|
<br />~84
<br />
<br />3/,13/61
<br />
<br />, I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />i:
<br />
<br />OffERED TO DONATE MATERIAL AT COST, AND HE BELIEVES OTHER CRAfTS WOULD ALSO DONATE SERVICES TO DO THE
<br />CON,STRUCTION Of A BUILDING fOR THE MISSION AT SOME DESIRABLE LOCAT.lON.
<br />
<br />REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
<br />
<br />A REPORT Of THE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD MARCH 2, 1961 WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS fOLLOWS:
<br />
<br />"PRESENT: MAYOR CONE; ALL MEMBER Of THE COUNCIL; CITY MANAGER; DEPARTMENT HEADS; REPRESENTATIVES
<br />Of THE PRESS; AND INTERESTED CITIZENS.
<br />
<br />I. PROTEST REGARDING LOCATION Of EUGENE MISSION ENTERED BY WHJTEAKER PTA,'- A LETTER fROM J'HE
<br />WHITEAKER PTA OVER THE SIGNATURE Or HUGH E. HUGHES REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION Of THE DE-
<br />CISION TO PERMITOTHE ESTABLISHMENT Of A. MISSION fOR TRANSIENTS ON 2ND AVENUE WAS PRE-
<br />SENTED TO THE COMMITTEE. THE tETTER STATED THAT THE PTA fEELS THE MISSION WOULD BE-DE-
<br />TRIMENTAL TO THE WELL~BEING Of THE MANY CHILDREN WHO RESIDE WITHIN THE AREA AND POINTED
<br />OUT IT, WOULD BE CLOSE TO PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, WOULD ENCOURAGE LOITERING, ANP THAT TH~
<br />INDIVIDUALS IN THE AREA. ARE CONCERNED fOR THE SAfETY Of THEIR CHILDREN - PHYSICALLY,
<br />EMOTIONALLY AND MORALLY.
<br />
<br />A NUMBER Of CITIZENS WERE PRESENT TO fURTHER PROTEST THE LOCATION Of THE M:,SSION ON 2ND
<br />AVENUE. THESE PEOPLE INCLUDED MR. HUGHES WHO REITERATED THE STAND INDICATED IN HIS LETTER,
<br />AND fURTHER STATED THAT THE AREA I S NOT.' ADEQUATEL Y LIGHTED AND EXPRESSED H.I S CONCERN AGA IN
<br />fOR THE SAfETY Of HIE CHILDREN.. A NUMBER Of OTHER INDIVIDUALS WERE HEARD INCLUDING MRS.
<br />JORGENSON Of 359 POLK STREET, MR. WOLf VONOTTERSTEDT, MR. LITTLEJOHN, MR. RAY BARNES.
<br />ESSENTIALLY, THOSE IN OPP-OSITION TO THE MISSION'S LOCATION INDICATED THEY WERE OBJECTING
<br />BECAUSE THE MISSION WOULD ADD ANKIE.TY, D.ETRACT fROM P.ROPERTY VALUES, BE THE START Of A
<br />, 'SK I 0 ROW', CAUSE CONCERN ABOUT CH I LOREN, AND WOULD, CAUSE VERY MUCH C.ONCERN ABOUT THE
<br />NUMBER Of PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE IN THE AREA GOING TO AND fROM THE MISSION.
<br />
<br />MR. RAY BARNES, VICE-CHAIRMAN Of THE EUGENE MISSION, RESTATED: .THE ,POSITION WHI.CH 'HAD
<br />BEEN STATED BEfORE THE COUNCIL AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS INDICATING HE BELIEVES THERE IS A
<br />NEED fOR THE MISSION AND THAT SOME Of THE fEARS Of THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA WERE ~N-
<br />fOUNDED, AND THAT THE LEGAL AND MORAL ASPECTS Of THE PROBLEM WOULD WIN OUT.
<br />
<br />MRS. LAURIS SPOKE INDICATING THAT WHEN THE QUESTION, WAS BEfORE T,HE COUN~IL., THE SOLE
<br />QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE MISSION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO LOGATE IN AN ,INDUST:RIAL AREA,
<br />,THAT THIS, AREA IS INDUSTRIAL, .AND THAT BASED ON THE VOTE Of THE COUNCIL THE MISSI.ON
<br />CAN AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SO LOCATE. SHE SAID SHE RECOGNIZED THAT PEOPLE ARE AfRAID,
<br />AND THAT THERE IS ALSO A RESPONSIBILITY Of THE COMM>>NITY TO TAKE CARE, Of THOSE WHO LIVE
<br />HERE AS WELL ~S T~OSEWHO ARE UNFORTUNATES PASSING THROUGH.
<br />
<br />COUNCILMAN MOLHOLM STATED THAT THE PRESENT AUTHORITY ALLOWS A MISSION TO LOCATE IN THE
<br />WEST 2ND AVENUE AREA, THAT HE WAS HOPEfUL A ,COMBINATION Of THE EUGENE MISSION AND THE
<br />SALVATION ARMY MIGHT BE MADE, AND SUGGESTED THAT ACTION TO RECONSIDER OR TO RESCIND
<br />THE ACTION Of THE CO~NCIL MIGHT BE fORTHCOMING.
<br />
<br />THE CITY ATTORNEY ~OINTED OUT 7HAT UNDER THE ORDINANCE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS TO
<br />DETERMINE Ir LOCATION OF A MISSION IN AN AREA WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT, ~NDTHAT
<br />THEIR Of TERMINATION WAS THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE SUCH AN EFfECT, BUT THERE HAD BEEN AN
<br />APPEAL ~O .THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL HAD APPROVED THE LOCATION ,AT 1492 WEST 2ND AVENUE~
<br />HE fURTHER STATED THAT THE PRESENT DISCUSSION WAS BECAUSE Of THE CQMMUNICATION BUT THAT THE
<br />ITEM COULD NOT BE BEFORE THE COUNCIL UNTIL SOME MEMBER MOVES TO RESCIND AT A REGULAR MEET-
<br />I NG, AND THAT ACT I ON TO RESC I NO REQU I RES A TWO-TH I RDS VOTE., IF' 1 T 01 S CARR I ED ON TH IS
<br />BASIS, THE LEGAL ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN:BY THE COUNCIL I,S REMOVED AND NO LON9ER' BINDS THE
<br />COUNCIL.
<br />
<br />MAYOR CONE SUGGESTED A STUDY TO DETERMI~E IF THE ~SALVATION.ARMY A~ THE EUGENE MISSION COULD
<br />BE JOINED. FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT THE LETTER FROM THE
<br />WH ITEAKER PTA BE ACKNOWLEDGED. ,No fORMAL ACT ION WAS TAKEN .
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MRS. LAURIS SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM I Of THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE APPROVED.
<br />MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />2. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION fOR LOCATION Of SPENCER BUTTE ARTERIAL BETWEEN 24TH:
<br />AND 32ND AVENUES - MRS. NIVEN APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TO EXPLAIN A PROPOSAL MADE
<br />BY THE PARKS STUDY GROUP FOR THE LOCATI~N Of A SPENCER BUTTE ARTERIAL BETWE~N 24TH AND
<br />29TH AND/OR 32ND AVENUES.
<br />
<br />VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE ROUTES WERE SHOWN BY A MAP, AND,COST Of THESE ALTERNAT~VE ~OUTES
<br />WERE ALSO SHOWN. I'T WAS ALSO PO I NTED ,OUT. THAT I N ~OUTES. "B" AND "c" THE COST OF RELO-
<br />'CATION Of THE AMAZON CHANNEL, ESTIMATED AT .$65,000, H~ BEEN !NCLUDED.
<br />
<br />VARIOUS ESTIMATES WERE 'PREDICATED ON7HE IDEA.THAT ANY LAND SEVERED fROM THE PARK FOR
<br />THE ARTERIAL WOULD BE PAID fOR BY THE CITY AND WOULD BE REPLACED AS PARK LAND. THREE,
<br />PROPOSALS WERE SPEC I f lED AS PLAN "'E" BE I NG A STREET WH ICH LIES WEST Of THE PARK, RUN-
<br />NING ROUGHLY ALONG HIGH STREET TO 30TH AVENUE, WOULD REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF 68 fAMILIES
<br />AT A NET. COST Of $972,8520AS ESTIMATED. THIS ROUTE WOULD NOT DISTU~B THE PARK. PLAN
<br />"C" LIES ENTIRELY WITHIN THE PARK BOUNDARIES, WOULD COST AI"PROXIMATELY $684,893 AND
<br />WOULD LEAVE A TOTAL Of.46:ACRES OUT Of. THE 67 ACRES NOW EXISTING IN:AMAZON PARK. PLAN
<br />II B" .
<br />, THE PLAN WHICH WAS RECOMMENDED, CUTS ACROSS THE SOUTHWEST. CORNER Of THE PARK, RE-
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />11
<br />I'
<br />rI
<br />:1
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
|