|
<br />"lot)
<br />e
<br />
<br />7/13/5?
<br />I ~
<br />, 111 . .
<br />
<br />I 6. PET IT ION TO PAVE 25TH AVENUE FROM GRANT TO GARFI ELD STREET BY 100% OF THE PROPERTY :1 I",
<br />HOLDERS" AND A PETITION TO PAVE 24TH AVENUE FROM GRANT TO GARfiELD AND GARfiELD !I ~
<br />I FROM 23RD TO 24TH AVENUES BY 89.5% Of THE PROPERTY HOLDERS - THE DIRECTOR Of PUBLIC
<br />WORKS EXPLAINED THAT THE PAVING OF 25TH ,AVENUE FROM GRANT TO GARFIELD COULD BE ADDED
<br />'I TO AN EX I ST I NG CONTRACT .ON A WA loVER BAS I S BUT THAT THE PAV I NG OF 24TH AVENUE fROM
<br />! GRANT TO GARFIELD ,AND GARFIELD fROM 23RD TO 24TH COULD NOT BE DONE ON A WAIVER BASIS
<br />i SINCE-NOT .ALL OF THE PROPERTY HOLDERS HAD APPROVED THE: ST.REET PAVING AND ALSO SINCE
<br />II THERE WAS SOME DISPUTE REGARDING AN OWNERSHIP Of APPROXIMATELY 28 fEET OF' PROPERTY ON
<br />: GARfiELD STREET. SOME DISCUSSION WAS HAD ON THE~PROOECTS AND ON WHAT THE CJTY'S
<br />:1 POSITION WOULD BE If IT WERE TO AUTHORIZE THE PAVING Of THE STREET ON A WAIVER BASIS
<br />, WHEN A SMALL SECTION WAS IN DISPUTE.
<br />I
<br />t '"
<br />,
<br />IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT ALL THREE STREET PAVING PROJECTS BE ,APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
<br />. APPROVAL Of THE CITY MANAGER AND THE DIRECTOR Of PUBLIC WORKS AND THEIR ABILITY TO
<br />WORK,O~T THE,DETAILS COVERING THE 28 FEET OF,DISPUTED.PROPERTy,AN~ IF SUCH OET~ILS ,
<br />COULD NOT BE, WORKED OUT , THAT .THE PAV I.NG BE ,STOPPED WHEREVER I T APPEARS ,JUD I C I.OUS.
<br />MOT I ON CARR I ED UNAN IMOUSL y." , . :,-
<br />I' .,
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED, BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 6 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE I,
<br />APPROVED. MOT I ON CARR I ED. I'
<br />I .' II
<br />
<br />A REPORT OF THE COMMI~TEE ~EETING HELD~ULY-3, 1959:WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS FOLLOWS:
<br />
<br />2 "PRESENT: MAYOR CONE; COUNCILMEN SHEARER, LAURIS, MOLHOLM, MCGAFFEY,. CHATT, WILSON AND I!, I',
<br />SWANSON; CITY MANAGER; CITY RECORDER; CHIEF OF' POLICE; DIRECTOR OF' PUBLIC I[
<br />WORKS; CITY ATTORNEY; PARKS & RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT; ADMI,NISTRATIVE !I -
<br />"
<br />ASSISTANT; LT. SMARTT; MR. VANTASSEL; MR. JACK HAZLETT; MR. HARRY HOLLI,S; ;;
<br />MR. FRED BRENNE, EUGENE CHAMBER OF' COMMERCE; JACK CRAIG AND JERRY URHAMMER, I!
<br />i EUGENE REGISTER-GUARD. ". ::
<br />I ' _ " ' ,
<br />'II I. REQUEST TO ELIMINATE PARKING IN THE ALLEYS LEADING FROM WILLAMETTE STREET AND 7TH
<br />I AVENUE :TOWEST PARK STREET - REQUEST ENTERED BY JOHN WARREN HARDWARE BY-LET.TER TO
<br />'I ' . ',,' .
<br />I BAN ALL TRUCK PARKING fOR UNLOADING PURPOSES INTHE TWO ALLEYS NOW SERVING AS THE
<br />II ENTRANCES TO NORTHWEST PARK STREET WAS ,READ TO T.HE COMM I TTEE. THE LETTER PO I NTS
<br />II OUT THAT THE COUNTY PARK I NG STRUCTURE PERMANENTLY .CUT OF'F' THE MA I N ENTRANCE TO
<br />I, THIS STREET AND NOW LEAVES.ONLY THESE SHORT ALLEYS F'ROM WILLAMETTE S~REET AND i'
<br />, I
<br />:, fROM 7TH AVENUE AS A .MEANS OF ACCESS TO NORTHWEST PARK STREET. THE LETTER fUR- i;
<br />I, '
<br />!I THER STATES THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME TRUCKS ARE USING THESE ALLEYS F'Oa LOADI,NG ii
<br />:1 AND UNLOADING .PURPOSES REMAINING -AS LONG AS 20 TO 30 MINUTES .WHICH CREATES TRAfF"lC :I
<br />:i CONGEST I ON ON .7TH AVENUE AND ON WI LLAMETTE STREET SINCE TRAF'F: I CATTEMPT I NG TO ENTER n
<br />i' ONTO PARK STREET IS BLOCKED OFF AND CANNOT MOVE I N THE 0 I RECT I ON IT W.I SHES. THE :;
<br />\ LETTER SUGGESTS THAT THESE ALLEYS BE BANNED TO ANY PARKING WHATSOEVER. II
<br />! !:
<br />I . 11
<br />:'1 THE COMM ITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE TRAff'1 CORD I NANCE .Of' THE C I TYOf' EUGENE BE !
<br />! AMENDED TO ELIMINATE PARKING INTHESE TWO ALLEYS, AND THAT SUCH ALLEYS:BE.POSTED
<br />i! "No PARKING AT ANY TIME". MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. '
<br />
<br />ill' IT :WAS MOVED :ey MR. SHEARER SECONDED .BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM, I OF' THE COMM I TTEE REPORT BE 1\ I'
<br />! APPROVED. MOT ION CARR I ED. I' .
<br />, ' ~
<br />
<br />II i
<br />3: 2. DISCUSSION ON HOUSING- :MR. EDWIN D. VA~TASSEL APPE~~ED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ANI? i:
<br />!i READ :ALETTER TO THE COMM I TTEE IN WH I CH HE STATED AND DOCUMENTED A LIST OF ;'
<br />II' VACANCIES IN THE CITY OF EUGENE WHICH MIGHT BE USED FOR:RELOCATING F'OLKS WHO.NOW Ii
<br />i RESIDE IN THE PROPOSED URBAN.RENEWAL AREA. THE LETTER STATED THERE WERE 71 UN- I:
<br />j 1\
<br />I FURNISHED AND 21 FURNISHED APARTMENTS DISCLOSED IN A ONE-DAY SURVEY, AND THAT ::_
<br />i UNDOUBTEDLY THER~ ARE MANY OTHERS WHO DO NOT DISPLAY SIGNS OR ADVERTISE FOR i'"
<br />! TENANTS. IN ADDITION TO THESE .VACANCIES WHICH WERE UNCOVERED, IT WAS.STATED NO II
<br />II ATTEMPT TO SCREEN THE 30 MORE OR LESS AVERAGE NUMBER 'OF RENTAL,S ADVERT I SED I N OUR i
<br />I DA I L Y PAPERS HAD BEEN MADE., MR . VANTASSEL FURTHER COMMENTED THAT THE MAJOR ITY I:
<br />1 . II
<br />, Of TENANTS IN THE OSBURN APARTMENTS ARE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE" THERE FORE CONVENIENCE ,i
<br />i RATHER THAN BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL REASONS, AND INDICATED IN HIS BELIEF Ii
<br />, PEOPLE LIVING IN THE PROPOSED URBAN RENEWAL AREA COULD BE RELOCATED If NECESSARY ::
<br />WITHOUT DifFICULTY. I:
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />FOLLOWING THE READING OF THE LTTER THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AMONG MEMBERS Of THE i:
<br />COMMITTEE AS TO WHETHER PUBLIC HOUSING IS NECESSARY, AND WHETHER LOW-COST HOUSING :1
<br />- I S NECESSARY. IT WAS STATED THAT PUBL I C HOUS I NG: I NCREASES THE COST Of CITY SER- ;1
<br />I,
<br />V I CES, AND .THE QUEST ION WAS ASKED WHETHERPUBL I C HOUSI NG I S NECESSARY OR DES I RABLE. :1
<br />:I
<br />"
<br />COUNC ILMAN SHEARER STATED. HE PLANNED TO MAKE A MOT ION AT THE NEXT URBAN RENEWAL i:
<br />AGENCY ,MEET I NGTHATTHE URBAN RENEWAL 01 RECTOR BE. I NSTRUCTED TO fORGET ABOUT THE :,: I
<br />PUBLIC HOUSING.ASPECTS OF URBAN RENEWAL AND THAT HE:GET ON WITH THE JOB OF RELOCA- "
<br />TION, AND FURTHER THAT HE GIVE A,REPORT ON RELOCATION IN 30 DAYS OR THAT THE CITY ,I
<br />MANAGER BE I NSTRUCTED TO REL I EVE H 1M OF HIS OUT I ES AND REPLACE HIM. COUNC I LMAN .Ii -
<br />SHEARER STATED THAT HE fELT THAT.THE PUBLIC HOUSING ASPECTS OF URBAN RENEWAL ARE
<br />NOT NECESSARY. NOR DESIRABLE. HE fURTHER SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNC I LCONS I DERTHE fir
<br />SPRINGfIELD LOW-COST HOUSING WHICH IS ESTIMATED TO COST $14,000.PER UNIT FOR .50 Ii
<br />UNITS, AND INDICATED THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS IS LOW-COST HOUSING NOR IS IT ii
<br />NECESSARILY HOUSING F"OR ,T.HE AGED SINCE A NUMBER' OF" THE :APARTMENTS TO BE BUILT ARE Ii e
<br />
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|