Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/1978 Meeting - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL January 23, 1978 Adjourned meeting from January 18, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller January 23, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. e I. Receipt of Award from Paralyzed Veterans of America Martin Weideman, Portland, formerly of Eugene, of the Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America, presented a certificate of award to Eugene in recognition of the City's outstanding achievement in responding to the needs of the seriously disabled. He cited special accomplishments in the are~s of physical access and cultural, educational, and employment needs. Mayor Keller thanked Mr. Weideman for the honor. II. Public Hearings A. Appeal of Planning Commission Action: Minor Partition (Winter) (M 77-163) located east of Oakway Road on the east side of Sandy Drive Appeal denied by Planning Commission November 21 and 28, 1977, with a 3:2 vote. Jim Saul, Planner, reviewed the location of the property in question. James Bernhard, President, Planning Commission, was present to answer questions. Public hearing was opened. The following persons spoke in favor of the appeal, opposing the Winter minor partition: Mervyn Loya, 2370 Sandy Drive Adolph A. Sandin, 2425 Lariat Meadows Drive Herbert Ezell, 2240 Sandy Drive W. B. Dennis, 2280 Sandy Mike Harbour, 2295 Sandy e Mr. Loya asked those in the audience who objected to the partition to stand; about 20 people stood up. Objections to the minor partition request included the fact that the average resident of the Sandy Drive area has lived in the neighborhood for 14 ye~rs. It was felt that a panhandle lot would decrease the livability of the area because traffic on Sandy Drive 1/23/78--1 Ll-o would be increased by ten round trips a day. There was concern that if the Winter lot were panhandled, some 13 other lots could ~ be at some time in the future. It was pointed out that accidents .." at the corner of Oakway Road and Sandy Drive had greatly increased in the past year. Other objections were that the Sandy Drive neighborhood, and others like it, were an effective border to the City core. The neighborhood was described as a good buffer for noise, transient populations, crime pockets, and highway mazes. The neighborhood was described as an area of high holding power for the middle-income person. It was stated there were still 1,000 acres of land in Eugene available for residential buildings. The Willakenzie Neighborhood Association and other individuals requested City Council review its panhandle policy. James Winter, 2170 Bedford Way, spoke in favor of his request for a minor partition on Sandy Drive. He understood the feelings of those opposed to his request and that the issue was emotional. He had always tried to be a good neighbor, citing the fact that he had done a quality remodeling job on the house he owned on Sandy Drive. He had informed those who lived on Sandy Drive and the Wil1akenzie Neighborhood Association of his intent to file for a panhandle permit before he had filed. His plans for the lot would be in line with the 1990 Plan and 1974 Community Goals because they would help reduce urban sprawl and aid the compact growth pOlicy. He said there was a need for more middle-priced homes and City reports found there to be little traffic on Sandy Drive. He questioned if enough homes could ... be built on the street, even if others subdivided, to ever create a ,.., traffic hazard. He presented slides of the Sandy Drive area, showing that other lots in the vicinity had been partitioned in the past. The panhandle policy was achieving its intended goal which was to allow for compact growth within the City limits. He did not think the opposition had shown any hardship which would be created for them if he were granted his request. Mr. Saul said two or three issues had been raised which he wished to address. First, the appeal had been partially based on traffic questions. He said the City Code, as'it referred to this issue, was based on standards not of whether traffic would be increased, but whether it would be untenable. He said even if all lots on the street which could be were subdivided, this would only mean an in- crease of 100 to 150 trips a day, which was immeasurable by City planning standards. Secondly, he said the problem of overcrowding land had been raised, but that the proposed panhandle lots would both be over 9,000 square feet, which was more than the minimum lot size specified for the area. Finally, he said in the past four to five years, many panhandles had been approved, and there was no documentation that this had adversely affected the livability of any area. Mr. Obie asked if there were curb gutters or sidewalks on the street; Mr. Saul replied there were not. Ms. Smith questioned where the ~ City stood in terms of review of panhandling. City Manager said the ~ 1/23/78--2 ~I -- Planning Commission would review the policy, but mostly in terms of driveway screening and other minor details. Mr. Hamel had asked weeks ago if the City had set up a review of the issue. He referred to a fiasco on Lariat as bringing up the issue that some areas were not livable with panhandles. He felt it important the Council discuss this policy. Mr. Loya asked if William Kirkpatrick could speak. Mayor Keller said he would only be all owed to speak in rebuttal of the prior testimony. Mr. Loya chose to rebut, saying that lots on Sandy Drive which had been subdivided had not put homes in anyone else's back yard. In response to Mr. Winter's statement that the Sandy Drive neighborhood had not taken the case to the Willakenzie Neigh- borhood group, he said that they had not been notified that the group planned to meet. C. A. Boatman, Lariat Drive, referred to Mr. Winter's assertion that he had panhandled his lot, saying the lot had been given a minor subdivision. Fred Newhouse, 2222 Sandy Drive, referring to Mr. Winter's assertion that his lot had been panhandled, said the lot had been given a minor subdivision seven years ago. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e Ms. Smith asked Mr. Saul to respond to the last two statements. Mr. Saul said there was no correlation between tax lot numbers and addresses, so his maps did not help him in this issue. However, he said two lots on Sandy Drive did have narrow frontages of about 45 and 50 feet, respectively. Ms. Smith asked if this meant lots had been divided, front and back, to create narrow frontage lots; Mr. Saul replied affirmatively. Mr. Obie felt there was a good case for both sides of the argument. He agreed with the Planning Commission's decision, but expressed concern that had all the Commission members been present at the time of its vote on the issue, it might have been decided differently. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the Council uphold the appeal. Mr. Lieuallen seconded the motion and withdrew his second after the motion was reworded to stand as stated. Mr. Delay said the Council had dealt with the issue before. He said that the policies of the City were adopted to save the taxpayers money. He felt the panhandle policy had been adopted so the whole City would absorb increased density. It seemed people favored this policy until it affected their own neighborhood. For these reasons, he said he would not support the motion. e Ms. Smith said because the City had a panhandle policy on the books, she could not support the motion. However, she asked City Council to clarify its position on panhandle lots. 1/23/78--3 "11. I ' I Mr. Lieuallen said Council had heard an appeal on a minor parti- tion less than a month ago and had heard the same arguments. He felt the City could not undermine its own policies, so he was against the motion. - Mr. Hamel said this particular neighborhood had been interested in the panhandle issue for a long time, which was the reason for his motion. Vote was taken on the motion, which was defeated, with Delay, Williams, Lieua11en, and Smith voting no; Hamel and Obie voting aye; Williams and Bradley abstaining. A two-minute break was taken. B. Systems Development Charge City Manager introduced Les Anderson, Chairman of the Assessment Committee which studied the proposal for a systems development charge. Mr. Anderson would discuss background information; Betty Niven, alternate systems; and Bob Thomas, Assistant Director of ERA, exemptions. Mr. Anderson said public costs were a major question of growth, particularly relating to pUblic services and facilities. In the past, he said a public subsidy had covered new development of downstream improvements. Eugene had been generous with new deve- ~ lopment in subsidizing fire hydrants, street signs, etc. He said ,., Eugene had spent more than $2 million in one year on downstream improvements. Thi s had become an issue for Ci ty Council in April, 1976, because the City had considered widening South Willamette Street. At that time, the Assessment Committee was asked to study the public subsidy system and recommend alternatives. The Committee members were himself, Wickes Beal, Mr. Hamel, and Edna Shirey, assisted by City staff. Mr. Anderson said the recommended plan would provide funds to reduce the assessment on arterial streets. It would also reduce the subsidy paid into new developments, taxes, and bond funds. Presently, he said too much subsidy is paid to the developer of new building projects. The systems development charge would be a fee applied to all new developments that required more pUblic facilities. It would average 1.2 percent to 2.0 percent of the building permit valuation on a sliding scale. Charges would differ depending on when the land in question had been annexed to the City, with land annexed prior to 1948 paying the least amount. The owner of a new development would be allowed to pay by 1) adding the development charge to the mortgage; 2) obtaining a Bancroft loan; or 3) paying cash. Mr. Anderson said reasons to favor the plan were: 1) It was fair; 2) it was based on one's ability to pay; and 3) it had worked else- where in the State and nationally. He asked Council to separate the issue into three elements: 1) the charge itself in terms of its fair- ~ ness; 2) how the fees should be collected; and 3) determination of 1/23/78--4 'i3 e hardships and exemption~which must be decided by Council. He said the issue was, simply, should Eugene continue to subsidize new devel- opment without the greater portion of the costs being borne by the new development itself? Mrs. Niven said the Joint Housing Committee of which she is Chairperson, had discussed the issue at great length. She pointed out that a memo from JHC to the Council had been submitted. She said though other factors affected the cost of housi.ng, the systems development charge was in the hands of the public, whereas other elements were not. The charge would affect renters as well as more wealthy home buyers. The principal concern of the JHC was that the charge against new housing would ultimately raise the cost of housing in general. The JHC felt the charge should not be a front-end cost; the charge should enforce the City's compact growth policy; and the charge should not be limited to new construction. e Mrs. Niven continued that the JHC had never said it thought the charge would cause a lull in development, but it did think that it was as bad for Eugene to do something that would affect the cost of housing as it had for Corvallis. The Committee felt there was a way to get a systems development charge without affecting the cost of housing. She read the JHC's recommendations for alternative methods as outlined in its memo to the Council. The Assessment Committee had rejected the idea of the service charge partly because EWEB did not want to collect it. She said the City could collect this charge as easily as it could a Bancroft loan. Alternatives preferred by the JHC included: 1) changing the time of payment to an occupancy charge; 2) a straight-forward service charge; 3) a surcharge based on the dis- tance from the center of the city to encourage compact growth; or 4) considering a larger benefit district. She said policy issues which must be decided were: would just new development be affected? Should compact growth be reinforced? She said the major concern concern of the JHC was that cost not be added to new housing. Mr. Thomas pointed out the Eugene Renewal Agency had written the Council a memo dated January 19, on the subject of exceptions from the systems development charge. He said the three major points of his memo were: 1) that whatever method of including a systems development was chosen, a compact growth be encouraged; 2) within the ERA's Central Eugene Project new development and planned development had already been paid for; and 3) since central city improvements have already been paid for, any future renewal pay- ments would pay for improvements to outlying areas which seem contradictory to the purpose of the charge. ERA was not opposed to the systems development charge. The Assessment Committee had noted its objections and stated that it could incorporate the ERA central project into its proposal. He said since the renewal project would pay for any further improvements to the central city area, not the developer, this area should be exempt from the charge. " 1123178--5 'I&f Public Hearing was opened. Jim Lemert, 10 East 40th Jim Johnston, 179 West 37th Ed Hostick, 660 Hughes Street Rosalie Lemert, 10 East 40th Avenue Alan Loe, 2490 Adams Street (reading a letter from Connie Holvey) Donald Micken, 1163 West 11th Ken Jones (past president of the South Hills Neighborhood Association) Wes Nebergall, 184 East 26th Avenue Huibert Paul, 4443 Pearl Joy Goolsby, 18 East 47th Avenue Phyllis Earley, 3945 Mill Street Jon Stafford, 1060 Madison George Adams, 4970 West Hillside Drive Michael Horton, 90541 Smith Lane The above named people all spoke in favor of the systems development charge. Also, Crest Drive Citizens, Jefferson Area Neighbors, South Hills Neighborhood, Friendly Area Neighborhood, Hawkins Highlands, Amazon Neighbors, and Westside Downtown Quality Project endorsed the systems development charge concept. Reasons given in support of the charge included: There is little hard data that proves development pays its way. The 1975 Rand Study stated that a systems development charge does not affect the availability of low-cost housing and Corvallis, which uses the system, has more low-cost housing than any other city in the state of Oregon. Other arguments were that the objection that the charge would be inflationary was moot when compared to the benefits of the charge. In addition, it was stated that in many cases the City does not collect building permit fees for several months, which means the cost is passed on to the buyer as the service development charge woul d be. It was argued that growth woul d not be deterred by the charge and that it was more cost effective to directly help those trying to get into the housing market, rather than attack the systems development charge. The Homebuilder's Association of Lane County and Eugene Realtors were not actually interested in keeping. down the cost of new homes, or they would not include costly house- hold appliances in the cost of the home, since these were temporary costs; whereas the service development charge could be permanently paid off. Other reasons stated for favoring the systems development charge were that it would be tax deductible, while an assessment charge was not. Opponents to the charge said that 70 to 80 percent of those who would pay assessments were with those already living in 1/23/78--6 '+5 e e e e Eugene, but statistics showed that many people moved away from the South Willamette Street rather than pay an assessment for the street, leaving the less affluent to pay for it while getting decreased livability of environment. Much of the housing on the fringes of the City where people moved to get away from assessed areas, is luxurious and should not be receiving subsidies. Still other reasons included a belief that those with a low or fixed income should not be forced to move out of their homes because of high assessments. It would be better to be priced out of the housing market than to buy a home and then be forced out by too high assessment charges. The charge might force the City to grow up, rather than out. Those speaking against the systems development charge were: John Boyer, 1445 Willamette Street, No.5 Mary Wahl, 1901 Minda (for Commissioner Robert Wood) Emerson Hamilton, 302 West 5th Avenue, President of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce Vernon D. Gleaves, 975 Oak Thomas Slocum, 2125 Fairmount e Reasons stated in opposition included: the community should pay for projects which benefit the community; owners of new homes in the hills would have to pay for the improvement of streets in the city, which those owners seldom use. The charge would make it so expensive to build in the city that it would work against the City.s objective of compact growth by forcing the development outside the city. Also, the concept that new home buyers don't pay their fair share is false and a rebate might become necessary. Eugene already has a good Public Works Department which has caused public costs to decrease, so the present system should be retained. In addition, public build- ings would have to pay an exhorbitant front-end tax. Other opposition views included: Because the cost of housing will go up, those on a fixed income will suffer; new development does not cause major capital improvements to be needed, but generates income for the City while developers pay the major portion of the costs for improvements. The Chamber of Commerce, with the exception of City Manager, voted in opposition to the change. The City might not continue to need as much as $600,000 for improvements and new development pays for itself. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Ms. Smith asked what alternative$the Assessment Committee considered. Mr. Anderson said there had been many possibilities, including a sewer user charge, but the systems development charge had seemed the - 1/23/78--7 ",., best route because it was fair and workable. Ms. Smith asked if the Committee thought the Council should determine exceptions to the charge. Mr. Anderson replied a number of exceptions had been consi- ~ dered; for example, ERA's suggestion. However, this was a political ' decision which should be determined by Council. Mr. Lieuallen said he wanted the Council to take action on the issue tonight. He said no charge system was perfect, but that the one proposed was more equitable than the one being used. Mr. Bradley asked why the Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, and Homebuilder1s Association were all opposed to the systems develop- ment charge, since the cost would be passed on to the home buyer. Mr. G 1 ea ves sa i d the bu i1 der added the cha rge as a front-end payment, which meant he made money. However, disadvantages of the system outweighed advantages because the homeowner was assessed for his present home according to what it would cost him to buy a new home. In other words, the associations mentioned by Mr. Bradley were con- cerned that the homebuyer and owner would both pay more with the SDC. Mr. Bradley said it seemed the associations were looking at the consumers point of view. Mr. Delay asked if the opposition were saying that if the cost of housing were increased, existing housing would also go up in cost because of taxes. Contrary to this, he said, the valuation could be doubled on homes and taxes cut in half, depending on what the City needed in the way of public services. Mr. Gleaves said if the cost of housing in the City went up, it would be to the builders advan- tage to build outside the city. He said there were no pure figures on the tax situation. However, new residential growth last year raised ~ $300,000, of which any extra should be credited to the homeowner. .., Mr. Bradley asked if the systems development charge would cause development problems for the County, considering that the County had zoning districts which permitted fewer units per acre than the city. Mrs. Niven said that development problems could be caused for jurisdictions outside the City, like the city of Veneta. Mr. Bradley suggested this would be consistent with the 1990 Plan in that it would help develop satellite communities. However, Mrs. Niven countered that the satellite concept included developing employment opportunities, not just bedroom communities. Mr. Williams said the distance of a residence from the center of employment was inversely proportionate to incomes. He said as the cost of housing in Eugene went up, pressures would be increased for people to move out of town. Mr. Obie felt the ordinance, as proposed, did not solve the South Willamette Street problem because it did not change the assessment procedures. He said ERA1s and JHC1s points had to be considered, but Council did not have the time or energy to do that at this evening~ meeting. He suggested that Council schedule a work session on the ordinance. Mr. Delay agreed the issue should be rescheduled. - 1/23/78--8 'fi - e Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that Council approve, in concept, the systems development charge, in view of the testimony. Mr. Lieuallen said the issue could not be resolved, but that Council owed the public the motion statement. Mr. Hamel felt that Coucil should settle the issue of either having the charge or not. He did not know how the matter would be settled later, when there had already been two pUblic hearings on the issue. Ms. Smith said that she could not support the motion because the Assessment Committee had spent months on its recommendations and Council should study them more thoroughly before taking action. Mr. Williams said the charge was a gift to the home seller, but might not be worth it in the long run because of the increased hardship to the home buyer. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed with Haws, Delay, Hamel, Bradley, and Lieuallen, voting aye; Obie, Smith, and Williams voting no. C. Liquor License Application: New Outlet, The Ginza Japanese Restaurant (R), 26 Willamette; applicant: The Magnolia Tree, Inc. Manager said all papers were in order and staff recommended approval. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to forward with approval to OLCC. Motion carried unaniously. 4It III. Ordinances Held for Second Reading--None IV. Ordinances for First Reading C.B. 1593--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Barger Drive from Highway 99 to 200' west of Ohio Street; sanitary sewer on Barger Drive from West Irwin Way west to the N/S section line of Sections 16 & 17 and 20 & 21 (605--75-28) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing February 6, 1978, and panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading February 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1594--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Lexington Park Subdivision and 1st Addition to Lexington Park (1337 & 1430)(77-07) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. ~ 1/23/78--9 ~8 r [ Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing February 6, 1978, and panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading February 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. - C.B. 1595--~evying assessments for storm sewer within Annamidaz Subdivision (1390)(77-39) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing February 6, 1978, and panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading February 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1596--Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Chase Street from Royal Avenue to Bell Avenue (1365)(77-41) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing February 6, 1978, and panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading February 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1597--Levying assessments for 1/2 cents levy on various Planned Unit Developments (76-1008) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. - Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing February 6, 1978, and panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading February 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1598--Concerning elections; amending Section 2.1990(1) re: penalties; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present request- ing it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, 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. 1/23/78--10 - ~ . Mr. Bradley asked if the existing penalty was $100. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney, said the present penalty clause did not apply to the election ordinance. She said it was originally intended that the Council would determine the appropriate fine for elections, but that did not happen. Because of this, the general fine of $100 would go into effect. Mr. Bradley was concerned about the confinement time. He said it was bad precedent to have a jail term prescribed by the ordinance if it would not be used or be appropriate. He suggested the Elections Ordinance should increase the fine and elminate the jail term. He would be willing to ask that the motion be so amended. Assistant Manager said in cases of election fraud, where signatures had been manufactured, the consequence should not be just monetary punishment. Mr. Bradley suggested a $1,000 fine be set in addition to forfeiture of office. Assistant Manager pointed out that in the case of an initiative referendum, an office holder would not be involved in crime. -. Mr. Bradley asked if the ordinance could be worded so the penalty of a jail term were tied in only to cases of fraud. Ms. Benjamin said that was possible. Assistant Manager said if the Council wished the staff to distinguish the most culpable crimes, it would study the ordinance in that vein. Mr. Bradley suggested staff come back with refinements to the ordinance with the idea in mind that Council might want to amend the ordinance. As an alternative, he said staff could bring the ordinance back for approval a week from that Wednesday. Mr. Bradley began a motion to that effect, but Mayor Keller reminded him there was already a motion on the floor. Mr. Bradley wanted to amend the main motion. Assistant Manager pointed out the motion was for the second reading of the motion, so the motion could not be amended until the first motion were voted on. Mr. Delay suggested Council deal with the specific issues about the ordinance as an agenda item at another meeting. Mr. Lieuallen agreed. Mr. Bradley reminded Council that if he voted no on the motion on the floor, it would not pass. He said he wanted a compromise along the lines that the staff would come back with the possible amendment which could be voted on. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18107. - 50 1/23/78 -- 11 " ! V. Resolutions Res. No. 2819--Authorizing the transfer of noncontingency appropriations within a given fund between programs and/or object groups was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2820--Authorizing garbage hauling rate increases effective March 1, 1978, was read by number and title only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Haws pointed out he had raised good arguments against the resolution, but had apparently convinced no one but himself. . , ' Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with Delay, Williams, Hamel, Lieuallen, and Smithvoting aye; Haws and Bradley voting no. Res. No. 2821--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period January 11 through January 23, 1978, was read by number and title. r , , Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Approval of Minutes Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Council Minutes of December 12, 1977, and January 9, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to January 25, 1978. - ~:nrl~ Ci ty Manager CTH:DT:jm/CM7a15 - 1/23/78--12 51