Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br />EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br />June 10, 1974 <br /> <br />Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His <br />Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on June 10, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the <br />following Council members present: Tom Williams, James Hershner, H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal, <br />Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood. . <br /> <br />(0001) I - Public Hearings <br />A. Vacation of alleys between 6th and 7th, Willamette and Olive, and between <br />7th and 8th for one-half block west from Willamette (ERA) <br />Recommended by the Planning Commission on April 8, 1974. <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />(0245 ) <br /> <br />(0254) <br /> <br />." <br /> <br />Co 36 8 )_ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />I <br />Public hearing was opened. <br /> <br />Lloyd Hamel, attorney; Delna Jones, District Manager; Pat Hickey, Commercial Manager; <br />and Lawrence Haverkamp, District Engineer, were introduced as representatives of <br />Pacific Northwest Bell. Mr. Hamel said that the Council's authority under the <br />franchise to require a change of location of faciEities;on the public right-of-way <br />did not apply to buried conduit. Even~h9-uga poles and like structures were removed <br />because of a previous alley vacation petitioned by the Renewal Agency, Mr. Hamel <br />said, Pacific Northwest Bell should not be required to remove them for ERA or <br />beneficiaries of ERA action. He referred to pole facilities in the east/west alley <br />.and buried conduit in the north/south .alley between 6th and 7th';, they had no <br />facilities located in the alley: between 7th and 8th. He said that because PNB had <br />permission to place the conduit in the right-of-way and because of vested interest <br />therein they could not be forced to remove it without compensation. He urged amendment <br />of the vacation ordinance to reserve PNB rights in all alleys involved. He thought <br />the public interest would be better served by use of buried facilities, and that the <br />Council could not require relocation unless it could be shown that. its continued <br />presence was a public nuisance. Mr. Hamel said copies of his arguments had been <br />presented to the City Attorney's office and that although he agreed with ERA's <br />attorney that other authorities, required removal of the cable, he believed those <br />other authorities reached different conclusions based upon differently phrased <br />franchise terms and statutes not appl~cable to this situation. He referred to a <br />situation in Portland where PNB.and the public agency were forced' to settle their <br />differences, and said he felt the same could apply here - if the franchise agreement <br />was discussed the cable would not have to be relocated, and perhaps' the proposed <br />construction on that block could be designed so as to keep the conduit substantially <br />in place and build around it. .He asked postponement .of action on the vacation to give <br />the opportunity to work out something of that nature with ERA and the developer. If <br />that action was not taken, Mr. Hamel urged that the vacation be subject to PNB rights <br />in the alleys vacated. Failing that, he asked vacation or the north/south alley in <br />which the conduit was buried without prejudice to PNB right to continue maintenance <br />of the conduit until PNB received compensation for relocating it. He added that PNB <br />did not move one inch of cable until compensated,'which might require ex- <br />tensive litigation. <br /> <br />In answer to Mayor Anderson's remark that. he had asked for testimony in favor of the <br />vacations, Mr. Hamel said that PNB did not resist the vacation .if it was, made <br />subject to PNB rights. <br /> <br />Joe Richards, attorney for Eugene Renewal Agency, commented on meetings with the <br />City Attorney and legal couns.el for PNB. He pointed out that no provision of State <br />law, City ordinance, or franchise agreement permitted or required reimbursement to <br />private utilities. And he said that the time element should not be overlooked. <br />Postponement was necessary because it had been suggested toPNB previously that <br />Renewal Agency plans go forward and then litigate the question of compensation. <br />However, he said, PNB indicated an that time also that they would not remove the <br />conduit until the matter had been litigated and compensation paid. Mr. Richards <br />went over legal questions involved and noted ambiguity of the franchise agreement <br />in its reference to removal or relocation of "poles or other structures" when they <br />interfere with public convenience and the differing opinions as to whether "other <br />structures" was intended to cover conduit. He cited cases stating-that franchise <br />rights were not vested property, rights, merely permissive use when public need <br />required it. He pointed out that postponement could delay closing out the ERA <br />downtown project and run into considerable ~xtra expense, and that the City Attorney's <br />opinion was that the City.was entitled to vacate the areas immediately without <br />provision for compensation. He 'urged-immediate action in line with that advice <br />especially in view' of the fact that PNB had previously removed conduit in like <br />circumstances. <br /> <br />Public hearing was closed;' there being no, further testimony. <br /> <br />\~~ <br /> <br />6/10/74 - 1 <br />