Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/29/1981 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber April 29, 1981 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten. Councilor Mark Lindberg and Mayor Gus Keller were absent. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Jack Delay Resignation Ms. Wooten expressed her appreciation to former City Councilor Jack Delay for his membership on the Eugene Renewal Agency and the Eugene Economic Development Committee. The other councilors also expressed their appreciation to Mr. Delay for his long hours of volunteer work. B. Amtrak Ms. Schue said that she was impressed with Amtrak while on her vacation. She intended to write her congressman and representative. Rail traffic ought to live. C. Stan Long Resignation Mr. Obie thanked Mr. Long for his work with the City Council and wished him well in his job in Salem as Assistant Attorney General. He said council was very pleased to know that he was there. The other councilors concurred. D. Appointments Councilors Obie and Lindberg will serve on the Community Development Study Task Force. Acting Mayor Miller will serve as an alternate. Councilors Smith and Schue will serve on the EWEB Task Force. Councilors Obie and Miller will serve as substitutes. A letter to Mr. Tiffany indicating these appointments will be sent. E. Announcements Manager reminded council of the May 21, 1981, Intergovernmental Meeting with Lane County/Springfield/Eugene. Manager indicated the distribution of the Intergovernmental Relations report. He added that much work needs to be done yet on the three-mile limit issue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 1 . F. Agenda Adjustments Item VII: ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING, held over from the last meeting, would be added to thlS agenda. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of City Council Minutes of April 8, 1981 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve City Council minutes of April 8, 1981. Motion carried unanimously. B. Call for Public Hearing 1. Street vacation for the City of Eugene: Performing Arts Center/ Convention Center(SV 81-1) (map distributed) CB 2285--An ordinance calling a public hearing for June 8, 1981; re: Street vacation for City of Eugene: Performing Arts Center/Convention Center located on Willamette Street between 6th and 7th Avenues. 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. Motion carried unanimously. ~ Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting "aye," the bill was declared passed and number 18780. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. New Liquor License Outlets 1. Mona and Byfields (package store); located at 492 E. 13th; appli- cants: Lionel and Mona Byfield. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to the OLCC with recommendation for approval subject to conditions, if any. The motion carried unanimously. 2. KT's Restaurant and Bakery (retail malt beverage); located at 955 Overpark Arcade; applicant: Kathryn Tutrone. e Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to the OLCC with recommendation for approval subject to conditions, if any. The motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 2 e 3. Peking Mandarin Restaurant (restaurant); located at 1280 Hilyard Street; applicants: Michael and Kitty Chen and Leo and Eileen Lee. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to the OLCC with recommendation for approval subject to conditions, if any. The motion carried unanimously. 4. Valentine's Wine and Cheese (package store); located at 881 East 13th Avenue; applicants: Shirley and Joseph Valentine. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to the OLCC with recommendation for approval subject to conditions, if any. The motion carried unanimously. 5. Reed & Cross (package store); located at Valley River Inn, Valley River Way; applicant: Paul Goodman. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to the OLCC with recommendation for approval subject to conditions, if any. The motion carried unanimously. e IV. STATUS OF TRAFFIC DIVERTER PROGRAM WITHIN THE WESTSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY PROJECT AREA--Information Staff Report (memo distributed) e Manager introduced Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer. Mr. Hanks explained that two weeks ago the City Council requested that staff review the status of the diverters in the Wests ide Neighborhood Quality Project area. Last week the council directed staff to continue with the diverters that were already planned. He referred to the memo explaining the process the City goes through in order to determine whether a diverter should be considered. He wished to show that the two plans, that presented in 1974 and the present plan, were different. The 1974 plan had diverters at Broadway and Madison, and 10th and Adams. Also part of the system was a diverter at 12th and Tyler. At the present time they have a diverter system at Broadway and Tyler (diagonal), Broadway and Monroe (partial), and a diverter at 10th and Adams (diagonal). The 1974 plan did not allow sufficient circulation even in the neighborhood for the neighbors. The present diverter system adds additional circulation capabilities within the neighborhood. Mr. Hanks explained that the diverter at 10th and Adams was being installed at the same time the council was discussing this issue at its last meeting. The other diverters were installed Monday and Tuesday as approved by the council at their last meeting. Mr. Gleason added that this had been by motion of the City Council at the last meeting which Mr. Obie did not attend. Mr. Obie asked why the issue was on the agenda today then. Ms. Miller replied there were two separate questions: 1) the question of these specific diverters which had been MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 3 e discussed by the neighborhood for the last four or five years; and 2) the question of whether the City's diverter policy in general makes sense. There are two distinct questions. The council can talk about the larger issue of whether traffic diverters in neighborhoods make sense without telling a neigh- borhood which has been working on specific diverter installations that the council is changing the rules after four years of effort on the neighborhood's part. Ms. Smith said that her understanding of council's action last week was to delay the report requested by Mr. Obie, who was not in attendance. Council approved one diverter because it had already been installed. She had thought that any action the council took at its last meeting was in terms of diverters that had already been installed and not with regard to those that would be installed in the next week or ten days. She may have misunderstood the report. Ms. Wooten's understanding was that the acting Mayor had instructed staff to proceed with the present trial diverter program in that neighborhood and had requested that council review the entire diverter policy at a time when Mr. Obie could be present, since Mr. Obie's question did not arise until the initial diverter had already been installed and the others were on their way. Mr. Gleason pointed out that all of the recently installed diverters are trial diverters. e Ms. Miller explained that staff had been instructed to proceed with the Broadway/ Tyler diverter in order to keep faith with the neighborhood. Mr. Obie asked about the urgency in installing the other two diverters. Mr. Hanks explained the traffic on 10th was diverting to Broadway. All three diverters were consi- dered part of the system. Diverters are usually installed in inclement weather. MS. Wooten noted that these were trial diverters. The surveys had shown that people in the area wanted to try them. Final approval for permanent installation would be up to the City Council. Mr. Hamel objected to the concept of the diverter program. Roads should be used. Ms. Wooten explained that when the inner city arterials are crowded, cars tend to use the inner city neighborhoods. The development of Monroe Street Park has added to that burden. It has the support of the neighborhood. Mr. Hamel asked that this issue be put to a vote by the citizens of Eugene. There are more people and there is more of a problem. They have had plans for arterials for the City of Eugene which those people in those areas have voted against. Now it is coming back to haunt them. It is the arterials, not the neighborhood streets that are the problem. Mr. Gleason said in this instance staff had a procedure which they were implement- ing. The City Council needs to decide if they want to re-examine the procedure. If permanent diverters are installed, staff needs to know that the arterials can handle the traffic. Staff would recommend that a diverter program or policy include in the trial period, examination of the arterials and where the flows go. Before the permanent diverters are placed, there must be included in the capital improvements program the incremental adjustment to upgrade the arterial e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 4 e e e street or intersection. This is the missing link. There is an existing council policy relating to diverters and staff is not in a position to make a choice about whether that policy .should be followed or not. Mr. Obie thought that there were of these diverters. Council and about installation in this area. ordering them to be installed. Ms. Miller explained that she had understood Mr. Obie1s concern to be with the diverter at 10th and Tyler and that diverter had already been installed before the council could act. She thought staff should proceed with installation of the other two diverters based on the fact that she thought only one diverter was Mr. Obie's concern. She reiterated her desire to discuss the diverter policy while the temporary diverters are in place. The staff can gather information and the council can review the policy. She did feel the council would not have been acting in good faith with the neighborhood if they had halted installation of the trial diverters. Mr. Gleason added that he had recommended installation of those as they had gone through the process. He had not understand Mr. Obie1s position and had thought that Mr. Obie was concerned with only this diverter. The question of proceeding came up. The diverters were temporary. Citizens had gone through the procedure. Mr. Gleason accepted the responsibility. He said if council so wished they would have them removed. choices to be made in regard to the installation staff were well aware that he was concerned He felt some councilors acted in bad faith in Mr. Hanks reviewed the diverter policy as a whole. The policy was established in Resolution 2414 adopted in 1975. It had as its goal the increased livability of the neighborhood by a reduction of through traffic on neighborhood streets. Any person or organization can request a diverter. Staff makes a preliminary investigation when they receive the request. If it is an arterial street, it is automatically rejected. Staff checks with the Fire Department, 4-J, LTD, and Medical Services to see if a diverter would hamper services along the street. They then proceed with a traffic study to determine if there is a through traffic problem. If it is a problem solvable by a diverter, they look to see where the traffic will go. They then proceed to the design process. After they get the precise location, they go back to the agencies. They define the area of impact. The area is polled to determine their response to the plan. Responses range from 25% to 30% response rate. If the response is unfavorable, they drop the project or go to redesign. If there is a favorable response, a public hearing is held. If after all this process the response is favorable, they will install a trial diverter. After one month, they study the traffic, then pol' the neighborhood and conduct a staff hearing. They then make a recommendation to the City Council. In the future the recommendation will include the improve- ments to arterials or street improvements if needed. After council approval, the diverter is put in the capital improvements budget. Mr. Hanks asked council for direction for the future. Acting Mayor asked if council would like to hear from Tom Andersen. She noted this was his third time testifying on this topic. Tom Andersen, the diverters seven streets 7th, and 8th. 790 West Broadway, chair of the Wests ide Quality Project, had one of in front of his house. The neighborhood is from 13th to 7th and run east/west. Four of these seven are arterials--13th, 11th, Three streets are neighborhood streets. Cars often get off the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 5 'e e e arterials and go at arterial speeds through the neighborhood.' This concern has been raised in the neighborhood groups. In the case of the permanent 12th Avenue diverter a survey was conducted where 23% of the neighborhood responded with 55% favoring testing. The permanent diverters approved by the City Council on 12th have been quite a success. The traffic is almost 100% local. The street is used as a bike route. It is a livable atmosphere. Mr. Anderson compared the survey to the 10th Avenue and Broadway diverter. He noted that this was a trial. There are questions, he recognized, about the diverter, that will be answered by the trial. He asked City Council to go forward with the project. Ms. Miller wished to proceed based on the fact that a majority surveyed favored the trial diverter. Mr. Hamel said that he had nothing against the neighborhood association and the people. He has voted against every diverter or blockade since he has been on the council. v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SIX-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (memo distributed) Manager introduced Irv Berman, Planning Engineer. Mr. Berman explained that the State of Oregon is about to consider their six-year capital improvement program. The City can ask that ODOT consider certain projects. Public Works and Planning Departments have suggested the prioritization of the list being considered. Three of the five suggestions were approved at the last six-year review period and have been under consideration and preliminary planning. Mr. Berman reviewed the memo containing the listing dated March 25, 1981, addressed to Michael Gleason with the subject listed as: Upcoming Oregon Depart- ment of Transportation (ODOT) Six Year (CIP) Highway Improvement. The listing was as follows: 1) 6th-7th arterial construction funding; 2) Highway 99 at Roosevelt Boulevard; 3) franklin Boulevard between Onyx and Agate; 4) Highway 99 North; 5) 1-5 to Franklin Boulevard northbound off-ramp modification. Ms. Miller had some reservations about the franklin Boulevard bike/pedestrian overcrossing. It is an expensive project. She had doubts about its effective- ness. The lights on franklin are short-cycled. It takes two cycles to cross the street so people do not cross at the lights but dash across. She could not imagine that these same people would climb an overcrossing. She cited the small usage of overcrossings in general. Mr. Berman said that it was on the list in order to indicate to the State that this is a State facility (the University) and a highway department highway (Franklin Boulevard) and this is a State problem. This is to alert the State to the problem. A high percentage of people jaywalk and jayride (65%). The accident rate is not very high, but accidents are severe when they occur. The timing allowed for pedestrian crossings is very short. In the T-2000 plan the level of traffic will be "E" and will back up if the timing on the lights is any slower. Mr. Berman said that they wish to alert the State to seek solutions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 6 e e e Ms. Miller agreed that there is a problem. She agreed that they should send a statement saying that there is a severe problem. The two State facilities along with the geography of the region are causing the problem. There needs to be a solution. They need to help work it out and pay for it. She hesitated recom- mending a bridge and asked that the State be notified of her concerns. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve project recommen- dations as outlined in staff memo dated March 25, 1981, for inclusion in the Oregon Department of Transportation Six-Year Highway Improvement Program. Motion carried unanimously. VI. CONSIDERATION OF MEDICAL SERVICES INCORPORATED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE (memo distributed) Manager introduced Bill Haley, Finance Department, who explained that this was a request from Medical Services, Inc., to extend the present rate for one month while new rate increase proposals are under consideration. Staff would recommend approval of at least one month. Mr. Gleason explained the previously granted rate increase terminates this month. The Emergency Medical Services Task Force needs time to examine the standards and the new rate increase request based on those standards. Springfield has approved the extension. If council chooses not to approve the extension, the rate would go back to the old rate and that would add to the demise of MSI. Mr. Obie observed that 90 days would be a more appropriate length of time for this rate extension. Mr. Gleason said that the present situation of MSI is unclear, but a 90-day extension is probably more realistic. The standards are the key to the staff analysis of the rate structure and these are still being determined. Ms. Miller explained that the task force is trying to set the medical standards and standards for the rates. The financial standard is pretty well set. They are still looking at the medical standards and will probably be considering an additional rate increase request soon. Mr. Obie explained the standards will be presented to the task force and the medical association next Tuesday. The standards if approved will then go to the City Council. 30 days is not an adequate amount of time for the process. He suggested 90 days. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Leonard what the expectations were for MSI. Mr. Leonard, PO Box 2446, answered that they do not have a proposal to purchase MSI. They are under court order to finalize their plan to the court by May 11, 1981. If they do not have a plan by the end of Mayor the first of June they will be out of business. They need permission to continue with the current rates and need a set of standards. The city spent $36,000 to have the Touche Ross study done to provide a method to set rates. Their fiscal year ended March 31, 1981. The rates set last November will not be looked at by Medicare. Rates set on June 1, 1981, will be considered by Medicare in 1982. The welfare department considers a rate increase once a year. The rate request will be MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 7 e according to the Touche Ross standards. Mr. Leonard said that they are going to be successful with the reorganization and hoped to be successful in providing service to the City and to Lane County. Res. No. 3503--A resolution concerning ambulance service amending Res. No. 3453 by extending the effective date of rates authorized therein. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution as drafted, inserting a 90-day extension instead of a 30-day exten- sion. Motion carried 6:1, Councilor Wooten abstaining. VII. ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING A. Approval of Hearings Panel Minutes of April 20, 1981 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve hearing panel's minutes of April 20, 1981. Ms. Wooten, at the hearings panel meeting, said one problem came to them because a zoning map was not updated from one department to the other. It seemed like a fairly easy thing to keep track of. Mr. Gleason said that he would get a detailed report on that item. e Motion carried unanimously. B. Levying Assessments Manager said that CB 2269 levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Stewart Road from Bertelsen Road to approximately 2,400 feet east (79-50) was being referred back to the next hearings panel. CB 2270--An ordinance levying assessments for paving Van Buren Street from 12th Avenue to 13th (80-05). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting "aye", the bill was declared passed and numbered 1878l. 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 approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting II aye II , the bill was declared passed and numbered 18782. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 8 e CB 2272--An ordinance levying assessments for paving Dove Lane from Taney Street to 930 feet west (80-14). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting "aye", the bill was declared passed and numbered 18783. 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 approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting "aye", the bill was declared passed and numbered 18784. CB 2274--An ordinance levying assessments for a sidewalk on the 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 approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting "aye", the bill was declared passed and numbered 18785. CB 2275--An ordinance levying assessments for paving the 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 approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting "aye", the bill was declared passed and numbered 18786. CB 2276--An ordinance levying assessments for street paving on Acorn Park Street from West 11th Avenue to Amazon Channel (80-55). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present vot i ng II aye II , the bi 11 was declared passed and numbered 18787. VIII. SUBSTITUTE FOR EMS TASK FORCE Councilor Miller said she would be unable to attend next Tuesday's task force meeting and asked for a volunteer to fill in. The meet ing was adj ourned. - Re~pectful.l su bmi;t~~.--:? ~.,_....,. . . .. - . . .<<If .. .:..:.':"'-' <" /' 01"./........ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (recorded by Beth Conant) MDG:BC:sba/CM26bl1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 9 ~ -=-- ------