Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/1972 Meeting , Eugene) Oregon Council Chamber December 18, 1972 ~ Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene) Oreg6~ - adjourned from the regular meeting held December 11) 1972 - was called to order by His Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on December 18) 1972 in the Council Chamber with the following council- men present: Mr. Mohr) Mrs. Beal) Messrs. McDonald) Teague:) Williams) Hershner) Mrs. Campbell) and Mr. Bradshaw. I - Budget Committee Meeting - Manager announced the Budget Committee would meet Thursday) December 21) at 6:30 a.m. in the McNutt Room. II - Committee-of-the-Whole Cancellation - Manager said the committee-of-the-whole. meeting :- scheduled for December 20 has been cancelled because there is very. little business that requires Council attentfon at that time. III - Annual Audit) Year Ending June 30) 1972 - Copies of the Audit Report for 1971-72 pre- pared by Lybrand) Ross Bros. &, Montgomery were distributed' to. Council members. "Manager said discussion was not expected at this meeting but could be carried on at some future time. Richard Flomer and Robert Graves of the auditing firm were present, and Mr. Flomer commented on how pleased the firm was with co-operation .recei~ed from the Financ Depart- ment staff in preparing the audit. -~/- IV - Public Hearings A. Ordinance Amendments 1. Disorderly Conduct 2. Indecent Touching 3. Public Indecency 4. Resisting Arrest Council Bill No. 138 ,- Amending Section 4.725 and repealing: Section 4.740 of. the City Code re: Disorderly Conduct; and Council Bill No. 139 - Adding Section 4.765 to' City Code re: Indecent Touching; and Council Bill No. 140 - Amending Section 4.755 of the City Code re: Public Indecency; and . Council ,Bill No.. 141 - Amending Section 4.910 and, adding Sections' 4.911 and 4.912 to the City Code re: Resisting Arrest were Sub-' mi tted and read the first time by council bill number and title only) there being no, councilman presen t requesting that they be read in full. Manager said a communication was received from the American Civil Liberties UniQn, in response to opportunity given to review the proposed ordinances. Copies of'the City Attorney's response to the ACLU communication were distributed to Council members. It. reflected some 'acceptance of the changes proposed by the ACLU. --, .Bob Peters, chairman of the Lane County Chapter of the ACLU)' said there still remain . , substantial areas of disagreement. He raised the question of whether there was a need. for .urgency. in handling these ordinances) since the State already has statutes covering these matters in all but one area. He felt the need for careful consideration of these matters before they are acted upon. Mr':',Peters s'ciid.the ACLU objects to the use of the words "obscene language" in C.B.138 because the meaning of the term is very obscure. In Subsection (3) of that ordinance, the ACLU recommends the deletion of all that follows the word "which" immediately following (c) gestures, and substitute "create the imminent danger of violent reaction." With regard to Subsection (4), Mr. Peters said the ACLU does not object to the con- cept of the provision to order dispersal of a crowd but to the lack of ,precision in. the language of the subsection. He stated that Subsection (6) is still vague, and it is unlikely that anyone could determine the intended meaning of.the ordinance from its language. He added that if it is directed at the use of such offensive items as ~'stick bombs" and the like this intention should be made explicit. Speaking about, C.B..139) .Mr. Peters said that even though the procscribed conduct may be offensive to a substantial number of people and may be, deemed vulgar and in poor taste, it does not threaten the "health, safety, and welfare" of the people of the ._'~ ci ty of Eugene. In the'opinion of the ACLU, he said, the City should resist the "- temptation to legislate taste to conform with the standards of the majority. - In C.B.141, Resisting Arrest (3), Mr. Peters said the ACLU felt the ordinance poses a substantial question which deserves careful discussion by members of the Council. He said Mr. Long, assistant city attorney, cites authority admitting that the proposed ordinance."departs from common law and the American majority view governing the right t.o resi1;3,t an unlawful arrest." He warned that the City sho~ld not act precipi~ 3~ 12/18/72 - 1 - tously in adopting such language into law unless there is a compelling need to provide a kind of protection for police officers. Arnulf Zweig, 2400 Malabar Drive, agreed with Mr. Peters' statements, and said that he , is extrem~l~ oppo,sed to Subse~tions, (2)" (3), and (4) in Section 4,! 725 of the Disor~erly >,~ Conduct ordlnance (C.B.138) because the language does not give a clear definition of -~ what breaking the, law means. He pointed out that in (3) the language "inherently likely to provoke' violent reaction" is vague. He did not know what conduct was proscribed. Some of the language could fall with the prohibition of Subsection (3) and yet be pro- tected by the First Amendment, Right of Free Speech. Assistant City Attorney Swanson ,reviewed the City Attorney's memo of December 16 noting that the courts have ruled the term "obscene" is sufficiently definitive to proscribe conduct that is unlawful. It was the desire of the Attorney to use language approved by the courts rather than to draft an ordinance in terms of behavior. Although some may object to the provision of Sub- section (3) as being "fighting language," the Attorney noted the proposed language had come directly from court opinion. Continuing, Mr., ~wan~on said Supsection (4) is intended to allow for the dispersal of crowds when the group is engaged in an act with no legitimate purpose rather than, just dealing witp each, individual in, the group. Subsection (6) comes directly f~om existing State law and is to prohibit such disorderly acts as "stink bombs." The Attorney noted that general language is frequently required in drafting such ordinances ~~ the proposed I disorderly conduct ordinance because of the impossibility of identifying every individual act that could be conceived and yet clearly within the intention of the prohibition: Police Chief said that he worked with Mr. Long of the Attorney's office in redrafting '~-_ these ordinances and has no obj ection to the changes because they address themselves to problems the police have been faced within the past. Manager asked Mr. Swanson if he felt a need to revise the ordinance in light of the public comments. Mr. ,swanson re, Plie, d that ,the City Attorney's office as a whole does II not feel there is anything inherently wrong with the orqinance. He said that if the Council wished the iarlguage' to be more specific it could be worked on but that would not necessarily improve the ordinances. He suggested looking for something of a sub- stantive nature and then going back and making changes, to improve the lang~age. Councilman Mohr inq~ired at what point lawful activi~y of a crowd such as a political rally would become an unlawful act under Subsection (4), requiring the police to dis- perse the cro,wd. Mr. Swanson indictaed he would need more ~acts before answering the question. Under the ordinance it did not require the police to wait until an unlawful act, e.g., destruction of property, had occurred before the'police took action. It re- mains a matter of judgment by the officer as to what is a reasonable risk. That judg- ment,to,bereviewedby the court. He noted many cr~minal statutues require this kind of judgment. In response to a question from Mrs. Beal, Manager said the proposed ordinances have _ come before the Council, as a result of Council and Administration request to the At- '~ ~ torney's office to clarify and make more specific the language that is now in the Code. ~ -- Both Councilmen Williams and Mobr expressed their concern about trying to rewrite the ordinance at a Council meeting. As a result of comments by Mrs. Beal and Mr. Mohr, Mr. Peters encourage the Council to use the ORS definition of obscenity rather' than the language in the p~oposed ordinance. With regard to Subsection ,(2), Mrs. Campbell asked what action a police officer could take if someone swore at him. Police Chief noted the language in the proposed ordinance ~s' identical to exis~ing ordinance and allows the officer to make an arrest, depending on the circumstances. Mr. Hershner noted it ~ould be easier for the Council to review the proposed ordinances if the existing provis ions of the Code were ayailable for compari~on. - The lack of s,t,anqa,rds and definition in S,ubse,ctions ,(':I-) and (6) were noted by Council- men Mohr and Hershner. ' , " , Mr. Mohr, moved ,seconded by Mrs. Beal that a Council subc~mmittee be appointed to examine, along with resource people from the ,staff or other sources"the revisions in C.B.138 re: Disorderly Conduct. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Council Bill No. 139 re: Indecent ./'-A', Touching be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous - 90nsent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill wa~ read the second time by council bill ,number only " . Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Council Bill No. 139 be approved and gi ven flnal passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the b~l was declared passed and numbered 16671. "3~ 1 12(14/72 - 2 Mr>. Mohr> moved seconded by Mr>s. Beal that Council Bill No. 14-0 r>e: Public Indecency and Council Bill No. 14-1 r>e: Resisting. Ar>r>estbe held until r>epor>ts of the Council subcommi ttee assigned to examine Council Bi11 No. 138 r>e: Disor>der>ly Conduct ar>e available. Motion car>r>ied unanimously. ~ B. Amending Code r>e: Site Review Pr>ocedure Recommended by Planning Commission on November> 20,1972.. Recommended Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Revise.oSite ~eyiew Procedure - On' 'November 20 the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council an amendment ;to the site review provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to expand , ithescope of review. ! ,Planning Director stated that the amendment to the site review provisions of the' Eugene Code have come about through staff concerns and concerns from people \ iworking under this provision. Planning Director explained that when the City lis going through a zone change request and feels there are areas of concern in , , 'traffic, landscaping or in storm drainage, it can ask that the plans for build- , 'ing on that property be brought before the Site Review Committee made up of the :Public Works Department, Planning and Parks Departments. rhis committee would then render,a decision of whether that plan is acceptable and meets the criteria! lof the zoning ordinance and applicable City policies. The proposed change is to: allow the Site Review Committee to look at other factors when the Planning ;Commission feels it necessary. He stated that it is hoped to eliminate the ! :unnecessary use of the Planned Unit Development on projects that are too small to require a full design scope. , _0/ ):Another change would be that appeals on site review will only go to the Planhing" :Commission and not to the City Council. After the Planning Commission. appeals 'could be carried to the courts. At the present time the Planning Department tfeels the site review procedure is working very well from the standpoint of the !staff and the applicants. .There are no formalized public hearing processes. I :The amendment will expand the review as ,shown on the first page of the recom- !mendation, under section 9.688, I through 7. One other change in the ordinance lis that it allows the City to place site review requirements on already exist~ iing_~~ned property by going through a hearing p!ocess similar to a zone change. '-.---- ..- ._._-------"~-.-~. ~~.~-----_.~. -,-~._~_.-~ ._-- ~.~---.._~._._----_._-_...-. '-,~'-~'-'- - Mrs. Beal asked if the fee is adequate to cover, the expenses of the" design teams. Planning Director stated the proposed fee is $50. 'At the . present the Planning Department has no ree schedule. 'Mrs. Campbell asked ifsit~ review requirements would apply in the event of a change of ownership? Planning Director said it happens and the new owner has the right to either follow the plans that were previously approved or come in with a revised plan' that is acceptable to the City. Mrs. Campbell asked about provisions for landscaping. Planning Director 'said Site Review Committee can insist that certain size plantings be e-~~: 'included. (Councilman Hershner asked if this type of ordinance would have been helpful in assuring proper building placement on a piece of property. Planning 'Director stated that is one of the reasons for the drafting of the legislation. 'It does allow us to control the placement in the interior of the site to rmake a better living environment. ICouncil Hershner indicated interest in legislation that would be between the PUD and this ordinance, which would apply to three acres without increasing the density and still allow some other configuration of housing. Planning Director indicated that four of the Planning Commission members are asking for the same type of legislation. Comm ,Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Bradshaw that the recommended zoning I 12/13/72 ordinance amendment to revise the site review procedure be scheduled for a Pub Hr>ng ]Jui?!:J::.c_hei:3r.!.~g ~ .' Me>.~.~?n. car:.! i ed.., ll!lan.~!Qe>.':1.~},Y "~ ___' .-___ ..~. .__ ~r.__~____~ - ---. ,__'r_ .--" Public Hearing was heid with no questions or comments pr>esented. Council Bill No. 14-6 - Amending Section 9.268, 9.854 and adding Sections 9.688, e~, 9.690 ,9.692 , and 9.624- r>e: Site Review Pr>ocedur>es was submitted and r>ead the fir>st time by council bill number> and title only, ther>e being no councilman pr>esent r>equest- " ing that it be r>ead in full. Mr>. Mohr> moved seconded by Mr>s. Beal that the bill be r>ead the second time by council bill number> only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be con- sider>ed at this time. Motion car>r>ied unanimously and the bill was r>ead the second time by council bill number> only. ~b~ 12/18/72 - 3 Mr; Mohr mQved seconded by Mrs. Beal tha~ the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote.. All councilmen. present votin~ aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16672. II - Items Considereduth Qn~.11oti~QD.'" " d Pre.vicnlSiY' dts.cuSS;e.dat c~lIttte.e":inee.t!nE' held--De.cemh.ev13) -.19.72 (Present: . Conncilwmnan B:eal, pres.tdtng; Councilmen W-illta"rns- ,-. Fterclmer) and Ht'adsftaw-; -- Couricilwoinan Campbell; and Councilman-elect'Murrayl.' A. Assessment Hearing -'Copiesoi the report of 'the assessment- hearing panel of -I I December 12 were distributed to Council members. Since there were no requests for appearances before the panel, the ordinance requirement for a hearing has been met, and these assessment ordinances can be passed at the Council meeting - on December 18. : Comm ,Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that approval of the assessments 12/13/72 .be placed on the consent calendar. Motion carried unanimously. Approve I B. iDedication, Oak Patch and City View - Wingard - The City has had an offer from Mr. George Wingard to deed seven acres of property lying between Oak Patch 'Road and City View that will be needed by the City for the West Amazon Parkway I iwhen and if the project is built. Accepting the property would allow for the Jrelocating of the Amazon Channel and provide for right-of-way for the parkway, lbicycle paths and so forth. The ceed provides that if the City does not use !the property for public purposes ownership would revert back to Mr. Wingard. ._~. !Manager recommended that the Council act upon this matter on December 18 so ;it can be recorded in 1972. !Councilman Williams asked if acceptance of the~ft for the purpose of highway [construction is a violation of the recent charter amendment requiring voter I ;approval of freeway construction. I I Manager read the City Attorney's opinion which indicated that the City does ,not enter into an agreement by accepting a gift. He also read a similar :opinion with regard to entering into cooperation with another agency for plan- :ning a freeway or thoroughfare facility. Comm 12/13/72 Councilman Williams moved seconded, by Mr. Hershner to accept Mr. Wingard's gift. Approve Motion carried unanimously. - :\::-::-""";:".-:":.'-- - .--, _..+-~ - C. iLane County Labor Council - Proposal for Labor Relations Advisory Commission - Copies: ;of the proposal prepared by Mr. Irving Fletcher, secretary-treasurer of the Lane :County Labor Council, were previously sent to the Council members. Manager intro- tduced Mr. Jens Horstrup, executive board member of the .Labor Council, who attended i the meeting in Mr. Fletcher's absence. Councilman Williams asked Mr. Horstrup if he knew of the operation of this kind of v. commission in any other city, and requested more information on what specific things : such an advisory commission would do. Mr. Horstrup replied that he was not aware of ,any other place where such a commission functioned. Further, he said that he felt ,Mr. Fletcher had clearly spelled out in the proposal theamas to be covered by the I commission. As examples, he cited communications between labor and management; !revision of building codes, which he felt to be outmoded and not practical in many . areas; trespass laws and things of that nature. Councilman Williamsasked Mr. Horstrup ~to elaborate on what he felt the commission's concern would be regarding the trespass . laws. Mr. Horstrup replied that he was thinking of the issue of picketing in partic- I ;ular, but that the commission could also be consulted in other areas where constitu- Itional rights would be affected. Councilman Williams said that both the building :code and trespass questions were not local issues but nationwide or societal problems. :The Department of Housing and Urban Development obligates the City by statute to :adopt the minimum standard building code. Further, he said the question of trespass laws is also a federal legislation matter. I !Councilman Williams asked if there were any instances or concerns of a specific local nature that make Eugene different from Springfield, Albany or Chicago which would 'indicate that a very strong local issue needs. to be resolved or dealt with. Mr. Horstrup replied that there was no one particular issue, but felt that a commis- sion of this type could operate as the Human Rights Commission -- as a source of -~e information to the City and perhaps avoid potential problems. He said that he felt this commission ~ould_~~lp to educate people. Mr. Horstrup stressed the point that the'labor council has no intentions of €mtering - into any negotiations wi th - anybody---C--- the City might deal with, because even the union itself wouldn't want a commission to pry into these affairs. 7>\oq 12/18/72 - 4 I .~ I ICouncilman Bradshaw expressed concern that this would be a commission which would (meet regularly and require staff time and citizen participation to keep it going ,even if there were nothing new to discuss. ~ 'Mr. Horstrup said he didn't think this labor relations commission would be comparable : to the Human Rights Commission, but that such a body should be availabl.e and on cal].' Mrs. Campbell asked if minority complaints regarding labor union membership discrimi-' nation would be referred to such a commission. Mr. Horstrup said no. I Councilman Williams asked Mr. Horstrup if he knew of anything that had occurred 1 ,within the last year that would have been desirable fo,r this commission to have considered. Mr. ~orstrup mentioned the problem between labor and the City over a ' , I sewer contract. He felt this came about because someone in City government didn't ( fully understand the ramifications of accepting that contract and that perhaps a : labor relations commissions could have prevented this incident. Mr. Horstrup didn't recall the names of the people involved, but felt that this is an example of how I communicating through a labor relations commission could have prevented a problem. \ Mrs. Campbell asked if the current court case between the City and the Fire Fighters might have been prevented if such a commission existed. Mr. Flynn, president of the Fire Fighters,said he felt that a labor relations commission could have handled this situation. It would have given the Fire Fighters a chance for some input to a : commission, he said, and thought that at the time the Fire Fighters could have worked this out with the staff and eliminated the possibility of a court procedure. ~ Mr. Flynn referred to a proposal from the Fire Fighters of last September for a change in the charter and possibly in the ordinance. He said that after working. under the I ordinance the Fire Fighters feel there is need forft to be reviewed. Before any i changes in the ordinance or charter are considered by the Council, he felt a labor I :relations commission should be formed to establish dialogue between the union and 'City staff instead of having both parties draft independent proposals for change. I Councilman Williams asked Mr. Flynn if his primary reason for recommending this ''/ proposal was concern over whether any revisions will occur in the collective bargain-' ing procedure of the City. Mr. Flynn replied that it was not entirely his primary reason, but that he felt this was an area in which such a commission could function. He supported Mr. Horstrup's position that a labor relations commission could receive I information from both sides, explore the ramifications and possibly draft a proposal I to the Council for change in the ordinance and charter. With information from all i parties involved, he felt the Council could act more judiciously in any matter whether it is a question of picketing, changing the ordinance on collective bargaining or any I number of other items that might come before them. He felt that with input from all i parties involved, the commission could develop a more responsible program to present I ~to the Council. , ! Mr. Frank Jackson, president of the Lane County Labor Council, cited an example of \ ~ .?~ a confrontation which occurred in Springfield between members of labor, property \ ~ owners and police because of picketing during a strike. He endorsed the establishment, 'of a labor relations commission and felt it could prevent an incident such as the one i in Springfield from occurring in Eugene. ' Manager said Mr. Fletcher's proposal appears to.be directed toward general labor- \ management problems in the community. From present discussion there seems to be a ,possibility that such a commission wOuld also be concerned specifically with the area :of relations between the City of Eugene and its employees. He did not feel the two mixed. Manager said that if a commission to deal with the general area of labor problems in the community at large was desirable, then it would seem more appropriate I that such a commission be formed at the County level. Secondly, the Manager expressed! concern about the use of committees on a standby basis and their ability. to really be : constructive. He said his experience with committees has been that unless they are given work to do and a responsibility to perform on a regular basis, they tend to die out. He did feel that there is very real potential for the need of ad hoc committees to dea! with.spe.~_~fic prob~f!!!'~:. __._._ .__ .._~._..,.._.__. .__.__ h~_'_"'~ \Mr. Hershner agreed with the Manager's comments and said he felt a labor relations i commission would probably be more appropriately formed at a County level. He stated, that he could not vote in favor of such a commission until he had more input on i ~ specific things this commission would handle. IMrs. Beal asked if such a commission either on an ad hoc or continuing basis would i ~ "be able to adjudicate some of the labor problems and in doing so eliminate high i . court costs. Manager said there has been considerable effort between the City and . labor representatives to resolve disagreements before going into court, but did not 'know if a commission could have helped. c____ - ".' -... "~"_ .h_~~.--....."...,_.~ ._.---...-.,.'_,~ .----, ":. ...', ,. ...---_____ 310 .",'. 12/18/72 - 5 ~ r_ ,-...-._ ~L _1'_ --. - . - ---,"- - ---.---" - - - .- -- .' .On the question of adjudication, Mr. Williams said that he was sure a commission . could not perform this function, but could perhaps act in a mediating capacity. However, even in tha area of mediation, he thought the ordinance stipulated that mediation services be provided by professionals. Manager said that in disputes con- /~ cerning the bargaining process, the conclusion of contracts and the relationships directly between the City and its employees, the City is under the state law and -. must follow procedures of the Public Employee Relations Board which are quite specific. He did not feel this was what Mr. Horstrup was suggesting. Mrs. Beal clarified that she was not trying to indicate in any way that this commis- sion would be any part of the fundamental collective bargaining process, but that there were certain policy areas which come before the Council from time to time and wondered if such a body might be able to advise the Council and possibly keep the City out of court or any kind of confrontation. Manager said that a commission would very definitely be needed in the same manner as the Human Rights Commission advises the Council on discrimination problems if the Council were considering entering into employee-employer relationship legisla- tion. Mrs. Beal asked the Manager if he would suggest an ad hoc committee be formed to study possible changes in the charter or collective bargaining ordinance. Manager I said he thought it was worth looking into, but was not prepared to make a recom- mendation at this time. Mrs. Campbell said she liked the idea of a labor relations advisory commission, ~ but felt discussion of the matter should be postponed until after the new Council .members take office. Camm ':1.2/13/72 Councilman Bradshaw moved that this matter be tabled until such time there appears . : Approve to be a definite issue that needs the attention of such a group, whether it be ad I hoc or a standing committee. In seconding the motion, Councilman Williams expressed concern about creating and institutionalizing a commission until its function and its necessity for continuance are clearly established. He said an ad hoc committee . should be considered for the purpose of revising the Collective Bargaining Ordinance, but also felt that if the Council is continually finding that it must appoint new ad hoc committees to deal with labor-management issues, it should then consider establishing a standing committee. Mrs. Beal clarified that tabling the motion meant the issue could be brought up at any future time without a two-thirds vote. Mrs. Campbell felt the minutes should reflect that some Council members were in favor of the issue, and were not expressing a negative reaction to the proposal by tabling it. Mr. Bradshaw stated that his motion was not intended as a negative gesture. He felt the matter should be postponed for now and reconsidered when a real need ~~ presented itself. .Mrs. Beal expressed concern that if a heated. issue did arise it would not be the right atmosphere in.which to appoint a committee~ ~ouncilman.Bradshaw clarified his motion. , - - .-. .. . - .., .Mr. Flynn said he was not opposing the motion, but that the intent of the proposal was to create a labor relations advisory. commission before an issue developed. ,Councilman Hershner said he would rather vote on a motion to simply table the , 'matter, with no implication that it only come off the table if a problem arose. ,He said he would be willing to reconsider the matter when the Council has some' [specific recommendations before it. : Mrs. Campbell said she wondered if it was necessary to have a motion to table. ;Sh8 indicated that she would prefer the matter be postponed until the new Council lis in session and then brought up for consideration. . 'Councilman Williams said that he felt since this issue was presented to this Council for consideration it is up to this Council to do something, even if it's jus't to ~ place the matter on file. Further, he said that if the proponents are dissatisfied with the action they can present the matter again when the new Council is.in ses- sion. Motion carried with Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Beal voting no. 31\ 12/18/72 - 6 :Manager asked if the Lane County Labor Council would feel it desirable tO,follow ,up on the possibility of making an approach on a County-wide basis, because he :felt this would be a more suitable area in which such a commission could operate. I i &,:. !Mr. Frank Jackson asked if the City Council and staff would support that type of 'approach to the County Commissioners. Manager said that if the specifics of such 'a proposal were developed to the point where there appeared to be a genuine mis- ,sion for such a commission the City would then consider supporting the proposal ; before the County Commissioners. Mr. Frank Jackson asked if the City of Eugene would accept recommendations from a County commission of that nature. Councilman Williams said the City would consider recommendations from the commission, but whether it would accept them is another I question. Further, he said that even if it was a City commission, there would be i no guarantee that the Councilor management would accept its recommendations. If i it is decided that a commission should b~ formed then,Mr. Williams said, he felt I i t shoUl~ _~era::._or: ~:r!._~r.e<:!._J:~~~i_~ a.~~__~!2:,. l?g~ca,I a1.'ea would be the County, ___'d _ .1 D. Recommended Easement Vacation between Orr Lane and Cleveland Street at West 23rd Avenue.- Manager said Planning Commission recommended approval of " Comm an easement vacation between Orr Lane and Cleveland Street at West 23rd 12/13/72 Avenue be sch~duled for ,pU~~ic hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Approve , - - -'" -_. _... .. . - "~. -.~~. Co'-, _.-:'~.:,::: _: . _.'~_.._~ ~ ,_' .. E. 'R~COIT/1. nended Approval of Street Vaca tion Fairway Loop between Del ta Highway : ~' and Country Club Road - Manager said Planning Commission recommended approval \ of vacation of a portion of Fairway Loop between Delta Highway 10S and I .;Country Club Road. This was initiated by the City of Eugene. This is an old I country road dedication which lies between the Pap~ Volkswagon and A&W Root I Beer. It has been used by both these businesses for overflow parking purposes,: and because it is being used for that and not public use the Lane County Tax i :Assessor has assessed it for taxation purposes. Mrs. Beal asked to whom the land would be vaca ted. Manager replied the owner-' . ship would go equally to the property owners on each side. i I I :Mrs. Beal asked if they are willing to pay for the land. Manager replied that! . he doesn't know a t this time. ! : Councilman Hershner clarified that the~lue of the property is still open. Comm ! Councilman Bradshaw moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to call a public hearing 12/13/72 : on the street vacation of a portion of Fairview Loop between Delta Highway Approve :.lqS_5%nd.9ountry ClUJ? Road.,Motio!l ~arriedtlnan~mously. 1 .._..___~___..__ _,,_ , _......... f. Council minutes, November 27, 1972. - as circulated. Approve ~.- G. Liquor License Application - Ilkley Moor, 365 Coburg Road - St.Nizaire, Inc. New Retail Malt Beverage Class C (RMBC). .~ Manager said that the OLCC report indicated 17 or 18 of thosecont~cted in the neighborhood objected to est.ablishment of the outlet at that locat~on: It. Approve was understood a hearing would be scheduled for January 8, 1973 Counc~l meet~ng. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Bealthat Items A through G be approved as noted. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 128 - Levying assessments fsr pavin~ J~cobs Dri;e .f:om Pattison ~tr:~leto Concord Street (71-27) was. submitted and read t~e f~~S~ ~~m~eb;e~~~~~~u~~ll o~u~~:~:r ~~, 1972 nl' there being no counc~lman present request~ng a ~ , ..' h ~ndY;eferred to Decembe~ 12, 1972 assessment hearing panel. Hear~ng Panel reported t ere were no objections to assessment as proposed. :~~:~h~n~ove~i~~c~~~~m~~sM~~~s:~~lo~h~~et~~~;~i,b:n~e:~a~~:e~~c~:~sI~:~e~y~~O~~~lt~~;~ ~ Motion car~ied unanimously and the bill was read the second time by counc~l b~ll number only. - Mr. Mohr moved seconded b~ M>s. Beal that ~he bill ~~ a~lI~v:~s ~~ct~~:~ ~~~:~l:~~a~~~ered Rollcall vote. All counc~lmen present vot~ng aye, e 16673. . t er and sidewalk on Cen- Council Bill No. 129 - Levying assessments for pav~ng, s orm sew '01 LE t (72-01) tennial Boulevard from Centennial Loop west to 300 feet east of Centenna~ oop as 312 12/18/72 - 7 ...., ..-. . --.. - ..~ ..- - --.-- -- su:Dmitted and..readtIie' fir:rttrme cm'NoVemoer,2T,'1972 and referred: to Decem:ber,12,;1972 Ffeal"ing Panel') i:!t no'tibro:ughtnacrc:for' cons-.:tderation'with'Panel report that no objeCtions -A were filed to assessment as proposed. ~. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and' the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16674 ' Council Bill No. 130 - Levying assessments for paving streets within Chase Park Subdivi- sion, submitted and read the fir:s.t..time.,onNove.mber 27"19.72 and. referred to Hearing Panel Decemb.er 12, 19.72, hrought back. for consideration rith'report; fram Panel that no protests were submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill I nurnb.er only, with. unanimous. consent of th.e Council, and that enactment be considered..Motion c&;vledpna.n~Qll::;J.~ a.nd,:the. b.Ul, ~~p~~d :t~. s.~c~nd. :~~ .hZ' c~.uncU b.ill. nU!llh~;r' only. ... _ .':A_ ., :"-...- - - -- . .~-. . -'- - ,. -:."- .,~ "...-_-::;.~ ..:.I., '., -,... ...". .-,,-.-.--'.~ ......~ .- Mr .Mo-ru.. :-mo-ved' Sec~naed'15y-'1!l1'~. B"ealtnat. tne :.:Oill De' apr>roved '. and; given' final passage. Roll- ~. call-vote. 'All co-unc.i:l-men' present:vot.t:ng aye, tIle' Iiill'was- declared passed andriu:rnbered . -16.6..7 ;} ... .... Council Bill No. 131 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer in alley be- tween 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue from Mill Street to Ferry Street (72-19 ), submitted and read the first time on November 27, 1972 and referred to December 12;1972 Panel Hearing, was brought back for consideration with report from Panel that no protests were submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16676. Council Bill No. 132 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer in alley between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue from Mill to one-half block east (72-20), submitted and read the first time on November 27, 1972 and referred to December 12, 1972Hearing.Panel~ was brought back for consideration wtth report from Panel that no protests were submitted. ~ Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was 'read the second time by'council bill number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16677., ' -- -' - Council Bill No. 133 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers .within Lorna Vista Park (including the pedestrian way)(72-29 and 30), submitted and read the first time on .November 27, 1972 and referred to December 12, 1972 Hearing Panel, was brought back for consideration with report from Panel that no protests were submitted. -...... ~, Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be, read the second time' by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bilL number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given. final passage. Roll- ,'~ call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16678. Council Bill No. 134 - Levying assessments for construction of sanitary sewer on Roosevelt Boulevard from Garfield Street to 900 feet east (72-32), submitted and read the first time on November 27, 1972 and referred to December 12, 1972 Hearing Panel, was brought back for con- siderati()n with report from Panel that no protests were submitted. 373 ~ Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanilTIous consent of the CoUncil, and that enactment be ,considered at this time. Motion carried unanilTIously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. .. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved andgi ven final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16679. Council Bill No. 135 - Levying assessments for' paving and sanitary sewer on Jeppesen Avenue between Newford Park and Goodpasture Park to serve Tax Lot 4201 (72-37), submitted and readthe first time on November 27, 1972 and referred to Dl,"lcember 12, 1972 Hearing Panel, was brought back for consideration wi~hreport from Panel that no protests were submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by co:tincil bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, arid that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill. number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16680. Council Bill No. 136 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in Knutson Bros. Planned Unit Development - Norkenzie and Belt Line (72-53), submi~ted and read the first.time on November 27, 1972 and referred to December 12, 1972 Hearing Panel, was brought back for con- sideration wi~h report from Panel that no protests were submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number '../ only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by' council bill number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All counci~men present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16681. Cobncil BiB~',j{o. 147 - Calling hearing on January 22, 1973 re: Vacation of easement between Orr Lane and Cleveland Street at West 23rd Avenue (Public Works, was submitted 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 be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number'only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16682. Council Bill No. 148 - Calling hearing on January 22,1973 re: Vacation of.Fairway Loop between Delta Highway and Country Club Road (Public Works), submitted 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 be read the second time by council. bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16683. Council Bill No. 149 - Construction of sanitary sewer in area from projected 38th' Avenue to 160 feet south of 43rd Avenue and from 100 feet east of East Amazon Drive to the east 2800 feet was s..1bmitted 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 be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried urian.imously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. . -...; , Mr. Molir moved seconded by~Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16684. Council Bill No. 150 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary sewer in area from proj ected 38th Avenue to 160 feet south of 43rd Avenue and from 100 feet east of East Amazon Drive to the east 2800 feet was submitted 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 be read the second time~by council bill number only, with unan imous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 374- . Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered '16685. Council Bill No. 145 - Rezoning to RP PD the area at the southwest corner of Coburg Road and Cal Young Road, read the first time on December 11, 1972 and held pending approval of de- ... <;. ._,. "-- . velopment plans, was brought back for consideration. '" V" '. ~""" . . ,"". " . Manager suggested that Council complete the rezoning of ' this property in order for Citizen's Bank to build a temporary structure until their permanent bank is built. He said that the ordinance implementing the rezoning would not be signed by the Mayor until Citizen's Bank has prepared a contract agreeable to the City which states that it will not use this property for' any other purpose and should they sell the property it would revert to an R-2 zone. Mrs. Beal asked if the ordinance would become €ffecti vebefore the Mayor signed' it., Manager said that if the Council approved the ordinance at this time the City would'enter 'into agreement with the Bank with regard to approval of the plans. The ordinance would not be effective until it was signed by the Mayor after the contract was signed." Manager said the City's practice of not passing rezoning ordinances with PUD provisions until development plans are approved is to avoid speculative zoning, and in this particular'instance the City's policy is protected by the' proposed contract. ' Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bil,l be read the second, time by' council bill number I only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill' was' :read' the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall ~. '''''-'' ' vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16686. Temporary Building Permit, Coburg and Cal Young I Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to grant a permit for'temporary building - I mobile home - for use as a bank by Citizen's Bank at the southwest corner of Coburg Road and Cal Young Road. Motion carried unanimously. IV - Resolutions Resolut.ion No. 213~ - Authorizing acceptance-of Grant in the amount of $68,090 Tor develop- ment of Peterson Park, Danebo Park, Echo Hollow Pool, Cal Young Field, Amazon Park, and Coburg Median Islands (Proj.OSL-OR 10-16-1017 Contract (G)), was submitted. , ., -:....- - -- Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2134 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period December 11 through 18, 1972, was submitted. ~. -/, . Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, .~,- , all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2135 - Authorizing Manager to execute revocable permit for Valley West Re- tirement temporary sign (Bor~is) was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, meeting adjourned. I _.~ ~ . I I McKinley- Manager ~ \ 'M,._ . N. ~ .. or',,' 315'