Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/1979 Meeting .' M I NUT E S - EUGENE CITY COUNCIL July 25, 1979 Adjourned meeting from July 23, 1979, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Jack Delay at 11:45 a.m., Council Chambers, with the following Councilors present: Erick Haws, Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Gretchen Miller. Councilors Bill Hamel, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, and Mayor Gus Keller were absent. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Mr. Delay read a prepared statement on the Governor's interest in "air quality problems of the Willamette Valley," and, in particular, those problems related to field burning. He said the Governor had indicated interest in meeting with the City and the seed industry. He suggested City staff should: 1) welcome his interest; 2) let the Governor know the City would deal "reasonably with reasonable propo- e sals,1I and, 3) find out his "positive initiatives" for dealing with air quality. Mr. Delay said the seed industry intends to lobby the Governor on the Clean Air Act, specifically regarding Section 110(g). He said the City staff shoul d tell the Governor of the "l ack of good faithll shown by the seed industry in dealing with the City, particularly through its claims that the Governor could suspend the law. Mr. Delay detailed the seed industry's claims for justification for suspension of the law, explaining that each claim was unjustified. Ms. Mi 11 er pointed out that the last scheduled meeting of the Metro Plan Policy Committee would be held the following day. She said the Committee hoped to issue a draft text of the plan by the end of the meeting. Mr. Lieuallen said he would appoint Annabelle Kitzhauber for the Revenue Study Task Force. Her credentials included being past presi- dent of the League of Women voters, past president of the Central Lane Council League of Women voters, working with the Lane Transit District to try and find alternatives to the payroll tax, chairmanship of a tax committee for the League of Women Voters of Oregon 1971-1973, and membership on a county-wide citizen advisory committee for the County Commissioners to consider alternative tax sources. - I.f()Lf 7/25/79--1 ~ B. Appointments 1. Balloting for Eugene Renewal Agency Committee Interviewees e Manager said there would probably be only two to four people to interview as finalists, which might take as little as half an hour. He suggested a special meeting be held for this purpose on Monday, but Mr. Lieallen preferred Wednesday. He added that another item on the agenda on State Revenue Sharing Funds must be delivered in ordinance form to Salem no later than Tuesday. He said this required six votes since it included an emergency clause and he suggested a vote on the ordinance be made by a conference phone call. He said Bill Hamel and Brian Obie would be in town on Monday so that the vote could be taken then. Ms. Smith asked if there would be enough council persons in town on Monday to hold the interviews at that time. Mr. Henry said this depended on Mr. Obie and he did not know for sure if he would be in town. Mr. Delay said he too preferred Wednesday to hold the interviews. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that a special meeting be held Monday, July 30, 4:30 p.m. via a conference call. The vote passed unanimously. The ballots cast by the Councilors present were as follows: Eric Haws Truman Rich, Lori Loehr, Sandra Bishop Scott Lieuallen Lori Loehr, Dustin Posner, Wallace Swanson Jack Delay Lori Loehr, Wallace Swanson, Dustin Posner Gretchen Miller Lori Loehr, Dustin Posner, Wallace Swanson e Betty Smith Wallace Swanson, Fred Greatwood, Linda Bray Although Brian Obie was not present, he had submitted a ballot earlier listing his choices as follows: Brian Obie Wallace Swanson, Fred Greatwood, Linda Bray Mr. Martin read the results of the tally for ERA interviews. Unweighted according to first, second, and third choice, the results were: Wallace r Swanson, five; Lori Loehr, four; Dustin Posner, three; Linda Bray, two; Fred Greatwood, two; Sandra Bishop, one; and Truman Rich, one: When Mr. Martin recalculated the votes, giving points for first, second, and third choices, the list read Loehr, Swanson, Posner, Greatwood, Rich, Bray, and Bishop. Ms. Smith said she had not voted with the idea of those listed first receiving additional points in the tally, so she moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the Council interview the top five persons of the first list. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, that the candidates be interviewed at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Henry said the Civic Center Commission would meet Monday, 7:30 p.m. in the McNutt Room to review bids for its parking structure. - Y05 7/25/79--2 - II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL e A. Urban Runoff Control Planning Res. No. 3198--Authorizing City to participate in 208 Program Storm Urban Runoff Control Planning Program with L-COG. Mr. Henry introduced the item. Ms. Smith, moved by Mr. Lieuallen, that the Council adopt the resolution. Mr. Haws asked if Springfield and Lane County will contribute money for this program. Mr. Henry said each jurisdiction must provide a certain amount which would be met by the matching funds. He said the amount contributed and received would be geared to the activity within the jurisdiction. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lieuallen said that Mr.Obie would be out of town often over the next several weeks, and wanted to know if the Council wanted to appoint an alternate for Mr. Obie to the Civic Center Commission. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that since Ms. Smith has shown an interest in this project, she be appointed as Mr. Obie's tit alternate to the Commission. Mr. Delay said he did not know if this was a legally ordained position, but suggested if not, Ms. Smith be given authority to attend meetings and participate in discussions representing the Council. Motion passed unanimously. B. Ordinance: Cities to Elect to Receive State Revenue Sharing Funds CB 1938--An ordinance electing to receive State Revenue Sharing funds distributed through the Oregon Liquor Control Commission account for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980 and declaring an emergency. Mr. Delay asked if the first reading could be made with final passag~ deferred to Monday in case a unanimous vote could not be obtained on Monday. Mr. Henry said this was possible, but he hoped this would not be a problem. I II. COUNTY REFERRAL: PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE RURAL LAND USE PROGRAM FOR LANE COUNTY Mr. Henry introduced the topic. He pointed out the memo on the proposed alternative rural land use program for Lane County written by the Planning Staff and approved by the Planning Commission has been included with e the agenda. He said the Council had received a draft of the County's plan in an earlier packet. He said John Bennett was present to represent the County. 7/25/79--3 406 Mr. Bennett explained the background of the plan. He said the County planning program had begun in 1967 and its work program had been completed e in 1969. He said it had planned for completion of the plan in 1972, but not all planning and zoning had been done yet. He said there had been a turnover of County planning staff and County Commisioners since the work program began but that most of the new commissioners had campaigned on the issue of planning in rural areas. Mr. Bennett said the new commissioners had asked the County planning staff to work with them to come up with an alternative land use plan. He said that since much of the data for the plan had been collected in 1967 and updated later, it was sometimes difficult to compare data. However, he said the County was attempting to update its population data. In addition he said it was trying to get a uniform inventory base for timber resource and farmlands for Lane County which was an LCDC requirement. He said the second part of the plan was to better address things already mentioned in existing plans. For example, he said the 1990 Plan stated the need for land for weekend farmers. He said county subarea plans stated that the majority of those in rural areas should be located in existing incorporated areas. But the majority of rural dwellers lived outside these areas. He said the alternative rural land-use program was trying to find out why this was occurring. Mr. Bennett said the third part of the plan was to take the 13 volumes of subarea plans and consoli- date them into one document which would be easier for the public to read. He said the City has questioned the county.s reference to "marginal resources land" but the county had gathered statistics on the subject. He said 85 percent of this land was commercial forest land and only a small e percentage was publicly owned. He said the County plan was designed to handle the fact that many people want to live in the rural area. He said the County Commissioners would hold a public hearing August 1, 7:30 p.m. in Harris Hall on the plan. Mr. Saul, speaking for the city, pointed out that the Planning Commission had reviewed and concurred with the City staff memorandum to the County Commissioners on the County's proposed alternative rural land-use program. He said the memo indicated principal areas of concern for the City but, since the County.s plan is only in conceptual form, he said it is diffi- cult to evaluate the effects. Among the City's concerns were: first, the development of two to three units per acre in rural development centers, since this would mean the need for urban services. Also, he said this would raise serious equity questions. He pointed out the County staff noted that they have not found State and Federal funds to provide services to rural population areas. He said this meant the County might be commit- ting itself to providing urban services. . Secondly, Mr. Saul pointed out the absence of any attempt to correlate rural developments with location of work sites. He said this might mean rural residents would continue to rely on the cities for employment, which would lead either to transportation problems or commercial and industrial developments throughout the county. Finally, Mr. Saul noted that the County called for its plan to be adopted on a interim basis. Hlf said since it was hard to define the County's program and its effects, it also e seemed difficult to imagine adopting the plan on an interim basis. 7/25/79--4 ~Ol Mr. Lieuallen said that it seemed that the County wanted to pursue maximum e residential development in whatever part of the county it found appropri- ate. Mr. Saul responded that his conclusions had been made mostly by inference. He said the County Commissioners seemed concerned by public criticism of the County's present planning programs, but whether this proposed plan responded to this criticism was not clear. Mr. Bennett said the County knew in general how many acres it needed for marginal resource land, but was not sure where they were. He referred to page 5 of a pamphlet he had which mentioned new plan categories such as agricultural forest and natural resource land, all of which he said were being redefined. He said those lands not defined as one of these types would be defined as marginal resource land. He said the County's program protected and was stricter than some plans about re?ource lands, but lowered the parcel size requirement for rural wood lands and grazing lands. He said Lane County was less restrictive about resource land than many counties, but more restrictive with marginal resource land. He said design control and clustering would help restrict development and leave larger blocks of land open for productive uses. Mr. Lieuallen said he felt the program could be explained in more direct and clear terms, but he was not sure what they were. Mr. Haws said he was most concerned with the process of the plan. He asked what kind of a check and balance systm would be used and how the City would be allowed to make input if something came up which was a detriment to the City's interest. Mr. Saul said the County Commissioners - would conduct a hearing on August 1 on the proposal and, if they decided to proceed with it, would submit it to the Lane County Planning Commission for its review. He said the Lane County Planning Commission would be expected to report back to the County Commissioners. He said the program called for amendment to all the existing county subarea plans that have been adopted to date, amendment to four chapters to the Lane Code, and changes to the Oregon statutes governing taxation. He said hearings before the Lane County Commissioners would be required, particularly for amendments to subarea plans and the County Code, at which time the City could comment. He added that with the exception of Goal 2 requirements for coordination, he was unaware of any requirement that the County work with the City. Mr. Haws asked if the County's plan would meet amendments to the 1990 Plan or require the approval of LCDC. Mr. Saul answered that it would need the approval of LCDC, but that whether the 1990 Plan must be amended was under debate. Mr. Bennett pointed out that the West Lane and Lane County planning commissions had already held four to five study sessions on the proposed county plan and had submitted their recommendations to the County Commissioners. However, he said there would be a number of opportunities for all cities to be involved in review of the plan as required by LCDC, especially the smaller cities. He said part of the 1990 Plan called for five-acre parcels on non-agricultural lands surrounding metropolitan areas. This could be a problem if the land were designated for redevelop- ment at an urban level if the land had previously been developed as five-acre parcels with houses in the middle of the parcels. He said the e County plan would look at this problem. He encouraged the Council to participate in further development of the program. 7/25/79--5 Q08 Mr. Delay said he too felt the plan was mostly conceptual and he was most uncomfortable about its lack of clarity. He said marginal resource land e was not defined except by default. He said it seemed to be everything which was not restricted in development by existing statewide land use planning goals, yet represented three times as much land as is within existing incorporated cities. When asked if Mr. Delay's comments seemed accurate to Mr. Bennett and if all the land would be identified for intensive development, Mr. Bennett responded that much of the so-called marginal resource lands were included in other plans for more intensive development. He said the new plan would not completely change plan- ning practices for these areas. He said five-acre development was already being done without the design standards the County recommended. He said he did not expect that adoption of the County's plan would mean a huge shift of people moving to the rural area. He said 36 percent of all dwelling units were being built today in rural areas which was the same percentage as in 1975. Mr. Delay asked if the County was absorbing the rapid influx of people into this area as much as incorporated areas. Mr. Bennett said the County planners were attempting to accumulate more speci- fic facts, but that its latest detail data showed this to be happening. Ms. Miller said that after reading the County's plan she had more questions than before she had read it. She asked if parcel size and inherent characteristics were used to define marginal lands. Mr. Bennett said they were. She asked if this meant that someone who had already divided his land into ten-acre parcels, though it was first-class agricultural land, could say that it was not the right size to be used as farm land. Mr. Bennett said this was accurate. Ms. Miller said the concept of cluster- ing seemed to call for less essential lands. She asked if there were e built-in controls governing the remaining large open parcels. Mr. Bennett said the intent of the plan was to preserve open space as with PUDls. He pointed out that City Councilors and County Commissioners have changed over the years and they could change restrictions on land. However, he said the plan, partially through deed restrictions, would attempt to handle this problem. Ms. Miller asked if the County plan had come up with any solutions for the urban reserve land problem. Mr. Bennett pointed out that County planners and the County Commissioners had held many work sessions and that the part of the plan which the Councilors had seen only represented a small part of their work. He said there were many maps and ordinances from other coun- ties being reviewed to check on the feasibility of ideas. For instance, he said one subdivision ordinance existed which determined where a house could be placed on the large parcel of land. He said such rulings could help the county, but that they needed to be gathered into a unified plan. Mr. Henry asked about changes in taxing statutes. Mr. Bennett said there were two aspects to this issue. First, local policies might have to be changed, and second, the city of Eugene has much land in farm referral which, he said, forces many people into the county area. He suggested a deferential was needed so that areas designated for development in urban use would not aid speculation, whereas rural land use for agriculture and fibers should not be taxed at a high residential level which would encour- age development. He said that state legislation might be needed to . determine a deferential between taxing urban and rural land. 7/25/79--6 409 . - Mr. Henry admitted that the type of taxation problem described existed. within Eugene. He said taxation must be changed in the case where people were holding land for speculative reasons. He pointed out also that tax inequities were possible in areas like River Road and Santa Clara which are highly urban, but not incorporated. He asked if the County plan meant to say that people should have the choice whether to incorporate or not. Mr. Bennett said this was partly the plan's intent. He said not all areas could be incorprorated, such as Alvadore, where the population felt it had grown as much as it could. He said this was not true in other areas and ways to incorporate were being sought. Mr. Henry said the problems of not being incorporated, such as provision of police and street maintenance by the County at county-wide expense, would be accentuated by the County's plan. Mr. Bennett said it was not anticipated that the County would provide water districts to communities, but it could provide technical assistance on how an area could get a water district for itself. He said Dexter was an example of an area which had received the County's help in this manner. Mr. Henry pointed out that even counseling services were not free. He added that he was referring previously to the need for police and street maintenance services which would be provided to unincorporated areas, but not to incorporated areas by the County. Mr. Bennett agreed that this was a concern that Council should continue to work on. Ms. Smith expressed concern over the timing of the plan. She said the Council had identified several issues of concern and the 1990 Plan was not e completed. She said she hoped the Council's concerns would be considered along with timing and coordination of the plan. Mr. Bennett said that although the County Planning Staff had indicated a time frame of four months, it would probably take closer to six months to finish the plan. He said it had been an intensive project, partly because of LCDC require- ments and partly because peopl e were uncertai n about County pl anni ng policies. He agreed that the final months of work on the plan would take careful coordination. Mr. Lieuallen said he felt the Council was being too polite and indirect in its comments. He said the Council was familiar with the County Commis- sioners' ideas on land planning. He said that with the exception of Jerry Rust, the Commissioners did not like the concept of an urban service boundary, compact growth, or land use planning in general. He said he suspected that if they drew up a new plan for the County, it would "fly in the face" of Eugene's policies. He said there were clear disagreements between the City and the County. He said it might be hard to pullout of the County plan what the County Commissioners had in mind, but it was not hard to determine this through their campaign literature. He said the Council knew what would happen if the County Commissioners' plan had the force of law. Mr. Bennett responded that he had worked directly with all the Commis- sioners on the plan and had seen a majority reassess their ideas on land-use planning since their campaigns. He said their ideas expressed in e the plan summarized their thinking. He added that several had attended LCDC meetings and were interested in good planning. 7/25/79--7 if/a I . Mr. Lieuallen said that a six-month time frame for the plan probably meant that there would be little coordination at the County level. He said e MAPAC, which he described as one of the County's best citizen advisory committees, would probably be disbanded by the County Commissioners. Mr. Haws said he felt it was unfair of Mr. Lieuallen to exclude Mr. Rust from his comments because, after the Cone-Breeden annexation, he did not feel that Mr. Rust was happy with the City's boundaries. He said the City was more or less under seigeand the County's plan was one more example of this. He asked the staff to closely monitor developments on this plan. He said that it might be up to the Council to take action on these matters. He asked the staff what the City could do to further its concerns. He felt the County was taking City money without providing benefits to the City. In response to Mr. Haws, Mr. Henry said a monitoring program was probably the most important thing the City could do. Concerning double taxation, he said the City was working the County Administrator to get more equity from County highway funds. He said several meetings had been held on this subject, but the change of County Commissioners had sidetracked the effort for several months. He said the initiative would have to come from City staff with the approval of City Council and the cooperation of the County staff. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the Council forward the memo of July 25, from the Planning Commission and City Council to the Board of County Commissioners, expressing some - of the Council's concerns and that the staff continue to monitor the procedure and keep the Council well informed. Mr. Delay said that he concurred with the recommendations and Mr. Lieuallen's comments. He said. the soft edged language of the county's document made it sound reasonable, but it could become a speculator's relief act. He said it could run counter to the interests of the City and other incorpor- ated areas of the County. He said the statistics presented by Mr. Bennett caused him to worry about the consequences. He said if the County were interested in delivering urban services, it should provide them to existing population areas. He pointed out that while most cities paid for their police force, River Road and Santa Clara received the service free while others in the county paid the cost. He said the County plan must be closely monitored as it could run contrary to the interests of those citizens in the cities and other incorporated areas of the county. Motion passed unanimously. IV. CONSTRUCTION CODE FEES UPDATE Mr. Henry reviewed the bills. He referred to page 12 of the agenda. He said there was a lot of cleaning up of Code language and updating of provisions so that they would comply with present State law. He said the existing Code referred to 1973 laws which had since been changed. He said some items would increase administrative ability such as with an item on . page 13 allowing the City to stop projects or deny inspections if other 7/25/79--8 4-11 . City Code requirements are being violated. He said the City was simplify- e ing administrative provisions of the plumbing Code and cleaning up its language. He said this was also true of the electrical, mechanical, masonry, and swimming pool specialty code ordinances. CB 1940--An ordinance concerning the structural specialty code; amending sections 8.005, 8.020 and 8.026 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. CB 1941--An ordinance concerning the plumbing code; amending sections 8.555,8.556,8.557,8.560, 8.561, 8.562, 8.563, 8.564, 8.565, 8.567,8.568,8.569,8.570, and 8.579 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing present sections 8.558, 8.559, 8.566, 8.571, 8.572, 8.573, 8.574, 8.575, 8.576, and 8.577 of that code; adding a new section 8.572 to that code; and declaring an emergency. CB 1942--An ordinance concerning the electrical code; amending sections 8.075, 8.080, 8.090, 8.095, 8.105, 8.110, 8.120, 8.125, 8.130, and 8.135 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. CB 1943--An ordinance concerning the mechanical speciality code; amending sections 8.495, and 8.500 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. CB 1944--An ordinance concerning the swimming pool code; amending sections 8.895, 8.900 and 8.905 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. - CB 1945--An ordinance concerning the masonry contractor's code; amending sections 8.415, 8.420, 8.425, and 8.445 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing section 8.435 of that code; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Henry corrected the resolution number on the agenda from Resolution No. 3198 to Resolution No. 3200. He said this resolution related in particular to developing a plan-check fee system which several cities already have. Relating to item 1 on page 11, he said the City was receiv- ing building evaluations of over $100,000 so this fee should be adjusted. Mr. Henry, explained that the City would charge 30 percent of the building permit fee for master plans and 50 percent for isolated buildings under the new resolution. Mr. Henry added that the Building Division's 1979-80 budget prOjected a $59,000 deficit in relation to projected permit .fee and other revenue. He said the new resolution was expected to off-set this deficit from $30,000 to $35,000. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bills be given a first reading and that enactment be considered at the Council's next meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Haws asked how the remaining deficit would be dealt with. Mr. Henry said it would have to remain a deficit. Mr. Haws asked if the City should e re-examine what it was doing. 7/25/79--9 ~/Z ! Mr. Delay said it was his understanding that the reason for the deficit was that the State sets maximum rates for the permits which forces the City to perform certain operations relating to the permits, but not charge e enough to cover these operations. Mr. Henry read Resolution No. 3200. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to adopt the resolution. Ms. Miller said it would seem to make better sense to charge one plan checking fee at 50 percent rather than to have a diminished rate for master plans. She said the information included with the agenda on this subject said that three years ago fewer than half the cities in Oregon and only a third of the counties had a diminished rate for master plans. She said having one rate at 50 percent should reduce administrative needs and generate additional revenue. She suggested the City should not go out of its way to encourage master plans where all houses in a subdivision were built according to only several different plans. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the master plan discount provisions of Resolution No. 3200 be deleted. Mr. Henry said the purpose of those provision was to recognize that where there was greater cost to the City, there should be a greater charge. Mr. Nolte said there would be greater efficiency with the 30 percent master plan approach. He said builders wanted this plan and the Department felt now was the time to implement it. Ms. Miller responded that any time the City charged a fee for a service e the fee adjustment could be fine tuned according to the time required to provide the service. She said that houses of comparable expense could take very different amounts of time to check. She said the City, however, was not really adjusting its fee to how much time it took to actually check the plans. She said that by giving a discount to master plans the City was setting up a situation which encouraged a master plan development and she did not want to give an advantage to that type of development. Ms. Smith asked for a restatement of the staff's opinion of Ms. Miller's amendment. Mr. Henry said the City tried to gear its charges according to services received by the contractors. He said charges for checking each house of a master plan were likely to be less than for checking individualized house plans. Mr. Nolte said the figure of $30,000 to $35,000 in additional revenue for the Building Division was based on how many master and routine plans it would review. He said revenues might be increased another $5,000 with a strictly routine charge of 50 percent for all plan checks. Mr. Delay said he supported Ms. Miller's motion. Motion passed unanimously. - 7/25/79--10 ~13 . , v. Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions Code Enforcement . Res. No. 3199--Authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the State. Mr. Henry explained that the State Department of Commerce is requesting the City take informal action to accept certain code enforcement responsi- bilities for mobile home parks in subdivisions. He said the City had handled three of the for mobile home enforcement actions. He said mobile home alterations was the one addition to present practices which was being planned and that the City needed authorization to proceed with this. In addition, he said the resolution sought authorization for the staff to work out the details for mobile home licensing and enforcement in existing parks. Mr. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to adopt the resolution. Motion passed unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned. R~S~ Clfarles T. Henr City Manager CTH:sp/CM8bl e . 7/25/79--11 If/If