HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/1981 Meeting (2)
e
e
e
M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
City Council Chamber
April 13, 1981
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg,
D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, Eric Haws, Emily Schue.
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was
called to order by Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller.
I. REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE EXTENSION (WE 81-2) (memo and additional
information distributed)
City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced Gary Chenkin, Planning Department. Mr.
Chenkin said the request before the council was unique. He would review the
water extension policy as outlined in the memo Request for Water Extension and
review the memorandum which explained why this situation was unique. The
council can recommend extraterritorial water extension if: 1) property is
outside the city limits but within the approved urban growth boundary;
2) property is within a dissolved water district; 3) property is recommended for
extraterritorial extension, as the airport area; or 4) property is outside
projected urban growth area where a communicable disease hazard exists. The
proposed request does not specifically meet any of these situations but staff
recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution taking exception to the
existing water extension policy and allowing extraterritorial water extension to
the existing residence on Tax Lot 304. The resolution will authorize the
extension/continuation of water service to that property with its own meter,
pending approval of the Boundary Commission, which must approve all extra-
territorial extensions of service. Without the resolution the request could not
go before the Boundary Commission for consideration.
Councilor Haws asked what would happen if more such requests were made. Mr.
Chenkin answered that these are unique circumstances and it would be very rare
for similar requests to be made. This property, with its existing dwelling,
cannot receive water in any way. This is not of the owner's making. It is a
unique hardship.
Res. No. 3492--A resolution authorizing exception to the water extension
policy.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 1
e
e
e
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Report concerning long-term stategies for downtown housing (memo,
resolution, and additional information distributed)
Manager introduced Pat Decker, Planning Department. Ms. Decker explained the
report comes from the Eugene Planning Commission. She referred to the memo of
April 7, 1981, on the subject Long-Term Strategies for Downtown Housing, and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission stemming from five public hearings.
The first recommended revision is the insertion of a statement following the
Downtown Housing Goal addressing the household types and income ranges that
downtown housing is expected to serve. The second recommended revision is the,
insertion of the illustration, "Framework for Downtown Planning" and supporting
text to clarify the relationship of the long-term strategies for downtown
housing to other planning efforts in the downtown area. Recommendation No.5
should be revised to indicate that the City should study the potential for
long-term leasing of spaces within public parking structures as one alternative
for meeting parking requirements for residential development in the downtown
area. Recommendation No. 6 should be revised to say the City should consider
changing regulations governing required off-street parking for downtown housing
to allow required parking to be located more than 400 feet from the development
site. The revisions for Recommendation No.7 have to do with the use of ameni-
ties to improve the image and ability of the downtown area to serve residential
development. Revisions to Recommendation No.8 involve including the neighbor-
hood organizations in the processes.
Ms. Decker recalled that the issue of downtown housing was a high priority for
the City Council. After receiving an initial report the City Council asked the
Planning Commission to focus on long-term stategies and asked the Urban Renewal
Agency to focus on short-term strategies. These revisions, she explained,
council would be adopting if they adopted the resolution before them. The
revisions are not arguing with the tenor of the recommendations but are clari-
fying them. Two recommendations were added as a result of public testimony:
9. The City should continue to identify and eliminate or lessen the
impact of regulations or laws which act as barriers to housing in the
downtown area, and;
10. The City should take steps to improve housing rehabilitation programs
as one means of conserving and improving more the more than 1,500
dwelling units that are already located within the downtown area.
Ms. Schue asked if in the discussion of item #10 they had developed strategies
for dealing with conversion of existing houses to other uses, such as commercial
uses. Ms. Decker said that they had considered the use of MU zoning. Some
houses are currently not being maintained. Their efforts are to get investor-
owners to rehabilitate the existing housing. Ms. Wooten was concerned about
slowing down the conversion of housing units since it may not be possible to
replace the existing housing. Ms. Decker said the the staff feels that the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 2
e
preservation of the existing housing is important but they are limited in the
ways one can address conversions. The recommendation as outlined in item #10 is
the best that can be done with reference to the rehabilitation program.
e
Ms. Wooten responded that she is aware of the limits of those tools but perhaps
the City should look at other tools to preserve low/moderate income residences.
Ms. Decker said perhaps item #10 could be left more open with the rehabilitation
program listed as only an example.
Ms. Wooten asked if they adopted the reV1Slons, would they then be able to
revise #10 to stress conversion of housing stock at a later date. Ms. Decker
said the council can amend the recommendations at this meeting or at a later
date. Mr. Gleason explained the only successful intervention that he was aware
of is in housing rehabilitation. However, housing rehabilitation takes a long
time to affect a neighborhood. When council reviews the block grant program,
council might be able to develop more effective ways to intervene in the housing
stock and focus their resources on one area, as opposed to spreading these funds
over a wide area. Ms. Wooten agreed that loans seem to be the best now, but
noted that other areas on the West Coast had used more assertive policies and
approaches. She would like to look into them.
Mr. Lindberg asked about the reduced parking requirement for Olive Plaza and
its success or failure. Ms. Decker said that the reductions in the number of
parking spaces to units have been implemented successfully in several develop-
ments. Olive Plaza is not one of them. It has one space for six units.
Experience indicates that one space for every four units works better than one
space for every six units. Public Works is evaluating the one parking space to
every four units of elderly housing at 8th Avenue and Broadway. They intend to
make recommendations to the council on the number of parking spaces to units
after the survey is completed.
-
In answer to Mr. Lindberg's question about the implementation of parking in the
downtown area, Ms. Decker said that the Downtown Development Board was concerned
about the surface parking at 11th Avenue and Willamette Street and the lot
across from the Atrium Building. The City's response is that surface parking
has never been long-term use. They will implement a parking program and will
phase development of parking structures in order not to harm the businesses.
Mr. Lindberg noted that Fanni'e r~ae regulations may preclude"o.r:-r-estrict banks from
loaning on housing that does not have one and one half parking spaces per unit.
Ms. Decker noted that recommendation #6 spoke to that problem. The City might
consider allowing developers to site parking more than 400 feet away from the
building. Pannie Mae might change their' regulations and allow more flexibility.
Mr. Lindberg asked for data that would indicate that there is a market for
downtown housing. Ms. Decker said the Eugene Renewal Agency had decided not to
rely on old data and has recently hired a consultant to complete a market
analysis of the downtown area. Mr. Lindberg asked if there were any indications
to support the contention that downtown housing would support commercial develop-
ment. Ms. Decker indicated that the City of Portland had had similar studies
done and its downtown area is now a very vital area. There is an assumption
that peopl e who 1 i ve downtown will be a captured market and wi 11 try to do most of the; r
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 3
e
e
e
shopping in the downtown area. There is an assumption that residential housing
will add life to the area when the businesses are not open and might encourage
businesses to keep longer hours. It is difficult to separate the factors.
Housing in the downtown is a reasonable response to the City's goals of compact
growth and is a way to take the pressure off the central neighborhoods for
increased density.
Mr. Lindberg had recently received indications of the Reagan Administration
budget cuts on housing subsidies. On a national level, 75,000 to 100,000 people
will be displaced as a direct reaction to the lack of money available for low-
to intermediate-income housing. The preservation strategy, rehabilitation,
exclusionary zoning, becomes all the more critical.
Ms. Wooten asked Ms. Decker to bring back figures on demolitions and conversions
of housing stock in the downtown area for low- and moderate-income people
during the last four years.
The public hearing was opened.
Speaking in favor of the resolution:
Rick Goldstein, 1610 Jefferson Street, Neighborhood Housing Resource Center,
said there are two aspects to the downtown housing issue: 1) downtown housing
can be part of the revitalization of downtown. In the past, efforts of ERA to
revitalize downtown have not been successful. Before proceeding further it is
important to review the marketing study being done, to make sure downtown
housing will sell. 2) Downtown housing is a facet of the City's housing
policy. A considerable amount of City staff time will be spent to develop
housing in the downtown area. It is important that it serve the needs of the
neediest people. The five central area neighborhoods are 80% below median
income and have been designated to receive block grant funds. In 1976 these
people spent over 25% of their income on housing. They are "housing poor.'1 It
is important that a percentage of any downtown housing be affordable to these
residents, by possible exclusionary zoning, or mandating a number of affordable
units. He strongly supported mechanisms such as an urban bank, non-profit
housing development corporation, and use of the City's bonding authority. He
objected to splitting off the downtown neighborhood from the core in planning
efforts. He advocated the preservation of existing housing stock, with the
possible use of cost-sharing between the public and private sectors. He sug-
gested City efforts be directed into leveraging to receive more rehabilitation
funds.
Dustin Posner, 983 West 10th Avenue, encouraged the adoption of the resolution.
To provide on-site parking, he suggested calculating parking areas required for
housing and exempting that area from the building area limits. The developer
on the downtown site with a four-to-one ratio could still fill the site with
housing and commercial and still provide the parking for the housing, possibly
underneath the structure, allowing the developer to still get on-site parking.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 4
e
e
e
William E. Allard, Realty World, Landmark Properties, 2472 Willamette, said he
deals in commercial and development properties and subsidized units for investor-
clients. He said the Federal cuts by the Reagan Administration seem to be those
that have been abused in the past, such as where someone was using a State
Housing Authority low-interest Rehabilitation Loan of 3% and had also had the
project approved for Section VIII Subsidized Housing Loan. It is the double
usage of benefits that the Reagan Administration has cut. Other Section VIII
projects are being approved at today's level. The State Housing Authority is
still approving low-interest money for construction of good rehabilitation,
elderly, and multi-family housing units. Central Eugene has a lot of surface
parking which should be put into parking structures. Portland'sdowntown has
been revitalized with the development of housing in the core area and that could
happen in Eugene. Mr. Allard suggested a dual concept be used in the downtown
area where parking could be on two levels and executive condos on the top.
There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed.
Ms. Decker responded to Mr. Posner's suggestion and said that a mixture of
residential/ non-residential development had been proposed for the 11th and
Willamette site. It was her understanding that the below-grade parking would be
exempted from the floor-area ratio of that development. The possibility exists
now and could be a part of the recommendations.
Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that, in addition to
reviewing ways to improve the housing rehabilitation program, #10
would study other means of conserving and improving existing
housing stock with the emphasis on preventing conversion to other
uses and demolition.
Ms. Wooten suggested adding the word "low" to the phrase "mod-
erately priced" in Recommendation #10.
Ms. Schue and Mr. Hamel amended the previous motion to include the
rewording suggested by Ms. Wooten. . . existing "low" and mod-
erately priced housing. . .
Mr. Lindberg suggested they "flip-flop" the focus of the recommendation to be
directed toward housing preservation and conservation with a list of suggested
responses that would include: cost sharing of demolition, inclusionary zoning,
rehabilitation, revolving loan pool, "granny" apartments. Ms. Schue said that
is what she intended by her motion.
Mr. Obie thought the original motion covered Mr. Lindberg's concern in a general
sense. He was more comfortable with keeping the report general at this point
and determining the specific implementation later.
Mr. Lindberg was troubled by the recommendation's narrow focus on rehabilitation
and not preservation and conservation. He felt the emphasis should be that the
City take steps to preserve and conserve the area with a sentence following
about the rehabilitation program. Ms. Schue suggested letting the staff write
the language.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
Apri 1 13, 1981
Page 5
e
e
e
Mr. Gleason said council would like some specific language dealing with the
intervention options for preserving the housing inventory. Staff would bring
that language back to the council for inclusion in the document under considera-
tion. It will be a motion reaffirming council's action. It would not need to
be a public hearing.
Ms. Miller said the council would like to approve the resolution before them
with the proviso that Recommendation #10 will be reworded and council will
shortly see new wording which incorporates the intent of the council.
Ms. Schue and Mr. Hamel withdrew their motion in favor of Ms.
Miller1s recommendation.
Mr. Lindberg referred to the first page listing the first goal. He was dis-
tressed with the last statement. . . In pursuing this downtown. . . while at
the same time discouraging the creation of areas characterized by households
with low incomes. He wished to avoid the implication that low-income people
should not choose to live together: or that the City is consciously trying to
break up the neighborhoods they 1 ive in. He suggested rewording II . at the
same time discouraging the creation of slums characterized by blight and domi-
nated by households with low income.1I
Ms. Miller and Ms. Wooten agreed the original language was startling but they
did not wish to change it since the intent of the City was clear. The City does
not want to create area of low income. The word IIcreatell is the important
element. The need is for variety. Mr. Obie thought it was a matter of seman-
tics. The City did not want to create ghettos. Mr. Lindberg did not want to
dismantle the existing neighborhoods.
Mr. Gleason noted it was difficult to redraft a document on the floor of the
council. He suggested the staff bring back language that would clarify the
expressed concerns.
Res. No. 3493--A resolution adopting long-term strategies for housing in
Eugene1s downtown area.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote, motion carried unanimously.
It was understood that staff would bring back a supplemental resolution res-
ponding to council's concerns regarding specific language changes discussed at
the meeting.
B. Solar Energy Access Code Amendments (Phase One) (CA 80-4) (memo,
ordinance, additional information distributed)
Manager introduced Gary Chenkin, Planning.
Mr. Chenkin explained the council bill under consideration is an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Division Ordinance, and is a response to the
council's number one priority, energy efficiency and conservation.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
Apri 1 13, 1981
Page 6
e
--
e
This ordinance was developed as a recommendation from the council's Energy
Board. Other components of the program are carpooling, compact urban growth,
weatherization, cogeneration, and solar access. These will be presented to the
council in three phases. Phase One would require solar access factors to be
considered in the design where feasible and practical in new PUDs and new land
divisions such as subdivisions and minor partitions. Council will consider the
second phase in early to mid-summer which will be to protect solar access in
developments that already exist in the City, either through a setback or an
easement approach or a combination of both. The third phase will be a compre-
hensive manual which is being written by the EWEB Energy Conservation Center in
conjunction with City staff to provide the public with information on how solar
access can be attained, protected, and used. None of the ordinances being
developed would require installation of either passive or active systems. They
only provide for and protect solar access if one wants to use solar. This
ordinance represents the findings of five public hearings before the Planning
Commission, notices to 220 individuals, agencies, neighborhood groups, and
interested groups. It was advertised widely. The public testimony was in the
council's packet along with chronology of events, the planning commission
minutes and staff notes, and the early drafts. Mr. Chenkin reviewed the char-
acteristics of the final draft.
The first characteristic is that solar access factors must be considered in both
the land division and planned unit development approval process. The second
characteristic is that solar access must be considered in the preparation of the
design process. The third characteristic is that the ordinance defines the term
II so 1 ar access .,11 Although so 1 ar access may not always be incorporated in a
design, the applicant will need to demonstrate why solar access is not feasible.
The Planning Commission has recommended adoption of this ordinance and recommends
that it be monitored for 18 months with a review to be at the end of that time
period.
Mr. Chenkin explained the solar access checklist which is ready at this time,
and described the manual which is being developed with the aid of the Home-
builders' Association and the Eugene chapter of the American Institute of
Architects. Mr. Chenkin recommended that the emergency clause on the ordinance
be deleted so that the community would have 30 days for the ordinance to become
effective. He introduced Adrienne Lannom, chair of the Planning Commission, and
Bob Lorenzen from EWEB.
Public hearing was opened.
Speaking in favor:
John Kaufman, Oregon Department of Energy, Solar Specialist, supported the
council's efforts and the proposed amendments to the PUD and subdivision regu-
lations. Solar access can save 5 to 15% of home space heating energy needs at
virtually no cost. The proper orientation of a house can save energy. It
preserves the opportunity for future retrofits, water heaters, greenhouses, or
solar cells that convert sunlight to energy (economically available by 1985).
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 7
-
e
e
The public wants solar access as illustrated by a survey done in the Woodburn,
Oregon, area, where 93% of those responding wished solar access were feasible.
A survey by the National Association of Home Builders indicates that 80% of the
surveyed homeowners rated energy-efficiency as the top consideration when buying
a new home. Most will spend $500 additional for energy-efficiency. Solar
access encourages investments in solar energy. It is educational and protects
the consumer. Mr. Kaufman suggested approval of all phases.
Randy Bennett, Homebuilders' Association of Lane County, 3282 Gateway, Spring-
field, said they had testified before the Planning Commission and several of
their recommendations had been incorporated into the final version. The Home-
builders' Association sees this as a reasonable approach to the solar access
issue. Mandatory requirements would be premature. Development of the manual
is essential and should be the basis for the City's energy policies. Any
regulation should deal with the differences between new construction and existing
structures. The cost benefits of retrofitting should be analyzed before it
is required. Regulations add to the cost of any structure and should be
considered in light of protecting reasonably priced housing. The National
Homebuilders' Association notes that the technology is changing rapidly and more
work needs to be done before stability is achieved. It is a challenge and a
necessity to establish a flexible policy that will accommodate the changing
technology.
Gene Brockmeyer, 3598 Emerald, architect, and current president of the Southwestern
Oregon chapter of the American Institute of Architects, speaking in behalf of the
chapter, said they were in support of the amendments as currently written. He
thanked the Planning Commission and the Planning Department for providing an
opportunity for their input. He felt that this would be a very great asset to
the community.
Carol Cogswell, 2560 Inavale Street, spoke in behalf of the Board of Directors
of the Willamette Valley Solar Energy Association, an organization of 200
builders, architects, and people interested in solar energy. The organization
is in support of the proposed PUD and Subdivision amendments and of the phases
to be considered in the next few months. There are 150 solar installations in
Lane County; 40% of these are active systems and another 40% are passive
systems. Solar regulation is needed to guarantee access for these systems and
future systems. A method to record one's system such as that adapted by Wood-
burn, where one files a solar access profile along with the deed, is needed.
Any changes to that profile would be measurable and legally contestable. Their
association would encourage council's approval and would encourage protection of
solar access by some sort of recording process.
Larry Parker, 1190 West 5th Avenue, Oregon Appropriate Technology, a business
devoted to promoting the use of solar energy, said he is involved with retrofit-
ting and with alterations. Some of his clients have houses that are correctly
oriented. Others have poor orientation which raises the cost of retrofits and
their energy bills. This practice should not continue. He had hoped that
guidelines would stress that houses need to be oriented with the long axis east
and west to assure optimium solar access. A southerly orientation should be
stressed. There is a confusing reference to south-facing building surfaces and
walls in the ordinance as written. He hoped this language would be made clear
in the final form of the ordinance. He urged the adoption of the ordinance and
the final two stages as well.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 8
e
Sam Sadler, 1991 Columbia, said that the applications of solar are well-known
and in response to the Homebuilders' testimony said that the fact that this is a
mandatory ordinance does not mandate solar. It only asks the applicant to
consider solar orientation. It should provide a cost savings, not cost more.
There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed.
Councilor Haws did not return after break.
Ms. Wooten asked if the solar access checklist could be included in the ordinance
itself. Mr. Chenkin replied that it was originally included. The Planning
Commission, in listening to testimony, decided that inclusion of the checklist
made the ordinance appear to be inflexible and too prescriptive. The ordinance
states the goal of providing access on the shortest day of the year, and it was
thought that would accomplish the same purpose. Ms. Wooten was supportive of
including the checklist in the ordinance itself and hoped it would be part of
the motion. Councilors Miller and Smith expressed their support of the ordinance
as it is now written and suggested it would be premature to consider including
the solar access checklist at this time. Changing the proposed ordinance to
include the checklist would require further public hearings and it would need to
be considered by the Planning Commission again. Ms. Wooten was agreeable to
their suggestions as long as consideration could be given to this suggestion in
the later phases.
e
Ms. Schue wished for an ordinance designed for understanding by the ordinary
homeowner, not one in the legal terminology as the one presently before the
council. Mr. Chenkin said that the checklist and the manual will be in a
format and language that anyone could pick up and use. Mr. Chenkin said
that draft #2 in the staff notes presented to the council shows the last draft
with the criteria included in the ordinance. The criteria were removed in the
future drafts.
Mr. Obie asked if the criteria were presently administrative rules. Mr. Chenkin
agreed and explained in the earlier drafts of this amendment, they were part of
the code revisions. Mr. Obie asked the rationale for administrative rules. Mr.
Chenkin recalled that the testimony supported removing the criteria from the
code and was based on the contention that inclusion of the criteria in the code
would lend an aura of rigidity and prescriptiveness that they felt would hamper
their ability to adjust to new developments. The Planning Commission agreed
that removal would enable the City to be more flexible. Ms. Wooten did not want
to preclude adding the criteria to the ordinance at a later date. Mr. Chenkin
responded that inclusion or not seemed to be more a matter of preference. Ms.
Miller asked if the administrative rule would be enforced less uniformly or
flexibly than the code. Mr. Chenkin did not think they could afford to be
arbitrary and anticipated uniform treatment would occur whether they were in the
ordinance or not. The flexibility would allow for differences in physical
setting, not in the application process.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 9
e
e
e
Mr. Obie asked the Planning Commission to reconsider that specific area. He was
uncomfortable with the administrative rule process as it might appear to be
arbitrary. He suggested the Planning Commission again consider this issue in
December or January. Mr. Chenkin said he would see that this is considered by
the Planning Commission when they review Phase Two.
CB 2267--An ordinance concerning solar energy; amending Sections 9.015,
9.030, 9.035, 9.254, 9.510, 9.512, and 9.514 of the Eugene Code,
1971.
Mr. Gleason reminded the council that they would not be declaring this an
emergency.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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.
Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
CB 2267 was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the council bill be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors
present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
18772.
C. Ordinance Concerning Mall Pushcarts (memo, proposed guidelines,
ordinance distributed)
Manager introduced Ernie Drapela, Parks and Recreation. Mr. Drapela said the
request is to extend the experimental program of permitting pushcarts on the
mall on a permanent basis and to designate the Parks and Recreation Director or
his designee to administer this program, rather than the council. Administrative
guidelines will be finalized later by the Parks and Recreation Department. An
advisory committee made up of representatives from the vendors on the mall, the
Downtown Association, and the Downtown Development Board would be appointed.
Mr. Drapela said that the finalized guidelines would be provided to the council
at a later date but requested that the program be approved at this meeting.
Ms. Wooten asked if the guidelines being prepared were the same as those used
this past year. Mr. Drapela said the guidelines were suggested by the Downtown
Development Board and the Downtown Association. He will also consider input
from the vendors themselves. He anticipated further clarification of the
construction regulations from the Building Division. He listed other minor
changes and explained that he wished to expand the application dates. Adoption
of the ordinance will not preclude these changes in the administrative guidelines.
Ms. Wooten called attention to guideline I, duration of stay, and asked if the
requirement that the vendors be on the mall on Saturdays was a negotiable item.
Mr. Drapela said that it was. Ms. Wooten questioned the early deadline for
application. Mr. Drapela responded that vendors need to know early who will be
able to participate. Ms. Wooten supported the adoption of the ordinance.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 10
e
Ms. Miller stated she supported the
this to be construed as her overall
through for mall activity permits.
the next few months.
ordinance but did not want her support of
acceptance of the process the City was going
This process needs to be reviewed closely in
Public hearing was opened.
Tom Emerson, 175 Adams, Lulu's Smoothies, urged the adoption of the ordinance.
He was against the administrative guidelines but was encouraged by Mr. Drapela's
remarks. He asked that the council adopt a strong recommendation to the Down-
town Development Board and the Downtown Association that the vendors be included
in the final guideline adoption. He felt it was an error that the vendors had
not been consulted at all at this point.
There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed.
e
Councilors Lindberg and Wooten urged that the City consult the vendors before
finalizing the guidelines and that the vendors' representatives on the advisory
committee be included in the negotiation of the guidelines.
CB 2268--An ordinance concerning mall permits; amending Sections 4.876 and
4.877 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith 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. Roll
call vote; motion carried unanimously.
CB 2268 was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Drapela indicated the administrative guidelines would be submitted to the
council within 30 to 60 days. Until that time, Mr. Drapela suggested that they
would operate on last year's guidelines. Mr. Gleason said that they would work
to expedite the approval of the vendors on the mall so as not to impede the
progress for this summer. Mr. Long explained Parks and Recreation could issue
temporary rules with a sunset clause. They can operate while permanent rules
are being discussed and he would anticipate that that would be the most appro-
priate way to proceed.
Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye. The bill was
declared passed and numbered 18773.
III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING
Levying assessments and referring to Hearings Panel to be held April 20, 1981.
CB 2269--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on
Stewart Road from Bertelsen Road to approximately 2,400 feet east.
(79-50)
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 11
e
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
April 20, 1981, with panel recommendation to be brought back for
council consideration April 27, 1981. Motion carried unanimously.
CB 2270--An ordinance levying assessments for paving Van Buren Street from
12th Avenue to 13th Avenue. (80-05)
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
April 20, 1981, with panel recommendation to be brought back for
council consideration April 27, 1981. Motion carried unanimously.
CB 2271--An ordinance levying assessments for paving Pattison Avenue from
Waite Street to 750 feet west; and Pedestrian Way from Pattison
Avenue termination west to Taney Street. (80-12)
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
April 20, 1981, with panel recommendation to be brought back for
council consideration April 27, 1981. Motion carried unanimously.
CB 2272--An ordinance levying assessments for paving Dove Lane from Taney
Street to 930 feet west. (80-14)
e
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
April 20, 1981, with panel recommendation to be brought back for
council consideration April 27, 1981. Motion carried unanimously.
CB 2273--An ordinance levying assessments for paving Bell Avenue from
Berntzen Road to Louis Street. (80-15)
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
April 20, 1981, with panel recommendation to be brought back for
council consideration April 27, 1981. Motion carried unanimously.
CB 2274--An ordinance levying assessments for sidewalk north side of Cal
Young Road from Willakenzie Road to Gilham Road. (80-17)
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
April 20, 1981, with panel recommendation to be brought back for
council consideration April 27, 1981. Motion carried unanimously.
CB 2275--An ordinance levying assessments for paving alley between 7th Avenue
and 8th Avenue from Washington Street to Lawrence Street. (80-37)
e
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
April 20, 1981, with panel recommendation to be brought back for
council consideration April 27, 1981. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 12
-
CB 2276--An ordinance levying assessments for street paving on Acorn Park
Street from West 11th to Amazon Channel. (80-55)
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
April 20, 1981, with panel recommendation to be brought back for
council consideration April 27, 1981. Motion carried unanimously.
IV.
PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (distributed)
Res. No. 3494--A resolution authorizing the payment of bills, claims, and
progress payments for the period March 18, 1981, through
April 13, 1981. ~
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
V. EUGENE WATER AND ELECTRIC BOARD ACTION CONCERNING MAYOR'S LETTER
Manager suggested two motions in response to the Mayor IS letter to the EWEB
Board as per the council's action at the last meeting. He recommended that the
City Manager work with the EWEB staff and board to resolve the issues addressed
in the Mayor's letter and to develop a task force to resolve any policy issues
that cannot be resolved with the management. Further, he suggested that council
indefinitely table the ordinance that the council suggested having a hearing on
at the next council meeting.
..
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the Manager be directed
to work with EWEB's management to clarify and resolve the issues
described in Ms. Miller's recent letter to the EWEB Board and that
a council task force consisting of two members be appointed by the
Mayor to work with the City Manager and EWEB on policy issues,
that EWEB be requested to appoint a similar task force of commis-
sioners, and that the council action on the proposed ordinance's
(CB 2263) changes in the relationship between the City and EWEB
set for the hearing on April 27 be postponed until further notice.
Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting was adjourned to April 15, 1981.
(Recorded by Beth Conant)
BC:ky/CM7b11
.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
April 13, 1981
Page 13