HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/1973 Meeting
Cotmcil Chamber
Eugene, Oregon
February 12, 1973
.
Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by
Council President Wickes Beal in the absence of Mayor Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on February 12,
1973 in the Cotmcil Chamber with the following other cotmcilmen present: Messrs. Williams,
McDonald, Hershner, Cotmcilwoman Campbell, and Messrs. Keller, Murray, and Wood.
I - S.B.100, Land Use Planning
.
S.B.IOO, Land Use Planning - Planning Commission asks for Council permission to
testify on behalf of the City on this pill. James Pearson, president oE.the Plan-
ning Commission, expressed the Commission's concerns and recognition that opposition
to the bill brings alignment wi th people and attitudes wi th which the Commission
: would not normally be compatible. The commission's concerns relate to the quality
of planning in this city and county and possibility that that quality may be diluted
! by the scope of this bill. Tradi tionally the State has not been in vol ved ~n local
. planning except through enabling legiSlation. This bill would establish five new
and separate entities above the local level. Mr. Pearson said the Commission is
: concerned with the bill's weakness in definition of these agencies.and their inter-
; relationship, and with respect to ensuring input; it makes no mention of citizen
participation in formulation of guidelines, objectives, and regulations. The time
set forth in the bill for formulation of the guidelines is unrealistic, tending to
promote a skimpy and superficial program, unresponsive to community attitudes. It
appears that amendments can be made on an interim basis without legislative approval, ,
. and the commission feels the Legislature as a whole should be responsibile for that I
· activity.
The bill provides for issuance of permi ts through the councils of governments. The
Commission feels permits should be issued at the local level. The COGs are not
staffed to assume principal planning chores in the communi ty and permi ts required
are not in areas of State concern. Too, the local planning agencies can provide on-
I going supervision of permi ts after issuance.
\.
Mr. Pearson continued that the bill fails to recognize planning excellence in some
areas of the State. By rezroving local responsibility it will in effect downgrade
local planning. In view of very li ttle willingness on the part of some State com-
missions to be sensitive to local situations, the Commission is concerned about the
I
possibility that the proposed agency would be equally reluctant to follow any counsell
. but their own. He said this bill should be killed; legislation enacted should be
addressed to those areas wi th which the State should be concerned. The solution is
not' in taking away local level of authority, instead' it"i'~' i;; telling wh~t'-mtist be
done in those areas where local planning is not being done. The assumption is made
. that local public will not be responsible for good planning. The Commission believes!
,that moving responsibility to a higher level will weaken local planning. And there!
is the possibility that a State agency might trade off good planning for some other I'
: area of the State. I
I
'Mr. Pearson suggested that the Legislature instead authorize an interim conIDrittee or t
: planning department with staff and funding for intensive review of State involvement
in total planning processes and particularly of solutions to the problems with which
: the State is concerned. This al ternati ve will be recommended by the Directors of
: the League of Oregon Cities at the committee hearing on the bill. It is felt this
method will provide good solid answers to the concerns of the State without diluting
the local concerns wi th regard to good planning.
(',
Councilman Williams, a director of the League of Oregon Cities, verified that the
League is opposing the bill and is making the al ternati ve suggestion of an interim
commi ttee for intensive study of the issue. He added that boundaries set in the bill!
to which State regulations would apply are unrealistic, being strips adjacent to i
. highways, etc., and that finances proposed in the biJ-l will not do the job intended.. :
i . . .' ,
. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the Planning. Commission position:
on S. B.IOO as stated by Mr. Pearson and authorizei ts ,presentatic:m at the legisla- ,.
: tive. committee hearing on the bill. '
Comm
2/7/73
--
· Councilwoman Campbell said it was her impression that areas of the state .such as
. Eugene and Lane County where there is good planning would not b.e affected~ Also
that there is' some urgency because of disappearance of prime agriCUltural land.
,She asked whether this bill pro vi des any compensation for small ci ties whi ch woul d
be directly affected. Mr. Pearson said one of the concerns with the bill is that 'it
. is poorly interpreted by its own propOnents. It provides that once State guidelines
are.set up all local planning efforts. must comply and that means they are sent to
the COG for approval. Th~.~implies that the councils of governm/fmtswill assume
-- -_.-~, -~ -. -'- -~'-_:--_.,----------
2.S
2/12/73 -1
the major planning responsibility in the communities and is the opposite of the
i Federal participation in planning which is to permit acti.ve use of local jurisdic-
;tions. He said moratorium at the State level would meet the crisis of transition
I .
lof ,ag;c:cultural lands to suburban areas. That problem would be better met through
1 local ,control. With regard to effect on smaller communities, he said the bill gives
! each' communi ty an opportuni ty to meet State gui delines. It that is not done the
,State makes the plan at the community's expense, funds being authorized from the
ci ty , s share of State revenues.
.
In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Pearson said the position stated was with unanimous
consent of those Planning Commission members present at the time it was discussed.
There was concern at that time that opposition to the bill would make strange allies.
Mrs. Campbell expressed concern that if this bill is defeated there would be nothing
done in the area of Statewide planning. Mr. Murray wondered whether Mr';~ Pearson
could be allowed to state opposition as the position of the Planning Commission
rather than for the City itself. Or whether the timing was such that the matter
could not be moved to another agenda. It was imderstood that hearing on the bill
is scheduled at the same time formal action by the Council is scheduled on this
request, and i tis plann:.~ to forward the Council's action to Mr. Pearson in Salem.
Mr. Hershner asked if a substitute bill will be recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Pearson said the Commission was informed that the League Board of Directors had
recommended substitution of another bill. Commission action included that recom-
mendation.
,Councilman Williams stated that City opposition to this bill does not mean opposi-
'tion to development of Statewide planning, nor does the League- oppose Statewide
planning. However, they do oppose the approach taken by S.B.lOO. He said the bill
does not provide for development of a Statewide plan by professional developers nor
for extensive public hearings. The State agency would adopt its own plan.,_~Mr..---
,Williams thinks that should be a function of the Legislature where elected offi.cials
I can testify and vote on what is proposed.
!
iMrs. Beal asked whether the Commission had ~y amendments to S.B.lOO which would
. make it acceptable. Her concern was with urgency of need for some kind of land
, use planning for the State. Mr. Pearson said the Commission feels strongly that
:, the proposed bill is so misdirected that it would not be satisfactory unless com-
: pletely rewritten. Planning staff input and assistance are needed to prepare the
:proper kind of legislation.
.
Mrs. Campbell expressed concern that the City's being on record in opposition to
S.B.IOO would imply that the City is opposed to the entire concept of State planning.
Mr. Pearson said the Commission is not asking that legislation on State planning be
killed, only that this bill be set aside and alternatives initiated in this session
'of the Legislature. In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Pearson said one amendment which
would make the bill more palatable to the commission would be to exclude Lane County
from its provisions.
.
Manager said it might be helpful to understand, the effect of the bill as written if
areas of concern were recogni zed - every waterway, every State hi ghway, every
historical monument becomes a State concern. So the Willamette River inside the
City becomes a State concern, the same is true of State highways inside Eugene, and
there is no provision for local input into the decision process which would occur
under this bill. Local control woul d be lost. Mrs. Beal di dn ' t want the ci ty of
Eugene to be put on record as opposIng the 'concept of land use planning. Councilman
Wood argued that the testimony presented wouId-notbe against the ,concept of land
, use planning, rather it would be for more adequate planning for such legislation and
calling attention to weaknesses in the proposed bill about which there is-great concern
Mrs. Beal said she would like to see a statement of the main points to be bro,ught
up in the commission's testimony to be sure the city is not opposing Statewide land
use planning in principal. She did not wish to restrict the presentation but was
concerned only with that part which is City policy. Mr. Pearson felt a structured
outline of points without discussion would be ineffective. Manager said it seems
,the commission position is in favor of a good land use planning bill. Emphasis--in
that manner would put Eugene on record as being favorable toward the concept but not
toward the details of S.B.IOO.
'\"
.
iMIS'. Beal felt the present climate is conducive to passage of this typtp legislation
;and that delay without offering substitute legislation would kill altogether any
hope ,for Statewide planning. Mr. Pearson expressed concern for good Statewide plan-
ning but on the basis that moving the responsibility from local agencies could bring
1."
2/l2/73 - 2
the possibility of commercial land development being decided at the legislative
level without sympathy for local concerns. Councilman williams said the poli tical
climate appears to be turning toward the planning concept, not away from it, so
that delay would not appear likely to do away entirely with land use planning
legislation. He added that adoption of weak legislation on the basis that the ob-
jective is sound is not the right approach. What is suggested in the Commission's
position is an approach directed toward accomplishing the long-range objective of
an intelligent Statewide planning document. With regard to a substitute bill, it
is a major undertaking and his understanding that work is proceeding toward draft-
,ing legislation through the League of Oregon ci ties.
.
Answering Mrs. Campbell, Manager said the recently adopted Council resolution would
not allow Mr. Pearson to testify on behalf of the commission without Council approval.
He could as a member of the Commission, but not on its behalf. Comm
. 2/7 /73
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried.
- - '. ..-."
Council President Beal opened the issue to public hearing and called on those favoring the
Planning Commission stand in opposition to the bil1~
.
Ralph Fulbright, member of the Lane County Planning Commission; Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe
Street; and Jim Hosey, architect and planner, urged Council endorsement of the Planning
Commission stand against S.B.IOO. Mr. Fulbright read a summary of the MacPherson bill which
he said contained a number of things which destroy the process of public hearing and do not
provide for citizen input. He said there is planning, either professional or on contractual
basis with consultants, in most areas of the State at this time and sufficient control under
present enabling laws over land use planning. All expressed the opinion that the bill. as
written would remove local control of planning and especially with regard to lands adjacent
to the Willamette River, State highways, etc., inside the city of Eugene.
Joseph Holaday, 242 South Garden Way, expressed concern about land uses in Lane County out-
side the city of Eugene and the rest of the State. He cited the extension of water services
to the Goshen area by EWEB as an example of need for land use control over and above that in
existence. He felt the Planning Commission should prepare amendments which would make the
bill meet, their objections. He asked that the Council's tentative approval of the Planning
Commission's stand be rescinded.
Grant Seder, 2385 McLean Boulevard, and Gerald Brewster, president of the Beaverton Planning
Commission, both members of the Oregon Association of Architects, were in favor of S.B.100.
They felt it would bring co-ordination of planning activities throughout the State and that
it would not usurp the power of local planning authorities. They said that in areas of non-
critical concern, such as Eugene, the bill provides only that certain criteria of planning
be considered.
-
Others favoring passage of the bill were 'Mary Briscoe, speaking for the League of Wom~n
Voters, and Stanton Cook, 1832 Longview Avenue. They saw it as a device for improving
State and local land use planning, and as carrying Eugene's planning standards to the rest
of the State rather than downgrading it.
Councilman McDonald asked if terms of the bill would remove control whiCh the Eugene
Planning Commission and Council have with regard to land use. Mr. Morgan said his under-
standing is that if criteria established by local planning commissions do not meet that of
the State agency then the City cannot function. The bill denies citizen input from the
local level. Mr. Brewster argued that decision making if based on sound data would be left in
the City's charge. The bill offers co-ordination of planning activities, allowing the State
agency to'establish guidelines and regulations. Mr. Fulbright read Section 24 of the proposed
bill which provides that local planning will be approved by the State if it is consistent with
provisions contained in the bill. Maradel Gale, 2232 McMillan Street, said the State would
set minimum standards. If local planning falls below those standards, then the State's
regulation would apply. She said Eugene exceeds them now, but many parts of the State do not.
.'
Councilman Murray asked Mr. Morgan where he felt conflict with State regulations would
arise if Eugene's planning is considered superior. Mr. Morgan replied that it would be in
judgments involved in areas of planning. This bill does not provide for citizen partici-
pation in establishing criteria, and he feels Eugene planners should have a voice. He
said the Council's responsibility is not to the State or other parts of Oregon but to the
city of Eugene and its interests. A series of guidelines have been adopted in Eugene
which work, those which the State may adopt are unknown. 'He said that he was not implying
that Eugene would be required to lower its planning standards, but he felt that witho~t
the opportunity for local people to make modifications in established criteria, commissioners
at the State level would not have concern specifically for Eugene's best interests.
1-7
2/12/73 - 3
CouncUwnman Camph.e.ll note.dthat Countf' CQuun~ioner~, Ea~\Ul,rd and, Omlid are supporting
S. B.IOQ"and asfce.d that tfi.eir :rtateme.nt-favortn-g' too' le-gis-lation' be'1Jlade a part of the re-
cord. She. didn It agree tEat Eugenepeo!,le srloUld be 'concerned only tuth Eugetle prbbleJllS;
llut should feel a re.~ons-.t5.tl:ttY' fer,' land use in all parts of thed State.' 'She felt not sup-
rorting thfu bill would weaken the pesitionof toe councils of governments, since the bill
1i?rovides for local districts in wIiich she said there would be 'ample opportunity for local
input. She sUbmitted copies of statement.from 'the League of Women Voters in support of
the bill and objected to the procedure under which the' matter was brought to the Council's
attention, saying information was not available and it was not discussed prior to the
committee meeting.
.
Councilman Wood said he had reversed his position since the committee meeting and now favors
passage of the bill. He thinks some amendments wou~d be in order and he supported the ?lan-
ning Commission chairman's testimony to the legislative subcommittee for those amendments
if presented in his own behalf and not as the City's position. Mr. Wood said he felt too
that the bill provides ample opportunity for local citizen input through the councils of
governments.
In answer to Councilman, Keller, Mr. Brewster. gave a definitive review of provlslons of the
bill and procedures to . be followed by local, planning groups under the bill's regulations.
It was brought out that no local planners were involved in drafting the legiSlation, although
Mrs. Campbell said she and Councilwoman Beal did attend the two-day Governor's conference on
Land Use Planning.
Councilman Hershner commented on the time element involved since the legislative committee
hearing is simultaneous with Council discussion. He noted the inference, that the Planning
Commission's position. is that it wants this legislation ,killed and said that is not so. The
Planning Commission found a number of flaws in the bill, so many in fact that there may be
some difficulty in enacting the legislation in this session. The Commission is in favor of
land use planning, but is concerned with local participation in decisions and about keeping
those governmental functions which can be kept close to home and not in Salem. He said a
number ,of those people expressing support for the concept of the bill still commented that
the bill needs a number of amendments.
.
Betty Niven, member of the Planning Commission, concurred and said that Mr. Pearson couldn't
see how the bill as now drafted could accommodate amendments to recognize plans already in
existence. The greatest concerns were that the time framework for preparing Statewide plans
was totally unrealistic and that it does not provide for citizen participation. She compared
it to the time and the number of people involved in preparation of Eugene's 1990 General Plan.
Another consideration would be the question raised by Senator MacPherson as to whether the
State Lane Commission should take priority over the Department of Environmental Quality in
land use control.
Councilman Williams read and asked that it be entered into the record the statement of the
League of Oregon Cities being presented to the legislative committee on S.B.IOO. It stated
the League's basic policy position that it could not support the bill in its present form.
Basic flaws are that'the level of funding provided is inadequate (he compared the $500,000
spending for environmental impact statement on Highway 126 alone to the proposed $300,000 for
total Statewide planning). Also procedural relationship between cities and State are es-
tablished before the basic goals are established. Draft of a substitute bill is being sub-
mitted by the League which would establish a commission to inventory present land uses,
establish goals, develop criteria, and actually designate areas and procedure of co-ordination,
all done in consultation with local governments with adequate opportunity for hearing and
citizen input.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to authorize James Pearson, president
of the Planning Commission, to present his objections to S.B.IOO as the opinion of
the Eugene Planning Commission and request that he not express opposition to S.B.IOO
but rather to encourage that the Oregon State Legislature adopt amendments to S.B.IOO
that would cure the problems outlined by the Planning Commission testimony.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the item be tabled. Motion failed,
Councilmen Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Williams, McDonald,
Hershner, and Keller voting no.
Councilman Murray referred to the policy adopted by the Council that anyone testifying be-
fore the Legislature have Council's permission if that testimony is to be given on behalf
of the City. He" said that at no time was there support when he raised the question of
autonomy of groups such as the Planning Commission as an alternative in presenting testimony
on this bill. He said if the policy is set, then it should not be violated when there is
conflict on an issue. Councilman Wood concurred and commented that if testimony is given
as that of the Planning Commission then it would have to be considered given on behalf of
the City. Councilman McDonald referred to committee action, saying it was clearly stated
at that time that testimony could be given on behalf of the Planning Commission. Mrs.Beal
also referred to the policy recently set that a member not be permitted to speak on behalf
'."--:,
, .-
~. ,~
--
Lt>>
2/12/73 - 4
~'.
.
e
.
of a Board or Commission without Council approval because it would appear to be the City's
position. She said the purpose of the Council is to express that it is in favor or against
a concept when discussing State legislation but this motion if adopted would seem'to be en-
dorsing the opinion of Mr. Pearson which is to kill S.B.IOO. She doesn't think the Council
is prepared to say that and doesn't think Eugene wants to be put on record as against the
concept of land use planning. The Council, she continued, does not have to express it is in
favor of this legislation, it can only say it does not oppose the idea.
..
Councilman Hershner said that it was not Mr. Pe.arson's nor the Commission's intent that this
legislation be killed. Mrs. Beal answered that Mr. Pearson told he he wanted to kill this
bill, that he had no substitute, nor any amendments. So that is what would be authorized
if he is permitted to represent the City on this issue.
Councilman Williams stated that was not the motion. He explained that he made the sp~c
statement that Mr. Pearson was to present fiis objections to S.B.IOO and that he be requested
not to present opposition but rather that defects of the bill be presented. He. repeated the
motion. Mr. Hershner felt it unfortunate that the motion would be construed to imply that
the City is opposed to land use planning since it is not.
Councilwoman Campbell said she could not see how the City could be placed in direct opposi-
tion to the position taken by the Lane County Commissioners without some discussion with them.
She expressed regret that the Council was not provided with the League's position prior to
this time. Councilman McDonald called attention to Mr. Pearson's testimony at the committee
meeting with regard to lack of planning assistance in drafting the legislat~on and other flaws.
i
Question was called for and vote taken on the original motion as stated. Motion failed,
Councilmen Williams, McDonald, Hershner, and Keller voting aye; Councilmen Beal, Campbell,
Murray, and Wood voting no.
No action was taken on the committee report.
II - Public Hearings
A. Vacation of Utility Easement on east side of Agate Street at Black Oak Road (Lomsky)
Planning Commission recommended approval on December 11, 1972. The easement is no
longer needed to serve the property and there were no objections to its vacation.
Council Bill No. 168 - Vacating utility easement on east side of Agate Street
at Black Oak Road 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald 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. WilliamS moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be approved and given final
passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was dec+ared
passed and numbered 16701.
B.
1.
Assessment Hearing Panel Report - January 29, 1973
C.B.159 - Levying assess'ments for paving and seHers within Wingate Park Subdivision
(72-14 and 72-18)
No written protests received and no one present objecting to the assessments.
Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed.
i::
'.
': 2. C. B.160 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between Delta Highway and 1250 feet
east of Delta Highway from 500 feet south of Goodpasture Island Road to
1500 feet north of Goodpasture Island Road (72-16)
One protest was received - Marvin-Knutson, 1355 Inglewood. City Engineer explained
that assessments under this ordinance are being recalculated and asked that it be held
for Panel Hearing on February 19, 1973. .
Recommendation: Hold for Februarv 19 Panel Hearing and February 26 Council consideration.
~'3. C.B.161 - Levying assessments for paving and sewers within Edgewood Estates 11th Addi-
" tion; sanitary sewer wi thin 160 feet of south bOllildary of 11th Addition
Edgewood Estates and within 160 feet of northwest corner of the plat (72-22
~',
and 72-23)
Letter of protest was read from Robert W. Hill, attor~~y,rePresenting Real Estate De-
velopment, Inc., Valley Ri ,-:er Cent~r ~u~te 26. Mr. Rill :was present. Also Don Leavitt,
"
2/12(73 - 5
stockh'older in the Real Estate corporation. fhey - obj ected 'to the assessment'on'-tne' basis ",
that it does not benefit the property. Owners have been informed by Planning that they
cannot subdivide the property for an indefinite period of time~ Diagram of the area to
be served by the installation was displayed showing location of protestant's property .
in relation to Edgewood 11th Addition, for which the improvements were p~titioned. It
was pointed out that development of Real Estate's property will depend upon development'
of property in an adj acent ownership to the south. There is no access, at this time,
and Planning has advised Mr. Hill's clients that access is not planned except through
development of the other property. OWners of that property are not interested in develop-
ment at this time. Mr. Hill said there would be no objection to the assessment if the
property could be developed and the improvements used at this time. He felt a legal
question was involved inasmuch as the City has authority to assess for improvements only
if the improvements benefit the property. Mr. Hill asked deferment of the assessment
until the property can be subdivided.
Staff explained manner of assessment, how calculated, possibility of development of a
portion of the property, and that assessments are deferred only in those instances of
trunk lines traversing large acreages with no benefit to the property and usual~y ease-
ment is granted in return for the deferment. Also discussed was necessity for bonding
application after the assessment is levied to enable sale of Bancroft bonds. If the
assessment is deferred the City would have to accept that share until the property is
developed..
It was noted that Mr. Hill had presented a protest to this project at the time of bid
award. He said they have recently approached the Planning Department with regard to
plans for that area and Planning has advised that they are attempting to arrange street
patterns which will stop through traffic in that area, hence no access to this par-
ticular property except through tbat to the south. He said Real Estate does not wish
to improve the property piecemeal, this at the suggestion that two lots to which there
is access could be built upon. Mr. Hill didn't feel deferment of the assessment in
this instance would set precedent because the situation seemed to be a first-time situa-
tion and not likely to recur. He reiterated that the property cannot be developed at
this time to the Planning Department's desires. .
.
Councilman Hershner asked if Real Estate would object to signing a bonding application
if the assessment is deferred, this in order to proceed with sale of bonds. Mr. Hill
said there would be no objection if the assessment was deferred until the property
could be developed.
-, Recommendation: Refer for discussion by full Council.
4. 'C-: B. 162 - -LeVying' as'sessments for paving -and '-itorrn-sewe-r -an -Monroe - Street'-fro"m-2'8th='~
Avenue to 550 feet south; sanitary sewer east and west of Monroe Street from
south line of Arcadia Park to 150 feet south (72-24)
Let~er o~ protest wc;s read from Hrs. Jessie S. Heady, 8190 Orchard Street, Alta Loma,
Cahfor?la. She ob]~cted to the amount of assessment, saying it was not in line with
the estlmated cost glven ber at time of right-of-way dedication, and to liens assessed
for th: fr~ntage of the vacated street. She had objected to the street vacation but
her Ob]ectlon at that time was not received until after Council hearing.
A protest was also voiced by Daniel D. Mills, 810 West 28th Avenue who asked that
assessment again~t his property be decreased on the basis that the'cost was higher than
normal for the wldth street constructed his property is the only one assessed which
cannot be further developed and thus be~efit from the t t A .
is from 28th Avenue _ the '10nroe Street sl'de s ree. ccess to hlS property
I will not be used. It was noted that
Mr. Mills had objected at time of bid award.
-
-~
M:~ Mil~s was present and pr~sented his objections. Maps of the area were shown and
dlScusslon centered on beneflt to con1er lots assessed on both sides. It was explained
that alt~ou~h the present zoning ordin3nce requires 10,000 square feet for duplex lots,
those eXl~tlng before adoption of the ordinance are allowed duplexes without meeting
that ~equlrement. ~r. Mills said he w?uld have no objection to the assessment if he
felt _he value of hlS property was incr.eased proportionately. On questioning from
Mr. H:rshner he said.he fel~ ~o~t 50% of the amount proposed would be proper. Staff
e~lalned that :educln? an lndlvldual assessment in any project necessitates recalcula-
tlon of the entlre proJect to spread that reduction over the balance of the properties
assessed. It ~as also explained that cost of the project was higher than normal because
of necessary flll.
.
Councilman Hershner explained the City's policy of assessing for improvements on both
sides of a corner lot. It would be inconsistent to reduce this assessment, since the
street was in existence prior to improvement and can be used for access . Mr. Mills
reiterated his point that all other properties being assessed for the pro]'ect will
benefit from' the improvement th h Id b h
so ey s. au ear t e major portion of the assessment.
30
2/12/73 - 6
Councilman Wood in concurring with Mr. Hershner to levy assessment as proposed said he
could see some inequity in the situation and would hope for a policy review with regard
to similar instances.
~.
Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed.,
,5. C.B.163 - Levying assessments for sanitary se~er to serve industrial lots between
West 1st Avenue and West 5th Avenue and between Bertelsen Road and Seneca
Road (72-38)
No written protests received and no one present objecting to the assessments.
Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed.
Comm
, Assessment Hearing Panel Report, January 29, 1973 - Copies were distributed to 1/31773
, Coun'?i,l ,me~=~~_ an(L!!~scus_~ion _~_~he.~ll}_e.~ _.!E5...,!'f!b.!!!ary ~__,COJ!lmi_~~~=__1!'=~tir:~: Pub Hrng
- -.., ---..---...------..
Manager explained that it was the intent of the Hearing Panel that C.B.161 - Levying assess-
ments for sewer to serve 11th Addition Edgewood Estates - would be discussed in committee,
but it was omitted:from the February 7, 1973 agenda. He recommended that the bill be held
until the February 14 committee meeting.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that C.B.160 be referred to Hearing Panel
for February 19, 1973 hearing, that C.B.161 be held for committee discussion on Febru-
ary 14, 1973, and that C.B.159, 162, and 163 be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All councilmen present 'voting aye, motion carried. (See C.B.159, 162,
and 163 under Ordinance section this meeting.)
C. Planning Commission Recommendations
1. Rezoning from RA to R-2 area east of Acorn Park, north of 13th - Margie Griffith
Approval recommended by Planning Commission on December 19, 1972 to accommodate
construction of duplex.
Council Bill No. 169 - Rezoning to R-2 area east of Acorn Park north of 13th
Avenue 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time
by council bill number only , with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact-
ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read
the second time by council bill number only.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be. approved and given final
passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen'present voting aye, the bill was declared
passed and numbered 16705.
2. Rezoning from R-l to RG SR area west of Amazon Parkway between 26th and 27th
Avenues ~ Louis Sherman - Approval recommended by Planning Commission on Decem-,
ber 19, 1972. Silas Messer, designer, 220akway Mall, said the preliminary design
had been approved, and he asked that the Council rezone the property as requested.
Council Bill No. 170 - Rezoning to RG SR area west of Amazon'Parkway between
26th Avenue and 27th Avenue 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final
passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was'declared
passed and numbered 16706.
3. Rezoning fromAGT to C-2 PD area south of Kingsley Road between Goodpasture Island
Road and Willamette River - Planning Commission - Approval recommended by the Plan-
ning Commission on DEcember 19, 1972. Jim Hosey, 2560~ Inavale, architect and planner,
speaking on behalf of the property owner, asked favorable consideration of the rezon-
ing request.
'31
21-12/73 - 7
Councilwoman Campbell expressed concern about dedication for bicycle paths along
the River. Jim Saul, Planning department, explained that there are eight condi-
tions attached to this rezoning, one of which is dedication for bicy'cle facilities.
This dedication is for a minimum of 50 feet plus any intervening property between
the top of the riverbank and water's edge, and the dedication is necessary for is-
suance of planned unit development permit. The dedication will be entered in Lane
Coun ty re cords.
'.
Councilman Murray asked what use was proposed for the property and why it was de-
cided agricultural or residential use was inappropriate. Mr. Saul answered that
proposed use was not known, but that 'the recommendation was in accordance with the
General Plan - designation of this area for large scale commercial operations. It
is one of the vacant areas with highway access which is suitable for that type use.
He said a condition of the rezoning is that any use proposed would have to meet
standards relating to size of the property - large and regional in nature. He said
the Commission was concerned with timing but didn't feel that was adequate reason
to keep the property for agricultural uses at this time. The original petition did
provide for a commercial strip along Goodpasture Island Road with the balance RG,
but the Commission rejected the idea of residential development because of the prop-
erty's isolation and services, particularly schools, were not available.
Councilman Murray asked how the 1990 Plan designation of this area for commercial
uses could be reconciled with its concept of developing vacant commercially zoned
lands within the City proper. Mr. Saul said there is very little vacant commercially
zoned land of sufficient size to accommodate large commercial uses such as auto
dealers, institutions, etc. It is difficult because of fragmented ownerships to
bring together five to ten acres of land needed for' the larger commercial operations.
Although this route is not altogether desirable it does meet a community need.
Betty Niven, Planning Commission membe.r, added that because this seemed the only
available area with large tracts of land the provision was added that it be used
only for large commercial needs. The Commission also felt it important to have this
kind of zoning in a relativel~.centra~ location. She said that there was no pres-
sure from the people involved for preservation of the property's agricultural uses
in making up the General Plan, and, in any event, there was no concern about keeping
this as agricultural land because it was felt impossible because of its location in
the ce.nter of the urban area.
.
Mr. Murray asked if the conditions attached to this rezoning would absolutely guar-
antee against probable development of another Valley River Center or some other
major commercial district. Mrs. Niven said Valley River is considered a "J,.arge
land user" and there is no way to keep it from happening even though that is not the
intent. It would seem unlikely that another large center would develop that close
to Valley River. Further conversation followed betwee~ Councilman Murray and Mrs.
Niven with regard to the Commission's policy on down-zoning - rezoning commercial
land to residential, uses. Mrs. Niven said there is some down-zoning when the
land is not used for the purpose to which it was zoned', but any zoning is on the
basis of the best uses rather than what is lower or higher.
.
Councilwoman Campbell wondered how the provisions bf the proposed land use planning
legislation (S.B.IOO), if adopted, would affect the Planning Commission's decision
on this property. She referred to the possible designation of the Willamette River
as a scenic waterway which would give the State control over planning on land a
quarter mile on each side of the stream. Mrs. Niven had no definite answer other
than that the General Plan has no provision to take land along the River under
eminent domain or to limit its use.
Councilman Hershner wondered about the possibility of the land's lying vacant for a
number of years while speculators were working on a "best buy." Jim Saul said there
was that likelihood. Mr. Hosey said development of the property is still being
worked on but that the River will be taken into consideration regardless of the
final uses decided upon. Mrs. Niven said that the Commission felt it would be in
the best interest of the City to zone this land commercial in order to have control
over its use. As it is now there is no way to prevent its being split into small
parcels. Any overall plan is impossible at this time because that would depend on
the particular use of each pieve as it is developed.
Councilman Hershner referred to the State's proposal to acquire riverbank land for
the State Greenway and wondered what effect commercial zoning would have on that
project. Manager said there is no proposal at this time that the State would par-
ticipate in acquisition of this portion of the river property. .
.
Councilman Murray recalled the argument in deliberations on the
consideration of school location was not valid in making zoning
Mrs. Niven said that was in relation to potential for providing
Southridge PUD that
recommendations.
school services to
"31
2/12/73 - 8
,
the Southridge ~area with property already owned by the School District. The point
in this case is that the Kingsley/Goodpasture area is highly isolated with access
only by automobile so that the living situation for children would not be considered
desirable. Sidewalks along Delta Highway would not be considered. And total services
to the area for residential development would not easily be made available. For
these reasons it would not be considered comparable to the Southridge development.
Council Bill No. 171 - Rezoning to C-2 PD area south of Kingsley Road between
Goodpasture Island Road and Willamette River was sub-
mitt~d and read the,fir~t time-by council bill number
and title only, there being no councilman presen t requesting that it be read
in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. 'Hershner that the ,bill be read the second
time by council bill number only , with unanimous consent of the Council, and
held pending approval of PUD plans.
,Councilmen Hershner and Murray expressed a desire for input from the Planning staff
with regard to the commercial uses which have oeveloped along the north side of the
River and comment on protection ~gainst further development of major shopping centers
in that area. Mr. Keller wondered if maps which were requested showing all develop-
ment along the River had been prepared. Manager said they were not yet completed
but would be available soon. He suggested that it might be appropriate for this
item to be discussed in a joint meeting between the Council and Planning Commission.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr.
reading of C.B.171, and refer the
Council and Planning Commission.
Hershner-to withdraw the motion for second
rezoning request to a joint meeting of the
Motion'carried unanimously.
4. Zoning to R-l newly-annexed area south of Cal Young Road west of Oakway Road -
Planning Commission -:Approval recommended by the Planning Commission'on December 19,
1972. Larry Campbell, representing owners of the Oakway Golf-Course, asked addition
of the emergency clause so that the rezoning would take effect immediately upon
passage of the ordinance.
Council Bill NO.,172 - Zoning to R-l area'located south of Cal Young Road west
of Oakway Road 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second
time without the emergency clause by council bill nurriber only, with unanimous
consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time.
Motion carried unanimously and the bill without the emergency clause was read
the second time by ,council bill number, only.
e
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill as read the second time
be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present
voting aye, except Mr. McDonald voting no, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 16707
At the conclusion of discussion on other Commission recommendations, at the suggestion
of Councilman Keller, Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to reconsider C.B.172
for the purpose of including the emergency clause. Motion carried, Councilmen Beal,
McDonald, Hershner, Keller, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Williams, Campbell, and
Murray voting no.
Larry Campbell eXp'lained the: unavoidable, delays encounter.ed in galnlng approval of
the plans for development of the property, and said that 30 days waiting for the
rezoning to become effective would have a drastic effect on financing the development.
In answer to Mr. Hershner, he said the PUD had been approved contingent upon the
requested rezoning. Manager to avoid misunderstanding said only the ,first phase, a
standard subdivision, had been approved. 'Planning Director said the request for the
emergency clause was felt to be legitimate. It has taken two months longer than
normal for this project because of delays encountered in the Boundary Commission's
consideration of annexation and the recent bad weather.,
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner the emergency clause be added to
C.B.172 and that the bill with the emergency clause be ,read the second time by
council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that
enactment, be considered at this time. '
In answer to Councilman Hershner Manager said that the Planning Commission had ap-
proved the PUD unless it is, appealed to the City Council. The request is an initial
33
2/12/73 - 9
request for zoning since it is a newly-annexed area.
clause is not normally 'used on zoning ordinances' so
zoning would not take effect for 30 days.
He explained that the emergency
that if it is not included the
Vote was taken on the motion for second read including the emergency clause.
Motion carried unanimously, all councilmen present voting aye.
,
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill with the emergency
clause be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen
present voting aye, except Mr. McDonald voting no, the bill was declared passed
'and numbered 16707.
5. Rezoning fromRA to M-2 SR area west of Obie Street between 11th Avenue and
Stewart Road - Obie - Planqing Commission recommended approval on January 2, 1973.
Sam Peters, 3786 Stewart Road, asked favorable action on the rezoning of the
property., which he said was landlocked.
Council Bill No. 173 - Rezoning to M-2 SR area west of Obie Street between
11th Avenue and Stewart Road 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. Williams moved seconded by'Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second tim~
by council bill number only, with unanimous' consent of the Ceuncil, 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. Williams moved seconded "by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given
final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 16708.
6. Rezoning AG to R-l area between Barger Drive and Royal Avenue west of Belt Line -
Planning Commission - Approval recommended by Planning Commission on January 2, 1973.
Council Bill No. 174 - Rezoning to R-l area between Barger Drive and Royal
Avenue west of Belt Line Road 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given
final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 16709.
-e
=-
7. Zbriing to'C-2 SR:Q.~w;1,y-annexed area betw~~:ri~Rivey,Road and SP Railroad - Planning
Commission '- Approval recommended by Planning Commission on January 2, 1973.
Council Bill No. 175 - Zoning to C-2 SR area between River Road and Southern
Pacific Railroad 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given
final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 16710.
8. Zoning to C-2 PD newly-annexed area sout~ of Centennial at east end of Centennial
Loop - Planning Commission - Approval recommended on January 2, 1973 by Planning
Commission.
.
Council Bill No. 176 - Zoning to C-2 PD area south of Centennial Boulevard at
east end of Centennial Loop 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner "that the bill be read the second
time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and
held pending approval of PUD plans. - Motion carried unanimously.
, 34 2/12/73 - 10
",I
"'\:
.
.
e
I, -
I
9. Zoning to RA newly-annexed area east of Calvin Street northeast of Dulles Avenue-
Planning Commission - Approval recommended by Planning Commission on ,January 2,1973.
CoUncil Bill No. 177 - Zoning to RA area east of Calvin Street northeast' of
Dulles Avenue 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given
final passage. Rol~call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 16711.
10. Rezoning from R-l to R-2 area on north side of 20th Avenue between Oak Street
c'and Pearl Street - VonKlein - Planning Commission recommended denial on Decem-
ber 19, 1972.
Jack Mattis, representing the owners and Mr. VonKlein, presented a petition favoring
the change of zone. He said a fourplex is planned for the property which would cause
minimum disruption to the surrounding area.
In answer to Mr. Williams, Manager described the surrounding uses and paid the City
has no long-range plans for the area. He said the Commission asked that the School
District ,be contacted with regard to the possibility of acquiring the land for some
public use~' possibly housing. '
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the rezoning to R-2 be
denied. Motion carried unanimously.
11. Rezoning from RA to R-2 SR area northeast of Mistletoe Street and 15th Avenue -
Bonson - Planning Commission recommended denial on December 19, 1972.
Mr. Bonson reviewed Planning Commission minutes covering dis~sion of this rezoning
request. He said Planning staff spoke of the property in relation to that to the
east, whereas he felt it should be related to Bailey Hill so far as traffic and
access are, concerned. He added the argument that services are already available to
the area, ..,traffic should not be a problem because of the planned improvement of
Bailey Hill Road, and he described the development proposed for the property. He
ask~d' that the rezoning be referred back to the Planning Staff to allow an oppor-
tunity to work out a density which would be suitable. In answer to Councilman
McDonald, Mr. Bonson said plans are not worked out with staff prior to Council con-
sideration as they are when requesting a PUD.'
,Louis Roberts, 1422 Quaker Street, asked favorable action on the request to refer
back to the Planning staff. He felt apartment use for the property would be an im-
provement to his adjacent property. He asked that screenirrg be required along the
property line if the rezoning is approved.
Lucille Fitch, 3489 West 15th Avenue, opposed the rezoning. She remarked on past
discussion of uses for the area and said there are too many apartments there now.
She felt multiple-family use would add to the schools' burden.
Mr. Williams asked if there was any indication the Planning Commission would change
its recommendation if the item was sent back. Manager said the problem could be
approached differently. The petitioner understands preliminary approval is necessary
for a PUD, and there is nothing in this action which would prevent him from pursuing
that type of development. Or further proposals could be presented which would make
the proposed development acceptable under R-2 with site review. It was understood
another petition would have to be filed.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the R-2 SR rezoning be denied.
Motion carried unanimously.
12. Rezoning from RA to R-2 SR area west of Luella Street and Van Avenue intersection -
Bonson - Planning Commission recommended denial on December 19, 1972.
Mr. Bonson said 20 units are proposed for the property, but Planning staff maintained
that it would landlock property to the rear. He felt sure the owners would put a
50-foot roadway to that property if it was required for rezoning.
Leonard Frojen, 350 Van Avenue, opposed the rezoning on the basis that it would add
too much to the densit~ of the area where many Changes have already added mul tiple-
family developments. '
35
2/12(73 - 11
Councilman McDonald wondered why den:i.a~ was recommended whenlDul tiple-family develop-
mentnearby was permitted with a single access. Manager read the Planning Commission
minutes indicating that staff and General Plan recommendations were predicated on
more adequate access for more densely populated areas adjacent to ,commercial facili-
ties. This property does not meet the criteria set by the Commission.
I1r. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to deny the R-2 SR rezoning.
Motion carried unanimously.
,
13. Annexation of island area on north side of Crescent Avenue between Coburg Road and
Chuckanut Street- Planning Commission on January 8, 1973 recommended referral to
the Bopudary Commission for annexation.
Resolution~o. 2143 - Transmitting to Boundary Commission request to annex
the island area on north side of Crescent Avenue between
Coburg Road and Chuckanut Street was submitted.
Mr. Williams moved seconqed by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Motion
carried unanimously.
14. Annexation of island area between Four Oaks Grange Road and Bertelsen Road south of
18th Avenue - Planning Commission on January 8, 1973 recommended referral to the
Boundary Commission for annexation.
Resolution No. 2144 - Transmitting to Boundary Commission request to annex
the island area between Four Oaks Grange Road and
Bertelsen Road south of 18th Avenue was submitted.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Motion
carried unanimously.
III - Items Considered With One Motion
Previously discussed at committee meetings on January 24, 1973 (Present: Mayor Anderson;
Councilmen Beal, Williams, Hershner, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood); January 31, J.973
(Present: Councilwomen Beal (presiding) and Campbell, Councilmen Williams, Hershner,
Keller, Murray, and Wood); and February 7, 1973 (Present: Councilwomen Beal (presiding)
and Campbell; Councilmen Williams, McDonald, Hershner, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of
those meetings appear below printed in italics.
A. Property TaJtlielier -'-7fi:s;;'~Bi/aImoved'seconded by'Mrs. CampbeiTtoreaYfTrmt'he----
Council's action (June 26, 1972) supporting Governor McCall's program for school
financing outsi de property tax revenues. "
Mrs. Beal said she was reminded by former Councilman Bradshaw that the Council
had acted to support the objectives of the program. Now it seems the Senate
,Finance Committee does not plan immediate action, awaiting some expression of
'opinion from the voters. Mrs. Beal asked that the staff be instructed to im-
~mediately send members of the Lane County legislative delegation a letter indl~
catirig the Council's interest in and support of the Governor's school financing
program.
.
:Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm
1/24/73
Approve
It was understood notice of the Council's action would be forwarded to the Lane
County members of the Legislature immediately.
B.
En'Qo-rseine'iit ~ "Gove'irio? is 'HousIng propOsaT :..- coplei;of a- memo-randum fro;' 'co'j;~~il-
man Williams, member of the Joint Housing Committee, were distributed to Council
members. It transmi tted recommendation of the Joint Housing Commi ttee that the :
City endorse Governor McCall's housing proposal which contemplates the sale of :
$200 million in revenue bonds to finance housing for families with incomes below;
"the median. Financing would be accomplished primarily through existing lending
institutions and would not constitute a claim against the State's credit nor
,affect its bonding capaci ty. It is anticipated families with incomes between
:$4,500 and $7,500 will be those primarily benefitting; approximately 13,000
housing units could be provided.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt a policy statement endorsing
the program outlined and authorize Planning Commission member Betty Niven to
present the City's position to the Legislature. Motion carried unanimously.
._.~ . ___ __.___'___'_ n..._,__-","____. "_. _".__ ____ __.____~___"'- . _____~__
Comm
l/24/73
Approve
.
C. 'Resolution, State, Higbway-Rel;enues--Ior Mass Transit.' - "coples of a proposed resolu-
tion suggested by Councilman Murray were distributed to Council members. Mr. Murray
read the resolution which would endorse and urge adoption of Governor McCall's
,_proposal for a constitutional amendment to permit use of state highway trust fund
revenues for mass transit ~poses~
~b
2/12(73 - l2
. - . :---
,8
Mr. Murray moved seconded' by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution.
;rn making the motion Mr. Murray pointed out the need for ~ass tr~sit in l~ghtof
the auto's continuing stranglehold on cities by contribut~ng to a~r and n~~se
pollution and endangering livability of neighborhoods. Release of a ~rt~on of
,highway revenues would give an opportunity to provide viable 'alternat~ves.
Mayor Anderson said he has met on several occasions with Mayor Gol~sch~dt of.
Portland and Mayor Lindsey of Salem directing attention toward leg~slat~on ~h~ch
would be particularly adaptable to the larger cities. The proposed resolut~on
,reflects the position taken by the three mayors on this legislation, he said, .
'which does not have a high priori ty in the Legislature. The Mayor urged adopt~on
of the proposed resolution.
Mrs. Beal thought there might be opposition to the legislation.f~m rural areas,
but she felt curtailment of construction of freeways through c~t~es would release
funds for improvement of rural roads, thereby appeasing that sector.
'Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
Glen Stadler, EWEB, as an individual complimented the Cou~cil on its action. He
noted that HJR 27 to permit use of gas tax and license fees for mass transit was
introduced in the House l6 years ago, received one hearing, and was tabled. He
was one of the ~P9n~0~~of that legislation.
.
D. Segregation of Assessment, Chapel of Memories' - Requested by Arie M. Moore on
assessment for paving and sewer against property at northeast corner of llth and
Obie. Assessment against that portion being segregated has been paid.
Comm
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the segregation as requested.: l/24/73
Motion' carried unanimously. Approve
E .'Appointments, Buards and Commissions
,Reappointment of members to the Plumbing Board for the year 1973, recommended by
: Mayor Anderson, were announced: Malcolm Manley, 2550 Warren Street
Robert Fegles, Route 5, Box 1083
R. K. Livingston, 43l East 34th Avenue
Warner Dallas, lID Green Acres Road
Joel Goss, 3540 Gilham Road
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to approve the reappointments. Motion
carried unanimously.
other appointments by Mayor Anderson were announced:
Comm
1/31/73
Approve
e
Mechanical Board - B. R. Marlatt, 37 Grandview Street
Reappointed, five-year term ending January I, 1978
Masonry Board - Eugene Schaudt, 2585 Charnel ton Street
Replacing James Bernhard, resigned, three-year term
ending January l, 1976
';.,)4 Garbage Board - Wallace Swanson, 140 Coachman Drive
Robert Deverell, 3000 Sorrel Way
Reappointed for year ending December 31, 1973
Charles E. Teague, replacing Ervin Molholm for year
ending December 3l, 1973
)e Human Rights COmnUssion - Robert F. Berkley, 3075 Harris Street
Replacing Erwin Juilfs for three-year term
ending January l, 1976
Building/Housing Code Board of Appeals - John Herrick, ll88 Olive Street
Reappointed for five-year'term
ending January I, 1978 '
~-
F. Proposed Removal Washington/Jefferson lst Avenue Ramps - Councilman Murray said
considerable concern was expressed at a recent Whiteaker neighborhood meet-,
ing about the proposed removal of ramps leading from the WaShington/Jefferson
Bridge to lst Avenue upon completion of the ramps to 6th and 7th. Mr. Murray
asked that the Council schedule a public hearing for presentation ,of a petition
bearing more than 4000, signatures and at which residents of the area could pr~sent
their views. Councilman Williams !?uggested that a State Highway Department
rePr.=~=-~~_a_~i_ve~_p~:!'!t at the hea~~'3~. ,,'.. .,_......____...,...,,' ,.",,__,..
'37
2/12/73 - l3
Mr. Murray moved seeonded by Mr. Williams that a public hearing be scheduled on
the issue and an invitation sent to the WbiteakerSchool neighborhood group and
, representatives of the State Highway Department as well as Federal people.
: Motion carried unanimously.
Comm
1/ 3l/7 3
, Approve
,I
It was understood the hearing would be scheduled at staff's convenience because
of the time needed for State, Federal, and City to gather necessary data.
G.Policy, Use of Mobile HomesaIla'TernpOrary Buildings - Copies of'ir:emorandum 'from
Superintendent of Building Inspection were previously distributed to Council, members
with regard to policy on use of mobile homes and portable type structures. In view
'of some permanent type uses of portable structures which are constructed to meet
,building codes and other more or less permanent uses of mobile structures which do
;not meet the codes, guidelines are requested as to what will be permitted.
, 1
Emile Mortier, superintendent of building inspection, explained that a problem has
! come up since, marketing of modular type portable structures which comply wi th
;building codes in their construction but still are considered mobile buildings.
Other mobile structures which do not meet code requirements, particularly in the ,
area of office uses on mobile home lots, are being used on a more or less permanent'
basis. He feels those structures which do not meet code requirements should be per-
mitted temporary use only, such as construction offices during a period when build-
ings are being demolished.,__ or constructed, or for use as nightwatchmen quarters in
'industrial areas if permitted under present regUlations. Mr. Mortier suggested
that the BtJilding Code 'Board of Appeals be given authority to set time limits and
enforce regulations on use of 'mobile units which are not constructed to meet build-
ing codes.
.
Mr. Williams oould,not see whe~e mo~ile homes used for office pu!poses on mobile
home sales lots would harm the Ipublic interest. Mr.' Mortier said the prime concern ,
'is occupancy of the building, in some instances such structures have been subleased. '
Manager said if that use is considered it would have to be justified in terms of
specific criteria for a specific use, since it would tend to open sales offices..
generally to temporary buildings and make difficult the enforcement of building code
standards that other buildings are required to meet.
Mr. Wood asked if there is a limitation on use of a mobile home during construction
,of a permanent home. Mr. Mortier replied that that use is no longer permi tted, it
'was repealed ,when the new building code was adopted. However, it could be estab-
lished if that type of use is desired and if the staff has authority to set time
limits and enforce them on temporary structures.
,Mr. Williams was concerned with the impact on the school system were restriction
to be placed on utilization of mobile structures. Mr. Mortier said there is no
problem with structures used in that manner, they have always complied since they
are constructed to code and school district specifications.
.
,.Mrs. Campbell questioned how policy could be stated to grant authority to Board of
'Appeals for temporary buildings and at the same time handle sales offices on mobile
{home lots. Mr. Mortier said present'ordinances govern residential use of mobile
homes. Delegation of authority is requested to give the Board responsibility to
evaluate requests for temporary uses.
. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray
i Building Code Board of Appeals to Sl'al-uate
jbuildings that do not comply with the code
Councilman Hershner asked if there had been any input from owners of mobile homes
used for offices with regard to this policy. He expressed concern about setting a
policy which would substantially affect present owners. Mr. Mortier said there
,would no doubt be a reaction from those who feel they should be allowed to use
structures which do not meet the code. Manager noted that the motion included only
temporary structures used during construction or demolition of buildings.
that the City Council authorize the
requests for permits to place temporary "
during construction or emergency periods. 1 Comm
lY3l/73
Approve
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray that public hearing be scheduled with
'regard to office use of mobile homes, on mobile home sales lots.
--
~;I
:,In making the mot~-:on Mr. Williams requested that staff prepa_xe,iriformation for
!pre'sentation at the hearing as to why it is felt mobile homes'should not be used
as 'sales offices on mobile home lots. He felt if these type homes are regulated
:by the S,tate on residential use and considered saEe for living purposes they should
'[be equally saft::_ for office use.
...~-~...--~
'3&
2/12(73 - 14
.<100
cl
Mrs. Beal questioned whether a public hearing would be necessary in view of the
motion adopted to delegate authority to the Board of Appeals on temporary structures.
Mr. Williams said it is a question of whether authority with regard to another
specific area of use should be delegated.
Manager said a question of double standards is raised - between the building code
and mobile home construction standards governed by the State. Cities now control
use of mobile homes through zoning ordinances, confining them to mobile home parks
:which does not address the safety problem. There seems no solution unless mobile
~home construction is required to meet building codes.
Vote was taken on the motion to schedule public hearing. Motion carried unanirriously.
H. Contract with State, Amazon Parkway and 30th Avenue between 29th and Alder, and
Hilyard Street between 28th and 36th
: Authority was requested to enter into agreement with State Highway Department
, for improvement of Amazon Parkway, 30th, and Hilyard. The work contemplates
widening Amazon Parkway and 30th Avenue between 29th and Alder, and Hilyard Street
between 28th and 36th, with complete revamping of signal system to provide pro-
tected left-turn movements.
.
Public Works Director said the contracts will permit application for Federal funds
, for preliminary engineering work, including preparation of environmental impact
statement. Funds for City's share are included in the present budget. Authoriza-
tion for another contract will be required before actual construction starts.
Mr. Wil;Iiams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to authorize the contracts. Motion
carried unanimously.
Comm
ll3l173
Approve
I. Petition, Sanitary Sewer in lst Addition to Southridge - lOO% petition to serve
Lots 5,6,7,8, and 9 of Block l. It was understood this subdivision is not the
Southridge on which planned unit development was recently granted.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to accept the petition.
un_~i mous 1 y . .,_ ",_ ..__..
Motion carried'
Comm
217173
Approve
. . ,'''--'..-- "
" -
,'._.A. ....._...,_......
J. Distribution, Leased Housing
The Joint Housing Commi ttee, upon Council referral of a request from the Lane County
Housing Authority, recommended shift of 50 units of leased housing from 3-,' 4-, and
5-bedroom units to l- and 2-bedroom units.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve the recommendation.
.
Councilman McDonald wondered about meeting the housing requirements of larger ,
families if the shift is made. Mr. Williams said the Housing Committee felt, since
the larger units are not available, that it would be better to shift sobte of those
,authorized to the smaller tmits which are avlf1.i~able thereby serving a sizeable grO!lP'
rtot now being accommodated.
, Vote was taken on the motion to approve the recommendation.
Mr. McDonald .voting 1'.l0.
Motion carried,
Comm
217/73
! Approve
K. :'tease of State Property, Coburg and Country Club Roads - Authorization is requested
for agreement with State on triangular piece of property lying between Coburg Road, ':
Country Club Road, and old County road northwest of the Ferry Street Bridge. Maps,
of the area were displayed. Staff has been negotiating with the State Highway De-j
I partment to acquire the property, either as a gift or thrQugh purchase, in order '
; to enhance its appearance and to improve traffic control at that intersection.
. ~. ... ... - ~ ~ . - .. ( :" ~ , . ... -.. - ..
Property was appraised at $ 32,000 and State di d not want to deed it to the Ci ty as
a gift. However, they will lease it for 25 years with a 25-year renewal clause at
'no cost. The proposed agreement is to this effect. Ci ty would remove existing
old buildings, beautify the area wi th plan tings , and as money becomes available
improve control of vehicular movements at the intersection. Cost over a period of
, time is estimated to be about $l7,OOO.
-.
, Councilman Williams questioned whether a no-payment lease would be valid in any
i dispute with the State. Manager replied that "things to be done by the City" are
: spelled out in the agreement and the consideration in place of money.
,On questioning from Mrs. Campbell, Parks Director pointed out areas of proposed
plantings and the property's proposed improvement in relation to plans for other
,landscaping and trails in that vicinity. He said additional plantings would be
installed along the mobile home park just northwest of the Bridge.
Mr.Willia,ms ~ved seconded 'by Mr. Hershner to approve the plans and,~thorize
the lease. Motion carrif!.d UD!!flimously.
I Comm
\ 217173
:Approve
'\
................~~,..-.~. -
39
2112173 - l5
L. Amendment, Buiiding Moving'-ordTnanc;e-:.' Copies of proposed amendment' concerning lToving-
of buildings and street closure were previously distributed to Council members. The
: amendment would clarify the obli gation of the movers and assure that they pay the
total cost of the operation.
:Mrs. Beal asked if the fees listed represent the true value of the operation.
Manager said the amendment puts the burden of doing the work on the mover and re-
quires inspection of his work. City is now doing that with cost ,coming from the
,general fund. It was understood the ordinance would be on the February l2 Council
agenda.
M.; Segregation of Assessment for sewer against property at northwest corner of Dakota
Street and Cody Avenue was requested by Linton Outka, 645 Highway 99 North. Finance:
Department reports the necessary portion of the assessment has been paid.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the item be placed on the consent
calendar for the February 12 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
N.Liquor License Applications
A. Becker's Market, 1123 Monroe Street - Change of owne rship and trade name.
Formerly Quinn's Market - Package Store Class B (PB)
iB.
Toshio, Inc., 92 Centennial Loop - Change of ownership and trade name.
Formerly Jade Inn - Class B Dispensers (DB)
~1
I:
; Comm
2/7/73
Approve
Comm
2/7/73
Approve
Comm
2/7/73
Mr. williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the item be placed on the consent, Approve
1.....calendar for the February 12, Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
O. Council Minutes - December 18, 1972 and January 8 and 22,,1973 as circulated.
, ' ,
P .'Request"-for--'CoUnC1.l" Hearing on Grass Mowing Bill,' John L. Thomas - Copies of
'correspondence with regard to Mr. Thomas' request for hearing were previously
distrib~ted to Council members. Assistant Manager explained that the ordinance
:covering weed abatement provides for hearing before the Council if request is
!filed by appellant within ten days of billing. Mr. Thomas met that requirement.
'However, staff requested delay of the hearing to give an opportunity to resolve
: the problem at the staff level. It was agreed the appeal to the Council would be,;
,postponed.
Q.Jbint Meeting with ASUO Officials - Fred Wasson who has been attending CoUncil
meetings as ASUO representative, introduced Dave Bushnell and Elizabeth Lapping
whv will be attending in the future for the ASUO. They extended an invitation to
the Council to hold a committee-of-the-whole meeting at the Erb Memorial Union,
tentatively about February 2l, for the purpose of making a presentation to the
Council of student government structure, to give students interested in local govern-
,ment an opportuni ty to meet and talk wi th Council members, and to open better and "
permanent lines of communications between the City and the some l2,000 student
; population of the .=ommunity. Mr. Wasson said the student officers would prepare
: the program and make arrangements for the luncheon meeting.
'.
Approve
Comm
1/24/73
Affirm
'-.
fCouncilman Williams questioned whether committee-of-the-whole meeting should be
,'used for that purpose since it is a public meeting to deal specifically with City!'
issues. Mr. Wasson said that time was suggested because it seemed the best in
,order for all Council members to be able to attend.. He said if there was time
rafter the student presentation the meeting could be thrown open to the public.
I Council members agreed on meeting with the ASUO group if it were held at a time Comm
:other than the regular noon committee-of-the-whole session. An evenii2g meeting, ,1/3l/73
,on February 6 seemed the most likely, but it was understood staff would work with ; Affirm
Lthe ASUO representatives to schedule a time when most of the Council members could;
~!
i'be ' present. ,
'. - - '.~.~ .-
R.: Study, Location of Schools - Mrs. Campbell referred to' joint meeting of Counci 1
,members with school District 4J Board and Eugene and Lane County Planning ,Commis-
'sions and action taken at that time asking the various agencies to request LCOG
:to co-ordinate a multi-staff study with regard to location of future schools. I
'She asked whether the staff would prepare a resolution to that effect for CounciI,j
. consideration. It was understood staff would followup and the item would be
: scheduled for Council discussion.
S.:LCOG Proposal, Social Services - Copies of recommendations of the Budget Committee'
, subcommi ttee wi th regard to LCOG's "Proposal for Handliilg Social Services Programs
by Government" were distributed to Council members. It was agreed the i tam would
.be held for discussion at t:he February l4 conunittee meetilJ,g.
40
2/l2/73 - l6
Comm
2/7/73
Affirm
'..,
~
Comm
2/7/73
Affirm
,
T. (Peace 'Agreernent-:,,-v'Mayor kii1er'iiontooknoteof~Presrdent-Ni ;;;-;;;~- ann-;;~hcement of
signing of peace agreement in the viet Nam conflict. He called attention, to
, 'Peace Week proclaimed for this we~k in Eugene and expressed the hope that such
,proclamations would be issued in the future only to strengthen the cause of
yeace in a peri'!.~_ o~ co~t~~~al peace.
Comm
l/24/73
File
of the resolu-~\
S. Constitution'.
the Legislature.
each member of
Comm
1/24/73
File
U. Equal Rights Amendment - Councilwoman Beal asked whether copies
ition urging ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.
(Resol~tion 2139 adopted January 22, 1973) had been forwarded to
She was told that the City Recorder is in the process of sending
'the ,Lane County legislati ve delegation a copy of th~,,:.~~,!lu.tio.n.
..,
v. ,Students, Spencer Butte Jr High - Councilman Wood called attention to the
presence of several students from Spencer Butte Junior High. He said he would
; be bringing interested students to Council meetings from time to time. Mayor
Anderson welcomed them on behalf of the Council.
Comm
l/24/73
File
.
w. Adoption of Resolutions in Support of Legislation - Mayor'Anderson wondered if
it would be agreeable with Council members for the Legislative Analyst in the
, Manager's office to more or less at his own discretion bring to the Council
, recommendations wi th regard to support or opposi tion to items under discussion
i in the LegiSlature. Mr. Anderson felt timing of presentation of a position
, statement is very important and sometimes effectiveness is lost if a resolution
lor policy statement is not presented at the proper time.
r
Councilman Murray endorsed the idea, saying someone having closer contact would
have better appreciation of subtleties of timing problems.
,
Councilman Williams thought formal distribution should be made as specified in
resolutions generally. He felt it entirely appropriate that the Legislative
Analyst have copies of resolutions and; be authorized to use them iwhenever
appropriate, but he was not sure that method of distribution should be the
only one.
, Councilwoman Beal felt any legislative testimony by staff is not as effective
, as that P!esent,ed by elected officials .Council~oman Campbell asked, if the
Legislative Analyst in the Manager's office is a registered lobbyist and was
told he is. Councilman Wood favored taking legislati ve matters up wi th the
Analyst in order to find the most opportune time for presenting testimony.
Comm
1/24/73
File'
'No action was taken.
.
X. Weddings, Hendricks Park - Copies of memo from Parks and Recreation Director
were previously distributed to Council members with regard to weddings in the
Hendri cks Park rhododendron garden.
Councilman Williams asked if there is any real basis that holding weddings in
parks are destructive in view of the Parks Department experience with weddings q
held in parks other than Hendricks. He said if the Parks Department feels
having people in the rhododendron garden attending weddings is hazardous for
. the shrubs, why are not much larger groups attending the annual rhododendron
show considered destructive. He asked whether it wouldn't therefore be appro-
priate to preclude further holding of the rhododendron show if weddings are
prohibi ted .
--
Ed Smith, director of Parks and Recreation, replied that selected private use
of any park area is somewhat destructi ve unless controlled under some type of
permit system. People requesting permission to hold weddings in the rhododen- 'I
dron garden are advised of departmental policy, but some parties ignore that ,'!
ipolicy and go ahead with weddings in that area. He said other sections of
Hendricks Park and other parks in the City may be used, but that use is con-
trary to the character of this particular garden. The Parks Department is
trying to protect the existent natural environment - no concrete, no playground
areas, all construction of natural materials (stone or wood). With regard to
;the rhododendron show, Director said that that is a general public function for
'the purpose of showing the rhododendrons. It h~pens that the time of the
iannual show is also the prime time when weddings are planned, so a serious con-
iflict arises. He said private use contributes to serious damage to the garden I
such as breaking off blooms for boutonnieres and leads to requests for chairs, '\
tables, dressing rooms, etc., generally disrupting the character of the garden.
Mr. Williams shared the Di rector's concerns but fel t if the rhododendron show
is permitted to continue, that it would not be consistent to bar other groups
requesting use of the area.
+1
2/l2/73 - l7
councilman Murray, with Councilman Wood's concurrence, favored the Parks De-
partment policy of not permitting weddings in the rhododendron garden, remark-
ing that the rhododendron show is held only once a year for perhaps two or
:three days. He said they are'highly in favor of weddings, but would like to
,see the garden left as it is. Councilman Wood added that the garden is located
I
:on a scenic drive where parking is restricted and allowing its use by private
: groups would tend to restrict the rights of all of the people. .ft is a show-
'place for visitors and the quiet and beauf::iful atrrosphere would become crowded
. and congested were pri vate groups allowed its use.
't
,J
'Councilwoman Beal asked if there were other areas in Hendricks Park where wed-
:dings could be held, saying that weddings in parks now seem to be the "thing."
;parks Director answered that there are 1000 acres in the parks system and the
:Department is asking restrictions on only three. Weddings are permitted in
other parts of Hendricks Park and in other parks such as the Rose Gardens.
;In answer to Councilman Keller, who also favored present policy, Director said
: they have 45 to 50 requ~sts a year to hold weddings in the rhododendron garden.
;Assistant Manager, in answer to Mr. Keller's question about enforcement of the
policy, said efforts are made by the caretaker to have people leave who insist
on using it in this manner. So far, citations have not been issued because of,
reluctance to disrupt wedding parties and it becomes difficult to determine
who should be cited in a wedding party. Parks Director added that the policy
:is administered as part of the parks rules and regulations and is not officially,
:adopted in ordinance form. '
...
Councilwoman Campbell was concerned about restrictions placed on use of public
areas in Eugene, but said she was not aware other areas in Hepdricks Park were
available nor of the number of. requests to hold weddings in the rhododendron
garden. She asked if there i's a place in Skinner's Butte Park whereweddin'gs
could be held. She suggested perhaps the use of a "conditional" type permi;t
for small wedding parties which, would not allow chairs, music, and which would
'limi t the number of people at anyone time.
.
'Councilman Williams voiced his concern about "hassling" of wedding guests by'
the caretaker at the Park. He felt usage should be absolutely forbidden or a
,procedure adopted as to what will be allowed. As~istant M.an~gg:r ~aid, it ,is,,,, ,
:Jfoped that the" present adiiilnistratJ."ve'j>riwtice 'can be continued to prohibi t
weddings in the garden and that it will not be necessary to resort to use of
citations. Parks Director said the particular instance mentioned by Councilman
'Williams of "hassling" was unfortunate but the caretaker was following orders.
He said that type of problem can be handled if the Council decides to continue
:prohibition of weddings in the garden.
Mayor Anderson expressed the opinion that the City is obligated to provide
'satisfactory natural settings for weddings or whatever uses the public wants,
:but since there are a number of other parks in the City which can be used it
;would seem that obligation is adequately fulfilled. He suggested that the City :.
'rely upon the staff for care and maintenance of these areas and on their judg-
',ment as to how they are to be used. Mr. Anderson said he would assume if no
:'action is taken by tl1e Council it would mean they do support the present policy I
and would ask the Parks Department staff to be more prudent in future enforce-
:men-t ,otthe policy. No action was taken.
y.L~gislative Report - Jim Luce, legisl~tive analyst in the Manager's office, was
, introduced. He is working on a part-time basis and is available each afternoon
during the legislative session for those councilmen who may have questions about
'or wish to see certain bills which are before the Legislature. Mr. Luce gave a
, detailed report on matters which may affect the city of Eugene and on which
legislation is expected - school financing and property tax relief, land use plan-
ning, collective bargaining, highway revenue funds for mass transit, adjusting city
boundaries, treatment of alcoholism and rehabilitation, personal liability of public
officials. Other items in a lower priority group reported upon were effort to re-
,move city business license exemption, Jow-cost housing, state subsidy for extra-
'ordinary services rendered by ci ties to the state in areas of fire and police pro:-
: tection, muni cipal court reform. He sai d there are other items of concern, but
" those reported on were considered to be of greatest significance. ;In answer to
"Mr. Hershner, he explained that the first group is legislation on which the Senate
and House leadership has said in effect there will be legislation this session.
The second group will be before the Legislature but won't command the public atten-
tion and won't be as likely to be acted upon.
Comm
l/24/73
File
'.
tl"
,Mrs. CampbelJ asked about possibility of a vehicle inspection law, saying it should
,be of particular interest during hearings on noise pollution. It was suggested such
: legislation could lead to sorre type of control on noise caused by autos . Mr. LuCe
.said this is tied in with mass transit and there is possibility revenues will be
included. He said it is proposed that the owner of a vehicle would pay a fee for
vehicle safety inspection including pollution control devices with revenues ex-
. ceeding the cost of the program di ve,rt61d .to mass transi t.
. ' , ~
.r.2/l2/73 - 18
,
- ~~~'., ,,:-. r
;Mayor Anderson asked if
on State institutions.
and Salem also. It was
item is pending.
iPlanning Director said there are some points in the land use ;:lanning le~is~ati~n
'about which the Planning commission is very concerned. He sa~d the Comm~ss~on ~s
'not saying that it is not proper for the State to be concerned in the area of land
use, but the legislationl proposed does not point out wh~t the concerns. are.. T~e
Commission is reviewing the legislation now and will br~ng recommendat~ons ~n ~t~
regard to the Council. In answer to Mrs. cam;:bell, ,Mr. ,Luce said he felt Eu~ene_s
:l990 General Plan will receive favorable cons~derat~on ~n passage of any leg~sla
'tion having to do with land use.
there is legislation pending on payments in lieu of taxes
He said this had been discussed wi th the mayors of port~and
understood Mr. Luce would find out if legislation on th~s
Comm
l/24/73
File
Z. Meetings Scheduled
A. Budget Committee - 7:30 p.m. this evening (January 24), McNutt Room
B. Joint meeting of Planning Commissions - 7:30 p.m., January 25, School
District 4J Board Room, 200 North Monroe
C. Congressional/City Conference, Washington, D.C., March 4-6 - Councilman Wood
has expressed his intention of attending. Other councilmen who wish to attend
are reques ted t~,T!<?ti fy the Manager.
Comm
l/24/73
File
.
AA. Fire Hydrant Installation, Private Development.;.. Copies of lette:!.' addressed to'
Wayne Shields from Manager were previously distributed to Council members with
regard to request from Wayne Shields for City installation of fire hydrants at
an approximate cost of $1200 to serve his proposed motel. Staff takes the posi-
tion and has followed the policy in the past that cost of like installations on
private property should be borne by the property owner. Manager said that al-
" though the property in question (north of Willamette River west of Ferry Street
Bridge) is outside the City, there is a contract between Mr. Shields and the City
, providing for annexation after development is completed.
Councilman Williams felt the purpose of fire hydrants was for protection of privat~
property regardless of whether they are located in the public right-of-way or on
,private property. He maintained it is an artificial division and doesn't deal
with the function or purpose of fire hydrants. Manager said placement of hydrants
; on Shields property is for the purpose of obtaining the lowest possible insurance
; rating and installation at City cost would be public subsidy of fire protection
system for private development. He recommended that the City not pay for the
hydrants. Mr. .Williams asked whether level of fire service with hydrants placed
on private property would be comparable to service in any other residential or
commercial area. Fire Chief answered that it would be.
.
,.., ....:~
,Ed Kenyon, Register-Guard, asked whether the City pays the cost of installation
of a,ll other hydrants in the City. Manager replied it does if they are placed in
the public right-Of-way. City did pay for installation of hydrants in Valley River
Center, private property, but decision for that installation was based on the
: Center's similarity to a downtown area where there are a number of different
business operations.
'No action was taken, and it was understood that Council approved staff's position
requiring hydrant installation on private property to be paid for by the property
'owner.
;comm
, 1/3jl/73
rile
Councilman Hershner left the meeting.
BB. Boundaries, Emergency CO Alert Plan - Councilman Murray at the time the Emergency
CO Alert Plan was adopted, indi cated concern about boundaries of the Stage 2 area.
'No staff work has been done toward revision of those boundaries. The Plan adopted
meets DEQ requirements, but staff feels there is no immediate need for this kind of
alert plan, partiCUlarly in the Stage 2 and 3 areas.
i
Councilman Murray repeated his concerns about movement of traffic through the h.ighest
'concentration of senior citizens' homes, saying those people would be the leastab~e
to wi thstand high leveJ..s of carbon monoxide emissions. He suggested al ternati ves '.or
~liminating Stage 2 altogether or extending the Stage 2 area boundary westward be-
tween 7th and 18th to about Chambers Street.
i
,
~Councilman Williams, said discussion with the Director of the Lane Regional Authority I
~+evealed that c.onsideration is being given to an alert plan for the entire metropolitan I
area, so that Whatever-plan does come from the DEQ will deal with more than just the
~ity of Eugene. He felt there should be no change in boundaries of this Plan until
'Consideration is given to them on an areawide basis. Mrs. Beal said there i~ some
talk about requiring automobile inspection but there is nothing b~ing done about a
~t-atC!wide plan to immobilize traffic in emergency situations.
I .
Councilmen Wood and Keller left the _ml!e~~12iJ'
+3
",- .~.(.- ~._-,-_.~'.__.:.:.. C""'...~
." ,]
:,..~---
2/l2/73 - 19
Mr. Wiiliams moved to ask the Lane Regional Air pdilution Authoiitytd
areawide plan for control of carbon monoxide in the Eugene/springfield
'to be 'presented for consideration to the various governmental entities
have to adopt it. There was no second.
-del/sloop -an- -~.
urban' area
which would
Public Works Director commented that the adopted Plan was prepared on an areawide
;basis by LCOG, using all other agencies. Mr. Murray ask~d staff for comment: on his
:suggestion of eliminating Stage 2 or jogging the boundarLes westward. PublLc Works
'Director said only Stage 3 was recommended at one time, but implementation would be
a problem. Manager added that the same boundarie~ ~o~ld be use~ for both st:ag~s
but without manpower to barricade or enforce prohLbLtLon of vehLcular traffLc, LID-
plementation would have to be on a volunteer basis.
It was understood the matter would be left for discussion at a later meeting.
CC.Announcements Noted
~'/ Citizen/Staff management team being devel,?ped to explore proposed methods for
enforcing noise standards ordinances. Mrs. Beal will be participating as an,C
interested observer.
2:~ Letter from Robert Heilman, chairman of the Active Bethel Citizens, encouraging
'; widening and sidewalks along Echo Hollow Roadr copies of which were forwarded
to Council merribers with committee agenda.
I
Comm
l/3l/73
File
Cities Legislative Workshop - February 7, Black Angus, 6:30 p.m. Comm
ly3l/73
Conference, March 4-g - Washington, D.C. File
-,.;:.- -.
r3',~,' League of Oregon
./ te''''
.,4,-""'1
~~:~~ .,CQ.n.?,:r;o/~s,4pnal/Ci ty
DD., :Councilman McDonald was welcomed home from a trip to Central and South AIiler i ca.
He commented briefly on ci ties visited in those areas.
EE. ,Housing Code Inspection - Councilman Murray referred to a joint meeting of Council;
'members and officials of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon at
'which the subject of housing enforcement was discussed. Mr. Murray expressed"con-,
: cern about the inference at that meeting that the City deliberately does not e.lJ'":f''-
; force the housing code in maintaining existing buildings because an active inspec-:
'tion program would adversely affect the housing supply. He said he concluded ' ,
, '
from discussions on use of revenue sharing funds that lack of funds was the' ,>,
reason for not carrying on an active inspection program. He wondered whether <.,<,,',:,.,:,':',:,',',,1,
there would be another opportunity to discuss this item.
, ,
~Manager said there is no deliberate policy not to do housing inspection, rather
'it is lack of staff to maintain an inspection program on a 10-year cycle which
is the minimum, on which such a program should be based. Assistant Manager added
,that inspections are also made on a compla,int basis. If a rigorous program is
initiated before adequate replacement housing is provided rent costs would be
forced up; an effort is being made to increase low-income housing in Eugene at
'this time. He added that there is a proposal in the revenue sharing package
to start a rental unit enforcement program, so there will be an opportunity to
discuss the matter during the budgeting process.
.Councilman Williams referred to previous policy set by the Council to limit code/!'
:enforcement except in transi tional areas on the basis that it would remove hous-
ing from the market. Manager said that action was in response to costly repair
,requests; the City does not ignore unhealthy or unsafe conditions. It was under-
'stood a copy of minutes showing the Council 's previous action would be sent to
: Mr. Murray.
:;:
FF.fFederal and State Grants - Councilman Murray referred to a news article with regard!
,to grant received by the City for detoxification center at the jail and expansion .,.
'of the police program in the schools and wondered about the policy for request-
:ing such grants since this one seemed to be on a departmental basis. Assistant
,Manager replied that the particular item referred to was not a grant. The Law
'Enforcement Council has 'approved in an overall program a detoxification center
'at the jail which means application can be made for grant funds. It is now' a ,.,
:matter 9fdeciding in the 1973-74 budget process whether the City wishes to pro- .,
'vide matching funds, and in that process the Ci ty Council will have opportunity
for discussion. Mr. Murray said he was particularly interested in the police
;shool program. Mr. Wood asked whether this request would go through LCOG and
'was told it would, but the Council would deal with it where it involves City
participation.
,
GG. ,Signals, lBth and Bailey, Hill Road - Counoilman Wood asked about the status of
, rplans with regard.to .lBth ,and. Ba,H,e,y Hill Road in view of the increased traffic
lpassing thr()u~h.that ':'l.nt~.r~'~ct4:on:;:! -He wOlld~red if crosswalk in~tal1ation is
! possible. Pub;Lic :Works Di:iecT:;or-::-:s'ft~'d 1;';hat ounless improvement of Bailey Hill '
'Road south orlBtb is 'authorized" his department would not recommend installa-
~ ' ' ' ,
l'tioll"6.~.::si~nals \- a~ "t]iatintersection. It is a matter of, p.~,iorf;.j,f#s,: Th~ :bond
;
r'
. ~
>:,'/
'.:-
~4
'....
2/12/73 - 20
Comm
2/7/73
File
Comm
2j7/73
File
Comm
2/7/73
File
I,
.,1
.;
.1
"
,
,
~ '-,
'issue approved by the voters was planned to cover a five-year 'program 'using
City forces'. Accomplishing the work under contractual arrangements, while
hastening' t'heir completion, would about double the cost. It was understood
I,an up-to-date list of the Department's priori ty schedule woul d be prepared
for Council members.
Comm
2/7/73
File
'.
HH. ,Tree and Shrub Cuttings - Councilwoman Campbell asked whether the Ci ty plans to
{pick up tree cuttings placed in the streets, noting the heavy accumulation be- i:
cause of recent weather conditions and the ban on baCkyard burning. Mr. McDonald,
'expressed the opinion that because of the burning restrictions it didJ1', t seem '
proper to ask citizens to pay for having the debris carried away. Councilman
Wood asked if a spring vacation work program could be initiated, similar to the
'summer program for young people not in school. Manager said there are no plans
to pick up the accumulation of trimmings, that it is an expensive operation,
and property owners seem to have accepted the extra cost of removing trimmings
because of the burning ban. He said a pickup program also entails an equipment,
problem. Mrs. Campbell said she was not advocating removing the burning ban
but ,wol.!l:d l:~ke ~~o see~_so!lle sort 9/ City proppsal"with a.,po!S.!=c e!it:,imat;e.
In repllj to' Mrs'. Beal's suggestion for a well advertised one-time pickup', ~
Manager said experience wi th leaf pickup on that basis has not been successful. :
If the City indicates it will become involved then quantity of material is bound I
to increase with advantage being taken if property owners are under the impression!
they will not have to dispose of their own debris. He was reluctant to gi ve the
'impression the City is going to become involved in removing trimmings; it would
take, consideration of the cost factor and possibly a change in policy.
Mrs. Campbell saw it as an advantage to the Public Works Department in that the
debris might cause drainage problems if left to accumulate. Assistant Manager
called attention to the fact that it is unlawful to pile trimmings in the public
right-of-way and there have been citations issued in instances where property
owners have been asked to "remove trash from the street and have not complied.
- ...-. -." . "__,_--"-,~-__,,,__;_~',,I"":';_~'" . ..,...\.,'J.;......:..;'-l...-_,...._.. . ~,__. _ . _. '. . ". _
Comm
2/7/73
File
II.
'Sex Orientation, Human Rights Commission- Councilman Hershner asked whether
there wa$any indication of when the Council would have the Human Rights Commis-:
,sion reCOmmendation with regard to its discussion of "sex orientation." Manager,'
answered that no formal communication has been received from the Commission nor I
. have mi~utes been received. Lewis Peters, minority' relatio~s ,specialist, said ,I
, the it(;3m would probably not be refe:rred to th,e Council until the Maypr returns
: in mid-February.
1Councilwoman Campbell suggested the news media might clarify that the item has
:been before the Commission only and that final action is taken by the Council.
't
Comm
2/7/73
File
~.
JJ. 'Introduqtion, Clyde Kelley - Mr. Kelley, fire department lieutenant, has
: work in the Manager's office filling the position of Community Relations
. until decision has been made with regard to p,erman,e.!J.t,,,,9,,-t.at.f.in~. .,~
-~ - .' ,_. . ~....~ -.....>.-:-:-~~~~
I
,
started;
i
Officer:
Comm
2/7/73
File
KK. ,roc Workshop, Newly-Elected City Officials is scheduled from 9:00 a.m. ,to 4:00 p.m.
,on Friday, February l6, at the Thunderbird Motel in Eugene. Attendance is open to
,both veteran andnewly-:elected offi cials. Reservations are requested.,
.-.--. .--- 0'.__,,_, .> '....._..~.-. . ~ .......F...~. _,""--.V_"!..';_~' . .' _ ... '._~
Comm
2/7/73
File
,-
Pub~ ;Planning Commission Recommendations
Hrng' A. December 19, 1972 - Zoning Recommended
l. East of,Acorn Park, north of l3th - RA to R-2 (Margie Griffith)
2. West of Amazon P?lrkway between 26th and 27th -R-I to RG SR (Louis Sherman)
3. South of KingSley Road between Goodpasture Island Road and Willamette River -
AGT toC~2 PD (Planning Commission)
4. Area located south of Cal Young Road west of Oakway Road - Newly annexed
Oakway Golf Course area to R-l (Planning Commission)
B. January 2, 1973 - Zoning Recommended
l. West of Obie'Street between llth and Stewart Road - RA to M-2 SR (Obie
Outdoor Advertising) ,
2. Between Barger and Royal Avenues west of Belt Line Road - AG to R-l (Planning I
Commission) ,
3. Between River Road and Southern Pacific Railroad - Newly annexed to C-2 SR /
(Planning Commission) " , , ,_,~' ,..' ," ,."
, '-4~P 'South of 'Centennj,al Boulevard at, ea~t end of Centenn~al Loop - Newly
annexed to C-2 PD (Planning Conmuss~on) )
5. East of Calvin northeast of Dulles - Newly annexed to RA (Plannin~ Commission
C December 19, 1972, -, Denial Recommended
. k d P 1 R 1 to R-3 (Von Klein)
L: North side of 20th Avenue between Oa, an ear --, ' ",' )
2', '. Northeast of M;stletoe Street and l:5th ,A, venue, -, RA t.o R-2 SR (Lou~sBonson
-L t RA t R..;,2 ,S,R ..(Loizis Bonson)" , '
; 3. West, of l'!!~~,~~___~_t.,!.~-=t and Van Avenulp inte:r;sec ~on. - 0 , '.'p", ____ h' '..... ,,'
L. . ,,__ ' >, .' -----,------- ~ '
--
.c'i
~5'
2/l2/7f - 2l
.'
/.
"zj :
J ani.iaiy"8~'--'19 7 3 :; Annexations"J?ecommended '--'~',-r~--' --<'"
l. North side of Crescent between Coburg Road and Chuckanut, 0.99 acres
2. .Between Four Oaks Grange Road and Bertelsen Road south of l8th, 0.98
----.---.-<., --.
,
I
acres
;Comm
l/ 311/7 3
publiC:' Rub{irng
,I;
'Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to schedule the recommendations for
hearing at the February 12, 1973 Council meeting.
I
I. ..
~~Manager expla~ned that both annexat~ons are ~sland areas which the Planning Conmds-
'sion felt it would be desirable to eliminate.
i,
,River Front Bicycle Paths - Mrs. Campbell noted that Item 3A requesting zone change
~ to provide for planned unit development covers property lying along the Willamette
I River. She asked how dedications for bicycle paths are handled when properties
! along the Ri ver are developed - whether there is some legal document filed - in
i view of the confusion which arose in development of the Thunderbird and Shields
; motel properties. Manager said any dedication of bicycle paths would be incorporated
: into a PUD agreement; it would be a legal document dedicating the area for park purposes.:
"
. Councilwoman Beal asked if discussion could be scheduled at some future commi ttee
i meeting on status of parkway adjacent to the Thunderbird and Shields developments
~and whether the Planning Commission has authority to ensure dedication of those
'areas. Manager explained that the property between the proposed building for
: Thunderbird ~d the riverbank involved an EWEB waterline easement on which no build- .
:ing could be constructed. Agreement was reached on location of parking area so
',that space will be left for a bicycle path, a berm, and landscaping. The number of
. parking spaces in the development was reduced so as not to encroach upon the ease-
'ment and still allow room for the path and lanascaping, on the basis that the pro-
:'posed restaurant and motel combination parking use would be adequately provided for.
~ The agreement was reached only to permi t the developer to go ahead wi th planning
. and designing for preliminary PUD approval. The development itself was scaled down
:to accommodate the plans as outlined, and although the exact width of the proposed
,public dedication is not known at this time it does provide for a bicycle path, and
'landscaping and a berm between the parking and the path. Staff will attempt to ob-
,tain information with regard to status of a public dedication along the riverfront
adjacent to Valley River. Manager said the Planning commission authority at this
,time applies only if a PUD is requested or zone change to which condi tion of dedica-
tion can be tied. The Conmdssion does not have complete control over the riverbank
under present statutes. It was noted also that the Shields development is outside
the Ci ty .
.:
In answer to Mrs. Beal's question about protecting undeveloped portions of the
riverbank, Manager said it would sometimes require City purchase, or in many in-
stances is a negotiating process. A major portion of properties abutting the
River on both banks within the city is in public ownership. Mr. Keller suggested
that a map be prepared showing riverfront properties in public ownership.
r
: Comm
1/i3l/73
Vote was taken ,on the motion to schedule public hearing on the Planning Commission
,recoIr11Tlendatiops. M'?.t~O,1?, carried unanimously.
.'
, 'r
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that Items A through KK be approved, affirmed, and
filed as noted. Rollcall vote. .Motion carried, i;l.ll counciJ.m:en present vot~ng aye.
IV .... Ordinances
Council Bill No. 159 - Levying assessments for paving and sewers within Wingate Park
Subdivision (72-14 and 72-18), read the first time on Ja~uary 8, 1972 and referred to Hearing
Panel on January 29, 1973, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being
no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
16702.
Council Bill No. 162 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Monroe Street
from 28th Avenue to 550 feet south; sanitary sewer east and west of Monroe Street from south
line of Arcadia Park to 160 feet south (72-24), read the first time on January 8, 1972 an.d re-
ferred to Hearing Panel on January 29, 1973, was read the second time by council bill number
only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr., Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
RollGall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
, 16703.
,-:
<~
" ,
~
...~ :-
~_.'-- -"""'--,'
..- -=-
~ _....-- -r
~b
2/12/73 - 22
I
, Council Bill No.163 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve industrial'lots
between West 1st Avenue and West 5th Avenue and between Bertelsen Road and Seneca Road (72-38),
read the first time on January 8, 1973 and referred to Hearing Panel on January 29, 1973,.
was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no councilman present
requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner.that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
16704.
Council Bill No. 178 -Amending Sections 7.095 and 8.025 of City Code re: Moving of
Buildings and Street Closure was submitted and read the first time by council bill numbe~
and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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 unanilnously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rolxcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
16712.
I
Council Bill No. 179 - Levying assessments for paving 43rd Avenue from West Amazon Drive
to the west 320 feet (72-21) was submitted and read by council bill number and title only,
there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded
Panel on February 19, 1973
tions on February 26, 1973.
by Mr. Hershner' that the bill be referred to Assessment Hearing
and Brought Back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda-
'Motion carried unanimously'.
Council Bill No. 180 - Levying assessments for sidewalk on west side of Coburg Road
from Club Road to Oakway Road (72-27) was submitted and read by council bill number and title
only, there being no councilman presen:t requesting that it be read in full.
Mr., Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to Assessment Hearing
Panel on February 19, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda-
tions on February 26, 1973. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 181 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within
Robins Glen Subdivision and area within 160 feet of boundaries of said subdivision (72-28)
was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman
present requesting that it be read in full.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to Assessment Hearing
Panel on February 19, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda-
tions on February 26, 1973. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 182 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers wi thin
1st Addition Southridge and Vine Maple Drive from Spring Boulevard to 300 feet south (72-35)
was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman
present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to Assessment Hearing
Panel on February 19, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda-
tions on February 26, 1973. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 183 - Levying assessments for paving Myers Road from Gilham Road to
442 feet west (72-40) was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there
being no councilman presen t requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to Assessment Hearing
Panel on February 19, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda-
tions on February 26, 1973. Motion carried unanimously.
,~-
Council Bill No. 184 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers on
Brewer Avenue from Gilham Road to Norkenzie Road (72-7 and 72-8) was submitted and
read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting
that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to Assessment Hearing
Panel on February 19, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda-
tions on February 26, 1973. Motion carried unanimously.
11
2/12/73 - 23
Council Bill No.- 185 .:.. Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on 18th Avenue
from Bailey Hill Road to 1050 feet west (72~48) was submitted and read by council bill number
and title only ,there being no' councilman present req'\lesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to Assessment Hearing
Panel on February 19, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda-
tions on February 26, 1973.,. Motion earried unani.mow31y:
Council Bill No. 186 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer within McD's Plat and
within 160 feet north of 23rd Avenue between Grant Street, and Garfield Street (72-58) was
submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no coUncilman present
requesting that it be read in full. " "
I
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to Assessmen~ H~aring
Panel on February 19', 1973' and brought back for ,Council consideration of Panel recommenda:-
tions on February, '26, 1973. Motion carried, all 'co'UncilrriEm present. voting aye, except
Mr. McDonald abst~ining.
v - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2145 - Endorsing and urging adoption of Governor McCall's proposal for,
Constitutional amendment to permit use of State Highway Trust Fund revenues for mass transit
putposes was submitted.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution, Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
.'
Resolution No.'2i46 - Requesting LCOG to co-ordinate multi-staff study of school location
problems was submitted.
At Councilwoman ,Campbell IS, request the resoluti<;m, was, re?,d. . It was und~rstood that the
resolution reflected the motion which was made in the recent, joint meeting of governmental
agencies, and that a copy of that motion, and the Council's resolution wQuld,be made for
Councilwoman Beal.
Mr. Williams moved seconde~ by' Mr. ,Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
Resolution, No. 2147, - Authorizing lease agreement with State Highw,ay Department on
property between Coburg Ro'ad, Country Club Road, and old County Road, was submitted.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the resolution be adopted. Rollcall vote.
Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
Resolution "fu. 2148 - Authorizing agreements with State Highway Depart~ent re: Improve-
ment Amazon Parkway and 30th Avenue between 29th Avenue and Alder Street, and Hilyard Street
between 28th Avenue and 36th Avenue, was submitted.
.
'~
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution., Rollcall 'vo:te. Motion
carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
Resolution No. 2149 - Transmitting to Planning Commission for hearing on March 6, 1973
various request~ for rezoniI1g was submitt,edl" '
, , ,
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt, the resolution. Rollcall vote., Motion
carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
Resolution No. 2150 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for
period January '22>through February 12, 1973 ,was submitted.
Councilman McDonald asked about the payment to, Clarke. Electric for $2,345.00.
explained that it was for electrical work in the remodeling of the club house
for a community center and was a part- of the Parks Department's budget.
Mariager
i'3-t Laurelwood
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to ,adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all councilmen pre~ent voting aye.
Announcement was made of Budget Committee meeting on Thursday; February 15, 1973,
7: 30 p. m., in the McNutt Room.
_.
-~
4~
meeting was adjourned to Monday,
/~~. '~
H~'M~~inle~, Ci~y Mana)er
2!12~24
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the
February 26, 1973.