Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1976 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 9,1976 e Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by Council President Gus Keller in the absence of Mayor Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on February 9, 1976 in the Council Chamber with the following other Council members present: Eric Haws, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, and Edna Shirey (left early). I - Recognition - Graham Field Lighting Project Committee Recognition was given the work of a team under the chairmanship of Murray Higgins for help in the Graham Field lighting project. Mr. Higgins was present as were some of the team members: Sid Voorhees, Bob Hixson, Bob Freese, Glenn Mason, Laurence Obie, and Gus Keller. They were presented with a copy of the following resolution: Resolution No. 2475 - Recognizing efforts of Project Committee and commending them for savings effected in installa- tion of lighting at Graham Field was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. - II - Public Hearings A. Continued from January 26, 1976 Council meeting 1. Vacation of alley south of Franklin Boulevard between Villard Street and Orchard Street (Duvall Investments-Hirons)(AV 75-1) Tabled at the January 26 Council meeting pending information on access should the alley be vacated. Jim Saul, planner, said the area to be vacated was lessened by 20 feet - instead of vacating the northerly 110 feet, only the northerly 90 feet would be vacated. By so doing, access would be available to those establishments about which concerns were expressed in the public hearing. Mr. Saul said the proposed modification had been presented to the Fairmount neighborhood group and was acceptable to them as well as owners of establish- ments in the vicinity. I-A-l Council Bill No. 999 - Vacating alley south of Franklin Boulevard be- tween Villard Street and Orchard Street, read the first time on January 26, 1976 and held pending information with regard to access, was brought back for second reading as amended to vacate only the northerly 90 feet. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill as amended 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 as amended was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill as amended be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17521. . 2. Abatement, 1442 Pearl Street Tabled at the January 26, 1976 Council meeting pending report from property owner and visible proof that specific action for upgrading the property would be taken. Manager explained that as of this date the only action taken by the owner so far as staff knew was to inquire about the deficiencies which would have to be corrected. Staff recommended proceeding with abatement authorization. ~3 2/9/76 - 1 Resolution No. 2473 - Authorizing abatement at 1442 Pearl Street was read by number and title. I-A-2 Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. - 3. Code Amendment re: Corner lots, vision clearnace, interior duplex lots I-A-3 Council Bill No. 1003 - Amending City Code Section 9.254 - Definition of corner lot, vision clearance, and 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 board decisions; and Section 9.584 - Exemptions from parking area improvements, read the first time on January 26, 1976 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Manager read the six different regulations proposed in this amendment. He said there were 20 vacant lots in the city lying between two corner lots in R-l and RA zones that could be considered duplex lots (ranging from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet). Gary Chenkin, assistant planning director, said those 20 lots would be eligible as duplex lots only if duplexes were constructed on the corner lots lying on either side. He estimated that 10 of the 20 would be eligible for duplex construction if the area requirement was left at 6,000 square feet, the others would not be eligible even if an area of 10,000 square feet was required. e Councilman Bradley asked whether a 10,000-square-foot requirement enacted at this time would apply retroactively to the existing vacant lots. Mr.Chenkin answered that any parcel would be subject to regulations in force at the time a building permit was sought. Councilwoman Shirey was in favor of restricting duplex construction on in- terior lots to those containing at least 10,000 square feet. She felt the intent of permitting duplex construction in residential neighborhoods was to ease the burden of excessive frontage on corner lots, and it would appear compatible to allow duplex construction when there was only one lot between two corner lots. In addition, she said, a 10,000-square-foot requirement would give more space for duplexes on interior lots - 5,000 square feet per unit, nearly equal the required 6,000 square feet for a single-family residence. Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mrs. Beal to amend the council bill, requiring a minimum of 10,000 square feet for duplex construction on interior lots between two corner lots. Councilman Hamel reiterated his belief that duplexes should not be constructed around a cul-de-sac in neighborhoods laid out and intended for single-family construction except for duplex construction on corner lots. However, he was in favor of increasing the minimum interior lot size to 10,000 square feet for duplex construction. Councilman Bradley asked whether staff felt increasing the m1n1mum interior lot size to 10,000 square feet would be consistent with the policy of compact urban growth. Mr. Chenkin answered that the Planning Commission in its con- sideration elected not to recommend the 10,000-square-foot requirement because e' 2/9/76 - 2 ~~ e - I-A-4 through I-B e (1) it was contrary to the compact urban growth policy, (2) the Commission felt duplexes would not have twice the demand on public services or twice the impact on a neighborhood that two single-family residences would have, and (3) because of the limited number of interior lots existing in the city on which duplexes possibly could be constructed. He pointed out the detailed discussion contained in staff notes covering the issue. Mayor Anderson called for vote on the amendment, but Councilman Bradley called for a point of order. He wondered if the bill could be amended on second read- ing. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, saw no problem, saying his recol- lection was that such a motion had already been defeated, so the Chair could rule this a motion to reconsider previous action. However, he noted that a motion to reconsider could not be made by one voting on the loosing side. The Chair ruled the motion out of order, since Mrs. Shirey had previously voted "aye" when the motion was defeated. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mrs. Beal to amend the council bill, requiring a minimum of 10,000 square feet for duplex construction on interior lots lying between two corner lots. In response to Councilman Williams, Mr. Long said a two-thirds majority would be required if the action was being taken in committee-of-the-whole session. However, since this was a formal Council session, a simple majority would suffice. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Williams voting no. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal that the council bill as amended be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Williams voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17522. Councilwoman Beal questioned the procedure - she wondered how the council bill could be amended and passed on second reading only. Mr. Long explained that under the rules, the Council was fre~ at any time to make amendments. If the converse were true, he said, every time an amendment was proposed there would be the necessity for readvertising, hearings, etc., and the Council had never done that. Council President Keller recognized the people who had spoken in public hearing on this issue and expressed the Council's appreciation for their attending to express their opinions. B. Appeals 1. Planning Commission denial of zone change from R-2 to RP on area at southwest corner of 11th and Polk (Hayden)(Z 75-6) Planning Commission denied the request on December 2, 1975 and appeal was filed by the applicant in accordance with code requirements. Jim Saul, planner, noted the hearing on this appeal had been postponed from the January 26 Council meeting at the request of the appellant, and further ex- plained that the zone change was requested on a 5900-square-foot lot now de- veloped with a duplex to allow development of a dental clinic. Council President Keller called for ex parte contacts or other conflicts. Councilman Murray responded to a request for his disqualification because his wife, acting as an officer of the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project, had fo5 2/9/76 - 3 drafted a letter on this rezoning request which was read into the Planning Com- mission records. He said he would not participate in debate or vote on the issue. not because he agreed with the contention that his wife's actions as a citizen in any way coincided with his own and he should disqualify himself on that basis alone. but because he did not want to cast an unfavorable light on ~ whatever action the Council did take. He said the Council decision should ,., not be cluttered by any appearance of an unfair hearing. He stated that neither he nor his wife had any financial interest in the property unde~ con- sideration, and that he had not received, read, or known about the existence of the letter in question until he received the request to disqualify himself. He said the letter was written by his wife in carrying out her duties as an officer of the neighborhood organization, and he felt the type of contention raised would tend to discriminate against all married persons. Mr. Murray continued that if the Council honored this objection, then its members as citizens would find themselves severely limited in their activities. He asked the city attorney to comment on the substance of the objection itself. Stan Long. assistant city attorney, suggested that the notice of challenge be made a part of this record. He noted there is a city code provision that no member may vote on any issue involving a spouse, business partner, etc.. that code provision being an image of state law covering qualifications for plan- ning commission members which was adopted by the city at the time of amendment concerning quasi-judicial issues. The state law. he said. refers to significant, substantial financial interest. And although "financial" is not referred to in the city code. he said it was clear to him that any "interest" referred to sub- stantial pecuniary or financial interest. Mr. Long continued that at the time the city code provision was adopted, there was some fear that the language of the state law about financial interest was less clear; at the same time it was recognized that common law would prevent a person from voting on his own interest. He said it would prevent a member from voting when he or she ~ or the spouse had a direct substantial pecuniary interest in the subject matter.'" Councilman Murray interpreted that to mean in a technical sense that he would be allowed to vote on this rezoning request. However, he declared his intent . to abstain so as not to clutter the issue. He felt it unfortuante, however, because he had made preparations on this issue to try to offer himself as a "guinea pig" to try to clear up some more restrictive interpretations of the Council's rights under Fasano regulations. He read a letter stating what he had intended to do, saying he wanted to make known to the other Council members his intent to establish a clear record on the Fasano decision at the first opportunity to at least partially establish some of the rights .traditionally belonging to city councils. Councilwoman Beal said she would have voted in favor of Mr. Murray's par- ticipatingin this rezoning issue. She resented the challenge to Mr. Murray's participation on the grounds presented. and said she did not feel it was proper behavior. Councilman Haws asked if a council member's declaration of abstention was something for the Council to vote on- could the Council deny Mr. Murray's request? Mr. Long answered that when a council member has been challenged, the member is given an opportunity to make a statement in response to the challenge, after which he is given the opportunity to make his own decision about whether to participate. The procedure. he said, would simply avoid the appearance of being partial and is a matter of the member's own judgment. .-.' If the member's decision is to participate. then the public body is afforded ,., the opportunity to determine whether it agrees with the decision. In the interest of preserving the body's own integrity, he said, the body could dis- qualify the member if the member refused to disqualify him/herself. 2/9/76 - 4 1010 . Councilman Murray requested that the Council at the first convenient time possible reinstate the word "financial" in the code as it applies to interest of Council members in issues coming before the Council. Councilman Williams hoped too the code would be changed to state "financial interest" because of what he called a "realm of conflict of interest" that is not financial. There were no objections, and the Chair directed starr to prepare a code amendment to the presented at a committee-of-the-whole meeting that would add the word "financial" in reference to in- terest in issues coming before the Council for consideration. Councilman Murray said he would abstain from the discussion and the vote on this zone change request. Public hearing was opened. Michael Farthing, attorney, introduced the applicant, Dr. Cedric Hayden. Dr. Hayden distributed handouts to Council members and reviewed history of the site for which rezoning was requested to permit opening of a dental clinic. He proposed use of the existing building on the lot plus an addition of 1150 square feet, which he said would leave ample space on ,the property for required parking. He presented slides of the property and described the non- conforming use previously occupying it. Most of the people in the neighborhood were in favor of location of a clinic on that site, he said, and a petition, drafted by the planning department and circulated after the possibility of con- fusion arose on initial circulation, resulted in 577 signatures in favor of the clinic at that site. e Dr. Hayden continued by reading planning staff notes covering this and a similar zone change requested for property at 11th and Jackson, saying the Planning Com- mission had recommended a code amendment that would permit doctors and dentists to locate in neighborhood areas where needed. He urged the Council to act on that recommendation. To demonstrate need for the proposed facility, he said there were only six dentists out of 150 in the area who were located on the west side. He showed a pinboard to illustrate their locations. Further, he referred to Council action in 1962, reversing a Planning Commission recommenda- tion, wherein a dental clinic was permitted at 11th and Polk. Although that clinic was not built, he said, the need remains and he was prepared to open one at that location. He described the proposed facility - an extremely small one-man dental office to meet neighborhood needs, attracting probably a maximum of one to three cars an hour. He felt traffic generated would be far less than that from a neighborhood grocery and an insiginficant percentage of the thousands passing that intersection every day. With regard to precedent, Dr. Hayden thought each zoning request should be considered on its own merit. In this instance, the same situation would apply as in the previous Council approval - the same property, the same family owner- ship, same type of business, same building. He noted that even though the West- side Quality Project opposed the rezoning, there were many who did wish a dental office in the area, signing the petition in favor if it was permitted under .conditional use procedure rather than a zone change. Dr. Hayden said that in view of all these points, the proposed clinic on this lot was the best possible use of the land and would enhance the neighborhood. He urged approval. - Speaking in ,favor of the zone change request were Chuck Buchholz, 2144 Grant Street; Wanda Wright, 742 West 10th Avenue; and Carl J. Stults, 1680 West 11th Avenue. They thought the proposed clinic operated by Dr. Hayden would be an asset to the neighborhood. Also, the facility would be within walking distance for a number of people. fo7 2/9/76 - 5 Opposed were Julia Haugsjaa, 870 West 11th Avenue; Mrs. Prank Chase, 1144 Polk Street; Isalene Harpole, 1158 Polk Street; and Bob Napier, 908 Adams Street, representing the Westside Quality Project. Their concerns were primarily with protection of the one- and two-family housing and residential character of the area and with anticipated increased traffic. Ms. Haugsjaa noted the building in which the clinic was proposed had not been a dental office for many years, continuity as a business location had been broken, thereby precluding its use now under zoning laws as a clinic. Mr. Napier noted that the planning staff notes indicated a dental clinic at 11th and Polk would be in violation of the 1990 Plan. He felt there was adequate professional office space and land properly zoned for this type of activity existing within a few blocks of this location. His opposition, he said, was primarily because of the many other activities that would be able to locate there is the zone was changed - medical facilities, realtors, attorneys, lumber brokers, etc. He noted the goal for use of community development funds in that area was to retain the quality and character of the residential area, a zone change of this type would undermine that effort. He said the Westside Quality neighborhood had consistently op- posed any change from the residential character of the area and the possibility of opening the length of 11th Avenue to other types of professional uses. They had the backing of th~ planning staff and the Planning Commission, he said, and he hoped the Council too would uphold their position. - Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul thought the major points the Council should consider involved compliance with the 1990 Plan, demonstration of public need, and comparison of this prop- erty with other available property. He said the zoning in this area now is R-2, equivalent to medium-density development called for in the Plan diagram and consistent with the kinds of objectives called for in the Plan. With regard to need, he said this was the best served area in the entire community so far 4It as availability of property for professional and commercial uses. He described the bordering properties and zoning available for the needs proposed by the applicant and said the Planning Commission on that basis recommended denial. Councilman Bradley asked why residential/professional (RP) use on this property was considered inconsistent with the 1990 Plan. Mr. Saul answered that the Plan makes no specific reference to RP use, rather it deals in broad categories of uses. He said it could be debated whether that particular use is or is not consistent with the Plan, but staff, in looking at the Plan and trying to asses this area, felt that existing zoning and pattern is consistent with the General Plan. Michael Farthing, attorney for Dr. Hayden, said the main issue was that of need for the facility, that a survey of residents in the area produced 570 signatures of people who believe there are not sufficient dental services available to that neighborhood. The fact that there is enough properly zoned land in the area, he said, would not help those people who need the facility. He said this re- quest would locate a single dentist in that neighborhood, and any subsequent request for dental offices would have to be weighed on its own merit. Mr. Farthing continued that the applicant is willing to enter into any reasonable contract with restrictive stiuplations to allow the dental clinic on the lot at 11th and Polk. He added that the effect on the neighborhood would not be substantial compared to the benefit, traffic would be decreased rather than increased be- cause of the availability of the services, and the use would be most consistent with the 1990 Plan. e Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams to confirm the Planning Com- mission recommendation and deny the zone change. 2/9/76 -6 ~8 e Councilman Bradley asked if there were any alternatives to an actual zone change that could be used to permit the dental clinic as proposed. Mr. Saul said there were a variety of options, one being reinstitution of the nonconforming status under which the clinic was previously operated and which terminated upon change of use of the property. He said a conditional use permit could not be used since there is no provision for this as a conditional use in R-2 districts. There is a provision for home occupancies which was included in recognition of many people engaged in small business ventures for supplemental retirement income, juvenile selfemployment, etc. However, he felt it extremely difficult to consider a dental clinic as a home occupancy - it could not have outside paid employes and the opera- tor must live on the premises. Another option, he said, could be contract zoning, but the city has consistently taken the position that that approach would result in spot zoning. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, added that contract zoning would require special legislation; objections to that type of zoning primarily were the number of criteria a public body must consider in making a decision whe- ther to rezone. It would change the whole basis on which zoning was decided, he said. e Councilman Bradley then read the purpose of RP districts - a desirable mIxIng of residential land uses with professional and business uses in close proximity to a low-density residential area. He wondered about the definition of "low-density residential" - whether it included property so zoned or property with low-density use regardless of whether it was zoned for low-density. He felt the subject area might be a situation where low-density housing existed even though the zon- ing might allow something greater than low-density. Mr. Saul answered that the residential/professional district was intended to provide a buffer between resi- dential uses and commercial or industrial uses. "Low-density" was included, he said, to clarify that this could occur in certain low-density situations also. He cited examples of the effective use of residential/professional zoning along 13th and 18th, immediately west of Skinner Butte Park, and between the Oakway Mallon Coburg Road and surrounding residential areas. With regard to the 11th and Polk property, the properties immediately adjacent were low-density; but when considering the entire Westside Quality neighborhood area, he said, it was within the medium-density range. Councilwoman Shirey asked if staff considered that traffic entering and leaving this property would cause a problem because of the traffic light at the inter- section of 11th and Polk. Mr. Saul said there was some cause for concern; in assessing the diagram submitted with the application, it did not comply with set- backs, etc. In further answer to Mrs. Shirey, he said the original application involved three lots, but a revised application had been submitted and the subject of this request covered the corner lot only. Councilman Bradley asked for definition of the term "speculative zoning" used in connection with this request. Also, whether that would apply in this case. Mr.Saul said the term was used in a letter from the Westside Quality Project, and his understanding of the term was that it referred to a process for helter-skelter zone changes, encouraging owners of adjacent properties to ask for zone changes that would permit similar uses. He felt that process was a definite probability if this zone change request was granted. e Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams that the motion be restated to adopt findings supporting denial of the requested zone change as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 2, 1975, and uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the request. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Williams, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Councilman Bradley voting no; and Councilman Murray abstaining. loq 2/9/76 - 7 A short recess was taken, after which Councilwoman Shirey was not present. 2. Planning Commission denial of code amendment to allow ambulance stations in residential zones under conditional use permits (Leonard) Planning Commission at its January 6, 1976 meeting on a 3-3 vote recom- mended denial of the code amendment. e' II-A-I Jim Saul, planner, explained that the ambulance service~ proposed in the South Eugene area by Oregon Emergency Transportation Services (Eugene-Springfield Ambulance) because of a requirement to meet Federal regulations of a five- minute response time, were allowed only in the central business district, M-Z, and M-3 zones, and permitted only as a conditional use in C-2 zones. In the South Eugene area, properly zoned property is not available for a satellite ambulance station, leaving the option of seeking C-2 property and applying for a conditional use permit or requesting a code amendment to allow such stations as a conditional use in residential areas. He said that staff recommended the code amendment because it "made more sense." Ambulance services are similar to other types of emergency services such as -fire and police stations, etc., which are now permitted as outright uses in all residential zones. Also, treating ambulance services as a conditional use would be preferable to out- right rezoning of a specific site in a residential area. The standard con- ditional use procedure calls for public hearings and adoption of findings with regard to whether a particular site would be suitable for such use and whether it would have a detrimental effect on surrounding properties. Mr.Saul said the Planning Commission, after two public hearings on the issue, con- sidered a motion to approve the amendment; however, the motion failed on a 3-3 tie vote, and this appeal was submitted from that action. He added that technically there is no provision for appeal from denial of a code amendment. In effect, Mr. Leonard, president of the Transportation Services, is request- ing the Council to consider this legislation. - . In response to Councilman Keller, Mr. Saul affirmed that Mr. Leonard was not interested in any particular parcel as such, only in a code change. He said there was extensive testimony in Planning Commission hearings with regard to one property, but that was not the question in this request. This is whether, generally, residential districts may accommodate ambulance stations. If the code is changed, he said, the parcel discussed in Planning Commission meetings may become the subject of a hearing latter on. Public hearing was opened. Bill Leonard, president of the Emergency Transportation Services, supported the planning staff in its recommendation. He explained that the site at 29th and Mill, the subject of Planning Commission discussions, had been abandoned as a possible location for ambulance services unless there is a change of public. sentiment against its use for that type of facility. He said other sites in the South Eugene area will be considered if the amendment is adopted. Speaking against the proposed amendment were Richard Grimes, 2880 Mill Street; Floyd Summers, 2860 Mill Street; Merle Cole, 2885 Mill Street; and F. L. Gifford, 2855 Mill Street. Mr. Grimes said he was concerned with the Friendly Area neighborhood as well as the city at large and encroachment of commercial type activities into residential areas. He also expressed concern for the number of children attending schools who would be confronted with the in- creased traffic. He thought consideration should be given to previous sug- gestions for allowing ambulance services adjacent to or as part of existing fire facilities. Mr. Summers,was opposed specifically to use of the site at . 2/9/76 - 8 '70 e- 29th and Mill, He said there were other properties in the South Eugene area properly zoned for the proposed ambulance services. Messrs, Cole and Gifford also were opposed to the 29th and Mill site and generally to location of such services in residential areas because of traffic hazards and general detraction from neighborhoods. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Councilman Williams asked if it was correct as stated that fire stations are permitted as an outright use in residential zones. Mr. Saul answered that it was. Councilman Murray asked if there were careful procedures for determining com- patibility in locating fire stations in residential areas. Mr. Saul said the primary criteria was the question of response time, determined by computer modeling systems. He added that compatibility is considered to a certain ex- tent as are standards for setbacks, etc. -- Councilwoman Beal wondered if staff had taken into consideration the importance of response time for ambulances. She felt that was a consideration and even though there would be a certain amount of disturbance at any time of day or night, it might inClude more people if the station was located farther from the desired locations. She asked about the response time for the South Eugene area from the present location on 11th Avenue. Mr. Saul said the response time in terms of chance of survival, etc., was considered critical, and that that consideration was included in the staff report to the Commission. Mr. Leonard said that resonse time from the present location now is running into a 10-minute period, whereas a 5-minute range is desirable. He added that because of the growth pattern, South Eugene was the most critical area in the city, the second most critical is the Coburg Road area. In response to Councilman Haws with regard to appropriate procedure, Mr. Saul said that if staff was so airected, it could prepare an ordinance for Council adoption without hving to go back to the Planning Commission. If the Council desired some other action, the issue probably should be referred back to the Commission. Wording of the amendment proposed would allow as a conditional use satellite ambulance services only in residential zones; it would not permit central dispatch functions. Mr. Haws asked what criteria would be used as the basis for determining whether a conditional use permit would be granted. Mr. Saul answered by reading from staff notes previously distributed to the Council the criteria for new condi- tional use permits - location, design, site development among other things, as well as being consistent with zoning ordinance, General Plan, etc. There would be no special criteria for this type of service, he said, noting again that only satellite functions for ambulances would be permitted. There would be no maintenance and repair functions nor central dispatch functions. He agreed with Mr. Haws that such a facility would be a "miniature fire station" from which ambulances would run on a 24-hour basis. e Councilman Murray expressed reservations about the code amendment. Although he supported the concept of satellite ambulance stations, he preferred their location in commercial zones where he thought there would be less problems in terms of compatibility with surrounding areas. Generally, he said, location of such facilities in commercial zones would have less impact so far as in- creased traffic and noise, and late evening disturbance would be negligible as opposed to residential areas. He thought the question of the kinds of neighbor- hoods which would be asked to "bear the burden" was pertinent. 7{ 2/9/76 - 9 Councilman Williams asked whether criteria for grant of a conditional use permit for satellite ambulance stations might include location at least three blocks away from any existing structure and commercial thoroughfares. Mr.Saul answered that such a condition could be established. He said there is a broad grant of power to the hearings official and a long list of conditions on which 4IJ approval of a permit may be based. Councilman Haws wondered if it would be correct to assume there was enough available commercial property in various areas of the city where property could be purchased at this time for ambulance facilities. Mr. Saul thought it debatable - most commercially zoned properties that under the code could accommodate ambulance services were relatively substantially developed. The problem with C-2 properties, he said, would be trying to assess the degree of availability - practically any piece of property is available if enough money is offered for it. Changing the code to allow ambulance stations in any com- mercial zone, he said, would present the same objections that would be raised if they were permitted in residential zones, since C-l zones in Eugene normally are in areas surrounded by low-density residential areas. If they were allowed just in C-l zones, the range of existing uses would have to be expanded. Councilwoman Beal mentioned the recent site location for a fire station and the relatively few areas found suitable after a computer systems check - none in a C-2 or C-l zone. So it seemed to her that if response time is the main criteria for ambulance services, perhaps as much latitude as possible should be given, recognizing that conditional use permit criteria would con- trol the development. Councilman Bradley thought the recommendation to include ambulance services as part of fire stations should be explored. Manager said it was explored, by both the applicant and the city. Because of anticipated problems in terms of actual use of the fire facilities, space, etc., the applicant felt such an arrangement would not work satisfactorily. Mr. Saul added that the nature of agreements between the city and ambulance services would present a particu- lar problem since the ambulance services are considered almost what might be termed a franchise operation wherein an exclusive right to the operation is granted in turn for the city's establishment of rates, requirement for an ade- quate level of service, etc. This type of agreement, he said, could become embarrassing should the ambulance facilities be housed in fire stations and then a decision has to be made whether an adequate level of service is being provided if someone else wants to provide ambulance service. e Councilman Murray thought consideration of revising the commercial zoning code might be a desirable option, perhaps more flexibility would be a suitable alternative to locating the facilities in residential zones. Councilman Williams wondered if a building housing a franchised ambulance system could be constured as a semipubl,ic building within the language now in the code relating to fire stations. Mr. Saul answered that that aspect could be pursued. He added that it raised a number of questions with regard to other franchise operations - telephone company, gas company, etc. Councilman Bradley couldn't reconcile the limiting of ambulance services to C-2 and industrial zones and, to that extent, placing an obstacle for the necessary response time when that did not occur with regard to fire stations. ~e felt ambulance services essential to the health and welfare of the community ~ and said he would be in favor of the conditional use approach. ~ Councilman Keller asked how many emergency trips out of a satellite station on a given basis - daily or monthly could be expected. Mr. Leonard said about 2/9/76 - 10 7~ - 20% of the 5,000 annual responses were emergencies. In the South Eugene area, he said, there were 1600 responses, about 185 of which would have been emergency situations out of a sate-lite station had it been located in that aTea. He added that sirens were not used during the midnight to 7:00 a.m. period unless an ambulance was traveling in a congested area. Councilman Hamel commented that he could see no way an ambulance station on 11th Avenue or 29th Avenue could respond within five minutes to a call in the Coburg Road area, to which Mr. Leonard answered that on their five-year growth plan a total of five sta- tions is indicated - 11th Avenue. River Road, Coburg Road, Belt Line, and South Eugene - in addition to one in Springfield. He said that sometime within the next year, if this conditional use amendment is adopted, they would be look- ing for a location in the South Eugene area, and in the Coburg Road area within two years. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal to adopt the code amendment which would allow ambulance stations in residential zones as a conditional use, and ask staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for presentation to the Council. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Beal, Williams, and Bradley voting aye; Council members Haws, Murray, and Hamel voting no; Councilwoman Shirey not present. II-B-l C. Liquor License (New) - The Silver Stein, 2101 West 10th Avenue (RMB) Manager explained that the proposed license was for an establishment in a build- ing not yet constructed, and that the OLCC report indicated one objection in a survey of the neighborhood, 11 nonobjectors. Staff had no objections. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. ~ Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye (Councilwoman Shirey not present). D. Ordinance re: City purchases and contracts .. . - - - .. Proposed Ordinance Concerning City Purchases and Contracts The proposed ordinance and a December 23 letter from the League of Oregon Cities on the 1975 Public Contract Law have been distributed to Council. Manager explained the ordinance is being proposed because the state has mandated a State Board of Purchases and a book of regulations regarding how local governments should conduct their purchases. The City's goal is to comply with state law and the City Charter, and staff feels the City charter governs. Staff also wishes to continue its policy of supplying the best goods for the least money as well as minimize council time in purchasing procedures, a matter carefully included in the charter. Mr. Williams referred to an earlier public contracts ordinance draft which provided that, if the human rights council found a contractor. was not in compliance with affirmative action requirements, payment of funds could be withheld by the City Manager. To withhold payment for work already done troubles Mr. Williams. Ci ty Attorney explained the Human Rights ordinance has been revised, effective in March. The first draft referred to by Mr. Williams showed the language in the present code and for that reason was deleted so a revision would not subsequently be necessary. City Attorney also pointed out that the language in the code was adopted by Council after much discussion. ~ Mr. Williams wondered if there were any other grounds for non-payment of a contractor; City Attorney was not certain, feeling he would need to look at a specific contract and a particular circumstance. '13 2/9/76 - 11 Charles Dallas, PU;;~:S~~~;Agen~~-;:oted Ithe contracts now incl ude, as a result of the Human Rights ordinance, a provision saying a contractor will cOl'{lply wi th that section of the code and, if not, he is not performing under the contract. ~ Mr. Haws requested that staff provide information about the conflict between the state code and the city code before a final vote is taken on the matter. Manager explained the City charter specifies that the Manager is the purchasing agent and there are certain prohibitions in the charter relating to council prerogat;ives in this area. The state code says the state board will be the purcbtAsing bOaid :r:iilj~sthe iooa'L':fJ9:ver"iling bOd!/is,:tlui {JurqH;Asing- boarer:- arid, thi~ stipulation conflicts wJtl'i th-e City t:na'rter a~rrallgernerits,~ . Mr. H'a'ws" conceirl" 1..s si:mpl!i~ what: i.sin the, best interests of' the citizens. Whioh Pbsition is,bet~er - city oE state? Manager'said the' sta:t:e. uses the . language' "lowest qualify:ingbi~deE" and tra'di'til:ma.Lly, the cit:y." in the b-est, i,nterests of' t:.het"axpager,has taken. the ,pOsiticm flat the lowest anCi'best hid",., Cit~Attorney stated'the, hOme'rule:Power'is cOnSt~~~tionally based, and, if exercised, the state is hid,pless. The power. Comes':'~rom the, cons,t34:tution, not from legislation. Another question, he saia~ is whetHe.r:piirehaiiiiig is la, mat'ter of local or statewide concern. Sti!-ff has judged it to be a local concern because of difficulties the city woultl face if it had to comply with state law. Mr. Hamel noted he has had unsatisfactory dealings with the State over the years, saying the method by which they handle contracts leaves much to be e. desired. Mr. Stadler, EWES, said, by way of background, that over two years ago, at the instigation of the Associated General Contractors, a committee was formed whose efforts resulted in H.B. 2339. The local option provision in the bill was included at the insistence of the League, of Oregon Cities and EWES. EWES took a stand against giving up local autonomy, and it remains now that local entites may constitute themselves into their own board, as EWEB did last December. ' Mr. Williams noted the League position was taken pretty much on the grounds that purchasing is a matter. of local concern. The League felt strongly that surrendering decisions to Salem was not in the best interests of any ci ty. Hr. Williams feels Eugene should decide to opt for local control. Purchasing Agent explained that the nornal procedure of the purchasing department is to request written quotations on most needs of any size. They are always requested FOB delivered so that, if quotations are received from Portland and Eugene, they are on an "apples-to apples" basis. He noted too that preference is often given local vendors where price and quality are equal, considering the fact that faster service nay be obtained locally. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Williams to set a public hearing to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/4/76 Pub Hrng As there were no objections, staff indicated first reading.of the ordinance would be February 9. e Manager explained that the ordinance results from state requirements for local governments to enact regulations governing control of city pu~chasing and contract 2/9/76 - 12 7'+ * \ making procedure or allow the State Boa~d of Purchasing to control. He recommended first reading only of the ordinance at this\ time to give the opportunity to provide information and answers to questions raised and amendment should that be desired. Primary objective, he said, was to meet state requirements and to ensure that city purchasing and contract making result in the best possible arrangements for the com- munity as a whole. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 1005 - Adding sections to City Code re: Public contracts was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Hamel that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Lacking unanimous consent _ Council members Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Keller and Bradley voting no; Councilwoman Shirey not present - the bill was held over for second reading. III - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as requested. Previously discussed in committee on January 28 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey) and February 4, 1976 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. II-B-2 - - -- ..- ---- A. Resolution Proposing Creation of Multi-Agency Animal Control Authority Proposed resolution has previously been distributed to Council. The Animal Control Authority would consist of one council representative each from Eugene and Springfield and one from the County Comrndssioners, with an administrator hired to operate the system. The Springfield City Council has agreed to go along with the proposals after considering changes made by the task force. Staff recommends adopting the resolution and implementing procedu.r~s iZDa3diately', Success of the program depends on- the oPe-ration of joint facilities _ a single pound location and animal control enforcement. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Corom 1/28/76 Approve In answer to Mr. Keller's question on changes made by the task force, Dave Jordan of that committee noted that the budget had been lowered somewhat, the total now being $349,000. Mr. Keller requested that Council be provided with an update report on the changes made. - Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimoUSly. It was understood a council representative to the authority would be appointed in ah?ut a week. e Robert Rose, 4530 Fox Hollow Road, asked for information about the program - whether a private agency would operate it, cost breakdowns, anticipated equipment need, type of personnel that would be employed, etc. He said he had been told the County's computer facilities would be seriously affected if the dog control program was to be entered. Assistant City Manager explained the program as previously outlined to the Council - a triagency authority to be made up of elected officials from 75 2/9/76 - 13 I ! Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County) ,rhat authority would then determine whether the program would operate under a private agency or the public sector. He pointed out that the program involved only dog control at this time. Also, that there was no question the County computer facilities could adequately handle the addition ~. of the program. In response to Mr. Rose's statement that his information indicated .., the computer system would expe,rience 20% down time if the dog control program was ~dded, Assistant Manager said there had been a period of down time during the transi- tion period when putting law enforcement agencies on line, however there is now a high level of reliability, running in excess of 97%. Mr. Rose continued that computer technology specialists and people selling various makes of other types of computers (than that in use at the County) had told him that although problems had been "ironed out," they were not sure what problems would be encountered in adding the dog control program. Because of that he was trying to find out if there were sufficient facilities to operate at the present level. Manager noted the County had recently acquired a second computer and now had a great deal of additional data storage use. He said that during the' past summer be- cause of electrical storms and other emergency situations there had been substantial period of downtime. ,I I Councilman Bradley said both he and Councilman Hamel (as the city's representatives on the triagency authority) would meet with Mr. Rose after adjournment of this meet- ing with regard to whom to contact at the staff level to give Mr. Rose the type of information he was seeking. B. Revised Policies and Procedures for Joint Ci tg/Countg Revenue Sharing Fund for Social Services (memo distributed with Januarg 21 agenda) It is hoped that the revised procedures are adopted immediatelg since social service applications are alreadg being received. Mr. Murrag referred to service deliverg to other cities, interpreting that a Springfield resident would get. the level of service that would applg to the countg residents. e Anita Larsen, Human Resources Coordinator, said the commissioners have not considered the revised policg statement. It must be realized, she said, that the funds, even joint funds, are only a part of the agency's total budget. By review of the records and percentage of Springfield clients, it is recognized Eugene funds are not serving Springfield. To assure that, quarterly reports are generated listing the people served and their place of residence. Those reports are carefully monitored on an ongoing basis. Mr. Murray requested Council receive copies of those reports and also questioned the advantage of joint funds since the city of springfield does not participate. MS. Larsen said basically both the city and county would have to deal with each separate corporation, which could become quite . invol ved. It cuts down on the bureaucracy providing a deli very system in i coordination wi th county and state services. Knowledge of what is going on in the community would be lost, as well as coordination, without joint adm1nistration. Asst. Manager added it proved extremely detrimental when . each Jurisdiction was proceeding separately. .To know the county is committed ,is also helpful. Mr. Keller noted that Ms. Larsen does an incredible amoWlt of work for the subcommittee and it is appreciated. The work of that committee is well defined and there are no problems. He added too that Dr. BOyd Engelcke will be A, on the commi ttee starting February 9, replacing Hugh Johnston. .., Mr. Keller moved and it was seconded to adopt the revised policy and procedures for the Joint city/County Revenue Sharing Fund for Social Services. Mbtion carried unanimously. - 14 Comm 1/28/76 Approve 2/9/76 '1(P . \ I \ C.Consideration of Amendment to Alarm or~nance - January 23 memo to City Manager from Police Department, along with proposed ordinance, have been distributed to Council. The ordinance basically separates alarms sold on the shelf vs. the ones installed in a house by a retailer. By lifting the license fee for selling alarms off the shelf, it is hoped to encourage purchase of more alarms as a matter of public safety. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to tentati vely approve the ordinance. MOtion carried unanimously. Comm 1/28/76 Approve D. Peti tions : 'J.. Sanitary Sewer - Garnet Street from Dillard to 130 feet South - 100% approval 2. Sanitary Sewer - Between Best Lane and Adkins from 100 feet north of Ione to 200 feet north of Ione - 100% approval Comm 1/28/76 Approve ,3. Paving and Sanitary Sewer - Royal View Subdivision - 100% within Subdivision Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the petitions. Mbtion carried unanimously. E. Fifth Avenue Bike Path - Manager stated extensive polling has been completed of affected residents and staff is recommending a March 8 public hearing be called to consider proposals prepared by Public Works. Manager noted that in the past the City Manager's office makes a determination after receiving results of studies. In this instance, staff would like Council to review material before making a decision, due to the number of request;s received for a public hearing. Mr. Williams was concerned that a step was being bypassed in the normal process of having the matter go to the City Manager from the staff for a decision. City Attorney will further pursue the question but he feels that the process is not overlooking a step. - Comm 2/4/76 Delete (See action below) Councilman Haws wondered about the process under consideration - holding a public hearing on this issue at this point. He thought it would result in two public hear- ings and wondered if the Manager himself could hold a hearing on the issue. Manager explained that because of the number of requests for a hearing on the removal of park- ing and installation of a bike route on 5th Avenue it was thought better to have a hearing to give the opportunity for explaining the program to property owners involved. Then if there was further appeal after the administrative decision was made, the Council could go through the normal public hearing on an appeal. Councilman Bradley thought a staff hearing would suffice for the purpose of making an administrative decision, after which a public hearing before the Council could be held if an appeal was filed. Hr. Haws moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to call a public hearing on the Fifth Avenue Bike Path proposal, including removal of some on-street parking, for March 8. Motion carried unanilOOusly. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Bradley to delete Item E from the consent calendar. - Further discussion brought out code procedure - provision for appeal to the Council after administrative decision by the staff. Assistant Manager pointed out that was the procedure used in removing parking and installing a bike route on Pearl Street. However, a higher percentage of resistance to the parking removal had been experienced 2/9/76 - 15 '77 with regard to the 5th Avenue route, high enough to judge that a hearing might dis- pose of that resistance. Councilman Bradley asked the Manager's preference, to which Manager responded that his preference had been brought to the Council. He thought that if an administrative decision was made and the project started, it might have to be undone, and he was trying to avoid that. . In response to Councilman Haws, Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said there was a 30-day period in which an appeal to the Council could be filed after the administra- tive decision was made to go~head with the project. Mr. Haws commented then that no one knows there is a decision until barricades are installed, but Manager said notices would be sent to property owners involved, although such notices are not always re- ceived. Mr. Haws preferred the established procedure - the Manager's making the deci- sion - then holding a public hearing before the Council if an appeal is filed, thereby avoiding two public hearings. Councilman Bradley wondered if the motion would accomplish that, to which Mr. Keller responded that if the motion carried, it was assumed the decision to go ahead with the project would be made, then any appeal would be heard by the Council. Councilwoman Beal said she would vote against the motion. decision to staff would only result in the issue's coming Coucnilman Murray supported the motion. He said it would tive dicision, only the extra hearing. She thought handing the back to the Council anyway. not eliminate the administra- Vote was' taken on the motion to delete Item E from the consent calendar. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Haws, Williams, Murray, Bradley, and Hamel voting aye; Councilwoman Beal voting no; Councilwoman Shirey not present. - F . - Segregation of As.!iessrrents I.Tax Lot 03500 - (SE 75-10), Bob F. and Elizabeth Bayly (Spring B1vd,N.Shasta Loop) 2.Tax Lot 11400 ~ (SE 76-1), Paul A. Foust (NW corner Cody and Wisconsin) Mr. Haws roved secopded by Mr. Williams to approve the above segregations of assessrrents. Motion carried unanirous1y. G. - Policy Revisions in Rentals of Park S-uildIngs- - Suggested rev:lsTonswere distributed to Council with the January 21 -agenda. Comm 2/4/76 Approve Manager noted the fees listed on the policy sheet are those currently in effect. Discussion now centers around interest by the revision commdttee on whether or not the political group fee should be equalized with educational and civic group fees. In addition, the Parks meeting facilities have been divided into two groups: Programmed Facilities (Amazon, Sheldon, WestllOre1and and Campbell Centers) and Non-Programmed Facilities (Lamb Cottage and Laure1wood Meeting Hall). Manager noted the committee and staff are not in full agreerrent on the suggested changes. Staff reports that, with a11lOst no exceptions, higher fees are charged partisan groups in other park systems. On the other hand, the council committee feels that, to encourage constructive political activity, the fees should be equalized. The Manager noted that, in view of the current budget crunch, there is a question whether all fees should perhaps be raised. Also to be considered, perhaps, is the impact on the use of the rooms .at Ci ty Hall by various groups, free of charge, and whether it should be made clear that there is a distinction. 4IIr Mrs. Shirey, who served on the policy committee, said council input was desired -and that the committee has reclassified political groups but has not addressed how they should be charged. 2/9/76 - 16 78 e Assistant Parks Director suggested moving the two partisan classifications in the Programmed Facilities grouping into the non-programmed facilities grouping, the reason being that the impact on staff in the programmeq areas is substantial. To encourage additional usage in the programmed facilities area might be frustrating, but moving the two partisan classifications could prove to be 'an acceptable way of making non-programmed facilities available to partisan users. This shift would not suggest a change in the fee schedule unless Council felt it was a warranted action. Mr. Murray recalled that, at the inception of the study, Council had raised a philosophical question, it being whether partisan activities should be treated differently than other kinds of activities. Maybe that issue should be resolved first, he thought. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs.. Seal that the fee structure in the use of the facilities be based upon the premise that npnfund raising partisan activities be treated in a uniform fashion with other non-fund raising activities and that partisan fund raising activities be treated uniform ~ith other fund raising activities allowed in the centers. Ml'._ williams sa.id that,-i,f,he understands t:he nature of the 'fee- schedule;- it is saying that the:city subsidizes ceEtalnactivities and he quesrioned if partisan pOlitical activity should fit into-that catego.rg. Corom 2/4/76 Tabled (See action below) Mr ~Mu:rray fe1t that to be a c01lll'lr)n point of. ,view - "we view partisCln, Poli-tical activity as a little seamier," he said.. lie thinksthose-,who disagree with, that point of view IJelieve more exposure is healthier for political activity. e Mrs. Shirey"felt that, if political activities' are viewed differently than other,.activities, perhaps the facilities s~u1.d not be r~ifted at all Eor political purposes. If they are not viewed differerrtllj." they should betreat:ed on an equal basis. ' ,'., " _ Hr. Williams is troubled by publicly subsidizing political activities, but Hr. Murray finds fault with that logic. Mrs. Seal feels people are much more willing to use public funds for poli tical activities than in the past. Vote was taken on the motion which carried, all council members present voting aye except Mr. Williams voting no. Councilman Williams raised the question of using grant monies under the Community De- velopment Act for neighborhood facilities used for political meetings - either sub- sidized or nonsubsidized. He read applicable provisions of that Act which indicated no expenditure may be made for conducting political meetings, Federal transportation connected with political activities, other partisan political activities, etc. He wondered if use of Revenue Sharing funds was restricted in the same manner. He sug- gested that if Federal money could not be used to subsidize political activities, the same protection should be afforded local taxpayers. Councilman Bradley thought it might be wise to have staff investigate whether similar requirements are attached to grants for parks and recreation facilities. e Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Williams to table Item G of the consent calendar. Motion carried unanimously. 7'1 2/9/76 - 17 .. .-- .-.--.. H. Statu~- Re'View on Eugene Zoning Code Conflicts with .l990Plan . . Report from Planning Department and Acting City Attorney was d~str~buted to Council with January 28 Committee agenda. That mem discusses two subjects: 1990General Plan and tbe Baker vs. MilwauJde Decision; Request to Rezone the Edgewood Shopping Center from C-2 to C-l. Mr. Saul, planner, noted that the questions presented to Council on the Edgewood shopping center are important because it is the first formal occasion ~he question of Baker vs. Milwaukie and the 1990 General Plan have been ~a~sed at the City Councilor Planning commission level. Because the quest~on 'raised is a broad question affecting many areas, it was felt important .to provide analysis of the purpose of the General Plan, t~e int~nt of.i~s _a4QP~rs, and the ~~~a~ion of.._th.€? R.~n to the Baker vs. M~lwauk~e dec~s~on. The. staff addressed two ,primary questions,---Ifr---' -.Sa-ul continued. The xirstwas to provide staterocnts from the plan itself which were drawn from the introductory portions and the introductory section to the land use section. The statements were meant to provide a sense of purpose of the plan. Looking at those conditions, he said, i t sep~ the apparent primary purpose was to address longstanding communi ty problems and provide an overall direction that an entire area could pursue. The plan was adopted by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County after common problems were identified by them. The most important aspect, then, said HI. Saul,. is the emphasis on compact urban growth form and control of urban sprawl. From that objective on down, there is a decreasing level of review in the plan so that, as it affects smaller areas, the plan addresses them only in a broad sense. The 1990 Plan points out the need for further study an~ review to achieve broad objectives, thus the need for refinement studies is emphasized. Specific sections in the Plan speak to the need to re-examine zoning of particular areas to make sure that the zoning ordinance is capable of achieving the objective of the Plan. The question, 'then, said Mr. Saul, is how that is viewed in the context of Baker vs'a, Milwaukie. .. e~ He went on to say the Plan does set forth Objectives which, if achieved, rilill change development patterns occurring historically in this ci ty. The Plan does contemplate the fact that it will have to be a deliberate process, achieved over a lengthy period of time, with attention paid to the manner in which those changes are effected. In other words, in establishing broad Objectives, it does not mean they can be effected instantaneously by simply rezoning. Mr. Saul said an attempt has been made, through the memo, to show a reasonable response to the purpose of the General Plan and the intent of the court in the Baker vs. ,M,ilwaukie decision, and a response avoiding some of the dangers inherent in a decision like Baker vs. MilwauJde. The dangers which seem important are the instant rezoning of areas in an attempt to bring zoning in strict accordance with a plan diagram. The second danger is the assumption that past zoning is accepted in the Plan and the Plan does not contemplate change. A third danger is to say the Plan is so general it does not mean anything. Insofar as the Plan establishes objectives, said Mr. Saul, it can be used very effectively in evaluating such things as zone change requests when dealing with future sorts of uses'. That has been a criteria used by the City long before . Baker vs. Mi1waukie. The second thing the City can do is undertake a responsible process of refinement studies to address the conflict areas that do exist. The . other avenue the city has available is review of the zoning ordinance itself. It is important to recall that the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1968, four years before the adoption of the 1990 Plan. In the Planning Commis sion work _ . . program, there are major re'Vision schedules to bring distr.icts in close accord . wi th the Plan. Another element of reasonable response to Baker vs. Ml1waukie is for the City Council and Planning Commission to establish revision priorities which are broad and cover all factors of this coinmunity. Finally, staff feels 2/9/76 - 18 go e' e - a reasonable response will necessitate clarification of the plan diagram itself. Mr. Saul noted the fact that the original 1990 Plan drafters said the plan diagram was merely a graphic representation of objectives in the Plan. To obviate confusion with the diagram, staff has suggested an amendment which would more clearly define the purpose of the diag.'!'"am: to provide guidance in evaluating requests and to depict graphically what this metro area would look like as major objectives are achieved. Staff also suggests the need for each local jurisdiction to establish a program of refinement studies ~sed on local priorities and budgetary constraints. Regarding the request for rezoning the area at 40th and Donald, continued Mr. Saul, it has been noted in staff'~ analy~~~ ~hat the treatment of neighborhood cem:.exs: j:s eXtreizieiy gerie~al in '. the' Plan,' tha't' they, be - nandie"d . thi:o'ugh' refinemi:mt' ,stud:ies';, . 'St'iif-E the~ef'Ore ,:feeli:;' j't' iriiipproprla't'Ef .to rezone .t:he- EdgewdOd ' . . . cerit~r at this time~ a~ it would' involve. the' discuSsion of other neighbOrhood c-entec!;': Too, the.t'tii.it:ionshlp'lietwsl!!n existi.ng, 'cbmfn8rcial zones and zoning C8.tegat'ies of'the gel'Jeral 'plan-'heeds,to b~, considered. ':H . :. ~ . - . .. . . . :: .' . . . -. "... The, PliJ.nn:fn~coirini.:ssi~n :'ha:~'::schedtiled a .st'aidiJ Of' 'revisib~"to' the conrnercial . zones, t1iiit, 'revision' to t~ke p:race ,in 1911. The, e01l1llleIcia1 catega:des in' the 19'90' PLiizi include nei~hborhood commercial, C!C?irmui1.ity coimierci'ai., regionai comme.roici.l, strip. cOltrlliercial alid tentiai bu~iness area. IiJ the 'zoning ordinance; there-are only thrffe categOr.ies - neighborhood'CC)l11lfJercial, c:ommunity commercial and central business. WheiJ,'l;ook:ing at the uses permit"ted..in, any commercial zone under the, zoning ordinance, some of the 'uses' fall, for il'Js'tance, into neighborhoOd. commercial and some uses peIndtted in the neighborhood commercial zone do not haw much relation to neighborhood cOlllD8rcial as set forth in the General Plan. Mr. Saul sUlllDiJrized staff recommendations: 1. Refer suggested amendment procedure to the Planning Commission for reviewing amendments to the General Plan itself. 2. Take no action on the request Eor rezoning Ed~ewood at: this time. 3. Discuss the priority of looking at cOllmercial zones in the context of the General Plan. In answer to a question from Mr. Williams, Mr. Saul said that looking at the conmercial zones would involve primarily working on the zoning ordinance itself, not so much looking at each commer-cial area. Mr. Murray wondered if the next legal question to be answered might not be what constitutes a refinement study. He also wondered if there is a priority program established at this time for studies. Mr. Saul said there was, in an informal sense, but a formal schedule might be desirable. Planning Comm:j.ssion does have a work program, he added, that it review on an annual basis. Mr. Murray referred to the meDJ:>'s statement that rezoning of the Edgewood center should await a more detailed treatment of neighborhood commercial centers that corresponds with the specific recommendation of the 1990 General Plan. He wondered if that should rightly be a metropolitan task, Mr. Saul feeling it should be a City task - that Springfield, for instance, might wish to take a different approach to neighborhood centers. It is also mentioned in the memo that work is scheduled in 1976 for major revisions to the zoning ordinance for residential zoning districts and, following that, review of the commercial zoning districts in 1977. Mr. Murray wondered if those items were prioritized in terms of greatest urgency, Mr. Saul responding it is a matter of judgment - with no problem in switching the order since no action has been taken on them as yet. It should be realized there could be some displacement or shifting of priorities. There is a question of the relationship between density ranges and residential zones, etc. 81 2/9/76 - 19 n_-l - Fredric Merrill, U of 0 law profes~or, 3940 Mill, agrees with the procedures presented and the need for review.' One thing bothering him, however, is that the report identifies some number of conflicts between the 1990 Plan and zoning. There is no practical and effective 'procedure, he said, 'for an affected _ citizen in an area where changes are to be made, for raising an issue and getting it addressed. He said he can testify to that because of his involvement in the Bi-Mart issue. The only approach in that case was to persuade the COtUJcil to hold a hearing, an imposition on their time. Lacking that, there "is a great deal of difficulty because of the time factor and inertia on the part of citizens if an area is overzoned. Mr. Merrill's suggestion was th~t. CounCil' also should stipulate, that." :in 'thOse- 'areas' where staff has ' identified a' C6-nflict, no building permit be issued . until thePlann1.ng Commission has heard the matter and decided if there is in- fact a conflict. Rick Cleveland', Attorney, 9,75. Oak, felt the c:oncern of Mr. Merrill was more thanadequaOtely', dea1.t' with .in, the Bi-Mart matter, since anearirig was held and is being fuxtber addressed by. new procedures being suggested. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Williams to refer to the Planning Commission the suggestion for amendment to more clearly define the purpose of the Plan Diagram. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Williams to take no action at this time on the request to rezone the Edgewood Shopping Center. Motion carried unanimously. Carom 2/4/76 Approve The third recommendation by staff is that Council ask staff to look at commercial zones as they relate to zoning ordinances and the Plan. Mrs. Beal wondered if. those zones should actually have priority over other types of zoning conflicts. Mr. Saul responded the Council could easily address that item later ifit so desired. - In answer to a question from Mr. Murray, Mr. Saul said that the last suggestion was meant to include the following: preparation of more detailed treatment of neighborhood commercial centers that corresponds with the specific recommendation -of the 1990 General Plan and takes subsequent Council policy decisions into , account, review and revision of the conrnercial zoning districts, and review of the adequacy of commercial zoning in the South Eugene area with affected neighborhood groups and other affected parties. ,Mr. Murray does not know of a neighborhood group that would want more commercial zoning. Any problem in South ,Eugene would impact the rest of the city, he feels. All other neighborhoods will pay the price and Mr. Murray is not ple!Jsed with the lack of a definitive process on that matter and would like further discussion. It was understood further discussion on that issue would take place at a later time. Phyllis Early, 3945 Mill Street, vice-president of the South Hills Neighborhood Associa- tion, requested separation of the 40th and Donald zoning issue from the general issue of all commercial areas and their compliance with the General Plan. She said that al- though the present situation with regard to the 40th and Donald site appeared to be solved, the basic underlying problem had been left hanging. Jim Lemert, 10 East 40th Avenue, agreed with Mrs. Early and wondered what action would be taken with regard to the present C-2 zone at that location. ' He suggested that if action on this particular 4It location was not taken until a study of all commercial areas is completed, then some time limit for completion of that study should be set. 2/9/76 - 20 g~ . - e I . Councilman Murray asked for a report on the st~tuslof planning department reV1S10n of residential and commercial codes in the normal p1ahning workload. He said he was requesting again that the commercial code revis'ion' come first. He said also he still was not satisfied with the response of how one deals with the question of whether there is adequate commercial property in the South Eugene area - community commercial for day-to-day needs - between now and 1990. Mr. Saul said that staff felt an analysis of commercial property in the South Eugene area would be addressed in part in the update of the General Plan along with all other areas of the city. Councilman Bradley sug- gested that probably the only legitimate way to decide whether there was enough com- mercially zoned property in the South Eugene area was on an ad hoc basis - demonstration of public need by property owners requesting zone changes from residential to commercial. I. Youth Ad Hoc Colflflittee Appointments bl} Mal}or - List of appointments has been distributed to Council members. Mal}or Anderson has asked Jim Forbes to chair the conmittee which includes the following: Jim Forbes, 550 Ri ver Road Sallie Meek, -1045 Monroe Jim Williams, 1857 Universitl} Dr. David Mortimore, 200 N. Monroe Vernon Kammack, 2055 Patterson Ll}dia Lackllrm, 3570 W. 11th Gary Weber, 14.35 Arnberland pierre Van Rl}sselberghe, Jr., 2880 Alta Vista Court Jennl} Gordon, 1136 E. 20th Craig Rutledge, 1963 Stonecrest Drive Greg Olson,' 1410 W. 28th Place Comm 1/28/76 Affirm That colflflittee will assess the need for a local Youth Commdssion and hopes to have a report back within 90 days. Mayor Anderson noted that Mr. Bradlel} will serve as council representative to the commi ttee. J. Appointment of Council Representative to Tri-Agencl} Animal Control - Mr. Bradley suggested that, in view of the fact that he and Mr. Hamel served on the task force, thel} both be appointed as council representatives, Mr. Bradlel} to serve for the first six months and Mr. Hamel for the last six months of the yea+. Comm 2/4/76 Affirm Hrs. Beal moved seconded bl} Hr. Haws to appoint Hr. Rradlel} and Mr. Hamel in the manner suggested. Mr. Williams wondered if, in view of recent discussions on the importance of continuitl} and experience in serv~ng on boards and commissions, there would be anI} problems with turning the duties over to another representative at the end of six months. Mr. Bradlel} did not feel there would be problems but said thel} would come back to Council before the end of the first six months if anI} difficulties seemed apparent. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimousll}. K. Field Burning - Mr. Murral} raised a question on what progress is being made on behalf of the citl} of Eugene to curb the field burning - he wondered if the Citl} is precluded from participating as activell} as the seed growers in attempting to satisfy its concerns. Hayor Anderson noted that Eugene' s i.nterests are being addressed in one form by good representation on the Field Sanitation ComDcittee. Efforts are continuing despite difficult obstacles, one, being reluctance on the part of the seed industry to resolve the issue. In the interim, however, MaYl?r Anderson thought the development 83 2/9/76 - 21 I .. .. _ _j . i . .. of a local organization to keel? iinterest~ ali ve is worthy o~ consideration. . Inroads are being made on the f~e;J.d burn~ng matter, he cont~nued, because the issues are better defined than before, particularly the proposals made at the last Field Sanitation Committee meeting. Too, the Governor's strong statement this week relating to the need for the seed industry to be pollution free was very courageous on his part. Mr. Murray said it was frustrating to get reports that the seed growers are doing much lobbying and the City of Eugene is not. Mayor Anderson responded that the growers .of course have a direct strong econonUc interest, best served by inaction by any legislative or other regulatory group. Raising a war chest seems to be the only other method for Eugeneans to pursue, he concluded. Mrs. Beal would be averse to spending city money on an anti-field burning campaign. She added that Mrs. Gale, Eugene's field burning lobbyist, was helpless last year because of restrictions placed on her, but it would seem that any "war chest" would have to be organized in the private sector. Manager advised that, through the efforts of Greg Page, the Ci ty , s Technology Coordinator, information has been assembled on field burning equipment. That material defines the real. core. of the problem and addresses the econonUc issues. Assistant Manager added that, through the technology program's back-up .,site, expertise will be provided in working wi th the developers of the field burning equipment to look at the characteristics and possibly better materials. Mayor Anderson noted this is the first time Eugene has had someone with technical expertise on its side. He suggested circulation of the technology coordinator's report among council members, as it defines the issues very : well and represents a major change in the Ci ty' s thrust. The poli tical arena, he added, is not the only solution. Eugene must be ready to defend 1fbe technical aspects of the problem as well. Wi th the help of Mr. Page and . the back-up site, good progress should be made in combating the efforts of what has been a most powerful lobby on the part of the seed growers. It was understood Mr. Page's report would be distributed to Council members. J.QlmsolJ.. House L.o Skinner's Butte House - Mr. Bradiey wondered what the County will be doing with the Skinner's ,Butte House, a gift to the County from its owner. If the County is not interested in it, he feels the City should express its interest in the house. Mayor Anderson responded he would hope the Historic Review Board would not let anything happen to it and Hr. Hurray added that conditions of that gift to the County are that it be maintained for a combination of residential community uses. . Mr. Bradley thought maybe the City would want to join with the County and Mr. Murray felt that the house's designation as a historical . landmark. Would not p~ec1 ude participation. M.Annuai Eugene FiniJnci~l .Rep~rt (Distributed earlier to Council) - Hr. Richard L. Flomer, Coopers and Lybrand, said he would be happy to respond to any questi,ons Erom Council members on the annual report. He added that the staEf was most cooperative in working with them. 2/9/76 - 22 84 e - Comm 1/28/76 File Comm 1/28/76 File e Comm 1/28/76 File 1 -I e N. Special Council Meeting January 28 - Council will be meeting in a special sessJ.on at 4 p.m. "today" in the McNutt Room to consider applications for appointments to boards and commissions. Mr. Keller felt the session wuld last several hours, that Council members should come prepared for the J.nterview process. Comm 1/28/76 File e' O. Reappointments by Council to Boards and COmaUssions - Discussion continUed from January 14 meeting. Regarding earlier comments by some that reappo:tntllJent should be considered for incumbents demonstrating satisfactory performance, . Mr. Haws did not agree that a person should be selected simply because m:, has "already served." Mr. Murray said any comments ~e woul~ ~e would be l~inited to appointments made by the Council only. Sta~d~ng pol~c~e~ ~o need to be established and he feels that, when a term exp~res, the pos~t~on then b~omes vacant and Council has an obligation to seek applicants from the.commun~ty. He would not favor a policy that would discriminate again~t the ~ncumbent, but current practices in effect discriminate against "~utsi~e~s". .There are a great many people, he added, as the expe~i~nt w~th c~t~~en ~nterest forms indicates , who are interested in all pos~t~ons. He real~zes some positions do require' skill and expertise, however. Mr. Keller feels some people may not realize the magnitude of homework involved in serving on certain commissicns. He referred to Mr. Porter's comment that it takes approximately two years in most cases for a Planning Commission member to feel an integral pa rt of the planning process. Mr. Keller is not convinced it would be fair to require a person to reapply after serving only one term on the Planning Commission. He wonders what should be given highest priority - good planning experience or diverse community participation. Perhaps, he concluded, additional applications could be received but an incumbent should not have to go through the entire review process again. Mr. Williams is deeply troubled over the rate of turnover of elected officials and members of boards and commissions. He is not satisfied a rapid burnover is of any benefit to anyone - a reasonable time period- of service seems more worthwhile. Another factor, he added, is whether an individual 1s qualified to serve, especially in the case of the Planning Commission. He thought comment had been made that an individual would be qualified for appointment to the Planning COmnUssion because of extensive training in planning. He would think extensive training essential to be a member of the planning staff, but advisory groupS should not be required to possess the same general attributes. Mr. Murray does not understand the philosophical premise of automatic reappointments. He realizes it does take time to understand and become familiar with processes but, if it is assumed that everyone should be reappointed because of that reason, some limitations on length of service should be developed, he said. It would seem obvious to him that, even with open applications, incumbents in most instances would be considered heavy favorites. Mr. Murray said he is not excited about citizen participation for its own sake but rather that Council has an obligation to assure that local government is characterized for its openness and accessibility. e Mr. Keller would find it difficult to grasp that one reappointment policy could apply to all groups. Frequency of meetings of various groups range from more than once a week to once a year, for instance, and he wondered how one policy could cover both extremes. Mr. Bradley noted lack of interest expressed to him in serving on a board or commission without automatic reappointment possibilities. 85 2/9/76 - 23 Mr. Williams' own perception is that individuals apply for a board or comndssion position because they believe in their community and would like to serve - if willing to serve again, itHaneans they feel they have made a contribution in that period of time. Assuming that to be true, said Mr. Williams, "to not: reappoint would be a pretty good slap in the face for someone's community service." e' ~. Haws suggested looking at different reappointment criteria for different boards. Mayor Anderson thought reappointment should be based on a set of established criteria. He feels activities of an incumbent, if judged satisfactory, should warrant reappointment. It would preclude putting outside applicants in competition with someone already serving. He concluded: Simply determine to which boards or commissions the criteria could apply, decide if the incumbent meets the criteria and, if not, open up the application process. Comm 1/28/76 File It was understood the matter would be further dicussed at a later convenient time. P. Consens-us-Pr'CiPv;:,cd~ on ESATS Altern-atives - Mayors of Eugene and Springfield and Chairman of Lane County Board Proposed: 15% mass transit - Eugene; 10% mass transit - Springfield. . Council has received notes and chart from January 21 meetin9 of officials from Eugene, Lane County, Springfield and LCOG. Hr. Bill Guenzler, LCOG, stated the chart illustrates a wide variation in modal splits depending on origination point and destination point. For instance, for areawide 10% transit, a n'rwement to the Central Busines.s District from the South Hills would be more accurately outlined at 19%. To reflect 19%, 27% of the work trips and 30% of the shopping trips would be transit. Hr. Guenzler further noted that, with a compromise of 15% for Eugene and 10% for Springfield, the areawide figure would be 14%. e' In answer to a question from Mr. Hurray, Hr. Guenzler said that bike and pedestrian trips could be more geographically pinpointed due to trip shortness. An average transit or paratransit trip frequently spans jurisdictional botmdaries; thus they are figured on a more areawide basis. Mr. Hurray wondered if the final plan would reflect the 15-5-5-5% splits Council had recommended. Hr. Guenzler replied that, from a personal perspective, it might be something best treated as a Eugene detailed refinement to the areawide plan. Mrs. Shirey wondered about the timing of a refinement plan in relation to the riagional plan. Mr. Murray felt there should be some assurance that refinements to the, plan would include Eugene's concerns and that: they would be completed at an early time. "It is not satisfactory to be told that some day Eugenia's concerns will be made a part of the plan", he said. Traffic Engineer felt that, if Council directs staff to see that their concerns are addressed in the plan, through staff's representation on the Transportation Planning Comndttee those concerns and goals will not be overlooked. While some concerns may not be able to be implemented regionally, he said, certainly they should be included as goals to be addressed by the agency directly affected. He concluded it would be difficult to expect a detailed plan for every segment _ because of related problems to be worked out such as sidewalks for the pedestrian WI' mode. 2/9/76 - 24 810 e/ Public Works Director noted that Eugene does not have the controlling vote on either the Citizens Advisory Co~ttee or the Transportation Planning Commdttee but, if proposals are not accepted, it does not preclude staff from addressing their needs in the form of a refinement plan for Eugene. Mr. Williams, in attempting to clarify the methodology to be used for a 15% transi t system, saw two immediate impacts: 1 . There would be a net reduction in the number of interzonal trips which would reduce the need for highway construction; 2. There would be substantial tilt in 1990 towards a balanced land use concept. Mr. Guenzler agreed those were two legitimate impacts and also noted some fairly strong sidewalk policies would be necessary. Accepting a particular goal causes reduction in other areas but also requires a means of implementing that goal. Mr. Bradley wonde~d how to assure that Eugene's concerns are built into the regional plan. He sees the possibility of a co~ttee dictating what the Council would like to happen in Eugene. Mayor Anderson reminded him that the elected officials would be making the final deterrndnation. In answer to a question from Mr. Bradley! Mayor. ~derson noted that the plan, under federal requirements, must be coordinated regionally-but not necessarily be uniform. He further added that the whole matter is a technical one, not simply political. It is impossible to bring extremes together without some give and take. He noted that Eugene has not given much, that Springfield has made a drastic change, going to 10% from their original stand of 0% increase in transit. e Mr. Guenzler explained that the planning comndttees would not purposely ignore the goals of one jurisdiction. It should be realized, however, that, when goals are accotrl1OOdated with respect to another juriSdiction, it is assumed they are the goals of that juriSdiction. If it is not feasible to implement them regionally, then a detaiLed plan can be adopted for a particular area. In other words, he said, the regional plan could accol1l1lJXlate goals without specific ways of implementing them. 1Ir. Murray reiterated his concern, wondered if any document coming out of the transportation committee meetings would make it clear that for Eugene there will be additional breakdowns for bike, pedestrian and paratransit and that Eugene has some commi tment to those. Mr. Guenzler answered that any plan would reflect Eugene's concerns. But Mr. Bradley said he had voted for the 15-5-5-5% split as regional goals and now he understands they are goals only for the city of Eugene. . He would like Council feedback at some point on whether they felt those percentages should be regional when they voted for them. Comm 1/28/76 File No action was taken. e Q.Status Review on Eugene Zoning Code Conflicts with 1990 Plan - Council has received DIem dated January 26 from the Planning Department and the Acting Ci ty Attomey relating to two issues: 1. The general ques1!'ion invol ving the intent and purpose of the General Plan specifically within the context of the Baker vs. Milwaukie decision and what was reasonable posture relative to application of the General Plan in view of that court decision; and 2. the request to initiate rezoning at the Edgewood Shopping Center, changing it from C-2 to C-l. 81 2/9/76 - 25 Mr. Williams also feels attention should be given to the definitions of C-l andC-2, Manager responding that,question has been addressed in the memo. Mr. Bradley wondered about the pros and cons of leaving the plan diagram out of the General Plan, Mr. Murray and Mayor Anderson both responding it is the only feature of the plan showing planned density. Talking about goals without having a plan diagram becomes too complicated. e Discussion on the mero was scheduled for a later committee meeting andi t was understood Planning would also comment on the pros and cons of deleting plan diagrams from the 1990 Plan. Corom 1/28/76 File - " R. Arrangement of Agenda Items 1. Current routine matters 2. Current non-routine substantial matters 3. Less immediate concerns Corom 2/4/76 File Manager announced that, after discussing the matter with the Mayor and at his request, the abOve format will be used for Committee agendas for 1lr>re effective and expeditious handling of matters comdng before Council. I S . Firefighters ' Labor Settlement - A February 4 mero from the ci tyManager regarding a wage settlement was distributed to Council members for their information, any questions by Council to be directed to Personnel Director at a later time. Corom 2/4/76 File , . T. Authdrizadon fOr Traffic .Di'liert.er S't:ud1.es ,:: ,'. 1. FiJirway Loop from SouthwOOd to Fai,roaks 'Di.1 ve 2. Alder 19th to 24th ' 3. Portland street from 24th to 27th e Corom 2/4/76 File Maps of the areas in question 'have been distributed to CoUncil members. Manager ;noted authorization by Council is not necessary, that staff can authorize the studies. This item then is merely a' report. to Council on action being taken. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through T, except Item E deleted (calling for March 8 public hearing with regard to 5th Avenue parking removal and bike route), and Item G tabled (fee structure for rental of parks buildings). Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. LiqUor Licen~~----RMB-:,n N~~-Outi~t-=---Th~- sii.~;- St~J;; '::':'2101:..W>'cldt,h:::' ',. K~nneth D. Johnson an,~:Jack N. MQ~r', a:p"~i,:.~nts., ." _..,. ... ..' .. .... .~.,Y.t':,. Haws moved se~nde4 by -Mr. .Hi..ii".i~~:~:.t;(>> ,calla ,publi.C' :hea'i.'ing "'ah t,he aboveliqu~r l.i:ctmse appli'i:at1.on 'i~r.'February '9. . 'MOtd.Qn "" '" ct3rried unanimou~U!/ ~ . Comm 2/4/76 Pub Hrng IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 1006 - Amending Section 3.655 of City Code re: Automatic ~ fire detection devices was read by council bill number ~ and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. 2/9/76 - 26 88 Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. - Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17523. Council Bill No. 1007 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Souza Park Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of a line extended south 660 feet from the southeast corner of Souza Park, thence west 640 feet to Danebo Street (75-18) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recom- mendations on February 23, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 1008 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on 2nd Avenue from 85 feet west of Monroe Street to 250 feet west of Adams Street (75-35) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recom- mendations on February 23, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. - Council Bill No. 1009 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Robin Street from Taney Street to 400 feet east of Taney Street (75-38) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recom- mendations on February 23, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 1010 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Martin Street from Center Way to 500 feet west (75-42) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recom- mendations on February 23, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 1011 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Rio Glen Drive from Debrick Road to east boundary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition; and Alfaretta Drive from Rio Glen Drive to east boundary of Brickley-Esley Gardens Addition (75-46) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr.. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976, and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recom- ~. mendations on February 23, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. v- Resolutions Resolution No. 2476 - Authorizing establishment Springfield, Lane County) of regional animal authority (Eugene, was read by number and title. 89 2/9/76 - 27 Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2477 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments ~. for period January 26 through February 9, 1976 was read ,., by number and title. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2478 - Calling hearing for February 23, 1976 re: Withdrawal from Oak- way Water District recently annexed area at northeast corner of Gilham and Crescent was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2479 - Authorizing commitment to EPA to complete and make available an infiltration/inflow analysis re: Construction grants for Waste Treatment Works was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Manager noted several meetings: Congressional/City Conference in Washington, D.C., March 14-16 First meeting of Neighborhood Organization Policy Review Committee on Tuesday, February 10, at noon Council meeting to continue selection of new human rights commissions, ~ Tuesday, February 10, 5:00 p.m. Cancellation of tour of 5th Avenue bike route scheduled at 11:30 a.m. before the February 11 committee-of-the~whole session until/if an appeal is filed Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to . Monday, February 23, 1976. ~.2~ City Manager - 2/9/76 - 28 90