|
<br />- - ~ " ' ,.-..' ,...-~ ". .. .. .. " ..
<br />
<br />G.PE'- ~.i<:'J:uor-Li.cense. ~ Pay-le.sRDrugsj 2qt"fi.. and Wl11:ame.'tte'CNew1 :... Staff has no
<br />objectton. ..' Approve
<br />
<br />H. Council Minutes as circulated - September 25 and October 9, 1972 Approve
<br />
<br />I. Weddin~s in ~hododendron--Garden at Ileridricks Pai:~ -counci~man williams' as~ed ....._
<br />that d~scuss~on be scheduled at some future comnuttee meet~ng on the quest~on-
<br />of weddings being held in Hendricks Park. He said the City currently does not
<br />allow weddings in the rhododendron garden, but they are being held there and Comm
<br />as a consequence members of the weddings are harassed by City personnel. He 11/1/72
<br />asked the Council to consider enforcement of ban on weddings in the park or stop Affirm
<br />the harassment. It was understood the question would be scheduled for discussion.
<br />
<br />J. Seorm Sewer, Roosevelt Junior High - Mrs. Campbell called attention to a storm
<br />\f.' :s~wer near Roosevelt Junior High which has been a source of trouble since its
<br />I~ i~~tallation. She said it is visibly polluted. The school's principal has asked
<br />fpr,improvement of at least 100 feet of the drain to enable use of a portion of
<br />1:,/113 land not now usable. Manager said the City is reluctant to work with p:dnci-
<br />['pals of individual schools in instances such as this which require a position to
<br />be' taken iJy the school district administration. He said the City was aware of
<br />this proilem's being raised and the suggestion was made that it be processed
<br />through adthi.nistrati ve channels, in this case contact would be the vice Super- I
<br />intendent in' charge of school grounds and facili ties. Councilman Mohr said he
<br />had informed the Roosevelt principal of that process. Mrs. Campbell added t~at , Comm
<br />if nothing is accomplished in that manner, the item will probably come back to 11/1/72
<br />the Council for consideration. File 4It
<br />
<br />K, Crossing Gates, Southern Pacific Tracks - Mrs. Beal asked the status of installa- .. .'
<br />tion of railroad crossing gates for which money has been budgeted for some time.
<br />Public Works Director answered that there has been budgeted $70,000 for the
<br />City's share on a SO/50 basis with Southern Pacific Company. However, the SP's
<br />submittal for installation of the gates calls for about $150,000 as the City's I
<br />share. Negotiations are in process with SP in an attempt to have the contract Camm
<br />amended to do what work can be done for the $70,000 the City has available. It 11/1/72
<br />was understood the item would be before the Council again when the contract has File
<br />been worked out.
<br />
<br />L. Traffic, Portland Street - Councilman Teague said people are complaining about
<br />difficulty in traveling Portland Street because of automobiles parked on both C
<br />sides of the street. Public Works Director said consideration of this area is . amID
<br />h 1, ., d' h t k' b . d t .11/1/72
<br />now on b e P ann~ng Comrruss~on agen a w~t respec to par ~ng, arr~ca es, e c., F'
<br />land wi]'l be before the Council in due time. l1e
<br />
<br />M. Congratulations, Fire Department, Ballot Measure No. 51 - Councilman McDonald
<br />.said he felt Council acknowledgment was due the Fire Department and Fir~ Fighters:
<br />Association for their radio announcements in support of the ballot measure which
<br />would provide funds for additional fire stations and equipment. He said he felt Camm
<br />it was very important that this measure pass in view of the need for additional 11/1(72 .
<br />fire protection in the southwest section of the City. Flle
<br />
<br />N,.Clarification, Ballot Measure 52 (Bond Issue for Streets and Sewers) ~Manager ex~
<br />plained that when this Charter amendment was drawn it was the intent to make it
<br />'broad enough to leave the Council flexibility in consideration of individual projects'
<br />,to be funded by the bond issue. As explained on the comndttee agenda, a portion of
<br />. the bond issue was intended for purchase of Amazon Parkway right-of-way, but this
<br />iwas not spelled out in the ballot title nor in the text of the amendment, which
<br />,I reads: "To improve streets which, because of heavy vehicular traffic, in the opinion
<br />of the Council need to be improved." Ci ty Attorney has been asked whether the amend- '
<br />. ment as wri tten would permi t purchase of right-of-way to deVt~lop new arterials in
<br />.places where there are not now streets. Council members were asked to consider the
<br />~question and make a statement that the Amazon Parkway project was intended if they
<br />;feel the ballot title is not sufficiently clear. If Council feels it is sufficiently
<br />~clear, then a statement should probably be made for clarification of questions raised.
<br />, .
<br />Les Swanson, City Attorney's office, gave the opinion that the matter would be a
<br />litigable issue - it could be argued either way, that the wording of the amendment
<br />does allow improvement of additional right-of-way, extension of existing streets, :
<br />or for putting in new streets. A statement to the effect that funds from the bond ,
<br />iss,ue were intended to purchas1 Amazon Parkway right-Of-way would not remove the 4It
<br />.,'possibility of challenge. He said ultimately it appears to be a matter of how ~
<br />,:sti:ohgly the Council feels about acquiring right-of-way for the Amazon Parkway.
<br />'R"ega~dless of whether an expression of intent to purchase right-of-way is made or
<br />:~h'i:.the.:r a statement is made simply for clarification that funds will not be used I
<br />,i'fo'r'.that 'purpose, .it is the Attorney's opinion that the City could very well face !
<br />~~ court challenge on the ballot measure. . .... " I
<br />
<br />... .'"",--n_ ..:..-..'<; .:,. \,:,:", .~...... ..:.._.... ,....... _' I~ )', ~ ,~ "_ ~.~ . ;...~~ .'_ .....-- - ..~.-. .':""--. . ~.- ,_.~.~
<br />
<br />331
<br />11(6(72 "c. 9_
<br />
|