Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/1971 Meeting "11IIII e Goz I, " il I' I 'I U 11 Ii 'i Council Chamber " " :1 " Eugene, Oregon " d June 14, 1971 ': ,I Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His ;1 Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on June 14, 1971 in the Council Chamber with the following councilmen present: Messrs. Teague, Mohr and McDonald, Mrs: Beal, Messrs. Williams and Hershner. Mrs. Campbell and Mr. Gribskov were absent. :1 Public Hearings I' I. " A. Ordinance Relating to Trespassing*(The following are committee aUnutes of May 26, 1971) Mayor Anderson said he felt rather strongly that the Council should take another look at this proposed legislation, especially in light of recent disturbances. He felt that, even though State legislation ,had been proposed which was alnvst identical to this ordinance, the City had need for its own ordinance, and it would express the vi ews of the community. e Mr. Mohr said the record would show that the Council was not opposed to the substance I. of the ordinance, but with identification of the public issue. He suggested that it aUght help to have a broader discussion of the kinds of issues involved. Manager commented that there are advantages to having local ordinances from an i' adminis trati ve and enforcement standpoint, even though the ordinance may dupli cate " I state law. ;j " : City Attorney said he has~een following the state law through the legislature and " t it appears it will be enacted. The City has proposed an ordinance which is almost I, i denti cal. He explained that it would be easier to process the ,local law, and : there were advantages to trial in municipal court. The state law, if passed, would not be adopted until January 1, 1972. i " Ii Dr. Millard Pond, Superintendent of School District No. 4J, said they wanted I I' an enforceable ordinance, and this one certainly looked good. He introduced School ;1 District Attorney Riddlesbarger. ;: " Mr. Riddlesbarger explained the problems the School District has encountered with " , persons on the grounds for purposes not regarded as proper. They very much need an " ,i II enforceable tool, and at present are without any help. Mr. Mohr suggested that uses of public spaces should be spelled out by each administrative agency and that the Council ask each agency to draft a set of consistent " uses of public property whi ch could be inserted into this ordinance. il " iI Mr. Riddlesbarger said he was not sure this would be proper from a legislative I standpoint. He would have no objection to drawing up a lis t in that form whi ch I, " " the Council could use as it saw fit. i: I Mr. Mohr clarified that what he was suggesting was a set of consistent standards which would assure even application across the City. II Mr. Riddlesbarger pointed out that the ordinance was wri tten to apply to pri vate :: as well as public property. It would be asking for trouble to spell out specific 'I uses. -, " Mr. McDonald said the City Attorney had done a good job, and he felt this tool " e should be adopted. i :! Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Riddlesbarger that trying to include standards in " the ordinance would be difficult. Mr. Teague agreed. " Mr. Hershner agreed that the Council should not try to cover all uses, but he felt I' " " each agency should have a policy and have rules and regulations which were I consistent. I, In answer to Mrs. Campbell, Dr. Pond pointed out that each school principal is responsible for his actions and decisions, but that meetings are held regularly to form an overall policy. \ Manager pointed out that, in the final analysis, the equitable application of the ordinance became the responsiblity of the judicial process. I '! Mrs. Beal was concerned about the effect of the ordinance on Lahor, and whether i ~ picketing would still be permissible. City Attorney said the City cannot pass an ordinance which violates rights of people to express themselves by picketing. " :' There was discussion about ,the right to picket on public property. Attorney said that, " " as long{. as picketing was not disorderly, it would be permissible. Ii ,I Y Mr. Mohr requested the Attorney's office to report by memo the distinction between protected activities in public places and activities which would come under the e provision of this ordinance. *All sections printed in italics are from committee report of May 25, 1971. H 6/14/71 - 1 ..... ,...- C03 e 6/14/71 ,( , !j Ii Mr. Gribskov moved seconded by MJS. Beal to place this item on the Agenda of June I 'I Ii 14 for publi c hearing. Motion carried. 'I I' 'I 9340 - Relating to trespassing, establishing penalties and repealing sections of the " C.B. Code of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was submitted and read the first time January 25, 1971. Further action was withheld until the meeting of March I, I 'J2, at which time it was read the second time. With a tie vote of Councilmen I I' :' ~.- "- 'pre,?snf; -n failed to_ pass. Upon request of the Mayor, with the support of I, the sclib'o-r-Bo'ard, "~ff has been brought back for further consideration at this 'I I, time. I: ,I Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be approved and given final passage. City Manager explained that the city administration felt that this ordinance was needed and had brought it back for further consideration. Unfortunately, the City Attorney was ill, and could not be present to enter into discussion. " il City Manager explained that the ordinance had been circulated to Council and e public and had been prepared after consultation with attorneys for ACLU and the L I labor segment of the community. Council has received letters from the Secretary I of ,the Labor Council raising questions about the ordinance as it might relate to , I picketing. The City Attorney had pointed out that it would not permit restriction oill lawful activity. The Attorney for the School Board and authorities of the School I' , Board have requested this tool to control unauthorized use of school property. ,i I Mayor Anderson said he was one fo those who had requested the Council to reconsider this matter, since there was a question what action the State might take in this regard. There have been instances in the community where such an ordinance might " have been useful. ;, Dr. Millard Pond, Superintendent of School District #4J, said the District is interested in having an enforceable ordinance which would permit the district to go about its legal business. At times certain occurrences interrupt the educational process, and the district needs a means of control. I, Ii " Mr. Bruce Smith, Attorney for the School District, outlined a memo presented to the :1 City Council which he felt summarized their interpretation of the proposed ordinance, i: especially as it related to public and semi-public property. Schools are in a class I i " by themselves because they are public property, but open for general public use. The 'I ii school can more effectively control activities on shcool property with an enforceable :, local ordinance. I' I' ,I " Councilman Mohr questioned Mr. Smith about sections of the memorandum forwarded by Ii his office to Councilmen. In answer to his question concerning Paragraph 1, Page 2 Mr. Smith said ORS 332.172 was the statute cited and it specifically authorized the use to which school property might be put. Mr. Mohr requested that Mr. Smith ~s office furnish the Council with the exact language the schools would use to determine whether someone was a non-student and whether the use was intimately related to school I purposes. Mr. Smith agreed to provide the Council with this information. Mr. Mohr also asked that the school rules speak to the issue of "invitation or permission by appropriate school officials." Dr. Pond pointed out that management of schools and activities was with the School Superintendent, who in turn delegated responsibility to principals for operation thereof. In:.-certain instances, they must exercise judgment whether or not the process of education or school activities are being interfered with. Mr. Mohr felt guidelines should be set out so that enforcement of rules was consistent. -- In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Smith said the State Statute is not as comprehensive as the proposed ordinance. The ordinance will give the school authorities a workable ordinance and more guidelines under which it can'operate. 0 After further discussion, the majority of the Councilmen expressed agreement with the " I :I need for the ordinance and a rollcall vote was taken. All councilmen present voting I' aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16222. - - B. Mall Activity Guidelines (Corrunittee meeting of\'~a-y'26,,--o:l~7J,J Mayor's Committee made guideline recommendations from which the staff and Eugene Downtown Association committee have develop~d a set of proposed rules and regulations., When these have been accepted by the Council it is proposed that an ordinance be adopted which will I designate an official set of rules to be adopted by resolution which will empower ~ I police and parks departments to enforce those rules. Rules could be amended by Counci 1 resol u,tLon . Mr. Mohr suggested that the Council review the document and that a public hearing be called. Manager suggested that a public hearing should be held at a regular Council meeting, and subsequently an ordinance and resolution developed. Councilman McDonald expressed displeasure wi th Section B-12 which referred to a ru&ing that absolutely no, domestic animals would be permi ttEid in the mall. He e ~ 6/14/71 - 2 ""'IIIl e COf 6/14/71 'I felt well-behaved animals on a leash should be welcome and, that it would discourage use of the mall if this rule were enforced. "'- In answer to a question regarding sound control, City Manager said the Police Department has been taking readings on activities already in progress to get guide- I lines. I Mayor Anderson said he hoped the Council would view this not as a restricti ve I document, but one that would provide the publi c equi ty in use of the facili ty. Other public facilities have rules and regulations for the benefit of the public using them. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to set a public hearing June 14 to I consider the suggested Mall Rules. Motion carried. I Corrunittee R EPort of June -9-;-1971 ,- Del~y' in' Ma-llr-Ruj-es~ilearing,;"Mr.. Robert," _, \ e I Pei:::ers 'ofAC.tU:::re'que/iJ;i}d' that 1i.1J.e, 'hearing , on :MaP-Rules "schedule'a.' ,for Monday' ev.e1}l)J.g .be, 4.eiayed._ ~,Pi-ty, Mimager stated there- 'i-s"a.r--defj[lit_e-time-- f'actor, Ii i;rv;lTZ'f':!d,~'for'.i-mp:leme1Jfa.ti'on '()f~,the rules, andit\-wcis his~':feeling' ;the hea::c:in'g ^', '-, I ::'shotild' be held on scheHule, and ,i:&,-~t.~~.t;:;s:ti!3dyt:he~ACLU~w1.slies! 'tb~):bu;;cii I' I I , , may hear suggestions for amendment. ,"_ ',',' , ' --.. ! ' ""=------,.., ,--'<'.--~~ --':""'.. ,.' ,---.- ' .. ,- --- ' II C.B. 9423 - Controlling Mall Activities, was read the first time by council bill number I only, and no councilman present requesting that it be read in full, was il considered for passage. II I II i Res. 1934 - Establishing Mall and Plaza Activity Guidelines and Regulations was submitted. 'I . f I Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the resolution be ad~pted. Suggested amendments to the proposed Mall Rules and Guidelines have previously been ,I circulated to Councilmen. I 1 I Manager commented that these rules and regulations had been proposed to preserve i i and enhance the economic value and appearance of the central business district and to provide an area and atmosphere conducive to the harmonious blending of the ! civic, social and economic life of the community. He outlined events leading up . I to development of the Mall and hardships to retail merchants while the construction I was in process. 11 The city has received dozens of requests for use of the mall area and plaza and at I I II I present no set guidelines and rules have been developed. II II City Manager suggested that the title be amended t9 read: "Mall and Plaza Acti vi ty II II Guidelines." Council agreed this was a good suggestion. II II I It was the Council decision to go through the guidelines section by section, II I allowing public discussion of each section. I! I j I Mr. Hershner suggested that the words "The Plaza" be extended to Section A. This was I I I agreed upon. I. II Mr. Paul Gratz, Eugene Brigade, asked to make a general comment and was told that II there would be time allotted at the end of the meeting for general comments. I, Mr. Charles Purkovitz ,345 East 19th, asked for clarification of the goals of the II e , Mall. Mayor Anders0n explained that an opportunity would be given for clarification II I 'I I of the general guidelines and regulations. I, II " Mrs. Beal felt that the purpose of the guidelines was to permit people to come and I, il II go on the mall peacefully and in harmony and to prevent any single group or organization from making the area less atrractive or enjoyable to other people. 'I II !I I Terry Hammons, ACLU representative, was confused as to the purpose of the hearing, il j and was told that an ordinance' will be adopted which would permit the Council to adopt :, guidelines in the form of a resolution. A violation of the rules and regulations 'I I It would call for a warning, and if the rules and regulations continued to be violated, I, " the ordinance would empower issuance of a citation and/or other legal steps necessary. 1\ I ,/ City Manager further clarified that the rules proposed that authority for enforcement , would lie with the city administration, and that the Parks Department had been designated II I I as the permit-issuing agency. Appeal would be to the City Manager's office. Appeal was I' I II PS?s~ible to the City Council for variances from the rules. Ii - II Fran Harris, 2620 Potter, questioned what activities would require permits, and was II I told that descrip~ions of kinds of activities could be found in the rules and guidelines. I, \' The first amendment proposed was to B-4, to add before access permits the word "vehicular" I I to clarify that permits would not be required for pedestrians wanting to go in the mall I I It was agreed this change should be made. , area. i e Ii 'i 6/14/71 - 3 II ..oiIl ~ . 1 bOs e I B-6 - A change has been, suggested in, this section regarding repeti ti ve appearances in the I- mall. Eugene Downtown Association had sugge~ted that'a two-month period be ,required between uses and the administration suggested a period of three weeks. II - ~- If Mark Horstrum, 458 West 12th, ,Charles Purkovi tz and Mike Kennelsen, 169 Foch, felt this II i: section was a contradiction. The fact that no permanent usage would be allowed had i! Ii already been set forth. They objected, feeling that this was public property. Ii ,: 11 I: City Mcnager distinguished between public ,property and property dedicated to pUblic ili I: usage. He explained that the merchants ovmed the property fronting on the mall and 1 Ii could use that as they saw fit. The mall itself, being dedicated to pUblic usage, i !i could not be used by an individual or group as a tenant or to the exclusion of other groups. ii' ,I ' 11 Cindy Purkovitz commented that ~ proper place for the Saturday Market would be the Mall !I I[ Plaza. Councilman Mohr pointed out to her that the Saturday Market will open soon on : Ii II I: the C9Ur:thouse .Plaza. ,) .' j- Ii I I' i! Mel McDermott ~ ,3625, Wiilamette, com~ented t'h,at use of the mall was' a long-range ,thing ii e i! and ,the dow:nt9wI?- had ,!:ol?,e..attra~tive. ,) II I' 'I Ii Rob ert Harris, 27 ifS . Harris , felt th at the re g;Ust ions, as wri tt ~n ,would not pe rmi t th e ill II Saturday Market to operate on the mall. Manager agreed that, as now written, no selling i: !i activity would be permitted on the mall. It would be necessary to grant a variance. Ii 'I ' I ' , I - I'i C. T. Smith, 169 Foch, did not believe that there was a waiting list of those wanting to I I I I use the mall on Saturday nights, and that as long as this was the case, there was no :1 i need for regulation. I . i: I ![ Mrs. Beal felt that this section could indicate that permanent usage of the mall was not : II encouraged, and the time limit could be left out. Councilman Williams did not agree I II and felt three weeks should be a minimum, and suggested it should be a month. Th:Ls might II Ii encourage other groups to develop uses for the mall. The restriction could later be II I: removed. In an:?wer to Mr. Mohr, he said he would favor different groups sponsoring a II I! similar activity, but not the same group every week. Mr. Hershner agreed, but, suggested I II' that if within a reasonable length of time, ,another group had 'not reserved the Mall, the I I same group could use it. Ii Ii j' :1 Councilman Mohr suggested that the ,entire section couldbe eliminated, since it was i! II redundant. Mr. Hershner felt the portion regarding permanent usage should be re13.ained. !I II ' I' 'I 11 Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to eliminate all wording after the word "permanent" I i' in article B-6. !1 !! M W'll" l"k d h f b."." d h . II II r. ,1 lams ,1 e t e concept 0 new users elng gl ven prlorl ty an felt t e operatlon I'! I' would be smoother with a stated minimum. Ci ty Manager commented that the reason for a ,i Ii minimum was to prevent multiple requests that might conflict at a future date. :1 Iii Gear. ge Boenke, .Boenke Printing Company, said the reason for the EDA committee request was: II I' I' that this problem had already arisen and they felt that various civic groups should have i: ,1 an opportllni ty to 1,lse the mall : With a city this size, one group should not be allowed ti Ii the us age for three weeks runnlng. III ' 'I I 1'1 Vote taken on motion as stated. Councilmen Herhsner, Beal, and Mohr voted in favor. II I Messrs. Teague, McDonald and Williams voted no. The Mayor broke the tie with a no vote. ii Ii Motion failed. II " II A I' Mr. Crawford Lyle, 1026 West 7th, objected to some uses now being made of the mall and II .. Ii suggested that it was a pedestrian mall, and this should be remembered. il II I, I I' Ii Steve Davies, 1493 West 11th, suggested that the limitation be three weeks, with more I! I: frequent use when it dmd n<;>t have a prior comrni tment. 1; Ii There was further discussion of the requirement for a time limit and various limi tSli III suggested. I I ,I Ii Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr., Mohr that B-6 be amended "no organized mall usage will II I: be permanent and pe1l!lmi ts to use the, mall will be limited to a reasonable time. n\, I' Ii Mr. Teague asked who would pass judgment on "a reasonable time." Manager explained that !i the city now has many permit procedures where the city depends upon "reason,!" It ;: generally is not difficult. Any administratmon decision would be appealillble. " i; Vote taken on motion as stated. Mr. Hershner, Mrs. Beal and Mr. Mohr voted no. Messrs. I., ii,' McDonald, Teague and Williams voted yes. Mayor broke the tie with an aye vote. Motion I it carried.' -~ I' I, I: ii11 I' I I: : )') 6/14/71 - 4 II ,e ~ ""Il e Go~ I B-8 - An addition of the words "unless by special' permi t from the city of Eugene" has been suggested by the Eugene Downtown Association. Councilman Mohr felt this was not required, in view of the appeal route specified. City Manager pointed out that this addition would be necessary if the administration was to grant the permits. Mr. Mohr felt if a variance was'requested, this should come to Council. V.ince ,Farina, 1407 East 21st, felt there could be times when merchants wished to give I away some item as a promotion. They felt this should be allowable. I Mrs. Beal felt this should be ~ended to make clear that a political campaign during I the campaign period would'be permissable. Manager' pointed out that, unless a structlure I or facility was set up, this would be described as a permissible activity. He suggested e that the addition of "commercial purposes" would clarify this section. I j Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Mohr to add the words "for commercial purposes, unless by special permit by the city of Eugene." Paul Gratz felt this was not pertinent. That permission was already granted to organized groups, and that there were many activities that should be granted by special permit. I I Vote taken on motion. Motion carried. I I A short break was taken. I B-ll m Water features are for viewing purposes only - Mr. Gratz was concerned with the restriction on the fountain. Manager explained that it was recognized that it would be difficult to ,restrict people from dipping feet in the water, but none of, the fountains I were designed for this purpose, and hazards were involved which could result in damage suits against the City. The City was reluctant to use wording that would encourage people to engage in things which could be hazardous and could result in damage suits. It may be necessary to amend the section. B-12 - Dogs in mall area - EDA has suggested an addition to this section so that it will read: For sanitary and children safety reasons domestic animals, other than lead dogs for the blind, will not be permitted. Manager explained that there has been a prob&em with dogs in the play areas, and there I had seemed to be no solution other than prohibition of dogs in the mall area. I Mr. Ed Lynden, 288 Beford Lane, said the EDA wanted the same rules and regulations for I I the mall plaza that the rest of the city had. The rest of the city has a leash law, and such a law would certainly be reasonable for the mall. There have been many activities I and actions in the mall in the past year that would not be allowed in other parts of I the city. , \ I .~ Mr. Mohr pointed out to Mr. Lynden that the rules, as they now read, would permit no .; ,~., domestic animals in the mall. He asked if the EDA supported the present leash law~or the position that dogs would be allowed under no conditions in the mall. !I I I Mr. Lynden had felt dogs on leash could be permitted. Manager pointed out that the EDA I, commi ttee had requested this section for "sanitary and safety where children were 'I I concerned." 1 e I Mr. Ritchie clariillied that at a meeting when the EDA had considered the possibility of I I, allowing dogs on leash they had not known of the situation of damages involved in I the children's playground and the dangers involved from a sanitary standpoint. I II II Cindy Purkovitz suggested thatpeople bringing dogs ~o the mall be responsible for clean-up. II Irene McDonald, 2715 Terrace View, objected to the prohibition of dogs from the mall, II II but since she had paid a visit to the mall and viewed the problem, she was all in favor I I II of this regulation. I I i I I Molly Brennen was in favor of banning dogs from the mall, but felt that the section should I I I say "dogs." Manager agreed this might be wise. i I ,I After further discussion the Council consensus was that this section be left as written. II -I I: Therefore, no motion was required. II Ii B-l3 - Dealing with Sunday use of the Mall - EDA had suggested this be deleted. It may I I be necessary at some time to open downtown businesses on Suday. I I i i Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague that Section 13 be deleted. Motion carried. 1 C-2 - Commercial Temporary - EDA has suggested this be amended to read "no selling for I' private profit will be permitted on the mall and plaza except under G-l above." I e" II I I' ,I 6/14/71 - 5 ... ".... (;07 e 6/14/71 ! i I I II Councilwoman Beal objected to this change, and felt that some commercial activities such as outdoor restaurants, would be llDS t desirable. , i I City Manager explained that the EDA had come to the conclusion this would not be desirable Ii I I but reiterated that the Council could amend the rules or grant a special permit, if they il I I wished. :1 Mrs. Beal did not feel tHat the fact that the present businesses did not want to take II advantage of such a privilege should prohibit others who wished to do so. il II " Charles Bonnett, 193 West 19th, explained that the businessmen had felt a preferable way I' for providing outdoor dining would be for the business to be setback, allowing the use on I I its private property. Downtown buiillillings with setbacks should be encouraged so that the I use would be on property paying taxes. I 11 I, felt provision for outdoor use would make the mall a vibrant :1 Steve Thomas, 907 West 4th, II place. He felt it was now sterile and plastic. il - Harry Ritchie,downtown merchant, explained that this law as now written would permit I ! conflicts in the mall area and until downtown area buildings and property are all in use, :1 I he did not think it wise to permit commercial uses in the center of the mall. !I I I' II I 'I Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe, said this discussion centered around an amendment that hadn't I, I ,I I as yet been moved. He wanted to know what was going to be decided and asked for a specific 11 I 'I I amendment for the section. II ; Ii I 'I , Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr to adopt C-2 with the addition suggested by the !I I: EDA. " 11 II II Councilman Beal felt that, in spite of the fact that a variance cnilild be granted, the II I 'I substitute requested by EDA would create problems which would be difficult to overcome. !I i il i She could see no reason a provision could not be made for commercial temporary. II i I, II Williams suggested that an addition could be made to the existing C-2 clause " Mr. I. [I II Ii saying "such permits shall be granted by the City Council." This would make the mechanism II clear to those reading the regulations. !i II After questioning the City Manager, Mr. Teague amended his motiD~, with the second's il I: consent to incorporate Mr. Williams suggestion. II II Ii " ,I Vote taken on motion as amended. Motton carried. :1 " II :1 I: C-5 - EDA suggests addition of words "Such activities shall not interfere with existing II I! ,1 business" to this section. City Manager explained the meaning of the suggested amend- It Ii ii ment. II " iI II Terry Hammons felt the wording of this amendment was not legal or constitutional. It Ii II " ( I! infringed on the right of people to assemble. No standards had been set out for issuance il II of a permit. :1 't II il " Mrs. Beal had been concerned about immerpretation of this section. ! " 1 i 1 II i Mr. Hammons did not feel that business interests met the standards regarding regulations " ; concerning time and place and compelling city interest. Ii I 11 I! II Mr. Mohr felt it might be well to hold this section over until the City Attorney was :1 e I available for comment. Mr. Hammons agreed this was an excellent suggestion and said 11 , the ACLU planned to submit suggestions at a later date. II I ,i i . 'I Manager fclt perhpas the problem was with the wording. If it proved to be faulty, it could 'I I it be amended at a later date when the ACLU submitted its data and suggestions. 'I i II ii , , I II Mr. Mohr still felt it should be held over for an opinion from the new City Attorney. II II I :1 I Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to table Item C-5 and set August 1, 1971 for :, I i reconsideration. Messrs. Williams, McDonald and Hershner voted no. Mr. Mohr, MFsJ Beal I: I ~ Ii and Mr. Teague voted yes. Mayor broke the tie by voting no, and the motion failed. II " Mr. ~ershner said a. motio~ was not made to add the additional language, and he felt the Ii I' Ii sectlon should remaln as 1 t now appeared. Mrs. Beal agreed. il .' 41 " l: II Mayor Anderson asked if it was the pleasure of the Council to leave the section as it stood. i[ I! No further action was taken and the section remained as written. :i :1 I: " Mayor Anderson suggested that the Council adjourn to meet at a later date. It was quite il I " apparent the material in the entire proposal could not be covered at this meeting. " ii I: Ii Ii Ii the Council set a time for " il Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that at 12:15 a.m. I' II \1 adjournment. Motion carried. I ,\ II e il ~ : ii 6/14/71 - 6 " ~ :i "'Ill e (;08 6/14/71 I r 11 II Mr. Bob Peters , AGLU, was still concerned about section C-5, and suggested that a further il I' hearing be set for two weeks from this time. , II ! II " .1 Mr. Harris suggested that the wording in section D-2-a was not correct. He explained that, Ii " " in setting up the Saturday Market, they had been told there was nothing in the way of a Ii , II temporary restaurapt permit. He felt this should be investigated., Ii ! !i !, Manager agreed and suggested it be investigated and an amendment made if necessary. I, ,I , Mayor Anderson declared the public hearing adjourned until a time to be set by the Council. ,I :i It was agreed that the meeting should be adjourned to the next night, Tuesday, June 15, \i 1971, at 7:30 p.m. " Meeting adjourned to June 15, 1971 at 7:30 p.m. e ~inleY i :1 I I City Manager I, I! Ii I' I' " " " " " :1 , I, I' jl I' J I: I: i. i; i. , " !! ! e :! " " I I , I " , i ~ I: i I , I :1 :1 ;1, i: I. I. ; Ii " I II e ,. I' " , , 6/14/71 - 7 ...