Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/1979 Meeting e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 12, 1979 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order February 12, 1979, 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber by Council President Jack Delay, with the following Councilors present: Betty Smith, Eric Haws, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Mayor Gus Keller and Councilor D. W. Hamel were absent. 1. Public Hearings A. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning Willakenzie Island Areas 1, 7, and 8 (A/Z 78-11) From County AGT, RA, R-1 to City R-1 Recommended by Planning Commission December 11, 1978, with unanimous vote, except for Area 8, where vote was 5:1. e Manager said the item came at Council IS request to consider annexation/ rezonings in the Willakenzie area because of their frequent piecemeal occurrence. There are seven island annexations, three of which are being considered tonight. The three to be considered were: Island Area 1, including property located along Tulip and Balboa streets, Green Acres Road. and Holly Avenue; Area 7, including property located along Hickory Avenue, Sisters View, Mahlon Avenue, Westward Ho Avenue, Oxbow Way, Garden Way, Conestoga Way, Honeysuckle and Van Duyn streets; and Area 8, including property in the Bar M Subdivision, property along Willakenzie Road, Best Lane, Van Avenue, Bogart Lane, Bailey Lane, Randall Street, and Arcadia Street. Dr. John MacKinnon, Jr., President, Planning Commission, said the Planning Commission and Council, in the past several years, had had to deal with annexation requests in the Willakenzie area on a piece- meal basis. This resulted in illogical city borders. The areas to be considered are island areas, surrounded entirely by city limits. It became obvious to the Planning Commission that all of these areas, as a whole, should be looked at. There are eight identifiable areas, three of which were chosen for the initial annexation/rezoning. These areas are primarily residential developments, have zoning which con- forms to the General Plan, and the City can provide services in the near future. In June 1978, the Planning Commission asked the Council to proceed, with public hearings held by the Planning Commission in November. Written testimony was taken and discussed further. e b5 2/12/79--1 December 11 the Pl anni ng Commi ssion recommended that these three areas be annexed to the city and be rezoned to City R-1 zoning. The Planning Commission strongly feels these areas are physically in the city of 41' Eugene and would like to make them a legitimate part of Eugene. He noted the benefits of the city which accrue to those people living in the areas, although they are not paying city taxes to support those benefits. Jim Saul, Planner, noted for Council the extensive materials pertinent to the annexations which had been presented to Council prior to this meeting. The material included testimony at the public hearings before the Planning Commission in November and December, written testimony taken by the Planning Commission, plus two written staff reports, and Planning Commission minutes of the two meetings. Mr. Saul said Island Area 1 includes 15.27 acres which has been com- pletely subdivided and is developed at a density of approximately four units per acre. Island Area 7 is located between 1-105 and Harlow Road, immediately west of 1-5. It totals 47.43 net acres with most of the area subdivided into half-acre or smaller lots. The area is substantially developed, although there are scattered vacant parcels. He said the bulk of the area is zoned R-1. Island Area 8 is the largest island in the Willakenzie area and includes a variety of situations. Portions of the area (Bar M Subdivision) are presently developed at an urban density of approximately four units per acre. Other portions of the area are developed at a somewhat lesser density of one to two units per acre. Finally, the area includes the most significant amount of vacant land (over 100 acres) of any of the ~ island areas. ... The Planning Commission reviewed these parcels for annexation under three standards: The City standards, which include whether or not urban services are available and the annexation is consistent with the adopted plans; whether urban services can be extended; whether it would be a logical extension of the city boundary; and whether the property is contiguous with city limits. He said those were the only standards by law applicable to this annexation. However, proceeding on the cautious side, the Planning Commission also reviewed standards under the LCDC Administrative Rule and applicable statewide goals. He noted the Planning Commission, with concurrence of City Council, had initiated the annexations. However, there is also a request in Island Area 7, which had been privately initiated with the Lane County Boundary Commission. He noted the Boundary Commission is obligated to act within 60 days, unless the City and applicant agree to post- ponement. The owners did agree before the Boundary Commission to allow postponement of consideration of the annexation until the City resolved the overall island status of the area. Mr. Saul said one further letter had been received from Isabelle Montgomery, 201 Bailey Lane, and entered her objection into the record. e bb 2/12/79--2 e In calling for ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest, Councilor Obie noted he owned property in Island Area 8 and, therefore, would abstain from discussion and voting on that island area. No other ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. No one spoke in favor of the annexations. Those speaking in opposi- tion were as follows: e Ira Spieler, 325 Van Avenue, spoke regarding Island Area 8. He did not believe the people in the area were adequately notified of the proceedings and felt most people in the area were opposed to the annexation. He had been told by the Lane County Housing Authority if the area were to be annexed and rezoned, it would result in appro- ximately 1,000 residents in the area. He was concerned about the crowded living and traffic conditions that would result. He noted difficulty in obtaining information, in spite of his attempts to have questions answered. He wondered if the annexation were con- sistent with the plans of the City and County. He wondered why the City wants to annex the area. He was not sure the boundaries would be all that logical and noted Island Area 8 was not an island. He said the people in the area were not requesting services from the City, and noted the strong opposition against annexation from resi- dents in the area at the Planning Commission hearings. He said regarding the argument that citizens in the area benefit from city opportunities, the same statement could apply to Veneta, Cottage Grove, or Creswell. He felt that to be a weak argument for annex- ation. He requested more time because the people had not been told what the ramifications of the proceedings would be. Kenneth Gentry, 656 Mahlon Avenue, spoke against annexation of Island Area 7. He noted because of the freeway and rights-of-way given to the City, his particular area was surrounded and that was how it became an island. In order to make an investment on the land owned in the area, people subdivided and provided septic tanks for the lots. He felt most people would move out once they could sell their properties. As far as the benefits from the City, for instance, medical services, he said he could still receive those if he were to live in Marcola. He felt the arguments offered were nothing other than the city surrounds his area. Edwin Zack, 275 Bogart, spoke regarding Island Area 8. He said in the past, the City has avoided annexation when it was faced by opposition of the residents, unless a health hazard did exist. The residents in the area indicate in a survey an overwhelming opposition. - b7 2/12/79--3 He said the septic tank problem did not apply to his area. Regarding criteria and illogical boundaries, he said there are two rights-of-way ~ for 1-5 and Beltline that make his area an island. Otherwise, he ,., said, there are 300 acres that are just adjacent to the city limits. People in his area do not want to be annexed, the boundaries are not illogical, and his area is not an island. Overwhelming sentiment in the area is against annexation. They do not want to be part of the city. They do not feel they are taking advantage of city benefits as they are paying for all services they are receiving. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Regarding adequacy of notice, Mr. Saul said the Planning Department mailed notices of the Planning Commission hearings to in excess of 900 residents and property owners during October. On page 21 of the October staff report, the summary of the contents of the notice were contained. The notice indicated a copy of the preliminary staff report would be available to those interested residents by October 30, with it either being picked up at, or mailed by, the Planning Depart- ment. He said 250 copies were printed with approximately 175 left. After the Planning Commission hearing in November, residents were provided a ten-day period for written comment which were included in Council's materials. He said Mr. Spieler did,in fact, write. Notice of the hearing was also posted in 50 locations in various areas, as well as the legal notices in the newspaper. Regarding legal notice for this evening's hearing, Mr. Saul said anyone who had spoken at the public hearing and submitted written correspondence was provided a ~ letter of notice two weeks ago, with 82 individuals being notified. ~ Regarding the legitimacy of island status of the area, Mr. Saul directed Council to page 30 of the findings adopted by the Planning Commission. The findings included that the area is, in part, sur- rounded by freeway right-of-way, but to say the area is not urban in character is wrong. Immediately across the freeway is Springfield. Islands 7 and 8 are part of a dense urban concentration and are both legally and practically island areas. Regarding annexation being initiated to resolve septic tank problems, he said before the Planning Commission hearing, people in Island Area 7 did support the annexation, in particular, because of severe septic tank problems. Also, the Lane County Sanitarian did urge the City to proceed with the annexation to alleviate these problems. The Council and Planning Commission did not initiate the annexations because of presumed failures of septic tanks, but a much broader issue. He indicated Council could review findings in this regard in the written material s. Mr. Saul then responded to why the City is concerned and interested in this particular annexation and what benefits the City does provide to the residents. He said the City is pursuing the annexation based on a written report the Council endorsed in 1978, based on a broad range of e b8 2/12/79--4 . philosophical and general reasons, including the present inequities for city residents involved in the support of services provided to these island areas, and the general perception of what a city is. Also included in the materials was a discussion of the effect of failing to annex these areas on the City's overall ability to exer- cise authority in its adopted plans. If the City does not proceed with the annexations now, it will face a series of piecemeal frag- mented requests, with each one becoming more difficult. Some of those difficulties would include bypassing some properties to pro- vide services to those being annexed, deferred assessments, with city residents having to carry the tax burden of those deferred assessments. Regarding benefits that accrue to the areas in question, he referred Council to the Planning Commission discussion December 11, pages 16 and 61. Res. No. 3078--Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of Willa- kenzie Island Areas 1, 7, and 8, was read by number and title only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 11, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously with Mr. Obie abstaining on Island Area 8. - CB 1825--Authorizing rezoning from County AGT, RA, and R-l to City R-l property located within Willakenzie Island Areas 1, 7, and 8 was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 11, 1978, 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, with Mr. Obie abstaining for Island Area 8, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors voting aye, except Mr. Obie abstaining on Island Area 8, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18330. Councilor Delay indicated to those in the audience that the Council had received a very extensive packet of materials which had been read and studied prior to the meeting this evening. Ms. Miller said the decision had not been an easy one for her. She had read the letters . b't 2/12/79--5 and surveys, and the staff materials presented. Regarding the oppo- sition because of increased tax burden, she said that is a major ~ problem for all citizens. Regarding additional development, she .., hoped that those who are concerned about this problem will be parti- cularly involved when each particular new development is proposed. She offered her assistance to any people in the area for these pro- blems and/or specific projects. She had been in the area, and said it is, in fact, growing and looks much like a city. Those were the reasons for her supporting the annexation and rezoning. B. Appeal of Hearings Official Approval of Diagrammatic Stage of Goodpasture Island/Nazarene PUD (PD 78-16) Approval granted by Hearings Official November 14, 1978. Manager noted the location and said approval would be for 183 acres developed into a density of 14 units per acre with R-2 PD zoning. The appeal is by the applicants, who feel some of the conditions imposed by the Hearings Official should not be so imposed. Those conditions included: I} a requirement for dedication of property along the Willamette River; 2} requirement for improvement of bicycle path along the river; and 3) requirement that the developer obtain agreement from K-Mart to relocate the entrance to K-Mart parking lot to provide a common intersection between the two developments. Manager said the hearing must be limited to the discussion of the subject, as outlined in the appeal, i.e., whether or not the conditions should be required. Mr. Saul referred Council to the City Attorney's memorandum which, in effect, says it is within the scope of applicable law and the City Code to require dedication and improvement of the type required of the developers in this case. The courts normally consider four factors as to whether or not a deed requirement is reasonable, which he outlined from the City Attorney's memo. He noted in a supplementary report, the Planning staff's factual analysis regarding those four and other contested conditions. e No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor of the appeal were as follows: Harold Gillis, 975 Oak, attorney represented Goodpasture Island Development Company and the First Church of Nazarene. He had not received a copy of the City Attorney's opinion and, therefore, was not able to respond to it. He revi ewed the three condi ti ons imposed by the Hearings Official. He felt the issue was how far the City was . 10 2/12/79--6 e willing to go to require private land owners to pay for costs of improvements that, in the past, have been borne by taxpayers. He said State and Federal funds are available for the City's Greenway Plan. He was concerned regarding PUD requirements and not having foreknowledge of what conditions would be expected for improvement of the property. He felt these might be ad hoc conditions, as he did not see them specified in the City Codes and, thus, would not be applied to all property owners. The requirement for dedication and building of a pedestrian bike path by the owners seems to exceed the City's authority. Another issue left unresolved was how much footage was involved. He wondered where the bank is located and perhaps the location for the dedication might be different than a location at the water's edge. Rather than 50 feet from the bank, it might be 150 feet which could create a no man's island, which could not be used for anything. He said clarification was needed for the exact location. e Regarding the bike path being a policy requirement, he said the pri- vate land owner should not be required to pay for constructing such when the City and State can provide the funds to do that. Requiring the owner to pay for traffic signalization could be applied to any group in any neighborhood in any part of the city. He said when signalization is required and requested, those who benefit should have to pay. Costs are substantial, and he noted it could exceed $100,000. He felt the signalization would benefit more people than just those who would be in the project. He could not find anything in the City Code that did authorize requiring a private land owner to pay for costs of signals on a city street. A further concern was the condition that an agreement be made between the developer and K-Mart. He said if every other condition were met, but an agreement could not be reached with K-Mart, then the entire project would fail. The appellants cannot give the assurance that a private party would agree regarding the location of signals and relo- cation of the intersection. He said they would make a good faith attempt and try to come to an agreement, but could not assure that K-Mart would be willing to negotiate an agreement on changing the intersections. He felt the Oregon State Statutes should be examined for a specific State policy dealing with the Willamette Greenway and bike path/trail construction funding. It seems incongruous when there are specific State policies and guidelines that suggest these be purchased by the City or State, that land owners should have these conditions imposed in order to develop their land, when the State legislature has deter- mined it should be paid from general tax revenues or tax sharing monies. Those speaking against the appeal were: - 7/ 2/12/79--7 Lorie Loehr, 1312 Piper Lane, represented the Cal Young Nei~hborhood Association. It supported the Planning staff's recommendatlons ~ and the conditions imposed by the Hearings Official. Further support ~ was stated for the Planning staff's trying to create greater liva- bility through use of the river frontage with bike and pedestrian paths. Particular support was given for the 50-foot dedication by the developers. They also supported the recommendation that devel- opers be required to have two major traffic signals at two entrances. She noted the traffic generated will increase the traffic problem with other developments occurring in that area. The conditions imposed would retain livability in this area and would alleviate some of the problems incurred in such developments. Mr. Saul noted Council had a fairly extensive packet of written materials for this particular issue. He said all the issues had been covered in that information. All three issues raised have been raised before the Hearings Official. An important factor regarding dedica- tion along the Willamette River included that all the area involved in this discussion was shown on the submitted plans as being open space and recreational area. Therefore, the requirement for dedication would in no way affect the design for the development in that area. The City Code specifically allows inclusion of property dedicated for park purposes in the overall density calculations. Regarding the issue raised of uncertainty as to where the boundary is located along the river and the creation of a no man's land, Mr. Saul said the area between the top of the riverbank and the river's edge is part of the floodway. That would not be developable land. It is erroneous that this dedication would deprive the developer of some developable land. The wording of the condition does allow for a reduction of 50 feet, if necessary, to accommodate recreational features. e He reiterated the four basic standards regarding the reasonableness of dedication in the City Attorney's memorandum. Whether or not these are similar conditions as those imposed on other developers of land, Mr. Saul said the City historically has required dedication of property along the Willamette River, even before the Greenway Plan was adopted. He gave examples of Valley River Center in 1973, and the rezoning in 1972 of the Thunderbird corner at Country Club and 1-105. The City has had a consistent posture of requiring dedication for proposals fronting directly on the Willamette River. He said the dedication requirements are consistent with applicable neighborhood goals, policies in the 1990 Plan and the Goodpasture Island Study, and Statewide Goal 15. As to what extent the developer seeks benefit, he said it does appear with the development of 2,560 units, there will be some benefit to the developer. As to what extent the proposed devel- opment will give rise to a public need for the dedicated land and improvements, Mr. Saul said the development will be a major church complex with 2,560 residential units, plus auxilliary uses generated. It is extimated there will be 5,000 to 6,000 residents residing when fully developed. The City has a normal standard of 15 acres per 1,000 population as an objective or goal that it would hope to achieve for e 2/12/79--8 12. e park land. Under any set of standards, he said eight acres would appear miniscule compared to 75 to 90 acres the City would hope to acquire to serve this level of development. He said a review of the basic reasons for allowing medium-density development on Goodpasture Island was the ability to provide access to this area by other means than auto, by bike/pedestrian, which would link that area to the major areas of Eugene. He said the substantial units would generate the need for that. Also, a normal part of a development process, the developers are required to improve a number of facilities, i.e., streets, sidewalks, etc. In no cases, it pretended that only those who live in the area will use those facilities. The primary benefit would be for those persons, but others will be benefitting. Requiring improvement of the pedestrian/bike system is not unique to this situ- ation and he gave examples of other developments, i.e., Shasta Park PUD on Barger and Beltline Road, which does serve other areas as well. Regarding the traffic signalization, and agreement for a common inter- section with K-Mart, he said those are two distinctly different problems. A report from the City Attorney's office has been requested regarding legality of requiring the traffic signalization (Condition 18). This would defer judgement as to whether or not an installation would be imposed until the preliminary approval stage. The City Attorney's opinion has not been submitted and there is no definitive requirement established that the traffic signal be installed. The City is simply investigating as to the legality of this condition which then will be decided at a later stage. e The condition does require investigation of an agreement with K-Mart regarding an intersection. He reviewed with Council page 6 of the attorney's memo. If such an agreement cannot be reached, then alternatives could be considered. If none could be found, it may be necessary that condition be rejected. Council's reversal of this condition would thus be premature at this time. - In response to a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Saul said the traffic signal condition, if determined legal, either would or would not be imposed at Jhe time of preliminary approval, which is appealable to the City Council. Regarding the K-Mart intersection, the condition simply directs the appellants to attempt to reach an agreement with K-Mart. If K-Mart will not agree, then at the time of preliminary approval, there are a series of options: 1} submit a written document that K-Mart will not agree; and 2} realign and some how alter the traffic pattern of Delta Loop Road itself. In rebuttal, Mr. Gillis said the condition imposed is that an agree- ment must be made and submitted, not show proof that an attempt has been made to reach an agreement. He said it does not seem that condition can be met if K-Mart does not agree. He said the condition was imposed in November and immediately was appealed. He did not know how the appellants could show an attempt had been made to make an agreement. He reiterated all other conditions may be met, but the entire project lost if it cannot produce an agreement with K-Mart. Regarding City standards, he said historically, developers are faced 2/12/79--9 13 with all kinds of conditions. many of which seem to be semi-legal. He said there is no State authority which permits the City to do what ~ staff is requesting regarding dedication of park land. Nothing in ,., the City Codes or other standards indicates, in advance, what those standards are going to be. He felt those were ad hoc decisions and unfair. There is no specific City ordinance that says the developer should dedicate property along the river or build a pathway or signal system at its own expense. Public hearing was closed, there being no futher testimony presented. Ms. Smith questioned Condition 16 in that the wording the agreement must be agreed upon contingent upon further legal interpretation. She wondered whether or not that condition should be researched further before being imposed on the developers. Mr. Saul said the staff had recommended the condition that the developer be responsible for installation of a signal at the request of Lane County. The Hearings Official imposed that condition, dependent on the City Attorney's opinion whether or not it was legal. The condition was then amended to defer the decision to protect the applicants. Regarding the K-Mart agreement, he said the City Council does have the power to modify as it wished. The most ,reasonable course would be to indicate that evidence of an agreement or refusal by K-Mart to consider such agree- ment be submitted at the preliminary approval stage. The concern of traffic congestion and location of the intersection seems to be val ide - Ms. Smith supported the problem regarding the traffic, but was concerned regarding the process of imposing a condition for an agreement that may be unable to be resolved. Mr. Saul said if the Council is so concerned, it could amend that to say that both issues of the agreement and the traffic signalization could be further reviewed at the time of preli- minaryapproval. That would still protect the right of subsequent appeal to the Council. He noted the County has absolute control over access to Goodpasture Island Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearings Official's conditions imposed for approval of diagrammatic stage for the Goodpasture Island PUD. Mr. Haws expressed concern about developing Eugene as Eugenean's want it to be developed. He wanted to make sure this development is compatible with Eugene's standards, and that it not turn into some kind of monstrosity. He urged Council to deny the appeal. Mr. Obie said he did not find the conditions imposed by the Hearings Official unreasonable. He noted the high standards for development in Eugene. Requiring the agreement with K-Mart he felt at the present time mignt be unneccesary. He hoped staff, in the future, would consider the difficulty of getting two private parties to agree on a City-imposed condition. Regarding a traffic signal, he was willing to accept the delay for the City Attorney's opinion as to whether or not it was legal. He said the difficulty came as to where the systems develop- ~ ment tax might apply. Regarding the signalization, Mr. Delay said 1Lf 2/12/79--10 e that is a Lane County request and under their jurisdiction, which makes it less complicated. He felt the proposed development was an excellent one in terms of increasing densities and providing a good standard of living. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. A short recess was taken. C. Systems Development Tax: Consideration of Amendments Manager said a series of amendments to the systems development tax have been proposed by staff and discussed by Council. The hearing "tonight" is for action on those proposed amendments. The suggested ,amendments by Council have been incorporated into an ordinance attached to Council's agenda. He reviewed the proposed amendments. Section 7.275 defines "financial support." The definition describes four types of support which the City may provide for devel- opment. Section 7.279(2) allows an exemption from the tax for developments of $5,000 or less value because of the small amount of revenue relative to administrative costs. e Section 7.279(3) involves a reduction or exemption from the tax for developments which receive financial support from the City. Three alternatives were provided for Council IS consideration under this section: Alternative 1 remains the same as the existing ordinance which allows the Council to grant a reduction only to "housing" development, based on a determination of benefit to the City. Alter- native 2 woul d expand the tax reduction to "housing and otherll development when the Council determines it to be in the best interest of the City. The amount of reduction would be equal to the amount of financial support. Alternative 3 would provide a tax reduction to any development which receives financial support from the City, equal to the amount of the support. Council consideration or action would be required only if the question was brought to the Council IS attention. Staff recommended Alternative 3, which would provide adequate guide- lines for consistent administration and would not place additional work loads on the Council. Other amendments in the ordinance included Section 7.279(4) which would exempt local governmental agencies from the tax. Section 7.279(5} would allow an exemption from the drainage portion of the tax for parking lots paved prior to April 1981. This would encourage paving of existing unpaved parking areas. Section 7.281(2} would reduce from six months to 90 days the delinquency period for contrac- tual time payments of the tax. It was noted that to date 30 to 40 percent of the time payments have not been made on time and this would allow the City to take more prompt action on collections. Manager said Don Gilman, Assistant Public Works Director; Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney; and Sherm Flogstad, Finance Director, were available to discuss any of Council IS concerns and to answer questions. e 2/12/79--11 75 Mr. Obie wondered regarding local governmental exemptions, what was included in "public corporation." Ms. Benjamin replied the a statutory language used refers to local governmental agencies. .., Examples such as Lane Community College and Lane County would be included. However, the State of Oregon and Federal government would not be, in the sense being used in this definition. Public hearing was opened. Harris Hoffman, 1252 West 12th Avenue, represented Joe Green Associ- ates. It was requested that Council reconsider exempting from the systems development tax the downtown core area. His clients were involved in a condominium development at 10th and Lincoln to increase a diversity of housing stock in the downtown area, but were not included in the exemption. He noted the problems specific to down- town development leading to higher costs, such as land cost, design considerations, and the restrictive fire zone. He said, also, con- dominiums do not now qualify for tax abatements. The systems for which the development tax is meantto provide funds already exist in this area. He noted greater use of streets and sewers with minimal cost to the City in the downtown area with this proposed development. Thus, there was a need for offsetting costs in order to be competitive. To charge again for a city system already built and paid for did not seem equitable. Public hearing was closed, there being no futher testimony presented. Mr. Haws wondered what was "Ci ty fi nanci al support. II Manager said there were four kinds and read them from the ordinance. He said under the present code, they are not clearly defined. Charles Kupper, HCC, said Section 7.279(3} is an exclusion from the systems development tax, which does not now exist. If adopted, it would offer an exclu- sion from the tax which is not currently offered. e Mr. Haws indicated he did not favor giving major exemptions to any particular area of town, thus he felt he should oppose Section 7.279(3}. Mr. Kupper noted there are no geographic exemptions in the ordinance now. He said housing projects could be subsidized in virtually any area of the city. It was affirmed that Sections 2.279(4} would include the treatment pl ant. CB 1826--Regarding land development; amending Sections 7.275, 7.277; 7.279, with Alternative 3; 7.281, and 7.283 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in fu 11 . e 2/12/79--12 Ib e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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. Haws moved to table the motion to allow discussion on each item separately. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, to amend the pro- posed ordinance and direct staff to prepare further amendments to the ordinance to exempt all developments in the central planning district. Mr. Lieuallen then distributed a map indicating the area which he was asking for exclusion was lettered Item C. After considerable discussion as to whether this amendment should stand, or a new ordinance brought back to address this issue, Mr. Lieuallen, with consent of Ms. Miller, withdrew his motion at this time. e In response to a question from Mr. Obie in Section 7.275 regarding the definition of "financial support," it was noted the definition was included in the ordinance and was in all three alternatives under Section 7.279(3}. It is existing language in the code, but this attempts to more clearly define what is in the present code, which is presently ambiguous. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to amend the motion to delete Alternative 3 and substitute Alternative 1 under Section 7.279(3}. In clarification for Mr. Haws, Manager said, an an example in Alter- native 3, private property developed in the renewal area generally receives financial support from the City, i.e., hotel development. Mr. Lieuallen's motion was directed at a much larger geographic area and would be much more comprehensive in exemptions. Mr. Haws opposed Alternative 3 because it would exempt certain types of development that are occurring in certain parts of town. Mr. Lieuallen said Alternative 3 gives the Council more latitude and ability to implement its policies. He said many different kinds of developments could take place. It would give the City an opportunity to reduce the tax and encourage proposals that will be of benefit to the entire City. Council would consider exemptions on a case-by-case basis, not a geographical basis. Mr. Haws was concerned that many people philosophically opposed the tax and yet it was forced on them. Now, he said, the Council is going to start giving exemptions. He felt this would result in more people opposing the tax because they do not understand it or feel they are being unfairly treated. e i7 2/12/79--13 Ms. Schue favored Alternative 3. She felt it seemed ridiculous for the City to give subsidies with one hand and to take it back in the ~ form of the systems development tax on the other. ,., Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which failed with Smith, Obie, Lieuallen, Delay, and Schue voting no; Miller and Haws voting aye. Mr. Haws moved to amend the motion to delete Section 7.279(4} from the ordinance. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Haws was against this section of the ordinance because it exempted such local governmental agencies as EWEB and school districts. He felt very strongly it was not fair for the people in the city to pay for services that are provided for people who live outside of the city. Manager noted the tax would be applied only to those facilities that are built within the city limits. He said for the most part, those facilities would be used by city people. He noted again that the city is continuously negotiating and exchanging uses of property and buildings with these agencies. He said by not allowing these exemp- tions, the City could end up with a decline in intergovernmental good will and cooperation. Ms. Miller said it looked like a piecemeal setting up of City policies by exemptions from tax laws. She was not particularly in favor of the substitution of alternatives which seems to double the amount of ~ City financial support for any given project. . She had questions about exempting governmental agencies, but felt she would support it in the interest of local intergovernmental cooperation. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, except Haws and Obie voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18331. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the systems development tax ordinance which would exempt all developments within the central planning district. Mr. Lieuallen described Area "C" as shown on the map which he distri- buted. Essentially, he was referring to the core area of the city and NIP areas. He said it was not a fixed boundary or area, but a point of departure for staff in preparing the amendment. He said this would give the Council an opportunity to take direct action to implement long-standing policies for the future by enhancing and encouraging the - 18 2/12/79--14 e rehabilitation of the central district. Exempting development in the central area will encourage development of housing and other types which would benefit the entire city. He said the city policies and documents are repleat with suggestions to keep the downtown core area vital and alive. It is necessary for Council to take positive direc- tion to implement those policies. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, exempt Haws and Obie voting no. D. Liquor License Outlets 1. The Mission Fine Mexican Cuisine (R), 610 East Broadwat (Subject to approval of plans, construction permits issuance, and certificate of occupancy, removal of underground tanks.) 2. China Blue Restaurant (RMB), 879 East 13th Avenue (Subject to conditions per Fire Department report.) Public hearing was opened. Gil Jaramillo, Jr., 43344 McKenzie Highway, was available to answer questions for the Mission Fine Mexican Cuisine. Kent Anderson, 915 Oak, had been in attendance for the China Blue Restaurant. e There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to forward recommendation for approvals to OLCC, sUbject to conditions as outlined. Motion carried unanimously. 11. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING Manager referred Council to Hearings Panel minutes of February 5, 1979, in which a motion was made regarding CB 1821. He said that motion could not be implemented under the present code because of possible legal complica- tions. Therefore, Council could refer Council Bill 1821 back to staff to seek to obtain right-of-way from some of the objecting parties and other property owners. This would enable a redistribution and a reduction of some assessments. Another alternative would be to proceed as staff recommends to levy the assessments as proposed. Mr. Obie suggested Council refer the bill back to staff, accept Manager1s recommendation, and then refer it to the next assessment panel hearing for resolutions. Don Allen, Public Works Director, said if Council were to accept the motion made by the Hearings Panel, problems would result. It was his opinion that the present assessment ordinance would have to be .~ 7~ 2/12/79--15 changed. Changes in the present assessment ordinance can only effect projects initiated six months from date of changing of the process, which ~ would tie up all the assessments for a considerable length of time. He .., said it would take an extensive explanation on the staff's part as to the various codes which affect assessments. This assessment had been made in accordance with the code. He said there is no way the City can legally defer the assessment under the present code. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to approve Hearings Panel minutes, dated February 5, 1979, with the exception of Council Bill 1821. Motion carried unanimously. The following council bills, read the first time January 22, 1979, and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing February 5, 1979, brought back with Panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed: CB 1820--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within 3rd Addition to Firland Heights; paving of Spring Boulevard from the south boundary of 3rd Addition to Firland Heights to 250 feet south; and sanitary sewer to serve the area 160 feet south of the south boundary of 3rd Addition to Firland Heights (1384) (77-29) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18332. e CB 1822--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer to serve Yoder Estates (1446) (78-04) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18333. CB 1821--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Orr Lane from 19th Avenue to 1000 feet south (77-61) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to levy assessments as proposed by staff and approve Hearings Panel minutes of February 5, 1978, except recommendation made on Council Bill 1821. . go 2/12/79--16 e e ~ e Mr. Obie noted on Council Bill 1821, only 33 percent of the property owners had petitioned for sanitary sewers. He said it had been a grave mistake initially made by the Council and staff to initiate this on such a low percentage petition. He felt it was wrong that the one lot would have to have two sewer hook-ups, yet could not be subdivided and used for two lots. Mr. Allen replied for paving petitions, the policy is to have at least a 50-percent signed petition. Actually, Council could have zero percentage and still initiate, if it so wished. He said regarding sanitary sewers, initiation was not based on any percentage requirement. This is a basic service provided for health and safety benefits to the citizens. He noted the benefit is a long-range one and not based on petition. He also noted the same property is never assessed twice and every square foot of property has to be assessed for sanitary sewers. However, he said staff would gladly review the assessment pro- cedures, if Council wished to change them. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion. All Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Obie voting no, the bill was decl~red passed and numbered 18334. ~ 111. ORDINANCES FOR Fl~ST READING--None. IV. RESOLUTIONS Res. No. 3081--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress pay- ments for period January 22 through February 12, 1979, was read by number and title. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. V. ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT A. Hearings Panel Report January 15, 1979, Re: Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to approve Hearing Panel's report January 15, 1979, regarding Zoning Board of Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. B. Adopt Findings of Fact Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to adopt Findings of Fact regarding Zoning Board of Appeals and Hearings Panel decisions January 15, 1979. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. 81 ?J1?J7Q__17 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve Council minutes ~ January 22, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to February 14, 1979. ~)~ Charl es T. Henry City Manager DT:so/CM8a2 e e %1.. 2/12/79--18