Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/1976 Meeting . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 26,1976 Adjourned meeting - from April 12, 1976 - was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on April 26, 1976 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Gus Keller, Eric Haws, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams (arrived later), Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, and Edna Shirey. I-A-1 I - Public Hearings A. Liquor License - Country Cupboard, 296 East 5th Avenue (Package Store)-New o,ut1et Liquor License - Grocery Carts, Inc. for PS-Package store - New Staff finds the application in order and Country Cupboard, 296 E. 5th, the OLeC report lists no objectors. Comm 4/21/76 ~b Hrng Mr. Keller moved seconded 'by Mr. Haws to call a public hearing on the appli~ation for April 26, 1976.. Motion carried unanimously. ~1anager described the premises located in the 5th Avenue Market on which con- siderable work still is to be done before certificate of occupancy is issued. OLCC reported no objections from those interviewed in the area. Staff has no objections. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. - Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to recommend approval of the applica- tion. Motion carried unanimously. I-A-2 B.Bids ~arks Department - Washington/Jefferson Park Basketball Backboards (Opened April 13, 1976.) Cascade Recreation Equipment (Contractor: Wests10pe Landscape Co.) Frank D. Cohen, Inc. Oregon Athletic Equipment Co. $ 7,705.08 10, 164 . 00 No bid Manager reviewed the bids received and noted a petition containing 236 signatures requesting this installation. Staff recommended contract award to the low bidder. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to award contract to the low bidder Cascade Recreation Equipment (Contractor: Wests10pe Landscape Co.) at $7,705.08. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. e 2. Public Works - Downtown Mall Information Booth (opened April 22, 1976) Name of Bidder Contract Cost Cost to Amount and Project Basic Al ternate City Budgeted Howard Nelson Construction $16,887.00 $16,637.00 $16,637.00 Powell Industrial Builders 20,557.00 20,007.00 Staff recommended rejection of the bids as being too high. the booth or some other arrangement. :2/$ Also, redesign of 4/26/76 - 1 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to reject the bids. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Councilman Williams entered the meeting. 4IIt C. Abatement, 2375 Madison Street (Dannemiller) I-A-3 Manager explained that abatement of this building was authorized in September 1973, but because the owner was making some progress, the builidng permIt was extended. However, even with extension, the building remains hazardous, as set out in memo from the building department previously distributed to Council members. Staff recommended proceeding with the abatement. Public hearing was opened. Lynda Wilt, 1990 Garfield Street, and Gary Buchholz, 27119 Bertelsen Road, were opposed to the abatement on the basis that no real hazard existed. They ac- knowledged that the recycled lumber being used was unsightly but declared the building was secure against entry. They felt that given more time, the build- ing would "come together." Robert Dannemiller, owner of the property, described the work he was accomplishing on the house and itemized work already finished. He presented pictures and said the materials would be cleaned up. Entry could not be made, he said, unless forced. He recognized the protracted time in completing the project but explained his job loss, lack of finances, etc. He asked for more time to complete the work - nine months - since he felt his position now was such that the would could be completed by that time. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. - Manager suggested that within the next two weeks Mr. Dannemiller present the building department with some written plan of work contemplated so as to arrive at some arrangement for completion of the building in a reasonable time. He said quite a bit of work had been done on the building, and recommended holding further abatement proceedings for two weeks. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to hold action on the abatement proceedings for two weeks. Motion carried unanimously. D. Appeal from Planning Commission decision granting preliminary approval for Parkway PUD, 23rd and Wil1amette (Morgan)(PD 75-8) - Friendly Area Neighbors Jim Saul, planner, explained that preliminary approval was given the Parkway PUD by the Planning Commission on March 2, 1976, at which time five criteria support- ing approval were adopted. The project involves 20 dwelling units on property located east of Willamette Street just north of 23rd Avenue. Each unit con- sists of two bedrooms with a common kitchen and is intended for use by single parents with one child under three years of age. Mr. Saul said that the Hous- ing Commission had extended allocation of a $60,000 grant to Wes Morgan, project developer, to support this project. Appeal statement, submitted by Friendly Area Neighbors, had been distributed previously to Council members. I-A-4 On call for ex parte contacts or reasons for conflict of interest, Councilman Williams noted attendance and participation in hearings before the Housing Com- mission, a matter of public record. He saw no reason to abstain from participa- tion at this time. Councilman Bradley said he also attended Housing Commission meetings when this issue was discussed. And Councilwoman Beal noted her at- tendance at a Women's Commission meeting when this issue was brou~ht on for dis- - 4/26/76 - 2 '-'-'6 cussion. However, she said she left and did not hear any of the discussion, so felt she need not abstain at this time. - Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 2, 1976 were received as part of this record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. I-A-S Speaking against the project and in favor of the appeal were Mary Milhaupt, 2570 Spring Boulevard, who read a prepared statement on behalf of the Women's Commission; Craig Smith, 440 West 23rd Avenue, Friendly Area Neighbors, who also presented a letter from Paul Marshall, 2415 Willamette Street; Nancy Anderson, 415~ River Road, Lane CQunty Chi1drens Services; Leslie Childress-Ullman, lB4S~ Univeristy Street, part-time city parks worker; Sue Thomsen, 1965 Brewer, who also read a letter from Thomas Moen, former Childrens Services manager. Primarily, objections were based not on the concept, but specific structural design and location. They were concerned about light and noise from neighboring establishments, traffic hazards for the small children occupying the project, lack of provision for counsel- ing services and day care services, lack of privacy for parents. It was suggested that some of the space spent for parking be used instead for expanded play area since low-income people occupying the housing would not have the ratio of cars normally applied in other projects. Also suggested was the dispersal of this type of housing throughout the city, using older, larger houses. I-A-6 I-A-7 I-A-7 I-A-B e Speaking in favor of the project and against the appeal were Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, Joint Housing Committee; Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe Street, developer of the project; Ed Kingzett, 777 High Street, Suite 340, Associated Management, Inc.; Edna Jensen, 41 Madison Street. Ms. Niven explained that the project came into being through an offer from Mr. Morgan in response to a request to use part of revenue sharing funds to meet the need for this type housing. She stressed that it was for housing assistance, not to meet social needs. The location was chosen close to downtown, near services and public transportation. Constraints on con- struction were necessary to keep the units within the income level of those for whom the housing is proposed. It would provide an alternative for single parents now residing in motel units and, even though small, would be constructed to higher than code standards. Ms. Niven thought some changes in the design probably could be made, up to the point where it would unduly increase the rent. But she felt the location could not be improved - the neighborhood was receptive to the idea of integrating this project into the area. The suggested use of older homes, she said, would result in rents beyond the means of those for whom the housing is in- tended and would not increase the supply of such housing, a housing supply which needs increasing. She added that if this project was rejected, there would be no housing at all of this type. I-B-2 e Mr. Morgan noted that none of the people criticizing the project had asked to're- view the plans with him. He recognized the street and traffic situation, but declared this project was to provide housing for people in really tough circum- stances, highly transitory citizens, and designed to meet a specific emergency need. He agreed that the amount of parking space provided may not be necessary, but it was provided in order to meet the city's parking requirements. The project conformed to zoning and housing dispersal policy and had unanimous approval of the Planning Commission; it was within walking distance of markets and other services; available to bus system. He said that he worked with the child care services with the conclusion that a project of this size in no way could support a child care center. However, the common area was enlarged to provide a facility for some public service group to work with the mothers who would be living there. He said the total valuation of the project now was at $300,000 and may exceed that amount because that price was set over a year ago. He said he was willing to go ahead with the project if the Council chose to deny the appeal. ~l7 4/26/76 - 3 Mr. Kingzett, involved in managing rental units, said there were several hundred single mothers in this area needing housing at rents they could afford to pay and with the advantages this project would offer - close to downtown, on public transit ~ , system, etc. He thought the location was favorable, citing other units on Willam- ~ etteStreet with which there had been no problems with traffic and noise. He said if they were involved in management of rentals of the proposed project, there would be no danger of its becoming an "instant slum." He noted other apartments in the area under their supervision and invited inspection to d~termine appearance. Ms. Jensen felt church organizations and other social services would prevent this project from becoming a slum area. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul commented on the suitability of the proposed site for location of the I-B-~ single-parent housing. He cited the General Plan which indicates a residential use for this area, although it does not speak specifically to the type of housing. The Plan does encourage a variety of residential development for all age groups, and the Community Goals state a need for mingling of housing types to meet specialized needs. The first phase of this project, he said, will provide specialized housing not previously provided in Eugene. The totle project, this being the first phase, will offer a variety of housing to various age and income groups. Mr. Saul noted that the RP zone calls for a comfortable relationship be- tween professional and residential uses, and this location between the stadium, which is in operation only a portion of the year, and the office complex would provide that relationship. With regard to being next to an arterial street, he said, the city had time and again stated it would continue to encourage residential de- velopment in that situation. He pointed out the many advantages of this location - access to park facilities, access from two streets, public transportation - all ~ because of the street system. He noted that the appeal stated violation of ......... criteria with regard to traffic generated, however testimony at this hearing suggested removal of some of the provided parking space because of lack of traffic from the project itself. He said some of the parking space could be removed legitimately within the PUD framework if the Council chose to transfer some of that space to open space. Mr. Saul noted too that the appeal stated the project would result in obstruction of view toward the eastern hills. However, the only interruption, he said, would be a portion of the view toward the southeast. He added that suggestions with regard to fensing the outdoor play area, increasing size of common area, etc., could be addressed at the time of final approval of the project. Councilman Murray asked Mr. Morgan if more information was available with regard to day care and social services on a similar project in Vancouver. Also, what the additional space would be used for if parking was reduced. Mr. Morgan answered that the Vancouver project was a large one and did have day care services provided by the Province, it was not private. The extra space, he said, would go into the playground area. He added that the children would be under three years old so the playground would be geared to pre-school children. Councilman Bradley wondered if other elements should be the issue rather than land use and zoning. He referred to the $60,000 subsidy through revenue sharing funds. Mr. Saul answered that the question of whether the development would meet code standards for planned unit development was the issue at this time. Subsidication and whether this project should be so supported, he said, was a separate issue, ~, and since that issue would ultimately come back to the Council, it could be ad- ~ dressed at that time outside the context of a decision on the PUD. 7/26/76 - 4 a.J8 \,-e J J Mr. Smith, with regard to questions about the Vancouver project, stated his under- standing of its operation, and noted that people in that unique situation needed great adjustment and counseling. He felt proper location, design, size, and use would result in a stable environment, but that that was not fulfilled by this project. Although staff felt work could be done to increase area, he said, there should be further input to determine the meaning of "increased area." And he was not sure that this type of specialized housing where a number of young children were present should be located in this particular area, it was not strictly residential. He suggested that the Planning Commission's decision was erroneous and that staff reached the wrong conclusions. Ms. Thomsen noted that the number of tenants in the twenty units would be 80 - 40 mothers and 40 children. Also, comparison was made of the cost of this housing with the private market. Considering_two mothers sharing kitchen facilities, Ms. Thomsen felt sharing costs of a higher rental would put them in a better living situation at less cost per person than this project. Councilman Murray referred to the code covering location, design, size, etc., with regard to uses that would result in a healthful environment and wondered whether this project could be considered in the light of traditional land use concern~. He thought it might be another issue when people are congregated together in one place. Ms. Benjamin, assistant city attorney, hesitated to give an opinion since review had been of planning criteria only, not so much of the program going on inside the project. Mr. Saul had real reservations about approaching the issue from purely social considerations. Councilman Williams thought the question had to be considered within the context of the current state of housing available for this group and "that includes living in an auto." He had no concerns that this particular development would provide substantially improved health and safety conditions as well as social interaction. He felt it would be better than most anything else now available for single parents of one child. Councilwoman Shirey wondered if the fact that the city was gIvIng $60,000 toward the project would change "how we look at it." She asked too if there was any idea what future development on the site would involve, whether there was the possibility it would support a day-care center, which she felt should be there. Mr. Saul answered that the question of the $60,000 subsidy would be weighed at a later time as a budget request. With regard to the code section (9.782(e)) referred to by Mr. Murray, he said making that decision was essentially trying to make a judgment whether the project as proposed would reasonably meet the elements - size, design, location, etc. He assumed that the question of the $60,000 would be discussed after final approval of the project and before the money was actually needed. Mr. Saul said no plans had yet been submitted for the balance of the development, but that Mr. Morgan had indicated that to a certain extent it would be for the elderly to minimize day-care need. He added that the request for funding submitted to the Joint Housing Committee would be before the Council in several weeks. Councilwoman Beal asked if anyone had inquired of persons for whom this project was supposedly intended whether it was the type of housing they wanted. Robin Cushman, housing expediter, reported that testimony was given before the Joint Housing Com- mittee to the effect that young mothers in this category would accept housing of this kind. Councilman Bradley thought the two issues inseparable - physical aspects and funding - and asked entertainment of some delay - postponement or tabling - until the issues could be discussed simultaneously. Councilman Murray didn't question the need for this type of housing but he had concerns when qualified human service professionals ;"19 4/26/76 - 5 expressed the idea that this project may be a "social disaster." Since it was legally unclear, he thought there should be clarification and more information before a decision was made. Councilman Williams cited "ground rules" between the Joint Housing Committee and Council - that granting of funds or expenditures is the prerogative of the Housing Committee. Although Council has been advised of such grants and consent requested, the original grant of authority is that of the Joint Housing Committee. As a member of that body, Mr. Williams thought it necessary to view the approval of the funds very clearly tied in with authorization for this particular project. Con- versely, he said, if this development was denied. it would imply that funds would not be authorized for the project. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to deny the appeal and approve the project as proposed. II-A-I Councilman Keller said there was no question about the need for this type of specialized housing. In judging whether this project would provide a stable, healthy environment, he said, he was not sure there was anyone present who was in that particular living situation or age group. "Healthy" could be 40 people living together with a common cause - "stable environment" could be met by living a year in one place. He assumed the developer had examined the market to the extent that the project was needed or he wouldn't be willing to build. He shared the concern of those who felt the project was not exactly right, but in talking about low-cost housing, perhaps this basically could provide that. Councilman Murray recognized the need and had no questions about the location, but he still thought there was not enough information to be sure that it was workable. He wanted to know how similar housing works; if successful, what make it so. Councilman Williams thought objections could be raised to anything. He said he had watched submission after submission, opposition after opposition come before the Joint Housing Committee. This project was selected from a number of others after modifications of play areas, parking, etc., and he was willing to accept it. He didn't think another would come along that would be any better. He said it was the Council's choice to reject this one, but if so it shouldn't be on the assump- tion that a better program would be forthcoming. -- Councilwoman Beal said she would vote against the motion because she didn't wish to commit the city's funds in the face of testimony from the Childrens' Services and the Women's Commission that this was an unsatisfactory project. However, she recognized that there could be changes in design so she was rejecting it with the understanding that it could be brought back if adjustments could be made. Mayor Anderson asked if it would be necessary for the applicant to file again for another conditional use permit if the appeal was upheld and the project denied. Mr. Saul said if the project was denied, the applicant would have to wait one year to resubmit. Councilman Bradley had concerns similar to Mr. Murray's and wanted delay. He said he didn't subscribe to the statement that authority was granted to the Joint Housing Committee to expend funds. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Haws to table to the May 24 Council meeting for discussion on funding of the project from revenue sharing money and to give opportunity for presentation of more information as to social concerns. -, 4/26/76 - 6 ~.1.0 " , ~ II-A-2 through II-B-I ---. .. It was understood the intent of the motion was to give time to gather information regarding projects elsewhere of a similar nature and particularly with regard to how successful in specific terms and what kinds of services they provide - day care, social, especially on-site social services, as well as to discuss revenue sharing funds for this particular project. Motion carried - Council members Haws, Beal, Murray, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller, Williams, and Hamel voting no. A short recess was taken. E. Annexations 1. South Goodpasture Island (City) (A 75-3) Manager explained that the area recommended for annexation by the Planning Com- mission on February 23, 1976 did not include the mobile home park to the north. Jim Saul, planner, said the proposed annexation was one of the recommendations contained in the commercial study of the Goodpasture Island area. The Planning Commission had taken the area in three separate annexation proceedings, recogniz- ing differing land uses in the area and different levels of development. He said the mobile home park was excluded at this time to be picked up in a later pro- ceeding because of deferred taxation on properties not committed to development at this time and because sewer service could not be extended. Most properties included in this proposal, he said, are seeking annexsation or are committed to annexation under contractual arrangement with the city. With the aid of maps, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members, Mr. Saul pointed out the properties included in this proposal and noted those opposed - Holemar property, Kendall Ford, and Dunham Olds. He added that city services are in the process of being provided or have already been provided to all properites involved. The area is within the urban service boundary, is totally surrounded by city limits, and is recognized as critically important to the city in terms of its development. Don Allen, public works director, outlined the sewer service which is available to the properties through a temporary system and unallocated capacity at this time. He noted numerous previous requests, including those from Kendall Ford and Dunham, for sewer service, but since those properties were not contiguous to the city and could not be annexed, they were not included in the system alloca- tion. The Mitchell property, he said, was seeking allocation of 100 gpm of the remaining 120 gpm sewer capacity of the temporary system. The Howell, Smith, Brown property was annexed on the condition that no sewer service would be pro- vided fromthe temporary system serving Valley River Center, to which the prop- erty owners agreed when annexed. Mr. Allen said there was no forecast now as to when permanent sewer system would be constructed in this area. Councilman Williams asked who would pay the cost of the final connection to the permanent system if and when the East Bank trunk was constructed if an individual or company connected property to the temporary system now. Mr. Allen answered that system was designed to serve adjacent properties as the permanent lateral system that would connect to the trunk system when it was built; there would not have to be any changes in connections. Councilman Bradley wondered about the rezoning that would occur when the properp ties were in the city, particularly the Mitchell property. Mr. Saul answered that the Mitchell property was the only one under "intent to rezone" prov1s1ons of the county and that zoning on most of the other properties was committed by vitue of prior action. He explained that the "Order of Intent to Rezone" adopted by the county states the county has approved rezoning the Mitchell property ..:.2~7 4/26/76 - 7 subject to its connection to sewer service. Manager noted that the various dates given in a newspaper article with regard to the Mitchell property were inaccurate. He said issuance of a building permit by May 1, as stated, could not possibly occur because annexation of the property could not possibly be finalized by . that time. ~ ' Public hearing was opened. Jerry Gauche, 915 Oak Street #2, was in favor of the annexation. He said he had II-B-2 been working on the development of the Mitchell property, the last piece of developable land in the South Goodpasture Island area, in conjunction with both the city and county. Both recognize the area inevitably will become a part of the city, and he said he had confirmed the fact that sewer capacity would be available to the property. In fact, an offer by the land owners had been made and was still open to construct the system to serve this property at their ex- pense. Not only would that save the city some expense, he said, but it would also provide capacity to serve properties beyond them who are now essentially blocked off. He thought annexation wuld relieve the strain on city staff in trying to controldeve-opment of the area without authority other than through withholding city services. He said the proposed development of the Mitchell property was consistent with the general development of that area and the over- all plan. Robert F. Jackson, 450 Goodpasture Island Road, resident of the mobile home park, said he had been opposed to annexation of that area. However, he withdrew his objection on learning that the mobile home park was not included in the annexa- tion proposal. Margaret Holemar, 1379 Mill Street, ,owner of about 3.5 acres at the southeast corner of the annexation area, did not want that property annexed. She said that although it was used for residential purposes, it was assessed commercial- ly because of the adjacent commercial uses - Valley River. She suggested all of those properties not receiving sewer services under contractual arrangement be deleted from the annexation area until they were able to develop to com- mercial use also. She recommended more adequate notice of future hearings with regard to annexation, and that no further contractual agreements be made for annexation because of the distress for those people living next to such properties. She said they were being "totally taxes out, yet can't develop" their land. Jim Brown, 3760 Willarnette Street, and Clarence Brown, 2480 Lawrence Street, owners of the Howell, Smith, Brown property, and Ellis Jones, 1030 Coburg Road, were also opposed to the annexation. The Browns noted that when their prop- erty was annexed they were led to believe sewer capacity would be available, also that the property could be developed on a commercial basis. They cited changes in the Goodpasture Island area since then which made their land less valuable, and they felt other properties should not be annexed and receive sewer service when their land could not have the same service - until services were available to all areas inside the city, other areas should not be annexed. Mr. Jones cited lack of proper sewer service as his reason for objecting to the annexation and the cost of private systems to owners of property served by them. He thought there was discrimination in the way sewer service had been provded, in the tax deferments, and in the lack of notice of public hearings when older properties in the area were annexed. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony p~esented. 4/26/76 -8 ~d...9... ct.. ~' II-Be II-B-4 II-B-5 III-A-l -.....,./ . ~ Mr. Allen, in response to statement of Howell, Smith, Brown property owners, said it was true the proposal for development of that property could not utilize the temporary sewer system serving Valley River Center. Arrangements were that they would build their own system back to at least the trunk lin~ north of Marist, if not to the pumping station itself. He said there would be an eight-inch equivalent assessment to the property when the adjacent lateral was utilized, just as for all other properties in the area. He noted statement in Planning Commission hearings that sewer capacity would accommodate the Holemar property under residential use, but that there was not enc~gh to take a com- mercial load from that property. A lateral sewer does not exist to serve the Holemar property, he said, and would have to be constructed and an assessment levied . Councilman Bradley asked if there was any property already annexed or for which annexation was contemplated that could not use city sewer service because of city policy. Mr. Allen said that the Dunham and Kendall Ford properties could have connected probably only to the pressure pumping system. He said they had worked with Kendall Ford trying to connect to a gravity system, but that option was not pursued by Mr. DeMartini, owner. Alternative for the Howell, Smith, Brown property, which was accepted by their architect and engineer when that property was annexed, he said, was to construct a system going to the north to the pumping station. e'- Councilman Bradley wondered if there was a more equitable formula for dispensing sewer service in connection with annexation - whether service could be provided equally among properties rather than on a first come, first serve basis. He thought there was indirect discrimination against some properties in terms of development, since development could not occur without sewers. Mr. Allen said this area was unique in that it involved planning with regard to the final size of a major trunk line. Two treatment plants were involved and planning still going on with no determination yet as to size. He noted the city had installed interim systems on two other occasions. Also, that many areas annexed for years still did not have sewers. He said the original system in the Goodpas- ture Island area came about through negotiations and contract with Valley River and was expanded within the limits of design of that system to provide service to other properties. Councilman Bradley asked if the policy of contracting sewer service for areas while they were still outside the city caused problems. Mr. Saul answered that the only advantage for such contractual arrangements is that of adding to the city's tax base the value of the development after it has occurred. However, since an exceedingly large investment is necessary to make any appreciable effect on the tax base, the Planning Commission feels the city should not be entering into such contracts in the future. He referred to the Howell, Smith, Brown property and recounted the city's involvement with that annexation and rezoning, saying the owners had agreed as a condition of annexation to connect to the Willakenzie pump station if the property was developed. "- Councilman Keller asked if Valley River Center would be charged an additional mnount when the permanent line is installed. Mr. Allen answered that it would depend upon the design of the system - they would be assessed for any line within 160 feet of property not previously assessed. In further response to Mr. Keller, Mr. Allen explained that the temporary line referred to by Dunham Olds and Kendall Ford letters was the existing pressure line to which they could not connect their properties earlier because they were not contiguous to the city. He acknowledge that annexation of those properties is now contemplated. However, there have been no discussions between the city and owners of those properties concerning installation of septic tanks as mentioned in the letter from DeMartini of Kendall Ford. e 4(26/76 - 9 :20.3 Resolution No. 2502 - Forwarding to Boundary Commission recommenda- tion to annex the South Goodpasture Island area as proposed was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Councilman Bradley noted that the county by way of an order of intent had indicated the Mitchell property would be zoned RP upon connectio~ to sewer lines, which could be accomplished only through annexation. Heoexpressed con- cern about another jurisdiction's determining use of property that soon would be within the city. Even if the city denied the annexation, he$aid, the Boundary Commission could order it annexed. He was also concer~ed about the lack of consideration for public need for the RP use. He felt the Planning Commission should look at that property to determine whether st~ndards had been met. He suggested segregation of that parcel for referral~to the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Saul thought certain factors should be considered in lookin~at the county's action. He said decisions on large properties such as in the Gopdpasture Is- land area mostly were made prior to the adoption or the metropo~ltan plan. Recommendation for annexation in the present manner would dispose of problems encountered because of overlapping jurisdictional actions. Beca,tise of delays as the result of law suits and the owner's desire to develop th~ Mitchell property, the zoning was sought under the county. " Councilman Hamel noted the debate over the Goodpasture Island properties had covered some period of time, and there had been annexations cre~ting "islands out of islands." He suggested proceeding with annexation of pr~perties where owners wanted them annexed, deleting properties where owners wele opposed to annexation, then go from there. e Councilman Keller asked if properties, merely because of the fact they were annexed, would have priority so far as city services were concerned. Mr. Allen answered that there was existing capacity to serve the parcels included in this annexation proposal under the allocation outlined, excluding co~ercial develop- ment for the Holemar property.! ,. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Haws to amend the resoluti~n so as to delete the Mitchell property from the area proposed for ,annexa- tion and refer that portion (Mitchell property) to the Planning Commission for an advisory opinion with regard to the demonstration of public need for RP zoning. In making the motion, Mr. Bradley explained that he thought there should be some kind of determination that a public need truly exists. He saidthe was not sure of the kinds of evidence presented to the County Commissioners in their determina- tion to file an order of intent to rezone to RP. He questioned the need for additional office space in light of the high vacancy factor in the downtown area. Also, the procedure bothered him - the county's rezoning an area soon to be annexed to the city with no evaluation of the question by the city itself. Councilman Williams assumed the decision to rezone, being a judicial decision, was made by the county under the same legal standards govering the Council in its deliberations of like issues. Also, he thought if the county had failed to make a proper judicial determination, the city would have the clear right to correct that defect after the property was annexed. Councilman Bradley commented that the property was not yet rezoned, the county had issued only an order of intent to rezone with the contingency provision that sewer service would be available only through annexation to the city. 4/26/76 - 10 ~ d.. 'i ~ '-"" e -...../ - e, III-A-2 e-' III-A-3 "--' - Councilman Hamel called for the question, and upon vote on the amendment, the motion failed - Council members Haws and Bradley voting aye; Council members Keller, Beal, Williams, Murray, Hamel, and Shirey voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion to adopt the resolution as presented. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no. 2. Area north of Holly Avenue between Delta Highway and Gilham Road (Barnes) (A 76-1) Forwarded from the Planning Commission without recommendation on a 3:3 vote on March 8, 1976. Jim Saul, planner, noted that requests for annexation of this area had been before the city on several occasions starting in 1970. The Plan- ning Commission in those instances had been reluctant to recommend annexation because it would create island areas on both Balboa Street and Tulip Street. The Commissioners opposing the annexation at this time did so primarily because of the continuing question of creation of islands in which there were residences and the question of whether the city needed to annex additional fringe areas. The Commissioners in favor of annexation felt the city needed to annex addi~ tional land for development of single-family housing. Also, they felt it an injustic to hold up annexation of this property when it was not known how long it would be before residents of the island areas would be ready to come into the city. Therefore, failing to reach a decision, the issue was presented to the Council for consideration. Mr. Saul added that the area was within the projected urban service boundary and could be served by city sewers through extension of lines through unincorporated property. Councilman Williams commented that staff notes and minutes concerning this issue had not been included in background information distributed and he was therefore not prepared to make a decision at this time. Mr. Williams moved second by Mr. Bradley to hold public hearing on this item at this time but defer decision until the May 10, 1976 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Public hearing was opened. Ted Sipe, 2000 West 24th Avenue, spoke in favor of the annexation, as did Roy Freeman, 4980 West Hillside Drive. Mr. Sipe said some of the property owners objecting to annexation had offered to withdraw their objections if those wanting to annex would state in writing their intent to limit development to only five acres. His client was agreeable to that but upon checking with the planning department, Mr. Sipe said he was advised such action was to no purpose since this issue was not one of use, only annexation. Also, that the property would come into the city under an RA zone. Those opposing annexation then sug- gested deed restrictions but it was found the city could not force deed re- strictions nor could they be forced by other than owners of lots within a subject subdivision. ~lr. Sipe continued that the RA zone applying to the property should provide sufficient control and protection over the type of housing to allay the fears of those opposing annexation. He said annexation of his client's property had been denied before on the basis of objections of the people on Balboa and Tulip Streets, yet they were enjoying privileges they were not paying for. He asked annexation of the area as proposed, saying the land lies contiguous to the city and within the urban service area with city services already available, and it would meet the need for building lots within the city. Denying annexation, thereby denying sewer service and development, he said, would create a definite 4/26/76 - 11 ~~ hardship on the property owner. And the additional cost to residents opposing the annexation was relatively small compared to the advantages to the city. Mr. Freeman said people opposing annexation did so primarily because of .anticipated construction of multiple-family housing. They would not object he said, if the land was developed in single-family homes, and his plans were for single-family development that would not interfere with the present character of the area. III-A-4 --e Walter Sands, 1121 Balboa Street; Beverly Prociw, 133 Holly Avenue; Kenneth Rodakowski, 1178 Tulip Street; Stan Shattuck, 1197 Tulip Street; and Ken Stickler, 2898 Norkenzie Road, spoke against annexation. Their objections were based primarily on the lack of adequate streets to handle the anticipated added traffic, the uncertainty of the actual type of housing that would develop, the absence of real need for the annexation, and the anticipated added financial burden if annexed. Ms. Prociw asked if they would have the right to expand their greenhouse if their property was annexed. Also, whether it would be necessary to extend a trunk sewer line across their business property to serve the area. III-A-S III-A-6 Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul, in response to the question about greenhouses, said truck farming, orchards, nurseries, etc., were allowed as outright uses under RA zoning. Greenhouses were considered an accessory use, so they would be permitted. With regard to the sewer line, Don Allen, public works director, took note of the east/west sewer on Crescent Avenue designed to serve property within 160 feet. Whether another lateral would be needed, he said, would have to be determined at the time the overall system was designed. There being no further discussion, the issue was held over to the May 10, 1976 Council meeting. -..../ e II - Items acted upon with one motion after consideration of individual items as requested. Previously discussed in committee on April 14 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Shire) and April 21, 1976 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. A. wrecker's License - W.F. Tieman, 2750 Roosevelt.slvd. Manager advised the si te was originally thought to be in a zone that would not permi t the operation. Staff has since determined the location is in the proper M-3 zoning and is therefore recommending processing and forwarding to the State for consideration. Gene Haxton, Zo~ing Administrator, advised the area is not enclosed by a sight obscuring fence in the manner the State requests but conditional approval could be granted since, in conversation with the applicant, Mr. Haxton has determined the applicant did not intend to engage in on-si te sal vage operations but rather move. wrecks from one point to another. The State requires a license even for that type of operation. Mr. Keller lOOved seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend approval. Motion carried unanilOOusly. Comm 4/14/76 Approve B.Liquor License - Pizza Aurelio - 2890 Willamette - Change of Ownership - Restaurant Burell Restaurant, Inc. - Oscar Ray Burell, applicant. Mr. Keller lOOved seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend approval. . Motion carried unanilOOusly. ...J Corom ~ 4/14/76 __ Approve . 4/26/76 - 12 d..ak e C. Permit Fee System for Encouraging Rehabilitation April 8 report from Superintendent of Building Inspection was distributed to Council, suggesting that ind.ividual credits for each project be entered in the Building Division revenue account when permits are granted and equal debits be entered in the appropriate Housing and Community Development fund. The report also suggests there be no special case modifications to application of the current comination permi t fee schedule as any such deviations would resul t in some additional administrative expense. Also distributed to Council with the report was a fee schedule. Manager explained a portion of the m:mey from the community development act could be set aside to fund the fees - otherwise the taxpayers are ultimately responsible. An attempt is being made to make construction inspection generally self-supporting and it is a matter of choice as to t.l'le source of the subsidy. Mr. Williams asked if both building permit fees and plan inspection fees are levied in all instances. Mr. Nolte responded the plan check fee does not apply to single-family residential but rather to commercial and multiple family projects. Mr. Murray wanted assurance that by passing the motion there would not be an obligation to take funds out of tlle community development grant to waive the fee; Manager suggested that will hopefully be discussed. Mr. Murray felt the Council should know that the fee issue, in terms of how much administrative expense is involved, is an extremely sensitive issue on the HCDC. There seem to be extraordinary expenses and it is a feeling that the city's commitment to housing and community conservation COncerns ought to be reflected somehow aside from the grant. Mr. Williams' understanding is that the proposal has not come before the HCDC and he is not sure it is a highly satisfactory one. He feels it should be referred to HCDC before a defini te decision is made. - Mr. Williams lOCJved seconded by Mr. Murray to refer the matter to the HCDC for consideration and recommendation. Motion carried unanirrously. Comm 4/14/76 Approve D. Budget Committee Appointment - Mrs. Shirey referred to withdrawal of the nomination of Scott Lieuallen to the Budget Committee at the last Council meeting because Some COuncil members fel t approving his appointment might appear to be an endorsement of his candidacy for the City Council. Mrs. Shirey was concerned about the matter, feeling there would be no conflict in the appointment. MIs. Beal also regretted very much wi thdrawal of the nomination. She sees a Budget Committee not as a Council appointment but rather as the prerogative of the Council member to appoint. Mr. Murray commented that he probably would not have withdrawn the nomination had these comments been made earlier. He does feel Mr. Lieuallen is rrost able to fill the gap created by the sudden resignation of a member from his ward in the midst of the budget .process. He also added that the nomination did not necessarily indicate his endorsement: of Mr. Lieuallen for Council. He is sensitive to the awkwar.dness of the timing. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to reinstate the nomination of Mr. Lieuallen t~ the Budget Comnattee. Corom 4/14/76 Approve Mr. Bradley asked that the record note that his vote is not to be taken as support -- of Mr. Lieuallen' s candidacy for the City Council. e Vote was taken on the rrotion which carried, all council members voting aye except Mr. Keller and Mr. Williams abstaining. 4/26/76 - 13 aJ.1 E. Plan Policy Committee Appointment - Confirmation of the appoint of Mr. Williams as delegate and Mr. Bradley as alternate to that comrndttee had been tabled from the April 12 council meeting to this meeting. Both those Council members had indicated interest in serving and, for that reason, Council President Keller recommended them. . Mr. Haws said he had not realized it was a Council appointment, thinking it was Mr. Keller's prerogative to choose - so he requested reconsideration of the matter. Mr. Keller commented that he had made the reco~nendations based on those indicating an interest. His recommendations had not been meant to be taken as fait accompli if there were others wishing to indicate interest or preferences. Mr. Hamel reminded Council that they had, at a previous committee meeting, voted unaniurJusly to approve the appointments, contingent on formal approval at the April 12 Council meeting. Mrs. Beal, however, had not understood there was any choice in vol ved. She feels the appointment is highly important and would prefer someone who 'reflects her personal point of view - she is not sure Mr. Williams and she always agree. Mr. Bradley feels the appointee should reflect as much as possible the total concerns of the Council and of Eugene and that periOdic reports should be brought back so Council can provide guidance. He also suggested possible rotation of the two delegates. Mayor Anderson does not share some of the concerns expressed. In this process, there are checks and balances which prevent anyone delegate from dominating. Whatever the delegate may think, the ultimate test will. be when and if this council adopts the plan. It is incumbent on the appointee, he said, to reflect Council's viewpoint rather than a personal viewpoint because the plan will have to be submi tted to meet the test of the entire council. -. Mr. Williams agreed with Mayor Anderson and felt too that rotation of the delegate would not be effective, - it would aIOOunt to "sending a clerk" to the committee which he feels would seriOUSly limit the ability to function. is not prudent to tie a delegate's hands, with all other members being able to make decisions for their bodies and given the fact there are checks and balances. It Mrs. Beal IOOvad seconded by Mr. Murray to relOOve the matter from the table and reconsider. Moti on carried, Council members Haws, Beal, Murray and Shirey voting aye, Council. members Keller and Hamel voting no and Council members Williams and Bradley abstaining. Corom 4/14/76 Approve Mr. Bradley felt it might be appropriate to open up the candidacy again, that those interested notify the city manager, the names being made known at the next Commdttee meeting. Mayor Anderson expressed impatience wi th this type of acti vi ty. He suggested it might; be fair to flip a coin. Mr. Murray feels it is an important appointment, dealing with vital issues, and it would seem frivolous to flip a coin. .J Mayor Anderson disagreed, saying that there are two people who have expressed interest in serving - they have volunteered to spend a great allJ?unt of their time on a committee involving much work. -- 4/26/76 - 14 ~~8 --------..-. -. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to appoint Mr. Bradley to the Plan Policy Comrndttee. Comm 4714/76 Approve -~ Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to table to the next Cormni ttee meeting. Motion failed, Mr. Haws, Mrs. Beal and Mr. Bradley voting aye, Mr. Keller, Mr. Murray, Mr. Hamel and Mrs. Shirey voting no and Mr. Williams abstaining. Vote was taken on the motion to appoint Mr. Bradley. Motion carried, Mr. Haws, Mrs. Beal, Mr. Murray and Mrs. Shirey voting aye, Mr. Keller and Mr. Hamel voting no and Mr. Bradley and Mr. Williams abstaining. e'- F. County Library Proposal--=" Manager annoWlced that two meetings h,,!-ve been held with Mayor Anderson, COWlcil member Murray, County Commissioner Hayward and various city staff persons. Discussion has focused on what Eugene's posture should be in the matter - contractual arrangements, etc. A report dated April 19 from the City Manager has been distributed to Council which states that staff feels it would be appropriate for Council to support the countywide library system under certain conditions. The most important factor, said the Manager, is that, if the Wliversal card circulation in the case of Eugene grows beyond 44,000 units for the first year, the E~ene tax~ayers would be s Ubs1. di iJing this aspect. There fore, the- con-tracFs-houiCi -1. nc1 ude arrangements that, when a certain circulation level is reached, each unit of circulation above that level will be charged to the non-library district part of the levy at a 659 per unit rate or whatever the going cost is determined to be per unit of circulation. In addition, the Eugene Library will be giving up $15,000 to $20,000 in non resident fees in exchange for 5%, or $30,123, for the first year. If circulation should increase past 44,000, the contract shoul~ reimburse Eugene adequately beyond that limdt. Regarding central administration, it was pointed out that the proposed cOWlty bookmobile service would be limi ted. It would not draw upon existing library resources but would rely only upon the county owned or rented books. That in a sense would affect the deSirability of having the central administration located in the existing Eugene librarg. Staff feels Council may want to defer taking a position on that matter at this point. Manager noted, too, that a courier service would return books to the proper library should they be returned to a different facility than the one from Which they were checked out. It was noted that the new book budget for Eugene is currently $60,000 _ $70,000. Mrs. Beal stated that Eugene would therefore be subsidizing the county to that extent since the books would be shared. Manager responded that the cost to the city of taking out a book was determined to be approximately 659 per book. Staff feels at least that amount should be charged the non-library district residents each time a book is taken out of the Eugene library. As long as the circulation does not exceed 44,000, that rate is satisfactory. Mr. Williams wondered if 44,000 units is representative of the current card holders from outside the city limdts. Mr. Meeks, Librarian, responded there is no way to be sure of the figure. Manager added there ar~.'aQded about 200 out-Of-district new library registrations each month, though no estimate exists of how many books are drawn out by out-of-city liorrowers monthly. ',,-- - Mrs. Shirey noted that $15,000 to $20,000 would be lost each year in non-resident fees but universal card circulation would bring in $30,123. She felt the net figure should be reflected.'as around $10,000. Manager responded that, 4/26/76 - 15 '-.~/, ----- ----- theoret"icaily -i-t would be many of tbe same borrowers,....4whereas people" individually paid the fee before, now onder the proposed system the county would pay a stated minimum. Mayor Anderson felt there are two considerations - to determine if the concept " of a countywide system is supportable and whether Eugene wants to participate a~ all if conditions are satisfactory. Negotiations will come later with final ' approval by, Council. Any undesirable features can be disallf')w~d at that time, he said. '-./e Comm Mr. Murray rooved seconded by Mr. Keller that the City Council give . '. 4/21/76 conceptual approval to a countywide library system with the under~tand~nf!. ::,:';#pf>I,ove' that Eugene's future participation will be based on a contract wh~ch ;, v.r.r,'.. takes into cOnsideration the issues raised in the April 19 memo fro.n ,", ',,'\ A' the Ci tl} Manager. Motion carried unanimously. " " G.Improvement Petition - Paving, Sanitary sewer and storm sewer in Inger Park 'Subdivision (So of Bond Lane, E of Fir Acres Drive) - 23% of sanitary sewer area outside subdivision. NO city cost. Mr. Keller rooved seconded by, Mr. Haws to approve the petition. Motion carried unaniroously. Approve -- -..--- H.Agreement with Southern Pacific for Signalization at Bertelsen Crossing Agreement has been distributed to Council. Manager noted that the City and State would participate with the railroad in the development of the crossing. The actual financing arrangements include the crossing protection which is $60,000. The City pays 5% .;. or $3,000. The track relocation costs $5,500, of which the City pays 50% - or $2p750. Whatever street widening costs are involved would be city cost. The total estimated cost to the ci ty, then, would be $5,750, excl usi ve of widening, and funds are already in the budget. '-'- Public Works Director added that this project is being considered now because of the proposed Bertelsen Road improvements. There are two other signalization projects left which will be completed at a later date. Mr. Keller rooved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt; the resolution authorizing the agreement with Southern Pacific as presented. Motion carried unaniroous1y. COIr'J1l 4/21/76 Approve I.Proposa1 for City Acceptance of Sanitary Sewer Facilities of River Road - Be1tline Sanitary District in Annexed Areas. Agreement: has been distributed to Council. Manager said there is some question on the clarity of present assessments relating to a situation w~erein the' facilities of a sewer district are taken over by the city in an area already annexed to tl1e city. The residents have paid for the facilities and most likely do not anticipate further assessment. Assistant Manager explained that certain property owners along the line paid for sewer installation. There is a question as to whether those who have not paid should be charged an equivalent amount for the privilege of connecting. A proposed code amendment would allow the city to reassess if there is some reason under city policy. Manager said the ordinance states that the city may accept and incorporate all or part of the sanitary sewer facilities of a special service district as a part of the city's sanitary sewer system. After such acceptance, the city may, establish special assessment and connection fees in the manner provided by law. -.../ It 4/26/76 - 16 ~3o e--- "- -- '----" - Mr. Keller roved seconded by Mr. Haws to authorize preparation the ordinance amending the code and resolution authorizing the as proposed. Motion carried unanirously. of agreement Comm 4/21/76 Approve J. Lane County Bond Issue for Construction of Adult Corrections Facility Manager related that a conditional use permit has been approved by the hearings official for the jail site at 5th and Olive. It would be appropriate for Council to consider its position on the proposed facility. He and Mayor Anderson both expressed support for the program. Mrs. Beal m?ved seconded by Mr. Hamel that Council go on ,record in support of the planning for the jail facility and in support of the ballot measure. MOtion carried unanimously. Comm 4/21/76 Approve K. Transient Room Tax Allocation Comrndttee Recommendations Staff evaluation, April 1 minutes and Room Tax Committee report have been distributed to Council. Mr. Fairchild of the commdttee explained it was the cornrndttee's thinking to explain to the applicants that funds were limited and that in many cases requests would be honored but not necessarily for the full amount. Comm 4/2-1/76 Approve Approve 1. Festival of the Arts Comrndttee; $2,000 requested, $1,400 recommended 2. Friends of the Museum; $7,500 requested, $5,000 recommended 3. willamette Observer; $169.50 requested, denial recommended Approve Mr. Fairchild said the fOC)ney was to go for materials for a one-person show and the commi ttee fe1 t approval would set a precedent for allocating funds. Susan Hereford, 640 W. 27th, pointed to the guidelines which state special consideration will be given to those not previously funded. She explained her show would consist of photographs of people in the community, therefore providing a show of interest to all citizens. She explained the process that she would use and mentioned a letter of support wri tten for the proj~ct. Mr. Bradley left the committee meeting. Mayor Anderson comnentea that the Council and Room Tax Conmittee are being put in a position of making value judgments on the exhibit. He feels that those judgments should be made in advance by someone else; otherwise, they would be besieged with requests from many individuals. His recomnendation would be that Ms. Hereford contact an organization, such as Maude Kerns, and ask that they submi t the application on her behalf. _b.O _ _ 4. Oregon Track Cl-ub; $2,817.75 requested, $2,500 recommended Approve 5. Eugene Wind Ensemble; $1,352 requested, $1,000 recommended Approve 6. Musicians Mutual; $3,554.10 requested, $1,000 reconmended Approve Mr. John Metcalf, 676 Polk, representing Musicians Mutual, noted their application is for seven Sunday band concerts. The recozrrnendation of the Room Tax commi. ttee would allow them to conduct only two concerts, and he feels that American concerts in the park would be most fitting in a Bicentennial year. Mr. Fairchild noted the reason for reduction is because there are other musical grouplS appearing in the mall, parks, etc. and the commi ttee fel t each should have some of the available funds. 4/26/76 -17 23/ 7. Craftsmanship 1976 Eugene Oregon; $2,810 requested, $2,500 recommended Approve 8. Maude Kerns Art Center; $6,000 requested, $5,000 recommended Mr. Haws wondered whether funds should be allocated for construction. Approve '-". Mr. John F. Connor from the Center said that their remodeling project would fulfill the conditional use permit to build the addition to their building. Mr. Fairchild explained that, in the past, funds have been provided fryr construction if beneficial to the communi ty and if many people would be using the facilities. 9. Community Center for the Performing Arts; $10,000 requested, $5,000 recommended Approve 10. Women's Choral Society; $900 requested, $900 recommended Approve 11. University of Oregon-Conference on International Education; $3,000 requested, denial recommended Mr. Marshall Wattles, Vice Provost and Executive Secretary of Committee, explained that the University was invited to host a regional U.S. conference honoring the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Fulbright program. Because of the Bicentennial, they decided on a two-day conference involving the entire community. The committee is receiving cooperation from the UN "Association of Ore'gon as well as the Kathmandu Sister City Committee, and they. will bring in a distinguished reporter from the New York Times plus northwest media specialists. Mr. Wattles said they anticipate some 75 or 100 people will come to Eugene, many bringing families a,.s well. The conference is also , under the auspices of the International Education Institution, and four scholars will be living in Eugene homes for a short period of time - from Romania, West Germany, Afghanistan and Japan. The format for the conference, he said, will be a series of panels with discussion opened up to the entire assembly. They expect the events to be covered by National Public Radio. Ruth Carson, OUNA, explained the Mayors Comrnittee on International Cooperation is interested in t:he event:s as well as the OUNA, so it is not exclusively a University idea. The OUNA meeting will be held May 7, the same day as the appearance of Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times, and 100-150 people from around the state will be in attendance for that meeting. Approve $3,000 '-'e Both Mr. Fairchild and the Finance Director said the presentation today was much more complete than at time of consideration by the Allocation Committee and the facts presented now do make the application seem more appropriate under the guidelines recently adopted. Mr. Fairchild',added that judgments are made on how beneficial the programs will be ,to all citizens. Mr. Fairchild also noted that there are available funds should Council recommend reversal of the denial of the U of 0 request. To send that back to the Room Tax Committee would not be too desirable since the Colllflittee will not be meeting until after the first of June, he added. Mayor Anderson supports the U of 0 application but feels it is awkward for the Room Tax Committee to deliberate and then have a whole new set of facts come to the City Council. Recognizing the ti7lE element, however, he would support t:he request:. He does feel, though, that Council should take a look at the procedure of appeals because any appeal should be based on the original set of facts. Otherwise, he said, the work of the Room Tax Comrni ttee is for naught;;' -' tit 4/26/76 - 18 ~3~ e- e'-/ III-A-7 through III-B-1 e -ii:-Zn-ternationa1 Arboretum AssociatTo~-;$i5, 000 requested, $3,000 recommended -Approve Betty Niven wondered about reduction of the request from the Arboretum Association from $12,000 to $3,000. She wondered what was allocated last year, concerned that they are being somewhat slighted. Mr. Fairchild said that this year their allocation was simply for storage. $15,000 was requested but the Commdttee discovered that an Arboretum specialist would be hired but not until late this year, so it was recommended that $3,000 be granted now and another request made at hiring time. 13. Parks and Recreation Department: Senior Citizens Cultural Arts Festival; $3,000 requested, $3,000 recommended Approve Chi1drens Art Festival; $1500 requested, $1500 recommended Approve Summer Entertainment Series; $1,285 requested, $1,285 recommended Approve Summer Youth Music Program; $2,440 requested, $1,000 recommended Approve 14. Chamber of Commerce; $40,446 requested, $40,446 recommended Approve !~r. Haws fel t there was not a proper ratio between the amount donated from outside sources and the amount of the Room Tax request. Mr. Fairchild responded that the Chamber has been a major recipient of room tax funds and the funds are used for convention promotion. Mr. Haws noted that the guidelines stipulate that applicants must prove they have the ability to generate other funds. Mr. FairChild responded that the Chamber did present a budget, that other funds generated in this instance are through the Chamber itself. Mr. Haws felt seeing that budget first would be preferable. Mayor Anderson said the very nature of the guidelines indicates the broad scope that these expenditures would cover. It comes down to a value judgment and, along with making those judgments,a balance is also hopefully achieved. Additional dollars generated by the Chamber will bring back many dollars which can be spent on activities covered by the room tax fund. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Bradley to hold this item over to the May 10, 1976 meeting to give the opportunity for review of further information. Mr. Haws expressed concern about allocating $40,000 in this instance when the average allocation to others was about $5,000. Mr. Murray thought this a critical area of funding. The money was used to generate other funds, he said, and such allocation was the basis for providing the room tax initially. Mayor Anderson said the amount of this allocation was fairly consistent and was used for convention and tourist promotion. He doubted that an examination of the Chamber's budget, as requested by Mr. Haws, would make any difference concerning how the money was used. He pointed out the excellent progr~l presented by the Chamber several months back indicating how the money was used to which Council members were invited, and noted that he and Councilwoman Shirey were the only ones attending. He said the Chamber made an honest effort to present the facts. Mr. Haws said he had another meeting that night, but the Mayor countered that the meeting had been held between 5:00 and 6:30 p.m. '-' Councilman Bradley said he would support the motion to hold over only because he would like to see more information. Vote was taken on the motion Haws and Bradley voting aye; Hame~ and Shirey voting no. to hold over. Motion failed - Council members Council members Keller, Beal, Williams, Murray, 4/26/76 - 19 .133 15. Eugene Society of the Archaeological Institute of America; $124 requested, A}>prove $124 recommended Hr. Haws wondered why the Archaeological Institute had been recommended for funding and not the International Education Conference. He fe~ t them t~ be comparable acti vi ties. Mr. Fairchild responded the Archaeolog~cal Inst~ tute application had been approved at an earlier time - this amount was merely for an additional expense not anticipated earlier. e .- - - ----- "_ Corom Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller to allocate funds as recommended except 4/21/76 that $3,000 be allocated for the U of 0 Conference on International Education. Approve , Motion carried unanimously. L. -planning -Commlssloii7ippcjintment - Mr. Keller felt that the vacancy on the Planning Commission should be advertised for two weeks, with a definite deadline set. Mr. Hurray reminded Council that the Citizen Interest Forms already on file in the Manager's office should also be'reviewed for candidates, and Mrs. Bea1 commented that those persons wi th a form on file who did not indicate Planning Commission as a top preference perhaps should complete another application. Corom 4/14/76 Affirm It was understood the vacancy would be advertised for two weeks, deadline set at 5 p.m. Monday, April 26. /istorlc Rev,[ewBoard Recommendations re: Financial Assistance Requests M. "Report was transmitted to Council April 7. Manager noted the Board has suggested that, if the total of all funds requested is greater than the available money, the funds available di vided by the total of funds requested and those approved will be based on the percentage of the request of each to the total requested. Manager expressed reservations with that formula because of its inflexibility. It seems that circumstances might dictate that some project may need immediate substantial repairs, and there should be some element to provide for that. -- Bill Sugaya, Planning, noted that the ordinance states Council is to establish the amount, not to be exceeded by any application for a single year. That was the reason for the $5,000 recommendation, he said. in addition, the Board considered what would happen if the total requests exceeded the amount of funds available. For that reason they suggested the formula be used to determine ona percentage- basis how much of each request woUld be allocated durinii" tha't year. . He- added that the Board held discussion On the possibility of financial assistance being needed during the year for work on a structure. In thinking about it further, staff feels a clause should be inserted that would give special consideration in those cases. The review board does consider each request and decides on the request's own meri ts if the entire amount should be allocated, he added. Glenn Mason, Historic Review Board, expressed the sentiment of the Board that the nrmey allocated each year is not an outright guarantee but to give the owner some incentive rather than to subsidize the total rehabilitation. Mayor Anderson wondered why a policy of proration was necessary, Mr. Sugaya responding it seemed that,if only a certain amount was available during the, year and tbe requests totaled more, it might be a way to more fairly deal with each request. ,.J . 4/26/76 -:- 20 ~3~ :e.. -- ~' - \......- e ,Mrs. Beal wondered about inserting a clause, "except in cases of erergency". At Mayor An~ersonrs suggestion, it was understood the recozrmendation be sent back to the Historic Review Board indicating some judgmental factor should be built into the application of the for~u1a. would , Comm 4/14/76 Affirm N. Calkins House Rezoning - Beca~se of time required for advertising, the hearing date has been changed from April 26 to May 10 on: Appeal from P1.nning Commission Comm denial of request to rezone for Calkins House - SW corner of 11th and Patterson, 4/21/76 from R-4 High Rise to H-Historic (Z 76-1) as filed by the Eugene Historic Review Affirm Board. ' . ~. o. Growth Study - ME. Murray wondered about the status of the growth study - he was hopeful a meeting would be held soon regarding it. Growth Study Status - Gary Chenkin, Assistant Planning Director, indicated a meeting of the Community Goals Committee is set for April 29. He added that concerns expressed at an earlier meeting would indicate that emphasis will be on growth managemerit techniques which could encompass encouraging growth in existing ci ty limi ts rather than on the periphery. P. Presentation on ,Proposed Jail - Don Lutes, archi teet for the project, explained' that a document developed by Graham Brawn and Assoc.iates reflecting all aspects of the facili ty was adopted by the County Corrrnissioners on January 21 and 90 days were given to prepare cost estimates. The design has four stories, space for 288 inmates, and a design flexible enough to take into consideration the needed capaci ty in 20 years. Mr. Lutes gave a slide presentation showing views of the structure, detailed floor plans, and cost breakdown inCluding the building dollars and the project dollars. Cost per square foot is $71.48. The design is intended to try to reduce the number of people necessary to operate the jail. The cost inc1 udes $.76 per square foot for addi tional footings, etc. for one future floor. The bond issue is for $11.7 million. The County Commissioners recently trimmed $1 million from the original $12.7 million estimate. In answer to Mr. Williams' question on cost per square foot, Mr. Lutes said that, in researching costs wi th other jail facili ties, $71.48 seell15 a reasonable figure. . Mayor Anderson wondered about savings in this facility over what now exists. Sheriff Burks responded there will be more efficient use of the staff - it will be a much more functional building. In answer to Mr. Bradley, Sheriff Burks noted the total inmate projection for 1985 is 288, and 384 for 1995. Sheriff Burks said the state facili ty in Salem is interested in housing prisoners here, though they probably would not be able to participate to the extent of amortizing the construction cost. Mrs. Beal wondered about the work release program reducing the expense to some degree, Sheriff Burks responding it is one of the most viable programs. Those people can be utilized and pay their way, he said, which will be of some help. There will be room for local and state work release; and there are facilities for housing women separately. 4/26/76 - 21 ~35 Comm 4/14/76 4/21/76 File Mr. Keller wondered what the $1 million reduction in the bond issue represented. Mr. Lutes answered that two factors had been built in to the original estimate - a 7.5% inflation rate and a 10% contingency on construction. Those two factors totaled $1.5 million, so they have been reduced to $500,000. Mr. Keller wondered about possible cost reduction in building a more box-shaped facility. Mr. Lutes explained the shape as designed will provide for outside windows for each cell - a federal requirement for federal funds stip'llates single cells with windows. It would be a mistake to build it otherwise, he felt, because how functional it is inside seems more important than construction dollars saved by building it in a conventional shape. On reasons for single-cell uni ts, Sheriff Burks said it is primarily for managerrent purposes. There is no way to effectively control what is happening in dorms. Single cells do benefit the prisoner as well. Some prisoners need to be segregated from all the others for safety factors. On having the mental health unit within the jail, Sheriff Burks responded it is much more convenient for staff - there are sorre persons with severe mental problems that cannot be released because of criminal charges against them. This facility is proper to house a mental health unit because it is secure and professional people are on hand to assist - it will better utilize staff and provide a most humane setting as well. Police Chief Dale Allen endorsed and supported Sheriff Burk's comments. is the Police Department's feeling that, as the community develops a corrections facility, it is logical to have the ability to address the of persons wi th severe mental problems; tha t is, persons determined to dangerous, to themselves or to others. It needs be Mrs. Shirey felt that, if not provided now, it will have to be provided later somewhere else - utilizing more staff. Sheriff Burks noted, in answer to a question, that not all the property has been purchased at this point. Sheriff Burks concluded that it is a most appropriate build~ng. Q. Bike Week - Mayor Anderson announced Bike Week May I - 9, and enthusiastically endorsed participation by Council and others in the many events planned. R. street Assessment Policy - Mrs. Shirey offered to serve on a subcommittee to study the procedures and policy for making street assessments. Mrs. Beal offered to assist. Manager asked for direction as to how the proposed review committee was to be constituted, how appointed, etc. It was understood the Mayor would appoint. Gouncilman Bradley expressed some interest in serving, and the Mayor asked others interested to let him know. S. Taxi' Company Need - Mr. Bradley has received a call from a taxi driver who . feels there is a need for an additional taxi company, as he feels the present two are doing an inadequate job and there are questions of safety, health and welfare involved. Mr. Bradley wondered about the process involved in getermining need and whether the Ci ty should investigate the entire area regarding regulations, etc. 4/26/76 - 22 ~?,,, ~,e ~- Comm 4/14/76 File Comm 4/21/76 File Comm 4/21/76 See action below ---- -- e Finance Director noted the current process allows for application to be made through the Finance Department. A Council hearing date is set, and fa~tors to be taken into consideration at hearing tillE could include such th~ngs as safety and health. Corron 4/21/76 File T. ~~re Hydrant Painting - Manager announced that, as a Bicentennial activity e Youth Services Di vision of the County has proposed a aintin ' for several fire hydrants in the city; certain businessme~ huve ~i~;~g~~:ir ;~~~r: a~dt~ave.ag~eed to supply materials. Mrs. Beal felt it should be well ~c~ze at ~t ~s a youth project, with no city cost ipvolved. Mr. Bradley wondered that, since they are be necessary. Bob Wynia, 265 Barber Drive, Lane County Social Services Division, described the proposed project and displayed slides showing examples of plugs painted to represent heroes and honoring the Bicenntennial Year. He said the program would be funded from private donations, the actual work done hy young people through the Childrens Division and co-ordinatcd with the School District. The city staff had voiced no objections, and what they were after at this time was a vote of confidence from the Council. abou~ regulations for painting fire hydrants; staff repiied pulJl~c property, approval of the ci ty would most likely Corom 4/21/76 See action below Manager added that one condition or agreement on the project should be some arrangement for returning the plugs to the original colors. The city would not be able to maintain indefinitely the decorations proposed. Mr. Wynia agreed that something would be worked out. -~ ,. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to approve the project providing some arrangement was worked out for returning the plugs to their original colors. Councilman Bradley wondered why the decorations could not be retained, why return to the original colors. Also, whether individuals wanting to maintain the Bicentennial theme could paint fireplugs in their neighborhoods. Manager didn't think the city would want to become involved with individual groups or neighborhoods with regard to painting fireplugs in given areas. He felt complications might arise in trying to ex- tend the program throughout the city. If the Council did choose to approve on an in- dividual basis, he said, the city would require a deposit to be sure the plugs were repainted, etc, Mr. Wynia added that the process was patented so there had to be some care exercised in following the patterns although help in getting the work done would be welcome. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Bradley noted that at the Wednesday committee meeting he would bring up the issue of whether private citizens could paint fireplugs if they chose. Mr. Williams moved to appoint a committee of two Council members, two planning commissioners, two architec~s, and two fire department members selected by the manager to review suggested designs for painting fire- plugs, and to authorize any choice made by two-thirds vote of that body. There was no second. e Councilman Bradley suggested representatives of different wards in the city might choose designs. It was fairly late in the evening. 4/26/76 - 23 ~J7 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr, Haws to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through T. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all CmIncil members present voting aye. ~e III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 1095 - Paving Whitbeck Boulevard from Lorane Highway to 1000 feet west, read the first time on April 12, 1976 and held pend- ing information with regard to Krumdieck property, 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. It was noted that the public works department had given Councilwoman Shirey the information requested. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17628. Council Bill No. 1096 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Whitbeck Boulevard from Lorane Highway to 1000 feet west, read the first time on April 12, 1976 and held pending information with regard to Krumdieck property, 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. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17629. Council Bill No. 1112 - Amending Sections 2.212 and 7.055 of City Code re: Extraterritorial sewer extensions and annexed properties served by existing sewers was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. -e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17630, Council Bill No. 1113 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue from Washington Street to Lawrence Street (75-13) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on May 3, 1976 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel reconunenda- tion on May 10, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 1114 - Levying assessments for paving 11th Avenue from Seneca Road to Bailey Hill Road (75-23) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. e 4/26/76 - 24 1.3~ e- e-' e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on May 3, 1976 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda- tion on May 10, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. IV - Resolutions Resolution No. 2503 - Authorizing agreement with Southern Pacific Transportation Company re: Signalization at Bertelson railroad crossing was read by number and title. Manager explained that there remained a minor condition to be worked out in the agree- ment and referred Council members to city attorney's memo of April 23, 1976 distributed. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2504 - Authorizing agreement with River Road/Beltline Road Sanitary District, Inc., re: Transfer of District assets to city was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2505 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period April 12 through April 26, 1976 was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned. ~)~ Charles T. Henry City Manager 4/26/76 - 25 ;l.39