Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/1975 Meeting e' (0001) (0042) e - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 10,1975 Regular meeting 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 March 10, 1975 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D.W.Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. Council members Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, and Tom Williams were absent. Mayor Anderson noted thet this was the last Council meeting Hugh McKinley would attend as city manager. The Mayor expressed his personal thanks and the Council's appreciation for the manager's fine service. Mr. McKinley responded that he had enjoyed his 14 years with the city, that it was a gratifying experience because of the two mayors and the people who had served as council ~embcrs, all giving so much of their time. I - Public Hearings A. Liquor License Application - The Winery, 90 Oakway Mall COAl - New Requested by Gary OlSOl1. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to set public hearing on the application for the March 10 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/26/75 Pub Hrng Oregon Liquor Control Commission report indicated from interviews in the area that four objected to the issuance of the license, 17 did not object, and four were noncommittal. Staff had no reason to recommend against the application other than that the building was not yet constructed and city codes would have to be met prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Public hearing was opened'. Fred VanHerwaarden, operator of The Bavarian, a restaurant at 444 East 3rd Avenue, said he had applied for a "hard liquor" license which had been denied by the OLCC after the city's recommended approval. He said the basis of the Commission's denial was too many outlets in that area, mentioning the Charter Oak Restaurant license in the Oakway Mall at that time but since discontinued. How he was' wondering why a new establishment would be considered before his application. Also, whether the city's recommendation was considered by the OLCC. He asked what procedure he should follow if this license was granted. Manager answered that the city's recommendation is required, but it mayor may not be followed by the OLCC. Normally, if the city recommendation is negative rarely does the OLCC issue the license although they have the legal authority to do so. If the city recommendation is favorable, the OLCC frequently denies the license because of a different set of standards. There are only so many licenses issued per thousand population. He added that Mr. VanHerwaarden had the right to testify before the OLCC when this license was considered. He also had the right to re- apply for his greater privilege license. Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried unanimously. B. Staff Appeal, Sign Code Board of Appeals variance south of 1-105, east of Coburg Road - Obie Communications Granted February 17, 1975 to Obie Communications Corporation for continuance of billboard on parcel without highway street frontage. 105 3/10/75 - 1 Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Murray to set hearing on the appeal for the March 10 Council meeting. Corom Councilman williams questioned whether the appeal should go first to 2/26/75 the hearing panel, but Assistant Manager answered that Council bylaws PubHrng did not so specify. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Manager explained that all backup material was not made available to Council members. He recommended carrying the matter over to the first meeting in April. There were no objections from the appellants. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to reschedule the hearings on the appeal at the April 14, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. e C. Echo Hollow West PUD - Enforcement Action (0200) Manager read February 11, 1975 memo from the planning department (copies previously distributed to Council members) reviewing the history of the Echo Hollow planned unit development and a detailed list of work yet to be completed. He noted that the project had changed ownership since its initiation resulting in some confusion and some of the problems. Public hearing was opened. Larry Cooley, 241 East Broadway, attorney representing Joe Green, owner and de- veloper, said that the majority of'the items yet to be completed would'be taken care of within the six months enforcement period. However, he questioned the need for relocation of the mail boxes (Item 7). He said they could be moved if the Council wished, but the developer was not aware of any reason requiring their relocation. He noted the sidewalks had not been installed because truck access was required until completion of construction. They would be put in when that was completed, he said. With regard to the swimming pool and equipment (Item 3), Mr. Cooley recognized that the pool was included in the original plans but noted that the planning department at one time thought it impractical because Echo Hollow pool was so near. Alternatives had been presented previously, he said, but not followed through. He thought something could be worked out, but he was not saying the pool would be installed as shown in the plans. With regard to Item 2 requiring shutters and under-window accent panels on all buildings, Mr. Cooley said they were not contained in the working drawings and because it was not known what they were he felt they should not be a condition imposed by the Council. Also, he felt this "extra" on the outside of the buildings would only add to the cost and be passed on to the tenants in higher rents. He asked also that Item 1 requiring remedial work on the sanitary sewer system not be made a condition of project completion. He noted agreement with the city dated March 6, 1973 giving the city the right to test the lines to determine whether they were working properly. He said inadequate slope in some of the lines at time of their installation did not meet specifications spelled out by the build- ing code. However, he said Mr. Green had had the lines checked by a registered civil engineer, they do work, and under the terms of the March 6~ 1973 agreement that was all the city expected. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. In ans.wer to Councilman Murray with regard to alternatives on the mailboxes, window accents, and the swimming pool, Jim Saul, planner, said the relocation of the mailboxes was recommended because they were placed where there was sup- posed to be a sidewalk. He said he had no knowledge of the alternatives on the swimming pool mentioned. It was approved as a part of the original plans 3/10/75 - 2 '. JOb e .: (0437) e (0478) e (0544) . and if there was to be a change in that respect it would have to go back to the Planning Commission as a major change in the project. The window accents and shutters, he said, were submitted as part of the plan also. They probably would not add anything of a significant structural advantage, their inclusion would probably be a ~atter of judgment in the structural element of the project. On questioning from ~1anager, Ed Smith, parks director, said he knew of nothing about alternatives to the swimming pool nor did anyone else concerned with the project. COn Allen, public works director, asked that the requirement for remedial work on the sanitary sewer system not be removed from the list of conditions, saying his department had not been furnished any information from a registered civil engineer. He explained that the lines were not functioning properly, there was surcharge from the manholes on the project itself, and until public owkrs saw the data referred to they would not want the required remedial work removed as a condition of completion. Manager added that with regard to the swimming pool it would appear the developer s~ould present any alternative proposal to the Planning Commission as soon as possible so he would know whether it could be completed within the six-month enforcement period. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to proceed with enforcement action to assure compliance with the contractual provisions of the Echo Hollow West PUD as listed in the February 11, 1975 planning department memo. In response to Councilman Haws, Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said this action would not fall under Fasano regulations. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Manager noted that a resolution spelling out specific work to be completed ln line with action taken would be brought for adoption at the March 24, 1975 Council meeting. C. Community Development Application Manager explained that the Community Development Task Force, chaired by Council- man Murray, had developed over the last three months an application to HUDin- dicating distribution of money Eugene would receive from hIock grant funds. The distribution was based on the assumption (1) that the city ~ould receive only $422,000 as its basic entitlement, and (2) that because of inequities in the distribution formula HUD would grant discretionary funds under the hardship regulations that would bring the city's entitlement to its normal level of about $1,300,000 over the next three-year period. Councilman Murray described the process of preparing the application, leaning heavily on community goals statements in order to meet the needs that could be addressed through this means - social services, housing conditions, traffic patterns, etc. The process involved neighborhood groups and interested citi- zens through a ballot cistributed throughout the community. Major emphasis was placed on the needs of the central city neighborhoods. Task Force analysis showed those areas had the greatest needs that could be addressed through the communi ty development process. I-Ie noted that al though the needs as usual far outstripped the avai lab1e dollars, the Task Force was pleased with the results of its work and felt the recommendations presented were a significant beginning step toward tackling some of the problems which had been postponed for several years. /07 3/10/75 - 3 Public hearing was apened. Annabel Kitzhaber, 1892 West 34th Avenue, president af the League af Wamen Vaters, 4It strangly supparted appraval af the applicatian as prepared and the priarities autlined, with greatest emphasis an hausing and the cammunity's central areas. The anly regret, she said, was that the amount af maney available was sa small. She expressed appreciatian to. the Task Farce members far sa much af their time in preparing the applicatian. lane Pierran, 1360 Ferry Street, also. cammended members af the Task Farce far their wark. She asked the Cauncil to. give cansideratian to. recammendatians made at Task Farce hearings that same af the cammunity develapment funds be ear- marked far the West University Neighbarhaad. The WON thaught same af the funds shauldbe used to. purchase praperty far use as a neighbarhoad center in that area, preservatian of an histaric landmark, and develapment af a neighbarhaad park. She said the WON felt they had nat received adequate attentian in the planned use of funds. Public hearing was cla~sed, there being no. further testimany. Cauncilman Murray explained that maney was allawed far histaric preservatian if the supplemental funds were received. If supplemental funds were nat allawed, he said, all thase items listed in the secand level af funding wauld have priarity rating in the secand year af the pragram. Also., the prapasal far a neighbcirhaad center in the West University area was carefully cansidered. No. specific actian was taken, he said, but that did nat specifically pre- clude its cansideratian in later funding since the need far a cammunity center in that neighbarhaad was recagnized. With regard to. develapment af parks in ~ neighbarhaad areas, he said, funds wauld be set aside in the secand level af funding far that type af develapment if supplemental funds became available. Mr. Murray gave recagnitian to. the cantributian af ather Task Farce members in warking aut the prapasal to. be submitted. My. Murray maved secanded by Mr. Hamel to. adapt the applicatian as presented and instruct staff to. prepare the apprapriate resalutian for cansideratian at the March 24, 1975 Cauncil meeting. Cauncilman Hamel felt the Willakenzie area, which he represents, was very badly neglected in the prapased distributian af funds. He acknawled~d that bike paths were requested but felt the three days given the newly arganized neighbarhaad graup in that area to. review the prapased applicatian was nat enaugh time to give them opportunity to. submit a cancrete prapasal. Mr. Murray explained pra- visians under the hausing arid apen space and parks sectians which would provide appartunities to. the Willakenzie and Bethel neighborhaods in the second and third years af fund distributian. Manager inquired abaut $30,000 under hausing sites earmarked for each of the Laurelhill and Crest Drive areas. Jahn Parter, planning director, said funds earmarked for hausing canstructian were being used far site purchases in anticipa- tion afreceiving the smaller amaunt af funding. If additianal funds were re- ceived that would nat have to. be dane. Vate was taken an the matian as stated. Matian carried, all Council members present vating aye. . 3/10/75 - 4 J08 (0743) e e . (0780) e E. Zoning newly-annexed area in vicinity of Dillard Road. East 43rd Avenue. South Shasta Loop - From County RA Suburban to City RA Suburban Resi- dential (Planning Commission)(Z 74-28) Recommended by the Planning Commission on February 4, 1975. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. No ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of February 4, 1975 were entered as part of this record by reference thereto- Council Bill No. 745 - Zoning newly-annexed area in vicinity of Dillard Road, East 43rd Avenue, South Shasta Loop to RA Suburban Residential 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. Hamel that findings supporting the zoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of February 4, 1975 be adopted by reference thereto; that the council 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. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17262. F. Vacations 1. Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road intersection and renaming streets accordingly (City)(SV 74-4) - Recommended by the Planning Commission on October 21, 1974. Carried over from the February 24, 1975 Council meeting. Manager described the realignment of Fox Hollow and Dillard Roads to accommodate improvement of the intersection, making the old right-of-way unnecessary. He said the project was completed and the vacation would clear the records. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Manager noted phone call received from Mrs. Bertha King objecting to change in her street address as a result of the intersection improvement. Council Bill No. 737 - Vacating Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road intersection 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. Hamel 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. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17263. Council Bill No. 738 - Renaming streets according to vacation of Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road intersection was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. /09 3/10/75 - 5 Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be read the second time by ~ouncil 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. tit Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given fin~l passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17264. 2. Slope Easements, Chula Vista Boulevard (City Parks)(SV 72-11) Manager explained previous vacation of Chula Fista Boulevard which did not include the slope easements. This vacation would accomplish that and was recommended if sewer easements were acquired. Staff recommended withholding Mayor's signature until those easements were obtained. (0828) Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 746 - Vacating slope easements, Chula Vista Boulevard, 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. Hamel that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment 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. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17265 with the understanding the Mayor's signature ~ would be withheld pending acquisition of sewer easements. 3. Easement between Golden Garden Street and Danebo Avenue north of Burnett Street (G.VanDevender)(EV 74-10) Recommended by the Planning Commission on December 23, 1974 on the basis that the easement no longer had public purpose. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 747- Vacating easement between Golden Garden Street and Danebo Avenue north of Burnett Street 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. Hamel that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bi 11 number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All co-ncil members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17266. II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed in committee meeting on February 26, 1975 (Present: Mayor ~, Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws). Minutes of that meeting appear below printed in italics. 3/10/75 - 6 110 . e e A. Legislative Subcommittee Recommendations - February 24, 1975, submitted by Council- man Haws. Mobile Home Legislation - Draft of form letter was submitted to Council members for approval. It would be sent to Lane County legislators and others as needed calling attention to Eugene's concerns about several mobile home bills introduced in the Legislature, some of which would require municipal governments to place mobile homes on single lots and others which would preempt local control. Mr. Haws said the subcommittee was not opposed to mobile homes themselves, rather it was felt more informa- tion was needed before a stand taken. H.B.2692 - Oppose, since it provides for exemption from subdivision or land parti- tion regulations those lands in agricultutral use at time of subdivision or partition and which continue in that use for one year. H.B.2573 - Support, with modification, the provision in this legislation which would prohibit division of assessment against property in city or county unless applicant for such assessment provides evidence that division met requirements of partition regulations. The subcommittee felt that segre- gation of assessments should be permitted even if partition resulted in substandard building lots, and that the fact that lots were or were not substandard at the time of segregation should be recorded with the County prior to segregation. Oppose the provision in this legislation which would allow a majority of landowners objecting to a nonisland or health hazard annexation to nul- lify such annexation. The subcommittee position was based on absence of restrictions in the bill upon definition of landowners, such as amount of land they were required to own. H.B.2l4l - Support. Would allow 10% income tax credit for home improvement. H.B.2299 - Support, Would require distribution of revenues l1Onthly, rather, than quarterly, within five working days of end of preceding month. H.B.2420 - Oppose. Would place time limit of five years within which former owners could reclaim property taken in eminent domain. The subcommittee felt this legislation would hinder long-term development of airports, parks, etc. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve subcommittee recom- mendations as presented, including proposed letter with regard to mobile home legislation. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/26/75 Approve S.B.5510 - Council was asked for authorization to present city's stand in opposi- tion to this legislation at hearing Thursday, February 27. It would reduce cities' share of liquor revenues an estimated 179 per capita to meet federal requirement for state cash matching funds on law en- forcement grants to local governments. There were no objections from Council, and it was understood testimony would be. presented on behalf of the city of Eugene in opposition. Comm 2/26/75 Approve B. Legislative Subcommittee Recommendations - March 3, 1975 Approve Present: Councilmen Williams and Haws. 1. The subcommittee requested that Ed Johnson testify on H.B.2199 which has previously received Council approval. Said bill subjects public employer to mass transit taxing. 11/ 3/10/75 - 7 2; Staf~ requested support on two measures and suggested that two letters out- lining their position be mailed to legislators. The subcommittee approved support of H.B.203l which would require statewide registration of bicycles .' 21" or over. The subcommittee withheld their support of the proposal to de- leteSection 143 of S.B.l as that section prohibits police officers from conducting "frisk and search" operations of persons stopped for Class B, C, and D violations. A copy of the proposed letter with regard to deletion of S~ction 143 from S.B.l and that portion of the proposed code are attached for information in case the Council would like, this matter reconsidered. . 3. The subcommittee has considered several bills affecting various areas of personnel practices or labor relations. In order to take a consistent posi- tionon these matters and to give the staff time to respond, the subcommittee adopted the proposal to authorize the City Manager to represent the 'city in legislative discussions within the guidelines listed in the attached document. 4. The subcommittee also considered several bills referred to it by the Traffic Safety Commission and dealt with them as follows: H.B.200l - Requires motor vehicle operators to be re-examined for renewal of license with waiver provisions by MVD possible. Also ex- tends period from two to four years. Recommend approval. H.B.2002 - Expands examinations to include additional safety knowledge. Recommend approval. S.B.3 - This new provision allows juveniles under 15 years of age to be cited into juvenile court which would be able to impose fines, suspend, place limitations, and take other remedial action. The adult court shall have original jurisdiction over any proceeding involving motor vehicle offenses by children at least 15 years of age, but under 18. Recommend approval. S.B.123 - Requires installation and use of safety belts. Recommend opposition. e 5. Othe~ bills considered by the subcommittee were: S.B.499 - Authorizes Council to designate city planning commission to hear appeals from hearing officer on land use matters. Recommend approval of the concept as this allows the Council the option of having appeals heard by the Councilor Planning COnmUssion. It was felt, however, that it would be most appropriate to withhold action on this bill until the bill prepared by the staff and to be introduced by Representative Frohnmayer is considered. That bill would make substantial changes to ORS 227 far beyond that contained in S.B.499. S.B.582 - Limits attacks against validity of land use matters decided by any governmental representative to defects resulting in substantial injury, that are prejudicial in nature. Recommend approval. S.B.630 - Requires economic impact report for all zone and land use changes. Authorizes court challenge to accuracy of report; permits court to order revision of report. Recommend opposition as this bill would complicate land use decisions' without known benefits to any party. H.B.2509 - Prohibits use of power of eminent domain for acquisition of lands zoned for farm use for parks or recreational facilities or access thereto. Recommend opposition. e, 3/10/75 - 8 J /2 e C. Appointment, Historic Review Board - Nominees named by Mayor Anderson Joan Rich (Mrs.Stuart), 2050 Madison Street, member of the League of Women Voters; Jan Muller, 1670 Fairmount Boulevard, Countryman Realty; Jack Boettcher, 2860 Alta Vista Court, U.S.National Bank; and Dorothy Gilmore (Mrs.Phil), 2350 City View Street. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to confirm the appoint- ments as nominated. Motion carried unanimously. were: Comm 2/26/75 Approve D. Selection of City Manager to replace Hugh McKinley, resigned - Assistant Manager commented on copies of memo distributed previously from Hugh McKinley (absent now because of illness) suggesting procedures for selection of his replacement. He also reported limited investigation by Mr. McKinley with regard to consulting firms to assist in recruiting and screening if the Council wished to pursue that method of selection. e Mayor Anderson favored use of a consulting firm because of the time consuming task of narrowing down the number of applicants anticipated. Councilman Williams agreed, suggesting choice of perhaps twelve candidates by a consulting firm, the Council then choosing six to interview, with the final choice made from those six. Council- men Haws and Keller thought that process would have to be used, recognizing limited time of Council members and expertise that professional help would contribute. Mr. Keller wondered if the Council would have the opportunity to meet with the consulting firm before recruitment was started. Assistant Manager answered that that would be helpful not only in getting an understanding of what the Council wanted or expected from the recruiting but also to have that understanding out of the way before recruiting started so that there would be no "stumbling block" dur- ing the selection process. Councilman Bradley asked how the recruiting firm would be selected, criteria on which selection would be based. Assistant Manager answered that Mr. McKinley indi- cated he had checked on three firms that would be satisfactory based on services to other communities. In response to Councilman Williams, Assistant Manager said two of the firms checked on did have people "in the field" who could be scheduled to come to Eugene for interview before any firm is selected. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to authorize the City Manager to contact three firms he would recommend and ask them if they would be willing to send representatives to meet with the City Council to discuss the type of services the firms would be willing to render. Motion car- ried unanimously. Councilman Haws wondered if there would be a time limit, and Councilman Hamel asked about the approach if the selection process took longer than the time Hugh McKinley would still be in Eugene. Mayor Anderson explained the Charter requirement for his appointment of a manager pro tem if the position was vacant two weeks. Assistant Manager Keith Martin, recognizing the sensitivity of the subject, strongly encouraged the Council to recruit as aggressively as possible. He said Eugene would be considered a "plum" in the city management profession and a lot of qualified people would be interested in the position. He commended the department heads for their capability and said there would be no problems with the city's operation during the time it would take to select the most capable person for the manager position. e\ Councilman Bradley after discussion with Stan Long, assistant city attorney, on Charter requirements for pro tem and permanent appointment suggested the Council discuss appointment of an acting manager for not less than six months and one day nor more than one year. He said that would avoid Charter provisions and at the same time would not preclude the acting city manager from seeking permanent ap- pointment. Councilman Williams thought that type of appointment would give an //3 3/10/75 - 9 indication of prejudice and might discourage others from seeking the position. Assistant Manager agreed with that opinion and said he thought there were other ways of dealing with a pro tem appointment without affecting the city's operation. Neither could Councilman Murray see the need for a process different that that initially suggested by the Manager. Councilman Bradley asked then whether Assistant Manager Martin in actuality would be "runnil}g the show" if a department head was appointed manager pro tem. Also, whether a pro tem appointee would receive the same salary now paid to the Manager. The Mayor;; explained that one of the duties of assistant manager was to act in place of the manager so in actuality he would be serving as manager. He said he would appoint someone who obviously was not a candidate for the position and who would return to his departmental position upon a permanent manager appointment. He added that the pro tem appointee would receive his same salary in the pro tem period, not that of the manager. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize the Mayor to proceed with appointment of a pro tem manager and to carry out the procedure outlined for selection of a permanent manager. Mr. Williams suggested inclusion in the motion of the Council's intent that the assistant city manager would in fact be performing the duties of the city manager during the time the position was filled by a pro tem appointee. Mr. Murray had no objection and it was made a part of the motion. Councilman Haws questioned the legality of the motion in that the position was not yet vacant. Mayor Anderson said pro tem appointment wouldn't be made until the .position had been vacant two weeks, but the motion would serve to outline the procedure to be followed. Councilman Bradley asked whether the Council should be involved in the Mayor's selection of the pro tem appointee. Mr. Keller felt the majority of the Council had confidence in the Mayor's ability to make a proper selection in view of his close relationship with department heads. He also noted the Charter specifically stated that as the Mayor's responsibility. Mayor Anderson said it was his intent to notify Council members of his choice prior to announcement so that if there were any strong objections there could be a retraction. Assistant Manager suggested following city attorney's suggestion of adopting a resolution which would spell out the pro tem manager responsibilities as desired by the Council. He referred in particular to the hiring and firing of city per- sonnel, suggesting that authority be delegated to the pro tem manager except as it applied to department heads. In further discussion, Mr. Long explained that that authority would have to be delegated since the permanent appointee has it under the Charter, the pro tem manager would not have that authority. In response to Councilman Bradley's question whether such a resolution would effectively amend the Charter in that respect, Mr. Long at the suggestion of Mayor Anderson said he would research the question and bring a response back with a draft of the resolution. Councilman Murray withdrew the original motion"with consent of the second and substituted a motion seconded by Councilman Keller that the city attorney prepare and bring back a resolution specifying Council intent to have the assistant city manager carry out the duties and functions n~rmally assigned to him in the absence of the manager, and that further the resolution give hiring and firing authority to the assistant city manager in .that period during which the city is without a permanent manager and that hiring and firing except as it applies to department heads can be carried out by the pro tem manager wi thout Council, approval,. Motion carried, all Council members present votlng aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no. 3/10/75 - 10 / 14 e e Comm 2/26/75 Approve A, .W E. Charter, Fairmount Neighbors was previously distributed to Council members. Copies, of letter from Camilla Pratt, acting secretary of the group, were distributed at this . meeting explaining process leading to formal organization of the group. Also distributed were maps outlining areas of the various existing neighborhood organizations. Staff had no objections to approval of the charter. Councilman Haws said there seemed to be no provision for giving notice of executive committee meetings. He wondered whether those meetings were open to the membership. He also noted two areas - north of the River (the east Willakenzie area), and im- mediately west of the downtown area between the Westside Quality Project and the Friendly area - not represented by neighborhood organizations and wondered whether staff would be considering those. Randi Reinhard, planning, answered that most of the neighborhood organizations did not have notice requirements for executive committee meetings. It was assumed ample notice would be given through newsletters since they were regularly scheduled meetings and open. Ms. Reinhard mentioned staff contact with people in the downtown area be- tween Westside and Friendly and the interest there in possibly joining the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project group. The other area east of the downtown and north of the River was mostly University-owned or commercial property. She added that there had been some planning of an organization in the Churchill area. Assistant ManageL thought it important that the city stay in the position of allowing people to initiate their own neighborhood groups or smaller areas merging with existing groups. In re- sponse to Councilman Haws, he said there were budgetary implications but they were not large enough at this time to be of concern. Councilman Bradley asked why there was no reference to age limits in the charter. He felt there was inconsistency, that there should be equal application of ~ge limits - members in one group could vote regardless of age, in other groups voting was limited to certain ages. Ms. Reinhard explained that members of the Fairmount group had a number of younger people, high school age, interested and active in the group so it was felt they should be allowed to participate. The organization policy adopted by the city, she said, allowed each neighborhood to set its own restrictions. Assistant Manager noted that age was not a consideration when the Council adopted the neighbor- hood organization policy, age limitations now would require a policy change. John Porter, planning director, called attention to the advisory capacity of the neighbor- hood groups, voting in those groups was not a crucial issue since final authority rested with the Council. e e Councilman Bradley wondered to what degree the group would act in an advisory capacity "to influence the decisions of city, county, and state officials" as set out in the charter and whether that clause was common to all neighborhood charters. Assistant Manager said guidelines for organization were presented to neighborhoods to give them an opportunity to present their views on issues before the planning commission or council and they were considered advisory in that sense. Also it would give the Council assurance that presentation of views on certain issues were given by recog- -nized spokesmen for the various neighborhoods. Mr. Porter added that the provision was clearly within the intent of the neighborhood organization policy adopted by the Council. Mayor Anderson left the meeting. Council President Murray assumed the chair. Mr. Murray said that there was never any intent in considering adoption of neighbor- hood charters to define how the groups would function. the only purpose was to con- sider whether the city would be comfortable with those sections wherein it would be involved. Unless charter provisions were found to be contrary to the adopted policy, he said, the only proper course of action was to approve. He recognized probable usefulness of a policy review to determine uniformity of some charter provisions and he understood that would be attempted when the need was felt. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the Fairmount Nei ghbors charter. Motion carried unanimousl.y. Cown 2/26/7.5 ApprovF 1/5 3/10/75 - 11 F. Greenway:Acquisition - Council was requested to write Governor Straub as has Lane County urging LCDC to act quickly on the Greenway Plan and terminate the present moratorium on acquisition because Eugene and Lane County are held up on their purchase program. Corr.m . 2/26/75 Approve Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that a letter be written as requested. Motion carried unanimously. G. Home Repair Program - Joint Housing Committee recommended allocation of $29,667 of general revenue sharing funds set aside for housing to continue the city's home re- pair program, that program to be expanded to include low-income homeowners under 62 (last 'year's program specified eligibility for only those over 62 or disabled). Projections indicated that $4,667 of the $29,667 would be spent to help pay Lane County Division of Social Services administrative costs of the program. Copies of the present program description were previously distributed to Council members. Co~nqilm~n Haws wondered why it would take almost $5,000 to administer a $25,000 program and whether the staff was recommending that expenditure. Robin CUphman, planning department, said the money allocated for last year's program was spent en- tirely for materials and labor. The County this year is extending the prograln to all of Lane County so the city was asked to participate in the administrative costs. And the staff was recommending that participation. Assistant Manager added that the nature of the program - many small projects - resulted in higher overhead costs. Councilman Keller asked if funds were contributed from other sources. It seemed to him that again Eugene was supplying revenues for other agencies to spend. He asked if it wasn't the original and primary intent of the program to help the elderly. Ms. Cushman said Springfield anticipated putting in about $22,000 in community de- velopment funds if those funds were forthcoming. There has been no decision yet by the County or smaller communities, she said, but there was a much larger potential than just the city of Eugene's share. The intent in recommending eligibility for ~ those younger than 62 was to further the city's housing dispersal pOlicy. In fur- ther response to Mr. Keller, Ms. Cushman said all of the funds allocated for last year's home repair program had been used. Councilman Murray remarked on the effectiveness of the home repair after having seen the really urgent need of people who may not otherwise have been able to maintain and stay in their homes. He said it was becoming increasingly apparent in his in- volvement with making recommendations for allocation of community development funds that there was a "subgroup" of low-income people usually left out, and he felt they would merit attention just as much as the elderly and handicapped. In response to his question whether the city's contributions were recognized, whether Eugene re- ceived its proportionate share of the service, Ms. Cushman answered that all of Eugene's contribution was spent within the city. Mr. Murray continued his opinion that expansion of the program to low-income homeowners of any age would be especially important given the community development process. He thought it would be wise to apprise the adminis- tratorof this home repair program of what the community development process was trying to accomplish so that the two programs could be co-ordinated. He saw the home repair program a~ a complement to the major effort of rehabilitating low--income housing through the community development process. He expressed the hope that some way could be found to extend the home repair services to other than just homeowners since it appeared a large percentage of those houses needing maintenance were not owner occupied. In discussion of eligibility requirements, Ms. Cushman explained that the description distributed was of the program now in effect. The proposal before the Council was for next year's program which was recommended to include also low-income homeowners under 62 with children. She said priorities would be assigned on a first-come, first-serve ~ basis so it was possible the money would continue to be used for the elderly who reques_, aid. If the program was expanded, it was assumed there would be negotiation between the county and city on eligibility and priority, the provisions decided upon to be spelled out in a new contract between the two. 3/10/75 - 12 /110 e e e Mr. Keller had no reservations about extending the program to the disabled but he did question extension to all low-income homeowners regardless of age, it being his under- standing the original intent was to help the elderly. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel not to extend the home repair program to low-income homeowners under 62 but to continue under the present program (homeowners over 62 and the disabled). Councilman Williams wondered about the rationale on which the Housing Committee based its recommendation to broaden the program to include low-income homeowners. Ms.Cushman said it was to further the dispersal of low-income housing in line with policy adopted by the Council. She added that the original $150,000 of revenue sharing funds granted last year had been used exclusively for the elderly and the Housing Committee felt the second $150,000 to be allocated this year should cover a broader group. Councilman Murray was opposed to continuing under the present program. He felt it should be expanded to be consistent with the Housing Committee's major concern that the second year's $150,000 be used for home repair an~ maintenance for all low-income families. Discussion continued on allocation of both last and this years' $150,000 revenue sharing funds with Ms. Cushman answering Councilman Bradley that if this request was denie~ the $150,000 would then be intact and the Housing Committee probably would solicit other proposals. She said it would not be transferring funds earmarked for the elderly. In response to Councilman Keller, Ms. Cushman said there was no reason the funds could not be used to continue the existing program as stated in the motion. Councilman Bradley asked if the home repair program could be funded later through com- munity development funds if it was not funded in the manner proposed now. Councilman Murray answered that that was one option, but in that process there would be more specific designation in terms of geographic location, priorities, amounts to be spent in certain areas, etc., plus particular emphasis on priorities to low-income people. However, the development budget would be extremely limited for extensive needs and he felt the home repair program would be better as a compl~ment to community development rather than being funded through it. Councilman Hamel didn't think it was out of line to continue the present program, giv- ing aid primarily to the elderly and handicapped, and called for the question. Councilman Murray commented that this recommendation would recognize the Joint Hous- ing Committee's goals in terms of serving those who would not likely be served under the present program. Mr. Hamel said he understood that all the needs of the elderly were not met even now. Vote was taken on the motion as stated, to allocate the funds but to continue the home repair program only for those older than 62 and the disabled. Motion carried, Council members Keller, Williams, Bradley, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray and Haws voting no. Comm 2/26/75 See action below Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Haws to amend committee action to extend the home repair program to the low-income families as originally proposed by the Joint Housing Committee. Councilman Murray said the committee action denying this program to all low-income families would contradict previous actions in distributing these funds, especially as it applied to the housing dispersal program. He noted previous funds were denied by the housing committee because the program was limited to the elderly and not extended to all low-income families. The intent of the committee drafting the housing dispersal program, he said, was to hold down the cost of housing for low-inQome families. And on the basis of priorities set by the joint housing committee the budget committee set up the housing fund, its major use to assist low-income families. He thought the rec~rd was clear as to the purposes for which funds were to be used, and to approve the comm1ttee action restricting the home repair program to the elderly only would be a serious con- tradiction and not easily explained. /17 3/10/75 - 13 Councilman Hamel said his understanding was that the home repair program was to 4It assist the aged, 62 years and older, and the disabled, 50 years and older. He didn't think all the needs of people in those categories had been taken care of yet. Vote was taken on the motion to amend committee action. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Bradley and Hamel voting no. Zone Cha~ge on area south of Kingsley Road between Goodpasture Island Road and H. Willamette River - From County AGT to C-2 PD (Smith, Brown & Howell) Letter was received from Laurence E. Thorp, attorney representing Clarence Brown, one of the applicants, requesting that the application - tabled June 25, 1973 pend- ing consideration of Goodpasture Island commercial study - be removed from the table and a decision reached. Staff recommended suspension of rules before consideration of whether to take the issue from the table to give staff and Mr. Thorp opportunity without constraints to present options available to the Council if the issue was opened to further debate. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the rules be suspended and staff and Attorney Thorp present arguments prior to decision on whether to remove the issue from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Copies of vicinity map showing location of the property in question were distributed to Council members. Assistant Manager stated the Planning Commission had acted on the Goodpasture Island study (Livingston & Blayney report) and recommendations would soon be before the Council. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained that suspension of the rules was recom- mended to give the opportunity for discussion by the Council members of testimony which might be presented at this time and to clarify the record since the tabling action took place before Fasano regulations came into being in January 1974. He said the request to remove from the'table could be denied. However, that action would raise the possibility of mandamus proceedings. He added that that consequence was speculative since there was'no formal suggestion of litigation, but a denial of reopening would "se't the stage" and make possible applicant's request for a court order that the zoning issue be considered. If the application was removed from the table, Mr. Long said, there were three options available. The Council could reach a decision on the rezoning request based on the present written record of the previous hearings. This procedure would not be in line with circuit court ruling that members not attending meetings at which the question was considered could take part in the decision only upon review of verbatim transcript. Since membership of the' Council is now different from that at the time of the hearings on this request and since taped recordings were not being used at the time of the hearings, the Council could not now review the written minutes of the meetings and render a de- cision without running the risk of court reversal. The city is appealing this circuit court ruling and the Council could decide to act consistently with its prior decision and decide on the record available. Mr. Long added that in conversa- tion with Mr. Thorp the applicant had indicated any objection to review of verbatim transcript would be waived if the option was taken to reach a decision on the record available. Another option, Mr. Long continued, would be to reopen the issue and conduct a full hearing before this 'group of Council members. Or, if it was decided to reopen, the request could be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation. The Plan- ning Commission's previous recommendation to approve the requested change was made prior to establishment of the Fasano regulations and referral would be consistent with past practice. Assistant Manager added that copies of Commission recommendations on the Livingston & Blayney report would be distributed to Council members so they would be aware of e - 7./1n/7C _ 1A /18 e e e them before considering the zone change; indications were that if the matter was re- turned to the Planning Commission, a recommendation on it could not be back to the Council before July. Mr. Thorp identified himself as representing Clarence Brown, only one of the appli- cants party to the rezoning request and the owner of only one parcel involved - 40 acres out of the original 77 acres recommended for C-2 zoning. Also, that the request to reopen applied only to that parcel in Mr. Brown's ownership, he had no authority to represent either Smith or Howell. He reviewed the tabling action which had delayed a decision on the issue and said if tabling was continued, action could not be taken until at least July. Even then, if recommendations of the L&B report resulted in amendment to the General Plan, delay could be stretched to the end of the year or more. Mr. Thorp could see no justification for leaving the applicant "dangling" and said the Council was obligated to give an answer regard- less of whether the rezoning was granted or denied. The delay created practical and legal problems, he said, and his client was willing to permit this Council to review the record as it exists (written minutes), acknowledging complications re- sulting from the Fasano regulations. He noted that the authorization for the L&B study directed that findings be returned by July 1974 but they had not yet been considered, so whether the L&B study would have any effect either pro or con was nothing more than speculation. Withholding action of this rezoning request pending outcome of the L&B study, he said, would appear to indicate doubt about the validity of the General Plan as it exists. He requested removal of the issue from the table for decision on the rezoning at the March 10 Council meeting. Assistant Manager asked Mr. Thorp if it could be assumed that in agreeing to having the Council as now constituted render a decision based on the existing written record his arguments would be based on that record with no additional testimony. Mr. Thorp agreed that would be the case. In response to Councilman Murray, Mr. Long clarified the process for taking from the table. Only a majority vote was necessary, not a two-thirds vote of the Council. Councilman Keller asked if the decision would be made only by the four Council members and Mayor, if necessary, who were involved at the time the application was first considered, or whether the total Council would participate. Mr. Long said one of the options available was for the total Council to take part upon review of the minutes of meetings at which the rezoning issue was discussed. Councilman Williams asked whether choosing one of the options available would pre- clude the other two options, that is, if the choice was to make a decision on re- view of the record, could the Council then decide to reopen for hearing or refer to the Planning Commission. Mr. Long saw no reason why that couldn't occur. In response to Councilman Haws, Assistant Manager said if the issue was referred to the Planning Commission it would probably come back to the Council after considera- tion of the Goodpasture Island study. Councilman Williams wondered if there were any legal implications if the Council decided to make a decision on the written record from a couple of years ago on the assumption every Council member had reviewed the commercial study, but at the time of rendering the decision the Council again had before it the Commission's recom- mendations on the study even though action might already have been taken on them. Stan Long answered that it would depend probably on the option taken, there were an endless number of possibilities as to what could occur. The kind of evidence that would be presented in another full hearing before the Councilor the Planning Com- mission, if it was sent back, was a "question mark." If the record was reviewed and reopened for purpos7 of argument, a request that the Council take judicial notice of certain material might occur. In response to Assistant Manager's question whe- ther there would be legal implications in appearance of this issue on the same Council agenda March lO with consideration of the Commission's recommendation on /19 3/10/75 - 15 the commercial study, Mr. Long said it would depend upon what participants in hear- ing at that' time would do. Councilman Murray expressed reservations about removing the issue from the table. ... He reviewed actions leading to the request for the commercial study, some very .., heated deba.tes in the Council on possibili ty of commercial uses in the Goodpasture Island area', this particular rezoning request being one of several. It made little sense to him, he said, to now take action on a request for commercial use in that area when the results of the study were about to have Council consideration. This requested zone change appeared incompatible with recommendations of the study, and to act on it before acting on the recommendations would define future development of that are.a without consideration of the study which might be in accordance with or opposed to the General Plan as it now exists. He recognized the delay that had been involved but thought it better to wait a little longer rather than take action that might negate the results of all the time and effort involved in the commercial study. Councilman Haws wondered how long mandamus proceedings would take should that be the consequence of not removing the issue from the table. Mr. Long estimated from three months to two years, depending upon court action. If the case was lost in trial court, the decision to appeal might be made. Mr. Long said he was not sug- gesting that the applicant's attorney had any idea a writ of mandamus would be issued, but if it was, that challenge would have to be met. " Councilman .Keller asked if his understanding was correct that if the issue was opened again for review of just the minutes, any information gathered since those meetings relevant to the commercial study could not be considered. Mr. Long said the application would have to be decided on the basis of evidence in those minutes. However, if a h~aring was reopened, and testimony introduced regarding information in the commercial study, then that information could be taken into consideration. He added that the possibility that the study might result in amendment to the ~ General Plan was not a consideration. However, there could be some factual informa- tion in the report that might somehow be relevant. There would have to bedis- tinction between conclusions in the report and the possibility of an amendment to the 1990 Plan as opposed to the factual information in the report which might be relevant. Councilman Keller thought the proper action would be to send the rezoning applica- tion back to the Planning Commission and at the same time take under consideration recommendations on the L&B report, recognizing that the report could have an effect on the rezoning. He felt that at least would better the position of the applicant, he would not be waiting until July for a decision. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. williams to remove the rezoning application from the table and refer it to the Planning commission for h~aring process. Councilman Murray felt that action would place the Commission in a difficult posi- tion - ask~ng for a recommendation before disposing of the two-year process involved in the commercial study, especially when that action was just about to be taken. He agreed that the item should be taken from the table but thought the most de- sirable course, if final action wasn't taken, was to at least have new information on which to base consideration. Mr. Keller recognized the process the L&B report had been through, but he thought this issue could "fall in behind" consideration of that. Assistant Manager aft~r consultation with planning staff said the earliest meeting at which the Commission could consider the issue if it was referred would be the first meeting in April. If it was referred, it could be assumed the Council would have made some disposition of the commercial study. Mr. Keller said that in recognitio~ of the applicant's position as well as that of the city as a whole e 3/10/75 - 16 12.0 e e e there should be some expedition in that decision making during the month of March even if it meant a special meeting. Mr. Murray countered that it would be an awkward situation which hypothetically could occur if action was promised on the zone change and at the same time action on the study required amendment to the General Plan which LCOG might not accept. Assistant Manager said nothing was being promised so far as Commission action was concerned. Referral to the Commission would simply be to ask for a recommendation under changed circumstances within a reasonable time frame. In response to further questioning from Councilman Murray, Assistant Manager said if it was determined the General Plan needed revision, the earliest it could be referred to LCOG would be June or July. It would be a Commis- sion decision whether to act on the zone change request or withhold action pending Plan amendment. Mr. Murray could see nothing accomplished in that case, and Mr.Thorp felt it would be continuing the moratorium "by another name." He repeated his con- tention that a decision on the application had been continued beyond a reasonable length of time and that there was an obligation to give the applicant an answer, one way or the other. Also, that the decision should be made on the existing evidence. To say the L&B report would have a bearing was speculation. He said the Council was mandated by state law to zone in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan. Further delay would only result in more legal and practical snarls than now exist. Councilman Bradley thought appropriate action would be referral to the Planning Com- mission even though it might mean further delay for the applicant, there having been a change in circumstances. Having to deal with the issue under both established ordinances and the law requiring quasi-judicial procedure, he said, would require public hearing where all the facts could be presented on which to base a decision. Also, he thought the L&B report would be relevant, so the process should start over again. Councilman Williams recognized the problems in making a decision but he felt a deci- sion should be made. When Mr. Murray countered that he failed to see the urgency after the unusual delay to this time, Mr. Williams said when the study was ordered the moratorium on zoning in that area was to last a year. It has now continued substantially longer than that period of time, he said, and he felt an obligation to give an answer. Further discussion between Councilman Bradley and staff brought out that this was the only zone change application for that area pending at this time, no others were anticipated. The only other matter pending was an annexation request (Doerksen) farther north of the subject property. The property covered by this application (77 acres) was about 20% of the total Goodpasture Island area. Councilman Bradley suggested that a meeting between the Council and the Planning Com- mission might be appropriate to determine the procedure. Rules were re-established. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the zone change request (County AGT to C-2 PD on the Smith, Brown & Howell property) be removed from the table. Motion carried unanimously. Corom 2/26/75 Approve Further discussion centered on when the Council would take formal action with Mr.Keller saying he would be absent from the March 10 meeting. However, he recognized that a decision on any issue should not be delayed because some Council members might be absent. Assistant Manager advised that existing evidence would include much more than minutes of the Council meeting at which the issue was tabled. The entire record including planning staff notes and minutes would be presented to the Council. Councilman Williams had to leave the meeting but said he would favor reopening the hearing before either the Planning Commission or the Council, but he would not want to make a decision on the previous record alone. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr,. Hamel to reconsider the zone change request based on the existing record. I Z J 3/10/75 - 17 Councilman Bradley didn't think a fair and accurate decision could be made on review of the existing record because it was not an actual transcript. Mr. Thorp said they would waive any objection to review of the existing record as opposed to a verbatim ... transcript. But that was not Mr. Bradley's concern. He said a proper decision .., could not be made without a verbatim transcript before either the Commission or the Council. Vote was taken on the motion to reconsider based on existing record. Motion defeated, Councilman Keller voting aye; Councilmen Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws voting no. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to refer the zone change re- quest to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws voting aye; Council- man Keller voting no. Comm 2/26/75 See action below ~1r. Nurray moved seconded by ~lr. Hamel to suspend the rules and remove the rezoning application from the table. :-10t ion carried unanimously. Laurence Thorp reviewed the history of the zone change request citing specific meeting dates at which it was considered and actions taken. He also noted th~ commercial study ordered by the Council, completed by Livingston and Blayney, and delay of the zoning request until that study was completed. Mr. Thorp said he would be speaking to the issue of referral of the request back to the Planning Commission (action taken by the Council in commi ttee-of-the-\.;hole meet- ing - see minutes above). He repeated his client's statement during committee discussion that if Council members based their decision upon a review of the e written record he would not object to the fact that tllcre was no verbatim transcript. lie said that state law mandated action on the request, and since it had been almost three years since the rezoning application was filed he thought action should be taken now. He cited several actions which he said indicated the Council did not want to make a decision. Referral to the Planning Commission now, he said, would delay it again and he thought the applicants had waited long enough, that the Council had a legal and moral obligation to mak~ a decision. He recommended a 30-daydeadline for retuin of a recom~endation from the Planning Commission, if the Council decided to go ahead with the referral, so that the owners would not have to wait out another extended delay and would know what they could do with the property. Councilman Murray asked for correction of the February 26, 1975 committee-of-the- whole minutes to shO\" that he. did not agree that the item should be taken from the table and that he voted no on the motion to remove it from the table. The corrections were so ordered. ~tr. ~lurray noted the wording of the motion at the time the issue \lIas tabled (June 25, 1973) was critical to action to be taken now - that the application was tabled pending completion of the refinement study of the Goodpasture oppor- tunity area for the purpose of establishing criteria for determining what de- velopment should occur there. The revie\1I of that study \lias no\\' in process. He reviewed actions taken by the Council with regard to the Goodpasture Island area. He said action \lIas &Oon to be taken with regard to the commercial study which _.. would help resolve the questions faced in determining land use in the Goodpasture ... Island area. To step outside that process.no\\', he said, and act on the subject rezoning request would defeat the intent of previous actions. He said that if the item:was removed from the 'table prior to completion.of the study review, 3/10/75 - 18 122 e the applicant could argue that conclusions drawn in the study were not valid, that only the 1990 Plan should be considered. Furthermore, to make a decision on this rezoning request now would have the appearance of giving someone the opportuni ty of "getting in under the wire" before pol ic ies \,'ere adopted. Since actions on the commercial study were so near completion, he said, they should be finished first, then consideration given to this issue as originally brought up. Councilman Hamel wondered when the commercial study would be completed. There was no specific date known. r,layor Anderson commented that the commercial study was undertaken in good faith, even though it had not been completed within the six-month period originally set. He thought the Council acted \visel)' in trying to arrive at a good plan before zoning action in the Goodpasture Island area. He agreed with ~r. Murray that to open this issue again would obligate the Council to consideration of other applications in the same area. Manager noted contact after the Livingston and Blayney report was presented when applicant's attorney indicated that taking the question from the table at that time (July 1974) would probably result in denial. Only in the last two to three months, he said, had there been a diligent effort to bring this application back for Council action. ~lr.Thorp thought the thrust C'f Councilman ~Iurra)"s argument was that the Livingston and Blayney report would change the direction zoning.was already taking in that area and he said that was a "pretty big assumption." He thought it speculative to project how the zoning formula would change between now and some time in the future or that it would change at all. He \Vas asking for action nO\~ based on in- formation now available, or, if action on the commercial study was so near, that a specific date be set when action would be taken. e Councilwoman Shirey felt action on the study should be completed before action was taken on this request. that if a vote was taken before the study was com- pleted she \Vould have to vote no. Councilman Bradley thought the issue came down to the qllestion of the amount of time taken to act upon the application, that property interests and rights should not be jeopardized because of inefficiency witl\in the governmental process. He thought it appropriate to remove the item from the table and refer it to the Planning Commission. There were no objections to segregation of this item (Item H) for voting on committee action to refer the question to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Approval of committee action defeated, Council members Bradley and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray. Haws, and Shire)' voting no. I. Hearing Panel Report - March 3, 1975 Approve Present: Council members Williams and Haws; Assistant Public Works Director Don Gilman. e 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) Carried over from February 24 1975 Council meeting at the request of Mrs. Melissa Martinson who said she had not received notice of the February 17 hearing on the assessment. Staff reported notice had been sent to Mrs. Martinson of new hearing date (March 3, 1975) but she had not received that notice in time to prepare her protest. She therefore requested further postponement. It was understood that hearing on this council bill would be carried over to panel hearing scheduled for April 7, 1975. /23 3/10/75 - 19 'C.B.740 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewer within Edge- wood West III, including paving of Brookside Drive from 900 feet south of Brae Burn Drive to the south 1700 feet; sanitary and storm sewer within area from 400 feet south to 200fO f~et south of Brae(B7urn D)rive ~ from 100 feet west to 3000 feet west 0 W~llamette Street 3-58 No written protests were recieved, nor were there any requests to be heard. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. C.B.74i - Levying assessments for paving streets within Snelling Plat and Benson Plat (74-20) No written protests were received, nor were there any requests to be heard. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. C.B.742 - Levying assessments for paving Bailey Hill Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenue (74-28) Don Gilman, assistant director of public works, reviewed the Council initiated project for improvement of Bailey Hill Road to a 44-foot width as a part of the city's arterial system. properties abutting the street zoned commercial or in- dustrial were assessed for the full 44-foot width; developed residential, for a 28-foot width; and undeveloped residential, for 36-foot width. Copies of letter from Adena Joy, 2818 S. W. Poplar Way, Lake Oswego" were previously distributed to Panel members, objecting to assessment against prop- erty in her ownership at the corner of 18th and Bailey Hill. Ms. Joy wrote that the improvement should be paid for by the general public since it was for the benefit of the general public, residential qualities of the area were damaged by the improvement, and owners of properties damaged by the improvement should have to pay no more than 10% of the value of their property for the work. Dale Davis, president of Cascade Steel, 1381 Bailey Hill Road, protested the assess~ent on the basis that the few property owners along the street were pay- ing for a street to serve the entire southwest area of the city. He said it was another penalty for owning property on Bailey Hill Road, noting that it was a residential area although his property was industrial~ The assessment would add $1600 per acre to his property, he said, and he felt he had no way to re- cover that amount because it would have to be sold as residential property. In discussion wi th Councilman Williams, Mr. Davis recounted the history of zon- ing of the property - purchased as industrial, partially rezoned to residential in accordance with the General Plan, agreement with the city that if and when the property changed hands the balance would be zoned residential. - Councilman Williams wondered whether similar circumstances had ever been faced by the city before. He assumed it ,was a question of whether property being phased out of industrial or commercial use should be assessed the full 44-foot width. Mr. Gilman was not aware of any precedent. But Mr. Davis said his main point was that he didn't feel people in a two- or three-block area should pay for a road serving a larger area. Mr. Williams explained the city's assessment policy and the thesis that all streets in the city at some time would be improved for the use of all citizens. Those pay- ing for this street would also be using streets paid for by others in other areas of the city. Mr. Gilman added that many times streets were developed to county road standards prior to becoming a,part of the city, and as the urban area expanded, streets built to county standards were not adequate to handle increased traffic, drainage, etc. In response to Councilman Williams, Mr. Davis said all properties facing on Bailey tit Hill Road fell under the General Plan requirements, that is, residential rezoning by 1990. 3/1CV 75 - 20 124 e e e Don Reed, 1715 Bailey Hill Road, objected to assessment against property in his owner- ship also on the basis that a few people were paying for an improvement to serve other people who had the need for it. He said there was no parking on the street now ana it was his understanding that access to the street would be limited. Mr. Gilman said driveway access would have to be reviewed by the traffic engineer to provide the best possible location. Although the city would prefer to limit access as much as possible, he said, it could not deny access. Councilman Williams expressed concern about assessing industrial property on a 44-foot basis when that property was to be phased into residential zoning. He wondered about an assessment formula that would take into consideration 44-foot versus 28-foot (assessment for residential property) and tying in commercial and industrial use over the life of the paving - whether at the end of that time the extra assessment because of industrial use had in fact been used up. Mr. Gilman. said that from a design standpoint about 15 to 20 years use could be expected before major maintenance of street paving would be required. The extra assessment against industrial prop- erties paid not only for extra width but also for extra strength for heavier traffic anticipated, he said, and he felt that heavier use would have used up the life of the improvement for which the assessment was made. Robert Stanley, 1625 Bailey Hill Road, wondered why bike paths were provided in the project when there was only one bike owned on that street. He wondered too about the 20 feet on the west side of Bailey Hill that was on deeded land, and he asked for clarification of the "second" assessment. Mr. Gilman explained that the bike path was part of the Bikeway Master Plan recently adopted by the Council. It was a major link in the bike route to connect to one planned along the Amazon Channel. He said that the "deeded land" referred to by Mr. Stanley was typical of county records from years back. Property descriptions on deeds read "to the center line of a right-of-way, except that portion within" a county road. He said all of the road was publicly dedicated even though the deeds might read "to the centerline." with regard to the "second assessment," Mr. Gilman explained that Mr. Stanley's property was assessed on the basis of 28 feet. The difference between that amount and what would have been assessed on the basis of 36 feet was deferred, to be assessed only if and when the property was further developed in the future. Mr. Davis asked what assessment other properties on the street were paying, and Mr. Gilman presented a map on which all properties with respective assessments were shown. were friends of long- issue nor did he (Mr. Williams) Mr. Stanley said he was in a residential neigh- to be considered by the Councilman williams for the record said he and Mr. Stanley standing but there had been no prehearing contacts on this feel his judgment was impaired because of that friendship. trying to point out the disadvantage of an arterial street borhood, but Mr. williams responded that the only question panel was that of assessments. Judy Reed, 1715 Bailey Hill Road, said she thought the general city budget should include improvement and maintenance of streets. She said she realized also they would have to pay again when any further improvement was made to the street abut- ting their property. And she thought there should be some traffic control at the intersection of Bailey Hill and 11th Avenue because of the difficulty in getting onto 11th. Mr. Williams noted the substantial subsidy carried by general tax funds in picking up the difference between the 28-foot and 44-foot widths for residential properties. And he said that regardless of when additional work was done on the street, it would be at city expense, even though he recognized that sooner or later that policy would have to be re-examined. Mr. Haws added that to change the assessment policy at this time would not be fair to other citizens , who had already pa.id for street improvements abutting their properties. with re- 'gard to the traffic control at 11th and Bailey Hill, Mr. Gilman said a light would be installed at that intersection in conjunction with improvement of West 11th from Seneca to Bailey Hill. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 3/10/75 - 21 125 C.B.743 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between Stewart Road and 11th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to Amazon Channel (74-30) No written protests were received, nor were there any requests to be heard. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. e C.B.744 -Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lots 500, 600, 700, 'and 800 off 30th Avenue near Agate Street (74-50) No written protests were received, nor were there any requests to be heard. Recommendation: Levy ,assessments as proposed. J. Field Burning meeting was announced by Mayor Anderson - this evening, February 26, in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Councilman Bradley wondered about conflict with LCDC hearings scheduled for the same time. Discussion brought out priority of the field burning issue, also the fact that staff would be present at the LCDC hearing. Any information from the hearing would be brought back to the Council. Comm 2/26/75 File Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve and file as noted Items A through G, I, and J, noting separate action on Item H. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 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 February 10, 1975 and .., referred to panel hearing on February 17, was read the second time on February 24,1975 and referred again to panel for hearing on March 3, 1975. One property owner asked fot postponement ~because:,of late receipt of notice of assessment and panel recom- mended carrying over to the April 7, 1975 panel hearing. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be referred to Panel for hearing on April 7, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations on April 14, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council B:ill No. 740 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Edgewood West III, including paving of Br-okside Drive from 900 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 west to 3000 feet west of Willamette Street (73-58), read the first time on February 24, 1975 and referred to panel for hearing March 3, 1975, was read the second time by council bill number only_with panel recommendation to levy as proposed, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote., Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17267. Council Bill No. 741 - Levying assessments for paving streets within Snelling Plat and Benson Plat (74-20), read the first time on February 24, ~ 1975 and referred to panel for hearing on March 3, 1975, was .., brought back with recommendation to levy as proposed and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. ci 3/10/75 - 22 /2Jo Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmembers present voting aye, and the bill was 4It declared passed and numbered 17268. Council Bill No. 742 - Levying assessments for paving Bailey:Hill Road from lith Avenue to 18th Avenue (74-28), read the first time on February 24, 1975 and referred to panel for hearing on March 3, 1975, was brought back with recommendation to levy as proposed and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17269. , Council Bill No. 743 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between Stewart Road and 11th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to Amazon Channel (74-30) read the first time on February 24, 1975 and referred to panel for hearing on March 3, 1975, was brought back with recommenda- tion to levy as proposed and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmembers present voting aye, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17270. e 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), read the first time on February 24, 1975 and re- ferred to panel for hearing on March 3, 1975, was brought back with recommendation to levy as proposed and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmembers present voting aye, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17271. Council Bill No. 739 - Vacating portion of Jessen Drive from Ohio Street 176.25 feet west (Cole)(SV 74-5), read the first time on February 24, 1975 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Manager said that the proposed vacation had been referred to the Active Bethel Citizens group but no response was received. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17272. it Council Bill No. 748 - Paving alley between Pearl Street and High Street from 4th Avenue to alley between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be consider~d at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by councIl bill number only. /27 3/10/75 - 2:3 I - Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered! 17273. ~ ., Council Bill No. 749 - Adopting plans and specification~ for paving alley between Pearl Street and High Street:" from: ~th ~Avetiue to alley be- tween 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue 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 second by Mr. Hamel 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 second by Mr. Hamel that the bi 11 be approved and gi veii. final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmembers present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17274. Council Bill No. 750 - Paving alley between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue from Washington Street to Lawrence Street 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 second by Mr. Hamel that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17275. Council Bill No. 751 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving alley between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue from Washington Street to Lawrence Street 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 second by Mr. Hamel 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 second by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17276. Council Bill No. 756 - Construction of sanitary and storm sewers on Center Way from Martin Street to 650 feet south of Martin Street 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 second by Mr. Hamel 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 tit this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray ~oved second by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. ROllcall vote. All couflcrlL, members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17277 3/10/75 ~24 I~€) Council Bill No. 757 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary and storm sewers on Center Way from Martin Street to 650 feet south of Martin Street was read by council bill number and 4It title only, there being no cOHncil member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved,~~c~nd by Mr. Hamel that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, wit~unanimo~s COHsent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion 'carrled unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17278. Council Bill No. 758 - Paving Center Way from Martin Street to 650 feet south of Martin Street 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 second by Mr. Hamel 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 second by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17279. - Council Bill No. 759 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Center Way from Martin Street to 650 feet south of Martin Street 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 second by Mr. Hamel 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 second by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17280. IV - Resolutions Resolution No. 2377 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims and progress payments was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. e City Manager Selection - Manager reported that representatives of three con- sulting firms would be available beginning at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 13, for selection of one to ass~st in screening city manager applications. Also, there was some indication that if a choice was made that afternoon whoever was chosen would stay over until Friday in order to interview individual Council members and get started on the selection process. 3/10/75 - 25 12.9 Upon motlon duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, March 24, 1975. -- .,~ A. K. Martin Asst. City Manager - it 3/10/75 - 26 J30