Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1980 Meeting , M I NUT E S Eugene City Council e September 17, 1980 Adjourned meeting from September 10, 1980, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Betty Smith at 11:30 a.m. in the City Council Chamber, with the following councilors present: Scott Lieuallen, Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Mayor Gus Keller and Councilor Jack Delay were absent. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Groundbreaking for Fifth Street Public Market--Council invited to partlclpate ln groundbreaklng on Frlday. B. Reco~nitton of Passage of Tier 2 Bud~et--Councilor Schue speaking for the ity Council expressed appreciatlon to the Eugene voters for the passage of the Tier 2 budget. Ms. Smith added credit should go to Mary Hudzikiewicz who heads the Better Eugene Committee. C. Grant Application for Mall Transport--Ms. Miller reported the grant -- application process for the bus system in the downtown area is moving rapidly. It will be submitted at the end of September. D. Appointments--Manager submitted a memo dated September 15, 1980, listing the Mayor1s nominations to the Private Industry Council and remaining positions on the Prime Sponsor Advisory Council and the Youth Advisory Council. They were as follows: CETA Private Industry Council Jim Goodman, 2130 Rocky Lane, for a term ending September 30, 1983. Susan Sheppard, 465 LockmoorPlace, for a term ending September 30, 1984. Doug McKay, 450 Stonegate Street, for a term ending September 30, 1982. Liz Cawood, 1728 Minda Drive, for a term ending September 30, 1984. Lester Bischoff, 2740 Harlow Road, for a term ending September 30, 1983. Jim Bjork, 2555 Portland Street, for a term ending September 30, 1982. e Ada Lee, 2610 Highland Oak Drive, for a term ending September 30, 1983. 9/17/80--1 , Irvin Fletcher, 3570 Willamette Street, for a term endinq September 30, 1984. - Raymond McIver, 2540 Snelling, for a term ending September 30, 1983. e Ronald J. Vaughn, 1585 Danebo, for a term ending September 30, 1984. Bill Hamel, 2670 Chad Street, for a term ending September 30, 1982. Eugene Prime Sponsor Advisory Council Clifford Kaylor, 4840 Maholo Drive, for a term ending September 30, 1982. Virgel Clark, 2871 Calla Street, for a term ending September 30, 1983. Youth Advisory Council Mary Jane O'Brien, 1892 Olive Street, for a term ending September 30, 1982. Sylvia Roehelt, 996 West 4th, for a term ending September 30, 1984. Sharon Posner, 2473 Columbia, for a term ending September 30, 1982. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve the Mayor's e appiontments. Motion carried unanimously. E. Announcements 1. An executive session, under the provisions of ORS 129.660(l)(h) will be held at the end of this meeting to discuss the Stringfield case. 2. Eugene Lenders Task Force. Meeting, September 25, 1980, First Nat ional Bank. 3. Joint City Council/Eugene Renewal Agency Work Session, October 15, 1980, 1:30 p.m. F. Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program--ICAP Grant--Manager noted concerns about the recent developments of the ICAP Program. The Eugene Register-Guard had reported that because of the personalities involved the City would lose its ICAP Grant. It was a considerable amount of money. The City has considered it a useful and effective progr am. Manager explained he and Chief Packard would report on the impact of this action. In general, they feel they can continue the ICAP Program until January 1, 1981, using matching money for the ICAP Program, in savings created by vacancies, and some of the budgeted overtime money in the department. These alternatives are still being reviewed but it appears that they could maintain the program. e 9/17/80--2 Manager raised other issues, such as whether the City Council should . contact their Congressional delegation, and should the City make application for other leftover money available. He suggested the City do both of these things. He introduced Chief Packard. Chief Packard explained that the City was in the second year of the ICAP Grant. The original grant was for $304,337 with a City match of $30,434 or ten percent. The second year grant was for $305,968 with the City's share of 20 percent or $60,195. It was anticipated that the third year would be for 18 months and would be $458,952 with the City paying $229,476 or half. We have budgeted our share of the matching funds. Chief Packard reported a phone conversation with the Federal government where it was indicated there would be no third phase funding for the City of Eugene and even if there were funds made available from Congress they would not allocate funds to the City of Eugene. No official confirming letter had arrived. The comments made in that phone call were accurately reported in the Eugene Register-Guard. Chief Packard questioned the notion that there were not funds available as it was his understanding that there were carry-over funds to complete the current programs. He felt the decision was arbitrary and capricious on the part Of the Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). Currently the Police Department is reviewing their budget closely. Since Chief Packard had put a freeze on hiring, seven vacancies now exist. These moneys will pay for the arbritration e decision. The existing program will be able to continue through the fiscal year with tight budgeting. Mr. Lieuallen thought this could be a benefit in disguise since there are requirements that may not be good or helpful for the department. He asked Chief Packard if the moneys taken from Eugene might go to other cities with more political influence. Chief Packard replied it would be conjecture on his part, but he would agree. LEAA had reported Eugene was one of the top five performers. Only three cities had moneys taken away. Chief Packard pointed out that what Eugene does is a catalyst for the whole county through the shared computer. He saw the action as an insult to each and every member of the Police Department and to the City. He did believe that if they could find the funding for the program they may get better value from the money in the ensuing months since they would not have the Federal requirements. Mr. Lieuallen asked whether we would put another city in the same position we are if we appealed the decision. Chief Packard agreed that that is a possibility but award of the grant should be based on past performance and future potential. Mr. Lieuallen had been told that the LEAA announcement came after promotions within the Police Department had been announced. He asked if this was a political personality situation. Chief Packard e 9/17/80--3 indicated it would seem so. Mr. Lieuallen's reaction was that when the Federal government reaches into a City department and takes action which is the prerogative of the City Manager it is "outrageous." e Mr. Lieuallen recognized part of the ICAP grant was to go to the District Attorney's Office. He asked if those moneys would be affected. Chief Packard could not respond. He said the ICAP grant plays a part in the whole Career Criminal Program. The loss of the funds will not change the Eugene Police Department's commitment or its procedures. The District Attorney's program is excellent and he hoped it would continue. Chief Packard said that they are proceeding with a third year grant application. They will have to consider Eugene's application and indicate why they are turning down Eugene's application. Councilor Schue urged that letters be sent to the Congressional delegation as well as the LEAA expressing publicly that the council shares the outrage of the Police Department staff. Mr. L ieuallen asked that the letter focus on the subversion of the process involved, not on the withdrawal of the grant per se. Consensus was to continue with the third year application and notify our Legislative delegation and LEAA of the situation. City Manager said he would work with the Police Department in drafting such a letter. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of Council Minutes of September 3, 1980 -- Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to. approve council minutes of September 3, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. B. Call for Public Hearing; re: Sewer Users's Charges (memo distributed) Manager referred to the memo of September 8, 1980, on the proposed ordinance to implement a new Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission sewer users' charge. He referred to Eugene's proposed local charge of $1.95 and explained the charge was presently $2.50. The figure is reduced since the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission regional charge ($1.75) covers plant and personnel which was previously paid out of the $2.50. The MWMC capital charge of $1.30 is for future plant construction. He introduced Doug Cook, Public Works, and Susan Racette, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. Mr. Cook expl ained that they had changed the name from "water users' charge" to "sewer users' charge." The charge only applies to those who have sewers available. The connection fee has been eliminated. . 9/17 /80--4 A public hearing should be called for September 22, 1980, to receive e input. The City entered into an intergovernmental agreement in 1977, amended it in 1978, and is under obligation to adopt the regional rates. The only rate that the City has control over is the $1.95 local charge. Ms. Racette explained that the $3.05 charge is to cover maintenance and includes a capital charge which would be put aside to offset future costs. She said that they expect to have no increases in the charges unt il 1983. Between now and then operation and maintenance costs will go up but the capital reserve funds will be used to cover those added costs so that by 1983 no funds would go to the capital fund, but all charges would go to cover operation/maintenance costs. Ms. Miller asked the rationale for charging people a "sewers available" fee. Mr. Cook explained the system was des-igned for that individual's use whether the person uses it or not. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to call a public hearing for September 22, 1980; re: proposed ordinance to imple- ment new Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission sewer users' charges. Motion carried unanimously. I I I. PUBLIC HEARINGS e A. Street Vacation for Krumdieck (SV 80-1) (map distributed) Manager explained this was not a routine street vacation. A housing project for handicapped and mentally retarded is being considered for the vacated street. Section 8 special funding is being applied for at . HUD. The project is not close to final stagps. The Planning Commis- sion has approved the vacation unanimously. The City would require a payment. The exact figure of the payment is under negotia- tion. Manager recommended only a first hearing until the details were worked out. Two letters had been received protesting the vacation itself. He introduced Mr. Croteau, Planning, to respond to the letters. Mr. Croteau explained the Planning Commission did consider the street vacation this summer and unanimously recommended approval. The intent is to incorporate the vacated street into a subsidized 35-unit housing development for the handicapped. In 1978 the City rezoned the south tax lots to RG/SR with attached Site Review. The staff has not reviewed any project plans for the purpose of site review. Judith Tegger, at the time of the zone hearing, asked that she be notified when site review was begun. Mr. Long referred to the letter of September 15, 1980, which outlined seven issues. Mr. Long said he would reply to the first three. e 9/17/80--5 The remaining four were planning issues having to do with the develop- ment. Regarding item number 1, the City follows one of two State- authorized procedures. The second issue was whether the property e owner was abutting the street vacation. If they are abutting, the owners must consent to the vacation. Under a council-initiated vacation the owners' consent is not required. To determine what . is abutting is a difficult question. City practice has been to not treat properties situated in the manner of the letter as abutting. Legal authority supports that practice but it is not particularly strong. This definition of abutting is a long-standing, consistent practice. The third issue is whether these people should have been given personal notice of the Planning Commission meeting. The answer is two-fold. Planning Commission meetings were held with certain procedures of notice. Under those procedures these individuals were not entitled to personal notice. The Planning Commission's role in street vacation decisions is not a required role. It is a City practice that they do review them. With respect to legal requirements for notice, under the statutes, publication in a newspaper and posting is all that is required and those requirements have been met. Mr. Haws felt the question for the council was solely one of a street vacation, not what the land will be used for. Mr. Long said it is within the discretion of the City Council whether to vacate a street. He suggested that the council should consider the street vacation on its merits. Public hearing was opened. e Speaking in favor of the street vacation: Oscar Krumdieck, owner of parcels 6600, 6500, and 6400, said they are proposing a project that would be of benefit to the community. The street is not being used. It would make sense to tie the proper- ties together. The plans for the housing development have preliminary approval from State Housing Division. Congressman Weaver sent a letter of support to HUD. Mr. Krumdieck hoped to have funding by next year. He asked for council support for the street vacation. Speaking against the street vacation: Judith Tegger, 90 East 29th Place (Tax Lot 6300), explained that when she ought the property two years ago it was zoned R-2 with an empty lot next to it. There was a rezoning of the properties south of 29th two years ago. At that time it was indicated in the Comprehensive Plan that R-1 zone was appropriate. She requested that she be notified at the time of site review on the vacant area. During the following year she checked twice with the Planning Department to make sure that nothing had gone through. On Labor Day she noticed the e 9/17/80--6 posting for the Planning Commission hearing and found that a hearing e had already been held. Plans had been submitted and circulated to several City departments. Some changes had been made. To her, this appeared to be site review. She noted the State Statutes required others to be notified. The Eugene Code indicated personal notice should go to abutting property owners. There is nothing in the code about a hearing by the Planning Commission. Ms. Tegger felt she had a right to be notified personally of the Planning Commission meeting. She recognized that the contention that she was an abutting property owner was a matter of debate. She felt she was an abutting property owner since the properties touch at a survey point. She explained she was not at the council meeting to oppose the project. She was there to ask to be included in the review of the development. Mr. Krumdieck had not talked to her nor had his architect. She was not contacted by the Planning Department. She was told that a CIR (controlled income rental) density could be increased without a hearing. She specul ated this information might be in error. ~She explained the area is a horseshoe of single-family dwellings. Many elderly live there with some young families. The plans for the development show all 35 units exiting in front of her house. This will not be a street vacation, she said. It will increase street usage from two units to 35 units. When giving a vacation it is private benefit and should be for the pub 1 i c good. This is not a vacation that is closing down a street; it is opening a street. The property is zoned RG with intent to be compatible with an R-l zone. If the street is taken out of City ownership and given to private ownership all the setback requirements e are changed and the total square footage changes. Density would be increased and setbacks decreased. The impact on the neighborhood would be considerably more with the street in private hands rather than the street left as it is. She asked for the assurance that she would be involved in the process of development. Ms. Hawkhold, 2970 Oak Street, objected to the development which would be putting a parking lot ten feet from her front yard. They have parking for 15 or 16 cars and she asked where the rest of the cars would park. All of the traffic going to and from the project will go by her house. Elsie S. Brechtel, 2966 Oak Street, felt there was a traffic problem on Oak because of the dead end on 29th. She felt it was a potentially dangerous situation. Iva Parker, 2990 Pearl Street, was very concerned about parking. The area has a problem with IIgutll traffic on the street. She objected to the street vacation. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Croteau observed that much of the testimony objected to the development that will occur. The staff has in this street vacation file a plot plan that was submitted for review for fire access. Staff e 9/17/80--7 does not feel that the site review process has started. During the site review process for the two lots on the south, surrounding property owners will be notified as one of the first steps in the site e review process. The hope is that the site review will alleviate the traffic concerns heard in the testimony. In response to Mr. Haws' question, Mr. Croteau said that the street is currently barricaded at the west end. Mr. Allen added that this was done much earlier in a similar manner as the diverter program now. He stated that staff would not want to reinitiate the opening of the street. Ms. Miller was assured by Mr. Croteau that the surrounding neighbor- hood would be notified of the site review. She asked why the council was considering the street vacation before the site review. Manager guessed .that the owner probably needed control of the site before applying to HUD. Ms. Schue pointed out that if access to the project were from Willam- ette many of the neighbors' concerns would be alleviated. Mr. Obie pointed out the benefits for authorizing the vacation. One was financial as the City has an asset that is not being used. Second, it will meet the council policy in terms of density goals, etc. It is a benefit for the larger community although not for the adjacent community. He suggested placing a reserve strip on the Oak side of the property that would ensure protection for the adjacent commun ity . e Mr. Haws suggested they vacate the street and consider the development in the future. Ms. Miller felt the matter should go back to the Planning Commission with instructions to consider the testimony presented this evening. She indicated it was difficult for her to vacate the street without knowing what is planned for the area. She interpreted the staff position to be that if the Planning Commission is not legally required to have a hearing they are not required to personally notify people. She said if the Planning Commission has a hearing it is in the City's and council's best interest to have as many people as possible testify at.that hearing so that problems can be resolved in that forum. She asked that the matter be sent back to the Planning Commission to consider not only the street vacation but site review and the timing of these matters. The HUD regulations need to be known, the amount of payment for the street needs to be determined, and pedestrian access needs to be determined. Mr. Lieuallen agreed that the matter should be reconsidered by the Planning Commission. e 9117/80--8 Mr. Obie noted it was not a routine vacation and should be dealt with in the entire package of the development. He asked Mr. Krumdieck how e delays would affect him. Mr. Krumdieck explained that a two-month delay in knowing if the street vacation would be approved would delay the HUD approval. He asked if it could be resolved sooner than two months. Mr. Haws felt the public hearing had taken place and he urged the councilors to make a decision on the street vacation regardless of the development plans. Mr. long advised the council of the value of this precedent in the question of individual notice to particular people. He explained that for council to require notice of a personal nature to be given would create additional problems. If it goes back to the Planning Commission, he hoped it would be because of the unique nature of this case, not because of the question as to whether the City should have sent personal notices to people in the area. . \ Ms. Miller said she felt they were trying to look at a larger issue without thorough Planning Commission analysis. She was not opposed to the vacation or the project. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. lieuallen, to send the matter back to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission to consider the street vacation, the timing of the project, and the site revi ew. The Planning Commission should develop an agenda for e answering all the related q~estions. Ms. Schue spoke against the motion. She objected to delaying the project. Motion failed with all councilors voting nay, except Ms. Miller and Mr. L ieuallen. CB 2190--An ordinance authorizing vacation of a 50-foot-wide street located at 29th Place between Willamette Street and Oak Street. Mr. lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read the first time by council bill number only with unanimous consent of the council. Motion carried unanimously. B. New liquor license Outlets. 1. Kona Cafe--Retail Malt Beverage license; located at 853 East 13th I' Avenue (applicant: Timothy and J. Louise Owens) " 9/17/80--9 Manager indicated that this application had been reviewed by OlCC inspector louis White as well as by the Police and Fire departments and the Traffic Engineer. Everything seemed to be in e order and there was no reason to object the issuance of the license. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to forward to the OlCC with recommendations for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Grocery Cart, No. 14 (package store license); located 4099 West 11th Avenue; applicant: Grocery Cart, Inc., Bill McCabe, President Manager indicate~ the City departments had reviewed the application and found it to be in order. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to forward to the OlCC with recommendations for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Motion carried unanimously. C. Public Works Bid Award; re: Augusta Street (tabulation attached) Manager indicated the low bidder to be Tarheel Asphalt and Paving. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. e Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to award-the Augusta Street project to the low bidder as indicated in the memorandum. Motion carried unanimously. IV. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR MURAL PERMITS AND APPEALS OF MURALS DETERMINATION TO THE SIGN CODE BOARD OF APPEALS (resolution distributed) Manager explained the permit fee for murals is $15 and the appeals fee would be $50. Mr. lieuallen asked if the fees were similar to other fees charged. Manager said they were. ' Ms. Miller said she would abstain from voting because she was absent from the meeting when this subject was discussed. Res. No. 3418--A resolution establishing fees for mural permits and appeals for mural determination to the Sign Code Board of Appeals. . 9/17/80--10 Mr. lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, except Ms. e Miller who abstained, the resolution was adopted. V. ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE 1980-81 BUDGET (memo distributed) Manager reported the votes for the City budget were 8,954 yes and 6,493 no for a 56-percent majority out of 15,447. The ordinance represents a small reduction over the June amount since that included the full Tier 2 and this Tier 2 has been reduced to reflect only nine months. Mr. Obie requested that the Fire Department consult with him before they build a satellite station in his district. CB 2191--An ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 18670 adopting the budget, making appropriations, determining and levying the annual ad valorem property tax for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1980, and ending July 1, 1981, and declar- ing an emergency. Mr. lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, 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. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18698. VI. PRIORITIES FOR EUGENE LENDERS TASK FORCE (memo distributed) Manager introduced Pat Decker and Mary Briggs to discuss the Eugene Lenders Task Force. Ms. Decker explained the Eugene lenders Task Force was formed with councilors Haws and Hamel as members. At the initial meeting, the lenders asked the City to identify priorities. Ms. Decker referred to the memorandum outlining these priorities. The priorities were obtained from the council and from the Private Reinvestment in Neighborhood Revitalization report, the latter being drawn from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act statements and Community Reinvestment Act statements of 1978. Ms. Decker reviewed the memorandum and the priorities: 1) to increase mortgage lending activity in central area neighborhoods; 2) to work with the public and private rehabilitation loan programs to increase private reinvestment and improvement activities; 3) to increase opportunities for home ownership in the central area; and 4) to implement mixed residential/non-residential development in and around the downtown area. . 9/17/80--11 , ,. Mr. lieuallen questioned the serious concerns that were outlined in the report, i.e., "redlining," going on in Eugene. Ms. Briggs cautioned that e staff's evaluation of the report indicates there was no evidence of arbitrary redlining on the basis of geographic and neighborhood factors. What they found was that there was under-representation of conventional mortgages in the central city area. In discussion- with lenders, they have discovered that there are a number of factors contributing to the under- represent at i on. This is on the demand side as well as on the supply side. An example, is a land sales contract. Mr. Lieuallen replied that lending activities have decreased in the central city neighborhoods in the last several years. While land sales contracts may be very attractive to purchasers, they are not very attractive to sellers. He was pleased that this was the first priority. He encouraged the council to support this priority. Ms. Decker indicated the listing was not necessarily in order of importance. Within the Lenders Task Force, they will deal with all the priorities throughout the year. Ms. Decker explained one of the reasons mortgage activity was slow in the inner city was that housing was substandard. Lenders do not want to lend on substandard housing. The lenders Task Force will be looking at this problem. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept the priorities listed in the memorandum addressed to the City Manager from the Housing and Community Conservation Department as of September 5. Motion carried unanimously. e Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that pursuant to ,ORS 192.660(1)(h) the council go into executive session. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made seconded and passed, the meeting was adjourned to September 22, 1980. Ch~rY) ~ City Manager Beth Conant Minutes Recorder BC:kb/CM8bl - 9/17/80--12 . . . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division, Bid No. 7 Opened: August 5, 1980 l. SPEED DEVICES at various locations on Augusta Street. (Job #1697) Bidders: Contract Cost.: AWARD l. Tarheel Asphalt & Paving ----------- $ 8,868.00 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------- $ 9,946.08 3. Wildish Construction Co. ----------- $ 13,811.50 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.---------- $ 14,551.00 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted None $ 9,750.00 $ 8,741. 00 (171 ) . COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 ._------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ .. .h ; e