Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/1976 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL January 26,1976 e Adjourned meeting - from January 13, 1976 - 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 January 26, 1976 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Gus Keller, Eric Haws, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Neil Mu rray, Ray Bradley, n.W.Harnel, and Edna Shirey. Students from both South Eugene High and Spencer Butte Junior High were welcomed. They were attending the meeting as a part of their study of city government. I-A-l I - Public Hearings A. Vacation of alley south of Franklin Boulevard between Villard and Orchard (Duvall Investments - Hirons)(AV 75-1) Planning Commission recommended approval on November 10, 1975. Jim Saul, planner, explained that the northern portion of the alley was vacated some years ago and a shopping complex was built on that vacated portion. Vacation of the portion now petitioned, he said, would alleviate maintenance and prevent use by persons Other than tenants of abutting properties. The proposed vacation has been re- viewed by other public agencies and accepted with the provision for retention of easements. He said the Planning Commission's recommendation specified reten- tion of bike and pedestrian easements. The recommendation did not include any vacation further south to 15th Avenue. Mr. Saul added that there were a number of businesses fronting on both Orchard and Villard which did have secondary means of ingress and egress to and from their properties. - Public hearing was opened. Jean Reeder, president of Fairmount Neighbors, pointed out the difficulty people from the Fairmount area would have in reaching the shops on Orchard, a one-way street southbound. They would have to travel 15th to Villard, cross Franklin twice, to gain access. She suggested closing only one side of the alley which would effectively stop cross traffic from Villard to Orchard. Another solution would be changing the one-way street to two-way traffic. Owner of the laundromat on Villard Street noted problems caused by motor trans- ports parking in the alley while delivering goods to adjacent stores, blocking access to the parking lot adjacent to his establishment. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Manager suggested further study of the proposed vacation in view of the nature of the testimony, heard for the first time at this meeting. Mr. Saul explained that the alley abutting the laundromat property was not included in the vacation and pointed out on a map the area that was included. In response to Ms. Reeder, he said there was no requirement for the concrete buffer blocks installed by one of the property owners and they could be removed. . It was suggested that the item be held over until further information was brought with regard to access. Councilman Keller asked that information be brought also with regard to whether transport trucks would have someplce to unload if the alley was closed. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to table the vacation request until the February 9 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ~. ~-r 1/26/76 - 1 B. Abatement, 1442 Pearl Street Manager noted that the Council had viewed the house on tour, that it was in deplorable condition, and the building department recommended demolition. Owners were sent notices of public hearing by registered mail on December 26, 1975 and on January 13, 1976. The notices were refused and returned to the city unclaimed. I-A-2 e Public hearing was opened. A. Dean Owens, 933 Pearl Street, attorney representing the property owners, said they had inherited the property, a house built about 1900. Attempts to sell it had been unsuccessful, leading to their decision that the only economical thing to do was to keep and restore it. Because of several setbacks experienced dbring the past year by the property owner, he had been somewhat slow in up- grading the property. They recognized the building was uninhabitable and asked a l20-day extension to substantially complete the repairs required in the housing inspector's report. Mr. Owens said they were aware of the deficiencies but had not received notices of this hearing. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Manager explained that actual inspection by the building division and efforts to secure improvements started in January 1974. Acceptance of certified notices were refused by the-property owner, accounting for his not knowing of the proposed public hearing. Manager suggested giving two weeks for the property owner to bring in a reasonable plan and evidence that corrections would be made within a reasonable time. Councilman Murray asked when the property was transferred to the present owner. ~ Mr. Owens answered that it was about two and a half or three years ago. .., Councilman Bradley inquired about the existing hazard. Manager detailed items set out in the building division's report, saying there have already been fires in the building creating a danger to adjacent properties. There was also a public health hazard because of rodents. Also, a minor criminal hazard because the building has been occupied off and on for some time since it has not been adequately secured. Councilman Keller asked if criteria would be set for plans and evidence to be submitted if a two-week delay was granted. Manager said there would be, and that the place would have to be reinspected to determine any further damage so the owners could be given a list of things that would have to be done. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to table the item for two weeks (February 9 Council meeting), pending receipt of plans and evidence with regard to bringing the building to code requirements. Councilman Murray had doubts that restroation of this property would be practical. He thought it advisable to authorize abatement, pending receipt of any plan for restoration, so that if nothing suitable was presented the abatement could go ahead. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. C. Rezoning ~ 1. Portion of lot at intersection of Cal Young Road and Norkenzie Road - - From RA to H Historic (Bierly)(Z 75-15) - Cal Young House Recommended by the Planning Commission on December 2, 1975. Manager said that Ms. Bierly requested inclusion of an emergency clause in the rezoning ordinanc~ 1/26/76 - 2 2'~ ~ I-A-3 ,e - I-A-4 e -- should the change be approved, because of a deadline for application for historic preservation funds. Bill Sugaya, planner, said the Historic Review Board on October 23, 1975 determined the Cal Young house met criteria and merited identifi- cation as an historic structure because of its antiquity. No ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members. Staff notes and minutes of Planning Commission and Review Board consideration were made a part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented other than Ken Bierly, 1610 Cal Young Road, offering to answer questions. Council Bill No. 1000 - Rezoning to H Historic District a portion of the lot at the intersection of Cal Young Road and Norkenzie Road was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 2, 1975 be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17510. 2. Lot on south side of 12th Avenue between Oak Street and Pearl Street - From C-2 to H Historic (City)(Z 75-16) - Christian House Recommended by the Planning Commission on December 2, 1975. Bill Sugaya, planner, said that the Historic Review Board on October 23, 1975 determined that the Christian House warranted historic designation because of its antiquity and also because it was representative of the period and style of architectur popular in the 1850s when it was built. No ex parte contacts or reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members other than Councilmen Bradley and Haws who indicated they would abstain from voting. Staff notes and minutes of the Planning Commission and Review Board were made a part of the record by reference thereto (December 2, 1975 and October 23, 1975 respectively). Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 1001 - Rezoning to H Historic District the lot on the south side of 12th Avenue between Oak Street and Pearl Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Councilman Murray commended the Historic Review Board for recommending this house for historic preservation. He aid it had truly historic merit, and he hoped the historic designation would lead to some improvements on the structure. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Murray that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 2, 1975 be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be con- sidered at this time. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye except Councilmen Haws and Bradley abstaining, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 2.9 1/26/76 - 3 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Murray that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Council- men Haws and Bradley abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17511. 3. Area off east end of East 41st Avenue, east of East Amazon Drive - From RA to -~ RA-SR (Nelson)(Z 75-17) Recommended by the Planning Commission on December 2, 1975. Mr. Saul, planner, said the property involved was about three acres at the end of 41st Avenue. The most westerly portion is of modest slope, he said, compared to the balance which is characterized by slope in some instances in excess of 50%. Site re- view would allow clustered units on the westerly area where disturbance of the slope would be minimized, in keeping with the South Hills study calling for de- velopment that would respect natural characteristics of the terrain. The Com- mission was concerned, however, with the extent of development that could occur. This particular parcel could take up to 11 units if developed as a regular sub- division, hence site review procedure was required with specific consideration of density to relieve the impact the development would have on adjacent residences as well as on the natural characteristics of the area. Mr. Saul said the Commis- sion did not set a specific density for the property, thinking that could be handled under the site review process. No ex parte contacts or reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 2, 1975 were made a part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. John Nelson, 3595 Emerald Street, applicant, said that surrounding properties had been developed to a density of 7~ to 8 units per acre, so in requesting site re- view procedure on this property, the density actually was being limited to about 4It half that of surrounding properties. Site review would also allow city control of plans, grade, parking, landscaping, etc., to ensure no harm to the terrain and surrounding homes. He recognized preference in the neighborhood for this I-A-5 propety to remain vacant, but he felt it was not his function to provide open space for those residents. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Council Bill No. 1002 - Rezoning to RA-SR the area off the east end of East 41st Avenue, east of East Amazon Drive, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 2, 1975 be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilwoman Shirey commented that she was in favor of the rezoning under site review procedures. Cluster development, she said, usually places buildings where they best suit adjacent properties and at the same time provide activity space for occupants of the developments. She said this piece of land was "al- most straight up" and density would have to be carefully reviewed. Vote was taken on the motion for second readin. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17512. - 1/26/76 - 4 .30 ~ D. Code Amendments 1. Definition and regulations on corner lots and V1Slon clearance, definition of private and public parking areas and exemptions from parking area improve- ments, and appeal from Zoning Board of Appeals decisions Recommended by the Planning Commission on November 4, 1975. Gary Chenkin, assistant planning director, explained intent of amendments with regard to ~ision clearance regulations, the appeal process, definition of public and private parking areas, and exemptions from parking area improvements, all more or less housekeeping measures. .Public hearing was held on this portion of the proposed amend- ments. No testimony was presented. Mr. Chenkin then explained that the proposed amendment on definition of corner lots was to clarify code provisions with regard to what is meant by two or more streets. The amendment would provide that a roadway would be considered as two intersecting streets forming a corner lot when the abutting property lines form an angle of 1350 or less. He explained that the change would af- fect about 30 undeveloped lots in the city. With regard to defining where duplexes could be built, Mr. Chenkin said the recommendation was to add to the present code the requirement for a l60-foot frontage. Duplexes then could be built on property of at least 10,000 square feet having frontage on two streets totaling 160 feet and forming an angle of 1350 or less. In response to Bob Suess, 260 East 38th Avenue, Mr. Chenkin explained that the Planning Com- mission did discuss the possibility of allowing duplexes on lots located between two corner lots. However, the Commission dropped any particular reference to amending those requirements. . Public hearing was opened. I - B-1 David Jordan, 2895 Wingate Street, opposed the proposed amendment with regard to corner lots and duplexes, saying it was designed to help a few land de- velopers. He said the current zoning ordinance does not permit rental units in his neighborhood, adding that if the amendment was adopted, duplexes could be built along almost all of one street. He felt that would invite transient :families and counteract stability of the neighborhood. He said he was told the reason for changing definition of intersecting streets was to permit more 'living units in the urban area, and he found it hard to believe more rental units were needed in view of the number in the community now vacant. Mr.Jordan pointed out a safety factor involved in allowing duplexes on corner lots as proposed - permitting two driveways on a curve - in view of continuous vehicle speeds traveled on that type of street. He also felt there was some contra- diction with the stated goal of growth control. He suggested that if duplexes 'were allowed on interior lots, the lot size should be at least 10,000 square feet. He favored, however, retaining the present code requirements defining corner lots as properties formed by two intersecting streets, and that at least two or three lots be required between duplex lots. e Roger Breedlove, 2566 Chuckanut Street, pointed out that corner lots in his 'neighborhood had been withheld from sale because of deed restrictions limiting : building to single-family homes. Homes in that area now, he said, are all : single-family dwellings of comparable value. He said he had been told the Planning Commission did not want to become involved in enforcing those deed , restrictions and that the only recourse for homeowners was through the courts. He thought it interesting that one corner lot on a cul-de-sac in his neighbor- , hood was being prepared for construction even before the Council had acted 'upon the proposed amendment. Mr. Breedlove said adoption of the amendment ~:31 1/26/76 - 5 would allow a significant change in the subdivision in which he lived, one de- veloped as a restricted area with the only vacant lots being those considered "corner" lots. He didn't think, once rules for development of an area were established, that one should be forced to go through the courts to maintain ~ deed restrictions. -- Rolland Beglau, 2907 Wingate Street, called attention to a memo he had previous- ly addressed to the Council opposing the proposed amendments. He said the change would affect properties adjacent to quite a number of existing homes and that ad~erse effect should be taken into consideration. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Che~kin said it was true that the Commission considered enforcement of deed restrictions a civil matter and does not want to become involved. He pointed out that under one interpretation of the code as it is now written - requiring intersecting streets regardless of street names to define corner lots - the 30 lots affected by the change would now be eligible for duplex construction. Or the code as now written could be interpreted to define corner lots as those having two frontage lines abutting streets of different names. He cautioned that there would have to be decision anyway to determine whether duplexes could be constructed on the affected lots. In response to questions from Councilman Keller with regard to lots in Mr. Jordan's neighborhood, Mr. Chenkin explaind that if the present code is interpreted to mean a corner lot is one at the intersection of two streets forming an angle of 1350 or less regardless of whether there are two separate streets - that it just turns a :corner - then a duplex would be allowed on that lot. And if it is con- sidered 'a corner lot under that interpretation and there is only one lot between that and another corner, duplex lot, then the interior lot would also be eligible 4It for duplex construction. Councilman Murray asked what the original logic was in allowing duplexes on corner lots. Also, how would this amendment revise that original purpose. Mr. Chenkin answered that originally it was thought that permitting duplex con- struction on corner lots would compensate for dual assessments levied against properties abutting two streets. Of late, he said, it was also considered a help in promoting compact urban growth and in allowing different housing types throughout the city. He said he thought the amendment was in keeping with the original intent of permitting duplexes on corner lots. Councilman Hamel commented that the requirement for two intersecting streets in defining a corner lot for duplex construction had been in effect for many years, but this was the first time a developer had wanted to call a cul-de-sac an intersecting street. He noted that in the South Eugene area and other parts of the city where cul-de-sacs had been developed in subdivisions, duplexes had not been constructed, and he felt objections presented at this time were legitimate. Councilwoman Shirey asked the Planning Commission's reasoning in deleting from its recommendation the staff proposal to require interior lots lying between two corner lots to contain 10,000 square feet before they could be used for duplex construction. Mr. Chenkin said that changing the requirement from the present 6,000 square feet did not appeal to the Planning Commission, primarily because the Commission felt "cuplex occupants could not be equated with occupants of single-family detached homes" so far as impact on an area. He said that e usually families living in duplexes were not as large, did not have children attendi~g schools, and generally did not present the same demand on public services. He added that keeping the 6,OOO-square-foot requirement really would 1/26/76 - 6 ,.32 .e provide 3,000 square feet for the occupant of each side of a duplex, only half the normal space allotted to single-family homes. Another reason for the dele- tion, he said, was that the Commission felt requiring 10,000 square feet would be a contradiction to the compact urban growth concept and that there were not that many situations existing in the city where vacant interior lots were await- ing duplex construction. Mrs. Shirey commented that she knew of instances where developers had designed streets especially to create three lots, and that, to her, did not seem in keep- ing with the intent of duplex regulations. She didn't agree with the duplex family vs single-resident family reasoning, saying duplexes would generate more cars, and even though the family might be smaller, it would have a greater impact. She thought it important to consider the goal of diverse housing but also thought the existing character of a neighborhood should be considered. She was in favor of including in the amendment the 10,000-square-foot provision for duplex interior lots. Mayor Anderson asked for staff comment on the suggestion that a two- or three- lot gap be allowed between duplexes. Mr. Chenkin thought that would take some consideration. He agreed that as shown by Mr. Jordan there probably could be an uninterrupted line of duplexes facing on one street in a detached, single-family type residential area, and that could change the character of the neighborhood. He said that was one reason the planning staff suggested the 10,000-square-foot requirement for duplex interior lots. - Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Hamel to accept staff recommenda- tion and change minimum interior lot size (between corner lots) on which duplex construction would be allowed in RA and R-l zones to 10,000 square feet. Councilman Keller wondered how many interior lots would be affected. There was no specific information available. Bob Suess expressed the opinion that deed restrictions limiting construction to single-family residences should be honored. He said there definitely were areas in the city that could be used to good advantage for duplex construction, al- though adding the requirement of 10,000 square feet for interior lots, he felt, would only add more vacant land that must be maintained. He said he would rather see site review procedures, landscaping requirements, or some design factor im- posed so as to maintain the appearance of a single-family residence. Ralph Alloway, 2565 Chuckanut Street, remarked that his home was purchased in an area of single-family homes on a cul-de-sac having the same name as the street leading to it and he is faced with having a duplex built adjacent to his property, He felt this amendment, if adopted, would amount to a zone change. Mr. Beglau thought a simple solution would be to adopt the amendment redefining corner lots making it applicable only to newly-created or newly-annexed lots. . Councilman Williams suggested withholding second reading of the amending ordinance, should the Council decide to adopt the revisions, to give the opportunity for the Joint Housing Committee to look at the amendment in light of proposals now before it. Mr. Williams said his impression was that there was nothing in this amendment that would impinge on Joint Housing Committee proposals any more than the present code now does. He later withdrew the request for referral of the amendment to the Joint Housing Committee before adoption after being informed that Betty Niven, chairman of the Joint Housing Committee, had no particular concerns about the amendment as now drafted. 1/26/76 - 7 '33: Vote was taken on the motion to change mlnlmum interior lot size to 10,000 square feet. Motion defeated - Council members Haws, Williams, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller, Beal, Murray, Bradley, and Mayor Anderson voting no. -- Councilwoman Beal expressed a desire to hold the ordinance over for passage at the next Council meeting since she had not seen a draft of the actual amend- ments. Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Bradley to table the issue until the February 9, 1976 Council meeting. Motion defeated - Council members Beal, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller, Haws, Williams, Murray, and Hamel voting no. Council Bill No. 1003 - Amending City Code Section 9.254 - Definition II-A-l of corner lot, vision clearance, private and public parking areas; Section 9.015 - Definition of corner lot in land division; Section 9.310 and 9.324 - Duplexes permitted; Section 9.538 - Vision clearance regulations; Section 7.630 - Vision obstruction at inter- section (foliage); Section 9.756 - Appeal from Zoning Code Board of Ap- peals decisions; Section 9.584 - Exemptions from parking area improvements, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws 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. Lacking unanimous consent - Council members Beal, Hamel, and Shirey voting no - the bill was held over for second reading on February 9, 1976. ~ 2. Defining space required for bicycle storage in conjunction with multiple dwelling units Gary Chenkin, assistant planning director, explained that this code amendment was recommended by the Planning Commission at its November 24, 1975 meeting and by the Mayor's Bicycle Committee. The amendment would prescribe minimum dimensions for bicycle storage of 2'x6' with overhead clearance of six feet to provide space for overhead racks if desired. Mr. Chenkin said that the code now requires bicycle storage space but does not specify dimensions. Public hearing was opened. II-A-2 Scott Lieuallen, 1190 West Broadway, member of the Bicycle Committee, said that the proposed change would simply ensure provision of a reasonable amount of space for the bicycle storage now required by the code. Jack Low, 3960 West 18th Avenue, supported the proposed amendment but thought consideration should be given to inference, in alloting 6'x6'x2' space, that vertical parking is acceptable. He said parking above the six-foot clearance . would become horizontal parking, and he thought there should be some minor addition to the language of the amendment to take care of that technicality. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Mr. Chenkin said that no problems were anticipated with the six-foot vertical clearance. ~ 1/26/76 - Council Bill No. 1004 - Amending City Code Section 9.587 re: Space required for bicycle storage in conjunction with multiple-dwelling unit$ was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it b~ read in f\.ll1. 3/L 8 -,- Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws 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. -- Councilman Bradley expressed his concern that cost of constructing this type storage would add to the overall cost of housing and be passed on to the renter. He wondered tooo about the physical appearance of such space, whether it would be of concrete. Mr. Chenkin explained that no particular bike storage space was under discussion, and that storage space was now a code requirement for multiple-family housing. This amendment would merely require minimum dimensions where currently it is more or less taken for granted that adequate space would be provided. Vote was taken on the motion for second reading as stated. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17513. . 3. Appointments, Human Rights Commissions Note: Committee minutes of January 14 and 21 cover general discussion. See under consent calendar these minutes. Manager reviewed the original provisions of the human rights ordinance with regard to selection of human rights commissions members through open application and interview of finalists by the City Council. The revision proposed by action in committee (see minutes January 21) would provide simply for appointment by the City Council. He added that copies of all citizen interest forms had been distributed to Council members and to the press. Recommendations for appointment of certain applicants had also been distributed to the Council. II-A-5 Councilman Keller thought that Council members, before opening the issue to a public hearing, should discuss the amendment drafted for consideration. He felt if there was consensus on intent with regard to appointment of commission members, then perhaps a public hearing would not be necessary. He asked the city attorney again to explain terms of the code as now written. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said that in his view the present ordinance does not require Council interview of each and every applicant; it requires only interview of those de- termined by some selection process to be finalists. Under revision of Council bylaws recently adopted and creation of the citizen interest form, the ordinance merely directs personal interviews by the full Council as well as full Council review of applications. The ordinance as written also provides some latitude in determining how finalists are selected - it could be by Council subcommittee recommendation or some other process chosen by the Council. Mr. Long added that there is no specification as to the number of finalists to be interviewed, the Council may decide that. - Councilman Williams questioned the requirement for "personal" interview by the full Council and wondered whether written interview would be satisfactory. Mr.Long answered that if the Council bylaws were used, they clearly state "personal" interview. If the bylaws are not used, then there would have to be some inter- pretation of the word "interview." He said it seemed pretty clear that the com- mittee drafting the bylaws revision intended personal Council interviews. Mayor Anderson could see no reason for adopting the amendment. The present ordinance could stand, he said, and selection of members of the human rights groups could proceed on Council motion. Councilman Keller added that guidelines 35 1/26/76 - 9 could be set at the Council's first meeting when citizen interest forms are considered. Councilman Murray asked for clarification of intended action. Mayor Anderson 4It and Councilman Keller pointed out the amendment prepared would provide merely for appointment of commission members by the Council, it would delete the specific process required in the existing ordinance. Mr. Keller thought it best to work under the existing process for the time being, then if any problem was encountered, an amendment could be considered. Councilman Williams thought there would be a problem under existing provlslons because of the numbers of people who would have to be interviewed and the amount of time involved in that process. Councilman Murray agreed that there would be a certain amount of time involved, but he thought that was the only way to do justice to the citizen involvement program and preserve the integrity of the ordinance as written. Councilman Keller asked the attorney's advice - whether a written interview could be conducted to narrow down the number of finalists for personal interview. Barring that process, he asked, could twenty from each group be picked for each commission with a more complete form filled out from which to choose nine to interview for each commission. Mr. Long answered that changes would have to be made in the code provision itself, deleting the language calling for selection through public process. And the bylaws provisions would have to be deleted or changed. He said the problem appeared to be the includsion of a selection pro- cess in the code; it would either have to be "lived with or changed." Mayor Anderson thought any change needed could be confined to the Council by- laws, perhaps by dividing the interviews between several Council members or ~ assigning certain Council members to interview for certain commissions. Councilman Murray noted that the method of selection for the women's commis- sion was a point of discussion by the task force in preparing the human rights ordinance - whether selection of members would be by the Mayor alone or whether through open application process as adopted, or nominations by groups. His interpretation of the concern expressed was that the only way to get a broad representation of the community's interests and allow diversity was to have full Council participation in an open selection process. He thought using sub- committees would be going astray from the most important concern. The Mayor said he didn't intend for subcommittees to make the actual selection, only that they process the applications for selection of finalists for full Council interview. Councilwoman Beal remembered that the method of selection was a major issue in discussions with the women's groups. She felt a commission designed to protect those who feel they had been discriminated against would not be effective unless it was a truly representative group. And it would not be representative unless it was chosen on the basis of qualifications and background and in an open pro- cess with great publicity to avoid appointment of people unaware that discrimina- tion exists. She thought it important at this time to leave the present ordinance unchanged, then work out adjustments as they are needed in working under it. Councilman Bradley referred to committee discussion on amending the bylaws with respect to selection of boards and commission, and Mr. Long explained that the action taken at that time was to implement bylaw provisions previously adopted for determining which procedures would be used for various boards and commissions. Noting the procedure for selection of human rights commissions was not considered at that time, Mr. Bradley said it appeared the Council had the option under the existing ordinance for selection of finalists for interview by the Council. The issue now, he said, appeared to be whether interview of all applicants by the - 1/26/76 - 10 3<0 .- entire Council was preferred, interview by subcommittee of the Council, or recommendation to the full Council after survey of written applications. The Mayor said the issue was whether a portion of the ordinance was to be eliminated so the Council would be free to make the selection as it decides at the time. Public hearing was opened. 11-8-1 Speaking against amending the human rights ordinance with regard to the selection process were Mabel Armstrong, 2640 McMillan; Charlotte Mills, 5110 Nectar Way; Mary Klonoski, 2795 Central Boulevard - all members of the task force which de- veloped the human rights ordinance creating the women's commission; Sharon Posner, president of the League of Women Voters; Karen Alvarado, 2415 Skyline Boulevard, member of the Governor's Commission on Status of Women; Dee Tipping, 1227 Woodside Drive; Jewel Baker, 3266 Gardenia Way, president of Senior Lobby; Margie Hendrik- sen, 1990 Dogwood, state president of Oregon Women's Political Caucus; Ron Wyden, 490 East 18th Avenue, co-director of the Gray Panthers; and Joyce Salsbury, 3330 Olive Street. All opposed the amendment basically because it would negate terms of the ordinance as developed through compromise in task force meetings. - It was pointed out that in succeeding years, after creation of the original commissions, there would be fewer appointments to consider and time involvement in the process would not be so great. Ms. Mills noted the feeling of mistrust that would be created should the Council choose now to appoint members by other than an open, public process. She said that several applicants for membership felt there was possibility their appointment would be jeopardized if they spoke out against the amendment now. Ms. Posner suggested selection of ten or twelve finalists by a subcommittee, then personal interview of those people by the entire Council. Personal interview, they felt, would provide Council members with a better overall impression of those best qualified and interested in serving on a commission. Ms. Konoski expressed the opinion that if the selection process was not carried out as provided in the ordinance, a compromise between the original women's position and the mayor/council, then all the other compromises developed in task force meetings would also be "out." Ms. Hendricksen reported that Mike Phillips, chairman of the present Human Rights Commission, was also opposed to the amendment. Most felt the amendment, if adopted, would weaken the original commission and make a difference in the "tone" of work to be carried out in years to come. Also, that interviewing as many people as possible would provide for th~ selection of commission members who would be responsive to the needs of the people with whom they would be concerned. II - B- 2 II-B-3 II-B-4 II-B-5 II-B-6 Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mayor Anderson said he had never heard of anyone's being denied an opportunity for participation in government on the basis of testimony they may have pre- sented in a public hearing. He said the Council always conducted open meetings and entertained discussion on all sides, and certainly a person's testimony never entered into any Council member's consideration of qualifications for members of boards and commissions. -- Councilman Murray expressed concern that some testimonial statements appeared to indicate that there would be a sort of closed process that would be secret. He wanted to refute that impression, saying that all meetings would be open and all decisions would be made in public. He personally favored a written interview process with questions drafted and answered as part of the public record. But he did not want that process equated with some sort of closed process. The public may disagree as to the process, he said, but nevertheless it would not be closed. Councilman Williams echoed Mr. Murray's comments. He said he would not support or take part in any selection process that appeared to have come from a "back room," and that was not the intent of the amendment proposed. Tqe intent, he said, ~".. 1/26/76 - 11 was to choose the most efficient system for bringing to the Council's attention the qualifications of those expressing an it-erest in serving rather than having the Council spend a tremendous amount of time weeding out the applications. Councilwoman Shirey was in favor of proceeding with the agreed-upon process that came out of the task force and as written in the existing ordinance. She thought any adjustment necessary could be made after there had been opportunity to evaluate the process. e There was no motion forthcoming and the Chair closed the issue without further action with the understanding the human rights ordinance would stand as now written. II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as requested. . Previously discussed in committee on January 14 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Bradley, and Shire) and January 21,1976 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics. A. Appointment of Planning Commission Members - Mr. Keller raised a question relating to the January 12 Council discussion on reappointment of Mr. Alan Maxwell and Dr. John MacKinnon to the Planning Commission. Mr. Keller had asked for comment from staff on the two gentlemen in question. City Manager stated that, during 1975, there were 73 Planning commission meetings; Mr. Maxwell missed ten, all of which were excused. Dr. MacKinnon missed eight, also all excused. Planning Director noted Dr. MacKinnon had originally been appointed to fill out the unexpired term of Mr. Hoffman, thus he has only served two years and it does take some time to become thoroughly familiar with planning terminology. Mr. Maxwell has been president of the Co~ssion during the past year, and both men have been hardworking participants. -it Mr. Keller llDved seconded by Mr. Williams to reappoint Mr. Maxwell and Mr. MacKinnon to the Planning Commission for four-year terms commencing January 1, 1976. Comm 1/14/76 Approve Mr. Murray expressed embarrassment that the issue of the competency of the two members in question had been raised. The issue, he th9ught, was whether it is appropriate to make automatic reappointment of members to boards and commissions. Mr. Haws thought that, since the appointment processes have been changed, new criteria might need to be established for appointments and reappointments. Mayor Anderson suggested scheduling discussion on the matter for a future Committee agenda. He expressed the opinion that reappointment should be based on performance. and that, if performance is judged good or exemplary, reappointment should be considered at least once since it denotes a recognition of satisfactory service plus realization that the incumbent m.ight be able to contribute .rore et:-fectively than a newcomer. Familiarity and experience seem partlcular ly .ir::portaiit Cln the .Pl arw.[iigCommiss ion. Mr. Keller noted that Nr. NaXt./c.ll hilS alreaar.; l.JL:en el!lcted Planning Commission President for the coming year, awl boU! '1'. nL l~'men have been in contact ,vi th Mr. Keller about the reappointment mJtter. Mayor Anderson felt members should have been lloti[ied much earlier if applications were desired. .- Mr. Bradley suggested appointing the two as acting members pending further discussion of the policies, and Mrs. Beal wondered about extending the expired terms until successors are appointed (the two in question also being possible successors). 1/26/76 - 12 3er e Mr. Henry raised the point that the Planning COmnUssion will be meeting January 24 in an all-day session with Manager and Planning Director. It would be preferable that all members' appointments be confirmed by that time. -.-/ Mrs. Shirey felt the two gentlemen should be reappointed, with further discussion relating only to future appointments. Mr. Williams agreed, feeling incumbents should be clearly aware well in advance of expiration of their terms of any discussion that mi ght be forthcoming regarding reappointment. In the first place, said Mr. Williams, it would be an affront to the organization to withhold reappointment of an already-elected President; too, Dr. MacKinnon has been through the extensive review, evaluation, and selection process by the Common Council and, because of the timing of the vacancy, his first term was only for two years; therefore, he has not even completed what would be a normal term. Mr. Murray felt that, given the timing of the present situation, reappointment should perhaps be made, though he does tend to favor review each time a reappointment is necessary to see who would best qualify. Mayor Anderson thought that setting certain standards for positions would be a good idea but felt that, should an incumbent meet those standards, he or she should be eligible for at least one reappointment. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. e It was understood discussion on reappointment procedures would be scheduled for a future Committee meeting. Councilman Haws noted his intent to vote "no" on this item, saying he was not voting against the appointment of Messrs. Maxwell and MacKinnon themselves, but against the method of reappointment. He said he had never had an opportunity to interview anyone for membership on the Planning Commission, and that although he had voted for the reappointments in committee because he wanted to expedite the appointments, he now felt that was wrong. After reviewing several of the citizen interest forms on file, he now felt the appointments should be made through the open process. -' Mayor Anderson in committee. pointing these noted that the Council would be discussing reappointment procedure Mr. Haws understood, that, he said, and would not be opposed to ap- people another four to six months, but he still wanted to vote "no." B. Zon~ng Appeal, Jess Hayden, S. W. Corner Lot of 11th and Polk (2 75-6) Appellant has requested that hearing on the above appeal, originally scheduled for January 26, be postponed to February 9. Nr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to postpone hearing on the above appeal to February 9. Hotion carried unanimously. Comm 1/14/76 Approve C. Results of Summary on COrrmllttees and Commissions Appointments - Results were d.istributed on a survey taken of Council members on preference for methods of selection of members to bourds and cOrrmllssions. The selection options w'or.e: Z} by Council .interview; Council to review all appropriate application tonrr., narro;</ down the number, and intervi~w all finalists. 2) Citizen forms,. Council would review the Ci tizen Interest Forms, making the appointments e ----' ,~9 1/26/76 - 13 on that basis alone. 3) comndttee recommendations; provides for the appointment of a council subcommittee that would review all applications and make recommendations to the full Council. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Haws that Council adopt the Council interview process for the Housing and Community Development Commission and for the Planning Commission; review of Citizen Forms only for the four Human Rights Comndssions plus the Renewal Agency; and recommendation of Council subcommittee method for MAPAC, Regional Sewer Commission, TV Cable/Translator Commission and Vision 2000-Lane County. In answer to a question from Mrs. Beal on the procedures, Mr. Murray reminded her that an amendment had earlier been adopted to the bylaws saying Council would review appointments and establish one of three procedures. Mrs. Beal requested a chance to speak with the aging and women's groups before voting on the selection methods. 'Mr. Murray suggested voting on the motion but excluding the two commissions Mrs. Beal mentioned as well as the other two human rights commissions, thus treating all four of them on an equal basis. A question was raised as to whether MAPAC's role would be changing and whether voting on a selection method for it should be deferred at this point. Mayor Anderson felt that Council should come to some conclusions on selection procedures as soon as possible and not defer action on any more commissions than is absolutely necessary. Mr. Bradley moved to amend the motion to delete appointment procedures for MAPAC.Motion died for lack of a second. Vote was taken on the motion,as amended to delete appointment procedures for the four human rights commissions, which carried unanimoUSly. D. ESATS Alternatives - Staff Recommendation on Modal Split - Mr. Murray's motion (second - Keller) to accept staff's recommended refinements of Council action on modal split was tabled from the January 7. Committee meeting, and a report on suggested refinement has previously been distributed to Council. Percentages recommended by staff were: 15% mass transit; 5% bikes; 5% pedestrian; 5% paratransit. e Comm 1/14/76 Approve - Comm 1/14/76 Approve Mr. Williams raised the question whether, given Springfield's option on no mass transit increase, Eugene's plan would be workable in combination with Springfield. Manager explained that of COurse specific figures must be arrived at. The staff has proposed to the LCOG Board, who in turn will make a request to each ,junisdiction, that the Mayors and staff meet to work out procedures for arriving at a compromise. Mr. Williams spoke in favor of Mr. Murray's motion, in order to give the Mayor bargaining stock in trying to arrive at a resolution with Springfield. Support is needed across the urban area and it would seem to Mr. Williams that both sides will have to yield somewhat. There is no reason why Eugene should not be able to take as extreme a position as other jurisdictions prior to negotiations. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. 1/26/76 - 14 40 e e Mr. MurraY tl~en referred to Statement 5 of Council':: ,'il'...>\;(;u:; ",;[l'X! i';:i!C!; -'.J:;: "/t is qui tc possible that the above policies, when c')7;plr,d wi I"}) fUtUH' fliL. limi tdtions and correspondent cost increases, will resu i..': in a ton pf'J":.:-:nt reduct.ion in the number of trips per capita. This is j'l _Iddition t.? :1,,:; n?duction of trips by private autorrobile resulting from gre':ltcr use of o!:her nodes of trdllsportat.ion." '- Nr. Murray m.?t'ed seconded by Mr. Haws that the trans{>ortation p_lan incl'ICie a conceptual commitment to the question of trip reduction without regard to precise percentages, wi th implementation means to be aecomp] i:;hed as part of a 5-year update process. Comm 1/14/76 Approve Mr. Murray added he is not concerned with percentage of trip reduction as with putting ideas down to be worked on as part of a 5-year assignment. Mr. Bro.dley wondered, "why wait five years". Mr. Porter responded that at this point a master plan will be developed and the staff does not have the technical expertise to increase the percentages and know what will eventually happen. Mr. Bradley then wondered why the percentages were included in the ESATS update if staff is not technically capabl e, to whi ch Mr. Porter res ponded they were for ill ustrati ve purposes. However, Mr. Bradley had thought each figure would be workable, and to give only conceptual approval is to dilute Council's decision. He would like the 10% trip reduction a part of that decision, modified by the 15-5-5-5 percentages. e Mr. Porter explained that the alternatives report clearly outlines the level of expertise. Staff does not have the expertise to increase the percentage of non-auto trips at this time. He assumes, however, that the 10% figure will be inc.luded in the plan and forwarded on to LCOG as an informational item that will be used in the ongoing process. Public Works Director commented that to set time limits is academic - if a major circumstance arises, the process would be to address the issue at that point. Mr. Williams, in clarifying the various positions, said Planning Director is asking that no action be taken at this time on the 10% reduction but that it be looked at in 5 years; Mr. Murray is asking for a moral commitment to a percentage reduction in five years but that the vehicle of how to accomplish it will not be resolved until the 5-year deadline; Hr. Bradley is saying a commitment is needed now. It would seem to Mr. Williams that there are enough points of difference at this time wi thout further complicating the issues. He would question tIle wisdom of instructing someone to include a certain goal with no idea how to accomplish it. Vote was taken on the motion which carried, council members Haws, Beal, Murray and Shirey voting aye and council members Keller and 'v.illiams voting no, Mr. Bradley abstaining. E. Mayoral Appointments Presented by Mayor Anderson e Reappointments needing Council confirmation: Airport Commission - Bruce Chase Ralph Cobb Public Solicitations Committee - Four-year term ending 1/1/80 Marie Randall (Mrs. Delbert) Four-year term ending 1/1/80 Electrical Board - James L. Mitchem Three-year term ending 1/1/79 Library Board - Mary Lacy (Mrs. Frank) Four-year term ending 1/1/80 ..- 41 .1/26/76 - 15 , PlunbingBoard - Malcolm Manley Robert Fegles R. K. Livingston Warner Dallas Joel Goss One-year term ending 1/1/77 e Other Reappointments 8uilding/Housing Code Board of Appeals - Richard Chambers Five-year term ending 1/1/81 Masonry Board - Eugene Schaudt Three-year term ending 1/1/79 Mechanical Board - Walter Brunner Five-year term ending 1/1/81 . Zoning Code Board of Appeals - Darrel L. Smith Five-year term ending 1/1/81 Boxing comndssion - Donald R. Barker Hugh Luby W. W. Porter Frank Riggs One-YEiar term ending 1/1/77 Garbage Board - Robert Deverell Wallace Swanson One-year term ending 1/1/77 In response to Councilman Haws, Mayor Anderson explained that all of those listed were reappointments. Several new appointments would be made, he said, to fill vacancies on other boards and committees - Sign Code Board of Appeals, Public SOlicitations, etc. - and those would be brought to the Council .after he had an opportunity to review the citizen interest forms submitted. The Mayor said that,as he previoUSly indicated,anyone who had . served a term generally was reappointed unless they asked not to be reappointed. Also, that some boards, such as the masonry, mechanical, electrical, etc., precluded much choice because of restrictions on membership to certain qualifications. e Couflc.i1man Murray asked if reappointments to the five bodies listed requ~r~ng Council confirmation were persons who had served one term only, whether there were other vacancies On any of those boards, and whether applications had been received for any of the five. Mayor Anderson said the reappointments were persons who had served either one term or a part of one term and that .there were no vacancies other than on the five boards shown. He said there :were a number of applications submitted expressing interest in almost every committee listed on the roster. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to confirm the reappointments as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 1/21/76 Approve .- ..... F. Assessment Panel Report - January 19, 1976 - No requests were to be heard and no wri tten protests had been rece.i ved on proposed assessments. Manager explained, however, that sorre people did appear requesting a hearing on assessments levied by C.B. 992 (paving alley between 4th and 5th, Washington and Lawrence) an.d P.~B. 994 (pav..iJE ~J.ley between 13th and 14th, Ferry to Patterson). Consequently, he said it would be necessary to schedule those two council bills for the next assessment panel hearing (yet to be scheduled). The balanc~ of the council bills are in order and staff recommended that assessments be levied as proposed. Mr. Williams moved.seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the assessment ordinances as proposed, withholding C.B. 992 and C.B. 994 for . action at a future date. Comm 1/21/76 Approve - 1/26/76 - 16 42. e In response to Councilwoman Beal, Councilman williams said that one of the exceptions covered single-family dwellings in her ward. He explained that there were three projects on which people appeared without giving notice they wished to be heard - one had been resolved at staff level, the other two could not be resolved by staff and would have to be heard at the next panel hearing. '- Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanilTPusly. G.Appointment Procedure, Boards and COmnUssions - Manager reported 167 applications for membership on various boards and commissions had been received in response to 'the Council's new citizen interest program. The question now before the Council is the method of selecting the initial members of the four h~n rights commissions (women, minorities, aging, handicapped) as well as reappointments to existing boards and cOmnUssions. Councilwoman Beal thought full Council interview would be required since the ordinance so stipulated. However, t:he said she had talked with members of the groups for which lTPst applications were received - women and aging - and she felt they would understand the time pressures involved and would not object to Council subcommittee screening applications and recommending those persons to be presented to the full Council for interview. e Councilman Haws thought it might be possible for all Council members to review all of the applications for the human rights groups, then select those for full Council interview. Mayor Anderson said ultimately the Council will make the appointments. The women's and aging groups would like to have some input at this time, so the question now is what outside input is desired and in what way before th~re is a final decision. '- Mr. Haws said he was suggesting getting input from various groups much as the neighborhood groups were consulted when the Council last selected Planning Commission members. Mrs. Beal felt the applicatons lacked specifics on expertise in the various fields covered and, because there were so many applicants interested in many different comnattees, she felt a Council subcomnattee could talk to groups interested to determine which appointments would be most appropriate for which boards and comndssions. Councilman Murray thought an informal procedure best, each Council member having the prerogative to seek out information about applicants they might be interested in. To get in an official posture of seeking advice of one group or another, he said, often results in devisive kinds of concerns. Mayor Anderson agreed, saying perhaps the word could go out inviting any recommendations and supporting data. e In response t~ Councilwoman Shirey, Mrs. BlJal said her suggestion was for a Council subcomnUttee to review all the application forms, narrowing the choice down to those to be interviewed by the full council. She vol unteered for work on that suboonmtittee, saying she had personal knowledge of and acquaintanceship with the groups having the most applications - women and aging. Councilman Haws was not in favor of that procedure. He felt the entire Council should look at all of the applications. Councilman Hamel agreed. He said everyone who t:urned in an applicat:ion should be interviewed by the Council. But Mr. Haws said that was not his intent - to interview all the applicants. He meant the Council was obligated to review all the applications submitted, then select those to be interviewed by the full Council. '43 1/26/76 - 17 ... Mrs. seal's feeling was that, as in the past, those names known to the Council would be selected for interview. There are 36 people to choose for membership on the four commissions, she said, and she thought a Council subcomnrrttee could better accumulate the needed information to determine which should be interviewed, thereby giving the opportunity for making wiser choices. e Councilman Bradley saw a fourth method of appointment emerging - a combination of full Council interview of finalists after review of applications and recommendation by a Council subcommittee. He suggested that all Council members review the applications, then delegate to a subcomndttee the chore of making a recommendation, rather than confusing the issue by using both methods. Mayor Anderson asked if the Council wishes to invite outside input, either through contact with individual Council members or in writing. There were no Objections. ; Councilman wiViams thought perhaps consideration should be given to Changing the ordinance in view of the number of applications received and the proba1;ili ty of having to interview as many as 50 people. He thought discussion of modifying the ordinance to base selection on application forms rather than the interview system might be in order. Councilman Murray said 'ideally everyone who applied should be interviewed by the Council, but recognizing the time element he thought interviewing all might be unrealistic. It might be better, he said, to recognize the original intent to interview applicants was in error and a more manageable selection process was needed. Mayor Anderson pointed out that after these four commissions were appointed- there probably would be only a third as many in future years. But Mr. Murray said that three vacancies on four commissions each year, plus the oth.e! fi v~ existing commissions, co~~d.result in having to interview about 50 people each year. Mrs. Shirey mentioned there would also be .... reappointments to consider. e Mayor Anderson suggested that all Council members review the applications submitted, then each nominate two or three for appointment to each comnrission. He thought this would provide a better balance as well as reflect the Council politically. The 16 names submitted, he said, could then be narrowed down to nine to be called in for interview for each of the four co~ssions. Councilman Keller asked if the existing ordinance provided that the Council "can" or "had" to interview all finalists. Mrs. Beal answered that all had to be interviewed. She added that the citizen interest form developed was ,useless, that it did not provide the kind of information needed, and that one should be developed for each separate board or committee. In response to Councilman Keller, Manager said staff could xerox all of the applications received fo:r: distribution to Council members, thereby giving opportunity for individual review. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to instruct staff to draft for Council consideration an amendment modifying the human rights ordinance to provide simply for selection and appointment by the Council rather than having specific language as to the process. , Corom 1/21/76 Approve e ,Mr. Williams said that if the motion carried then he would suggest an amendment to the Council bylaws to provide that each Council member receive copies of 1/26/76 - 18 '.2LA_ , "":"J""f"" . - all citizen interest forms submitted, each to submit two names deemed appropriate for consideration by the full Council. If it was determined not enough names were provided, it could be changed rrore easily than if the procedure were contained in the ordinance. Mr. Murray supported that thinking but didn't believe a procedure had to be written up anywhere. He thought the procedure already in the bylaws could be followed - Council review of all applications for selection of those to be interviewed. '.- Upon being told that the amendment, if the rrotion passed, would be adopted at the next Council meeting, Mrs. Beal pointed out that the manner of selection by open interview was one of the most sensitive points in the discussion on creation of the four corrmissions. She expressed surprise that Councilman Murray had forgotten the issue was deadlocked until the League of Women Voters suggested the method finally adopted, and she felt another "lot of turrroil" would be started at this time. She thought the amendment would be satisfactory for appointments in the future but to do that in selecting the original membership at this time she felt was dishonest. Mr. Murray concurred that full Council interview was an important point in initial discussions, and he said the Council should be aware there would be people disappointed if there is a change in the procedure. However, his only intent was to say it may have been a mistake to choose that method, that it is very time consuming and an inefficient way of proceeding. Mayor Anderson thought the Council's handling 'input on an informal basis would satisfactorily meet all obligations to keep good faith if it was understood that there would be interviews before a final decision. e Mrs. Bea.I said she would go along with the change on all but the women's comrndssion because there was a very clear and firm understanding. She said son~ of the groups ..ere thinking of asking for changes in commission structure, and she suggested when those amendment requests came in, this amendment could occur. _ Mrs . Beal 1lX)ved to amend the rrotion so that it would apply to all commissions except the women's commission. Motion died for lack of a second. In response to Councilwoman Shirey, Mayor Anderson explained that Mr. Williams' 1lX)tion was very general and provided only that selection and appointment would be made by the City Council. How the Council makes the selection and appointment is up to it. This amendment would re1l'Ove from the ordinance the restrictions on the process. He added that it could be adopted with the understanding that appointments to the women's commission possibly could be made following interviews. Mrs. Shirey said she would be in favor of the 1lX)tion only on that condition. Councilman Williams said the intent of his motion should not be construed that appli cants for the women's comrndssion definitely would be interviewed. If the Council made that decision when looking at the applications, it has the right' to do that, he said; but his motion does not look to any specific procedure. Mrs. Beal expressed very strong opposition to the motion and noted there would probably be other strong opposition because she thought in a way it was a betrayal of what was promised the women's groups. e Vote was taken on the motion to amend the human rights ordinance to provide simply for selection and appointment by the Council. Motion carried, Council members Keller, Haws, Williams, Murray, Bradley and Hamel voting aye and Council members Beal and Shirey voting no. '-' .45 1/26/76 - 19 ",' Mr. Keller rrvved seconded by Mr. Haws that staff prepare copies of all applications submitted for the four commissions for distribution to Council members as soon as possible, after which each Council member will submi t two names for each commission for full Council review and discussion of which to interview. . Councilman Williams was not averse to having each member submit two names, but he preferred seeing all of the applications before any definite decision was . made on procedure. Mrs. Shirey was concerned about the number. She thought there might be several top-notch applicants, and submitting two names could perhaps limit the number of those to be considered. Mayor Anderson and .Councilman Keller pointed out that there was nothing "magic" about two; three names could be submitted from each Council member if they desired. . Councilman HalvS said he would go along wi th the rrvtion, but it looked to him as though the Council was going back to the former procedure of selecting only those names with which they were personally familiar. There appeared to be very minor data available on the forms submitted, he said. He suggested changing the form to something like that used in selecting members appointed ,to the housing commission. Mrs. Beal commented that the people being selected were not to fill vacancies but for setting up new commissions, and areas of expertise, knowledge, and experience should be known. She thought picking : two names at random would not give the variety of interests and balance necessary for effective work. Mayor Anderson pointed out that five names could be submitted if wanted. Also that the purpose of Council discussion after the nominations were received would achieve the desired balance. COllnc_ilman Murray expressed frustration at getting bogged down in procedural . discussion and suggested the best W1Y to proceed was to review all of the applications after which a decision could be made on the next step. Mr. ',Williams agreed. e ,,- Mr. Williams rrvved seconded by Nr. Hamel to substitute a motion that staff distribute to individual Council m?mbers copies of all applications; thereafter the Council president would call a session of the Council to be held in one of the Council offices to which the press would be invi ted and free to cover, but to which the public would not be invited, at which time the Council would make the selections. Conun 1/21/76 Approve Councilman Keller wondered if a decision was needed on som? process to follow in that meeting. Mr. Murray answered that in the past the president usually suggested how the meeting would proceed. Vote was taken on the substitute motion as stated. Motion carried, Council members Keller, Williams, Murray, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye and Council members Haws, Beal and Bradley voting no. It was understood discussion on method for handling reappointments would be carried to a future Committee meeting. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Murray to delete from committee motion the words ".. .to which the public would not be invited...." Ceuncilman Williams, who made the motion in committee, said he would accept that ~ amendment, and the Chair so ordered. However, after further discussion, Councilman ~ Keller suggested taking a vote on the amendment. He noted that appointments in the past had been made without the public in attendance. He felt public attendance would inhibit free discussion between Council members. 1/26/76 - 20 4b . e e Councilman ~radley ~as concerned about excluding the public. yet letting the press attend. saY7ng th~ Intent of the public meeting law was to provide for open meetings of a~l pub11c bod1e~ except where provided for executive sessions. Any discussion carr1~d on at any tIme. he said, should be as though the public was in attendance. Coun~Ilman Murray's recollection was that even though meetings in the past at which appOIntments were made had been open to the public. there had been no on in attendance. Councilman Williams said he had suggested the motion to exclude the public for a number of reasons. not the least of which was that it seemed grossly unfair for some to have the opportunity to hear others interviewed, thereby enhancing their own chances of making the best possible statement when interviewed. He had serious reservations whether that was in the best interests of the community. Mr. Murray noted that was a concern in the interview process when selecting HCDC members. but it was taken care of by having a staff member intercept those coming for interview, explaining the si~uation. and at the same time making it clear they could attend if they wished. He saId that all co-operated and did not enter the room while another applicant was being interviewed. Mr. Williams added that in the selection process when it is in open public session, there is no interchange of ideas between Council members. The applicant simply gives a statement, he said. a vote is taken. and the issue decided. Mr. Williams didn't think that there was any benefit from that procedure. '- Vote was taken on the amendment as stated. Motion carried _ Council members Haws. Beal, Murray. Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller and Williams voting no. H. Westside Neighborhood Study Proposal, John Blayney Associates - Discussion continued from the January 14 comrndttee meeting with John Porter, planning director, explaining that the proposed contract with John Blayney Associates for study of the area immediately west of the central business district had been revie~ved with the Downtown Development Board, the Renewal Agency, and the Housing and Community Development COnwUssion. He explained the contract would formalize procedures based on previous action taken by the Council and HCDC dealing with the recommendation in the Eugene Commercial Study to include this area in the neighborhood improvement process. Mr. Porter pointed out that there were conflicts between the existing zoning in that area and the 1990 Plan that need to be addressed. He said that the Downtown Development Board had been assured they would be an important part of this study, and that the contract as drafted /fIfOuld provide for meetings between the consultants and the Board as well as the Planning Commission and HCDC. --./ Jim Saul, planner, explained proposed modification to the contract to meet concerns expressed previOUSly with regard to whether wording adequately covered recommendations in the Commercial Study adopted by the Council. He said the words ". . . and identified specific concerns to be addressed in the study. . ." would be added to the third paragraph under the recitals, as well as making City Council minutes covering discussion at time of adoption of the Livingston and Blayney recommendations a part of the contract. Councilman Murray said the change would address his concern:? However, he commented on the three scenarios proposed by the study: all housing, all commercial, and mixed uses. He thought it strange that one would cover only housing and one on.ly commercial when the 1990 Plan, existing zoning, and the Commercial Study recommendation on p~ich Co~~cil action was taken all call for mixed ~ses. Mr. Porter said that pcint was debated with the consultants from the \;ie~'lpojnt that rerroving one of the scenarios would reduce the cost of the study. However, the consultants felt all three were needed if the best information was to be accumulated and give the ranges needed. He added that it is a sensitive area and much citizen interest is expected, so it was felt best to have all answers possible On all three areas of concern. --./ 47 1/26/76 - 21 ,.,.. CouncLlman ~vil1iams said he was not comfortable with that respon~e. He ,agreed it was a mixed s.ituation and that it was everyone's intent th~t ~t be m~xed. . But it seemed to him that two studies - one based on 70% hous~ng/30% commerc~a.Li the other, 70% commercial/30% housing - wou~d be more useful. Navarre Davis, member of the I:bwntown Development" Board I expressed the Board's very strong interest in having the opportunity of working closely with the consultants in this study. He said it was very important to the central business district and the Board would like to be an adjunct, making recommendations, in that work. . '" Clif Culp, owner of property in the westside area, commented on the numerous requests from consultants for studies of the housing in the area west to Washington Street. The expenditure on the proposed study amounted to quite a bit, he said, and a study made by the Downtown Westside Association giving . the information requested could be made available. He noted most of the area was zoned C-2. Mayor Anderson said the Council was not concerned at this point with planning data, only with procedure. He requested Mr. Culp to confine his comments to that only. Mr. Culp continued that only 19% of the near westside area was in housing and he believed local consultants could be hired to obtain the answers wanted. He cited the monies expended on the central business district, the WaShington/Jefferson bridge and overpass and park and said he would like this study to include a recommendation how best the city could capitalize on those expenditures. He felt it wrong to say it should be left in single-family dwellings. He stated that studies obtained to date were only about 50% correct, that study recommendations on the airport, the parking structure, aUditorium, jail site, etc. had not been followed by the city. Mr. Culp said the WaShington/Jefferson corridor should be the west boundary for the downtown rather than Charnelton Street as now being discussed. The city should not go back on commitments made in 1967-68 when starting the downtown renewal project, i.e. to keep the zoning as it now is. He ended his comments by reading a poem entitled "Civic Dilemma" satirizing the hiring of consultants, to which Mayor Anderson responded that should the c.ity decide upon the rrethod of appointing a poet laureate, it was beneficial to know there was one available. The Mayor suggested direction might be given to the consultants asking for three scenarios that would reflect implementation of the General Plan. Manager Henry suggested changing wording in the contract that would call for increasing emphasis in either direction - housing or commercial. e Mr. Saul thought maybe something was being read into the contract that wasn't there. He noted that the scenario dealing with housing referred only to new development as being exclusively housing and overall mixed uses would remain. He said mixed uses had been discussed at length with the consultants because staff thought there might be some real problems with trying to combine commercial and residential uses within the same building in new development. ,But it was thought this avenue should at least be explored. He added that the study was meant to deal with new development as well as the impact on existing development, particularly when recognizing the long-time pattern which has developed. Mr. Porter pointed out that July L 1976, was the date now set for completion of the study and considerable staff work was necessary if that deadline was to be I1Et. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Murray to authorize the contract, amended to add the wording suggested by Mr. Saul (". . and specified certain concerns to be expressed in the study. .") plus making Council. minutes covering adoption of L & B commercial study recommendations a part of the contract; and incl uding provision that the Downtown Development Board work closely with the consultants in their study. Motion carried unanimously. 1/26[76 - 22 e Conun 1/21/76 Approve ~ '. I. Appeal from Planning Commission denicll of code a~ndnent to allow ambulance stations in residential zones under conditional use permits (January 6, 1976) Appeal was filed by W. H. Leonard, qregon Emergency Medical Transportation Services. !-Jr., Keller lWved seconded by Mr. Williams to schedule public hearing on the appeal for the February 9, 1976, Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. J. Liquor License, Change of. Ownership -- Vni ted Seven Corporation dba Rainey's .Thriitway, 2-25 River Road (PS) Formerly McKays Markets. Staff had no objections to the transfer. Mr. Keller lWved seconded by Mr. Haws to recommend approval of the change of ownership. Motion carried unanimously. K. Council minutes - October 27, November 3 and 5 as circulated L. Graham Field Lighting Pr~ject Cominendations -'.P~tks Department December'12 meno has previously been distributed to Council members. Manager said that, if there were no objections, a brief ceremony would be scheduled for the beginning of the February 9 Council meeting to give recognition to people who have done a fine job in developing lighting for Graham Field. M. West University Neighbors..:... .Inter im Development -Mrs. . Beal agreed to serve as Council representative, along with a Planning Commission member and staff rrembers, on a committee to meet with West University Neighbors for purposes of discussing what interim proposals might be undertaken in .that neighborhood: on zoning and other developmental matters, pending adoption in the future of a nore thorough refinement plan. . N. Anima.l Control Tr{-Agency Authority - Task Force menr> and proposed resolution creating a tri-agency authority for animal control have been distributed to Council members. It was explained that the city of Springfield has endorsed ,~h.e. ,pro'Jr:am~,~cept that they wish to retain contr~~a!ld enfor~€!~l}t_ _Ehrough their own Police Department -rathe-r than thrciugfi-iJ t t' i-ag'~'n,,'.I i1lJt~lori ty~ - B~cause of this ,the County. is reconsidering the 1.eSc'J. ut ':0:; wi th the idea that possibly Eugene a.nd Lane CoUnty would form iJ dl.idl a~l1;'ll~-~i dl.d:hodty and Springfield would merely contract with that author it'.). In <in;; event, the task force will be meeting January 15 to cons,ider some l:evisions.. Nr. Bradley, as a member of the task force, wondered what Council's feeling . \'ias on Springfield's participation - shou,Zd Lane County, and Eugene contract to them or should they be included in a tri-agencyauthority, opting.out of the enforcement phase. The distinction is that, if Springfield is part " of a tri-agency authority, they will have policy making input. 'A question was raised on financial implications, Manager respOnding it would be. more economical to have all three in a single agency performing all functions. Should Springfield not be a part of the authority, negotiations will determine how much they will be charged. "'- Mayor Anderson. felt that a comprehensive dog control program was the original goal, to be shared equally by all. If each jurisdiction opted out of one phase, it would result in a fractured program. ,lie therefore feels that"Lane' County and Eugene should proceed, with Springfield participating on a contra.ct, , basis. If, they are unwilling to commit to the total program, th~y'should be ". willing to accept less than full participatiori .in the decision-making processes, he added. It was understood a resolution would be. brought back to. Committee after ,the TaskForce meeting. (' ::..f;b, .4'-~7 1/2~116 ~ '23 . Comm 1/21/76 Approve --./ Comm 1/21/76 Approve Approve Comm 1/14/76 Affirm Comm 1/14/76. Affirm '-./ COInm 1/14/76 Affirm '-' o. . Consideration of John Blayney Associates Proposal for study of Downtown Development West of Central Business District Proposed contract between John Blayney Associates and the City, plus January 12 memo from the Planning Director, have been distributed to Council. Planning . Director explained that action is being taken in this westside area because of a recommendation in the Commercial Needs Study'noting a plan should be prepared for the area. It was also identified in the Neighborhood In~rovement Program as an area needing special study in order to resol ve conflicts between the 1990 Plan and present zoning. A consulting firm is being used because of their . economic analysis ability and skill in regional kinds of matters. The firm is the same one that.did the commercial study and they are familiar with Eugene issues. There is a ceiling on the amount of money that will be spent and . compensation will be made only for work performed. Mr. Saul will be the project director from the staff. Mr, Murray referred to Council motion of July 16 which provided that the development plan for the downtown westside area must provide a means of preserving standa.rd.housing within the area, protect nearby residential streets from . excessive traffic, and guard against speculative zoning pressures on adjacent : neighborhoods. He wondered how these items were dealt with specifically in the agreement. '- . Mr. Saul said that staff was aware of that motion and that the contract took those conditions into consideration. The contract provides, as one of the development strategies to be studied, that~ll new development be residential or rehabilitation of existing structures with standards to be specified. Too, the contract states that there will be an impact analysis of the identified development strategies to evaluate and compare the impact on various interest groups (including residents of the area west of the . IVC1sh ington-Jefferson corridor). This provision speaks to the 'traffic problem. Finally, in response to 'thZ.~'thlnl c',5rj;jTtlon-outTir',;,-; :.Ii f,il" f!Io)t.:',ii, ,~:r. Sau} s,;,i-:1 severed Ul.i:lgS should lJ/.e loo.!:ed at. One is rh...'. rh... ! ri!lld''? [Ju!';:.cse of proct:edinq t-lith a .refinemellt stud!} dnd the purpos,-' .:. .In improvement :;:::ogram i tse! f is all attempt to stabilize expectations about use:: in th,~ [JarEi.:.;:ular area and, to that extent, re.move sl!eculative pressure. The tfli1'.:J. c-or;,::.::tion deals sol.ely wi tll the drea wost oE Jefferson .Strc":ct. To a ,~:t:rtc1i:J excS!nt, that h.ill have to be adchessed by the Westside Neighborhood Quali ty Project itself. There ~'lill have to be a t.io-in bettveen both of these projects. Mr. Hurray suggested including that the scope of the study ought to be dealing with the question of whether or not the plan would increase speculative zoning pressures in these areas. Planning Director responded the purpose of the study is to eliminate speculative kinds of things. Input to the consultants on the discussion of today should be helpful. Mr. Murray said the existing Downtown Westside Association has had considerable amount of speculation going on in that area. He feels this plan will resolve it one way or another, but he thought there might be a chance for speculation to be bumped to some other place. Mr. Saul responded he was referring to that when talking about a tie-in being necessary between the proI~sed contract and the Westside NeighborhOOd Quality Project plan. Also, he said, the study being proposed is part of the neighborhood improverrent program, which covers the larger area.. '- It was understood further discussion would be postponed until the January 21 Committee meeting. 1/26/76 - 24 50 . , .' ". e camm- 1/14/76 Affirm e e e P. ESATS Ai ternatives Modal Spllt. - Mayor Anderson -reported on a meeting he attended with Mayor Freeman of Springfield, County Comrndssioner Wood, and City Manager Henry, with staff members from other jurisdictions and LCOG. The purpose of the meeting, he said, was to discuss the possibility of consensus on ESATS al ternati ves, noting that Eugene had chosen 15% mass transit and 5% each bike, pedestrian and paratransit; Springfield had decided there should be no change; and the County indicated preference for 10/15% mass transit with 10% overall reduction, a county planning commission recommendation (yet to be formally acted upon by the Corrunissioners). Mayor Anderson said that,as a result of the meeting, Mayor Freeman indicated there was possibility the Springfield council would go along with the 10% mass transit commitment, keeping in mind that the same percentage would not necessarily prevail throughout the enti.re region. If the Springfield council does go along with that choice, he said; and the County affirms its planning cOmnUssion's recommendation, it appears Eugene could maintain the 15% mass transit split. - Mayor Anderson asked that the issue be placed on the next committee agenda for Council discussion, saying there were some things the Council should be aware of so far as any possible changes in Eugene's position. Some proposals may be forthcoming, he said,. which would have to be decided in Eugene in view of the 15% mass transit choice made here. He felt it not illogical to maintain that split although it might require some "loading up" of Eugene. There could be some shifting of mass transit loads, he said, such as perhaps the south Eugene area going to a 50% mass transit use into the downtown area. In any event, he said, it now appears a meeting of the minds is within the realm of possibility so that work could proceed on the master transportation plan. Manager added that there would be oonsiderable variation from the 15%, both above and below, resulting in an average of 10% for the entire region. He said Eugene would average about 11%, Springfield 7%, according to the LCOG staff. Additional details are to be made available by LCOG. staff next week, he said. -..-I Councilman Bradley asked if Springfield had indicated any change in position on trip reduction. Mayor Anderson answered that there was none, only on the percentage of modal split. Conun 1/21/76 Affirm It was understood the issue would be an item for discussion at the January 28 committee meeti1l.g. . .-.. - -.-.---.. ---.0- ___ Q. Neighborhood Organization Policy Review - Appointment of a committee to review neighborhood organization policy was announced: Liz Heath, Willakenzie Neighborhood Association; Thom Chambliss, West University Neighborhood; and Gary Bond, Active Bethel Citizens - all chosen by neighborhood group leaders. Also, COtu:lcil members Williams and Hurray, and Planning Commissioner Ken Reeder. Manager said meetings would start probably by the end of January and that staff is preparing a series of questions and topics for consideration. Comm 1/21/76 Affirm R. Zoning/1990 Plan Conflicts - Councilman Murray asked whether discussion now . Comm scheduled for January 28 corrunittee on this subject would deal wi th the issue 1/21/76 of r-:hether C-l or C-2 would constitute neighborhood commercial use, d.r whether .A.ffinn thez:e would be specific geographical examples of this type of conflict. Jim Saul, planner, said the broader issue would be discussed, that there are about.....-- 24 areas in the city zoned in apparent conflict with the Plan. o . 5/ 1/26/76 - 2S -" I 1 '. '.- -. _. . _ . _ _. S.,!!..aJ1 Activities Update - Mrs. Shirey wondered J.f the Nall Activities Committee should meet again for the purpose of bringing a progress report back to Council. Parks Director said staff will be reviewing acti vi ties ,with the Mall Manager this month and will bring a report back to Council on results to date. T. Youth Rights Study Committee Status Report - Mr. Bradley requested an Update on appointment of a youth rights committee. Mayor Anderson said appointments are in the process of being confirmed. and Council will be advised when that is accomplished, hopefully before the end of the month. V.Shade Oaks Water Extension Issue - Mr. Bradley requested a status report on the Shade Oaks matter, to which Manager replied it is in court at this time. City Attorney advised that the Boundary Commission has asked for an extension to February 11 for their preparation ofa return to the Writ of Revieh' filed by the Ci ty. V. Welcome Mrs. Beal Back from Europe - Mayor Anderson welcomed back Mrs. Beal,' who has been absent from Council since December 10 because of a trip to Europe. W. County-Wide Library Service - Mr. Murray'reported-ittending a meeting, in Mrs. Beal's absence, on Saturday, January 9, regarding establish~ent of countywide library service. Tne primary feature of that meeting was a presentation by Mrs. Dalton, who has been hired by the County to study the feasibility of having such countywide service. Also in attendance, said Mr. Murray, were members of the Library Board as well as Librarian James Meeks. ", The basic proposal was to share existing City services on a countywide basis, accomplished through a tax, levied countywide, of 10 cents per $1000 valuation. Eugeneans currently pay 59 cents per $1000 valuation for Eugene library services. According to Mr. Murray, in return for shuring, the local government would hopefully receive back the 10 cents. per $1000 to be plugged back into the library facility. The central dec,ision-making body fora-new countywide system-tvould Tiiclu&? the chief- library representative of each jurisdiction. Mr. Murray's opinion was that the proposal is frauyht tvi th clangi.~rs for . the Ci ty of Eugene. On the cost question alone, Eugeneans would pay 69 cents per $1000 valuation and people in unincorporat;;d ilreClS '''ou_Ld pay only 10 cents but would receive the same services. There are also dangers in diffusion of control plus uncertainty as to whether the money will come back to benefit the Eugene service; also, is 10 cents per $1000 enough to provide the proposed service? Mr. Murray Would ask that Mr. Meeks and members of t~e library board be asked to attend a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting as soon as possible for the purpose of establishing a position on the matter. , Mrs. Beal noted she had attended an earlier discussion on the matter but 'was waiting to report back to Council pending some decision by the Library Board. She agreed wi th points raised by Mr. Murray, adding it is unfortunate to be one of the only areas in the state without countywide library service; however, the proposal under discussion does not seem at all advantageous to the city of Eugene. Mrs. Beal thought any Council action should await recommendation from the Library Board on whether to proceed. According to Manager, a written report is forthcoming on the proposal and he will talk to th.e Librarian regarding the timing of that: report. 1/26/76 - 26 52 Comm 1/14/76 File e Comm 1/14/76 File Comm 1/14/76 File Comm 1/14/76 File 1/1~~;: . File e e X. Congressman Weaver Visi t to Eugene 1/15/76 - Manager announced that Congressman' r"€.'clvar will be in Eugene January 15 to meet with representatives from ~ities in this area on revenue sharing. Mrs. Shirey has agreed to be pr.esent and any other Council members are also welcome to attend, from 9: 30 to .lD :00 a .m. at the Federal office building. He mentioned, too, that the League of Oregon Ci ties has asked for a brief summary of Eugene's financial d.ifficulties. v Y. Legality of Retroactive Planning Commission Appointments - Manager reported that research by the city attorney's office revealed that present members of most boards and cOnmllssions serve legally until their successors are appointed and that their authority and status on the committees continue until a successor is appointed. There are sorre exceptions specified in state law, he said, but the Planning COmnUssion is not one of them. So the legal opinion was that Alan Maxwell had sufficient legal authority to chair the Comrr.dssion in the period between January 1, 1976, and his reappointment which is to be formalized on January 26, 1976. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through Y, noting amendment to committee action on Item G - deleting exclusion of public from selection meeting. Motion carried on rollcall vote - All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Haws voting "no" on Item A - Appointment, Planning Commission members. IV - Ordinances Comm 1/14/76 File --./ Comm 1/21/76 File III-A-l Council Bill No. 990 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 15th Avenue and 16th Avenue from Hilyard Street to Alder Street (75-11), read the first time on January 12, 1976 and referred to Panel Hearing January 19, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. There were no written protests on file or request to be heard. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was .declared passed and numbered 17514 Council Bill No. 991 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Pearl Street and High Street from 14th Avenue to 15th Avenue (75-12) read the first time on January 12, 1976 and referred to Panel Hearing January 19, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. There were no written protests on file or requests to be heard. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17515. e Council Bill No. 993 - Levying assessments for paving Balfour Street from Montreal Avenue to 150 feet north and 100 feet south (75-15), read the first time on January 12, 1976 and referred to Panel Hearing January 19, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. There were no written protests on file or requests to be heard. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17516. 53 1/2p/76 - 27 .-..' '-" ..,I Council Bill No. 995 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Woodhaven Subdivision; paving Garfield Street from 26th Place to 27th Avenue, and 26th Place from 27th Avenue to Garfield Street; sanitary sewer within 160 feet ~ of Garfield Street from 360 feet north of 26th Place to 27th Avenue, and within ~ 160 feet of 26th Place from 27th Avenue to Garfield Street (75-27), read the first time on January 12, 1976 and referred to Panel Hearing January 19, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. There were no written protests on file or requests to be heard. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17517. Council Bill No. 996 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Hazel Park Subdivision (75-30), read the first time on January 12, 1976 and referred to Panel Hearing January 19, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. There were no written protests on file or requests to be heard. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17518. Council Bill No. 997 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers in K&R Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of Dove Lane from 700 feet west of Taney Street to 100 feet west of Taney Street (75-32), . read the first time on January 12, 1976 and referred to Panel Hearing January 19, 1976_ ~ was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. There were no written protests on file and no requests to be heard. Mr. Keller moved s.econd, by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17519. Councii Bill No. 998 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on McLean Boulevard from 28th,Avenue to south (75-1003), read the first time on January 12, 1976 and referred to Hearing Panel January 19, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. There were no written protests on file and no requests to be heard. Mr. Keller moved, second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17520. IV - Resolutions Resolution No. 2474 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period January 12 through January 26, 1976 was read by number and title. -' Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. _ 1/26/76. - 28 5+ - - e v - Other Items Zoning Conflicts/1990 General Plan - Copies of memo from planning department were distributed to Council members with notation that the issue would be an item for discussion at the January 28 committee-of-the-whole meeting. -- Special Council Meeting - January 28, 1976 was announced to begin at 4:00 p.m. for the purpose of determining a selection process for members of the Human Rights Commissions. Most Council members indicated they would be present, and it was understood staff would make arrangements for a place for the meeting and for dinner. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, January 28, 1976, at 4:00 p.m. ~~ )/<f~' Charles T. Henry . City Manager '-'" '.- 5~ 1/26/76 - 29