Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/1978 Meeting - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL Apri 1 12, 1978 Adjourned meeting from April 10, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:30 a.m., J\pril 12,1978, at King's Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley (arrived late), Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Councilor Jack Delay as absent. I. ORDINANCES HELD FOR SECOND READING The following Council Bill, read the first time March 27, 1978, and lacking unanimous consent, was brought back for second reading. Council Bill 1637--Authorizing rezoning from County RA and AGT to City R-1PD property located south of Old Dillard Road and along Dillard Road was read by Council Bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. C.B. 1652--Levying Assessments for paving Country Club Road from Valley River Way to Delta Highway (1327)(76-62) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and returned to Hearings Panel for hearing April 17, 1978, with panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 24, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. - C.B. 1653--Levying assessments for 1/2 cent levy on various Planned Unit Developments and property not previously assessed (76-1008) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and returned to Hearings Panel for hearing April 17, 1978, with panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 24, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1654--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Bonner Plat and sanitary and storm sewer to serve the area between Bonner Pl at and Berte1 sen Road (1332)( 77-06) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and returned to Hearings Panel for hearing April 17, 1978, with panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 24, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. 4/12/78--1 2~1 '- Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and returned to Hearings Panel for hearing April 17, 1978, with panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 24, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1657--Levying assessments for paving 17th Avenue from 300 feet east of Quaker Street to 600 feet east of Quaker Street (1459)(77-42) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and returned to Hearings Panel for hearing April 17, 1978, with panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 24, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1658--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Willow Tree Subdivision (1341)(77-47) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the ~ first time and returned to Hearings Panel for hearing April 17, 1978, with panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 24, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. III. RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 2872--Authorizing initiating process for sanitary sewer construction in Jessen Drive from Melrose Loop to 99 North (1138) was read by number and title. (Affected property on petition; assessable costs: sewers, 25 percent; City costs: trunk sewer, $18,000 and deferred assessments, $27,000). Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the Resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 2873--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period March 27 through April 10, 1978, was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. - 4/12/78--2 2'iB - e e IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith to approve the Council Minutes of March 27, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried , unanimously. V. SCHEDULING SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING FOR T-2000 PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to schedule a special Council meeting for April 17, at 7:30 p.m., for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the T-2000 Plan. Motion carried unanimnously. VI. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL A. Motions by Brian Obie Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the proposed systems development tax ordinance be amended to provide for an exemption from payment of said tax on the first $20,000 of improvement costs, with a graduated schedule developed on improvement costs in excess of $20,000. The objective to be accomplished is to establish a progressive revenue-raising device on improvement in excess of the $20,000 exemption with a projected funding level in the first year of approximately $1 million. Mr. Obie said the purpose of the motion would be to provide relief for people buying homes on a lower level of income, in order to keep them in the housing market. As a point of order, Mr. Williams wondered if a motion to amend a council bill between readings is appropriate. City Attorney Stan Long said that, if it is a request for the Council to authorize staff to do work and bring back a report to the Council then it would be an appropriate motion. Mr. Obie said he would revise his motion accordingly. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Obie moved, and it was seconded, that the City Council formally request the City of Springfield and Lane County to ,consider the adoption of a systems development tax, within their respective jurisdictions, similar in scope and applica- tion to that being applied in Eugene, in order to establish a consistent area-wide approach to the problem of financing general public works improvements necessitated by new development, and that the request be made after the ordinance is passed. Mr. Obie said he made the motion because of his concern that people would be taxed to the extent that Eugene would become an elitist community and some people would be forced to move elsewhere. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. 4/12/78--3 m~ Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the City Council clarify its position on the issue of the proposed formation of a port district in the Eugene-Springfiled area and that ~ the Council's current posture on that issue be that it shall ... not take a formal position for or against until sufficient information is available to the Council to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposal. Mr. Saul, Planner, gave a synopsis of the Cone-Breeden matter. He said that rezoning of the Cone-Breeden property became effective following annexation of the property on April 7, 1977. The petition filed on June 17, challenging the rezoning, alleged that the rezoning violated Goal 3, Goal 2, and Goal 14. The City responded by filing a motion for dismissal on the grounds that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to hear such appeals. A Hearings Officer subsequently recommended that the dismissal be denied. The Commission accepted the recommendation of the Hearings Officer. Additionally, the Board of e 4/12/78--4 2~ - Directors of the League of Oregon Cities subsequently directed its legal staff to intervene. That intervention was denied. Following a hearing on the merits of the appeal, said Mr. Saul, the Hearings Officer recommended in November 1977, that the City would be obligated to comply with the requirements of Goal 3 and Goal 2. LCDC conducted a hearing in December and at that time the Commission denied the request of the League of Oregon Cities to intervene. It also postponed a decision on the appeal pending adoption of an administrative rule which dealt with the status of lands within City boundaries under the statewide goals. LCDC considered the administrative rule on January 19, 1978, and amended that rule to state that land within City boundaries was either urbanizable or urban under statewide goals. That action eliminated the contention that either Goal 3 or Goal 2 applied to the challenged rezoning. Mr. Saul continued that the revised recommendation was submitted on February 14, 1978. It held that the property had to be considered urbanizable land, that the conversion standards in Goal 14 involving change from urbanizable to urban had to be applied at the time of rezoning and that the City had failed to adopt any findings supporting the decision on the rezoning. LCDC on April 6 took the following action: 1) Rejected the position of the Hearings Officer that the City failed to adopt findings of fact. 2) Determined that the findings of fact adopted by the City were insufficient because the findings were prepared prior to the pUblic hearing. Mr. Saul concluded that staff feels the issues include: e 1. Jurisdiction. The City's position is supported by sources which include legislative history, numerous commentaries on statutes, and the League of Oregon Cities' position. 2. Procedure. There are multiple questions concerning the standards to be applied which should be resolved by a Court. 3. Substance. The April 6 determination of the Commission that the findings of the Council were insufficient, because they were prepared prior to the public hearing, raises a number of concerns about the Council's decision-making process. City Attorney Stan Long summarized that there are two possible options for seeking a reversal: 1. Petition for re-hearing. The City Attorney's office is investigating that option. 2. In the event a re-hearing is denied, the City should appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. Mr. Haws wondered what it is LCDC thinks it wants Eugene to do. Mr. Saul said that question would be hard to answer. He noted that one Commission member said that, if the matter were sent back to the City, he wondered what it is they would want the City to do that they have not already done. There was no answer to that question at that time. Mr. Long noted the formal parties in the matter are the petitioners, the City, and the property owners. Mr. Haws wondered if another party could pursue the matter should the City decide not to. Mr. Long said that they would be legally able to do so. Mr. Haws said he was troubled with when the City should bow out and let the property owners start paying for it. Mr. Long said that has been done in simple issues but that, when confronted with claims that the 1990 Plan is invalid, and processes are in error, and - 4/12/78--5 .<51 agricultural land must be preserved, the City responds typically another way. The City of Eugene has felt that land inside the City is urban land. By rejecting that argument, it would appear that doubt has been cast on ~ that basic plan provision. The validity of the rule itself may well be ... decided in this case. No city has been in a stronger position to argue that land inside is for urban use purposes than is Eugene at this time. If the City does nothing, then Mr. Long said it would be saying that LCDC has the right to review zoning actions, that it may substitute its judgment for a city's judgment. In his view, that is not permitted and LCDC does have that type of jurisdiction. An interesting legal question also is whether the intervenors could sit differently than the City Council for example, less quasi-judicially and being allowed ex parte contacts. That question would need to be looked into and would be important in the long run. Mr. Bradley suggested the idea of adopting the hearings official process on rezonings. Other options he mentioned were treating the decision of the City Council as valid and letting the intervenors decide whether to appeal, or let them do nothing a~d let the petitioners decide what to do. His position is that he has no problems with it coming back and having the City Council either adopt new findings based on the record or assign it to a hearings officer. Mr. Williams said he disagrees with Mr. Bradley regarding having it come back to the Council because of the precedent it would establish. He said that to say that adopting findings in advance is invalid is absurd. Mr. Obie wondered if Mr. Bradley considered LCDC to be the zoning authority for Eugene. Mr. Bradley does not see the issue as being that broad. He sees it as a narrow issue which involves correcting a procedure so as to legitimize a decision. He said that to do that would be to rehear the matter. His assumption is that the City may have done something wrong. If it is wrong, it would be easily corrected, ~ and the problem would be eliminated. Mr. Saul said he didn't know how .., that could be 'defined as a narrow issue. He feels Mr. Bradley is saying that the whole procedure is wrong. Mr. Haws said that he felt the motion was unnecessary as the staff could proceed as they had been authorized already to do so. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that Council accept staff's recommendations on how to proceed. Mr. Bradley suggested that the staff be instructed to seek a rehearing, but that, if that failed, it should come back to Council first before deciding whether to go to the Court of Appeals. Vote was taken on the motion which carried, Mr. Obie, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Hamel voting aye, Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Haws voting no, Ms. Smith abstaining, and Mayor Keller breaking the tie by voting aye. D. Status Report on Air Quality Maintenance Activities Assistant City Manager Keith Martin reviewed the background of the issues regarding the City's stand on clean air and livability. He noted that there is increasing evidence that there is inability of the filtering systems to catch sub-micron size particulate matters that are dangerous. There is no way to assess the ratio between large and small particulate matters. He said that the federal government, ~' 4/12/78--6 152 - e - in identifying different types of pollution, has identified the following seven categories: 1) Suspended particulates; 2) carbon monoxide; 3) sulfur dioxide; 4) photo chemical oxidants; 5) nitrogen dioxide; 6) lead; and 7) hydrocarbons. He said that three are of concern--suspended particluate matter, carbon monoxide, and photo- chemical oxidants. He added that the City is in nonattainment on those three standards. For that reason the Air Quality Maintenance Committee was formed. He said it is important to look at the sources which generate the pollutants. There are four different categories: Background or natural (such as trees), point sources (such as industries), area sources (such as autos), and intrusion sources (such as field burning). He noted that the northerners are concerned with what is put into the river from the south and Eugene is concerned with what Northerners put into the air. It is important to keep that in mind. Mr. Martin went on to say that Eugene has a long history of trying to deal with these matters. In 1958, the air pollution ordinance was passed; in 1968 LRAPA was created. The smoke management program which was developed has had positive effects, but there still needs to be much improvement. He said the problem now is that Eugene is in non-attainment. Eugene cannot gain compliance unless some of the intrusion sources are dealt with. Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the air quality maintenance advisory commit- tee would be able to determine what the major source of pollutants is. Mr. Martin said those things would be looked at and, of course, the monitoring systems are not as sophisticated as they should be. Ralph Johnston, LRAPA, noted that autos are the primary contributor to carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidant problems. As far as sus- pended particulates are concerned, autos do contribute but it is mainly the road dust connected with autos that is significant. Mr. Martin concluded that control of air and water pollution is the first consideration in virtually all of the policies. The staff is concerned about the community's understanding of the issues. Ci ty Attorney Stan Long noted di s tri buti on to Counci 1 members of an April 11 draft of a document which will go to EPA, as well as a letter of April 12 to the members of the Environmental Quality Commission. He said the key fact is that the federal government has required states to come up with plans on attaining clean air standards. In Oregon's plan was a recommendation that it go to 50,000 acres of field burning per year. Plan changes are to be made only with the approval of the federal government. Oregon authorized changes without going to the federal government. Eugene, therefore, asked the Environental Protection Agency to issue a notice of violation. After the 1977 legislative session, the state requested an amendment to authorize 180,000 acres per year to be burned. Eugene asked the federal govern- ment to reject that change. On January 27, 1978, EPA returned the Oregon revision request to the state because of procedural and substan- tive deficiencies. It stated that DEQ had failed to give adequate notice for the revision hearings and had failed to properly certify the revision submittal. Two options involved were to submit a revised plan or agree to a one-year interim control strategy where EPA would '" 4/12/78--7 l53 not prosecute for violations if the state would come up with all measures in its power to eliminate the particulate problem. Oregon chose the latter option and formulated an interim control 4IIt strategy for EPA approval. It proposed: 1. Requiring backfiring of all south priority acreage when the wind is in the direction of Eugene; 2. Disallowing burning after September 1 where moisture content of the grass straw stubble and new growth is greater than 20 percent; 3. Paving or oiling certain unpaved roads in Springfield; and 4. Some industrial point source emissions reductions. The DEQ contended that those steps would adequately offset the 130,000 increase in field burning. One of the principal objections that the City has to the proposed interim strategy is that it is unresponsive to EPA's directive to take all reasonable measures to alleviate the particulate problem in the Willamette Valley. The City has maintained it is willing to negotiate and recommend any reasonable measures for 1978. It hopes that action will be taken promptly. Working out a reasonable agreement would be better then having to take legal action. Mrs. Smith wondered if the negotiating climate seems any better now. Mr. Long said that the City is cautiously optimistic at this point. E. Appointment--Sign Code Board of Appeals: Ex officio member: Larry Hubbard, 1840 West Eleventh, for terminating 4/1/80 e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve the appoint- ment. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Mr. Obie abstaining. F. t1inority Commission Interviews: Mr. Hamel noted that he and Mr. Bradley had interviewed minority commission applicants. They were not completely satisfied that they had interviewed enough, so will meet tomorrow night with people from the minority commission and get their ideas as to how they would like to proceed. Council will be informed of the results of that meeting. VII. Liquor License Applications for Change of Ownership. A. One O'clock Market, 698 West Sixth Avenue (PS) from William Stone- field to William and Myrna Sweet. B. Sundance Natural Foods, 748 East 24th (PS), from Anthony and Judith Stahelski, to Donald and Georgia Sharp. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to recommend approval and forward the applications to the OLCC. Motion carried unanimously. . 4/12/78--8 ~~ - VIII. Improvement Petitions Res. No. 2874--Initiating process for sanitary sewer construction to serve El-Mary Subdivision (1330) was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. (Affected property on petition; assessable costs: sanitary sewers, 100 percent; City costs, none) Res. No. 2875--Initiating process for street paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and pedestrian way construction within Seychelles West II Subdivision (1359) was read by number and title. (Affected property on petition; assessable costs; paving, 100 percent; sewers, 100 percent; pedestrian way, 100 percent; City costs: storm sewer $32,000; extra width, $10,200) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. e Res. No. 2876--Initiating process for street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction to serve Tadmor Subdivision (1393) was read by number and title. (Affected property on petition; assessable costs: paving, 100 percent; sewers, 100 percent; City costs, none) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2877--Initiating process for street paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way construction within and adjacent to Skywood Subdivision (1458) was read by number and title. (Affected property on petition; assessable costs: paving, 100 percent; sewers, 100 percent; pedestrian way, 100 percent; City costs: none) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2878--Initiating process for street paving of south side of 5th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to 320 feet west (1613) was read by number and title. (Affected property on petition; assessable costs: paving, 100 percent; City costs, none) 'Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. . 4/12/78--9 255 Res. No. 2879--Initiating process for storm sewer construction within Praegitzer's Plat (1522) was read by number and title. - (Affected property on petition; assessable costs; storm sewers, 100 percE'nt; City cos ts, none) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resol uti on. Roll call vote. Moti on carried unanimously. Res. No. 2880--Initiating process for street paving and sanitary sewer construction in Bowmont Street from 400 feet south of Highland Oaks Drive to 900 feet south of Highland Oaks Drive (1599) was read by number and title. (Affected property on petition; assessable costs: paving, 69 percent; sewers, 100 percent; City costs, paving--$8,200) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. IX. Calling Public Hearing May 17, 1978 re: Easement vacation Map has been distributed to the Council members. C.B. 1659--Calling pUblic hearing May 17, 1978, regarding easement vacation located between Happy Lane and Fir Acres Road, north of Cal Young Road, City of Eugene (City of Eugene) (EV 77-8) was ,read by council bill title and number only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. 4It Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18162. X. Approval of Minutes Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve the Council minutes of April 5, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. XI. Study Session: T-2000 Plan Materials were distributed to Council members March 29, 1978. Manager said that a presentation had been planned originally, but perhaps it would be more appropriate to review the schedule and decide on a date when the Council would need to make a decision. Some time would need to be allowed for reconciliation of the differences with other jurisdictions, but hopefully a date of May 15 could be set. . 4/12/78--10 ~5' e Jim Farah, Planner, said a recommendation would be made to the Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee on April 13 that they act in a coordinating role to meld different jurisdictional opinions together. He figures that will take a month to accomplish. Council in the meantime could recommend to the Transportation Committee what its position is. Mayor Keller noted that Jim Bernhard of the Planning Commission has advised that a Planning Commission member will be present at all meetings of the Council regarding T-2000. Mr. Bernhard reiterated that, in view of the time element~ it might be a better way to handle questions that Council might have. / e Ollie Snowden, Transportation Coordinator for L-COG, said that the Trans- portation Committee considered alternatives suggested by the Community Meet group. He felt that it was a sufficient basis for judgments that were made by the Transportation Planning Committee. He said a good many of the projects had already been studied by the Transportation Planning Committee and were not recommended for the final plan. The technical report discusses the reasons why not. Mr. Obie felt it was necessary to determine the validity of the basis on which the plan was prepared regardless of what positions have been taken in the past. He does not feel the plan can be adopted if 15 percent transportation alternatives cannot be realized. He also noted that the second issue would be the Level of Service E. He wonders if the community will accept that. Mr. Farah responded that he does not believe this city is saying it will reach 15 percent by the year 2000 but rather than it is a goal, that the City is aiming at a major increase in transit ridership. Second, the plan is predicated on a five-year update with an intensive monitoring system. Therefore, the plan could be changed in five years without invalidating what is suggested for immediate implementation. Regarding Level of Service E, he said that the staff's response to the Planning Commission was that, if the Commission was concerned about the higher level of service, it could be addressed by changing the phasing of particular projects, specifically areas such as the Ferry Street Bridge. Mr. Lieuallen moved, and it was seconded, to request staff to do a program model and request the State transportation people to supply information on how long it might take and ask if they can do it fairly soon. Gary Spivak, Data Processing, said they tried to pick out what seemed to work on the computer models. He said they feel it is a reasonable and efficient system and needs to be tested as a whole. Mr. Williams said he doesn't see any reason not to ask staff to run the data. He thinks the Plan is a bad plan that won't work, but he doesn't see there is much choice and hopefully, by the time of the five-year update, maybe the data can be changed. Because of concern by some Council members regarding the issue of timing, Ollie Snowden of L-COG said that July 1 is not a hard and fast date. After July 1, however, without an adopted plan, . projects cannot be programmed with Federal Highway or Urban Mass Transit money. LTD is one of the agencies which would suffer from lack of funding. He said that modeling is a tool and that judgment is involved in using it. . 4/12/78--11 257 It was the judgment of the Committee that testing on Community Meet's proposals would not do any good. Don Allen, Public Works Director, said Council should know that the staff only has three votes on a 15 man ~ committee. He hopes Council will understand that this report is put 'IF toget.her by a majority vote. Ms. Smith wondered if the model was really that important in terms of Council looking at their concerns. Mr. Hamel wondered if Council could accept the concept with the understanding that information will be gathered and with the possibility of changes in the T-2000 Plan after July 1. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to CJL:.:8. Charles T. Hen~ ~ City Manager CTH: DP: jmjCM23b1 e ^ . 4/12178--12 :t5a