Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/1975 Meeting i M I NUT E S j EUGENE CITY COUNCIL December 8,1975 . Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon wa~ called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on December 8, 1975 in the Council Chamber with the following council members present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. I - Publ'ic Hearings A. Liquor License - Lampioni's Cellar, 931 Oak Street - New (R-Restaurant) CNW Corporation - Sharon Curtis, Charles Navarra, Donald Walsh, applicants. Manager described the building in which the establishment was proposed to be ~ocated. He noted that OLCC interviews showed seven objecting to the license, \6 nonobjectors. All were sent notices of this hearing. Staff had no objections to issuance of the license. I Public hearing was held with no testimony presented other than I-A-I I , Sharon Curtis, 2610 Elinor Street, offering to answer questions. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. I I-A-2 B. Qethel-Danebo Neighborhood Refinement Plan I Distribution, Bethel Danebo Refinement Study - Copies of this refinement study were distributed to Council members. It has been completed and approved by e the Planning Commission and will be on the December 3 committee agenda. Comm 11/26/7 5 File Review of Bethel-Danebo Neighborhood Refinement Plan - Copies of the plan have previously been transmitted to Council members. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to schedule a public hearing Comm for December 8. Motion carried unanizrously. 12/3/75 Pub Hrng Recommended by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1975 as refinement of the 1990 General Plan. Pat Decker, comprehensive planning, explained that refinement of the General Plan was undertaken in the Bethel-Danebo area primarily because that area contained a large amount of vacant land which would be developed ih years to come. Also, existing development in that area had occurred under county services prior to annexation to the city, resulting in a lag in terms of the level of service in older parts of Eugene. She said the neighborhood organiza- tion and the Planning Commission both played important roles in the refinement study; sessions were held in the Bethel-Danebo area itself as well as hearings before the Planning Commission. Ms. Decker detailed for the Council proposed refinement of the Plan. ! Public hearing was opened. Testifying were Lynn Outka, 645 Highway 99N; Warren Near, 1336 Taft Street; and Don Hatfield, 2189 Dewey Street, co-chairman of Active Bethel Citizens. Mr.Outka e said it was his understanding that when Jacobs Street was improved there would be apartments or similar type rental properties across from the C-2 zoning there. He thought the zoning across from the C-2 use should be changed to allow apart- ments or something more in keeping with heavier use of the street. Mr. Near : ~$~ 12/8/75 - 1 -- and Mr. Hatfield both supported the proposed refinement. However, they called'attention to the number of mobile home parks in the Bethel area and expressed the hope that mobile homes could be spread throughout the community rather than being located in one neighborhood. They said the Active Bethel . Citizens also supported the refinement. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Ms. Decker noted that the Plan allows enough flexibility to permit additional multiple-family and commercial uses in the Jacobs Street area on a condi- tional use basis. i Councilman Murray suggested changing "older parts of the city" - in reference to development of park land and open space - to "other parts of the city." He also asked for elaboration of scheduled improvements mentioned for High- way 99N in the next five years. Ms. Decker said the reference to park lands was to emphasize the higher ratio of developed parks in older parts of the city when compared to the Bethel area. There was no objection to changing the text to read "other parts of the city." With regard to Highway 99N improvement, she said that was included to provide for sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, scheduled to start in about two years, and was an item on a list of improvements planned for the Bethel area. Don Gilman, assistant public works director, added that there was need for the improvement, especially for pedestrian facilities and control of curb cut access. Counciiman Murray wondered whether identification of historic landmarks should become, a standard part of refinement plans, whether any were being identified in the Bethel area. He also asked what consideration was given to what ESATS might call'for in the Bethel area. Ms. Decker answered that this refinement study was e initiated prior to the creation of an historic preservation program, but that did not preclude identifying such structures. She thought it a good idea to in- cludethat as a part of a refinement plan. With regard to ESATS, Ms. Decker said' t~at impact that an extension of Highway 126 would have on the Bethel area was pointed out to people working with staff on the study. The study itself did not attempt to establish any limitations, she said, only to call attention to issues that should be noted. She agreed with Mr. Murray's statement, as did residents of the area, she said, that it seemed appropriate to point out par- ticular concerns of a local area in establishing a regional transportation plan. Councilman Hamel asked why expansion of the airport was felt detrimental to the Bethel area. Ms. Decker answered that that statement was a part of the ABC goals and objectives statement. It was a reflection of thinking in the Bethel neighborhood that substantial expansion of the airport could mean noise pollution. That was not in the final plan, she ?aid. In response to Councilman Haws, Ms. Decker said her understanding was that a good deal of construction between 1950 and 1960 led to septic tank failure, thereby partially contributing to annexation of the area. ~1r . Haws then suggested dele- tion of the word "important" in the statement recognizing mobile homes as an "im- portant housing option." He also asked for explanation of arriving at the criteria for allocation of housing. Ms. Decker said staff would have no objection to removing the word "important" as referred to. That statement, she said, was included because in working with the ABC land use committee they expressed the ,impDrtance of'acknowledging mobile homes as a vital housing option. With regard ,:to allocation, ,_ she said that was a proposal, not a policy statement. It would -- "provide guidelin"esfor administration in implementing housing policy with regard to panhandles. She said the Planning Commission is now studying panhandles, so :t,his p'rovisi,on, could, change. , 12/~:l7-S - ,2 -, 033 <. ~ ..,~', L:>._'~~ Councilman Haws continued questioning with regard to the study, asking if there was any timetable with regard to implementation of proposals made, such as in- vestigation of crimes in the neighborhood. Also, whether it was planned to pur- e chase county land to provide park and open space areas at the city's northern boundary. Ms. Decker replied that the refinement plan attempted to set out concerns of the neighborhood; implementation would rely on priorities in the neighborhood as well as the entire city, and on planning abilities. Citizen in- quiry with regard to police work would probably be necessary to bring about a specific investigation. With regard to purchase of county land, the purpose was to maintain existing agricultural uses and a green belt buffer. That did not necessarily mean it had to be in city ownership. Manager added that the area referred to, so long as it remains in county ownership. would probably remain zoned for 5- to 20-acre minimum division. Councilman Haws asked staff investigation of a possible bike easement from the States Streets area to Golden Garcens park site. Because he thought a bike route was important in that location rather than along Barger Drive, he asked if staff would try to work something out. Ms. Decker answered that the idea was to try to get pieces of that bike route further south and to develop routes in con- junction with general development of the entire area. There appeared to be no reason why it couldn't be developed. Councilman Keller hoped the possibility of the Bethel area's being developed in- medium- and high-density housing would be recognized. He said that improvements needed in the area, increased cost of land, and high cost of single-family homes would tend to promote medium- or high-density use. Ms. Decker noted the land is now inside the urban service boundary, and the compact growth policy stated by the city would probably indicate high density close to concentrations of e services not now there. She said this refinement plan was like the General Plan, subject to amendment, review, etc. Lower density now seemed the best option, but if it becomes an issue later on, if it is found low-density housing cannot be provided, then the plan could be looked at again. Manager recognized the importance of the questions raised by Councilman Haws. He said this refinement plan in many ways was primarily a guide for the Council in making decisions with regard to parks, streets, drainage, etc. , and would take a number of years to implement because of the costs and work involved. He didn't think the people in the Bethel-Danebo area should be misled by stating that the work could be accomplished very quickly. I - B-1 Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to authorize preparation of a resolution for adoption of the Bethel-Danebo refinement plan, changing the word "older" to "other" in Section 3, Chapter VII, Policies, No.6 to read ".. . equity with the other parts of the city;" and deleting the word "important" in Section 2, Chapter I, Policies, NO.5 to read "...recognizing mobile homes as a housing option." Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. I-B-2 C. Citizen Involvement, LCDC Requirements Review of Citizen Involvement Proposal for Meeting LCDC Requirements Reports outlining the Citizen Involvement Program and excerpt of 9/15/75 Planning Commission minutes have previously been distributed to Council members. - Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to schedule a public hearing Ccmm For December 8. Motion carried unanimously. 12/3/75 Pub Hrng ~34- 12/8/75 - 3 I Proposed by the Planning Commission on December 1, 1975. Manager noted the LCDC requirement for evaluation of the planning process for compliance with criteria for citizen involvement. After the process for citizen involvement is evaluated, then other criteria set by the LCDC would be reviewed and would include this e process. Randi Reinhard, planning department, referred to the report previously distributed to Council members and noted there were six categories included to determine whether there was adequate citizen involvement in the planning process. She read the report. Ms. Reinhard explained the proposal was to be rejected, accepted, amended, etc., for submission to LCDC by January 1, 1976. However, LCDC had provided a 60-day extension, upon application, for those needing additional time to address Plan evaluation requirements. She asked for authorization to file an application for that 60-day extension to give ample opportunity to thoroughly review evaluation of General Plan compliance with neighborhood groups and other citizens. Public hearing was opened. Pat Clausenius, 1551 West 25th Avenue, read a letter sent by Jean Reeder, president of the Fairmount Neighbors, stating reservations about the proposed procedure. Ms. Reirihard said she had talked to Ms. Reeder about the concerns expressed, and that material from other communities with regard to citizen involvement had been forwarded to the neighborhood group. She said the advisory relationship of the neighborhood group, set, out in the association's charter, had not changed. But staff has stated before, she said, that the Planning Commission is responsible for co-ordinating citizen involvement. She said the evaluation process had not yet been decided; it probably would involve two representatives from each neighbor- hood group with the end evaluation being submitted for consideration of each entire group. With regard to concern about method of choosing Planning Commission members, expressed by the group, she said that notice of vacancies had not been forwarded e to the groups prior to this time because over half of the existing groups have come into existence since the last Commission vacancy. Ms. Reinhard continued that LCDC requirements for citizen involvement appear to be aimed primarily at those areas of the state that have not adopted general plans. In cities like Eugene, citizen involvement comes into play more in changing an existing ,plan and there is a great deal of exposure because of the existing neigh- borhood groups. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Councilman Murray asked if LCDC requirements for some kind of regional involvement would mean permanent reliance on MAPAC. He wondered what would happen if MAPAC should dissolve or if funding is withdrawn, how that would affect meeting LCDC's criteria. Ms. Reinhard said involvement of all levels of government is required, that MAPAC would be useful, as in the past, in referring information to neighbor- hood groups. If that body was dissolved, amendment to the citizen involvement plan would probably be necessary. She added that it is anticipated MAPAC will be filling more of a planning policy function in the future, so funding may not be crucial. In response to Mr. Murray, she said MAPAC may not be involved in such things as the General Plan update although discussion in that regard had not yet resolved the primary role. Counclman Haws asked if it was staff intent to make a real distinction between chartered and unchartered neighborhood groups. Ms. Reinhard said there was a need '411 to somehow indicate groups which were chartered or working toward getting a charter " as distinct from unchartered groups not speaking for a neighborhood. She said tbis. was partly because,oi; historical_ prol?lems wher~ certain ,grqups CQuld not m,eet .. , , 12~/T5 -'4 .b35' _.......~.-.... certain requirements of the city, and she didn't think those groups should be encouraged to participate in the planning process. Councilman Murray thought the distinction was very critical because it was the only way of assuring basic tenants e required by the city for neighborhood groups and to maintain the required official relationship. With regard to the Fairmount Neighbors letter, Mr. Murray said he disagreed with the statement that the neighborhood groups didn't have a voice in land use planning. He said that although the groups were advisory, they did have a very significant voice. But their comments on fhe evaluation team, he said, were pertinent. He said he would prefer a balanced team and noted that selection of the team was not spelled out in the proposal. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to amend the proposal to provide for membership on the evaluation team to comprise two MAPAC members, two Planning Commission members, and four representatives of chartered neighborhood groups. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the citizen involve- ment proposal as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to authorize staff to apply for a 60-day extension in which to submit the proposal. Motion carried unanimously. 1-8-3 D. Bids - Parks Department (opened December 5, 1 975 ) Skinner Butte Quarry Safety Fence: Valley Fence Company $ 6,750.00 Wildish Construction Company 3,325.00 e Oregon Fence 2,572.28 Office Estimate $ 3,120.00 Staff recommended award of contract to Oregon Fence on the low bid of $2,572.28. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to award contract to the low bidder as recommended. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as re~uested. Previously discussed in committee on November 26 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Beal, Williams, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) and December 3, 1975 (Present: Council members Murray (presiding), Keller, Beal, Williams, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics. A. Leave of Absence, Councilwoman Beal - Mrs. Bea1 advised she would be out of the country starting December 10, missing the December 22 and January 12 Council Corom meetings. 11/26/75 Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to approve a leave Approve of absence for Mrs. Beal. Motion carried unanimously. B.Petition for improvement of Concord Street from Jacobs Drive to Hughes Street by owners of 27.2% of property to be assessed if PUD property is excluded, e 66.0% incl uding PUD property. November 6 memo from the City Engineer was previously distributed to Council. There have been many petitions on this improvement due to the dust problem in the neighborhood. '='3fD 12/8/75 - 5 Councilman Haws suggested consideration be given to not paving, as paving would then make that street a man traffic flow from east to west. Perhaps a diverter could be installed with a street to the north used as the main east/west flow. Public works Director said it would seem that, if dust is the problem, the best -- solution would be to pave under the present policies, though consideration and research can be given to alternate routes to take. Acceptance of the petition would merely start the public forum process. Mayor Anderson stated that, of all things improving a neighborhood, a system of paved roads would seem to be one of the most effective measures to take. As Mr.Haws reiterated, his question is simply whether the street in question should be the main east/west route. If-another route is chosen, it may not be necessary to pave Concord. Public Works Director thought the ABC Plan suggests improvement of this street. If it is desired to modify that plan, that is another matter. I Comm Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Beal to accept the petition. 11/26/75 Motion1carried unanimously. Approve C. Resolution authorizing Lane County Housing Authority to administer :Section 8 in Eugene By HUD ruling, Lane County only can conduct the Section 8 program in Eugene, and it is therefore necessary for Council to adopt a resolution allowing that to take effect. The Joint Housing Committee, by November 17 memo already distributed to Council members, recommends passage of such a resolution. section 8 is a new pro- gram for developing low- to moderate-income housing under the HUD Community Development, Act of 1975. The city of Eugene was cut out of the quota assigned to the state, the ruling being that Lane County would have the quota for this area. fomm Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel that the resolution be adopted. 11/26/75 Motion carried unanimously. Approve -- D. Water Extension POlicy as Regards Shade Oak Subdivision - Manager referred to the November 6, 1975, decision by the Lane County Boundary comrndssion to extend water service to Shade Oaks Subdivision. Commenting on the staff's re~earch to date on the matter, he said the City Attorney has determdned that, if there is to be any suit or writ of review directed against the Boundary COnmUssion, it would have to be filed no later than Monday, December 8. However, he added there are other courses of action that mdght be rrore profitable to pursue. City Attorney's merro of December 2 as well as Boundary comrndssion staff notes, full minutes and backup materials, including letters from residents, have been. distributed to Council rne~ers for their review. City Attorney Stan Long explained there is a special 30-day statute for initiation of writ of review. Since the Boundary Commission decision was made on November 6, immediate action is needed on whether to request the court to review the Boundary cOnmUssion's decision. One apparent issue is whether the reasons given by the Boundary Commission were sufficient to support the extension. Further, the Boundary Commission conditioned the~r order on EWEB approval of contract modifications, since Wil1amette water Company is the proposed source of water and they have a contract with EWEB. The Shade Oaks Subdivision is clearly outside the area of the existing contract. The question arises as to whether EWEB will consent to extending service in that area. A question also arises as to the :relationship between city policy and EWEB actions. . . Mr. Long added that obher possibilities mdght include Willamette Water Company looking for another source. As he understands it, the proponents contend EWEB has some legal duty to extend service, though he does not 12/8/75 - 6 "37 know on what they base their contention. Clearly, the decision can now rest with EWEB unless Council chooses to go to court. Council could opt to make a statement to EWEB as to its position. As indicated in the . materials which have been distributed, the case is quite strong as to need by the citizens of the area for water service. It would appear, said Mr. Long, that need was the primary factor in the Boundary COmaUssion's granting of the extension. Mr. Murray asked when the issue will go to the EWEB Board and in what form. Mr. Long responded that a letter dated November 17 from Willamette Water Company was sent to EWEB enclosing a copy of the Boundary COmrrUssion decision of November 6 and asking that EWEB agree to the extension. It is Mr. Long's understanding that the matter has not been scheduled for ErvEB Board action as yet, however. In answer to a question from Mrs. Beal on particulars of the EWEB-Willamette Water Company contract, Mr. Long explained that contract was drawn up in 1972, providing that EWEB would agree to sell surplus water to Willamette Water Company. In regard to the Shade Oaks subdivision extension, Willamette Water Company has existing lines 3,000 feet or better away from the subdivision and they are therefore requesting surplus water. However, according to Mr. Long, the contract never contemplated extending water to that area, it being so clearly outside the urban service boundary. Mrs. Beal wondered what would happen if the City held firm to its position of being opposed to extension outside the urban service area and sent a memo to that effect to the EWEB Board. Mr. Long replied it would be hard to predict the reaction if that were the case. e Mrs. Shirey questioned what choices there rndght be once the EWEB Board has made its decision. Mr. Long answered it is unclear what those choices ndght be; one option rndght be to proceed before the LCDC. Issues could be raised such as whether the Boundary COmrnUssion decision is quasi-judicial. A deterrndnation that it was would be helpful in this particular case but a further question arises as to whether a decision of that nature would be helpful to local government overall. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Long to elaborate on his remarks that the findings of the Boundary COmrrUssion may not be strong. Mr. Long referred to the Boundary COnmUssion's Final Order which stated that on the basis of a study considering econorndc, demographic, and sociological trends and physical development of the land, and on the basis of the hearing, the Commission found that: "Affected property owners in Shade Oaks subdivision desired the proposed extension; Objections were voiced regarding the extension of water service into the area since the line would cross undeveloped properties; Nineteen of 22 lots are currently developed in the subdivision; Several of the households lack water from existing sources; Repeated efforts to find an adequate supply have failed." In Mr. Long's opinion, criteria the Commission is required to follow would include economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections pertinent to the proposal, and past and prospective development of land that would directly or indirectly be affected by the proposed change. The law also requires reasons. It would logically follow that reasons should follow criteria and, in Mr. Long's mind, there is a question of whether the e reasons given relate to criteria on which the decision is to be made. Mrs. Beal wondered about ~ny other legal recourse should the time lapse for filing a writ of review. Mr. Long could not give any assurance that there would be other recourses. He added, too, that on the writ of review proceeding &3/3 12/8/75 - 7 the court would review the existing record and no supplemental materials could be filed with the record by the City. At the time of the Boundary Commission hearing, the City did not approach it in preparation for litigation so the City's position is not as advantageous as Mr. Long would like it to . be. Mrs. Beal .wondered where EWEB would be legally if the City were to request EWEB not to supply water and the EWEB Board did in fact come to a decision that it was against their policy to do so. Mr. Long replied that ErvEB does have the right of refusal under their contract with Willamette Water Co. Ordinarily, the Boundary Commission decisions are binding; however, in this case, the cOmnUssion noted as a condition that its approval will cease if EWEB does not agree to modification of its existing service area agreement between EWEB and Willamette Water Company. Mr. Haws questioned what the City's options would be if EWEB should agree to extend. Mr. Long noted it may raise a question as to the relationship between the City and EWEB. Other forms of legal recourse could be looked at, possibly a declaratory judgment. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the City transmit Corom to EWEB its continued adherence to the policy on extension 12/3/75 of water lines outside the urban service boundary and suggest Approv,e, to EWEB that this particular case is no exception to that standard. Mr. Keller wondered if Mr. Long would feel comfortable going to court on the is~ue, and Mr. Long responded that, since legitimate serious questions could be raised with regard to the Boundary COmnUssion decision, he would not be uncomfortable if Council felt going to court was warranted. e Mr. Williams raised a question regarding whether an area outside the urban service area has to conform to the 1990 Plan. Planning Director answered the policy states clearly extension would be considered to a community where there is a plan and urban service concept for that community. The Shade Oaks subdivision has no detailed plan of any kind; therefore, extension to that area would be against city policy. Manager noted that, in connection with any presentations to EWEB, the Planning Department is compiling data to show past history of development occurring after water extension, citing specific examples, and explaining how it impacts the zoning, also showing negative effects on the 1990 Plan. Mrs. Beal:raised the point that the water line if extended to the Shade Oaks subdivision would pass across undeveloped land to reach the new development - 3,000 feet of it in fact - and supposed EWEB would be responsible for further water supplies for any future development. Mr. Long referred to the Boundary Commission Final Order which stipulated that, in the future, only existing houses with direct access to the water line between I-5 and the subdivision would be considered for connection upon request to the Boundary COmnUssion (in accordance with state law). That proviso is an attempt to limit what will be connected to the line. From another viewpoint, Mr. Haws wondered what would happen to the people _. in the Shade Oaks subdivision should water not be extended. Planning Director answered they would then have to come up with an independent 12/8/75 - 8 '3~ water source. The county, he added, should do some planning there before developing a ~jor water source for that area - to date there is no refinement plan for the area, hut rather a leapfrog urban sprawl project. e Vote was taken on the motion as stated which carried unanimously. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the City further transmit to EWEB its conviction that extension of water into the Shade Oaks subdivision constitutes a violation of the principles of the 1990 Plan which are designed to limit urban sprawl. Mr. Williams is disturbed abo~t having to vote on that motion at this time since he received backup materials only at the beginning of this meeting. Mr. Keller concurred, saying maybe there is a responsibility Council is not aware of. To refuse to do anything in the interest of those citizens is worrisome, Mr. Keller added. Mrs. Beal commented that, though agreeing with Mr. Keller on the humanitarian issue, she feels that, when considering the possible welfare of ten families against the principles worked on for so long in development of the 1990 Plan, and against possible future costs to a great many residents within the City, there seems to be no question that extension should not be supported. A suggestion was made to schedule further discussion for the December 10 Committee meeting since EWEB would not be making a decision before then. Mr. Henry reminded Council that people from the Shade Oaks subdivision,would undoubtedly appear at that Wednesday meeting. e Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to postpone further discussion Comm to the December 10 Committee meeting. 12/3/75 Aprpove Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Drive, asked if Council is foreclosing getting together to further ponder a writ of review. She added it would seem Council is placing into the laps of EWEB the very problem the Boundary Commission wrestled with and it seems EWEB should not be in the position of deciding on land use matters. Mr. Murray said that, if someone in reading the material decided to pursue the possibility of a writ of review, a special Council meeting could be called before the'December 8 meeting. Mr. Long pointed out that, if a writ of review was desired, he should be authorized to proceed by December 4 or 5, as it takes some time to put those kinds of things together. A question was raised as to whether a motion could be made to proceed with a writ of review since there is a motion on the floor to postpone. That motion, however, would postpone the discussion of a stronger statement to EWEB ~ut would not preclude consideration of a writ of review. Vote was taken on the motion to postpone which carried, all council members present voting aye except Mrs. Beal and Mr. Murray voting no. e Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to authorize staff to initiate writ of review proceedings. Motion failed, Mr. Haws voting aye and Council members Murray, Keller, williams, Beal, Hamel and Shirey voting no. (A.o 12/8/75,- 9 Mrs. Shirey moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to meet at 7'00 . . p.m. Thu~sday, ~cember 4, ~n the McNutt Room in a special session. Comm Mot~on carr~ed, all council members present voting aye except 12/3/75 Mr. Hamel voting no. Approve -- Mr. ~illiams ,would hope staff would notify residents of Shade Oaks of the spec~al meet~ng, but Mrs. Beal feels it will interfere with the B d t C ' t ' . u ge omnu tee meet~ng and :h~nks those people could be heard Monday, December 8, ~t,the regular meet~ng. Mr. Williams was not sure if the December 4 dec~s~on would be discussed at all on December 8 and while there b 1 1 bl' , ' ma y e no ega 0 ~gat~on to hold a hearing on December 4, it would seem important to at least l~sten to people to whom water service may be denied. Mr. Long.noted the residents had been represented at the Boundary Commission meet~ng by an atto~ney and he feels they would want to be heard at any mee~~ng on the subject, that they could be easily contacted in time thro h the~r attorney. ug Mr. Murray would hope it could be made clear to the attorney that it is not intended to be a full-scale public hearing, that perhaps a ten-minute or so time limit could be set; and Mrs. Bea1 suggested holding it as a Co~ttee-of-the-Whole meeting to afford a tentative decision. Whether staff could realistically proceed on a tentative decision was a question raised by Mr. Murray, and Mr. Long thought tentative authorization to file a law suit would be satisfactory since the city Manager may have some authority to do that himself. Mr. Keller would view the December 4. meeting as a simple discussion by Council on whether or not to file a suit, that there should not be room for testimony at that time, and that the December 10 Committee of the Whole meeting would be the suitable time for public comment. Mr. Murray e sensed there is a feeling that the people from the Shade Oaks Subdivision might want to dissuade Council from taking action to file a suit. Manager noted the Council could act to file a suit with the idea that, if necessary~ it could be withdrawn at a later time. Comments regarding the special Council session included feeling it is a waste of time, that ten minutes would be appropriate for public comment, that no decision could possibly be made in one-half hour, and that ten minutes is too short a period of time for testimony to be given. Mrs. Bea1 reiterated her position that, under these circumstances, it would not appear there is any obligation to hold a public hearing at this time. She feels the question of whether to go to court against another public body "is our own affair". The question of principles, she added, seems so much greater at this time than the question of whether ten residents have an opportunity to speak that the City should be under no obligation to citizens outside the city. Mrs.' Beal moved seconded by Mr. Haws that, since th$ issue is a Comm matter involving well stated principles of the City of Eugene, it 12/3/75 will not be necessary to invite outside testimony. Motion carried, Approve all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Williams voting no. . 12/8/75 - 10' ~41 E. Request by Joint Housing and Community Development COmaUttees for Use of $60,000 Revenue Sharing in Purchase of Palace Hotel (formerly Lane Hotel) Council has l'eceived memo of December 1 from the Joint Housing Committee, two memos of December 1 from the Historic Review Board, November 19 financial e outline prepared by L. G. Campbell, Realtors, and letter of December 1 from Sorgenfri. The proposal would provide that the City subsidize the purchase of the Palace Hotel to insure that it is available for older adults on fixed incomes and that it be maintained as an historic building. To effect all of this there would be contractual relations between the Sorgenfri, Inc. and the City, a contract of some 20 years, with details to be worked out satisfactorily prior to any payments or actual completion of the arrangements. Mr. Bernhard of the Joint Housing Committee stated t~at at the November 25th meeting the Committee recommended the City Council approve $60,000 of its 1975-76 revenue sharing funds be set aside for purchase of the Palace Hotel. It was the Housing Committee's feeling that the hotel should be maintained as a residential unit for single elderly adults. Without the City's participation, this resource would be lost as a lower income housing facility. The proposal is based on obtaining a sponsor to own and operate the structure, and Sorgenfri, Inc. is interested in becoming such a sponsor. In answer to Mr. Haws' question regarding why community development funds are not being used, Mr. Bernhard answered that the Joint Housing Co~ttee has $150,000 for use in housing rehabilitation and maintenance of housing for low income persons. Only about $28,000 has been spent so far. Robin Cushman, Planning Department, further explained that according to community development legislation CD funds can be used for land or. operating expenses but not for property acquisition. e Mr. Glen Pederson of Pederson and Associates, agent for development of Sorgenfri housing projects, stated Sorgenfri was formed in 1955 and has for over 20 years continually developed and maintained projects similar to the one in question. They now have 124 units for low income persons, and their operation has been very successful. They do have the resources to add the units in the Palace Hotel to their system and manage them successfully, lacking only the funds for purchasing the present equity and for rehabilitation and compliance with code requirements. Rents will be maintained between $80 and $90, made possible by reducing the debt service obligation over that period of time. It is a requirement of the organization's articles of incorporation that it address itself to that very thing. Mr. Murray wondered if, allowing for any transitional phaseout, the project would be exclusively for older folks. Mrs. Cushman answered it would have to be part of the contract for Sorgenfri to determine. It is the initial intent that it apply to single older adults on fixed incomes. On a related issue, Mr. Murray expressed interest in discussing at a future time the housing dispersal policy in terms of who it serves. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve drawing up a contract providing that $60,000 of revenue sharing funds be used for the Comm purchase of the Palace Hotel. 12/3/75 Approve Mr. George Boehnke, representing the Business and Property Owners Association of Oregon, raised some points for consideration. He noted that, prior to the e October 21 Joint Housing COmnUttee meeting, proposals to the Committee were invited for family housing. At the October 28 Joint Housing Committee meeting, the one proposal that was presented was turned down. He further mentioned a family housing proposal from the Home Builders Association on which he thought no positive -1~4Z 12/8/75 -'11 action had been taken by the Joint Housing Committee, and he wondered, too, why the Committee switched to housing for the elderly, deciding on the Palace Hotel before receiving competitive proposals. "' Mr. Boehnke wondered also why rental income from the Palace would not pay for e improvements of the roof and building. And further, "how do you justify giving $60,000 to the Palace Hotel plus $40,000 rtr)re to restore?" He questioned the cost of bringing the building up to the 1975 fire code standards and also wondered about any conflict that might be created with expansion of the jail facility in the same block. He also understands that rtr)st units in the hotel do not have private bath facilities (mentioning Springtree which rents from 105-110 and which has complete facilities). And he finally wondered if a continuing effort of housing and historic preservation such as this one would not best be handled by private enterprise. Mrs. Cushman explained briefly that positive action had been taken on the Home Build~rs request, and that it applied to a completely different chunk of money, land bank money, which was set aside a year ago, and which is a separate issue. Mr. Bernhard understands the previous Palace Hotel owners have done $38,000 or so in i~provements. There will be $40,000 plugged in to fire sprinklers, sanitary upgrades, kitchen facilities, etc. Too, the purchase price was to be $160,759 and not $180,000 as reported by Mr. Boehnke. Mr. Williams noted a conflict of interest in voting on the matter. . Vote was taken on the motion which carried, all council members present voting aye except Mr. Williams abstaining. Bob Suess, 260 East 38th Avenue, said he had heard that $40,000 in development funds e were also to be used in the purchase of this building, and he wondered whether they should be in hand before a decision was made on the purchase in view of the need for remodeling of the structure to meet code provisions. His major concerns were: (1) Their was no invitation for like proposals from other groups for purchase of the building; (2) there was no independent appraisal; (3) proposed use should not be undertaken unless proper improvement were made; (4) if purchase if for the purpose of saving a historic structure, it should not be done under the guise of housing; (5) should Sorgenfri, the nonprofit organization proposing to purchase the building, fail to perform, what would the city's position be as a participant. Mr. Suess continued that there had been no notice to the public of any change in city policy with regard to calling for open bids on housing proposals. He noted the prop- erty was listed on the tax rolls at $65,470. He cited the various financial arrange- ments and improvements started under the present ownership and quoted the selling price now at 130%' of the purchase price in 1974, wondering if this would set precedent for the city. He noted the number of improvements that would be necessary before the building could be used for housing purposes. And he wondered about the city's liability should Sorgenfri default - both in terms of financial loss and injury claims. He also wondered about taxes on the property, whether Sorgenfri as a nonprofit organization would be abie to meet them. He said the city should not become involved in such a precedent setting program, especially as it related to housing for the elderly. Michael Bainbridge, LCOG planner for aging, commented on the termendous need for hous- ing for the elderly close to essential services, particularly for those people having e limited mobility. Restoration of the Palace Hotel, he said, would maintain the "flavor of old Eugene" and at the same time provide involvement for the city in serv- ing senior citizens. It would avoid higher public costs attached to institutions 12/8/75 - 12 ~43 while maintaining freedom of the older person. He thought the use of the Palace Hotel in this manner would be a distinct advantage and would meet the need for a near downtown facility for elderly persons. e George Boehnke, 3120 Agate Street, speaking for the Oregon League of Business and Property Owners, asked for public hearing because they felt it an issue of major importance. A suitable place was needed for senior citizens, he said, but the Palace Hotel, according to architects he had spoken with, was in need of structural changes to the point that it probably warranted a nonoccupancy sign. Speaking for himself, he wondered what had happened to change the criteria calling for condemna- tion of anything north of 8th Avenue in connection with the urban renewal program. He wondered what determined the difference between the Palace Hotel and the old Masonic Temple or the Heilig Theatre which were demolished. All had the same structural deterioration, he said. Mr. Boehnke said there was no objection to re- taining the Hotel as museum piece, but it should not be disguised as a place for elderly housing. He reiterated his request for a public hearing on the issue. Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard, chairman of the Joint Housing Committee, said that people living in downtown hotels, mostly elderly men, did so because of personal preference; they were not applicants for public housing. It was a fact, she said, that a great deal of that type housing had been removed from the downtown area - 226 units through urban renewal. And the Palace Hotel was about the only place left that would provide any hope for continuing that lifestyle as well as that type structure. She thought it fortuante that the building became available at a time when there, ' was funding flexible enough to permit its acquisition; the cost per unit to the city for this kind of subsidy was very favorable compared to costs of other elderly housing in the community. With regard to the lack of competitive bids, Mrs. Niven explained that many hours had been spent trying to get facilities in the downtown area. When the Palace Hotel became available, it was decided better to "strike e while the iron was hot," recognizing that general market prices do not lend them- selves too readily to low-rent levels and that availability of federal funds would make the subsidy possible. Mrs. Niven remarked that although Mr. Suess had under- taken a great deal of building in the community, he was not one of the people to make an offer when ~he invitation was issued for use of revenue sharing funds to provide for dispersal of family housing. She was pleased that Sorgenfri was in- terested in becoming involved as owner/manager of the Palace Hotel and said the last thing to worry about ~as whether they would be able to handle it. Mr. Suess commented that if the purchase was delayed, the Palace Hotel probably could be purchased for the amount of taxes on the property. With regard to his not offering to participate in low-cost housing previously, he said he was involved only in housing for the elderly and had been told on several occasions that the city had all the proposals it could handle for that type of housing. Paul Osborn, Eugene Renewal Agency, said that inspection of the Palace Hotel build- ing showed it to be in good shape, considering the age of the building and type of structure. He said deflection of rafters as much as 10" in the Heilig Theatre build- ing was the reason it was condemned; that was not the case with this building. He said the present owners had received bids for work they wanted to do, but that was with the idea of using the first floor for commercial purposes - that is not included in the present proposal. Also, he said, the main danger was fire hazard, and that had been taken care of in consultation with fire inspectors - there is pro- posed an integrated ionization alarm system in each unit that will sound an alarm throughout the building. e A short recess was taken. II-A-l Councilman Williams, when the meeting was reconvened, declared his intent to abstain from voting because of his interest in Citizens Bank, mortgage holder on the hotel. He said prior to the time he knew the conflict existed, he did support the purchase when the issue was before the Joint Housing Committee. 644- 12/8/75 - 13 1 Councilman Keller asked for staff comment on the liability question. Robin Cush- man, housing expediter, said the city would not be the owner. Under contract, Sorgenfri would own the property and presumably would carry proper insurance cover- age. The question of the city's liability had not been raised in similar arrange- e ments, she said. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said it was difficult to see any city liability, since under contract, the city would not be the owner nor have any operational control. Terms of such a contract, he said, as a matter of course would have to be performed. Councilman, Bradley asked several questions: Whether lending institutions would require city guarantee of Sorgenfri's liability; whether state law required competi- tive bidding for contracting such services, and whether there would be city liability in performing a contract with Sorgenfri without having had competitive bidding; any investigation in terms of the building's location in Fire Zone I and the recently enacted requirement for fire sprinklering systems; any individual market or income appraisal of the property other than that of the Lane County Assessor and recent sale of the property. Answers given by Ms. Cushman, Mrs. Niven, Mr. Osbron, and Manager were that the property is currently financed through a land sales contract which Sorgenfri intends to assume. Another mortgage with Citizens Bank is intended to be taken out to refinance the loan. Services are not really contracted for, only certain actions to enable the purchase to proceed. And it is assumed that in any contract, the city would include provision for sufficient liability insurance - a legal consideration in preparation of the contract. The fire protection system proposed for the building was worked out with the fire marshal, and he was in favor of the proposed as presented. There were no appraisers engaged by the city. However, financial' records showing income and expense and other items were compiled by city staff and were the basis for negotiations with the owner. Mr. Bradley expressed concern that there was no independent appraisal of the prop- erty, considering the recent purchase price quoted and the current sale price. e He thought that should be investigated. He asked if there was any feeling that the property would be used for commercial purposes if the city did not subsidize the purchase for use by elderly tenants. Mrs. Niven said there was one proposal that would have involved conversion to commercial use and that was one of the things that prompted concern of the Housing Committee. She declined to divulge particulars, saying it was improper, when Mr. Bradley asked for details. Mr. Bradley then wondered, if the property was purchased through subsidization, whe- ther the city probably should require a higher standard of fire protection than now existing in the fire code or uniform building code because of the intent to use the structure for elderly housing. Manager replied, with concurrence from Mr. Osborn, that the ionization system proposed is somewhat beyond the present code requirements. He thought the question was well taken, however, and suggested it might be investi- gated in terms of impact on insurance costs. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Hamel to table the issue for two weeks II-A-2 and instruct staff to investigate with the present owner in the mean- time the possibility of at least a temporary option to purchase. In making the motion, Mr. Bradley explained that he thought some of these questions should be more carefully examined. Some of them, he said, appeared extremely rele- vant to whether the city might want to buy the equity. Vote was taken on the motion to table. Motion defeated - Council members Bradley, Hamel, and Haws voting aye; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, e and Shirey voting no; Councilman Williams abstaining. George Boehnke said he thought the city should reconsider the price asked for the Palace Hotel in view of the value of $70,000 placed on the property by the assessor. 12/8/75 - 14 1045 He didn't want to start "buying the whole of downtown at 40% of what it would cost to put up new buildings." Ms. Cushman said the value of $65,470 was placed on the building in 1970 and that the property had not been reappraised since then. e Councilman Haws asked if the staff was recommending against an independent appraisal, did they think it unwise or unneeded at this time. Manager answered that it would mean an additional cost to the city. The city was not actually purchasing the property, he said, although it is subsidizing the purchase. He noted the consider- able amount of study given to facilitating acquisition of the property and said he thought it should go ahead. In further response to Mr. Haws, Manager estimated an independent appraisal would cost the city about $1,000. After discussion of other items, Councilman Bradley brought the subject back with a motion, second by Mr. Hamel, to rescind action taken in committee on December 3, and not allocate $60,000 toward purchase of the Palace Hotel. In making the motion, Mr. Bradley said he was not opposed to use of the Palace Hotel or any other structure for elderly people or any other group. His concern was with this particular proposal, and he said he would rather see it defeated and brought back at a later time in a different form after there was more investigation. Mr.Haws said he would also like to see more investigation, that he would not like to see the issue dropped. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated - Council members Bradley, Harne 1 , and Haws voting aye; Council members Murray, Kell er, Beal, and Shirey voting no; Councilman Williams abstaining. - F. Council Minutes - August 25, 1975 as circulated Approve G. West University Neighborhood Letter Regarding Zoning - Mr. Murray referred to an October 6 letter from the West University Neighborhood stating the zoning in that area is leading to that neighborhood's demise and destruction. He wondered if staff had responded to it. Planning Director explained that copies of the letter had been sent to the Planning Commission but that, to date, the issue had not been scheduled on a Planning Commission agenda. The problem has constantly been a concern of that neighborhood. Attempts were made to alleviate some of those zoning concerns several years ago, and the matter was tabled at that point after some commercial uses, particularly clinics, were eliminated. Mr. Porter felt an appropriate staff response to the neighborhood group would be that the area falls within the community development refinement studies but is not scheduled to be addressed for approximately three years. If that priority were to change, he said, it would need to be considered by the Community Development Commission and also the Planning Commission. Mr. Murray requests that a response be directed to the neighborhood organization advising them the city is aware of the problem and has scheduled the workload to include treatment of their concern. Mrs. Beal didn't think the time frame was appropriate. She said the area in question is one where citizens are tremendously conscious and they should re- ceive higher priority due to the "mess and student ghetto" conditions existing there. She added that the matter should be put on the next committee agenda e with notification sent to the University neighborhood group. Mayor Anderson suggested that more time be allowed for notification of interested parties. Perhaps after Mrs. Beal' return in January would be an appropriate time. Mr. Murray asked that Mrs. Beal also identify what projects in that area she would not want addressed. 1c4<D 12/8/75 - 15 Mr. Haws requested that he be provided with criteria that determine in which order areas will be studied. Planning Director said that information would be provided. perhaps then discussion could be held on changing priorities, taking budgetary decisions into consideration. There is, he added, some justification e I for existing priorities through analysis and planning, and they are included in the 1990 Plan refinement process for all neighborhoods. Comm 11/26/75 Mayor Anderson also suggested communicating with the West University Neighborhood Affirm as they may be unaware of the priorities. Councilman Murray said that in conversation with Thorn Chambliss of the West University Neighborhood group it was brought out that the group was not so much interested in priorities or timing of refinement study for that area as they were with what would happen between now and when the refinement planning did take place. Mr. Murray sug- gested planning department contact with the group to clarify the situation. Manager said contact had been made with the group, that a report was being prepared. He said his understanding was that it was possible some interim action could be taken in contrast ,to a full-fledged refinement study. H. Council Meeting Schedu.Ie During Holidays - Manager suggested reschedu.Iing the December 24 committee meeting to December 23, and omitting the December 31 meet- ing and holding the next one on January 7. This arrangement would then allow COlplll for two committee meetings before the January 12 Council meeting. 11/26/75 Affirm It was agreed the schedule suggested was acceptable and there were no objections to the normal schedule for formal Council meetings (December 8 and 22). I. Water Extension Policy - Manager alluded to the fact that Council has provided e guidelines and shown interest in attempting to prevent extension policies from developing which would result in scattered suburbia, particularly outside the urban service boundary. The EWEB staff is concerned that recent Boundary Com- mission actions in extending water service to the Shade Oaks Subdivision will result in proliferation of demands on service extension. They have received many calls requesting extension - it seems that developers and others are very interested in trying to follow through on what seems to be a precedent set by the Boundary Commission. There is concern by city and county staffs and others whether the precedent violates the 1990 Plan. Manager said that Mr. Parks, EWEB general manager, is not certain how that board will act, but it would appear there will be some law suits because their contract with Wil1amette Water Company restricts the way water can be sold and provisions of the contract would not appear to permit them to provide water to the Shade Oak Subdivision. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained that it is correct that extension of water by the willamette Water Company to Shade Oaks would be outside the existing EWEB-wil1amette Water area. Extension requires EWEB concurrence under the terms of their contract with wi1lamette Water Company. The Boundary Commis- sion says that if EWEB does not consent to extension, the Commission grant is of no effect. The matter is therefore in EWEB's hands. Manager noted the idea has been explored of asking the Boundary Commission to reconsider its action, or perhaps go to the LCDC, the state agency, asking them to overrule the Boundary Commission, which would possibly involve litigation. - Mr. Long said he would need to see the November 6 Boundary Commission minutes first, but it should be noted that the proponents' case for extension is very stronfJ. The people in that area are suffering, and the Boundary Commission 12/8/75 - 16 ~47 qecision was unanimous to grant extension of water service. As the Manager pointed out, the matter is being studied, it may involve litigation, and it is a serious problem. e Councilman Williams' recollection was that the water policy statement agreed to by E~iEB and the ci ty was that if there was a clear and present heal th hazard to an area currently existing, the city and miEB would consent to extension (if within the urban service boundary and consistent with the 1990 Plan). The question would seem to be whether it fits within the 1990 Plan. Assistant Manager stated it has not been definitely ascertained if it is within the language agreed upon wi th ErlEB or within the EWEB-Willamette Water Company contract, or whether it falls within the interpretation of the 1990 Plan. There may be conflict with EWEB, the Boundary Commission, and LCDC; and the matter could go to court. Planning Director pointed out that the reason this extension would violatecity policy is that there is no land use plan for development in the Shade Oaks area. Therefore, under the circumstances, the policy says water should not be extended. Mr. Haws requested that he be provided with documents being referred to so that he might study them further, e.g., the water contract between EWEB and Willamette Water Company, Boundary Comndssion minuces, etc. Mayor Anderson thought a brief review for Council might be helpful - including the geographical area in C.omm question. 11/26/75 It was understood the information would be provided and discussion Affirm continued at a later meeting. J. Prop~s:d Changes in Council Hearing Procedures Relating to Recognizing Public ~ Part~c~pants - Mana~er explained that persons coming to speak at Council meetings are ~ot always prov~ded that opportunity. A form has therefore been drawn up to b: f~lled o~t at the beginning of the meetings by those wishing to testify. Informa- t~on would.~nclude name, address, agenda item, and whether the party wishes to speak f~r or aga~ns~. ,Tho~e ~rs~ns completing a form would be asked to speak first, w~th others f~ll~ng ~n ~f t~me provides. This proposed procedure would help to ensure that those people coming to the meeting prepared to present testimony would be able to do so. Mrs. Beal suggest:d ~hat.the forms be numbered to further streamline the process. Mayor Anderson sa~d ~t ~ght be helpful too if speakers indicated the desired length o~ time theY,wish to speak. Mr. Murray thought it might be worth trying on an exper~mental bas~s, though he worries about efficiency devices which tend to create red tape. ~ayor Anderson ~aid he would see it more as a time regulatory measure and feels ~t should be tr~ed because of complaints from persons who have had prepared statements and could not fit them into the time frame. Comm It was understood a form would be prepared for use at formal 11/26/75 Af firm Council meetings. K.Review of Joint Parks Committee Report on Proposed Bond Issue and Serial Levy A memo of November 20 from the Joint Parks Committee has been distributed to Council. The Committee recommends that the acquisition and development issues not be separated and that the proposal be resubmitted to the Council without modification. It would appear, then, that Council should decide whether to adopt the report now e or later or refer it to someone else. The major issues, it would seem, would be whether the total proposal is to be voted on in the election, or divided, and whether there should be changes in the composition. Question has been raised about whether the levy could be a 10- or 15-year one, and city attorney has had that 12/8/75 - 17 '48 question investigated and given the opinion it could be a l5-year levy. That opinion, dated November 24, has been distributed to Council along with data from Parks on ... op~rationa1 costs if the proposal passes, plus material from the Finance Director on the tax rate question. Councilwoman Shirey said the committee has drawn together as a total package e what they felt were the priority items, starting with a $15,000,000 package and cutting it down to $7,000,000 by prioritizing. The committee would welcome additions or deletions by Council. Mr. Haws commented he would have some suggestions but would like further time to study the proposal before commenting. Mayor Anderson pointed out that the issue would be on the consent calendar of the next Council meeting at which time fur- ther discussion could be held, even if a decision is made "today." Mrs. Bea1 also mentioned she might have some ideas to add. Mr. Haws asked why acquisition costs were raised from $300,000 to $350,000 since May. Parks Director said the adjustment stemmed from the opinion that the original estimate tv'aS a little low. Mr. Hamel remarked that perhaps the proposal could be split, noting some might vote against the entire package if objecting to one portion of it; he mentioned previous ridgeline acquisition opposition. Mr. Murray felt there should be a comprehensive approach, feeling the total proposal is one of sound urban planning. He added that the 1990 Plan puts the city in a position of making various pledges to the public such as developing a balanced park system, maintaining a variety of open spaces and expanding outdoor recreation uses. Any problems that have come up, he added, would tend to prove planning has not been comprehensive enough. For instance, there is still a need today for central city parks, since other demands have previously taken priority. It would seem necessary, then, at this point to tackle the parks e issue head, on to the degree it can be afforded. The practice of picking one more popular project without deciding priorities should be stopped. If the problem is one of money, that of course is legitimate; then the answer would be to submit re- ductions in the comprehensive package and start that reduction by cutting lowest priority items. He would argue strenuously too that, in setting priorities and bumping some items, the very last Ltem to scratch would be the ridgeline pro- posal. There has been a very long history of enactments that should obligate the ci ty to submi t that proposaL. Another factor, added Mr. Murray, is the political one. Each Council member has his or her own area of interest and "picking out certain ones" results in pitting the public against itself. First-rate programs should not be sacrificed for second-rate ones. Councilman williams' only concern is whether the proposal is a logical and balanced one. It seems to be a combination of two different proposals - one a question of urban park development and the second a question of whether the city should invest funds in protecting and bringing in the 1990 Plan urban service boundary. .Mr. Williams speculated whether bringing in that boundary is really the ultimate priority but thought that, if Mr. Murray felt it to be the No. 1 priority, it is not inappropriate to separate the two issues and let the public decide on them not as a package but as they philosophically exist. Mr. Murray referred again to pledges to the public. The 1990 Plan stateS the city will secure a healthful and attractive environment. It also identifies ways of doing that, ,and to him it appears they all '~elong together in a sense that they are all ways of preserving and maintaining quality environment." If there is indeed an e interest in separating the issues, Mr. Murray would think the logical approach would be to address total parks and recreation development at a later time after tackling the first priority. 12/8/75 - 18 04' Councilwoman Shirey does not feel the ridgeline acquisition is a different kind of issue, but simply a different kind of park. It wouldn' tse~'t5'c>Z'!/'ec~ ''itlther opinion . to narrow the urban service boundary when purchasing some of the ridgeline. Mayor - AnJerson stated that over the years Eugene has had a very commendable if not out- standirig record on passing park bond i~sues. It is important, however, how E.he p~ge is presented. The present proposal seems sound; however, in looking at the t 1 package, he would have to be concerned with the cost. With the budget de- li , atLons coming up, and the fate of revenue sharing not known, he feels it is necessary to get far enough along in the 1976-77 budget process before making a final~determination. In looking at a substantial possible increase in the tax rate itself, it seems extremely unwise to present a program without first knowing what budgetary operational commitments will include. After the Budget Committee decides on a bu~€t to present to the voters would be soon enough to simultaneously determine to what 'extent parks development programs should be presented. It was noted that figures in the serial levy do take into account increase in assessed valuation. , ':~. Nr. Haws and flIrs. Shir' both favored continuing the discussion at the next committee- of-the-whole meeting, 'ng those persons wishing to make additional recommendations a chance to do so. Comm It 'was understoo would be scheduled on the December 3 11/26/7~ committee agenda discussion. (Carried to December 10 Affirm committee.) Councilman Bradley declared his intent to abstain from voting on this issue until he received an opinion with regard to whether he had a conflict of interest. e L. Growth Study - In answer to a question from Mr. Murray regarding the status of the growt:h study, Manager's.h.J.d that he has received a report on it from the Plan~ing Direc~o~and the matter will be scheduled for the December 3 committrr Comm meet~ng. (Carned to December 10 committee.) /26/75 File M. Distribution of Budget Committee Materials - Mr. Keller requested that Comm if at all po~sible, materials for Budget Committee meetings be distrib~ted 12/3/75 well enough ln advanc~ of meetings to allow members to study them thoroughly. File N. Liquor License - Change of Ownership - Pizza Aurelio, 2890 Willamette Comm Manager advised the applicant has requested postponement of their hearing 12/3/75 to a later date. There were no objections. Affirm Liquor License - New Outlet - Lampioni's Cellar, 931 Oak Street (R-Restaurant) Applicant: CNW Corporation - Sharon Curtis, Charles Navarra, Donald Walsh. Comm OLCC report indicated several objectors to this application. There were no 11/26/75 obje~tions at the city staff level. rub Hrng Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Hamel to schedule public hearing for December 8 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. II-A-3 (See page 1 these minutes) Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A thr~gh N. Rollcall vote. Motion carried~ all council members voting ~ aye except Cquncilman Bradley abstaining on Item K - Parks bond issue. 12/8/75 - 19 " 5'"0 -- .- III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 954 - Levying assessments for paving hammerhead turnaround on 22nd Avenue 225 feet west of Trillium Street (75-04), read the e first time on November 10, 1975 and referred to assessment panel for hearing ~n December 1, 1975, was brought back with no remonstrances filed and no requests~ to. be heard, a~d read the second time b~ council. bill numbe:: and title.. only, t1te c.. , bemg no councll member present requestmg that lt be read m full. '.' Mr. Murray moved second 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 17480. Council Bill No. 955 - Levying assessments for storm sewer on Hilyard Str~t from 35th Avenue to 36th Avenue (75-05), .read the first time on November 10, 1975 and referred to assessments panel for he~ing on December 1, 1975, was brought back with no remonstrances filed and no reque~~ to be heard, and read the second time by council bilLnumber and title only, th-" being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be d given final passage. Rollcall"vo~e. All council members present voting aye, s declared passed and numbered 17481. Council Bill No. 956 - Levying assessments for paving sewer within 1st Addition to Snelling Plat ,(75-09), ~ad the first time on November 10, 1975 and referred to assessment panel for hearing on Deeember 1, 1975, was brought back with no remonstrances filed and no requests to be heard, and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no co~cil member ~present requesting that it be read in full. j - Keller that the bill be ~~ved and given fi~al passage. Mr. ~urray moved second by Mr. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17482. Council Bill No. 963 - Sanitary sewer between 18th Avenue and 18th ,Place from Tyler Street to approximately 155 feet east (122) 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. 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 second 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 17483.= Council Bill No. 964 - Adopting plans and specifications for saRitary sewer between 18th Avenue and 18th Place from Tyler Street to approximately 155 feet east (122) 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. Keller that the bill be read the second time1by council ~ bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Coun~~l, and that enactmen~ 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. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and mmberer 17484. 12/8/75 - 20 ~S-I Council Bill No. 965 - Sanitary sewer to serve the north side of Whitbeck Boulevard between Powell Street and Lorane Highway (1240) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting e that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17485. Council Bill No. 966 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer to serve the north side of Whitbeck Boulevard between Powell Street and Lorane Highway (1240) was read by council bill number and title only, there be- ing no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17486. Council Bill No. 967 - Sanitary sewer to serve Carlile Estates Subdivision (1222) - was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in ~ull. Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17487. Council Bill No. 968 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer to serve Carlile Estates Subdivision (1222) 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. 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 second 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 17488. 41' V - Resolutions Resolution No. 2464 - Authorizing Lane County Housing Authority to administer Sec- tion 8, Title II, under Housing and Community Development Act in city of Eugene, was read by number and title. ~.~ 12/8/75 - 21 Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2465 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments e for period November 24 through December 8, 1975, was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the ,resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, December 22, 1975. ~ )~ Charles T. Henry City Manager - - \ e 12/8/75 - 22 "5"3