stegner said it would be a straight exchange and the walkway is unimproved. She added that Diane Bishop, Bicycle Committee staff, has reviewed the vacation. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. Bernard Wendtland, 803 Sheraton Drive, spoke against the vacation because he considered the new location of the walkway to be hazardous. He preferred eliminating the walkway completely to moving it to a location which he e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 11 e claimed would put bicyclists in jeopardy from motor vehicle traffic. Mr. Wendtland referred to a wooden fence in the area between Babcock and Chippendale. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Jim Croteau, Planning, Development, and Building staff explained that the walkway is to provide access from the subdivision to a proposed major north-south bike way. Presently, the sound barrier is constructed along the easterly margin of the subdivision and there is agreement with the applicant that moving the walkway 70 feet to the north where there is no sound barrier would accomplish the purpose of the walkway in a more convenient location. The sound barrier will separate the bike path from the homes in the subd~vision. He said the proposed walkway location is on a site that is currently vacant. Because the testimony was from a resident of the subdivision, Mr. Bennett was concerned that the proposed change could be considered harmful to the homeowner who objected. Ms. Stegner pointed out that Mr. Wendtland's property is not contiguous to the walkway. Ms. Bascom commented that she considers it important to provide dedicated bikeway access to the area before the homes are all built. e CB 4132--An ordinance vacating a ten-foot pedestrian right-of-way located between lots 24 and 25, block 2 of Chippendale Subdivision. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Council Bill 4132 was read the second time by bill number and title only. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19607). V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL AND APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (WOODRUFF STREET) (JOB #2461) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item and recommended adoption of the findings and recommendations. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 12 ~ Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to approve the Hearings Official's findings and recommendations of February 15, 1989, and to approve the improvements for sanitary sewers in Woodruff Street from Enid Road to 600 feet north. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. VI. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 1989 City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Ms. Schue directed council attention to HB 2432 regarding racially motivated murder and said the committee recommended support for the bill as a priority two, as requested by the Department of Public Safety. Mr. Holmer expressed his continuing concern with the council adopting minutes of a committee and said he would abstain from voting. Ms. Ehrman indicated that she opposed HB 2432 because of her opposition to capital punishment in general. Ms. Schue encouraged Mr. Holmer to suggest how the process of approving legislative positions could be improved. To Ms. Ehrman's comment, Ms. Schue responded that while she personally opposed the death penalty, the voters of the state have approved it so it appears to be appropriate in this situation. e Mr. Boles said he would favor HB 2503 if forfeiture money could be returned to the City. He suggested exploring the Scandinavian model which involves vehicle forfeiture in drunken driving cases with the revenue from the sale of forfeited vehicles returning to the local jurisdictions. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to approve the minutes of the February 13, 1989, meeting of the Legislative Committee. Roll call vote; the motion carried, 7:0:1, with Councilor Holmer abstaining. VII. APPOINTMENTS: MAYOR'S NOMINATIONS TO THE EUGENE CELEBRATION STEERING COMMITTEE AND THE CONSTRUCTION CODE BOARD OF APPEALS Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to appoint the Mayor's nominations to the Eugene Celebration Steering Committee as presented. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to appoint William Brackman, 26501 Mlawa Ddrive, Eugene, to the Construction Code Board of Appeals to a term ending December 31, 1993, effective March 15, 1989. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 13 ~ The meeting was adjourned at 9;50 p.m. to March 1, 1989. Respectfully submitted, ..-.'-' ~ ~..,.-.,.,.,/...-., .. ".:-~"~,.{# ..,,~r-:? .,_0. .j' ..' .,.:~'~ . .,,' '.'-'~~::.__ .~"'. _~"':.',;~~'~~~.>" Mi c6ea 1 'Gl ~~~ S~~~~~lI City Manager (Recorded by Mary Feldman) mncc 022789-730 ( e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 27, 1989 Page 14