Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1982 Meeting MINUTES . Eugene City Council City Council Chamber December 13, 1982 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, D. W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Grete hen Mi 11 er. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Annexation/Rezoning Request for Property Located on the East Side of Prairie Road and South of Beltline from County M-3 Heavy Industrial Di strict to City M-2 Li ght Industrial Di strict and the City Industri al Sign District (Lloyd Maxwell)(A/Z 82-1) (memo, map, background informa- .tion distributed) . Recommended approval by Planning Commission September 21, 1982 Vote--5:0 City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced Tom Hayes, Planning. Mr. Hayes sai d that the council had considered this annexation and rezoning request at its September 25, 1982, meeting and had agreed to hold the item over pending resolution of discussions with the Lane Rural Fire Protection District (LRFPD) for provision of fire service to the subject property. He sai d that the council had originally asked to hold the item over to November 15 but that staff had requested further postponement to this meeting. Mr. Hayes noted that copies of the agreed-upon contract had been distributed to councilors at the commencement of the heari ng. He said letters regarding the request from the Southern Pacific Rail road (SPRR) and from the Irving Grange had al so been distributed to the counci 1 . He said the letter from SPRR voiced opposition to the City's policy of non-contiguous annexation, and the letter from the Irving Grange opposed the withdrawal of the land in question from the LRFPD taxing district. Mr. Hayes noted that the latter question had been dealt with as a result of the contract wi th LRFPD. Public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor of the request: LLoyd F. Maxwell, 935 St. Andrews Drive, the applicant, referred to information that had been submitted with the application and said he would be glad to answer questions from councilors. . ~IINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 1 Those speaking in opposition to the request: fit Marie Gray, 353 Knoop Lane, asked that her time for testimony be alloted to John ~Iehri nger. Betty Donaldson, 398 Hawthorne, asked that her time for testimony be alloted to John Mehringer. John Mehri nger, 165 West Hi 11 i ard Lane, referred to a personal. letter from himself ana a letter over his signature from the River Road Community Organiza- tion, which he had distributed to the council, and asked that these documents be entered into the recora. He discussed the content of the letters and referred to the objectives of Chapter II of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, which he felt would be violated by granting of the proposed request. He fel t that Objective 10 on page 11-B-3 of the plan was intended to allow small communities to plan for their own future without being engulfed by larger communities. He said that the River Road/Santa Clara area was moving toward incorporation as a city and that the Maxwell property would be an assest to the tax base of that city. He felt that the City of Eugene's non-contiguous annexation policy could mean that by the time the River Road/Santa Clara area was ready to put the matter of incorporation to the voters, much of the valuable tax-base land would already have been made a part of the City of Eugene, making the incorporation legally possible but practically impossible. He noted that the City had no written prohibition of the annexation of commercial land abutting annexed non-contiguous industrial parcels and said this could lead to creation of an lIisland of cityll in the middle of an unincorporated area. He said the written . materials he had submitted also addressed the issues of reducing leapfrogging, eliminating scatterization, and providing for orderly outward growth of the city. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Mehringer said that the exact geographic configuration of the proposed incorporation of River Road/Santa Clara had not yet been determined, but that the area roughly extended north from the City of Eugene limits and included land developed with urban development extending into the Awbrey area and ending south of Beacon Drive. Responding further, he said he had no estimate of the tax-base value of the Maxwell property. IVls. Wooten sai d that at the time the council had adopted the non-conti guous annexation policy staff had said that only one applicant was interested in such an annexation at that time and that the policy would be evaluated in October 1 ~82 . Jim Farah, Planning, responded that Mr. Maxwell was the only person who had applied for a non-contiguous annexation and that he was the person to whom staff had referred at the time of council consideration of the policy. Ii e sa i d the staff evaluation of the policy would probably not be presented to the Planning Commission until February 1~83. He said staff's position was that requests similar to Mr. Maxwell's should be hanaled on a case-by-case basis until the Planning Commission and council have had time to review the urbani- zation policy paper. . M1NUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 2 Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten regarding the fiscal impact of flit the annexation on the City, Mr. Hayes said that costs of extending sanitary sewers would be the only extraordinary fiscal impact of the annexation. ~Ir. Hayes responded to Mr. Mehringer's testimony and noted that the Metropolitan Plan acknowledged Eugene and Springfield as being the logical providers of city servi ces in the metro area. Mr. Hayes said that annexation of commercial properties abutting annexed non-contiguous industrial land would not be considered, since the policy on non-contiguous annexation dealt exclusively with industrial 1 and. Res. No. 3732--A resolution forwarding a recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located on the east side of Prairie Road and south of Beltl ine to the City of Eugene and Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. Councilor Obie said he believed the staff notes outlined the reasons why this annexation was important to meeting the needs of the community. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and mi nutes of September 21, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; . and that the resolution be adopted. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2549--An ordi nance authori zi ng rezoning from County M-3 Heavy Industrial District to City M-2 Light Industrial District and City Industrial Sign District for property located on the east side of Prairie Road and south of Beltline. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of September 21, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2549 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Ro 11 call vo te . All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19082. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 3 B. Proposal to Restructure Human Rights Commissions (memo, ordinance, - additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Marge Beck, Director of Council and Community Services. Ms. Beck noted that at the December 8, 1982, council meeting she had explained the process that had been used in developing the restructuring proposal before the council. She said that the proposal before the council included one element that would require adoption by the council to make changes to the City Code and one element that contained procedural rules or bylaws to be adopted by the human rights commissions themselves. Ms. Beck said that the first element involved minor changes to the structure of the commissions. She said one of the proposal s was to change the title of the Commission on the Rights of the Handicapped to the Commission on the Rights of the Disabled, since "disabled" was a more widely accepted term. She said the proposed change to Section 2.260(2} of the code would reduce the number of commissioners from the present 9 per commission to the proposed 7 per commission. Ms. Beck said there had been some misunderstanding between staff members and commissioners regarding the term of office for commi ss i oners. She said staff thought commissioners had concurred with the staff preference of two-year terms for commissioners, but that this was not the case . She indicated some commissioners would likely testify to the council on this matter during the public hearing. Ms. Beck then referred to a proposed change to Section 2.260(3}(b} of the ordinance and said this was a technical amendment to the definition of the Commission on the Rights of Minorities to make the language of the City Code consistent with the language of national legislation regarding fair employment . practi c es. She said that the proposed change to Section 2.270 called for eliminating the present ten-member Human Rights Council and replacing it with a five-member Presi dents' Council made up of the presi dents of the fi ve commi ssi ons. She said the Presidents' Council would have certain supervisory duties in monitoring the work of the commissions relative to established performance criteri a. Ms. Beck referred to Section 2.280 regarding the Youth Commission and noted that commission would remain separate from the other four in terms of the City Code, since, in the absence of Federal legislation dealing with discrimination against youth, the Youth Commission would not be empowered to deal with discrimination compl ai nts. Ms. Beck discussed other minor changes or corrections to typographical errors in the draft document before the council. Ms. Beck said that if the above changes were adopted by the council, staff would return in the future with a routine resolution updating the list of City boards and commissions. Ms. Beck then discussed the procedural rules commissions had agreed to adopt as a part of the restructuring. She said these included basic operating requirements for the commissions and provided for development of yearly work plans at a general meeting of all members of all commissions; quarterly reports from each commission to the Presidents' Council; a required minimum performance by each commission of two direct service activities per year; and requirements for attendance at sponsored activities and at commission meetings. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 4 .. Ms. Beck responded to a question raised by Councilor Obie at the December 8 council meeting regarding the fiscal implications of the restructuring. She said that the present budget for the human rights program included $7,800 for commission service activities, $4,000 for minutes recording, and salaries for the human rights staff positions in the City Manager's Office. She noted that the human rights staff members would be assuming new responsiblities including oversight of fair housing and employment practices mandated as a part of the Community Development Block Grant program. Ms. Beck sai d that the new structure would be somewhat less expensive in that the number of commissioners would be reduced to 35 from 45. She said the supervisory role to be executed by the President's Council and the adoption of specific performance criteria would make the role of the commissions clearer and reduce the demands on staff time. Councilor Lindberg asked for more information on the funding structure for human rights commissions' servi ce to the community. Ms. Beck said that sometimes the commissions themselves perform direct services to the community, and sometimes they provide funding to other groups providing services. She said that funding guidelines were used in making decisions on funding allocations. Public hearing was opened. Ann Bunnenberg, 29U2 Metolius, said she was president of the Human Rights Counc i 1 . She said commission members and staff had worked for approximately six months to develop the proposal before the council. She said they had worked for more effective operation of the commissions within the City structure, for closer ties to the goals adopted by the City Council, and for more efficient . use of staff resources. She fel t that the proposal to have the Human Rights Presidents' Council supervise the work of the commissions, using specific performance criteria, was an excellent one. She fel t that the seven-member commissions would provide a good working size while still allowing adequate representation of subgroups represented by the commissions. She favored a three-year term for commissioners. Robin Casey, 450 East 30th Avenue, said she was the president of the Women's Commission. She said that group supported a three-year term for oommissioners as providing more continuity and efficiency of operations and allowing development of new leadership. G. G. Goldthwaite, 2310 Van Ness Street. said he was the president of the Aging Commission. He said that group unanimously supported retaining three-year terms for commissioners. He commended Ms. Beck and human rights staff members Chris Mahoney and Kent Gorham for their work on the restructuring proposal. There being no further testimony. publiC hearing was closed. Council or Hamel noted that commissioners desiring longer terms on the commission could always reapply for second terms. Ms. Beck said it was the hope of those involved in the restructuring that reappointment to commissions would not be automatic but would be dependent on the quality of a member's previous service. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 P ag e 5 Responding to a question from Councilor Lindberg, Ms. Beck said that there was .- no limit on the number of terms a commissioner could serve. Responding'to a question from Mr. Lindberg, Minority Commission members present i ndi cated support for three-year terms on the cOlllni ss ion. Mr. Lindberg thanked Ms. Beck, staff, and commissioners for their work and for the excellent report. He urged commissioners to work with other community organizations and service providers in their community service activities. Councilors Smith, Wooten, and Ball concurred and indicated support for three-year terms on the commission. CB 25~5--An ordinance concerning the Human Rights Commissions, and Youth Commission; amending Sections 2.260, 2.270, 2.280. 2.2~5 and 4.625 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be amended to refl ect three-year terms for commi ss i oners and to incorporate other amendments recommended by staff, that the amended bill be read the second time by c0uncil bill number only, wi th unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2585 was read the second time by council bill number only. . Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the amended bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All council ors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19083. C. Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan (memo, background information distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission November 22, 1982 Vote--6 :0 Mr. Gleason introduced Teresa Bishow, Planning. Ms. Bishow said that the Jefferson/Far West refinement planning process had been initiated in the fall of 198u. She said that the planning team had consisted of two representatives of the business community, representatives from the two neighborhood groups, one representative from Ida Patterson Community School, one representative of the Lane County Fairgrounds, one representative of religious facilities in the plan area, and an ex-officio representative from the 4-J School District. She sai d that in August 1982, 3,50u copies of the plan were mailed to property owners and addresses in the pl an area. She said that the neighborhood groups had held information sessions on the plan and had recommended the plan to the Planning Commission, with proposed revisions. Ms. Bishow reviewed each element of the plan. She said that the Planning Commission had discussed how to address the issue of the impact of churches in residential neighborhoods and had recommended as an implementation strategy that consideration be given in the zoning ordinance update to making churches a conditional use in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 6 -- r- e Ms. Bishow said that the transportation element of the plan primarily reflected existing traffic patterns. She said testimony had been made at the Planning Commission hearing by residents of the Westmoreland Family Housing Project about the difficulty of crossing Garfield Street. She said the Planning Commission had recommended that the plan be amended to include language in support of ' methods to alert drivers to pedestrians crossing in that area. Ms. Bishow said that the plan designated a Garfield Commons area north of the Amazon Canal and west of Chambers Street. She said that land in this area had been purchased by the City in the past for an expressway and that when plans for the expressway were abandoned, the land had been turned over to the jurisdiction of the Parks Department. She said that the planning team had used a bird's-eye view map, referred to as the "Big Map", of the area in its work and had recommended use of such a map in all City land use referrals. She said the Pl anning Commi ssi on had recommended that the Citizen Involvement Committee review this recommendation. She said that at the neighborhood hearings it had been agreed to add a recommendation that the raising of chickens and small livestock be allowed in the plan area as an economic development measure. Ms. Bishow concluded her presentation by noting that the plan contained proposed strategies for implementing the policies and said that some of these strategies were already being pursued by the neighborhoods. e Public hearing was opened. Kitty Murdoch, 1040 West 16th Avenue, said she was the chairperson of the Jefferson Area Neighbors. She expressed pleasure with the smooth process involved in development of the plan and the fact that there were few contro- versies. Speaking as an individual, Ms. Murdoch referred to page 57 of the plan draft and asked that material be added recognizing Jefferson Pool as an important community resource which shoul d be supported until it can be repl aced by another central city pool. Mel Jackson, 2006 Grant Street, said he was the chairperson of the Far West Neighborhood Association. He said that group supported the adoption of the plan. He said the group was concerned with the possible impacts of the proposed Chambers Connector on the neighborhood. Gordon Elliott, 93~ Jefferson Street, said that he owned property in the plan area that was designated in the plan for use by a major religious facility. He requested that the draft be amended to provide RP Residential/Professional zoning for the property, since he felt this would be the best use for the land. John Etter, City of Eugene Department of Parks and Recreation, appreciated the planning team's cooperation with the Eugene Public Library and hoped that the neighborhoods could work with the Parks and Public Works departments in develop- ment of the Garfield Commons and Amazon Channel areas. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 19~2 Page 7 e There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Ms. Murdoch said that she would take her concerns about Jefferson Pool to the Jefferson Area Neighborhood Association. Ms. Murdoch said that, unfortunately, there had not been a quorum of the neighborhood group present to take action on the Jefferson Pool issue at the group's last meeting. Councilor Wooten asked if the planning team had considered "'Ir. Elliote s request. Ms. Bishow responded that the planning team had discussed allowing office use on arterial streets in the plan area and had made a conscious decision not to recommend this since the groups did not want to promote new commerciar-strip development on the basis of traffic volume. She referred to page 22 of the pl an draft and notea that if the land in question were to be developed at a more intense use than single-family residential, the plan policies would indicate intensification through increased residential density, not office use. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, "'Is. Bishow said that the planning team had discussed the Jefferson Pool issue and that a statement in the Public Services and Facilities Element (p. 59) of the plan called for promoting efficient use of public facilities and resources. She noted that at the time of the planning team's deliberations it had been hoped that a new city pool might be built in the downtown area. Councilor Lindberg noted that last year's City budget had included funds for a feasibility study of the costs of maintaining and upgrading City pools. e Councilor Obie asked Ms. Bishow the intent of implementation strategy 10.6 on page 68 of the plan draft, calling for establishment of a neighborhood center. Ms. Bishow responded that some neighborhoods have centers with meeting and office space and that the planning team felt this was something to aim for. Councilor Obie said he had no difficulty with neighborhoods operating out of existing facilities, but he did not feel that the cost of a separate facility should be added to the tax burden. Ms. Bishow said it would be possible to remove item 10.6 and reminded councilors that the implementation strategies were only suggestions and would not be carried out unless recognized as desirable and found to be feasible. Councilor Obi e suggested that the statement be suppl emented to read that such centers woul d be created onl y "without creating on-going costs to the City". Councilor Wooten questioned this phrasing and pointed out that no neighborhood groups were using City funds for their centers. She sai d centers were funded through moneys raised by the neighborhood groups and/or through Community Development Block Grant funds. Councilor Obie felt that Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP) funds could be put to better uses than funding neighborhood centers. Ms. Wooten said neighborhood groups may feel using NIP funds for centers is a high priority. Councilor Lindberg said that one neighborhood group was currently operating out of the Lincoln School building. He said the plan draft contained no specific proposal for a neighborhood center, just a suggestion. Councilor Obie felt if there was no specific proposal, the item could be eliminated from the plan. e t>'IINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 8 e Councilor Lindberg said he supported Ms. Murdoch's suggestions on inserting findings, a policy, and implementation strategies recognizing the importance of Jefferson Pool as a neighborhood resource. Regarding the recommendation of the Planning Commission for consideration of a change in the treatment of church use in the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Lindberg noted that one church in the plan area was planning a 1,200 to 5,000 seat expansion. He therefore wondered if the matter should be considered with more immediacy than it would receive if deferred until the zoning ordinance update. Ms. Bishow responded that the expansion plans of the Faith Center were long-range plans and that, since development was not imminent, the matter could be deferred to consideration of the residential module of the the planned ordinance update, which would likely be considered in the spring of 1983. Responding to a question from Councilor Lindberg, Ms. Sishow said that staff would return with suggestions for specific language to address the problem identified at the Planning Commission hearing regarding safe pedestrian access on Garfield Street. Councilor Schue said she was concerned, given the overall picture of the City's financial future, that insertion of text in the plan regarding Jefferson Pool might give area residents false hopes regarding the City's commitment to maintaining a pool on this property. Councilor Wooten noted that the plan already contained items regarding future improvements to Westmoreland and Kaufman Centers and said it seemed clear that inclusion of these statements did not indicate any commitment of funds on the part of the city. e Councilors agreed to hold consideration of this item over until staff could return with proposed specific wording for amendments discussed by the council. D. Eugene's Capital Improvement Program (memo, background information distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission November 22, 1982 Vo te--6 : 0 ~lr. Gleason introduced Kirk McKinley, Planning. Mr. McKinley said that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) dealt with the capital side of the City's budget as opposed to the operating budget. He said that capi tal projects were defined as projects or aggregate of projects or purchase of land greater than $25,000 or purchase of equipment valued at greater than $100,000. He revi ewed the CIP document and its listing of fundable projects based on September 1982 proj ected revenues. He said criteria used in selecting projects recommended for inclusion in the 1983-84 budget included implementation of the City's economic diversification program, maintenance of the City's existing infrastructure, enhancement of operating efficiency, and meeting City Council goals. He sai d additional funding was needed for the second phase of the West Eugene Sewer Trunk Line ($1.8 million) and for expansion of the tenninal at Mahlon Sweet Airport, Phase One ($6 million). Mr. McKinley said that the program had been reviewed by the Economic Diversification Task Team, the Joint Committee on Economic Development, the Revenue and Taxation Subcommittee of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, and the Eugene Neighborhood Leaders Association. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 9 . He said the Planning Commission had held a public hearing on the plan and e recommended it to the council with the suggestions that the council seek establish- ment of a continuous, long-range capital funding source for the future and that neighborhood need requests in the future be timed to fit into the CIP process. The following materials were entered into the record: a letter from Leslie Whitelaw regarding proposed improvements to Dillard Road; a letter from O. E. and Louise Elroy, also regarding proposed improvements to Dillard Road; the staff notes, which included reference to timing of neighborhood needs requests; and a December 9, 1982, staff memorandum regarding inclusion in the CIP of funds for acquisition of property at 8th Avenue and High Street. Councilor Wooten asked how the timing of neighborhood need request responses had gotten out of synchronization with the CIP. Mr. McKinley and Interim Planning Director Jim Farah said that last year the CIP process had been elongated into the following calendar year. They said that neighborhood need requests were a part of the budget process but not of the CIP. Mr. Farah said that since the change in timing of the CIP, the two processes did not mesh. He said that this would be rectified in the future. Mr. Gleason said that last year there had been criticism of the fact that the CIP and the budget process had not meshed, so changes in timing had been made. He said the timing of the neighborhood needs requests now needed to be restructured so that it meshed with the CIP and budget processes. Councilor Wooten reviewed page 14 of the eIP. She felt there was a need to identify funds to be used and indicate which items were self-funding. Assistant e City Manager David Whitlow said that explanations of each fund were given on pages 5 and 6 of the CIP. He said that of the eight or nine funds in the capital budget, only one was undedicated, Fund 312 (Federal Revenue Sharing Fund). He said that Fund 312 contained 50 percent of the Federal revenue-sharing moneys for the next year. Ms. Wooten asked if the $4.2 million bond issue listed in Fund 331 was limited to use on particular sites. Mr. Whitlow said there was some flexibility with use of these funds. He noted that Fund 331 was in its final year. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Irv Berman, Public Works Planning, said that the office of Superintendent of School District 4-J had requested construction of sidewalks on Dillard Road from Hilyard Street to West Amazon, based on a recommendation from the School Safety Task Force. He said that before final design of the project, staff would analyze the minimum amount of sidewalk needed. He said staff would work with the school district to determine where children in the area would be walking. Ms. Wooten asked if information was available on the number of accidents in the area. Mr. Berman said that he did not have that information and added that he believed the district's request was based on prior use and use which has occurred since Dunn School had been closed and on concern for students walking across Amazon to reach Ellis Parker School. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 10 e Mr. Gleason compared this request with a previous request regarding the Lorane Highway area and said he believed that the school district hoped to eliminate the need for busing children to school by assuring a safe sidewalk system. Councilor Schue asked staff to determine whether this was the case and whether the school district was now busing children to Ellis Parker because it believed sidewalks were unsafe. Public hearing was opened. Thomas Bellamy, 3970 Dillard Road, said this was the first time citizens had had an opportunity to address the council regarding the proposed improvements to Dillard Road. He said ~sidents of the area agreed safety of children was important but saw no children using Dillard Road at present and therefore wondered if the proposed widening of the street and construction of sidewalks, storm sewers, and bike paths was really needed. He said children could get to Ellis Parker School without using Dillard Road. He believed that the proposed improvements would create safety hazards on the street. He said that since 1975 automobiles had been able to use West Amazon as a connection from Hilyard Street to Fox Hollow Road and that improvements were therefore not needed on Dillard to accommodate through traffic. William Ayres, 3980 Dillard Road, said those who live on this portion of Dillard feel the proposed widening of the street would not increase safety. He said through automobile traffic should be encouraged to use the West Amazon connection between Hilyard and Fox Hollow. He said his already steep driveway would be affected by the widening. e Ray Klein, 3990 Dillard Road, asked that this portion of Dillard be closed to through traffic. He said widening Dillard would encourage cars to use that street as a connection between Hilyard and Fox Hollow, thereby increasing traffic past the Good Samaritan Nursing Home. He said school children from Dunn cross Dillard at a blind curve to go down 39th Avenue. He felt it would therefore be safer to close the street and noted that street closings had been done on the east side of Amazon for safety near Ellis Parker School. Jessie ACklen, 3990 Dillard Road, said she had lived in the area since 1914. She said there had not been any accidents on Dillard Road. She said that widening the road would hurt an historically significant old coach house on the street. Don Kimmel, 3105 Lincoln, referred to page 60 of the CIP and asked in which columns the General Fund items were located. He questioned whether providing weatherization was cost-effective and asked how the amounts allocated for weatherization had been determined. Leslie Whitelaw Scott, 3977 Dillard Road, said that at the Planning Commission hearing on the CIP she had used a map to show existing routes for children from the Fox Glen and Dunn areas to get to Ellis Parker School. She said there is an existing safe route, with sidewalks and bike paths. She felt the widening of e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 11 . , e Dillard, which has a sharp dip at one point and a blind, sharp curve, would create safety hazards. Ms. Scott sai d she 1 i ved in the 01 d co ach house referred to by Ms. Acklen. She said if the street were improved, the sidewalk would be ten feet from the front door of the house, or, taking into consideration the 10-foot slope easement, one foot inside the existing house. She said there was no way to design improvements with two separate directional bike lanes on Dillard and suggested that bikes should use East and West Amazon. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Gleason responded to Mr. Kimmel's questions. He sa i d that the General Fund dollars were shown in Fund 312. He said that two years ago the Budget Committee had asked that one quarter of federal revenue-sharing funds be removed cumulatively each year. He said this was discretionary money in the budget. He said that items in the capital budget were not line items and that estimated figures were therefore used. Mr. Gleason said each individual project would have a separate planning, design, and budgeting process. He said the proposed weatherization would be accomplished through requests for proposals, a feasibility statement, and letting of bids. Counc i 1 or Wooten asked if the City were el i gi b 1 e for weatherization funds from the Bonneville Power Administration. Mr. Gleason responded affi rmatively and said that $100,000 in BPA funds had been used for weatherization this year but that City funds also had been used. Mr. Gleason said he would recommend that staff not respond to specific design questions raised in testimony on the Dillard Road improvements, since he did not feel that level of detail was appropriate at the CIP stage. ,_ Councilor Smith said the need for the Dillard Road project should be reviewed by staff. She asked staff to gather that infonnation and return to the council for direction on proceeding with or eliminating the project. Councilor Obie said he had several questions for staff and suggested that the council hold over consideration of the CIP until his and other councilors' questions could be answered. He was concerned with inclusion of $75,000 in the CIP for construction at Fire Station #6 when the City was unable to meet operating and staffing expenses for satellite stations. He referred to the item for lighting of the Amazon Bike Path and noted that the path is currently in disrepair. He felt funds should be used to fix the path as opposed to lighting it. Council or Obie referred to an item for construction of the Fern Ridge bike path from Beltline Road to Bertelsen Road. He questioned whether the amount of $60,000 was sufficient to build this path. He asked what bicycle arrangements would be made from Bertelsen to Bailey Hill Road. Mr. Obie said he did feel the City should proceed with the Dillard Road project without further infonnation and justification. - tlIINUTES--Eugene City Counci 1 December 13, 1982 Page 12 , ' . e-^ Mayor Keller asked staff to report back at the council IS first meeting in January on questions raised during the discussion. He noted that those who had testified on the CIP would have several other opportunties to testify if the Dillard Road project were placed in the CIP, including neighborhood ~view hearings, a hearing before the City Council Hearing Panel, and a possible hearing before the full council. Councilor Schue urged council members to tour the Dillard Road area. The meeting was adjourned to December 15, 1982. Respectfully submitted, ~~- Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:dcm/CM8a1 .'" e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 1982 Page 13 ...