08/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--- . - - ,,-."--.- .._._~ +~- "-'-0"-'- ___ _ '__' . -.' -.-.--.-. .--.-.-.-. - ,........' Councilman williams asked if the city would assume liability in the event of collisions if permission was granted. Manager assumed an agreement would be worked up which would take care of any city liability. Councilman Murray wondered if grantin<Jpermission could lead to involvemen't e in some kind of franchise arrangement as those covering operation of taxicabs. , Manager saw the six-month trial period in the nature of'anexperiment. After . I that period of time, he said; a determination could be made whether it should I 'be treated like bus or taxi operations in the city. ! Councilwoman Campbell said she understood the Eugene Downtown Association had , \ directed a letter to the Council recommending the operation. She wondered if , , I it would be a year-round operation and what the restrictions were as to area , of operation. Mrs. Davenport answered that it was hoped to make the service , ! a year-round operation. To date the pedicabs were operat~d in all areas of the city except in the mall. Councilman williams read a letter addressed to i ! ,him from the Eugene Downtown Association recommending pedicab operation on the ~mall and its periphery. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve a six.-:month trial I period for operation of the pedicab within the downtown mall subject to reconsideration prior to the end of that time at the request of either the operator or the city, and also subject to negotiation of ! an agreement protecting the ci ty against any liabili ty. \ I I j :Councilwoman Campbell wondered how permission for this operation would affect I . iothers who had r~quested operations on the mall - ice cream carts, fresh ; ,vegetables, etc. Manager said that led back to the issue of commercial activi- ! Ities which had been left alone hoping for a more sp~cific recommendation from; l ibusiness people on the mall. However, the pedicab operation was a transporta,- ; I . I ition operation, selling a service, not materials. ICoimn ! Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 7/24/74 I . A J pprove I '_ _ ,,' __. __ "-'~.-- I .Glen Stadler, EWEB, reportf!g,ol1 similar operat.ionsand .thei]: populari t.y andcfm- venience observed on a recent trip to the.Orient. - -"'- -'-"---- --- , .-- ~ "..- -.- --..:--..-.-.-----. C. :Minor Pa;ti tion, Charles Hooker (Barger Drive Right~of-way) - It was explained ; Ithat the Charles Hookers had sold a portion of their property at the southwest 1 :corner of Ruskin and Barger without following' ordinance requirements for minor \ I ... As a result, the necessary dedication of needed right-of-way for Ipart~t~on~ng. IBarger Drive improvement was not obtained. To approve and legalize the parti- \ I . tion of the land and implement clearin~ the title, it was proposed that the Hooke~s dedicate the needed right-of~way from the remaining portion still in i their ownership, and that they indemnify the city to a maximum amount of $2,025 for the cost of Obtaining the needed right-of-way from the portion which they sold.: . Councilwoman Campbell wondered if Mr. and Mrs. Hooker would be penalized for , violation of a city ordinance. She felt there would be some obligation on their i - part because of the violation. Manager explained that they would be mor~ or less! isubject to penalty without bringing it into court because they would be unable to/ ~<If!t .c:leas, ~itle ,~?,_the~.I!Fopert:.1f. ,C}r abui~c?:~_ng 1?e..rmi t un.t.:i) _th.~:re.._!'!Cl.s. s()Irlf? .provi:""f i sion for dedication of the right:-:of-way. In meetings w~ th attorneys fori i Mr. and Mrs. Hooker, he said" they' agreed to indemnify. the ci ty in acquisi-; i tion of the needed right-of-way. 1 I \ i I Comm i Mrs. Beal moved seconded ~y Mr. W~od to approve an agreement as ~7 /24/74 i recommended. Motion carr~ed unan~mously. ~ " .pprove D. :c;i fi zens --Bank '''Mobile Uni t, 11 th and Pearl' - Councilman' wlil1.ams' advised that he as a stockholder and director of Citizens Bank would not participate in .the discussion or vote but would retain the chair unless there was ob- jection from other Council members. There were none. Copies of letter were previously distributed to Council members requesting ~7rmission to place a mobile bank unit on the site of the present motor - I bank facility at 11th and Pearl for a perioa of one year. The Bank wished I ~ ~-_... to place the mobile unit on the site September 1, 1974 in conjunction with I I ,the move to its new main office and while complete rebuilding of the motor I bank was taking place. Staff had no objection. ! / i Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Murray ,to approve the request. Comm ~"- Motion carried unanimousl~. 7/24/74 Approve 2f>S 8/12/74 - 12