Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/1979 Meeting . 'la-lit (I . I M I NUT E S e EUGENE CITY COUNCIL October 29, 1979 Ad,iourned meet inq from October 24, 1979, of the City Counci 1 of the City of Euqene, Oreqon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers on October 29, 1979, with the followinq Councilors present: Jack Delay, Betty Smith, D. W. Hamel, Scott L ieuallen, Eric Haws, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. I. INTRODUCTION OF E~WIN NIERMANN Manaqer introduced Dr. Erwin Niermann of Minden, Germany, who is visitinq the United States on a foreiqn exchanqe proqram of city manaqers between Minden and Euqene. Dr. Niermann will be makinq a presentation at the Wednesday, October 31, Council meetinq. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Request for Historic Landmark Desiqnation for the First Conqreqational Church, located at 492 East 13th Avenue - (H 79-1) (Map distributed) Time: 5/5 Min. Recommended aoorova 1 by Hi stori c Revi ew Board September 27, 1979 Judy Rees, Hou s inq and Commun ity Conservati on Department, said that staff recommends desiqnation of the site as an historic landmark based on its representative character of a period and style of arch itecture; its ext raordi nary and unusual arch itectural merit by reason of its desiqn, detail, materials, and craftsmanship; its identification as the work of an architect whose individual efforts have influenced develooment in the nation, state, and community; its identification with a person who has contributed sianificantly to the cityls history: and its identification as a unique object represent~ inq an aesthetic and educational feature of the community. Ms. Rees further pointed out that the recommendation includes a proposed list of uses which eliminates any C-2 uses, presently allowed, which are not compatible with the buildinq, such as qas stations. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council ors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearinq was ooened. Mr. Glenn Mason, 1980 West 24th, representinq the Historic Review Board, was present to answer any questions. e 10/29/79--1 5'10 . . Mr. Clarke Cox, 1085 Patterson, spoke in favor of the historic desiqnatlon. e CB 2016--Authorizinq Historic Landmark Desiqnation for the First Conqreqational Church, located at 492 East 13th Avenue was read by number and title only, there beinq no Councilor present requestinq that it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findinqs sup- portina the Historic desiqnation as set forth in Historic Review Board staff notes and minutes of September 27, 1979, be adopted ~v 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 and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and qiven final passaqe. Roll call vote. All Councilors present votinq aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18527. B. Request for Historic Landmark Desianation for the Southern Pacific passenaer depot and outbuildinqs, located at the north end of Willamette Street (H 79-2) (Map distributed) Time: 5/5 min. Recommended approval by Historic Review Board September 27, 1979. Judy Rees, Housina and Community Conservation Department, said e that due to objections on the part of Southern Pacific officials reqardinq the site and the proposal, staff recommends historical desiqnation for the buildinqs, excludinq the qrounds. She sai d that historic desianation is recommended based on the Depot's relation to the broad cultural history of the area. It helped to ensure qrowth in 1871, as the owner of the railroad at that time had considered crossinq the river in Sprinafield and there would then have been no railroad service for Euaene. The buildinq is also representative of the character of the railroad style of architecture and has excellent craft and detail. It is also included in an official reqister of historic places in the state of Oreaon. Since the Southern Pacific Railroad officials had expressed opposition to inclusion of the arounds, it was recommended only the buildinqs be proposed for .historic desiqnation. The zoninq and sian reaulations will not be affected by the desiqnation. Ms. Rees noted a letter of support from the Whiteaker Community Council. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearina was opened. e 5'11 10/29/79--2 . Mr. Glenn Mason, 1980 West 24th Avenue, Historic Review Board, said e that a major point in recommending historic designation is the Depotls broad association with the cultural history of the area; people are aware of the railroad and the part it has played. He mentioned that the entire East Butte area is becoming an aesthe- tically and historically popular area of town. He noted other structures in the area which have also been designat~das historic landmarks such as Andy's Station and the Palace Hotel. Clarke Cox, 1085 Patterson, Chairperson for the Eugene Chapter of the Railroad Passengers, supported the designation. He said it is regrettable that the grounds must be omitted from the recommendation. Robert Lowry, Corvallis, Oregon, supported the historic designation, saYlng the 'structure lS one of four Southern Pacific structures still used in the state for passenger purposes. It is the oldest of the four and different from the others. When built, it was the center of tr ans port at ion. Timothy Wilson, 940 East 18th, spoke in favor of the historic designa- tlon. He pOlnted out that the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and AMTRAK are two different entities. While Southern Pacific opposed the designation, AMTRAK was supportive. The depot is cramped at pre- sent, and passenger comfort is at a minimum. It is also consistently pushing the Fire Code limit. Mr. John Gould, 800 Pacific Building, Portland, Oregon, an attorney e representing Southern Pacific, spoke in opposition to the historic designation. He said they were upset about the manner in which it had been presented to Southern Pacific. He said he felt that there was a more appropriate way for the City to deal with its corporate citizenry. He felt there was some dishonesty with the loan/grant program. While some funds are available, there are so many historic buildings that were designated that, in fact, there is not enough money to go around. He is not certain that historic designation is necessary and feels that the Council needs to talk to the corporation which owns the building. Percy Hilo, 4390 Willamette, spoke in support of the historical desig- nation. He added that it will provide a benefit for the community even though it may not show up in dollar signs. Public hearing was closed. Ms. Miller commented that she hoped the Southern Pacific Railroad would want to have a continuing productive dialogue with the City. Mr. Hamel agreed, stating that since Southern Pacific is the owner, it should have input as to the actions taken on their own property. Ms. Smith asked for comments from Ms. Rees on Mr. Gouldls comments, and Ms. Rees responded by saying that staff has been in contact with the Southern Pacific and AMTRAK officials for approximately one year and had discussed AMTRAK taking over the facility as well as restora- e tion possibilities. There may be a need to do more, she said. Mr. Delay hoped that the Historic Review Board is aware that Council supports and encourages maximum communication. 10/29/79--3 5 q 2... . CB 2017--Authorizinq Historic Landmark Desiqnation for the Southern e Pacific passenqer depot and outbuildings, located at the north end of Willamette Street was read by number and title only, there beino no Councilor present requestinq that it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings sup- portinq the Historic desiqnation as set forth in Historic Review Board staff notes and minutes of September 27, 1979, 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. Lackinq unanimous consent, with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Hamel votinq no, second readinq of the bill. was held over until November 26, 1979. C. Resolution for Increase in Water Users I Charqe for the City of Euqene (Memo and resolution distributed) Time: 5/5 min. Manaqer said that the increase from $2.00 to $2.50 monthly would be the first rate increase since 1959. The increase of $.50 relates to residential property while industrial and commercial properties will be payinq a substantially oreater increase. The matter comes about, in part, because the City is losinq money on its operation of the wastewater treatment and collections systems and will be depletinq the sewer utility fund. . The federal oovernment also requires that these charoes be adjusted to reflect costs. Don Allen, Public Works Director, suqqested that, if approved, the -- rate should become effective with the January 1, 1980, billinq. He also requested that the motion include a request to the Euqene Water & Electric Board to authorize the use of mailinq privileqes to explain the new billino. Public hearinq was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Obie wondered how much additional money would be raised with this increase and if all funds were earmarked for maintenance of the waste- water system. Manaoer responded that the proposed increase would raise about $677,000 additional dollars per year. The money would be placedin the sewer utility fund. The major portion of it would be for operational and maintenance costs plus some capital outlay. Res. No. 3257--A resolution establishinq sewaqe collection and treatment system user charQe rates for the City of Euqene, Oreqon, was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolu- tion, effective with the January 1, 19RO, billinq, and directinq the Euoene Water ~ Electric Board to authorize use of mailinq privileqes to explain the new billinQ. Motion carried unanimously. e 10/29/79--4 Scr3 . III. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT e Zone Chanqe Denial: Stahelski (Z 79-2) Manaqer summarized that Council had recommended denial of the zone chanqe, statina that the neiqhborhood was not beinq adequately protected. The Planninq Commission and Council met in joint session and Council subse- quently reaffirmed its decision. Findinqs of fact supportinq the denial now come before the Council for adoption. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith to adopt findinqs and conclusions concerninq the Stahelski zone change request. Mr. Delay pointed out that on paqe 2, item 3, "bicycle lanes" should be "bicycle routes." Vote was taken on the motion which carried, all Councilors presently votinq aye, except Mr. Lieuallen votinq no, and Mr. Haws abstaininq. IV. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS: FURTHER DISCUSSION (Additional information distributed under separate cover) This matter was held over from the October 24 Council meetinq. Manaqer explained that staff would answer the questions raised by Councilors earlier: Mr. Fd Whitelaw, an economic consultant, would comment as would e City Attorney Stan Lona. Mary Briqas, Planninq Department, said that Councilors have received an October 29 memo from the Departments of HCC and Planninq, an October 28 memo from Ed Whitelaw, and another memo dated October 29 from HCC and Planninq which qives a summary of proqrams relatinq to condominium con- versions in use throuahout the country. As to which subqroups are particularly affected, Ms. Briqqs said the low- income qroup wou 1 d be most affected. Of those low-income persons, those with physical mobility problems would be particularly disadvantaqed, as would those with children. With respect to allocation of resources, these two qroups should be addressed first. She said that Ms. Miller had asked about substitute rental units, and staff acknowledqes that there are no perfect substitutes. However, the Euaene Manor and Lane Towers are in the area as well as the Olive Plaza, Lawrence Court, and Martin Square, planned to be built at 27th and Oak. On the question of subsidizinq relocation, staff questions the use of City monies for this purpose except in the case of low-income tenants. It is unclear if the effects of dislocation would differ, whether result- inq from increased rents or conversion, because it is not known what sales prices the units would command. Primarily, the difference is that mortqaae p~yments are fixed and rental rates qenerally are variable. There is a difference in terms of down p~yment, of course. She added e 10/29/79--5 5CfLf . that they do not know the assets of the elderly polled earlier. Addres- sino the auestion of choice, staff noted that 97 percent of the housinq e stock in the West University neiqhborhood is renter-occupied and 80 percent in the central area is renter occupied. As to financial feasibility of the down-payment purchase proqram, at this time there appears to be $RO,OOO in the deferred assessment account. Not knowinq the sales prices of condominium units, it is difficult to antici- pate how far the money would 00. It appears unlikely it would spread much farther than to subsidize eiqht units. Ed Whitelaw, economic consultant to the City, responded to the Mustoe and Lauber memos. He said that he aorees with most points of the Mustoe memorandum, but disaorees on the likely lono-ranqe effect of condominium conversion. He believes the effect will likely decrease rents. He said that Mustoe thinks it is unclear what the effects will be, but that the disaoreement diverts attention from what he reqards as the much more important issue, the human riqhts issue. Mr. Whitelaw notes conflictino conclusions in the Daniel Lauber memo and the Leoal Aid memos incorporatina Lauber's ideas. The Lauber memo des- cribes a "reluctant purchaser" as one who would prefer to rent but is forced into purchasinq. However, the table in that memo shows that the percentaqe of former tenants who end up buyina ranqes from 20 to 25 percent, 60 percent of which they claim are reluctant. They did not comment on the 75 percent purchasinq from the outside, and Mr. Whitelaw does not believe that qroup could be called "reluctant purchasers." He e added that Lauber emphas ized the not ion of "contrived demand. II Aoa in, 75 percent of those purchasers are cominq in from outside. He said his analysis suaaests that the bulk of the purchasers are people who rented in the past and who, because the relative price of home ownership has skyrocketed, had become reluctant renters. The human riohts issue is not clear-cut, Mr. Whitelaw said. In the pre- sent case, a condominium conversion will increase the equity or improve the welfare of those reluctant renters priced out of home ownership. A moratorium will preserve the welfare of renters who prefer not to buy. So, it is a comparison of qroups, Mr. Whitelaw said. He said the more important issue is that, if the Council feels stronoly about helping those who will be dislocated, he recommends they adopt a refined and selective instrument other than the blunt instrument of a moratorium. Ms. Smith wondered what Mr. Whitelaw would recommend for those people not wantino to, or beino able to, purchase. Mr. Wh ite 1 aw responded that, if feelinos are strano about protectinq those who cannot or do not wish to purchase, the technique would be to prolonq the period of time they would be allowed to continue to rent and to seek substitute units. He emphasized that this type of person can be found in all areas, not just housinq. Stan Lonq, City Attorney, pointed out that the Attorney's office has historically not recommended moratoriums as a oeneral practice. It must be clear there is a oood-faith intention in adoptinq such an ordinance. e 10/29/79--6 5~5 . e The City Attorney's office is not deviatinq from that general quideline. Moratoriums involve problems and risks. He would caution Council that it is not lawful to impose a moratorium simply to obtain a delay. Mora- toriums result from a specific need because certain actions will be frustrated otherwise. The problem of whether a moratorium ordinance is lawful depends on the lawfulness of levyino it and the terms of that ordi nance. It is not possible for Council to make such a determination at this time because there is not ample aroundwork. He emphasized to Council that its authority to impose a moratorium is not free from doubt. Previous cases elsewhere have restricted that authority. There are some risks, but they are not ov~rwhelminq. Another factor is the duration of a moratorium. The shorter a moratorium, the more likely it will be to be upheld in court. Moratoriums for more than six months are suspect. The scope of the moratorium is also critical. It would need to be determined whether it would affect all condominium conversions in the city, all condominium conversions in a certain area, or condominium conversions affectinq one or more particular qroups of people. Aaain, the smaller the scope, the better. Lastly, he said, with reaard to land use qoals, and because of the potential effect on private property interests, the justification and findinqs are extremely important. In this particular case, he is convinced that indirectly there is evi- dence that could form a basis for a moratorium. It is also true that there is evidence that could be the basis for not qoina forward. The \ e ,iudqment Council must make is one within its own preroqatives. If Council wishes to proceed with a moratorium, Mr. Long said, Council should decide the qeneral direction it wishes to 00 and the behavior it desires to requlate, and then oive staff the opportunity to draft a specific ordinance for consideration realizinq, of course, that this processwill take more time. Mr. Lona also mentioned that he has been asked about certain tax issues. The City's authority to impose a tax is one of its more clear-cut autho- r i ties . While the City may not be able to tell someone what he/she can do with his/her profit, they probably have the power to tax the venture itself. In response to questions from Ms. Miller, he said he felt that the City could increase notice time before eviction, could provide that certain defined classes of people could not be evicted at all, could requlate the pace of conversion, and could prohibit conversions except upon a percentaqe affirmative vote of the tenants. Mr. Delay wondered if the City could be liable between now and the time the ordinance would be hrouqht back. Mr. Lonq said that nothinq sub- stantial should occur between now and that time. Ms. Smith wondered whether the City would run the risk of incurring financial liahility in establishinq a moratorium. Mr. Lonq said that this is not likely. Mr. Obie wondered if there would be a risk if a developr could prove he was damaqed. Mr. Lonq said the key question is e 59h 10/29/79--7 I ~ whether the City is liable, not whether there are damaqes. For example, when refusina a particular zoninq request, there may be a financial e impact for the developer, but the City is not liable. Key areas of concern are whether establishina a moratorium is within the Cityls power in the first place, and whether the City acted responsibly. The City has. the preroqative of causinq such damaqe as a bi-product, thouqh not for its own sake, of course. Mr. Obie wondered whether under a limited moratorium there would be means by which the City could provide for individuals subject to hardship to appeal their specific case to the Council. Mr. Lona s aid that, if Council imposes a moratorium, such an option should be included because it contributed to the overall validity of the ordinance. The presence of such an apoeal process requires that a person deal with the City before one deals with the courts. Mr. Obie said he hoped that, if a moratorium is imposed, staff would schedule a public hearinq even if the time is minimal in nature. He wants to be certain that both sides have been heard. Mr. Delay said he felt that Council should focus on the question of whether immediate displacement is a critical threat and if immediate action should be taken by staff. Mr. Haws said he was reluctant to qet into the economic issue; selectina particular qroups miqht be harmful. He is concerned with the social consequences, however. He said he is not prepared to support an action that focuses only on condominium conversion. The social issues should be studied because the harm needs to be alleviated, he said. He said he is willinq, but reluctant, to support a moratorium to address the issue; but e he does not wish to address only this problem at this time. Ms. Miller said she see is aware of the lonq-term problem of whether it is appropriate for the City to maintain a balance between the availability of owner-occupied and rental dwellinQs, but this does not require immediate resolution. There is also the short-term problem of immediate displacement of renters. It seems in most cases there is similar housinq available. If tenants are evicted from a unit, another may cost more or be located in a different neiqhborhood, but similar housinq is usually available, she said. In the present situation, there does not seem to be that kind of housing available rioht now. She said she would favor a brief freeze to define the people the City thinks need additional protection and to check out the situation. She does not want to affect market forces to a qreat deqree. Ms. Smith said that' for the lonq-term solution she would hope Council would work on strict auidelines. For the short-term problem, she favors a freeze to rletermine whether to continue as is or identify exceptions to the situation: that is, lookina at certain aqe aroups so as not to disolace those persons. She said she hopes staff can be directed to brinq back more information to establish a moratorium or to effect exceptions that the developer would work with to accommodate the needs of the people. Ms. Schue said she did not want to stop all condominium conversions, but she felt the qeneral consensus was to help the elderly, disabled, and people in the downtown area. Mr. Delay said he has difficulty with the e 5Cf'7 10/29/79--8 condominium conversion idea in qeneral. He felt this is the worst form e of conversion He said he feels the value of these two buildings has been created by the community and it is unfair for the community to be forced to take care of these people, while the developer gains from this increased value. He said it is essential to recoqnize that there is a shortage of rental housinq in Eugene and that unregulated condominium conversion con- tributes to this shortaqe and involves serious displacement for the resi- dent s . He aqrees that the public health, safety, and welfare are affected by this displacement and that an emergency exists. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that staff draft an ordinance and submit findings justifying the establishment of a freeze upon condominium conversion of rental units occupied by those over 62 or retired, and who have occupied their unit for at least two years, that an appropriate appeal process be included, and that the freeze be in effect for as short a period of time as it takes to develop equitable solutions to the problem, but no lonqer than six months. . His intent would be to put Council on record favoring a moratorium ordinance and to hold a public hearing. His intention would also be to prevent immediate actions which could represent a serious threat while analyzinq mechanisms to deal with displacement. Mr. Haws wondered if Mr. Delay was talking about stoppinq all conversion of rental units or simply condominium conversion. Mr. Delay said his -- intent was to deal with the type of conversion under discussion now. He does not want to impede conversion of other acceptable units, including those with some seniors, he said. The thrust should be directed toward immediate and larqe kinds of threats such as the ones now presented. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to amend the motion to include "or are disabled.1I Mr. Obie said he would be more comfortable in speaking in terms of "buildings" having a high proportion of displacements as compared to "units." He said that the Council is not dealinq at this point with a building with 80 units havinq only one elderly resident, but rather in \ buildinqs where it is a mass problem. Ms. Miller said she felt comfor- table with the "unit" language. Ms. Smith asked for some clarification on what is meant by exceptions, and she would like the Joint Housinq Committee1s response to the proposal. Ms. Schue said she had been assuminq that, if a moratorium were imposed, the few vacancies in a buildinq could still be sold. She said she feels that Mr. Delayls intent is that, if a larqe portion cannot be sold, the condominium conversion is stopped. She requested clarification. Mr. Lonq said that an ordinance such as Mr. Delay is suqgesting can effec- tively stop the conversion process if there is a high percentage of elderly residents in a buildinq. Manaqer said that staff has been told that at least 60 percent of the units should be available for sale if it is qoing to succeed. Mr. Lieuallen said that he feels that the word e IIdisabledll is too vaque and it should be cleared up. 10/29/79--9 5't8 - Vote was taken on the amendment which carried unanimously. \ Mr. Obie suggested passing the main motion and at the same time expressing the urgency involved in having feedback from the Joint Housing Committee, and also in having some resolution or recommendations from staff on whether to deal with individual units or buildings as a whole. Mr. Delay said that on the question of the appeals process, he feels the general notion of hardship adequately handles it. He said that staff should move with good speed in coming back with the draft of the ordinance. Mayor Keller said he feels that it will be necessary to define what the crisis really is and, if the criteria for a moratorium would weigh heavily on that definition. As he understands the conversion, it appears that all 180 units will be affected, yet there exists an obligation to provide alternative housing. He said he wants to make certain Council knows why they are asking for information on a moratorium. Ms. Smith clarified that this motion directs staff to prepare an ordinance and that it does not establish a moratorium today. November 26 appeared to be the best time for bringing an ordinance draft back, since the Joint Housing Committee meets November 20. Mr. Delay said his motion would not include referring the matter to the Joint Housing Committee. Mr. Long said that if Council wants staff to check with other jurisdictions and do a generally complete job, it will double or triple the time involved. Mr. Obie also agreed to not refer the matter to the Joint Housing Committee. If interested, they can appear at the Council -- meeting and testify, he said. He continued that he would hope Council is not recommending a potential abolition of conversions, but rather that there is simply a need to deal carefully with a situation affecting many elderly people. Manager suggested that the ordinance draft be brought back Wednesday, November 14. Ms. Miller said she felt that would be the best time because elderly people would probably prefer coming to a day-time meeting. Vote was taken on the main motion which carried unanimously. V. RESOLUTION A. Payment of Bills and Claims Res. No. 3265--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period October 8, 1979, through October 29, 1979, was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to ~1~~ Charles T. Henry e City Manager DP:er/CM7a1 10/29/79--10 51ft:;