|
<br /> .....
<br /> e f /2
<br /> ~ -
<br /> ........
<br /> 1:;
<br /> I Ii ,
<br /> d I:
<br /> II Council Chamber
<br /> II Eugene, Oregon
<br /> I' December 14, 1970
<br /> I,
<br /> "
<br /> Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor
<br /> Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on December 14, 1970 in the Council Chamber with the following
<br /> I' councilmen present: Messrs. McDonald, Teague, Purdy; Mrs. Hayward and Mrs. Beal; Messrs. Gribskov,
<br /> Mohr and Williams.
<br /> I. Public Hearing, Ordinance regulating motor vehicle emissions, and providing penalties -
<br /> ,i
<br /> " At the previous Council meeting this Council bill failed to receive unanimous consent for
<br /> second reading, and was held over to this meeting for further consideration. Councilman
<br /> " Mohr explained that he had failed to give unanimous consent to second reading because there
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> ~ i were some unanswered questions, and several problems which should be resolved. He had inves- '/
<br /> "
<br /> t~gated the possibility of Lane Human Resources assisting with repairs on cars which had visible
<br /> e emissions.
<br /> Mr. Ron Levinson, Director of Lane Human Resources, said they had made some investigation of
<br /> 'I cars with visible emissions, and had concluded that the number of offending cars was small,
<br /> but that it had been found passage of this ordinance would work a hardship on low income people,
<br /> since they seemed to own the greatest percentage of ears with emission problems.
<br /> 'I
<br /> I Councilwoman Beal felt that there were always drawbacks in any pollution bill, and that a
<br /> price would have to be paid for clean air. She pointed out that the requirements of this
<br /> bill were already state law, and that the city was not discriminating against a small portion
<br /> of the population.
<br /> Mr. Everett McVicker, 130 Azalea Drive, said the problem was not caused only by cars owned
<br /> by poor people, but also from those extra cars owned by two-car families. He felt there
<br /> should be some legislation to insure that used cars functioned properly before being put on
<br /> the road.
<br /> Mrs. Marion Frank, 2000 Elk Drive, explained that this bill, by imitating the state law,
<br /> meant one more level of commitment for enforcement. She felt the city should press for
<br /> further legislation at the state level, especially for efficient mass transit.
<br /> I
<br /> I Councilman Williams agreed with Mrs. Frank, and said this was one of the very real reasons
<br /> for creation of a Mass Transit District.
<br /> Mayor Anderson concurred with Councilmen and said if the city was to maintain a leadership
<br /> role in the fight for preservation of the environment, it would have to take whatever
<br /> strong steps it could. He pointed out that this ordinance would be difficult to enforce,
<br /> and would present a real challenge to law enforcement authorities.
<br /> Council Bill No. 9302 - regulating motor vehicle visible emissions, was approved and
<br /> given final passage. For formal action see Page 13 of these minutes.
<br /> I II. Amending Zoning Ordinance, Public Hearing
<br /> Council Bill No. 9304 - Amend zoning ordinance Article 18, Section 18.06, permitted
<br /> buiilldings and uses, add new Number (f), areas of public and semi-public use, was submitted
<br /> and read in full the first time on November 30, 1970.
<br /> !' At the November Council meeting, this bill failed to receive unanimous consent for second
<br /> reading, and was held over to this meeting for further consideration.
<br /> e ,I Mr. David Gordon, 1895 West 25th, spoke in opposition to this amendment. He read sections
<br /> of the Planned Unit Development section of the zoning ordinance and suggested that it pro-
<br /> vided sufficient flexibility. It was rot intended to include all uses now allowed in the
<br /> parent zone. He proposed that the City zoning ordinance be left as it is.
<br /> Mr. George Hemphill, Jr., 1750 West 24th, felt the amendment would not clarify, but rather,
<br /> would be an out and out change and would cause more confusion.
<br /> Mr. Ralph Par~, 2275 McLean Boulevard, asked why an alternative site for the project at
<br /> 25th and Chambers could not be accomplished by an exchange with Laurelwood. He pointed
<br /> II out the advantages to this site.
<br /> Mr. Vernon Gleaves felt adoption of the proposed amendment would cause confusion.
<br /> Wayne Lee, 4851 Herman Street, felt the amendment would give flexibility to the City Council
<br /> I in putting human values before property values.
<br /> Mrs. Betty Niven explained what semi-public and public buildings could do in a Planned Unit
<br /> Development and how open space could be gained by their use in a development.
<br /> Morven Thomas, president of the Planning Commission, pointed out that, when legislation is
<br /> found not to be usable, it should be changed. Apparently the Planning Commission did not
<br /> word the ordinance correctly, and it should be amended. Wtiat the amendment accomplishes is
<br /> what the Planning Commission intended in the first place.
<br /> e Mr. Otto Vonderhei t, 260 East 11th, felt there was a definite intent when the zoning ordinance,
<br /> 12/1t.t/70 -:- "1.
<br /> ....
<br />
|