Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/1972 Meeting Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon November 6, 1972 Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene,. Oregon was called to order by His . Honor Mayor Lester E. Ander.son at 7 :.30 p. m. on November 6, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the - -. following ~ouncilmen present: Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Beal, Messrs.McDonald, Teague, Williams, Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, and Mr. Bradshaw. l - Public Hearings A. Defining Civil Emergency and Curfew, and Authorizing Mayor to Impose Curfew Du~ing Civil Emergency Council Bill No~ 112 - Repealing Section 4.725, adding Sections 4.760, 4.761, and . '- 4.762 to City Code re: Defining Civil Emergency and Curfew, and authorizing Mayor to impose curfew during civil emer- gency was submitted. Manager explained provisions of the bill and that the one presented includes amendments suggested when it was discussed by the Council at its October 18 committee meeting. The amendments remove reference to "riot" in Section 2 (4.770) Definitions (1) . Section 2 (4.771) Termination of Curfew Proclamations (2) includes the provision for termination by the Common Council on majority vote of members present at any regular or special I meeting. Staff requested the curfew ordinance to give authority at the local level in emergency situation to more rapidly clear areas of persons who may be injured or create damage. . It is recognized the Mayor or administration may call on the Governor for a curfew, but at the same time it is recognized that should such call be made the Governor also as- sumes law enforcement \hich it might be desirable to keep at the local level. Bob Peters, 1444 East 21st Avenue~ chairman of the Lane County Chapter of American Civil I Liberties Union, stated the ACLU's position on the proposed ordinance is that it would I place excessive limitations on liberties of the people, it would hinder the press in re- I porting emergency situations since the press is not exempted from its p~ovisions, and that it would "chill" the natural tendency for neighbors to help others in emergency situations such as the 1962 wind storm in Oregon. He said it is clearly not needed in such times of distress. Theresa Engelmann, 1910 Fairmount Boulevard, opposed adoption of the curfew, saying such regulations are susceptible to discriminatory enforcement and the authority is better left with the Governor than with local people. She cited ordinances already in effect giving authority to protect the community in any emergency and said the Manager has authority now if necessary to blockade streets. Eric Betz, 1623 East 23rd Avenue, questioned the method of determining a "civil emergency," "violent act," "eminent danger," etc., and said the ordinance would give extraordinary powers to the Mayor and Council to close off the entire City. He urged rejection of the . curfew as did Walter Harrison, 2358-3 Patterson Drive, who also questioned who would make determination of disturbances, saying there appears to be no system of checks and balances included in the provisions. He said the authority would allow imposition of curfew re- strictions on people other than those causing disturbances, and that there is no procedure set forth with regard to notice that a curfew is in effect. Nor with regard to treatment of citizens by police' should they violate a curfew without knwoledge that one is in ef- fect. Mr. Harrison also questioned constitutionality of any curfew law and said he felt this one would violate citizens' right to equal protection under the law. David Gwyther, 2230 Floral Hill Drive, suggested delay in enactment of the bill, saying he could see no reason for inclusion of the emergency clause providing for its going into effect immediately upon passage. He questioned necessity for the provisions prohibiting possession of explosives and firearms and the sale of liquor during civil emergencies. Cliff Zukin, 1884-25 Alder Street, and Fred Wasson, ASUO Senate, said they feel the pro- posed ordinance is aimed at the University and questioned need for the regulations. They also argued that terms of the bill are vague and do not adequately define what would con- stitute an act of ciolence or public disturbance. Mr. Wasson said the penalties for violation of the provisions of this ordinance should be clearly specified and included in the ordinance itself. They urged its rejection or that it be more specifically written if adopted. - Miriam Aagaard, 1391 West 4th Avenue, read statement of the YWCA, University of Oregon, opposing enactment of the ordinance indicating their position that ordinances of this type historically have been used selectively against minorities. They feel the restric- tions would be selectively enforced in Eugene with no way to prevent such selective en- forcement since observers, including the press, would be barred from the streets. They 10 .~.. ~l~ 11(6(72 - 1 - indicated too that any curfew in event of a disturbance would be applied only to the University area. William Wasmann, 216 Bond Lane, managing editor of the Eugene Register-Guard, was con- e cerned primarily with how press functions. would be carried on if everyone is barred from 1he streets. He asked if it is intended that the police will be responsible entirely for notifying people of emergency situations in which a curfew has been imposed. ..---- Hope Pressman,1644 East 27th Avenue, asked if there is sufficient personnel to enforce a curfew equally throughout the community and asked how a curfew would be announced to give everyone due warning, considering the possibility of power outages which would curtail or prevent radio broadcasting. She advocated rejection of the bill. Public hearing on the bill was closed and comments invited from the Council. Councilman Hershner asked if the Manager does have authority under existing ordinances to close streets. City Attorney said he does under emergency circumstances. Councilman Teague asked staff views with regard to restrictions on the press in event of a curfew and why it is felt the authority is needed, considering the comment that exces- sive powers would be placed in the hands of the executive officer. City Attorney replied that problems are encountered in developing any law establishing a curfew, and it is recognized that any curfew gives to the Mayor a great deal of power. However, it is limited in that it may be exercised only when there are acts of violence and eminent danger to the public. The deicision to be made is whether to give that power in the event e of civil emergency. With regard to the press, the City Attorney continued, it was felt members of the press would be included in the general definition of exceptions "...persons engaged in any activity essential to the public health, welfare, and safety." He said this could be spelled out more specifically to include members of the press. As to why it is felt the authority is needed, Manager said the staff regards it as an "insurance policy." - it would permit immediate action in .the event extraordinary powers are needed to control an emergency situation. Police Chief added that it.would be considered pri- marily as an additional "tool" and anticipated use restricted to whatever segment of the community is affected by an emergency. Councilman McDonald asked why proclamation of a curfew would be made by the Mayor. Manager answered that a logistics problem of gathering a quorum of the Council rapidly is the basic reason for giving this unusual, power to the Mayor. The Council would be called together as soon as possible in any emergency and possibly to determine whether the Mayor's assessment was correct in proclaiming a curfew. Councilman Williams questioned the need for a separate local statute and whether the Governor1s authority .could be applied to portions of the. co~munity only in which an emergency may occur. City Attorney said he' thought the Governor's authority could apply in any instance, the question is whether there would be time enough for his action to be adequate. Manager added that there may be instances when it would be desirable . to have the authority at the local level. . He recalled in the instance of the Roseburg explosion that the National Guard was not. available for a period of 24 hours. Mrs. Beal expressed the opinion that there is no necessity for the ordinance in view of voluntary help from citizens in time of emergency. She thought this, with backup from the police, would be adequate. Manager said he did not mean to imply that people are not co-operative in emergency situations, but there have been instances in other com- munities of looting and. extremely great hazardp to. the public going into emergency areas. Councilman McDonald asked how adoption of the ordinance would affect insurance coverage for properties of individuals. Manager said the term "riot" was removed from the pro- posed law because of the exclusion of coverage for riot damage in .some insurance policies. City Attorney said ~he. adoption of the ordinance would not in any way enhance the right of opportunity of a citizen to recover on a policy for fire insurance, glass breakage,etc. Councilman Bradshaw inquired how a curfew would be administered - how could a person prove he did not know a .curfew was in existence. Ci ty Attorney said the burden of proof would be wi,th the ..City - defendant in any proceeding has no burden of proof. Ci ty would have to have evidence that notice. of the curfew was received through newspapers, broad- casts, etc. Councilman Hershner suggested that an announ.cement at the site of a dis- turbance by police would be notice so that if a person did not leave it could be said he -, was aware of the curfew. Mrs. Campbell asked why. the curfew, ordinance is felt necess.ary now if those ordinances - listed by.the ACLU were adequate to ,cover situat.ions in the past. Manager replied it would not be his persuasion that this ordinance would have been used in past disturbances had it been in effect. The staff is attempting to provide a tool for meeting emergencies of a larger scope than any which haveoccvrred up to now. Police Chief said the only time. it. may have been used was .an..incident in the. downtown area which, had it been pro- longed ~ may have been better handled through clearing the area. '32" . . 11/6/72 - 2 After some further discussion with regard to reasons' for bringing the ordinance for con- sideration, Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to table the bill indefinitely. In making the motion Mr. Mohr explained that an item tabled indefinitely can be brought back only by majority actioD of the ~ouncil. .Motion carried, Councilmen Mohr, Beal, Campbell, Bradshaw, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Councilmen McDonald, Teague, Hershner, -- and Williams voting no. Councilman Williams questioned whether the Mayor could break a tie vote on a tabling motion. Consensus was that he could. r Councilman Williams wondered whether Council initiation of the item would be the only way to reconsider. He was thinking of possibility of staff's being able to bring it back in the event of a national disaster. Councilman Mohr said it was not his intent to fore- stall future discussion, any councilman could have it placed on an agenda. Mayor Anderson said his vote to table was to allow time for further discussion with staff and he would not' hesitate to bring it back himself. It was generally understood after further discus- sion that staff would do no further research on the matter. B. Appeal, Northland PUD Located east of Norkenzie Road and south of Minda Drive. Pre-preliminary approval given by Planning Commission October 10, 1972 for 20 units with conditions on about 2.5 acres I in an R-l zone. Appeal was read from Marvin P. Brabham, 1709 Minda Drive, stating that the Planning Commission failed to conform to requirements of Sections 9.768 through 9.792 of the zoning code. Council members previously received c?pies of Commission recommenda- tions, staff notes, m:inutes, e!=c. Planning Director showed slides depicting character . of the area and expl.ained the P:V9j ect . Marvin Brabham said no pictures were shown of homes on Carmel Avenue and further along Minda Drive which will be affected by the proposed development. He expressed 'concern about impact on the schools in the area and. commended the Planning staff on its recom- I mendations, saying the Commission made a mistake in not upholding those recommendations. I Roger Bourland, 1740 Carmel Avenue; Bob McKee, 1706 Minda Drive; and Fran Corum, 1865 Tabor Street, objected to the development. They held that it would cause overcrowding in the adjacent single-family neighborhood and w~uld not be adequately buffered, not eno~gh consideration was given to retaining open space, schools could not handle the added population, and, it would not serve to properly develop the area. Mrs. Gordon Thoresen, 1720 Carmel Avenue, asked those present objecting to the PUD to show their hands, and about twenty-five responded. Colleen McKee, 1706 Minda Drive, asked what assurance there is that the development will be accomplished in accordance with changes upon which approval was granted. She said the ,developers should be required to submit a new plan before approval is given. James Redden, Morris & Redden, architects for the Northland PUD, described the planned development giving details with respect to open space, square footage per unit, distance . of buildings from property line, all in conformance with requirements of the ordinance. He said a revised plan was submitted and further plans will be available for review should further changes be made; the plan as approved conforms to requirements of the Planning Commission. Any questions about overcrowding of schools, he said, should be referred to the School District for comment. Councilman Williams questioned the approval of 20 units for 2.4 acres, saying it would appear to be more than allowed for R-l PD. Planning Director said the square footage was figured on. the acreage prior to street dedications and would be very close to 8 units per acre. In answer to Mrs. Beal, he explained that when a deyeloped gives. .1and for addi tional street right-of-way, that area dedicated is not deducted when figuring the square footage per unit or number of units which can be constructed. Mrs. Campbell questioned whether the intent of the 1990 Plan was to fill all vacant land within the urban service boundary with planned unit developments and asked whether open space for park area was considered. Alan Maxwell, Planning Commission member, said the Commission was most concerned about this site and in its deliberations took into con- sideration all facets of the Northland development's effect upon schools, parks, traffic, drainage, the neighborhood generally, and its findings<were made on the ordinance in effect. Planning Director explained that the 1990 Plan suggests density of 10 units per acre maxi- -. mum, the planned unit development regulations restrict it to 8 units per acre. He said it was the feeling of the Planning Commission after denial of R-2 zoning for this property that the site would accommodate 8 units per acre, even though staff recommendations dis- agreed with that density. Manager said available space in the Willagillespie area for additional portable classrooms and ultimate construction of a school on Bond Lane ade- quately satisfied the ordinance requirements for existing and planned services. 31-5 11(6(72 - 3 Mrs. Beal asked whether the development will necessitate street widening, sidewalks, etc., and whether other people will hpye to dedicate land for right-of-~ay purposes. Manager said additional right-of-way will not be required from other people in that area since the City has been buying as it can be acquired for the widening of Norkenzie. As to curbs . and gutters' and sidewalks, staff feels they should be installed although not necessarily with this project, but that decision rests with the Council. Councilman McDonald asked the number of units in the Bond Lane PUD compared to this, re- ferring to th~ 8-units~per-acre restriction on Northland PUD. Manager replied that the Bond Lane PUD is ip an R-2 zone which allows greater density. Councilman Hershner wondered whether permitting PUDs in single-family zones when it is felt services and buffering are sufficient is a device for locating multiple housing in R-I zones. He said it seems the .absolute maximum density is always allowed when approv- ing planned unit developments giving the impression of "apartment house" developments. Manager said this kind of development tends to give a more compactly developed community in. that dwelling unitE; can be clustered together in m.ultiple types of structures thereby providing more open space. If the same property were developed in single-family units, taking into account land used for streets, an acre would accommodate only about three or four units. Councilman Mohr referred to the density studies. resulting from proposed planned unit de- velopments in the southern section of the City and wondered whether a change in the planned unit .development procedure should be considered in light of comments-on the Northland PUD. He said there should be equal application of the 1990 Plan rhpoughout the City. e In answer to Councilman Williams about the_mini~um acreage for a PUD, Planning Director said four acres is the minimum that can be serviced unless. the Planning Commission is persuaded a site qualified as an isolated or unique problem. This site does have problems because .of its location. Staff did not recommend approval of the planned 8 -units per acre because it was felt the design needed more refinement with that density. In answer to Mrs. Beal, he said there was one vote against the pre-preliminary approval by the Planning Commission. Councilmen McDonald and Bradshaw suggested referring the item back to. the Planning Com- mission for discussion with respect to the density and equal application of the 1990 Plan requirements. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to sustain the appeal and deny the PUD. Considerable discussion followed to clarify, intent of the motion with explanation of understanding between the Council and Planning Commission that action 6f, the Council re- versing a Planning Commission. .recommendation does not b.ecome final until that matter has been discussed jointly by the .two bodies and each takes action again separately. This motion would indicate the Council wishes to.sustain the appeal but would like more detail from the Planning Commission. Several councilmen felt the motion should be simple re- . ferral to the Planning Commission, however, rather than a definite denial of the develop- ment. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to substitute a motion to refer the item to a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council~ Motion carried unanimously. Councilman McDonald left the meeting. . r .' .. C. Levying Assessments,. 10th and Oak Overpark .. Council Bill No. 106 - Levying'assessments and declaring benefited'previously exempted properties in 10th and Oak Overpark District, submi tted and read the first time on October 9, 1972 and held to this date for . hearing. Manager explained that information subsequent to presentation of this bill called for its rewriting and setting ~ew h~aring date. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to substitute Council Bill No. 118 and call hearing for November 27, 1972 (see under ordinances.- C.B.118). . . . '. , Motion carri~d unanimously. . - D. Withdrawing. from Oakwa~Water District recently annexed Calvin Street property Council Bill No. 113 ~ Withdrawing from Oakway Water District property recently annexed to the City and located on Calvin Street north of Harlow Road was submitted (Kehoe). 32& 11/6/72 - 4- MY,. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Bealthat Council Bill No. 113 with unanimous consent of the Council be read twice by council bill number and title only, approved, and given final" passage. - Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting' aye, except Mr. McDonald absent, the bill was read twice by council bill number and title only, given final pass'age, and numbere'd 16651. . E. Rezoning Requests -, . - .. 1. West side of Chambers between -18th and 23r'd from R-l to R-2 (Mulder) Recommended for denial byPlanriirig Commission' on October 3, 1972. Manager reported that Mr. Mulder asked postponement of this request since he is unable to be present. Jim Saul ,Planning staff, showed slides of'the area and explained Planning Commission considerations of'the impact this rezoning would have". - . - . ' .,) . . Mr. Christenseri,-2005"Broadview Street; 'opposed the rezoning saying multiple units should not be permitted ~outh of' 18th because of Traffic hazards they would create. Mr. Mohr rrioved seconded by -Mrs" Beal'to 'continue the hearing on this item until the petitioner is able to appear. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman McDonald fr~turned to the meeting. I 2. Southwest corner of C6burg and Cal'Young from R-2 to RP PD (Citizen's Bank) Planning Commission recommended denial'Oct'ober 3, 1972. Jim Saul, Planning staff, briefly reviewed history of rezoning requests for this property and said there . have been no significant 'factors or circumstances which would indicate a change to allow commercial zoning south 'of Cal Young Road. ~r. Mohr moved secon'ded by Mrs. Beal to refer this re.quest to a joint meeting of the PlariningCommission and Council. In making the motion Mr. Mohr stated a number of questions were raised by letter I to the Council members from the petitioner which were not answered in background material on this iss'ue. -.. -,. '" "- Councilman Williams expressed strong interest in the rezoning request and asked Council's .p,ermission' to. speak to it even. ,though he said there would be conflict of interest. Mrs. Campbell asked if, in taking the request back to the Planning Commission and the posstbility of the property's being rezoned, it 'is realized the 1990 General Plan would have to be amended. . Councilman Mohr was concerned with taking action on the request witnout'ktiowing details of the petition and felt discussion with the Planning Commissionwouilld be helpful. Planning Director called attention to the- fact that public hearing was advertised and official notice given for discussion at this meeting, whereupon Mr. Mohr with . consent of the second withdrew the motion to refer to a joint meeting. Craig Robinson, president 'of Citizen's Bank, said their position is that the Plan- t ning Commission and staff did not fully consider that the application'was for RP zoning. Rather he felt the entire consideration centered around whether commercial zoning should be allowed on that property. He argued that use of that CO!Dner under residential-professional planned development would be better than multiple housing on such a busy intersection. He asked for an opportunity to discuss the request at a work session to negotiate a solution for development of thts corner in the best in~~ests of the City and the petitioners. John Axtell, 2573 Sharon Way, objected to the propos.;J.l, saying that any type of commercial use for the property would increase the traffic hazard at that inter- section. In answer to Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Robinson said no other commercially zoned locations in that area appear suitable for their purposes. He said the question is one of commercial vs residential, and their application was filed on the basis of the Code definition of RP Residential Professional uses. He doesn't se~ the proposal as being in conflict with the 1990 Plan and felt their plans were flexible enough to enable resolution of any questions in a work session. . Councilman McDonald commented on the traffic situation at Coburg and Cal Young and wondered whether a meeting with the Planning Commission would accomplish anything. He said he would uphold their recommendatlon 'for denial. :3 '2.1 11/6/72 - 5 M.:r..M.Qh:r .,caJ,l,~d-:attention to Councilman Williams' . request to speak regardless of the conflict of interest. Councilmen Hershner and Teague and Mayor Anderson re- ported they had the same conflict. - Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Teague to refer ~he rezoning request to a joint session of the Planning Commission and Council. Motion carried, Councilmen Mohr, Campbell, Bradshaw voting aye; Councilmen McDonald and. ** Beal voting no~*Councilmen Teague, Williams, and Hershner abstaining. ** Corrected - See Council minutes December 11, 1972. 3. East 6f Belt Line north 0atalina Street and west of Echo Hollow Road from RA to R-2 (Trans Western Investors) Planning Commission recommended denial October 3, 1972. Jim Saul, Planning staff, showed slides of the surroUnding area and explained the Planning Commission's recom- mendation for denial based on General Plan's low density for this area, impact of its development on Echo Hollow Road and the pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and the feeling that R-2 density would be excessive. I Ray Ackerman, 2930 Alder Street, speaking for Bethel School District; Eric Haws, 564 Sierra; and J. H. Sorensen, 4300 Avalon; opposed the rezoning because of anticipated increase in school enrollment, narrow roads and safety of school children. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to deny the rezoning to R-2. Mot~on carried unanimously. e F. Sign Code Amendment Recommended by the Planning Commission October 9, 1972 to allow separate identity signs under certain conditions when several businesses are located at one site. Copies of the amendment were previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Saul explained that problems have been encountered by small businesses located in interior portions of shopping areas who do not feel they have sufficient identification. There is no way of identifying a building within a complex under current regulations for street signs. The proposed amendment would provide an option to use combined limited identity signs from the street and still retain wall signs on individual establishments. In answer to questions from Council members with regard to whether interested people were aware of the amendment, Mr. Saul said the sign inspector has been receiving com- plaints from merchants and the Sign Code Board of Appeals is aware the amendment is being considered. Public hearings were conducted before the Planning Commission. C()Uncil.Bill No. 114 - Amending Section 8.640 (a) 4. Outlying Commercial District re: Identity Signs was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill with unanimous consent of the Council be read twice by council bill number and title only, approved, and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, . the bill was read twice by council bill number and title only, given final passage, and numbered 16652. G. Annexation - Area north of Green Acres Road, west of Gilham Road (K.Ray Barnes) Planning Commission recommended denial October 24, 1972 because addition of this area to the City would create an island, there are no sewer problems in the island area at this time, a petition protesting the annexation was received, and sewer service for the annexed area would have to be extended across the unincorporated area. Boundary Com- mission has considered the request and postponed action until a recommendation is re- ceived from the City. Council members previously viewed the property on tour. Walter Sands, 1121 Balboa Street; Willis Beebe, 123 Holly Avenue; Joan Youngs 1128 Balboa Street; and Dan McCornack, 225 Holly Avenue opposed annexation of the Barnes property, saying it would create traffic problems, facilities should be available first, the planned development of the ,property would increase too much the density of the entire Cal Young area, overcrowd schools, and desire of "island" residents to come into the City at their own request. Ray Barnes, petitioner, said he was requesting the annexation as the only way to gain sewers thereby enabling development of the property. He argued that a".trunk sewer is - available to the area and addition of the property would increase the taxable value of the City. He asked annexation of the petitruoned area alone, with the understanding ~ that the "island" area would not be annexed until residents of that area petition for annexation. Mr. Sands said it was his understanding that the. trunk sewer referred to was installed for a trailer park being developed, and added that residents of the island area do not want additional planned developments with the resulting increased traffic surrounding them. 32.8 11/6/72 - 6 r 'In answer to Mrs. Campb ell, Mr. Barnes said the County will not give septic tank permits in the area, so that sewers are necessary to -development of the land. Mr. Teague asked whether consideration was given to annexing the petitioned area only without including the island area. .Manager replied that there have been .instances of . islands created by annexation existing outside the City, it depends .on the configuration of City facilities . . He said it would appear pressure would build up to take this island into the City because of desirability of extending street's an'd other City services to the area. In order to get to the Barnes property the City would be forced to go through an unincorporated~rea. Councilman Hershner wondered whether the 'City would .be able to assess adjacent properties for the cost of services extended through the unincorporated area. Public ~orks Director said the City C9.n legalJ,y enter into agreements. to defer a1?ses,sment and make the charge when connectiql1s ~o the sewer are made. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to recommend to the Boundary Commission that the _r.equest for annexation be denied. Motion carri~d unanimously. II - Items Considered With One Motion Previously di.scuss.ed..at committee meeting on November 1, 19'Z2 (PI'~s.en.t: Councilmen Mohr ! (presiding), Beal, McDonald, Teague, Williams, Hershner, 'Campbell, and Bradshaw). Minutes of that meeting appear below printed in italics. --'-~. . . .~, _-.:......./t:...~_ .::. . . A. Westside Neighborhood Quality Project - Copies of the proposed plan were previously distributed to Council members having to do with traffic, zoning, and recreation in the Westside Neighborhood Project (between 7th and 13th, Lincoln and Chambers) . Neil Murray, 653 West Broadway, reviewed the work of the Equal Treatment Task Force 'of the Mayor's Social Goals Comndttee in reaching its conclusions on problem areas and in drawing up the plan for presentation to the Council. Council authorization I was requested for staff assistance from City planning, traffic, and parks depart- I ments over the next six months to provide professional assistance in making specific proposals for Council consideration of solutions to those neighborhood problems. In answer to Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Murray said there were no Planning comndssion members present at the neighborhood meetings, but that members of the Planning Department staff have worked with them. He said he felt Council action would be helpful in making this project a high priority item. Councilman Bradshaw wondered whether the request could be handled administratively as in the case of the Danebo neighborhood project. Manager said that some ~nalysis of comndtment being requested would be necessary. to determine the staff personnel and time the project would take. He suggested bringing back a recommendation after determining what will be needed. Councilman McDonald wondered whether this project would be similar to that in the Laurel Hill area and said it was his impression that Planning staff members attended . those meetings. Manager said staff members are available but not on a regular basis. Until there is some idea of what is being requested in the way of traffic, planning, and recreation studies there i..s no way ofknowi~g ho;';-;'~ch st~jf time it involves nor how much would be taken away from existing projects. There area number of projects underway which are taking a tremendous amount of staff time, and staff members cannot be asked to contribute their evenings on a continuing basis without ~ome way of replacing that time during the day, or if day time, it would have to ;be taken away from something else. I . i Mr. Bradshaw moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the plan be referred to the admin- istration and further discussion scheduled at a future comndttee meeting when staff recommendations with regard to what is involved in completion of existing projects can be considered. ; Mrs. Campbell mentioned that the Historical Buildings Preservation people are , interested in that area and hope representati ves of that group would be incl uded ,in any meetings. Considerable discussion followed on overall traffic and planning problems and priorities for studies in various areas of the city, with Planning Director explain- ing that it was determined an updating of neighborhood analyses for the entire City e ,would have to be made before application for Federal funds. Then there would be a : base for determining where renewal funds should be spent in the future. Mrs. Campbell ;said she felt rezoning requests could be denied at the Planning Comndssion level to .check the trend toward commercial zoning in the Westside area. Mrs. Beal suggested ; including in studies the possibility of rezoning excess commercial and industrial ~areas.back to residential .use. ., -, 3'2.Q 11/6/72 - 7 Councilman Tep.gue remarked about traffic problems on various major arterials in the City and thought a staff report on progress in those areas might help the Council , in its present consideration. Mr. McDonald mentioned the area south of 11th from Jefferson to Chambers and asked whether that area is still included in studies. e., Planning Director said the staff is now working on an analysis of the entire City :based on 1970 census figures which included the areas mentioned. At the suggestion of the Manager it was agreed that a report would be brought to the Council which i ,was previously presented to the Planning COnmUssion showing the work involved at }the staff level in the total planning activity. Comm 11/1/72 Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Approve , - B.Lettering, Skinner's Butte Cross - Copies of correspondence were previously distrib- i .uted to Council members indicating American Legion, Eugene Post No.3, is proposing I to attach 5-inch high bronze letters to the crossarm on the Cross on Skinner's . 'Butte reading: "BRAVELY THEY DIED * HONORED THEY REST." It was felt appropriate :that the Council, as representatives of th~ City which owns the Park and the Cross, ~respond to the proposal, which appears to be in accordance with the Charter amend- ~ment making the Cross a war memorial (worcding of Charter amendment also was dis- I :tributed previously to Council members). _ I , ;Dudley Walton, judge advocate of Oregon American Legion, further described the :lettering and said the attachment would be made to the north face of the Cross. Comm e. :Mr. Bradshaw moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the request. Motion carried fl/l/72 unanimously. ~pprove C.Central Business District Carbon Monoxide Emergency Alert Plan - Copies of the 'Alert Plan as approved by the Lane Regional Air Rollution Authority were previously ~di~tributed to Council members . The Plan has been - revised since previous discus- i . sion by the Council and is presented now for consideration for adoption with the , understanding that it is a requirement of the Department of Environmental Quality. , , In answer to Councilman Hershner, Manager said adoption of the Plan would probably :require an ordinance to implement it. An ordinance has not yet been prepared, [ ;since it would give emergency power to police and Mayor and would authorize con- ;trol of people in certain areas, stopping of vehicular traffic, etc. Councilman Williams expressed his concern about shifting of traffic to 11th and 13th by restrictions on 6th and 7th, thereby increasing carbon monoxide pollution measurement at the 11th and Willamette moni toring station. He fe1 t that heavy , crosstown traffic would not decrease by restricting traffic into the core area. David Baker of the Regional Air Pollution Authority staff said an increase in ,pollution for a short period of time probably would occur, but with the central area sealed off there would be no reason to go into the area and after a period : of time there would be a sharp decrease in pollution. Public Works Director said ..-",- .there is no way of knowing the concentration points throughout the City until there . are more monitoring stations and more testing, but the Plan would give guidelines in_~h~ l?venj; of _~uc!1:~n . e..~rfJ~ncy. ~ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __~__ .}.::.:.,..--....;;:.... ,Discussion followed with regard to selection of the 11t1'-- and Willamette site for ,location of the monitoring station, areas of air pollution concentration, and traffic patterns. Manager suggested that this Plan could be considered the minimum 'and an adopting ordinance cou~d be written sufficiently flexible to allow broadening of the area covered if actual experience indicates that is necessary to cope wi th an emergency. Discussion continued on ,location of the monitoring equipment, dif- 'ferent factors involved in an air pollution alert, DEQ and legal requirements for an alert plan, incl usion of other than carbon monoxide and particulant parts per . million considered in measuring an alert stage, etc. I ICouncilman Teague, member of the Lane Regional Authority, said the Authority's Comm counsel, Joe Richards, had recommended approval of the Plan. Councilman Williams 1;1/1/72 said it would appear that any emergency would be an areawide problem and not just Approve ;in the downtown core area. He moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the Plan be re-'; ,ferred back to staff for clarification of points raised. Motion carried unanimously ~'.I_'- '.~_____..___ '_~""___ _ ....~_......"_. __.____.~.. _. ........... .................. ~.~..__,_......._._.___.J'.____..___._..__.__,_,.._.__ :....-......___'--._____.. .~ D.Appeal, Final Approval Southridge andBALSMPUDs - Schedule hearing for Council Approve _- meeting of November 27, 1972. ' - E.Garbage Board Recommendation re: Adding rates for hauling compacted garbage Approve (See Resolution 2124) F.Street Vacation - East and west of Candlelight Drive (Lyndon Homes) - Recommended by Planning Commission October 24,1972 - Call hearing for December 11, 1972 Approve 330 IJ,f6!72 _ 8 - - ~ " ' ,.-..' ,...-~ ". .. .. .. " .. G.PE'- ~.i<:'J:uor-Li.cense. ~ Pay-le.sRDrugsj 2qt"fi.. and Wl11:ame.'tte'CNew1 :... Staff has no objectton. ..' Approve H. Council Minutes as circulated - September 25 and October 9, 1972 Approve I. Weddin~s in ~hododendron--Garden at Ileridricks Pai:~ -counci~man williams' as~ed ....._ that d~scuss~on be scheduled at some future comnuttee meet~ng on the quest~on- of weddings being held in Hendricks Park. He said the City currently does not allow weddings in the rhododendron garden, but they are being held there and Comm as a consequence members of the weddings are harassed by City personnel. He 11/1/72 asked the Council to consider enforcement of ban on weddings in the park or stop Affirm the harassment. It was understood the question would be scheduled for discussion. J. Seorm Sewer, Roosevelt Junior High - Mrs. Campbell called attention to a storm \f.' :s~wer near Roosevelt Junior High which has been a source of trouble since its I~ i~~tallation. She said it is visibly polluted. The school's principal has asked fpr,improvement of at least 100 feet of the drain to enable use of a portion of 1:,/113 land not now usable. Manager said the City is reluctant to work with p:dnci- ['pals of individual schools in instances such as this which require a position to be' taken iJy the school district administration. He said the City was aware of this proilem's being raised and the suggestion was made that it be processed through adthi.nistrati ve channels, in this case contact would be the vice Super- I intendent in' charge of school grounds and facili ties. Councilman Mohr said he had informed the Roosevelt principal of that process. Mrs. Campbell added t~at , Comm if nothing is accomplished in that manner, the item will probably come back to 11/1/72 the Council for consideration. File 4It K, Crossing Gates, Southern Pacific Tracks - Mrs. Beal asked the status of installa- .. .' tion of railroad crossing gates for which money has been budgeted for some time. Public Works Director answered that there has been budgeted $70,000 for the City's share on a SO/50 basis with Southern Pacific Company. However, the SP's submittal for installation of the gates calls for about $150,000 as the City's I share. Negotiations are in process with SP in an attempt to have the contract Camm amended to do what work can be done for the $70,000 the City has available. It 11/1/72 was understood the item would be before the Council again when the contract has File been worked out. L. Traffic, Portland Street - Councilman Teague said people are complaining about difficulty in traveling Portland Street because of automobiles parked on both C sides of the street. Public Works Director said consideration of this area is . amID h 1, ., d' h t k' b . d t .11/1/72 now on b e P ann~ng Comrruss~on agen a w~t respec to par ~ng, arr~ca es, e c., F' land wi]'l be before the Council in due time. l1e M. Congratulations, Fire Department, Ballot Measure No. 51 - Councilman McDonald .said he felt Council acknowledgment was due the Fire Department and Fir~ Fighters: Association for their radio announcements in support of the ballot measure which would provide funds for additional fire stations and equipment. He said he felt Camm it was very important that this measure pass in view of the need for additional 11/1(72 . fire protection in the southwest section of the City. Flle N,.Clarification, Ballot Measure 52 (Bond Issue for Streets and Sewers) ~Manager ex~ plained that when this Charter amendment was drawn it was the intent to make it 'broad enough to leave the Council flexibility in consideration of individual projects' ,to be funded by the bond issue. As explained on the comndttee agenda, a portion of . the bond issue was intended for purchase of Amazon Parkway right-of-way, but this iwas not spelled out in the ballot title nor in the text of the amendment, which ,I reads: "To improve streets which, because of heavy vehicular traffic, in the opinion of the Council need to be improved." Ci ty Attorney has been asked whether the amend- ' . ment as wri tten would permi t purchase of right-of-way to deVt~lop new arterials in .places where there are not now streets. Council members were asked to consider the ~question and make a statement that the Amazon Parkway project was intended if they ;feel the ballot title is not sufficiently clear. If Council feels it is sufficiently ~clear, then a statement should probably be made for clarification of questions raised. , . Les Swanson, City Attorney's office, gave the opinion that the matter would be a litigable issue - it could be argued either way, that the wording of the amendment does allow improvement of additional right-of-way, extension of existing streets, : or for putting in new streets. A statement to the effect that funds from the bond , iss,ue were intended to purchas1 Amazon Parkway right-Of-way would not remove the 4It .,'possibility of challenge. He said ultimately it appears to be a matter of how ~ ,:sti:ohgly the Council feels about acquiring right-of-way for the Amazon Parkway. 'R"ega~dless of whether an expression of intent to purchase right-of-way is made or :~h'i:.the.:r a statement is made simply for clarification that funds will not be used I ,i'fo'r'.that 'purpose, .it is the Attorney's opinion that the City could very well face ! ~~ court challenge on the ballot measure. . .... " I ... .'"",--n_ ..:..-..'<; .:,. \,:,:", .~...... ..:.._.... ,....... _' I~ )', ~ ,~ "_ ~.~ . ;...~~ .'_ .....-- - ..~.-. .':""--. . ~.- ,_.~.~ 331 11(6(72 "c. 9_ ..'..~~ it; ~-l Counciimen WllLiami and Moh;.referred to the stat~me.nta:pproved by the Council which appears in tju~:. ;joter' s: 'Parnphlet,.whicb indicates. right-of-way acquisitioI:l. of . . ~.. '.: . ','. -" '. - " , . ,- the Parkway as one of thepz;oj"ectsffb:f. which - the funds will be used, and ask~d 'whether affirmation of ,that statement is what is required. Manager said it was - ' felt clarification of the Council's intent, having enough information before the .~~ '. voters as to what use is intended for funds from the bond issue, might remove the',..<' - question of controversy about this project and would not be a matter of considera- .tion by the voters in casting their ballots on the bond issue. He suggested the I 'alternative of submitting at the next election clarification of this particular question and saying in the meantime that funds from this bond issue, if approved, ,would not be used for the Amazon Parkway until that issue is settled. Discussion followed on items listed in the voter's pamphlet statement and the .Council's authority to cancel or substitute projects, possibility of removing : chance for litigation if the Council states clearly at this point that none of . the funds derived from this ballot measure will be used for right-of-way purchase I rfor any major new construction, and question of whether any statement would bind ,future Councils' actions. Councilmen Hershner and Williams felt there would be further confusion in the voters' minds were the Council to make a statement at this time contrary to the' .:.. position taken in the voter's pamphlet statement. Mr. Swanson said anY,actiorz taken at this time would not bind future Councils, but at the same i:Jme would no.t, Change the situation with respect to attendant risks in action taken by future 'Councils. .. Ed Kenyon, Register-Guard reporter, asked if there would be grounds -for legal ;~.:- "action should a person holding property for sale to the City for right-of-way fo':r.:~, new construction miss that opportuni ty. Mr. Swanson expressed no opinion but s~i d.' there was no attempt to make the list of projects in the pamphlet statement de- terminati ve; the Council would still have the power to use the funds as it de- I termines is necessary. The statement was designed to give some idea of what was_ tr~~n~ to.be..acc:>mplished with the_ ~ney being asked._ ___._ Betty Niven, Planning Commission member, said nothing has been said about those I people who may be unhappy if right-of-way is not acquired for the '.Amazon Parkway. \ , She noted that this arterial has been planned for twenty years and right-of-way "\ ,\\ for its ali gnment protected. ,h i Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Council reaffirm its statement in the voter's pamphlet with regard to Ballot Measure No. 52, and urge Eugene citizens , to read the statements in the pamphlet. Ralph Aldave, attorney, said that any new arterial route cannot be detetmined except by formal action of the Council. He said there is no question now but that DEQ will ' 'be concerned about any new route, and money should not be cOnmlltted to acquisition . of right-of-way for a project such as the Amazon Parkway until environmental impact .;:::t;:;:\. . statements are made and the route approved. He said if the Council's-pos-itiotl re- : mains the same - to purchase right-of-way with a portion of the bcmd issue - there i ' will be those who vote against the measure for that reason. ~ I ./ rIn-- a~swer to Councilman Bradshaw, Manager said both the Planning COnmllssion and the ('"Council approved the Amazon Parkway route in 1964. Councilman Hershner said if the measure passes and if the Counc:il decides to use funds to purchase right-of-way every consideration would be given to the environmental impact. It would not appear to be relevant to the motion stated since future Councils would not be bound by this ! Council's considerations. . ~ . Steve Hewi tt (no address gi ven) opposed the motion, stating that if funds from the bond issue are to be used for right-of-way purchase it should so state clearly in , " the ballot ti tIe. Mary Briscoe, president of the League of Women Voters, distributed; , to Council members copies of statement of the League's _ posi tion wi th regard to the f i Meas ure . I Comm . li/l/72 Lack of time prevented further discussion and the Chair declared that no action File 'would be taken, but that the item would be put on the consent calendar for the , !Ng~c:m1l:!e;r; 6 _ Council meeting. ": "'. ,,__, .", 4 _". .___~ ___._ ~_ _"~~_ _. _ ___'__ . ........... __" . _.~_ __ __.___' .- '-. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Items A through N above be ap:!?roved, ~ffirmed, and filed as noted. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motlon carrled. . , - . ,. III - Items Not Previously Discussed . ., A. Sidewalk Variance Laurelhurst Drive north of. Royal ,- Plannlng Commlss'lon on October 9, 1972 r~commended approval of req~est for waive~ of si~ewalk construc- t.i,.Qn in fn;mt of one lo.cati9n on t~e we~_ts:I,.de of Laurelhurf:lt Dr:I,ve north of Royal Ayenue'. 332- 11(6(72 - 10 . - There are no other sidewalRs on this street and it is felt inappropriate to require it at the designated location until sidewalks are conStructed on the balance of tIe street. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve sidewalk waiver as . requested. Motion carried unanimously. IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 52 - Rezoning to C-2 SR areasouth.of West 11th Avenue between Wash- ington and Lawrence Streets (Planning Commission), read twice on August 14, 1972 and held pending notification of option to purchase portion of property exercised by Mr. McNutt, was brought back for consideration. Notice was received from Mr. Gleaves, attorney for Mr. McNutt, that the option has been exercised. J1r. Mohr IDoved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. .Eollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and n:u.mhered'1665 3.,' ~- , .... "' " - -~-- - .. , Council Bill No~'I15 ~'Calling'hea:bing December 11,1972 re: Vacation of street west of Candlelight Drive (Lyndon Homes) was sUbmitted and read the first time by council bill I number and title only, there being no councilman presenttrequesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill with unanimous consent of the Council be read thecsecond time by council bill number only, approved, and given final passage. . Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16654~ having been read the second time by council bill number only. Council Bill No. 116 - Construction of sidewalk on south side of 15th Avenue from Washington Street to Jefferson Street, was submitted and read the first time by council bill I number ffid title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. J1r. J1on..rJlloyed seconde.d n:y<~rs:. Beal tIiat tILe hill with lIDanimous consent of the Council tie read the Second t:i::me bi co:UUctl :Oillriuni5er~oniy, approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote.' All cm:ii1cilmen present voting aye,' the bill was declared passed and numbered 16655., having been read the second time by council bill number only. Council Bill No. 117 - Amending Sections 7.175 and 7.500 City Code re: Special Assess- ments, was:osubmitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill with unanImous consent of the Council be read the second time by council bill number only, approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16656., having been read the second time by council bill number only. Council Bill No.'I18 :.:.. Calling hearing November 27,1972 re: Levying assessments and '. declaring benefited previously exempted properties in 10th and Oak Overpark District, was submitted and read fue first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present~ requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded .by Mrs. Beal that the bill with unanimous consent of the Council be read the second time by council bill number only, approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16657, having been read the second, time by council bill number only. V - Resolutions Resolution No. 2121 - Authorizing amendment to Grant Agreement (Project No. 9-35~044-~SJS C808) with FAA adding area and deleting reference to ','slurry seal" was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Mot ion car- ried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2122 - Calling hearing November 27, 197.2 re: Withdrawing from Oakway Water District recently annexed Oakway Golf Course property was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion car- ;. ried, all councilmen presen t voting aye. Resolution No. 2123 - Transmitting to Planning Commission for hearing November 8, 1972 request to amend Sign Code re: Allowing polarized light wave filter equipment ,in signs was submitted. ~r. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion car- ried~all councilmen rresent voting are. " ':333 11/6/72 ...,.. 11 . Resolution No. 2124 - Authorizing addition:~f,rate to Garbage'Rate Schedule for haul- ing compacted garbage was submitted. Mr. Moh~ moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion . cax:>ried, alJ,councilmen present voting aye. , . . . . Resolution No. 2125 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments 'for ~per{od October -24 through .Nciveinber'6, 1972 was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion .carr~~d, all counc~lmen .present vot~ng aye. . '. . Upon motion duly m~de, seconded, an~ carried"the meeting w?~ _adj~~rn~4,to ....... Monday, November 27,1972. - ,. A~t. , . P / . fI . l . .Hugh ,McKinl~y Ci ty Manager' .. " e \ , .,. . . ,- '.. ". ., .. . e -. 33'f 11/6/72 - 12 - ,