|
<br />--' - .. ----""'p, ' ' '-.',..-., ,..., ""--."'-'" ,..-,.. ,- - ,....---..-.'.......'' ,..,.-........--..~_...--, '---i
<br />,
<br />;_c;:'Oul~ilman McDonald asked 'for ,a report, from, the public work s department wi th regard to 1
<br />f:-pos!{i:bili ~y Of". f,u,rniS~ing s:we,I"::s}:?stems in ~hose areas designated as ~r~ t~cal in the ;
<br />'p~~~c.c He thougJ}:k",thatangle should be cons~dered because of the poss~b~hty yet of a
<br />' b(nti~rifaced with providing services for private development within the greenway boundary. _
<br />Don Allen, public work s director, said the Council should recogni ze in the.. adoption of :
<br />any such program and consider carefully the possible acceleration of other water control !
<br />projects on the River itself in which the city wouldb~ fjnancially involved. One of the i
<br />main uses of the River, he said, and a major economlc factor, was its use as a diluting
<br />body for the city's sewage treatment plant.
<br />
<br />- ... . - .-.'-..-..
<br />It was under-stood that staff would review the document and present suggestions I
<br />deemed appropriate for Council consideration, the staff report to be brought / C?mm
<br />, back well within a 60-day period to giV:.~,..time for presentation of any comments, 11 f20f(74
<br />, b f f' 1 d ' b h " A lrm
<br />or suggest~ons e ore ~na a opt~on y teState. ;
<br />
<br />H. Traffic Diverters - Copies of memo from A::;9LsJjl,ntManager were ,previously distributed
<br />to Council members with regard to request from neighborhood groups for ins~allation of
<br />traffic diverters. The memo suggested development of criteria on which tobas~...installa-
<br />don of traffic dj,verters and an overall policy rather than responding to..A.ndividual
<br />neighborhood requests .one"by-one. Assistant Manager noted receipt of r;port from West-
<br />side Neighborhood Quali ty Project on. tempor,!-r';l i..nstal1ation of diverters in that area.
<br />He said that if there were no objections from the Council the..staff would proceed with .
<br />development of recomm?~ation~(by March 1975). ~- ..--- C~mm
<br />
<br />There were no Objec:~ons an~ it was understood that response to th;;;;t~:~:~-jnI~~I~: e
<br />---'.Neighborhood Quality Project report would be delayed~~nd staff would proceed
<br />as proposed. .. ~___ -._ ... __ ......... -'.. -~ ,
<br />-"----.,--~ ----- -~...- -- .-- r- "- I
<br />
<br />I. Eugene's LCOG Representative - Councilman Wood's election as County Commissioner requir~s~
<br />his replacement on the LCOG Board. Co~n~iI-~esident williams indicated he would at-
<br />tend the next Board meeting in Mr. Wood's absence (November 21) but suggested an execu- !
<br />: tive session to choose a successor. Councilman Murray suggested inclusion of councilmen- ,
<br />;elect in the executive session.
<br />
<br />i Council President Williams called executive session for Wednesday, €omm
<br />November 27, 1974, at 11:00 or 11:30 a.m., whichever time would 11/2P/74
<br />, h h ' h d Affirm
<br />i accommodate normal comm~ttee-of-t e-w ole meet~ng on t at ay. '
<br />. :r...< ',-
<br />
<br />
<br />;Councilwoman Beal asked if spe~ifi; i~ior~~tion could be provIded with r~ga;d-t; ,
<br />: specific duties and functions of LCOG Board members, not only for herself but for new:
<br />,..' ,council members taking office in January. Assistant Manager explained LCOG functions:
<br />;=,;as a co-ordinated planning function of municipal ties and other local governmental ~
<br />I
<br />:agencies in the Lane County area. He suggested that this type of information woulg-/-~
<br />,be offered to new Council members in the usual orientation session when they took: a
<br />"office. He noted tnatthe-;;;;W-LCOG director, Douglas Halley, would be assuming his \ _
<br />iposition next month and suggested .wgiting until he had a chance to "get his feet on
<br />'the ground" then an overview of. LCOG' ;-functlons would be a good introduction for him.
<br />'Mrs. Beal said she would request a presentation at the orientation session and would
<br />-not request a delay in selection of Mr. Wood's replacement. She said there was some
<br />'confusion because of recent changes and the original function of LCOG - applying for
<br />;Fed~ralgrants and allocatin those funds to the various agencies.
<br />
<br />J. t TeJephones, for Council members''':', Assistant - Manager remi~d;d-C;;~n~i1 of Nove~ber 22: Comm
<br />[deadline for telephone directory listings and suggested those wishing telephones f 11/20(74
<br />\to contact Charles Dallas, purchasing agent. FIle
<br />l . _.... '.
<br />
<br />r __
<br />I ......... -,-..,...., , '.. , , "
<br />K. 'Announcements Comm
<br />1. Eugene's 1974 population will probably be certified at 93,800. 1~/20/74
<br />2:~ Eugene's "Workable Program" has been recertified by HUD until November 1976. File
<br />~ -
<br />.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to appr~ve, affirm, and file as
<br />noted Items A through K. ' Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members
<br />present voting aye.
<br />
<br />III - Public Hearings '.
<br />A. Appeal, Planning Commission denial of rezoning property between Grant and Chambers (03
<br />and between 17th and 18th - From R-l to C-l (Hedin)
<br />Planning Commission recommended denial on October 8, 1974. Some Council members
<br />viewed the property on tour. Copies of Planning Commission October 8, 1974 staff
<br />notes and minutes were previously distributed to Council members and by reference
<br />thereto are made a part of this record. Council members declared no ex parte con-
<br />tacts or other reasons :Fo:,:" not ryp,:':"ticipatinp: in discussion of the rezoninp; or voting
<br />on it. CounGilman Wood said he-had discussed the procedure for rezoning property
<br />
<br />403 11/25/74 - 6
<br />
|