Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/1975 Meeting - (0001) M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 24, 1975 Adjourned meeting - adjourned from February 10, 1975 - of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on February 24, 1975 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal (left early), Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D.W.Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. I - Presentation of ,P'faques was made by Mayor Anderson in recognition of service on various boards and commission: Harold Thorin, Room Tax Allocation Committee Sally Smith, Budget Committee Ervin Molholm, Charitable Solicitations Committee Les Hardie, Building/Housing Code Board of Appeals Norval Ritchey, Airport Commission Others receiving plaques but not present for the recognition were: ,H. C . McDonald, Council member Wyman Hammer, Budget Committee Ann Woeste, Human Rights Commission David G. Sparks, Library Board Catherine Lauris, Room Tax Allocation Committee Bruce Smith, Zoning Code Board of Appeals " (0115) II - Public Hearings A. Eugene Master Bikeway Plan - Planning Commission recommendation of February 4,1975 to adopt the plan with conditions was read (see committee minutes below). Eugene Master Bikeway Plan, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members, was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission on February 4, 1975 as well as an addendum to the Plan - Eugene Bicycle Committee Responsibilities and Work Elements. The Commission also recommended that the present membership composi- tion - five lay and five city staff members - remain the same, and that the first annual review of the Plan include an analysis of sharing off-street bicycle paths with walkers and joggers, findings resulting from that analysis to be implemented by revision of.policies and provisions for bikeway design and construction. e (0161) e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing on the Bikeway Plan at the February 24 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/19/75 Pub Hrng Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution 2375 - Adopting Eugene M~ster Bikeway Plan with addendum was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. B. Code Amendment, Human Rights Code Amendment, Human Rights Ordinance - Copies of proposed amendment to Human Rights ordinance previously distributed to Council members were found not to be the final draft and copies of the draft to be considered for adoption were dis- tributed with explanation that there were no substantive differences. Memo from John Arnold, city attorney's office, was read explaining the major changes which 'MOuld be effected by the amendment recommended by the Human Rights Commission: : (1) Makes city ordinance equivalent with state law which prohibits discrimination based on age, physical or mental handicap, or marital status; (2) includes in duties of the city's hearings official the evaluation of complaints filed on the Huma~ Rights COmmUssion's own ini~iative, thereby changing the existing procedure b9 2/24/75 - 1 whereby a panel of Commission members adjudicates complaints filed by the Commis- sion; (3) ,gives the city manager discretionary power to enforce the anti-discimina- tion clau~e in all city contracts; (4) changes title of Commission officers to . chairperson and vice chairperson rather than chairman and secretary. Manager said that from an administrative standpoint involvement in a completely thorough audit of contracts and affirmative action programs in the long run would become a major effort and would probably require additional staff. Initially, at least, an 'attempt would be made to cover this responsibility with existing staff. The questi,on of transferring evaluation of discrimination complaints to the hear- ings official, he said, may raise some questions. There has been no discussion with the hearings official; but there is nothing in the ordinance against a second hearings official should the work be more than one could handle or if the present hearings official did not want to take it on. Mike Phill;ips, member of the Commission, enlarged upon the city attorney's explana- tion of tne Commission's reasons for recommending the amendments. He said that including age, mental or physical handicap, and marital status as bases for pro- hibiting discrimination were in addition to those already listed in the city's ordinance and brought it into conformance with provisions added to state law in 1971 legislative session. Also, evaluation of complaints by hearings official not only provided for fairness to both complainant and respondent in discrimination proceedings but gave the appearance of fairness which in the prese~t procedure of the Commission's judging complaints on its own findings was not evident. The Com- mission in the past yea:( or so on occasion has wished to act on complaints but re- frained because of this procedure - in particular, complaints arising from an aSPIRG study which found some 30% of apartment owners were discriminating on the basis of race. With regard to the amendment concerning enforcement of city con- tracts, Mr. Phi llips said the Commission fel t the amendment would improve the situation as a matter of policy and propriety for the city in dealing with and add- ing to the profit of businesses which discriminate. The amendment changing the titles of officers of the Commission were recommended, he said, to remove any desig- nation identified with the male gender. Councilman Haws asked what expense to the city could be expected from evaluation of discrimination complaints by the hearings official. He also asked why there was a difference in the categories on which discrimination complaints could be based in various sections of the amendment, and for an explanation of the quorum and majority requirements in panel decisions. John Porter, planning director, answered that the hearings officla is paid $25 per hour which also covers secretarial expense, and it was estimated fewer than five Commission complaints would be initiated in a year. Mr. Phillips explained that the bases for discrimination included in this amendment were the same as those added to st~te law in 1971. He sai~ decisions in panel hearings required two votes to carry, so if only a quorum was present (two members) there would have to,be agreement on the issue. In response to Mr. Haws' question about the type of notice given resondents, Mr. Phillips said they are given a copy of the complaint and advised as to hearing procedures ten days in ad- vance of the hearing. Councilwoman Beal referred to previous discussion on personnel reduction and wondered how it would affect the affirmative action program. Manager explained that in look- ing at reductions in staff personnel, management would have to be sensitive to the statutory as well as moral commitments to maintain affirmative action programs. There was no intent in meeting the financial situation faced by the city to forget the affirmative action program. Councilman Bradley asked questions about age limits in the amendment (18 to 65 years), ~ whether the state law was enabling legislation, mechanics of the Commission in ini~ tiating discrimination complaints, whether these provisions were unique in city codes, whether it would be wise for the hearings official to evaluate complaints initiated both by the Commission and private citizens, penalty provisions, and whe- 2/24/75 - 2 70 - -- e e e' ther complaints should be handled through civil court. Mr. Phillips explained with regard to age limits that the provision, in both state law and this amendment, re- ferred specifically to persons being discriminated against, particularly in the em- ployment field. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said the state law was not en- abling legislation. In general, he said, the city code was not greater than state law; the term "general equivalency" would be more accurate. Mr. Phillips explained that the Commission had not initiated any complaints because it was felt to be in- appropriate under the existing procedure. The process contemplated would include preliminary investigation for consideration of the Commission or its designee. In the past, he said, that investigation had been delegated to staff. Lewis Peters, minority relations specialist, said the mechanism contemplated was being used in Salem and Portland. With regard to hearings official evaluation of all complaints regardless of who initiated them, Mr. Phillips said the Commission membership itself was multiracial and represented varying philosophies, ages, both sexes, etc., and he thought that both complainants and respondents had a greater sense of being dealt with fairly by panels drawn from that group. His personal judgment was that particuarly where emphasis was on conciliation, this panel system was better than the state procedure where there was staff investigation and agency decision. With regard to the penalty clause, Mr. Phillips said the aim now was toward conciliation, failing that a com- plaint would be referred to the city attorney for prosecution. The maximum lawful penalty was felt to be a deterrent to discrimination on any basis. Mr. Long re- sponded to Councilman Bradley I.S inquiry about prosecuting through civil court that it was important to handle discrimination complaints quickly and with minimum ex- pense, going through the courts with attendant proof, delays in scheduling, etc., would be time consuming and expensive. In response to Mr. Bradley's inquiry as to whether philosophically the Commission's initiation of complaints could be considered a good policy in view of government's traditional role of responding rather than seeking out, Mr. Phillips gave his per- sonal view that it was. He thought it an important policy in terms of alleviatin~ the effect of discrimination. He said some systematic areas at discrimination had been identified in the community where it was difficult for an individual to even recognize there had been discrimination - that is, an individual contact would not reveal what could come to light in a second or third contact such as occurred in the study carried out by the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group. Mr. Phillips cited regulatory Federal agencies with a history of initiating com- plaints and said the Human Rights Commission in the state of New York acted as com- plainant almost exclusively. Councilman Haw was still unclear about the limit on categories in the code as bases for prohibiting discrimination. Manager .explained that if the upper age limit of 65 was removed from the code the city would be in violation of state mandatory re- quirement for retirement at that age. With regard to the lower age limit, he said, there were many positions considered unsuitable for those younger than 18 - police officers, for instance, cannot be certified younger than 21. Mr. Murray suggested action be taken on the proposed amendments and any provisions of the existing ordinance of continuing concern to Council members could be brought back for discussion later. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing at the February 24 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/12/75 Pub Hrng Manager noted intent of the amendment was to put Eugene's ordinance into conformance with State law thereby making more rapid the handling of discrimination complaints. Public hearing was opened. 7} 2/24/75 - 3 Bpnnie Speilberg, vice chairman of the Human Rights Commission, said the Commission requested the amendments in order to provide better services to the citizens of Eugene. She reviewed provisions of the proposed ordinance (see committee minutes above). (0210) e Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Council Bill No. 736 - Amending City Code Sections 2.260, 2.370, 4.615, 4.620, 4.625, 4.630, 4.635, and 4.645 re: Human Rights was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller 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. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17256. C. Appeal, Preliminary Plan Denial, Southridge PUD Phase 2 recommended by Planning Commission on January 13, 1975. (0284) Jim Saul, planner, showed slides depicting the original Southridge proposal for development of about 107 acres in the South Hills. Planning Commission denied preliminary approval of Phase 2 in the southeastern portion of the property ad- jacentto 52nd Avenue - 47 dwelling units on 12+ acres. Also displayed were sketches showing elevation, type of structures relative height, and site. e Manager noted that copies of the appeal spelling out in detail bases on which the appellant felt the Commission erred in its findings together with copies of staff notes, maps, and minutes of hearings before the Planning Commission on December 10 and 17, 1974 and January 13, 1975 were previously distributed to Council members and made a part of this record by reference thereto. No ex parte contacts or other reasons. for conflict of interest were declared by Council members other than Council- men Williams and Hamel stating that Vern Gleaves, attorney for the appellant, was also counsel for them and their firms. They said they had not discussed the subject appeal with Mr. Gleaves and didn't feel contacts with him would impair their ability to participate in voting on the matter. Public hearing was opened. (0392) Vern Gleaves, attorney representing the applicant [and appellant], stated he did not receive minutes of the January 13 Planning Commission hearing and wondered if they were included in information give Council members. Mr. Saul stated they were, also that it was his understanding acopy had been delivered to Mr. Gleaves. Mr. Gleaves identified himself and pointed out that any review of the Council's de- cision in the event of dissatisfaction with it would have to be based solely on the record of this hearing and evidence included therein. He expressed the opinion that the Council was actually consolidating two appeals into one in this hearing, assuming the staff recommendation for approval [reversed by the Commission]. He said that he would like to question staff members during his presentation without going through the Chair for recognition rather than waiting for staff presentation. The Mayor granted permission for that procedure. e ,~ Mr. Gleaves noted in detail documents which he requested the Council to notice, specifically including the entire City Code, particularly Chapter 9 covering land use planning and zoning, the 1990 Plan, resolution designating special study area 2/24/75 - 4 72. e in the South Hills, reports covering the South Hills study, staff notes and Plan- ning Commission minutes covering deliberations regarding the South Hills, staff notes and minutes and other records of both the Planning Commission and Council relating to the Southridge PUD. He described the Southridgc property proposed for planned unit development, calling attention to the particular parcel annexed by Ordinance 13544 and entering that ordinance into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Gleaves further entered as Exhibit 2 Ordinance 13755 zoning the subject land to RA. He noted code provisions governing planned unit development procedures and other documents concerned with the development of this property under PUD procedures, taking cognizance of staff concern about the ridge line park proposal Also noted was public works department memo indicating design of sanitary sewer was submitted and approved which would serve the entire property. Entered into the record as Exhibit 3 was copy of notice of public hearing January 4, 1972 in connection with this PUD application, this notice specifically indicating the in- clusion of this property within the urban service boundary. He cited specific dates of adoption of the 1990 Plan (March 27, 1972), pre-preliminary approval of the proposed Southridge PUD on 112 acres (Mary 8, 1972), and adoption of other documents concerned with Phase 1 of the project which gained final approval. He noted application filed for preliminary approval of Phase 2 on August 2, 1974 - 12+ acres with 3.68 units per acre and pointed out its location on a vicinity map. He reviewed action of the Planning Commission culminating in denial of the applica- tion on December 17, 1974 with continuation to the January 13, 1975 meeting with instructions for preparation of findings supporting that denial (findings in staff notes and minutes supported approval). e Mr. Gleaves said the record clearly showed that no conclusion was reached, that the negative vote was not a final decision because findings were not adopted, and that there was no motion to continue the issue for determination. He said that under code provisions if the Commission did not make a decision or specifically continue the matter, the application was determined approved. Mr. Gleaves offered as Exhibit 4 a letter written by the city manager stating the city's position on the appeal filed by the applicant on December 27 contending that the application had been approved. The stated city position was that the Commission merely continued the matter to the January 13 meeting for adoption of findings. That action was taken - denial of the preliminary approval based on findings pre- pared by staff - and applicant filed the second appeal. It was to be understood, he said, that the hearing at this time was on the consolidation of those two appeals. Mr. Gleaves said extensive evidence with regard to the development itself would not be presented because appellant believed the Commission's decision to deny was based not on the PUD aspects of the development but on the interpretation of the South Hills study, that certain language in Resolution 2295 adopting that study precluded the Commission's approving this application. So the presentation was guided, he said, primarily by public policy with regard to development of property south of the ridge line. It was appellant's stand that public policy did not preclude such development, particularly when applicant indicated willing- ness to develop the property in accordance with conditions set out in staff notes and in Commission action on December 17. (0720) e Lloyd Bond, member of the Southridge design team, stated his qualifications as landscape architect. He pointed out on a sketch the property just south of the ridge line on which the development was proposed, other PUDs in the area, and the South Hils ridge line. He described the project, a portion of which is now con- structed, in relation to vicinity streets and terrain. Mr. Bond further explained the existing sewer layout serving part of Phase IA and designed to serve the balance of the project and said that it was the identical layout submitted to the Commission at the time of pre-preliminary approval of the project in 1971. Alternatives were 2/24/75 - 5 73 shown ~hich he said would eliminate installtion of another long section, although the capacity of the line serving Phase 1 had more capacity than necessary for Phase 1. Small packets of sketches of Phase 2 were distributed to Council members. 4It Mr. Gleaves entered as exhibits in addition to those already listed a large colored diagram (No.5), a large placard showing sewer design layout on one side and pro- posed design for Phase 2 on the other side (No.6), and another large placard show- I ing an alternate sewer plan (No.7). In answer to his questioning, Don Allen, publicI works director, gave his educational and employment background, saying he had a civil engineering degree from Oregon State University, was licensed as a professional engineer in the state of Oregon, and employed by the city of Eugene since 1949, in his present position of director of public works since 1958. Also in answer to questioning from Mr. Gleaves, Mr. Allen said he had reviewed the preliminary sewer design layout for the Southridge project and considered it a logical system to handle discharge from Phase 2 of the project, that he had so indicated in the record, and that city policy would permit connection of the project to the sewer line as designed. He also gave his interpretation of the term "contouring" as used in sewer design - attempting to establish a minimum required grade for gravity flow around the side of a terrain or topography as in this in- stance.. He said contouring of sewer lines had been used in the city previously, especially in hillside areas, still in answer to questions from Mr. Gleaves, but to his knowledge contouring had not been involved in any developments since the subject application was filed. He said systems now being used involving contour- ing were those on Lorane Highway and on Chambers Street, both also having pump stations. However, this line to serve Southridge Phase 2, he said, would not requir~ a pump station. (0850) Mr. Gleaves submitted the report of the Joint Parks Committee, dated March 14, 1974 as Exhibit 8 and referred to Resolution 2295 adopting the South Hills re- port. He read the purpose fo the recommendation as well as the specific recom- mendations with regard to the urban service area as contained therein. He said that as he understood it the Planning Commission in making its recommendation to deny the Southridge Phase 2 was concerned with the meaning of "urban service area," construing the lan['uage to mean it could never go beyond the ridge line even though the property had been a part of the city since 1964 and had services available. Also, that no property, and specifically this property, could be developed be- cause the sewer line needed to be contoured. e Mr. Gleaves continued that he believed after review of minutes of all meetings having to do with the South Hills study as well as discussion with a number of people involved with the study, that the property already within the city and to which public services were available or could be made available within definition of the City Code, particularly sanitary sewers, was not intended to be precluded from development by adoption of Resolution 2295 (South Hills study). He felt that reference to the potential ridge line and language with regard to contouring was intended to apply only to areas east of Willamette Street, thereby permitting development of the subject property. Mr. Gleaves then asked Jim Saul, planner, to respond to a list of written questions (1073) previously submitted to him. He noted his contact with the city manager and city attorney prior to submission of the list in order to expedite the hearing process. Mr. Saul responded by saying he had degrees in urban planning and had been employed with the city of Eugene since March 1971, during which time the 1990 Plan was adopted~ and the South Hills study accomplished. He cited his responsibility as project co- .., ordinator in the development of the South Hills study and in making recommendations - to the Commission and the Council concerning the ridge line park study. He de- tailed the process of the study which culminated in hearings before the Joint Parks Committee and Planning Commission. He said the primary question asked by 2/24/75 - 6 74- e Mr. Gleaves was the nature of the staff recommendation to the Joint Parks Committee, the Commission, and the Council with regard to the urban service area. He said that one principal directive the staff had was to define the urban service area and in so doing looked to the basic definition set out in the 1990 Plan _ the actual geographic portion of the metropolitan area having a minimum level of services available. The projected urban service area was defined as the geo- graphical area to which a full range of urban services would have to be extended. It was attempted, he said, to make a distinction between property already within the city and within the urban service area and that yet to be annexed to the city, and it was felt that distinction was critical. He continued that at no time dur- ing discussions of recommendations was it ever stated or suggested that the urban service boundary should be modified to delete any portion of property now within the city but on the south side of the slope. He noted two areas where this situa- tion occurs - the Southridge properties and the Chambers/Lorane part of the Crest Drive health hazard annexation - and said that during hearings before the Commission on the preliminary draft of the South Hills study the recommendations concerning annexation were the most heatedly debated. As a result, the section of the Study having to do with annexation was the most substantially changed - but never was there any understanding that property already within the city was to be excluded from the definition of urban service area. e Upon questioning by Mr. Gleaves, Mr. Saul answered affirmatively that the subject property was annexed in 1964 and was within the urban service boundary prior to June 1974 (date Southridge application was filed), that he participated in draft- ing proposed statements and recommendations attached to Resoution 2295, that there was no indication by any council member at the time of Council adoption of Resolution 2295 that it was intended to apply to any property then within the city or intended to exclude any such property then within the city limits from development. (1210) Mayor Anderson at this point declared a recess and excused himself from the meeting. Council President Murray assumed the Chair when the Council reconvened. Stu Burge, Route 10, Box 2S0-C, partner in Southridge properties and General Development Corporation, read statistics indicating a need for housing in the Eugene area. He entered the housing market analysis into the record as Exhibit 9. e Mr. Gleaves in summary pointed out that water service was available to the project, that School District 4J staff reports indicated the development would create no problems with the school population in that area, that police service could be provided without affecting current levels of service, and that one of the condi- tions of the development would be compliance with fire protection rules and regulations. He said there was no justifiable reason for denying the preliminary application on Southridge Phase 2 - it had been a part of the city since 1964, it was zoned RA in an area where the city intended for a full range of public services to be available. Also, that the property was clearly within the urban service area prior to adoption of Resolution 2295 and that the resolution did nothing to change that situation, that references to the ridge line and contouring applied only to property between the then city limits and ridge line in that area _ to property that might be seeking annexation to the city. He continued that the city policy permitted connection to sewers where they were available to the prop- erty and that the system could handle the discharge, that refusal to permit con- nection to the sewer would be arbitrary and capricious and would deny the applicant equal protection; in fact, would constitute the taking of property without just compensation. Mr. Gleaves said the Planning Commission failed to follow the proper procedure, and that enforcement of Resolution 2295 as constured by the Planning Commission would make that act by the Council unconstitutional. That resolution at most, he said, was intended as a statement of policy and could not be constured by eith the Commission or the Council contrary to ordinances. 75 2/24/75 - 7 Ronal,d E. Eber, 500 East 18th Avenue, No.ll, chairman of the Sierra Club, sub- (1344) mitt~d copies of testimony presented by the Sierra Club on this issue before the Planning Commission. He said the development was clearly inconsistent with the South Hills study, particularly with regard to the ridge line because it 4It blocked trail routes. The study, he said, was intended specifically to protect areas above the 900-foot level and development was to be permitted only when it could be demonstrated consistent with the ridge line park section of the study. He s~id that most of the testimony was based on the visual impact, whereas impact on trails and open space should also be considered. Also, that the intent of the Joint Parks Committee was to approve development above the 900-foot level only when basic objectives of the study were satisfied. He mentioned the open space area required of the subject development and said the staff acknowledged that it was the most difficult element to be achieved because substantive physical separa- tion was required between urban and nonurban areas, not just a concept of separation. He argued that the property would not fit within the definition of urban service area because it extended beyond the ridge line. He also claimed it was not in- tended for property to be developed if public facilities had to be extended, that the facilities should already be available. He said his understanding from testimony in hearings was that even though property was already annexed, he had never' heard any expression that the urban service area was to extend beyond the ridge line, and there was no reason to consider this property an exception. Also, there' was nothing in the City Code to obligate the city to extend sewer services to the subject property just because it was within the city. Comparison with the Crest Drive area was not valid, he said, because that area had long been developed, this property was undeveloped. He questioned the impact this development would have on traffic, saying that had not been mentioned. And although he acknowledged the n~ed for housing, he questioned need for housing the cost range of the subject development. Development of housing on the fringe area of the urban service area, he said, would not be meeting the public need. He said construction of Phase 2 ... would set precedent - it was a foregone conlusion that approval of this phase ~ would lead to other very intensive development expanding clearly the need for review of traffic impact, bus services, etc. Mr. Eber doubted the denial of this development would constitute taking of property. There was possible the develop- ment 9f scenic easements on the property and other alternatives consistent with the South Hills study so that denial would not make the property valueless. He felt clarification of the study should not be accomplished by allowing this develop- ment to occur, rather the significance of this proposal should be considered in light of the total study. He summarized his arguments saying the Planning Commis- sion denial should be upheld by the Council. He cited the citizen participation in preparation ana support of the South Hills study and the view of those partici- pating that the ridge line was the urban service boundary, that property over that ridge line should be considered outside the service area. And, that development in that area, particularly this property, would be inconsistent with the goals and intent of the South Hills study. Manager noted the document presented by Mr. Eber was made a part of the record. Annabel Kitzhaber, 1892 West 34th Avenue, added the December 10, 1974 statement (1563) of the League of Women Voters to the testimony presented in support of the South Hills study. She said the development should not be approved unless conditions are met making it consistent with the South Hills study - pedestrian access across property, trails, etc. She said precedent was a concern in terms of interpretation with regard to the urban service boundary, whether it was the ridge line itself or included land already within the city even though it extended be- ... yong the ridge line. She said the property could be purchased and maintained ~ as open space or other options available in the study exercised. Or the property could ,be de-annexed. In any event, she said, the urban service boundary issue should he resolved. . 2/24/75 - 8 76 (1601) e Robert Bennett, 6280 Willamette Street, commented on the cost factor of contour- ing sewer lines and the thrust of the 1990 Plan and recommendations of advisory committees to minimize the expenditure of public funds to service new develop- ments. He said there should be no contouring unless it made economic sense, and there had been no analysis to show the amount of public funds necessary to provide sewer service for the 47 units in the proposed Phase 2. He suggested tabling the issue until a study of the cost was made. His impression was that pre-preliminary approval of this project had been contingent upon the then pending South Hills study and that the urban service area was a part of the consideration of not only the Southridge development but any other proposal which had a bearing on the ridge line. (1657) e Manager said he would have preferred commenting on the issue to the Planning Com- mission but was advised that might jeopardize the hearing process because of the Fasano ruling. He called attention to the fact that the Commission had based its rejection on four findings: (1) a major portion of the units would be located south of the ridge line as identified in the South Hills study; (2) the only access would be from 52nd Avenue, south of the ridge line; (3) development south of the ridge line would violate the intent of both the parks section and urban service section of the study; and (4) the study officially adopted was a refine- ment of the General Plan and therefore must be considered under the Code. The findings, he said, preclude the affirmative findings under the Code. He read those from the official report, and said the purpose of his comments was to ex- press concern about the credibility of the governmental process previously stated in a memo to the Council. He read that memo. He said the trail system could be accommodated by the project, and services were available to the property. Also, that the policy with regard to contouring sewer lines applied to properties not within the city when the policy was adopted to determine whether annexation should occur. He said the developers had proceeded in good faith with a plan they felt complied with public policies with regard to the urban service boundary and the ridge line park. To deny it on the basis of changing the "ground rules" after the project was committed and with no overriding public purpose could not be justified. (1708) Jim Saul, planner, pomnted out inconsistencies between statements made by Mr. Bond and Mr. Gleaves and staff interpretation with regard to elevation of the project and interpretation of Commission action. Also, inconsistency between testimony at this hearing and previous statements of the Sierra Club with regard to traffic impact. He noted Mr. Bennett's testimony raising the question of a study to de- termine public costs involved and said there were no city costs involved in this development for sewers, that was entirely the responsibility of the developer. (1748) e Don Allen, public works director, noted past legal opinions that all properties within the city are entitled to use the city's sewer system. He said that records in his department substantiated that years prior to annexation of the subject property the sewer system in this area was designed to handle discharge from this property, and that the trunk sewer charge would be settled when laterals for the property were constructed. He said the property would not be relieved of assess- ment for the trunk line when it was constructed should a private line be con- structed prior to the city system. The city, he said, in considering annexation of the Mazany property to the west was specific in saying that the system would in no way serve that property. The city reserved the right to evaluate any private system which might be developed to determine whether it would become a part of the city system in which all the public could have access, any contractual agreement with regard to a private system would have to be based on the willingness of the developer to submit the design to the city and recognize that the city would not maintain a private system. In addition, he said that the Council and Commission were aware that the priority of the 29th and WiUamette intersection became an 2/24/75 - 9 77 issue at the time of the South Hills study and consideration of this specific development. In fact, approval of the traffic facility portion of the study was based on the proposed improvement of that intersection and that was now being pursued in the public works department. Councilman Williams referred to the January 13 staff notes wherein language indicated amendment to the 1990 Plan with regard to South Hills study and urban:service boundary had been adopted. He wondered if that amendment could be properly adopted since it appeared not to be purely an internal Eugene matter, rather it was a boundary matter significant to both the county and the ci ty ,thereby calling for adoption by all agencies - Eugene, Springfield, and the County. Mr. Saul answered that it was not considered an amendment to the Plan, but that it was the consistent understanding of staff that adoption of the South Hills study constituted a refinement of the Plan. It was not seen as a change in the outline or criteria of the urban service area, rather as making it more precise and giving better guidelines for application in specific situations. In this context, he said, the South Hills study had been referred to Lane County, reviewed by that agency with indication that there were no problems with it. Councilman Williams remarked that it appeared the South Hi lls study was a refine- ment of the 1990 Plan, it did not change nor contradict it. Any change would have to be accomplished through the formal process to be considered an accepted amendment. He said there was nothing in testimony presented at this time to show anything in the 1990 Plan that urban service would not be provided to in- corporated areas within this general area. He didn't understand the dispute with regard to whether the Planning Commission properly continued the December 17 hearing to its following meeting at which time findings of fact would be considered since his reading of the minutes indicated the hearing was continued. He asked for clarification of the motion to continue the hearing in relation to appli- cant's contention that the decision was made at the December 17 meeting - was or was not the hearing continued? Mr. Gleaves said he had not had an oppor- tunity to review the minutes of that meeting, he had referred to a typed transcript of the meeting taken from tape recording. It was his position that the motion to approve the development was defeated, that action to disapprove the project was not actually taken but was held until negative findings could be prepared. Mr. Williams then asked Stan Long, assistant city attorney, whether in his opinion the action or motion to continue the matter with instructions to staff to prepare findings of fact did in fact constitute an extension. Mr. Long thought the minutes substantially reflected the transcript and it appeared a definite time for later consideration was set. Also there was no basis for saying that if a motion failed the reverse action prevailed. He thought the matter was properly continued to the next meeting of the Commission. Councilman Bradley asked if either the 1990 Plan or the South Hills study de- fined the urban service area in relation to the corporate city limits; whether the city was obligated to provide urban services to areas within the corporate limits or could they be phased in; and where the corporate limits were at the time of annexation of this property. Mr. Saul answered that the 1990 Plan did not exclude properties already within the corporate limits from urban services, and since the South Hills study was considered a refinement to the 1990 Plan, it could not be construed to exclude city properties either. Manager said it was permissible to phase in services to areas within the city. And Mr. Allen explained that sewer studies in his office showed this area could be served and was included within the service boundary for sanitary sewers. He said records could be reviewed with regard to the corporate limits at the time the property was annexed, but he thought the limits in 1964 extended about to 40th Avenue. 2/24/75 - 10 78 e (1792) (1825) e (1928) -- e Councilman Bradley then asked where and how the city policy evolved to provide public services to all residents in the city and to what extent that policy' bound future city councils. He also asked the intent of the council when adopt- ing the South Hills study - council intent he said, not staff interpretation - was it adopted with the idea that it would apply to property within the corporate limits of the city or to unincorporated property south of the subject property. Manager said it was a general assumption that all properties within the city were entitled to the full range of city services provided. Mr. Allen added that the city had operated under the authority of the Code and Charter provisions for building sewer systems within the city and explained the process through which they were petitioned or initiated. Manager read the applicable Code section. With regard to intent of council in adopting the South Hills study, Councilman Williams was not sure that issue was ever discussed. Mr. Keller said that during the hearing process heavy emphasis was placed on annexation, areas already within the city did not have the same emphasis. He noted the subject property was not only within the city, but also within the urban service boundary. Mrs. Beal's recollection was that the major discussion was with regard to protecting the ridge line and the city's ability to stop development only if property was within the city boundaries. Mr. Murray said some recognition was given in Joint Parks Committee hearings to a couple of areas within the city but sloping on the other side of the ridge line, but he was not sure that issue was ever resolved. e Councilwoman Beal asked how much land there was within the city limits that was on the other side of the ridge line. She felt permitting development to one property over the ridge line would more or less commit the Council to going over the ridge line in other areas. Mr. Saul described two areas where the corporate limits do go over the ridge line but he had no figures on the exact acreage or number of parcels. However, he said, with the exception of vacant properties in the Crest Drive area and extension of the Southridge property itself, there are no other areas to be developed south of the ridge line that are inside the city. Councilman Williams said with regard to intent of the Council in adopting the South Hills study that the initial appeal for development of Southridge properties initiated the study, and at that time the main concern was not so much whether development should be restricted to the ridge line as it was the density of the development or allowing any portion of it to occur. (2090) Mr. Gleaves 1n response to Sierra Club objections said that no portion of the ridge line park areas were to be used for active park purposes. He also pointed out that this appeal had to do only with Phase 2 of the Southridge development, that it did not concern nor should there be consideration of any other portion of that development. Mr. Gleaves wanted it understood that his presentation of written questions to Mr. Saul was at the suggestion of the city attorney only to shorten the public hearing time. He didn't want staff to be in the position of having members of the public thinking there was some collusion between staff and appellant. With regard to Councilman Bradley's questions, Mr. Gleaves agreed there was no express provision in the city code making it mandatory for the city to extend sewer service to any particular property. However, he said, evidence was shown as to what city policy had been and that the Council had the duty to apply that policy on a fair and nondiscriminatory basis. He said if services were provided they must be provided on an impartial basis. Requirements with regard to connection to the city's system could be made, he said, but to deny connection in this case would be arbitrary and an unreasonable act on the part of the Council. e (2146) Councilman Bradley asked Mr. Gleaves if he had raised the question at the Decem- ber 17 Planning Commission meeting about vonfusion surrounding the motion to pre- pare findings and continue the hearing. Mr. Gleaves said he had an explained the action as reflected in the Commission minutes. Mr. Bradley asked if 79 2/24/75 - 11 Mr. Gleaves believed the Council decision - if approval of Phase 2 was denied - should: be based on rationale of the South Hills study. Mr. Gleaves answered not, because he believed the 1990 Plan assured a full range of urban services to this particular property and the resolution adopting the South Hills study e as a refinement couldn't be separated from the intent of the Plan. Still in answer to Councilman Bradley, Mr. Gleaves said he believed the construction of Resolution 2295 (adopting the study) a legal issue, that it ultimately would be based on factual evidence and he thought the evidence was sufficient to show there was no rational basis for denial. Ppblic hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the Council reverse the January 13, 1975 decision of the Planning Commission and include in its findings those set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of the December 17, 1974 and January 13, 1975 meetings but not limited to those findings; to find also that the property does fall under the 1990 General Plan and that it does fall within the urban service boundary as defined in that Plan, also within the South Hills s,tudy relative to planned unit development in that area. (2187) Councilman Bradley thought the matter should be continued at least 30 or 60 days to give opportunity to take judicial note of some of the material presented. Also, analysis of some of the material, particularly Resolution 2295 adopting the South Hills study, had not been made to the extent that would allow a proper decision at this time. He suggested someone might be appointed to review the material and make a factual report to the Council, or make up a judicial panel from Council members to review the material. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to continue the issue tQ the second meeting in March (24th). e Councilman Williams wondered whether action on a PUD appeal contrary to that of the Planning Commission would automatically refer the matter to a joint meeting of the Council and Commission as in zoning matters. Mr. Long [attorney] said it would not be automatic, but on motion could be referred to a joint meeting. And such a motion would be debatable. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to amend the motion to continue the issue to the first meeting in April (14th). Mr. Bradley explained the change was to accommodate those Council members who would probably not be in town the last part of March because of spring vacation. Councilman Williams opposed postponement, saying exhaustive information had been received by the Council, lengthy testimony had been heard, and he thought action should be taken now on the main thrust of the issue. He said any refinements needed could be made later. Vote was taken on the amended motion; Motion defeated, Council members Beal, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye' Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, Hamel, and Haws voting no. Manager noted list of eleven conditions from the December 10 Commission motion, ~, and three additional from the December 17 Commission motion which should be .., considered. 2/24/75 12 Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to include the conditions listed in both the December 10 and 17, 1974 Planning Commission staff notes and minutes as part of the approval of Phase 2 Southridge development. 80 - Councilman Murray, commenting from his experience with this issue as a member of the Joint Parks Committee, said he would have to take issue that there was no inconsistency between this development and the South Hills study. The development where it is proposed does have the effect of breaking up the intent of buffering between urban and rural development. He also took some exception to the practice of contouring sewer lines which he said was not specifically addressed in the study. And he said he was not sure the section of the study stating its general purpose was dealt with. However, even with these reservations, he said he would have to concede the South Hills study did not specifically prohibit this Southridge de- velopment, so it was a judgmental question after all. Vote was taken on the motion to approve and include findings and conditions as stated. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Bradley and Haws voting no. Councilwoman Beal left the meeting. D. Vacations 1. Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road intersection and renaming streets accordingly (City)(SV 74-4) - There were no objections to carrying this item over to the March 10, 1975 Council meeting. 2. Portion of Jessen Drive from Ohio Street 176.25 feet west (Cole)(SV 74-5) Recommended by the Planning Commission on November 25, 1974 on the basis that there was no further public use of the right-of-way. Public hearing was opened. e Don Cole, 2298 Ohio Street, said he owned property adjacent to that under con- sideration for vacation and saw no reason why the right-of-way should not be vacated. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Council Bill No. 739 - Vacating portion of Jessen Drive from Ohio Street 176.25 feet west was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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 Haws asked about the property to the west of this parcel and whether bike paths in this area had been contemplated. Also, whether the vacation re- quest had been referred to the Active Bethel Citizens. Manager replied that the property to the west was open farm land and noted that a IS-foot utility easement had been retained in the vacation ordinance, whether this would be used as a bike parth also was unknown becuase the property to the west was undeveloped. When Mr. Haws suggested delay in the vacation process to give the opportunity to review the situation, Manager called attention to the ability of any council member to delay passage of an ordinance by voting no on second reading. Mrs. Shirey said she would abstain from voting because she had not been on the Council when the vacation request was first brought on. 8/ 2/24/75 - 13 Vote was taken on second reading, Lacking unanimous consent - Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, and Bradley voting aye; Council members Hamel and Haws voting no; Councilwoman Shirey ab- staining; and Councilwoman Beal not present - the bill was held over for second reading. " III - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previous~y discussed in committee meetings on February 12 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) and 19, 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. A.Legislative Subcommittee Recommendations - February 10, 1975 reported by Council- man Keller: H.B.2044 - State grants to local governments for purchase of park lands from bond sales (would require constitutional amendment, money to be re- paid from state general fund). Support League of Oregon Cities posi- tion which is to approve concept, changing amount of funds designated in the measure and the method of distribution - directly to the cities rather than through the state. S.B.43 - Establishes single, state-wide registration for all contractors. Re- ferred to staff for comment with regard to loss of revenues to the city. S.B.254 - State payments in lieu of taxes as compensation for local services, in particular fire protection. Support. Urban Renewal Legislation - No action until text of bill available for review. Elections Legislation - Asked Ed Johnson, liaison with Legislature, to keep sub- committee informed; interested particularly in provision which would eliminate local candidates from voters pamphlet. e H.B.2l92 - Excludes CETA employes from unemployment benefits. Support. H.B.2235 - Vehicle registration fee according to size of engine. Support concept but refer to finance and public works departments for comment on cost to city and estimate of additional revenues before position stated. Measure would apply to other than passenger vehicles. S.B.182 - Unemployment benefits to employes on strike or locked out. Refer to personnel and finance departments for comment on cost increase and estimate of increased employer payments. H.B.2l~9 - Would subject public employers to tax for transit districts. Support on the, basis of consistency, even though it would cost the city, and because of the numbers of public employes using transit buses. Ad Valorem Taxation - Referred to finance department for more information. Bicycle Legislation - Would permit bicycles to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. Oppose, too dangerous, especially where it con- cerns training young people to cross opposing traffic lanes. H.B.2367 - Would exempt rural fire protection districts contracting for fire protection services with another unit of local government from the $4/$1000 assessed value property tax limitation. Support. H.B.2225 - Would permit Boundary Commission to set effective date of annexation ~ up to a year beyond the existing 45-day limit. Support. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the recommendations. Mqtion carried unanimously. Comm 2/12/75 Approve 2/24/75 - 14 82 e S.B.3ll - Fred Mohr, chairman of the citizens committee working against exten- sion of the field burning ban, reported a turn around in the com- munity's attitude due for the most part to Mayor Anderson's recent press conference where he advised the community of the lack of citizen input to the Legislature in this regard. Mr. Mohr said there now Comm were considerable numbers of letters, phone calls, etc., going into 2/12/75 legislators in support of continuing the ban. He noted hearings scheduled for February 24 at which citizens' testimony would be taken, the city's formal presentation rejecting S.B.3ll in its entirety to be made at hearings scheduled February 25. B. Legislative Subcommittee Report - February 17, 1975 was read by Councilwoman Beal: 1. S.B.3ll - Seed growers bill on open field burning. Oppose in its entirety with the attached statement offered for Council approval. "The city of Eugene opposes this bill in its entirety on the following grounds: (1) It would permit open field burning to continue indefinitely with no cutoff date, (2) it provides no limitation on the number of acres burned annually, (3) it offers no incentives to develop or use available alternatives to open burning. "The city of Eugene considers this bill an insult to residents of this area who have endured the misery of open field burning for many years. We bear no ill will towards the farming community. We strongly desire a solution to the field burning problem which will not injur either us or the growers. S.B.3ll, however, offers no basis for any fruitful compromise. " e Mr: Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the subcommittee's statement in opposition to S.B.3ll. Motion carried unanimously. 2. H.B.2050 - Approve in principle this bill designed to provide more dis- cretion for cities in making annexations. However, the bill appears to make annexation mandatory under certain conditions, and the subcommittee would recommend an amendment which would provide that an annexation request brought to a boundary board or commission could be approved only with the consent of the annexing city. This would avoid placing a city in the position of having to absorb large areas not in the city's sequential planned growth or before urban services are available. e 3. S.B.248 - The subcommittee requests comments from the municipal court, city attorney, and other interested staff on this bill, an omnibus bill prop~sed by the Governor's commission on judicial reform. Among other things the bill would abolish municipal courts, placing litigation normally handled by municipal courts directly in state district courts. The subcommittee would like to know the fiscal impact of this bill on the city and whether the municipal court and/or city staff feel that the general public and the city of Eugene would benefit or suffer from this proposed legislation. 4. S.B.182 - The subcommittee took no position on this bill s,ince no information could be obtained on how it would affect the city financially. This bill increases unemployment compensation payments and also increases assessments paid by employers. It provides for payment of unemploy- ment compensation in cases of lockout and to union members not directly involved in a strike who are unemployed because of refusal to cross the picket line of another union. Since the city doesn't pay regular assessments but operates on a reimbursement plan when unemployment compensation is paid, the personnel office was unable to estimate the bill's financial impact. 83 2/24/75 - 15 5. S.B.134 - Would encourage citizens with medical problems to wear discs or tags or some identification describing their treatments. It makes it mandatory for police officers in accident cases to search for these ~ medical identifications. The subcommittee opposes this bill on the ~ grounds set forth by Police Chief Allen in his memo to the subcom- mittee on February 10. Mrs. Beal explained that the Police Chief's memo raised questions about liabil- ity which might be incurred by police officers under S.B.134 if identification could not be found or if accused of invasion of privacy. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams tq accept the report as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/19/75 Approve Manager referred to his authorization to testify at the Legislature on items not having Council legislative subcommittee consideration and said he had design9ted Gary Long, personnel director, to testify on February 14 on S.B.182. If the bill was adopted, unemployment benefits could result in higher take- home pay for a person in the top salary range than actually received from salary because the benefits would not be subject to deductions. It would also remove the ability of an employer to use a lockout to offset a strike because unemployment benefits tvould be paid in the event of lockout or failure of union members to cross picket lines. Both would result in increased out-of-pocket expense to the city, consequently of some importance. He thought the Council might want to reconsider the subcommittee "no position" recommendation at the February 24 Council meeting. C. Wreckers License submitted by David E. Olsen dba Olsen Auto Wreckers, 2040 West 6th Avenue, for 1975. Staff recommended approval. e Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to endorse the application. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/12/75 Approve D. Proposal for Lane County/City Local Arts Commission was presented by LCOG Arts Ad- visory Committee, Alice Sachse, chairman. Copies of the proposal had been distributed previously to Council members, and Mrs. Sachse summarized the recommendation for an officially recognized body to guide and control placement of art in public buildings. The proposal called for appointment of a study committee to draw together various governmental agencies for the purpose of defining the structure, operation, etc., of a local arts commission. Fred Cuthbert, professor emeritus, architecture, University of Oregon, spoke in favor of the proposal, saying an organization of the type recommended would tend to organize really important aspects of art work being done as well as upgrading the quality. Councilwoman Beal expressed the hope that if the organization was established young people would be represented as well as established artists. Councilman Keller wondered why additional funds would have to be raised if allocation for art objects in public buildings funded by the Federal government amounted to 1-1/2% of the cost. Mrs. Sachse answered that the Federal funds would cover the art work, but there would be additional costs involved in administration - office space, director, secretary, mailing expense, etc. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to join with Lane County Com- rndssioners in appointing a study committee to make recommendations on the composition and structure of an arts commission as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/12/75 Approve -- 2/24/75 - 16 84 e e e E. Condemnation, Gillespie property east and west of Gilham Road south of Ayres Road for park site - Negotiations on purchase of 6.7 acres of property near the Gilham elementary school have been unsuccessful. If purchased (funds coming from parks acquisition bond revenues), the property would be added to School District property for joint city/school development. Council authorization for condemnation if neces- sary was requested in view of new state legislation setting time limits for negotia- tions before proceeding to court action. Manager said that in informal discussion among Council members while viewing the site on tour some questions were raised as to the appropriateness of going to condemnation for acquisition of park lands. Staff was requesting start of the condemnation process toward acquisit,ion with the understanding that it might not have to go to court. Councilwoman Shirey expressed her understanding that if authorization was given and negotiations were not successful the issue could be taken to court without further Council action. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, acknowledged that was the case. However, although Manager had authority under such authorization, he may decide not to carry it to court. Manager added that where there appeared to be concern ex- pressed by part of the Council, it would be appropriate before any legal action was actually commenced to bring the issue back to the Council if ,a majority wanted it brought back. Councilman Hamel said he would not vote for condemnation of private property for park uses. If the Gillespies agreed to sell and a price was negotiated, he said, then he would be in favor of the purchase. Mrs. Shirey added that she would like to see negotiations continue but she was not sure she would be in favor of condemnation either. Manager said staff would like to have adoption of the resolution giving authorization with the understanding that if a majority of the Council wanted the issue brought back for consideration before going to court, that would be done. He said negotiations could be continued without the condemnation authorization, but a deadline on negotiations was needed if they were to be brought to a conclusion. In response to Councilman Hamel, he said the purchase was primarily for the city's convenience because there was a certain amount of money available for the purchase and delay would lessen the value of that money. He added that the voters had authorized the purchase of park lands and staff had worked on this particular site for some period of time. Councilman Haws was in favor of acquiring as much park land as possible for the city and favored the Manager's request for authorization to go to condemnation. Mrs. Shirey moved to adopt a resolution allowing negotiations to con- tinue for the park site, bringing results of the negotiations back to the Council for decision whether to go to condemnation. Mr. Keller seconded the motion but felt it should authorize the condemna- tion but ask only for a report back to the Council before finally proceed- ing to court action. In so doing, a time would be set to discontinue negotiations and accomplish the acquisition. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained that action should either authorize con- demnation or not authorize condemnation. No action was taken on the issue, and it was understood a resolution would be prepared for consideration at the February 24 meeting when a majority decision would be made for or against condemnation. Comm 2/12/75 Approve Councilman Haws asked for clarification of what the Council would be acting on since he understood something different than the proposal brought originally to the Council would be voted upon. Manager explained that a resolution had been prepared which would authorize negotiations, and that it included authorization for condemnation in ~he event negotiations were not successful. However, it provided the Council an opportun1ty to 85 2/24/75 - 17 repeal t~e resolution before condemnation actually commenced if the Council so desired after discussion of outcome of the negotiations. Condemnation process was further explained including the requirement for a certain period in which negotiat~ons are to proceed prior to actual start of condemnation. He said a ~ vote at this point was on the cOlrrmittee report which was to present a resolution ,., for Council consideration at this meeting. Beverly Henderson, 3055 Gilham Road, explained that the subject property was a family o~ership and that the parks department had been advised the owners did not want to sell. The parcel if taken constituted over 25% of useful farm acreage ,~she said, and neither were the owners interested in accepting the parks department offer of leasing it until developed for park use (estimated about five years) because it was not economically feasible. She said the property was part of an original donation 19nd claim and besides that heritage represented financial security and investment for the future for its owners. She noted the adjacent Clark property on which a number of different varieties of trees were located which she felt would he mOre s~itable for park purposes and which would cost the city less than the proposed acquisition. The Clark property also could be used in conjunction with the adjacent school, she said. She felt too that ~ondemnation should be the last resort and should not be pursued as long as there were alternatives avail- able for other properties. Mr. Bradley moved to deny tne request for resolution to be presented. There was no second. Side I (1817) F. Appointment, Building/Housing Code Board of Appeals for the term ending January 1, 1980 was named by Mayor Anderson - Robert L. Miller of Gale Roberts Construction Company, 338 West 11th Avenue. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. e G. Hearing Panel Report - February 17, 1975 was presented and copies distributed to Council members: Present: Council members Williams and Beal; Assistant Manager and staff; and others. 1. Appeal on setback variance at 372 Palomino Drive (Sabel Gedekal) - Submitted by Harold Appel, 375 Palomino Drive, and Joseph C. Boyington, 304 Palomino Drive. 'Gene Haxton, building department, reviewed the history of the construction of a garage at 372 Palomino Drive by Mr. Gedekal 4'4" into the front yard setback area. Building permit was issued based on plans submitted by Mr. Gedekal showing the proposed garage 28' from-the property line. Building department inspection after footings and foundation were laid did not reveal the violation. ,Not until neighbor- ing residents brought the matter to the attention of building inspectors was the violation discovered at which time framing and walls had been constructed. Mr. Gedekal at that time was allowed to roof the structure and install doors to prevent weather damage to work already done, but no further construction was carried on pending appeal to the Zoning Code Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board, upon appeal from Messrs. Appel and Boyington, reviewed the issue and granted a variance, allowing the structure to remain within the 20' setback area. Mr.Gedekal continued work on the structure under the impression that appeal of the Board's deicision had not been made to the Council. Upon contact from the building de- , partmen~ with regard to C~uncil hear~ng on the appeal (submitted by Messrs. APPe1tlt and Boy~ngton), construct~on was aga~n halted. . - . 2/24/75 - 18 Bb e e - It was noted that panel members had viewed the site on tour. zoning Board minutes as they concerned the appeal on this issue by reference thereto were made a part of this record. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Appel and Mr. Boyin0ton presented their objections - deed restrictions in that area call for a 25' fro~t yard setback and city code requires a 20' setback, the 15'8" between the proposed garage and the property line would not allow enough room for parking autos without overhanging the sidewalk, precedent would be set for others in the neighborhood, aesthetic and property values would be damaged. They presented photos of the structure, and asked that it be removed. Also objecting was Martha Sauntry, 235 palomino Drive, who said the violation should not be con- tinued simply on the basis that errors had been made. She maintained that Mr.Gedekal was operating a furniture repair and cabinet shop at this residence. Mr. Gedeka1 told of his application for building permit, issuance of the permit, and halt of construction by the building inspector after most of the garage was constructed. He said he had done nothing illegal, the building had been constructed with permission of the city, and he said he was not operating a business from his home. He did have woodworking tools, he said, but his work was that of remodeling which was done away from the premises. upon questioning from Councilman Williams, it was brought out that in preparing plans for the building Mr. Cedekal had measured the distance from the curb line to the front of the proposed garage, 28', rather than from the property line or sidewalk, and that figure was presented for issuance of the building permit. Mr. Haxton explained that staff was not involved in any possible land use violation, referring to the claim that a cabinet shop was being operated in the residence. He said there was no evidence on inspection of the premises in connection with the set- back violation of anything but residential use in terms of home occupancy standards. In response to Councilwoman Beal, Mr. Haxton said there were no regulations against keeping or using power tools in one's home so long as the residential character of the premises was not jeopardized. Mr. Boyington wondered who would be held responsible if a child was injured de- touring into the street because of autos parked so as to overhang the sidewalk. Mr. Williams felt the same situation would apply if the structure was a carport rather than a garage, and a carport was entirely legal without a variance. Mr. Appel called attention to classified ads in the current phone book listing Sabel's Cabinet Shop at 372 palomino Drive. He stated too that he questioned whether the hardship would be as great as it was claimed in view of the fact that the application for building permit was submitted for a $600 addition to the house. Councilman Williams explained that the question in this instance was not one of improper home occupation; other sections of the code dealt with that issue. Any number of home occupations could be pursued legally, he said, so long as it was not detectable from the outside. Public hearing was closed. Recommendation: Deny the appeal, uphold action of Zoning Code Board of Appeals permitting the garage structure within the 20' setback; that the action be based on the findings that the Zoning Code Board of Appeals acted properly in saying a hardship would be created if issuance of the building permit were to be reversed and Mr. Gedeka1 required to remove the structure, recognizing that Carom multiple errors were made in granting the permit. 2/19/75 Approve 87 2/24/75 - 19 Also, in recognition of the legitimate concerns of the neighbors for safety of children, general quality of life, and appearance of the neighborhood, it was recommended that denial of the appeal ... be conditioned on Mr. Gedekal's (1) roofing the garage with a .., material siTJilar to that on the remainder of the building so that there is no visual separation between the garage and the rest of the building, (2) adding siding, painting and finishing materials to the garage so that appearance is. the same as the rest of the building,- (3) installation of landscaping plantings around the garage to screen it and protect the appearance of the general area. The Hearing Panel also strongly urged Mr. Gedekal to permit no autos to be parked between the driveway entrance and the garage because of the hazard involved as well as inconvenience to people in the neighborhood. 2.Appeal from Zoning Code Board of Appeals denial of variance allowing four-foot high cyclone fence at 22nd and Fillmore (Fred W. Reynolds) Gene Haxton, building department, explained that construction of a four-foot chain link fence on Fred Reynolds property at 1615 West 22nd Avenue was halted by building department inspector because of its violation of code restriction to 30-inch fence height. Appeal to the Zonin~ Code Board of Appeals resulted in decision calling for 30-inch fence at the corner of 22nd and Fillmore for vision clearance, allowing balance of the fence to be constructed at the four-foot height. Building department inspector later discovered the four-foot fence constructed without regard for the vision clearance area required by the Board's decision, and on second appeal the Zoning Board reaffirmed its previous decision to require the vision clearance at the corner - 30-inch height. Staff recommended at both hearings observance of the corner vision clearance because of reflected glare from chain link fences tinder certain conditions that would create a hazard. " e It was noted that penl member viewed the site on tour. Zoning Board minutes as they concerned the appeal on this issue by reference thereto were made apart of this record. Public hearing was opened. Max Ingerson, a'ttorney speaking for Mr. Reynolds, said the fence was bui 1 t because of the substantial nuisance created by school children crossing the property. He felt the four-foot chain link fence, installed under contract, did not constitute a vision obstruction and he called for a practical application of the code in this instance. Photos of the fenpe were presented. He said a 30-inch high fence would not give the protection desired. Also, leaving a clearance area at the corner unfenced would result in having to give up the property to the public and create a maintenance problem. A Mr. Reynolds, identifying himself as Fred Reynolds' son, noted that 3D-inch chain link fence was not available and would not solve the problem anyway. He noted incidents creating a nuisance for his parents and urged that the fence be allowed to remain at the four-foot height. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Mr. Haxton noted that there had been no objections to the fence from neighbors in the area. Staff was pursuing code enforcement in bringing the matter up, he said, ... and the,Board twice upheld code stipulations that vision clearance should be ob- ~ served. Mr. Haxton said no "bad" vision obstruction had been demonstrated in this instance. However, because of possibility of similar chain link fences in other areas of the city, staff felt it might be wise to review the code in that respect. 2/24/75 - 20, 88. e Assistant Manager Mart,in called attention to staff evaluation of fencing regulations now going on because G f i__>rcblems in the past rela ting to fron t and side yard setbacks. That was expected to be completed before su~~er. He said this panel could ask in- clusion of review of chain Link fences ac!,7acent to rights-of-way in that evaluation. Councilwoman Beal thOll7ht. 12 the code provision was to protect vision clearance it could not apply to this i;lstance bec:'1use there was no obstruction. She was in favor of allowing th,= rence to remain and to review the code with respect to "vision clearance" as it would aryply to chain linh fences. Councilman Williams askef" :'!r. Ingerson if his client would be willing to accept a ninepmonth stay of juris:.r:el1t on the appeal , pending Council review of the ordinance dealing with fences obstructing vision at intersections. Hr. Ingerson said he would welcome it as an altern~tive to being denied pe=mission to retain the fence as it is. Mrs. Beal, howeve=, >las in favor of ~ranting a permanent variance, then looking at the code requireme~ts in the event of future similar situations. She didn't think it right to lea.....:; the Reynolds' "in limbo." Councilma!l ~'lilliams.. although he wasn't in favor of denying the fence as built, recalled a recent instance of granting a One.-year variance pending revie...., of the overall fencing regulations. Also, he questioned the issne of precedent if this type fence construction was determined inappropriate after review of the regulations. Mr. Ingerson pointed out that his clients feJ.i; there because there was no vision obstruction. The fence he said, to solve a problem and there was no intent was no violation of regulations was constructed in good faith, to circumvent the regulations. Recommenda ti on': ' . , 'Uphold the ,appeal, re\Terse the Zoning Code Board of Appeals decision denying the existing fence and permit the fence to remain as nOW constructed on the basis that a chain link fence in th~t l~~ation does not constitute a vision hazard and, accordingly, is not a violation of the code. In addition, creation of an unfenced area, with no one responsible for its maintenance, for purposes of vision clearance in this instance would n~t serve the best interest of the city. Carom 2/19/75 Approve e Staff was requested to include consideration of chain link fencing on corner lots in the overall review of fence regula- tions for firm clarification on which to base decision in the future in similar situations. 3. Assessments represented by: a. C.B.730 - Paving: sidewalks and storm sewer on Norkenzie Road from Cal Young ,Road to Belt Line Road (73-18) Protests and requests to be heard were received from John Willener, 2086 Nor- kenzie Road; Melvin and Pdtriaia Pello, 1760 Norkenzie Road (did not appear at hearing); William !!. and Doris McCulley, 1780 Norkenzie Road (did not appear at hearing); and DonalG N. Page, 1815 Norkenzie Road. e Bert Teize1, ci tll engineer f explained that an existing sewer stub was extended when Norkenzie Road vas widened. This stub would serve property in John riil1ener' s ownership at 2085 dorkenzie Road in addi tion to a stub serving Ur. vli1lener I s house. Mr. ,Teitzel said the extension to a point beyond the sidewalk was made as a matter of course in the construction project to avoid having to disturb the sidewalk construction at: some later date when the service was needed. No contact about this extension was made with Mr. Willener. Staff recommended waiving assessment for the extension at this time ($258.75), charging it to the property owner if and when the property was developed and the stub used. Mr. Teitzel added that ten feet of =iq:1t-of-way was purchased from Mr. Willener, and that the stub was extendec JA feet to clear the sidewalk. eR 2/21!/75 - 21 John Willener protested the assessment for the stub. He advised of damage to his property in the course of the construction project - filling of a drainage' ... ditch'which resulted in flooding property formerly used for garden spot, killing ~ two fruit trees, broken concrete in his driveway. He said he did not plan to develop the property for which the stub was extended, that the stub w~ not requested, and that he knew nothing of it until receipt of the assessment notice. He rejected the staff recollunendation for deferred assessment on the basis that it would appear as a lien aqainst his property; he wanted no liens or exceptions to his title to the property. Mr. Willener stated he could force the removal of fill from the drainage ditch which resulted in flooding his property. In response to Councilman Williams, Mr. Teitzel said that recording the assess- ment,as a lien against the property would be the only way any future owner would be made aware of the pending'charge for the service stub; the amount of the assessment - $258.75 - would appear on the records as a lien. Assistant Manager Martin explained that although appearance of the assessment on the title would indicate a potential obligation if staff recommendation was accepted, the lien would be effective only in the event the property was developed a~d the sewer stub used. Mr. Willener countered that many people would not understand that and construe it as an unpaid lien against the property, neither could a loan be obtained using the property as security with such a lien attached. When asked by Mr. Williams which he would prefer - paying the assessment or deferring it pending use of the stub - Mr. Willener said he would rather pay'it. However, he said he- wouldn't and that he c'i,:~n't like litigation. M~. Teitzel said there was the alternative of the city s ricking up the assessment in its cost for the project. At Councilwoman Beal r s request, fir. Tei tzel explained the drainage si tuation - __ the ditch behind Mr. 'Wiilener's prc?erty was filled by the contractor since a storm sewer on Norkenzie was const,rL'cted to take the drainage previously going to that ditch. The contractor. he said, was responsible for contacting the property owner prior to going 0;1 the property to place the fiLl, and it was the city's understanding th~t pe~wission had been given. He said the city could require the qontractor (Wilcish) to restore proper drainage on the prop- erty if it was not left in a manner acceptable to the property owner. Map of the properties serveQ L~ the construction project was displayed and discussin continued with regard to location of the flooded area, the stub extension, etc., with coinme.nt from Councilman Williams that it would not appear fair to the rest of the comnunity's taxpayers to pick up the cost of the service to Mr. willener's property t-Ihen at some time in the future there was the possibility tbat it would .be put to use. Discussion turned to loss of property corners during construction. Dan French, 2090 Norkenzie Road, requested help in locating corner markers so he could in- stall a fence at the proper location. He also noted problems with flooding of his property from improper ,drainage. And Donald Page, 1815 Norkenzie Road, expressed concerns about placement of the initial lift on water and mud rather than the normal base " renegotiation of the project contract and whether renego- tiation resulted in higher costs passed on to the property owners, and hazard created for bike riders because of failure to repaint bike path lines after com- pletion of the paving. Neither Mr. French nor Mr. Page disputed the assessment itsp7f. . In discussion with panel members, it was agreed city engineering staff would work with Mr. French to locate as nearly as possible hisp:operty corner by es- 2/24/75 - 22 90 -- tablishing the centerlines of Corum Avenue and Norkenzie Road. Mr. Teitzel explained that a S!lr"Je'j of the property would be the only way of accomplishing a true corner and the cit'-l engineers did not act in that capacity. Wi th regard to cO,Jcerns expressed by Mr. Page, Mr. 'l'ei tzel explained that the unit prices on the c9ntr2.ct were renegotiated because of delay in the construction due to weather conditions. However, the higher costs were not assessed. He added that the Bicycle COI:J1T/i ttee had wanted to try unpainted bike paths on Nor- kenzie because of the infrequent auto parking there and bikes being ridden in a marked lane some :~istC'.nce from the curb. It was understood this problem would be referred to the Birycle Committee. Discussion turned ba~k to Mr. Willener's objection to the assessment for sewer stub extension to his property with further explanation that a deferred assess- ment would constitute only a contingent liability, that Mr. Willener would have the choice of paying the assessment or accepting a deferral on the condition that it would be recor~ed for collection when and if the stub was used. Mr. Willener statc~ his understanding of that choice. However, he felt principle was involved and he said he would start litigation if necessary to recover damages for the flooding of the property, loss of fruit trees, and damage to the driveway. Panel members stated their conviction that it would not be proper to charge an assessment for service to a private property to the city's taxpayers as a whole and that the question of property damage would be the contractor's responsibility. Assistant Manager Martin commented that the city in a sense would become Mr. Willener's advocate with the contractor in the matter of property damage. e Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed, granting to Mr. Willener the privilege of having the $258.75 assessment for second sewer stub deferred, interest free, to appear as a recorded lien against the property, and to be collected when and if the property was developed use made of the sewer service. Comm 2/19/75 Approve b. C.B.73l - Sanitary sewer on Royal Avenue from 600 feet west of Candlelight Drive to 160 feet west of Terry Street .(74-06) No protests or requests to be heard were Feceived. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. c. C.B.732 - Paving and storm sewer on Happy Lane from Goodpasture Island Road to 450 feet south; and streets within Delta View Subdivision (74 13) No prote~ts or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. Comm 2/19/75 of Approve d. C.B.733 - Paving and storm sewer on 18th Avenue from 100 feet northeast Harvard Drive to 1056 feet west of Bailey Hill Road (74-22) No protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. It e.C.B.734 - Sanitary sewer on Calvin Street from Dulles Avenue to 300 feet north (74-26) No protests or requests to be heard were received Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 2/24/75 - 23 91 f. C.B.7~5 - Sanitary sewer south of Storey Boulevard, east of Friendly Street; and west of View Lane (74-51) No protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. . Councilman Williams asked for correction of recommendation on C.B.730, levying assessments for pavinq and sewers on Norkenzie Road to reflect that deferral of the assessment was to be until such time as the Willener property was either developed or the stub was used. It was so ordered and the correction was made. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to place the report as cor- rected on tte February 24 consent calendar for approval. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/19/75 Approve Councilman Haws said he would substitute on the Panel for hearing soheduled March 3 when Councilwoman Beal would be out of town. H. Zoning Newly-annexed area in vicinity of Dillard Road, 43rd Avenue, and South Shasta Loop - From County RA Suburban to City RA Suburban Residential (Planning Commission) ,Recommended by the Planning Commission on February 4, 1975. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to set public hearing on the zoning for the March 10 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. COl1m 2/19/75 Approve I. Right-of-way Acquisition, Barger Drive - Council authorization was requested to com- mence pegotiation on additional right-of-way on Barger Drive. Manager explained that 27 pprcels in addition to that already acquired were needed to accommodate the facility as designed - two lanes with center turn lane, bike lanes and side- walks on each side, no parking on either side. Assessment for the project would be made against abutting properties for 28 feet of the paved width (40~foot right-of-way), city's portion of the cost to be funded from bond monies plus county road fund monies for urban arter,ials. -- Councilman Keller said he understood when viewing the street on tour that there was to be sidewalk on one side only. Don Allen, public works director, explained th2t sidewalk was planned for the south side only on that portion east of Belt Line Road because the north side there was undeveloped at this time. However, sidewalk was planned on both sides west of the Belt Line. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to authorize negotiations to commence for acquisition of the right-of-way on Barger Drive as re- quested. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/19/75 Approve J. Room Tax Allocation Report - February 13, 1975 was distributed to Council members with agenda together with copies of December 19, 1974 and February 10, 1975 minutes of Room Tax Allocation Committee meetings. Manager explained that guidelines established by the Council for allocation of room tax funds had been translated into format determining findings based on established, criteria. Applications submitted in December did not follow that format and were reconsidered at January and February meetings, some of ~hich still have not been finalized. Recommendations on those upon which action was taken were: Request Recommended $ 6,000 Approve 980 Deny 6,000 Deny 2,287 Deny 16,720 Deny 2,500 Approve $1,291 Eugene Downtown Association Musicians Mutual Association National Academy of Artistic Native American Program Upward Bound, University of Northwest Drama Conference . Gymnastics Oregon 2/24/75 - 24 92. e e - Manager explained that the allocation to Northwest Drama Conference was reduced to $1,291 because of time constraints encountered by the applicant in programming. With regard to the Eugene Downtown Association application made jointly with the city parks and recreation department, Manager said the money was to fund one-half of the salary of the downtown mall manager. He commented on the number of studies on mall activities indicating a need for someone to take the responsibility for en- couraging various types of activities to attract people to the mall. Also, the EDA felt the need for someone to promote various kinds of commercial activities to en- hance the benefits of the properties on the mall and suggested the possibility of combining the responsibilities to be fulfilled by one person. Manager said one pro- test to this allocation had been received from Valley River Center people on the basis that public funds would be used to promote what in their minds was a com- mercial function for the downtown area thereby resulting in unequal treatment for competing areas. Art Fairchild, chairman of the Room Tax Committee, said the Committee felt the dif- ference between the commercial areas was that the downtown mall itself was publicly owned whereas mall areas in other shopping areas were privately owned. Councilman Murray asked about the administrative relationship between the city and the Downtown Association in hiring a mall manager, and to whom such a person would report. Also, were there any plans for funding the position on an on-going basis or would Room Tax allocation have to be considered each year. Manager answered that the city administration and the Downtown Association would have to agree upon a person to fill the position with mutual veto power on anyone selected. He said direction would come through city policies in consultation with the parks and recrea- tion director and through him to the Manager's office if necessary. Ed Smith, parks and recreation director, said funding plans were not settled at this time. It was thought after one year with a mall manager there could be analysis and report on the operation to determine its success. Councilwoman Beal wondered whether rent from the public space in the mall area for commercial uses ,could be used to compensate some of the expenditure involved for a mall manager. She felt it would be to the advantage of users of mall space, par- ticularly if it was commercial use, to rent that space and pay a fee. Manager acknowledged potential for that kind of income. However, he said previous Council discussions on that idea had not reached decision on whether there should be com- mercial activities in the mall. He thought this request if funded would give a year's experience which could lead in that direction. Mrs. Beal said the delay in deciding about commercial uses on the mall was at the request of the downtown merchants and that they were hesitant at encouraging any commercial activities on the mall. She did not want to agree to any funding of a nonpublic group which did not necessarily represent the people of Eugene since the mall itself was public property, nor did she want a mall manager directed by the Downtown Association. She felt some contractual arrangement would be necessary. Manager answered that the use of these funds would have to be based on a contractual understanding between the city and the Downtown Association, spelling out service to be performed. However Mrs. Beal thought that type of contractual arrangement would simply set out the purpose for which the money would be allocated, it would not provide for intended uses of the mall. Mrs. Beal moved that a Council subcommittee be appointed to work with the parks department and the Eugene Downtown Association to develop guidelines for the use of the public mall area and for the use of ,the public funds involved. Before the motion was given a second, Mayor Anderson wondered how any result of work by such a group would differ from mall studies already accomplished. Mrs.Beal responded that previous studies had Council approval but were not accepted by the Downtown Association. 93 2/24/75 - 25 When Councilman Murray suggested further discussion of previous mall recommendations by the Cou~cil, since it had several new members, rather than appointment of a subcommittee likely to produce the same type of recommendations, Mrs. Beal said the Council's position could remain the same but it still would not express the 4It; Association's viewpoint. She said the proposal presented at this time was from the Downtown Association. She thought the city had the responsibility for working out something to govern use of city property and money was what the Council desired rather than turning it allover to the Downtown Association. Manager expressed the feeling that commercial uses were being considered as a single item rather than a total program for the mall area. He noted the list of proposed activities making up the job description for the mall manager, submitted with the EDA application for room tax funds, developed by staff to cover the various activities proposed in addition to the question of commercial uses. He suggested review of that list by the Council with addition or deletion as the Council desired, proceeding with the arrangement with the understanding the question of commercial activities on the mall could be added if the Council wanted to do that. Mayor Anderson asked circulation of the mall manager job description and tentative approval of the allocation, placing it on the February 24 Council consent calendar for segregation and further discussion after review of the proposed activities. Councilwoman Beal still preferred appointment of a subcommittee to discuss the activities proposed in the job description as well as previous recommendations on mall uses with the parks department and Downtown Association to determine exactly what would take place there. The Council then would be better able to respond to people of the city, and particularly people in her ward, interested in use of the mall. In response to Councilman Williams, Mr. Smith said the mall manager job description prepared for submittal to the Room Tax Committee covered the parks department recommendations of proposed uses on the mall. If the allocation was approved, he said, a contractual arrangement would be drafted providing for services ex- pected to be provided. He said this proposal was intended to promote activities on the mail, to implement direction of the Council and recommendations of several committees in the past. Commercial uses on the mall had not been totally resolved and he saw that as a completely separate issue from the allocation request for the mall manager salary. He added that information was being assembled with re- gard to sidewalk cafes and type of mall use and he assumed a report of those find~ ings .would be the next step. Mayor Anderson expressed sympathy with Mrs. Beal's position, he was disappointed also at lack of co-operation from downtown merchants in expanding commercial uses into the mall area. He was inclined to agree that this was an issue separate from the requested allocation. However, he saw this as an opportunity to explore fur- ther the possibility of commercial development into the mall. He suggested that any arrangement should specify one year only if that was the contract period. He again suggested distribution of the list of activities developed for the Room Tax Commi.ttee before the February 24 Council meeting and inclusion of further exploration of commercial development into the mall as part of the agreement with the EDA. Mrs. Bea~ repeated that she preferred consideration and deliberation prior to com- mitment with regard to money or any specific program because once it was done it . would be difficult for the Council to make any changes. Councilman Bradley seconded the motion for appointment of a subcommittee. 2/24/75 - 26 ~4 e . e 'e e Councilman Williams felt the motion in effect was saying that before a decision was made a special committee should be created to reinvent the outline developed and pre- sented to the Room Tax Committee. Councilman Murray was reluctant to vote for the motion. He didn't want to "rehash" the issue unless some new conclusions were pre- sented. But he said he would have additional questions if the EDA was to do the hiring of the mall manager, and he questioned the compatibility of mixing management of commercial uses with recreational uses. He suggested holding the item for further discussion at next week's committee meeting. Councilman Keller saw the Council "hung up" on the commercial activity only, whereas the scope of activities proposed for the mall was much broader and already outlined. He said he would prefer to see that outline before final action at the February 24 Council meeting. Councilwoman Beal noted that she would be out of town the next two Wednesdays and asked deferral of further discussion until she returned. Staff saw no problem, but upon learning of Councilman Keller's absence the following two weeks, it was agreed that if the motion failed, the list of activities would be distributed before the February 24 Council meeting, the item placed on the consent calendar for final de- termination or postponement at that time. Vote was taken on the motion to appoint a Council subcommittee to develop mall guidelines, working with the parks department and the Eugene Down- town Association. Motion defeated, Council member Beal, Bradley, and Haws voting aye; Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, Hamel, and Shirey voting no. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the balance of the report. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/19/75 Approve Copies of job description for mall manager were distributed. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to postpone action on the portion of the Room Tax Allocation report pertaining to the mall manager alloca- tion until the first meeting in April (14th). Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Keller explained the postponement was requested because both he and Councilwoman Beal would be out of town during spring vacation. K. Growth Study - Copies of conditions on which the proposed growth study would be en- dorsed as suggested by Council members Murray and Beal were previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Council endorse the pro- posed LCOG growth stUdy and recommend it for consideration and comment to the Eugene Budget Committee, Eugene Planning Commission, Lane County Board of Commissioners, and Springfield City Council, subject to: 1. Assessing cost of growth, both economic and social, as one of the major focal points of the study; .2. Making the geographic area under study the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan urban service area as defined in the 1990 Plan, recognizing that factors outside that area must also be considered; 3. Composition of the steering committee limited to elected and ap- pointed officials and other citizens of the metropolitan urban service area; 4. At least one-half of the steering committee membership would be citizens other than those elected or appointed officials serving ~5 2/24/75 - 27 as Lane County Commissioners, Eugene or Springfield City Council members, or planning commissioners of Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield; 5. Applicants for the position of project director to be reviewed by the steering committee and final selection to rest with the ~teering committee; and 6. The proposed growth study outline presented by LCOG, in all other respects, to be recognized as a starting point and guide- line and not as an inflexible or unchanging document. In making the motion, Councilman Murray said it was an attempt to assure that any g~owth study undertaken would be consistent with the community goals statement which first .brought the matter of a growth study to the fore. Jt was critical to remember, he said, that the community goals conference was based on broad citizen participation which singled out a proposed growth study as an item of major im- portanceand emphasized (1) that the study be conducted by a citizen committee with extensive citizen involvement; (2) that it cover the metropolitan area and not all of Lane County; and (3) that it focus primarily on costs of growth. He wanted those assurances and desires'expressed at the beginning. Councilman Williams said he had no problems with making a definite statement as proposed in the motion except where it concerned limiting the geographic area of the study to the metropolitan area and limiting membership of the steering com- mittee to officials and other citizens from that area. He said that he as a member of the LCOG task force strongly stated that as Eugene's position with as strong a statement in opposition from the balance of the task force on the basis that factors affecting growth in the metropolitan area have a much broader base than just the urban service boundary. He said the task force decided that if out- lying jurisdictions were not in agreement on certain factors or policies, there would be the very real potential for "leap fragging" development and scatteration. . James Bain, member of the LCOG task force, said that regardless of whether the metropolitan area was considered the target area or whether the study was limited to that area gets into political questions as to funding. Both points of view were raised in the task force and not really resolved there any more than agree- ment that the area to be covered needed clearly to be more than the urban service area. Galen Howard,' LCOG staff, said any decision should include the surrounding communities because they would be experiencing growth toward Eugene as much as Eugene would be growing toward them. Councilman Murray recognized that growth was not localized, but he thought the problem most acute in Eugene. Also, he said it seemed Eugene always financed studies such as this and he was reluctant to solve other's problems with Eugene's money. He agreed that what lies outside Eugene couldn't be ignored, but at the same time everything couldn't be encompassed. Councilman Bradley wondered if the projected urban service area in the 1990 Plan could be designated as the study area to broaden the investigation rather than just the defined urban service area. Councilman Keller was concerned not only with limiting the study to the metropolitan area and composition of the steering committee but also with selectin of a project director where expertise would have to far outweight the political aspects. He re- ferred to the "extremely political" makeup of the proposed steering committee and said some representation from business or industry might be beneficial. Mr. Keller also expressed concern with cost of the study. Especially at a time when the city was considering reduction of its work force he couldn't see how a project such as this could take priority. Councilwoman Shirey thought availability of funds would determine the scope of the study. ,She asked if there was any way of assessing help which might be coming 2/24/75 - 28 ~" . . =- ' e e - from outlying jurisdictions or from the Federal government. Councilman Murray said if the motion passed it would not automatically ensure financing, the issue would have to go through normal budgeting process. He added that perhaps because of present economic conditions now would be the appropriate time for such a study because a great many people felt that growth was one of the things that contributed most heavily to current economic dilemmas. He felt the costs of growing at the rate Eugene was growing would go far beyond the projected cost of this study. Councilwoman Beal said her concern all along had been the obligation to determine the effect of growth on the taxpayers. The purpose of the study was to be able to know the costs ahead of time, as any business or corporation would do, in order to have a basis for making decisions as growth occurred. Councilman Keller appreciated that viewoint, but felt that type of information would be obtained from people qualified to develop it and he saw no relationship between that and a citizens committee. A citizens committee, he said, could make a decision on a professional opinion of what it costs the city to grow but in this case it was giving cause for a report and then making it a political issue. Mrs. Beal answered that she realized expert help was needed for compilation of data, a lot of which was now available, but community representation was needed on the steering committee. She said there was no intent on her part to inject any political or any particular social interests. Manager raised the question of possible hazard if a majority of those making the study were not elected or appointed officials and therefore not generally representa- tive of the total community and were in disagreement with the elected officials who with advice of appointed officials would have to make decisions on steps to implement the study. In that event, a set of guidelines might be adopted by the steering com- mittee which could really be a hurdle to implementation or progress toward whatever direction the elected officials wished to take. There was also the question whether LCOG was to have administrative responsibility for the project. If so, it would seem LCOG should have responSibility for final selection of the project director. Councilman Murray didn't share Manager's concern about the heazards of citizen involvement even though procedure for appointing citizens was not spelled out in the motion. He assumed they would be appointed by the jurisdictions involved and to some degree that would reflect viewpoints of the elective bodies. With regard to LCOG's role, he said he made no assumption one way or another in that regard. Mayor Anderson had serious concerns about the format which appeared to be developing. He noted countless studies inVOlving greenway belts, urban service boundaries, etc., which developed tools and techniques from which elected officials could reach con- clusions regarding their communities. He thought this proposed study should produce those tolls and techniques, also perhaps techniques whereby agreements could bring adjacent jurisdictions into the picture. But it appeared to him, he said, to be developing into a large political exercise if it proceeded along the lines it seemed to be heading. He saw it as a long tedious task in any event. The Mayor also ex- pressed concern about LCOG's role, saying it seemed to him that this was being pulled away from LCOG by setting up a new organization concerned only with growth and leav- ing LCOG with only the "nuts and bolts" of comprehensive planning in the community. Cost was also a concern to him. To accomplish the study would take the co-opersation of Lane County and Springfield, he said, and to do that the cost would have to be reasonable. He agreed with Councilman Murray that the study could save many dollars in the future, but at this time a program would have to be developed that was more appealing and more sound administratively. Referring to questions raised about appointment of a project director, Mayor Anderson said it seemed an entirely new organization of governments was being created which could go in any direction it wished. If that was the case, it appeared LCOG would be.relieved of its respondibility and he felt their role too important not to be involved. He suggested that the Council attempt to develop this proposal some more, perhaps turning it back to the task force asking for a "cheaper model," or perhaps having comment from the planning staff. 97 2/24/75 - 29 , Councilman Murray thought budget costs would answer some of the questions raised. The budgeting level would determine the type of study. He said no one intended that this study would be an endless, on-going political process. Councilwoman Beal said she hadn't realized that the provisions for composition of the steer- ing committee and appointment of a project director excluded LCOG, and she was of the opinion that LCOG should be one of the "main sources" and should probably , select the director. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to amend the motion by deleting items-having to do with representation on the steering committee and appointment of project director, those items to be worked out later. . Councilman Murray was not opposed to deleting prov~s~on for selection of a project director, saying MAPAC could be delegated that responsibility. But he was opposed to deletion of the provision for representation on the steering committee, saying 'that who was ,on the committee was critical and that if that item was de1.eted it would leave a "gaping hole." Mayor Anderson said from the standpoint of negotiations with other juriSdictions, a less definitive statement, one that appeared not so dictatorial as to the makeup of a policy committee, would probably give more chance of getting'itheir co- operation. He thought once an agreement was made with the other jurisdictions on the study, then a steering committee could be developed of whatever representa- tion was felt appropriate. ~ Ken Battaile; LCOG staff, concurred with Councilman Williams' viewpoint on geo- graphic area of the study. He said the task force in considering the question of area recognized statements in the General Plan that the metropolitan community should encourage ou~lying juriSdictions to develop their own plans. Part of that encouragement, he said, would be their inclusion in any growth study of the metro- politan area~ He thought another important factor in limiting the study to the urban service boundary would be the exclusion of the Lane Community College basin; that aspect should be re-examined. Mr, Battaile concurred in Manager's statement that the agency appointing the project director should have responsibility for selection of that person. Councilman Murray noted that the LCOG outline for the growth study proposed the various LCOG agencies would be solicited for funding. He said it was never stated that funds would come from any other source. Councilman Williams saw fund- ing as a purely academic question. He said the efficacy of the study would re- quire co-operation and commitment of other jurisdictions regardless of whether they con~ributedfinancially. He thought it would be an error to restrict the study to just those paying for it and to just the urban area. A short discussion on rules of order and type of motion that would prevail resulted in motion by ,Councilman Bradley seconded by Counil- woman Shirey to refer the issue back to committee (Council members Murray and Beal) to work out rewording of the motion presented. Motion carried unanimously. e Comm 2/19/75 Approve L. Echo Hollow West PUD - Copies of report from planning department were previously distributed to Council member requesting enforcement proceedings by calling a public hearing to determine what provisions of the original contract had not been met. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to set hearing as requested for, March 10 Council meeting~ Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/19/75 Approve e, 2/24/75 - 30 98 e e P. e M. Appointment, Gaming Commission for the term ending January 1, by Mayor Anderson: John Langan, pit Stop Tavern, 2222 Highway 2412 Terrace View Drive; and Lt. Don Lonnecker, Eugene Police 1977 was announced 99N; Joe Soderberg, Department. Comm 2/12/75 Affirm Comm 2/12/75 Affirm Comm 2/12/75 Affirm Comm 2/19/75 Affirm Q. Appointment, Garbage Borad - Former Council members Bob Deverell, Wallace Swanson, and Charles Teague were reappointed as members of the Garbage Board for the year ending January 1, 1976. Approve 2/24/75 - 31 N. Lincoln Elementary School - Councilman Murray read resolution adopted by the Task Force requesting the Council to ask the School Board to take no final action on disposition of the Lincoln School building without further communcation be- tween the Council, School Board, Task Force with regard to impact of the school's closure on the neighborhood. The Task Force felt closure of a central city school at a time when a major effort was about to be undertaken to revitalize central city neighborhoods had vital implications on a city-wide basis and should be discussed before any decision was made. He noted letter received from School District 4J directors since adoption of the resolution inviting the Council, Task Force, Westside neighborhood group, Lincoln School people and Plan- ning Commission to meet on February 19, 7:30 p.m., where the situation would be outlined for discussion of alternative uses of the site. He suggested the Mayor be asked to respond, accepting the invitation on behalf of the Council. It was understood the Mayor would so respond. O. Regional Sewer Commission, representing Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County, asked for a meeting of all three agencies for the purpose of reporting on over- all plan for regional sewer system and services. It was agreed that most of the Council members could be present at a March 31 meeting. Code Amendment, Expanding Duties of Hearings Official - Planning Commission on February 4 recommended amendment to the code to provide for expanding duties of the hearings official to include consideration of zone changes, appeals from deci- sions of site review committee, complaints on home occupations, variances to sign regulations in conjunction with conditional use permits, and sign district changes. The amendment also would modify the appeals procedure and reporting of bulding code violations, ,and in effect would result in recommendations coming to the Council only in the event of an appeal. Zone changes would still be accomplished by ordinance ~cted upon by the Council but only as a routine function. The Plan- ning Commission would be completely out of the hearing process but could appeal decisions of the hearings official in the event it was felt an error had been made. Also, the hearings official could certify to the Commission questions on land use or zoning policy before making a decision. Copies of ordinance effecting the changes were distributed to Council members. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule the recommended amendment for public hearing. Councilman Bradley said he had reservations about some of the ~ecommended changes and suggested a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission before public hearing was scheduled. Or failing that, he asked for delay in action on scheduling the hearing until next week's committee meeting to give the opportunity to review the ordinance and ask relevant questions. Councilman Murray also had some reserva- tions and felt discussion with the COnmUssion would be helpful. Mayor Anderson with no objections from the Council asked staff to make arrangements for a meeting with the Planning Commission, and no action was taken on the motion. 9~ R. Community Development Task Force Interim Report presented by Councilman Murray summarizing activities and findings of the Task Force on which priorities for allocation of money will be based. Copies of the report including minutes of public hearings, summary of community ballot, input given by neighborhood groups, A,; etc., were previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Murray said recom- ~ mendations would be brought to the Council for consideration in time to forward Comm them to HUD by April 15. 2/12/75 File S. Hearing Panel, February 17 was noted - Council members Beal and Williams, panel members, to hear appeals from zoning code board of appeals decisions and protests to assessments for street and sewer projects. 2/J3jI.fg .F~le the Mayor historic Comm 2/12/75 File T. Appointment, Historic Review Board - Recommendations were requested by in filling the four positions on the Board created by recently adopted preservation ordinance. U. ~usiness' License Tax - Councilwoman Shirey noted the amount of contact with re- gard to business people desiring to be heard about the business license tax pro- posal and wondered if there should be some publicity about its being a proposal only. Mayor Anderson agreed that some, business people in the community were taking it for granted that the tax would be adopted even though emphasis had been placed on its being an item for budget committee discussion only at this time. Manager added that there had been a good deal of input at the one budget committee hearing held. He said staff had been asked to gather information on the concerns expressed at that time and bring it back for reconsideration of the revenue committee. Councilman Hamel noted news items with regard to use of the tax as a source of revenue for the county based on the premise that the city was adopting one, and he felt that should be "squashed." v. City Personnel Cutback - Councilwoman Shirey asked about the process for handling programs and employes affected by the city's financial situation. She said she had received a number of contacts from concerned people. Assistant Manager answered that personnel department was now evaluating information gathered from the various departments with regard to adjustments they felt could be made in services and functions, expressing special concern for affirmative action pro- grams and taking into consideration reduction of personnel through attrition and the possibility of funding from other sources to cover proposed adjustments. Comm Recommendations would be brought to the budget committee and the council before 2/12/75 anything officially was done, and employes were being advised of the recommenda- File tions so they wou1d be aware of direction management was taking. W. Resignation, City Manager Hugh McKinley on or about March 21 was noted by Mayor Anderson. He wished Mr. McKinley a successful administration in the position of Comm city manager for the city of San Diego, California. Copies of memo from the 2/19/75 Manager were distributed pointing out Charter provisions covering appointment of File city manager, also suggested procedures for beginning the process of selecting a manager'. Comm 2/12/75 Pile. e x. Status, Goodpasture Island Commercial Study - In response to Councilman Keller, John Porter, planning director, said recommendations on the Goodpasture Island Comm area as well as the area immediately west of the central business district would 2/19/75 come from the February :4 ~eeting of the Planning Commission. It was expected File those recommendatic~s would be ready for the Council ?bout the first week in March. y. Lincoln School Building, Mr. Murray reminded Council members, would be the subject of a meeting at the District 4J Education Center, 200 North Monroe, this evening e, (February 19)., He hoped the matter wouldn't be considered a neighborhood concern since he felt it had city-wide implications. Comm 2/19/75, File 2/24/75 - 32 IOD e Z. Half-time Staffing - Councilwoman Beal inquired when a report could be ex- pected from staff on the proposal having to do with half-time staffing and sharing jobs rather than layoffs. Gary Long, personnel director, replied that it depended upon the time necessary to pull data together. The pro- posal would have productivity implicati0ns as well as increased costs, both of which would require research. If that research could be completed in a couple of weeks, he said, a report could be returned in that length of time. He noted that one of the provisions in the recent police agreement allowed for reduction in the work week, and that would have to be considered in any job-sharing proposal. Mrs. Beal suggested that data might be avail- able from the state or the school district, both had recently inaugurated such programs. Comm 2/19/75 File AA. Meeting re: Field Burning was announced by Mayor Anderson, to be held in the Council Chamber this evening (February 19) at 7:30 p.m. preliminary to legislative committee hearings on the open field burning issue scheduled for February 24 and 25. Comm 2/19/75 File BB. Distribution 1. List of publications received at City Hall and available to Council 2. Letter from Victor Hansen re: Bikeway Master Plan. 3. Letter from Joyce Owen re: Smoking in public meetings. Comm 2/19/75 File Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that and Item J excepting the portion pertaining to affirmed, and filed as noted. Rollcall vote. aye, except Councilwoman Beal not present, the Items A through I and K through BB, mall manager allocation be approved, All Council members present voting motion carried. eIV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 730 - Levying assessments for paving, sidewalks, and storm sewer on Norkenzie Road from Cal Young to Belt Line Road (73-18) read the first time on February 10, 1975 and referred to Hearing Panel for hearing February 17, 1975, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17257. Council Bill No. 731 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Royal Avenue from 600 feet west of Candlelight Drive to 160 feet west of Terry Street (74-06), read the first time on February 10, 1975 and referred to Hearing Panel for hearing February 17, 1975, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting 'aye, the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17258. e Council Bill No. 732 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Happy Lane from Goodpasture Island Road to 450 feet south; and streets within Delta View Subdivision (74-13), read the first time on February 10, 1975 and referred to Hearing Panel for hearing February 17, 1975, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. ' Mr. Keller moved seconded by passage. Rollo~ll vote. All passed and numbered 17259. Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given council members present voting aye, the bill was /0 I 2/24/75 - final declared 33 C.B.733 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on 18th Avenue from 100 feet northeast of Harvard Drive to 1056 feet west of Bailey Hill Road (74-22), read the first time on F~bruary 10, 1975 and referred to Hearing Panel for hearing on February 17, 1975, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being 4It no council member present requesting that it be read in f~ll. Staff recommended referring the bill to panel for hearing March 3, 1975 since one of the property owners had not received notice of February 17, 1975 heating in time to prepare a response. Mr. Keller moved seconded 'by Mr. Williams that the bill be referred to Panel for hearing on March 3, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations on March 10, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 734 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Calvin Street from Dulles Avenue to 300 feet north (74-26), read the -".',: _first time on February 10, 1975 and referred to Hearing Panel for hearing on February 17, 1975, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. I I Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17260.- Council Bill No. 735 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer south of Storey Boulevard east of Friendly Street and west of View Lane (74-51), read the first time on February 10, 1975 and referred to Hearing Panel for hearing on February 17, 1975, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. ~. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17261. Council Bill No; 740 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Edgewood West III, including paving of Brookside Drive from 909 feet south of 'Brae Burn Drive to the south 1700 feet; sanitary and storm sewers within area from 400 feet south to 2000 feet south of Brae Burn Drive from 1000 feet to 3000 feet west of Willamette Street (73-58) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be referred to Panel for hearing on March 3, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations on March 10, '1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 741 - Levying assessments for paving streets within Snelling Plat and Benson Plat (74-20) was read by council bill number and title only, there being -no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be referred to Panel for hearing on March 3, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations on March 10, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 742 - Levying assessments for paving Bailey Hill Road from 11th ~/ Avenue to 18th Avenue (74-28) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller mo~ed on March 3, 1975 March 10, 1975. seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be referred to Panel for hearing and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations on Motion carried unanimously. lC)2 2/24/75 _ 34 e -- e > Council B.ill No. 743 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between Stewar~Road and 11th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to Amazon Channel (74-30) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be referred to Panel for hearing on March 3, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations on March 10, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 744 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lots 500, 600, 700, and 800 off 30th, Avenue near Agate Street (74-50) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requestin that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be referred to Panel for hearing on March 3, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations on March 10, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. v - Resolutions Resolution No~ 2372 - Authorizing negotiations on Gillespie property east and west of Gilham Road south of Ayres Road for park purposes was read by number and title only. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, Hamel, and Haws voting aye; Council members Bradley and Shirey voting no; Councilwoman Beal not present. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey that if staff is not able to make satisfactory negotiations for purchase of the Gillespie property within a reasonable period of time, the item be brought back to the Council for possible dismissal. Councilman Williams asked for clarification - whether the item was to be brought back for further consideration or for dismissal. Mr. Hamel explained that his intent was that if the staff was unable to negotiate the sale, if the property owner would not sell, condemnation proceedings would be cancelled. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, ex- plained that the resolution just adopted was final - that it authorized condemnation. He recommended that if the Council wanted to consider the matter again prior to start of condemnation the motion should simply instruct staff to notify Council before a con- demnation suit was filed and at that time the Council would have the opportunity to repeal the condemnation authorization. City Attorney's recommendation was acceptable to both Council members Hamel and Shirey and it was understood the motion was to instruct staff to return to Council with the question of acquiring the Gillespie property prior to start of any condemnation proceedings if negotiations were unsuccessful. Motion carried unanimously, Councilwoman Beal not present. Resolution No. 2373 - Authorizing negotiations on property for Barger Drive right- of way was read by number and title only. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council member present voting aye (Mrs. Beal not present). . 103 2/24/75 - 35 Resolution No. 2374 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period February 10 ,through ~February 24, 1975 was read ,by number:,and title only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion ~arried, all council members present voting aye (Mrs. Beal not present). Resblut~on No. 2376 - Urging re-enactment of General Revenue Sharing was read by number and title only. Mr. Kel~er moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motioncarried, all council members present voting aye (Mrs. Beal no present). Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned. At~ A. K. Martin Asst. City Manager 2/24/75 - 36 10+ e - e.