Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/1977 Meeting (2) , M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL e September 26, 1977 Adjourned meeting from September 21, 1977, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on September 26, 1977, in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. I-A-l 1. Public Hearings A. Rezoning properties located between 7th and 13th Avenues, extending from Washington Street to Lincoln .Street, from C-2 and R-3 to MU Mixed Use (Eugene Planning Commission)(Z 76-38). Recommended by Planning Commission August 15, 1977, with a 5-1 vote. Manager said this was a major complex rezoning matter considered by the Planning Commission for nearly a year, with lengthy public hear- ings held. Susan Franklin, 669 West Broadway, reviewed for Council the Plan- ning Commission's actions. Public hearings for this zone change began in October in 1976, with numerous and comprehensive studies e showing the need for both commercial and residential zoning to complement each other. She noted extensive public hearings had been held, with the Planning Commission compromising with a mixed-use zone for the area. She said this zoning would eliminate the possi- bility of non-conformance and felt this zone change would not adver- sely affect the property owners in the area. Jim Saul, Planner, recognized this as a major rezoning and noted for Council consideration the following points. First, Council should consider whether the area should be rezoned under the accepted City policy. He referred Council to Staff Notes, noting that the City has adopted a number of policies which have direct relation to this zone change. The change would be from C-2 to a MU classification that would encourage high-density housing in the area, and he sited various policies to support this position, noting the 1990 Plan, Community Goals and Policies, and the Housing Policy Resolution. He said during the entire course of public hearing, testimony pre- sented recognized the validity of City policy encouraging high- density housing in this area. The second issue he noted was whether or not the Mixed-Use District provided adequate mechanisms to carry out those policies. The primary purpose of the MU District would be to encourage further high-density development in the area and does recognize the existing commercial e 9/26/77--1 72.If . development that has been there. The third issue centered around the question of public need, whether or not to retain the existing e commercial zoning. He said there is not a need to so retain, saying there is an excess of commercially zoned property in this area. Studies indicate a strong public need for rezoning to encourage high-density housing. In calling for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Mr. Bradley noted that at one time he owned property in the area and so had always abstained from discussion and voting. Although he no longer owns the property, he said he would continue to abstain from discussion and voting on this issue. No other Councilors expressed conflicts of interest. Staff Notes and minutes of August 15, 1977, were received as part of the record. Public hearing was opened. Vernon D. Gleaves, 975 Oak, an attorney representing property owners Turnbull, Pietka, and Ellis, supported the zone change as recommended by the Planning Commission, but said he would be opposed if Council deviated from that recommendation. He noted the recommendation was a compromise, with only one Planning Commissioner voting against-- Dr. McKinnon, who was not opposed to the zone change but opposed because the change did not go far enough in regard to existing commer- cial property. He urged Council to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations and requested the opportunity to respond further e if City Council should change the ordinance. Jon Stafford, 1060 Madison, representing the Neighborhood Advisory Group of the Westside NIP, said the City will have invested in excess of one-million dollars over a three-year period to revitalize and enhance the area bounded by 7th and 13th ~venues and Charnel ton to Chambers Street. He felt this program was consistent with the City of Eugene's Community Goals and Policies and represents the City's commitment to eliminate blight, deterioration, and harmful public policies in order to concern and stabilize the older central residen- tial neighborhoods. The neighborhood advisory group (NAG) has worked to set the tone for the allocation of these funds and desires to insure that future action in developments are consistent with the intent of these projects. To this end NAG favors the concept of the Mixed-Use District for the Downtown Westside area. He ci ted the unresolved conflicts existing between zoning and the 1990 Plan and the existing land use in the area, saying the Blayney study was made to assess a possible and probable future for the Eugene Downtown Westside area. One of the conclusions of this study was that if C-2 zoning persisted, the area would very slowly convert to commercial use. He said housing rehabilitation was a major program of the Westside NIP, and the mixed-use zone would allow that housing reha- bilitation programs be extended to this area. The group asked that residential developments at R-4 density be made "conditional uses" e 9/26/77--2 '12..5 " rather than outright uses. This would allow proposed residential e developments to address preservation of the neighborhood character, ample and usable open space, a variety of residential unit sizes, attempts to use or preserve existing structures, rehousing displaced residents, and a provision of units suitable for senior citizens and special and low-income groups. He reiterated that the NAG favors the concept of the Mixed-Use District and encouraged City Council to specify R-4 density as a conditional use. Neil Murray, 653 West Broadway, representing the Westside Neighbor- hood Quality Project, said they endorse the mixed-use zoning as proposed, and felt that zoning would enhance and be a fitting comple- ment to commercial uses on the east and residential uses on the west. However, the group had one reservation and felt using R-4 zoning for some high-density development under conditional use would be beneficial. The group felt the City is obligated to adopt a policy to enhance the residential nature of the areas around the downtown. He also said the group thought the Council's past action in calling for residential uses of the area was a further commitment. He urged Council to recognize this mixed-use zoning recommendation as a compromise proposal. Gerald A. Wilson, 670 West Broadway, said his property was adjacent to this area, and felt the future of his property would relate to the future of the area in the proposed rezoning. He supported the mixed-use rezoning as it would be much more compatible than commercial e use. Joan Gray, 1252 West 12th, expressed support for the mixed use as recommended by the Planning Commission. She owned 2/5 of a block, which is under consideration for rezoning from C-2 to mixed use. She is planning to develop the property over the next two to three years with a combination of residential and commercial use. She expressed concern over the narrow restrictive commercial uses allowed outright in existing structures and sanctioned for conditional use in new construction. She said if the intent of the new rezoning is to stimulate development of higher-density residential, then the ordinance should provide a variety of commercial uses for the residents in the area. She urged Council to amend Item No. 3 of the Use Section to include commercial uses such as coffee shops, cafes, bakeries, banks, delicatessens, variety stores, and meat markets. She felt these uses would supply needed social centers and add to the life in the area. She said it takes more than housing to attract people to an area and make them want to stay, citing these additional commercial uses would provide more amenities to the people. With the suggested addition, she went on record as being in general support of new commercial development which is aimed primarily at providing services for the residents of the neighborhood. e 9/26/77--3 (~, Jane Degidio, 430 West Broadway, said she bought property in the area because of the mixed commercial and residential nature. She felt the . residential character of the neighborhood would be preserved by the mixed-use zoning. If the rezoning were approved, she asked Council to consider extension to the area for use of CD funds for rehabilitation of residences. Chester Pietka, 372 West 12th, noted his support for the rezoning. Those speaking in opposition were the following: Jim Hershner, 260 East 11th, attorney representing Wyatt's Tire Company, owners of Tax Lot 13000 located on the north side of 11th in the block between Lincoln and Lawrence streets which would be rezoned under this proposed mixed use. The property is currently used as a warehouse for storing tires and for parking in conjunction with the use of the main building which is located across the street and will retain its C-2 zoning. He said his remarks related to the property on the north side of 11th generally, and also would apply to a small parcel located south of the alley between Lincoln and Lawrence. The major objection to the proposed rezoning was that this warehouse property was one of the few parcels which is presently used for commercial purposes, yet would be zoned mixed use. He felt this would be a down zoning and would financially damage Wyatt's since the property would be less valuable. He felt if Wyatt's warehouse property were rezoned MU, its present use would in effect be a non-conforming use. Wyatt's would ~e unable to build any structure e or remodel the present warehouse for commercial purposes if the mixed-use zoning were adopted for that property. He said Wyatt's plans were to use the properties in this area as retail tire outlets only, and this use was not permitted in the mixed-use zone. As another example of the restrictiveness of the new rezoning, he cited the grocery store at 11th and Lawrence which has an apartment on the second floor. The property is owned by Ed McMillan. If his property were rezoned for mixed use, he would be unable to expand his grocery store operation into the second floor without.a conditional use permit and even then, his expansion would be limited to 2,000 square feet. Therefore, he felt it is clear if commercially used property is zoned at mixed use, the rights of the property owner would be severely restricted. He also noted there were three other pieces of property on the intersection of 11th and Lawrence which would retain their C-2 zoning and felt this to be unfair and failed to see the public need to zone one corner of a busy intersection for mixed use while the other corners were commercially zoned. He said this was especially true when one of the three corners is not presently in commerical use and nevertheless retains its commercial zoning. He asked why this non-commerical property, citing the primary example e 9/26/77--4 1n example of the church property on Lincoln and Charnelton, should retain commercial zoning and Wyatt's is being used as commerical and e would no longer be able to retain its commercial zoning, but would be down-zoned to MU. He also noted heavily trafficked 11th Avenue, and the fact that 7th Avenue would have no mixed-use, that less than a quarter of a block is proposed for mixed use on 13th, and only slightly more than a block on 11th is proposed for mixed use. He felt a major factor had been ignored in this decision-making process, in that future transportation corridors in this area have not been finally selected. He reiterated the rezoning of this warehouse property would inhibit the incentive a possibility of converting it to a retail outlet, and failed to see how it would be in the public interest. He also said the Westside Plan had been handled in such a fashion that it really is a collection of small parcel rezonings, and it was their position that the Fasano principals do and should apply to this matter. He felt the City has the burden of proof to show why this property should be down-zoned and what public need is served. He noted Dave Lowe, 390 West 11th, owner of Wyatt's, agreed with the above statements, but would not be speaking. Pierre VanRysselberghe, 888 West Polk Street, represented Arthur Berwick, a residential property owner between Lincoln and Lawrence. He expressed opposition to the rezoning of his parcel. Ron Schmaedick, 315 West Broadway, said he felt there was a need for a buffer zone between the commercial, traffic, and residential e areas. He noted the property in the area is under Fire Zone Code II from Lincoln west to Washington. He said the entire building located in any of this area must meet the commercial building Fire Code standards even when only one-half of the building use is residen- ti a 1 . He said it was not economically feasible to improve a building to commercial safety standards and then rent one-half of it at residen- tial rates. He noted the parking maximums prescribed by the ordinance would be a disservice to both commercial and residential occupants, citing the City encouraged parking off-street as much as possible but the mixed-use zoning would limit parking being provided in a new development. In areas of heavy foot traffic, parking strips should be allowed to be paved. He also felt there was some legitimate confusion over the existing conforming commercial uses and felt the ordinance was not clear on this issue. Eva Allen, 372 West Broadway, bought her property in the area in 1950. She said she remodeled her house and rents rooms and apart- ments, saying there was then and still is a need for housing. She was not against the mixed use if it would lower the value for peo- ple who have lived in the area a considerable length of time and . 9/26/77--5 , 2..8 have paid their taxes. She wondered if it were possible to cut the e zoning off from Washington to Chambers and keep the C-2 zoning. She noted she wanted to sell the property and wanted to be protected. She felt as close as the property was between Lincoln and Lawrence, it would become commercial anyway, as it was so close to the downtown. She felt she could sell her property for a higher value if it were zoned C-2 rather than MU. Margaret Ellis, 2486 Grovedale Drive, Springfield, owns property at 276 West 12th. She wondered why, when people have to be housed, it has to be at the expense of a few people who happen to own property in the area in which it is wished to have them housed. She felt low-income housing should be the responsibility of everyone in the city and the city should not rely on zoning as means of housing people who are unable to afford their own homes. She asked why she should be more responsible for housing than people who live in other areas of the city. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul prefaced his response to testimony raised by telling Council the comments made at the time of the public hearing had been made at great length before the Planning Commission and were not new informa- tion. In response to Mr. Stafford and Mr. Murray's request for R-4 permits with conditional use procedures, he said the Planning Commis- sion rejected this for several reasons. The specific development - standards were incorporated in the mixed-use zone to address the problems faced in an R-4 District. He said the mixed-use'zoning does incorporate more severe and more restrictive developmental standards than R-4. Another reason for rejecting this idea was that the mixed- use zoning is to encourage high density and the Planning Commission and staff felt it wrong to put impediments in the way of high-density development. In response to Mr. Hershner's remarks regarding Wyatt's, he said the mixed use would affect only the north side parcel on West 11th. Wyatt's existing tire service is on the south side and would not be affected. He said the affected lot was primarily a vacant lot used for parking with a warehouse at the rear of the property. He said that operation is non-conforming in a C-2 District or an R-4 zone. The tire recapping use is what makes it non-conforming. Also, that particular lot is part of an entire block recommended for rezoning. He reviewed for Council that the area was primarily now devoted to housing, citing a 48-unit apartment complex to accommodate the elderly being planned immediately east of the Wyatt property. . 9/26/77--6 l~ In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Saul said the southwest corner of 11th and Lawrence was retained as commercial e because at the present time it is developed with a major office structure. On the south side of West 11th between Lincoln and Wash- ington the property is substantially developed with exclusive commer- cial uses. He pointed out that much of the remaining West 11th frontage was zoned and developed residentially extending to the west. Mr. Delay asked staff to respond to testimony by Mr. Schmaedick regarding outright uses. Mr. Saul said existing commercial uses were permitted as outright uses under the proposed district. He said this provision was included to specifically make clear that any commerical uses in that area would not be created as non-conforming uses. The one use that would not be subject to this provision would be the existing Wyatt's on the north side of 11th. Mr. Obie requested clarification regarding Mr. Schmaedick's testimony and whether his use is now an outright use, acknowledging confusion regarding the requirement of residential as part of his use. He asked if it was a non-conforming use. Mr. Schmaedick asked if it is not non-conforming now, would that property be available for use in some other type of business, or would it have C-2 privileges on an indefinite basis. Mr. Saul said the way the categories are listed in the ordinance, that present structure would be classified as an office use and could be used as a general or professional office. Mr. Schmaedick could sell the property for that similar use. In e addition, he would have the option under a conditional use permit to expand his floor space to 2,000 square feet. If, however, the exist- ing building were destroyed by fire or some other such disaster, it would be subject to standards of this district, i.e., both business and residential use. Mr. Obie asked if the ordinance would preclude expansion of Mr. Schmaedick's office by more than 2000 square feet. Mr. Saul replied that it would. Mr. Obie said he had difficulty with that as it seemed the owner would not have the privileges he had before. In regard to Wyatt's situation and the grocery store, Mr. Obie said he had concerns relative to the traffic on 11th, as it seems to be a major arterial. He had difficulty placing a higher value on a state office building than the value placed on a person who has a grocery store--asking value to whom? He wondered what con- sideration had been given to the 11th Street traffic when the initial proposal was made to reclassify this area to mixed use. e 9/26/77--7 130 Mr. Saul said the detennination that the State office building would not.be included was not based on any difference of assessed e value, but rather the fact that the grocery store is a prototype of the development that would be possible in this mixed-use zone, a store with an apartment above. The existing State Office Building would be contrary to any residential character and there was no residential quality to encourage, preserve, or enchance. Wi th respect to the traffic volume, the staff did not predicate its original recommendation for this rezoning on traffic volumes, noting the traffic volume did not constitute the basis for saying residential was inappropriate. Mr. Obie then wondered why the State Office Building differed from Mr. Schmaedick1s office. Mr. Saul replied, the State Office Building occupied well over one-quarter of a block while Schmaedick was in a much smaller area in an existing house that had be~n converted to office space. C.B. 1543--Rezoning properties located between 7th and 13th Avenues, extending from Washington Street to Lincoln Street, from I-B-1 C-2 and R-3 to MU Mixed Use was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present that requested it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of August 15, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, . with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding the inequality between equivalent situations and inconsistent treatment between property owners under this proposal. Mr. Delay said from reading the material and listening to testimony, he felt the Planning Commission had dealt well with a very difficult problem and the mixed-use zoning was a good plan for the area. Mr. Williams expressed concern with the process and would vote no on the motion. He said he was concerned about that part of town but was terrified of the process in which the staff has initiated the request for a major zone change that may be valid, but felt it spooky when city government initiates a plan against the wishes of property owners. He expressed concern in supporting city govern- ment when it decides to change the rules under which the people have been operating for some time and rules which the people have had to. fight the process. / In regard to Mr. William1s concern regarding the initiation of the zone change, Mr. Saul said under the City Code the Planning Commission or the City Council is empowered to initiate zone changes. He said e 9/26/77--8 131 e in this instance, the Planning Commission recommended in January 1976 it undertake a study ,of this area and from that came the Blayney Report in July of 1976. One specific recommendation was to rezone to high-density residential use. The Planning Commission conducted hearings on the Blayney Report and as a result in September 1976 recommended to City Council a pOlicy statement on transportation corridors in the area. Regarding the rezoning, the Planning Commis- sion informed City Council of their intent to initiate this action, noting Council was aware in September of 1976 and no objections were voiced at that time by Council. Regarding the lack of an appli- cant's statement, he said that was the purpose of the extensive Staff Notes provided for Council, as the burden of proof was on the City to prove its case. Mr. Delay said if Mr. Williams were going to take the position of not changing the ground rules, then Council would have to scrap plans for updating the 1990 Plan, refinement plans, etc. He said the Council and City cannot progress into a changing world without making changes and people will inevitably resist some of those changes, noting that was a normal process. He said given the large area under consideration for this rezoning, he was surprised there had been so little opposition. Mr. Lieuallen said he felt the Council was obligated to try to bring the zoning into compliance with the General Plan.' He said it is the function of the Planning Commission to do that. He noted the e lengthy public hearings and public input on this zone change and felt it is a reasonable compromise, saying it would be impossible to find a proposal that would satisfy everyone. However, this proposal seems to satisfy the majority of the people in the area and he did not feel that there was that much opposition to it. He noted it seemed to be a very workable compromise. Ms. Smith expressed appreciation for Mr. Saul's background material, and asked if the new plan for revising the downtown would be suppor- tive of this rezoning. Mr. Saul replied that the Elbasani Report had been predicated on the rezoning and would be complementary to it. Ms. Smith wished there had been a better compromise worked out to the satisfaction of Wyatt's and expressed some concern about that, but noted she would be voting for the motion. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all Council members present voting aye except Williams and Obie voting no. Lacking unanimous consent, the council bill will be held for second reading October 10, 1977. A short recess was taken. e 9/26/77--9 13~ 1-B-2 B. Code Amendment re: Tree cutting--amending City Code Sections 6.320 and 6.330 e Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission September 6, 1977. The recommended amendments would limit tree cutting in approved subdivisions to street rights-of-way, public utility easements, and not more than five trees per individual lot per year. Council had previously discussed this amendment in concept because of recent tree cutting in the South Hills. Mr. Saul said Council had discussed on a number of occasions the subject of tree cutting and regulatory mechanisms by which tree cutting might be controlled. In August, the Planning staff had outlined a possible amendment to the Code which would remove subdivisions from the Tree Cutting Ordinance. City Attorney had prepared an amendment to the tree cutting regula- tions which includes the concept proposed by Council. He reviewed the proposed amendment, saying it limits the blanket provision in the present code for subdivisions. Scott Lieuallen left the meeting. Mr. Saul continued the Planning Commission had suggested the use of the Joint Parks Committee to review strengthening the overall ordinance. Mr. Obie said he recalled his motion included in the context that trees would not be cut in approved subdivisions prior to building permits being issued. He asked if the Planning Commission had dealt with that proposal. Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission did not . deal with it directly, reviewing that the matter had been discussed with the City Attorney, noting a problem of trying to integrate the present proposed amendment to the existing ordinance. He said the present ordinance allows a property owner to remove up to five trees per lot without a permit. To try to prohibit any tree removal would present many difficulties and problems and the attorney had recommended the present drafted ordinance. Mr. Obie requested Mr. Long to determine how that could be accomplished tonight. Ms. Smith wondered, in regard to the Joint Parks review, if any time frame had been attached. Mr. Saul said no specific time frame had been recommended, but it would be at the discretion of Council in regard to urgency. Public hearing was opened. James Johnston, 179 West 37th, represented the Crest Drive Neighbor- hood Association and other groups who had concern for tree cutting. He requested that Council consider the definition of a tree having a trunk 18 inches in circumference at a point 4-1/2 feet above the ground be inserted and strike out the previous 36-inch circumference. Another concern was that trees not be removed until building permits are issued. In addition, he felt it very important that the Tree Cutting Ordiance be strengthened very quickly and development should not continue very much longer without some modification to the ordinance. e 9/26/77--10 133 Ray Wiley, 2100 Shields., noted he had heard that the ordinance would not have prevented the clear cutting that occurred in the e west end of Shields, that the allowed five trees per lot would have been sufficient for the developer to have done what he indeed had done. He did not feel the neighborhood's concerns had been adequately addressed and recommended the ordinance be modified to be more restrictive in the number of trees, or sent back to the Planning Commission for further strength. Dewey Newman, 2040 Hawkins Lane, represented Hawkins Highlands Association. They requested some strengthening of the ordinance and felt the circumference of the trees should be defined as much smaller as 36 inches. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Obie requested clarification, noting the Planning Commission spoke in terms of a Joint Parks Committee and he seemed to remember there was a special Mayor's committee. He felt it better for the Mayor to appoint a committee that would have a more balanced member- ship with interested individuals with expertise. Mr. Long responded to Mr. Obie's earlier question regarding no tree removal prior to a building permit being issued. He said the approach is to regulate but not to prohibit tree cutting. He said this ordi- nance does not attempt to confiscate merchantable timber. If Council e wishes to address the question, then it would have to address it in a totally different approach as no words would fit into this approach, noting they would have to develop a new scheme. That approach would not be possible under the present ordinance. Mr. Obie said the present ordinance now allows five trees per lot per year and it seemed to him that if they allowed no trees per lot in any year until a building permit were issued, that change could be made. Mr. Long said he and his staff would want to do some very in-depth research before adopting the ordinance saying the person could not cut any tree. The City could face a claim of taking private property without just compensation. He said without making a full-scale reassessment, he would not want to expose the City to such a claim. Ms. Smith recollected in previous discussions that Mr. Saul had said limiting tree removal until after a building permit had been issued would be a very expensive procedure and felt if Council wished to go that way it needed much more information. Mr. Saul said he had told Council previously that in any event keying into a building permit simply shifts the time when the removal of trees would occur. To go beyond that point raises all sorts of - 9/26/77--11 13~ questions including expensive staff time and whether or not it is . a legitimate function in which the City wishes to engage. Ms. Smith said it seems the Committee could pursue other alternatives. Mr. Saul said that recommendation had been made to the Planning Commission that significant improvements could enhance the existing tree ordi- nance. He noted for Council the existing tree regulations were a result of a lengthy process, and philosophical and practical problems would be raised in strengthening or extending the tree ordinance. He said it would be misleading to think it would be an easy task, that it would not be impossible but it would be difficult. C.B. 1544--Concerning tree removal; amending Sections 6.320 and 6.330 of City Code 1971; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Obie moved to amend the motion to request revitalization of a Mayor's committee to strengthen the tree cutting ordinance. In pursuant discussion, it was determined this could be a separate motion, so Mr. Obie withdrew his amendment. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. The e bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the vote was declared passed and numbered 18053. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the Mayor constitute a committee to study past impact of tree cutting ordinance and study the proposed changes regarding the issues discussed in the past six months. Mr. Delay noted that Council was going to have to be prepared to look at some very difficult decisions. Mr. Hamel requested that some of the people on the Committee be forestry people. Mr. Bradley expressed concern regarding the composition of the Committee, requesting the Mayor select qualified members. Mr. Obie said in regard to the Committee that he saw two sides to the situation: The danger of fir trees in subdivisions and the erosion aspect of removing the fir trees, and felt these aspects should be studied. - 9/26/77--12 135 Mr. Haws wondered about the time frame of the report from the e Committee, that perhaps six months might be possible, what would happen in that interim period, and if Council could afford to wait that long. Assistant Manager noted the last time Council addressed this issue was in response to a crisis situation and it took four months. In expanding the existing tree ordinance, he said there would be a need for very sound legal basis and the neces- sity to take in diverse interests and felt Council was looking at least six months' time. It was the consensus of Council that six months was not an unreasonable amount of time. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. II -A-S C. Concurrent Annexation and Rezoning: Property located between I-I05 and Willamette River, west of Country Club Road (Zellner)(Z 71-34) and A 71-N) from County PR to City C-2 PD Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission August 8, 1977. Mr. Saul reported the Council in 1971 had recommended annexation of the property to the Boundary Commission with the condition that such annexation be completed after development of the property. Since 1973 the City has not been following that policy, for two reasons: 1) Financial work done in 1973 and 1974 indicated the presumed advantage to the City was illusory unless it was a multi- million dollar project; and 2) the confusion created not only for the City and Lane County, but for the applicant seeking approval. Council had also approved C-2 PO zoni ng of property wi th condi t i on that fi na 1 e approval of zoning be withheld pending final approval of planned unit deve 1 opment. The recommendation for the Council is to delete both prior conditions and complete the annexation and zoning at this time. Mr. Saul noted this action is consistent with policies followed by the City in recent years. Mr. Delay noted that this property is in the Greenway and wondered to what extent the City has any criteria to apply to the development plans. Mr. Saul said under ordinances adopted by the City, and under the Statewide Goal No. 15, any development on the property would be subject to review under PUD regulations. In the course of that review, Goal 15, criteria would have to be met. The only other re- quirement would be that any time a development proposal is submitted, the State Department of Parks and Transportation be notified by certified mail. In calling for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Ms. Smith noted she would abstain from discussion in voting as she had a conflict of interest. No other conflicts were expressed by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes of the Planning Commission, August 8, 1977, were entered as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. e 9/26/77--13 i3b Res. No. 2759--Forwarding to Boundary Commission recommendation for annexation of property located between 1-105 and e Willamette River, west of Country Club Road was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Bradley asked for clarification as to whether this annexation complied with Goal No. 15 of the Statewide Goals. Mr. Saul responded the purpose of Goal 15 was to review the development on the property in compliance with the Goal. Mr. Bradley said he was under the impression that municipal annexations must comply with LCDC goals. He asked if there were a goal of LCDC that would apply to this annexa- tion, and if that were No. 15, whether it was necessary to adopt affirmative findings. Mr. Saul again explained that question would come when the specific PUD development was being reviewed to see if it complied with that goal. Mr. Bradley requested a clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Long referred to the Peterson vs. Klamath Falls case which dealt with a situation where City-County had no boundary commission. He felt the Lane County Boundary Commission was under obligation to determine compliance with the goals. The purpose of this City is to recommend only. He said Mr. Bradley's question was under study by the Attorney's Office, but thought it was within a realm of reasonable activity to not make such findings when. only recommending for annexation. e Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Bradley and Ms. Smith abstaining. C.B. 1545--Rezoning from County PR to City C-2 PO property located between 1-105 and Willamette River, west of Country Club Road, 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, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of August 8, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously, except Ms. Smith and Mr. Bradley abstaining and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Ms. Smith and Mr. Bradley abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18054. e 9/26/77--14 '31 ---- , II-A-7 D. Proposed rate increases for ambulance and mobilchair services Manager explained the requested rate increase had been ten percent, e with Springfield Council and local staff proposing an 8.2 percent increase. He said there had been some disagreement on mobilchair rates and ultimately the subcommittee had recommended a hearing with six alternatives to be considered: 1) Adopt a zone charge as passed by Springfield Council of $7 plus $1 per zone for which the mobilchair passes, with no charge for return trips; 2) go to a base rate for pickup anywhere in the city of $8 plus .50 cents per transported mile; 3) leave the rate at $5, but allow a charge for return trip of $5; 4) leave the rate at $5, but allow a charge for return trip of $2.50; 5) decide not to regulate the mobilchair rates and regulate only the ambulance rates; 6) keep the rates at the current level of $5, and provide from City funds a payment to the ambulance service for the $18,000 deficit. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Obie expressed support of Alternative No.4. In addressing the issue of how often the rate increases should be reviewed, an annual review was considered to be appropriate. He also noted the expansion of services proposed by the ambulance company. Mr. Haws also expressed support for Alternative 4. Res. No. 2742--Concerning rates for ambulances and mobilchairs and amending resolution No. 2517 adopted June 14, 1976, was read by number and title. e Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution, and to include mobilchair rates as outlined in Alternative 4. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. 11-8-2 E. Liquor license application: New outlet, Monty's Pizza, 1809 Franklin Blvd., (RMB) Byrd Development, Ltd. (Randy & Vicki Byrd, and Arlen & Shermaine Swearingen) Manager noted there was one objector, the Green Tree Motel and Green- house Restaurant; there were five non-objectors. Staff found all papers in order and recommended approval. Public hearing was opened. Randy Byrd, 1809 Franklin Blvd., was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to forward to OLCC with approval. Motion carried unanimously. e 9/26/77--15 ~~ '" 'I!. Ordinances for first reading Manager noted council bill 1473 regarding planned unit development e regulations had been discussed by Council previously and the present ordinance provided for a Hearings Official to review the diagrammatic and preliminary stages of a PUD, with City Council to hear appeals. The scope of appeal s woul d rel ate to matters lion the recordll. II-B-3 C.B. 1473--Concerning Planned Unit Development regulations; amending Eugene City Code 1971; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Mr. Bradley was going to vote no on the motion, restating his feeling that this would restrain the public's access by having the appeal based lion the recordll. He felt it was making it too much a legal process and was contrary to citizen participation. Mr. Haws noted a report would be back in nine months time, he was going e to vote for the motion, and would review how the process was working in nine months with the freedom to vote against the process at that time. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18055. - II-B-4 C.B. 1546--levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Oakway 1st Addition; sanitary sewer to serve Oakway 1st Addition bounded by Cal Young Road, west boundary of Oakway Addition, north boundary of Fair Oaks Addition, and Norkenzie Road extended southerly was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing October 3, 1977, with panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration for final reading on October 10, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. It 9/26/77--16 13'1 ------- . , II-B-S C.B. 1547--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer: Skyline Loop annexa- . tion area generally bounded by 43rd Avenue on the north; Dillard Road on the south and west; and east of Skyline Loop on the east was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing October 3, 1977, with panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration for final reading on October 10, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. II -B-6 III. Request by coalition of women concerned for their rights--Ms. Doris Storm, 2180 Wood Acres Drive, Eugene. Manager referred Council to correspondence and a request by the group to make a presentation. Mr. Haws raised the issue of Council adjournment at 10:30 p.m., and suggested limiting the debate to ten minutes, five minutes for each side. He noted that issues of major importance before the City were often limited to 20 minutes. Ellen Lyford, representing the group, said she felt the subject matter could not be covered in that period of time and requested Council consider putting it on a forthcoming agenda. Mr. Haws replied that he felt an argument could be advanced in five minutes' time. Ms. e Lyford replied that the group felt that it needed 20 minutes. Mr. Bradley felt the group should be allowed to make its presentation as they were present at the meeting this evening. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to allow the group 20 minutes for their presentation. Motion carried unaninously. The following persons made presentations: Ellen Lyford, 2635 Lincoln Street; Doris Storms, 2180 Wood Acres Drive; Marguerite Campbell, 25346 Hunter Road, Veneta; Lorene Henry, 2620 Filmore; Helen Taff, 25292 Perkins Road, Veneta; and Eva Adkins, 93121 Smith Road, Junction City. The thrust of their testimony centered around requesting that the member- ship of the Women's Commission be balanced between those persons with views for and against ERA, abortion, and gay rights. They felt the homemakers should have representation on the Women's Commission; expressed concern that they were not allowed to participate in the Women's Equality Day; that the Women's Commission was not constituted in compliance with 1972 Federal Act; that the main speaker for the Women's Equality Day was Nancie Fadeley, who was pro-abortion and pro-ERA; protested City taxes paying for the Commission which did not represent all points of view in the City; and expressed concern that their representation at an August 2, Women's Commission meeting was brushed off with the statement that lithe Commission was too busy". They requested Council double the size of the Women's Commission to give a broader scope, and Council consider changing its criteria for selecting membership on the Commission to allow e for a balanced view on these various issues. 9/26/77--17 ,'to c Therese Engelmann, 296 West 8th, explained in regard to the Women's Equality Day, the event has been treated in the past as one of singing, . dancing, gymnastics, and holiday joyful atmosphere. It had been tra- dition to have no more than one speaker and the topic chosen for this year's event was"something for women"--with the choice to celebrate the passage of the Displaced Homemaker Bill. Nancie Fadeley had been chosen as the one speaker because she had sponsored that particular bill. It was felt that if this group had been allowed to speak and present its views, then others would have the right to present their opposing views and the celebration might have been spoiled. The group was given the same right as any other group to display its literature. In regard to the charge there were no homemakers on the Commission, Ms. Englemann reported that all but one of the women were homemakers. It was true that many have other . jobs, but all of them have homes to keep and children to raise. During the Women's Equality Day speech, she said no word was spoken about abor- tion, contrary to the statement made by the women testififying this evening. Further, she said the Women's Commission does do many things for the homemaker, citing it supported the Displaced Homemaker Bill, Womenspace, women on welfare, single parents, jOb sharing, and divorce legislation to favor women who want to stay in the home. The criterion in the statute for choosing membership requires interest and expertise in the areas of discrimination and she felt these were good criterion. She did not favor changing the criterion to get particular points of views on particular issues. Andy Clement, Hu~an Rights Specialist, replied to the charges regarding the August 2 meeting of the Women's Commission, saying the Commissions were never too busy, they were always open to anyone, people were never -- denied the right to input, and in fact the Commissions were seeking input from community members. In response to the charge that a staff member, Betsy Merck, had appear~d on a local radio station supporting ERA and abortion, he said she many times throughout the presentation differen- tiated her role with the City and her own personal views, noting she was speaking only for herself. Mr. Clement continued that each year there are three memberships for each commission open and the commissions are con- stantly looking for new applicants. He suggested that women in this group pick up an application in the City Manager's Office and make application for the Women's Commission if they so wish. He also said he felt members of the Council had attempted to be very fair in selecting members with divergent views. Mr. Haws thanked the women for their presentation, noting the City does have a process for Commission membership selection. He felt it would be a mistake to overtly select persons of one particular point of view. He encouraged those persons to make application for the Commissions. Mr. Delay did not question the motivation for the presentation made, but did express concern that he had seen no particular important City business i nvo lved. He felt Council had become a publicity forum and hoped it would not encourage any group who felt it needed representation on a Commission to come to Council just by making a request, thereby gaining publicity. - 9/26177 --18 11.f1 I, . . Ms. Storm again raised the question of whether the Women's Commission e was abiding by the Federal Advisory Act Public Law 92-463582, and Mr. Bradley referred the question to Mr. Long for a future report. IV. Resolutions III-A-2 Res. No. 1760--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period September 12 through September 26, 1977 was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously with Mr. Haws voting no on Item 6. III-A-3 v. Approval of Minutes Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve Council minutes September 12, 1977. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to September 28, 1977. ~ry-I~ - City Manager CTH:DT:jm/CM21al e 9/26/77 --19 "llf2.