The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/14/1973 Meeting Council. Chamber Eugene, Oregon May 14, 1973 . Regular rriee'ting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Ander::;on at 7;30 p.m. on May 14, 1973 in the Council Chamber with the following councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Williams, McDonald, Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, Messrs. Murray and Wood.' Councilman Keller was absent. I - Public Hearings A. Appeal, Edgewood West III Planning Commission on April 3,1973 gave preliminary approval to Phase I - 60 dwell- ing units on 18 acres, 3.4 units per acre - but declined granting'approval to the en- tire developmept! Applicant felt preliminary approval necessary for th~ entire pro- ject to allow comprehensive planning and provide flexibility, the total project to be developed through 1983 in five phases. There was no disagreement on the proposal itseif which received' strong support from both staff and Commission. Conditions were attached to Phase I approval whiCh were acceptable to the developer. Appeal, based on Section 9.508, was read and the Council is to decide whether the Commission was correct in not granting approval for Phases II through V. Planning st.aff notes' and Commission minutes were previously distributed to Council membe~s. Richard Unruh, architect, 460 East 2nd Avenue, showed slides or the area and exp~ained how the development would occur. He felt approval of only the first phase ,at this time 'would prevent' proper planning for the development asa whoie and force economic risk on the developer. He ,explained the type of units proposed and traffic access and connections throughout the area~ e David Hoffman, Planning Commission member, referred the Council to Commission minutes of April 3 covering discussion on the project for the Commission's reasoning in giving approval to only Phase I. He said the' Commission was hesitant in approving a develop- ment extending to 1985, even though they felt the proposai was very good. They thought they should 'be cautious as with Qther,developments in the South Hills area. . Councilman Williams asked what kinds of concerns the Commission had other than density for keeping options open for Phases II through V, and by keeping these options open what hardship it would work on the developer. M~. Hoffman replied that traffic was of concern as well as density, and the Commission is still working on an ordinance regarding' :hillslde development sta~dards. Also the South Hills study is still in progress and the Commission would like to knbwthe outcome of that before giving ap~ proval to a,lO-year development. Mr. Unruh said that without approval ?- large parcel of land would be committed fora long period of time without ~being able to plan. He felt a hardship would also be worked on the City in not being able to make specific plans for streets, sewers, etc. e Councilman Williams asked whether. preliminary approval on the entire project would prevent future reconsideration should Councilor Commission find transportation systems, sewers, or other facilities were going to be different than approval indi- cated. Manager replied that from a legal standpoint it was not known, but it is pre- sumed that should major changes in conditions occur both the City and developer would want 'to renegotiate preliminary approval. Planning Director felt the City would have an obligation to live within the conditions of preliminary approval. Staff originally suggested review of densities at some future time, but even with that the applicant was, concerned with' long-term commitment on number of units with which he can work. Another staff concern is'outcome of the current South Hills study. Councilwoman Campbell asked if the Commission was concerned about fire protection in that area, whether existing response time with no assurance of change in present service was a major consideration. Mr. Hoffman didn't recall that as a major concern when preliminary approval to Phase I was given. Long-range density and projecting planning ten years into the future were the main concerns. .\ In answer to questions from Councilman McDonald, type of units were described as well as type of contractual arrangement for development before final approval and start of construction. Mr. Unruh didn't feel the developer should be held to the density study since the proposed density for this project is well below the interim density of six units per acre. Preliminary approval would'allow flexibility in overall planning which is again subject to review before final approval. Councilwoman Beal received confrrmation from Mr. Hoffman of her understanding of the Commission's viewpoint - that the Commission has no criticism of the concept of aesthetic qualities of the project, rather an attempt to keep the City's planning options in the Couth Hills area open on a long-range basis. She recognized the de- veloper's concern in attempting an overall plan for a large area to make the develop- ment economically feasible. l41 , 5/14/73 - 1 Councilman Wood asked, if approval is given to the.. entire proj ect, what would happen should it be found fire protection is not adequate and unstable soil conditions exist. Manager replied that one of the conditions of approval would be that the developer meet' fire protection requirements in the Code as the project develops - manner;~in which buildings are developed, inter~al,protection"etc. If unstable soil conditions are discovered during construction, building insp~ction would require proper founda- tions or pr~hibit use of unstable.site~. He said there are ~o requirements in the preliminary' approval with regard to specific roof . materials, this in answe:r. to COilllC,il- man Wood's inquiry about use of cedar shakes. There may be in final approval, depend- ing on whether there are Code changes which are not anticipated at this time.. ,:11- ,'=' ~rs. Beal !I:lov~d sec~nde.4, by M+'. William~, to uphold the Planning Commission preliminary approval of.Phase I only and geny the appeal. ' Councilman Willia~s noted th~ttthe proposed density for the project is below that of the 'interim density, limitatl?n for this area, and he.4uestioned,~hether ~he,interim density within the urban'service boundary wou~d ever be reduced from that limit. ~o do so, he felt, w?uld be encouraging the concept of urban sprawl. He was concerned with discouragiIfg an outstanding plan of this nature which was presented'with no sub- stantive objections. ' - . . Councilman Murray wondered what' kinds of issues might arise from the South Hills study which might conflict with the proposal. Planning Director answered that density questions as they re~ate to transportation. have not been answered, developments on .slopes, school enrollment and_locat~on, mass transit ope~a!ion, tr~sition between rural' and urban areas - ali are concerns applying to. this particular <:irea. n Som~ areas may accommodate more than the interim density, others may have to.be cut back. e Councilwoman Beal ,noted general awareness of the .1990 Plan,'s having tq. be "filled out" by such studies as' that in the South' Hills. She thought it better to await the re- sults of that study rather than make commitments to traffic patterns, sewage, fire protection, schools for ten years ahead. Councilman Wood could see no conflict with -the 1990 Plan. He felt preliminary approval of the entire project would give school district and mass transit district an opportunity to plan more adequately for needs in the area. , ; Vote was 'taken on the. motion to deny the appeal and give preliminary approval to Phase I ,of Edgewood West III only. Motion defeated, Councilmen Beal, Cam!),bell ,<,~nd, 'M';IT'ray voting <:lye; Councilmen. Williams, MpDonald, Wood,. and Mayor Anderson voting no; Councilman Hershner abstaining. . , " . It was understood the ,appeaiwould be scheduled for discussion at a joint meeting of the Council 9nd Planning Gommission scheduled f9r Monday, May 21, 1973. B. Vacation, Chula Vista Boulevard and Union Avenue south of East 27th, north of East 30th, and west of Central Boulevard plaiming G.?JIlITli1?sion recom~ended approval on January 29, 1973. . Public liearing was opened. H. G.. Chickering, 1190 West 7th Avenue, representing Arlene Thomas, owner of abutting property, called attention;tohis opinion registered with Public Works ,'and Planning with regard to access for construction around the slope and location of sewers in the right-of-way reverting to the abutting~roperty. Manager said any sewer .constructed would be for service to abutting private property. Half of the street"'will go into City ownership since it lies along Laurelwood Golf Course. He didn't anticipate any problem, feeling sewer location could be worked out on either ownership. With regard to vacation 'of slope easement, Manager said it could be'vacated since there evidently is no road to be constructed. Council Bill No. 243 - Vacating Chula Vista 'Boulevard and Union Avenue south of East 27th Avenue, north of East 30th Avenue, and west of Central Boulevard, was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill by 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. . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16776. '42. 5/14/73 - 2 . C. Rezoning area east of Polk arid north of Rc.:".lroad Boulevard from R-2 and C-2 SR'to M-2 (Frank Munn) Planning Commission on April 3, 1973 recommended'denial. Public hearing "was scheduled for April 30 but postponed to this time at request of petitioner. Petitioner is re- questing M-2 zoning on two lots north and adjoining present M-2 property being used for used cars. Council members have seen the area. Jim Saul, planner, said the Com- mission was concerned about expanding M-2 use for a'proposed'car lot. next to existing residential development. The property was recently leased to a towing service which has since relocated, its not being permitted in C-2 zone. Commission felt the exist- ing C-2 zone was adequate to accommodate the'storage of used cars. Public hearing was opened. Jack Mattison, 825 Park Street, attorney representing property owner Frank Munn, dis- played map of the area and expressed the petitioner's concern with SR conditions at- tached to the C-2 zone. He explained the limited area" and shape of the present M-2 property did not allow its proper use, therefore the abutting properties were ac- quired to provide room for expansion and to get away from problems of the existing operation on the smaller property. Mr.. Mattison felt proposed construction of the Roosevelt Freeway nearby would make residential development of adjacent properties undesirable. He asked that the request be referred to a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission if it is decided to deny the M-2 zonIng. - Jessie Waldstein, 1270 East 22nd Avenue, urged denial of the M-2 zone. She also noted the Commission's recommendation that the C-2 lot revert to residential zoning. She objected to expansion of industrial uses in the neighborhood of recent residential development. Frank Munn, 2463 Lincoln Street, described the antique car operation in existence on the property and said he proposed construction of museum on a portion of it. Manager read a letter from R. W. Paris, 1325 Railroad Boulevard, supporting the re- zoning request. Public hearing was closed. Councilman Hershner asked if it would be possible to change the R-2 zone to C-2 SR. Manager replied that if such a proposal is desired it would be appropriate to deny the M-2 and suggest the petitioner file another application for C-2 on the lot now zoned R-2. He didn't feel it appropriate to make that change without Planning Com- mission consideration. . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to deny the requested M-2 rezoning. ) Councilman Murray noted recent discussion with regard to fringe areas and that it is crucial to keep residential areas in the center of the City, so when there is op- portunity to enhance that possibility it should be done. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimouSly. D. Bid Opening, Public Works - May 8, 1973 Contract Cost Project and Name of Bidder Storm and Sanitary Sewer in area between 4th and 8th Avenues from Lincoln Street to Mill Street (2) Wildish Construction Company Shur-Way Contractors Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Engineer Estimate $192,148.00 193,962.25 ERA Share $16,126 15,994 $32,120 Sanitary Storm i $ 68,852; , 91,176 $160,028 <- $219 ,300 /"- , Completion Date: January 1, 1974 -I Public Works Director reviewed the bids, cost to be shared by the City and the Renewal Agency. He said this is the last major project in the City's program to separate storm and sanitary sewers. Award of contract to the low bidder was recommended, subject to approval of the Renewal Agency. .\ \;, Mrs. Beal moved tion Company as Rollcall vote. seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract to Wildish Construc- recommended, subject to Eugene Renewal Agency concurrence. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. Councilwoman Campbell questioned procedure in awarding contracts on improvement pro- jects. Manager explained that the Council decision is final, but normally it is four to five days before a contract is actually signed. If Council wants a different de- .' ' , l~! 5/14/73 - 3 sign on a project or any change in the design, then contract would have to be rene- gotiated and change order made. Councilman McDonald offered congratulation~ on the close bids 'received, on this project. I ' II - Consent Calendar Previously' discussed in committee meetings held April 25 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen 'Beal, Williams, Hershner, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood), May 2, (Pre- sent :. Mayor Anderson ; Councilmen Beal, Williams, Hershner, Campbell,' Keller, Murray, and Wood), and May 9,1973 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Beal', Williams, McDonald, Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. \. A. Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance re: RP Zones "':-Copies of memo from the Planning Commission were previously distributed to Council members reaffirming the Commission's recommendation of February 6, 1973 with regard to amending uses permitted in RP zones. Council also received copies of the proposed amendment. Councilman Murray in clarification of his question about use of the term "light" in referring to professional uses in the RP zone explained that his concern was whether professional uses might occupy a major portion of a site in relation to the residential use. He said that in subsequent discussion with planners he was persuaded that the amendment contains provisions to take care of that concern and he is in favor of adopting the amendment as proposed. Councilman williams said his concern now is not so much with buffering residential areas from high density thoroughfares as with the restriction of uses permitted in an RP zone under the amendment. He felt it inconsistent to eliminate as outright uses barber and beauty shops and pharmacies, but permitting photographers' studios, real estate sales offices, etc. He said most uses in an RP eone should be condi- tional and on the basis of site review or planned development procedure to allow Planning Commission control of impact in terms of parking, site coverage, traffic generation, open space. - James Pearson, Planning Commission president, said that although there was no provision in the proposed amendment which would provide a measure of apportionment between residential and professional use of a site, the Commission does feel it will allow more compatability between the two uses. With regard to uses permitted under the amendment, Mr. Pearson said it appeared to be a matter of judgment. He felt the amendment would make a workable zoning ordinance and enhance the general development of the City. He asked adoption of the amendment to give an opportunity to see what could be accomplished. Planning Director said that the planning work program will cover review of all residential zones. That review will bene,fi t from experience with this amendment which works out conflict between residential and professional uses. Mrs, Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the proposed amendment. carried, all present voting aye except Mr. Williams voting no. Comm Motion 4/25/73 Approve . B. Policy Statement re: Criteria for Approval of Minor Subdivision, Creating Panhandle Lots - Copies of proposed policy statement were previously furnished Council members. Planning commission (March 26, 1973) recommended its use in evaluating requests for panhandle minor subdivision to give some consistency to the decision making process in cases where better utilization of large single lots is desired. The criteria proposed were that: . /\ ,1. The resultant lots must be in character with existing lot sizes in the immediate area or located in a general area previously designated as appropriate for pan- handle lots by the Planning Commission. If not, similar minor subdivision must not conflict with applicable plans or place undue hardship on public f~cilities. ~ , 2.' All parcels must have the minimum square footage required in the zoning -dTs- trict wherein located except that to assure adequate space between structures., a condition of approval may be minimum lot sizes and setbacks in excess of those normally required in the zoning district wherein the proposed subdivision is to be located. .3~' Panhandles must be of sufficient width to provide safe, convenient, and effi- cient access to the dwellings served. .. t- 4~,~ Each rear parcel must be able to accommodate at least four parking spaces' ! " wi thout the necessi ty for backing out. ! f' / ~5~ The need for additional curb cuts must be minimized through the use of common driveways where possible. li~ 5/14/73 4 6. Panhandles must be effectively screened as necessary on both sides (normally the City has been requiring 75% opaque screening of at least five feet minimum height if appropriate in the individual situation). . 7~ Panhandle drives must be paved, as now required. 8~ Adequate vision clearance for traffic passing on the street and leaving the subject parcels must be provided. 9. All conditions of Public Works must be observed. .1 I 10. The resultant parcels must be able to accommodate structures in scale and harmony with abutting uses (adequate setbacks, screening, and the like). To assure satisfaction with this criterion where particular attention or sensitivity: is required, a condition of approval could be that the site plan be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. . In answer to Councilwoman Beal, Manager said the proposal would apply normally to RA and R-l zones. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the policy statement. carried unanimously. Comm .Motion 4/25/73 Approve - c.Request for Permit, Nightwatchman Mobile Home, 865 Garfield Street - Requested by Tony Arnerich for Al' sTowing. Staff has no objection;' the use is permissible in the zone for which it is requested. l~e.yo~o.iQ\q. ~Q...\rw-\-\-) Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to grant the permit. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/25/73 Approve - D.Report, Alley Assessment Study Committee - Copies of report were previously dis- tributed to Council members. It covers.study made in an attempt to more equitably assess for alley paving improvements where properties to be assessed. have different land uses. The Committee proposes a three-way assessment formula based on square footage, frontage, and zoning, with recommendation that assessment would be made against all properties abutting an improvement. But Council would have the option of deferring collection of assessment against property zoned for higher density .but used for single-family residence when the alley is improved. for the primary benefit of multiple-family or apartment house construction. Funding of that de- ferral could be accomplished through a revolving fund until the single-family property changes ownership or a more intense Land use occurred at which time City . funding would be recovered without interest cost. Manager explained that the de- ferral proposal is not reflected.in,the Committee's memo, but could be incorporated into any legal document prepared if the Cquncil decides to change the assessment policy. --~- - Councilwoman Bear sugge5~adding to the out];4.!}fEl=~fp.L-PIopciSed new alley paving asse~$1!!g!Jt~m~thod: T,hat in areas -i'n whi-ij]j' existing land use does not .oonfo~m to zo~ - for examp~e, lots used for a single-family in ~reas z~ned for ,higher, ' dens~ty or commerc~aluse, the owner of the non-conform~ng property (s~ngle-fam~ly :residence) may apply for cost of improvements to be paid by the 'City un.til the existing use changes and/or the Property changes han~s, whichever occurs first, and such funding b,/ the Ci ty Wollld be recorded as a lien agains.t thesingle~family property until the assessment is paid. Mayor Anderson wondered if there would be legal implications because of benefit to properties with no assessment. . i Councilman Williams did not feel it proper for interest accruing on deferred assessments to become the obligation of the general taxpayer. He thought that . the benefited property should carry the interest cost. M!,. Williams was con- . :cerned too with the provision that change-of-ownershiE should trigger the payment : of assessment. He suggested ownership could change with property st:,illbeing '. used for single-family living and that it might be better to trigger payment' upop change of" 1 and use onl y . '. . . ." " ". . ---~'-'-'---_'_,~.--' 145 5/14/73 - 5 'councilwoman Beal explained her reasons for suggesting deferment of assessment and interest. She felt older people in many instances would be penalized by having to make interest payments, especially when living in older homes located in areas zoned to higher densities and calling for higher taxes. She agreed that assess- ment should probably be made on the basis of single-family residence. Mr. Williams explained that it was not his thought that the interest should be paid, but that it should accumulate and be borne by the property rather than by the general public. :.~ ,- ., JIh, ,. Discussion' followed on various aspects of the proposal - reluctance to discourage single-family use in some sections rezoned to higher density, impact of deferment until single-family lots developed to higher use, complications inherent in re- assessment on a house-to~house basis when ownership changes, etc. Manager cautioned that hazards should be closely examined if the philosophy behind deferral is to base it on change of ownership or change of land use because of the number. of. sewer assessments against vacant properties and the' question of whether they will be, benfi ted. Councilman Hershner suggested delaying action on deferral policy with regard to the proposed alley paving assessment method until overall policy on d~ferments is considered to avoid setting policy in piecemeal fashion. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to refer the matter to City Attorney for determination as to whether a Charter amendment is necessary to implement a pro- ,posed change in aLley. paving, assessment method. Councilman williams raised th~ question of allocation of value. He was concerned about improvement of an. alley requested for the primary use of an apartment house, yet a commercial or industrial use abutting the alley and having the same benefit would have to pay a larger share of the ,improvement cost under the proposed method. Comm 4/25/73 Approve . Vote was taken en the motion as stated. . Motion . carried unanimously. E. Plan Checking Fee - Copies of memo and table wi th regard to plan checking fees on. : ne~OE$fru.ctiori'~ere previously distributed 70 counc~l ~embers. ~~n{iShm~nt~~ of the plan check~ng fee as covered by the Un~form ~:L::ng-~~.recommended. I Councilman Wil1l.am$. fe~~bUndi~mit should include the fee .for checking construction plans~..~ger and Superintendent of Building Inspection Mortier expiained that the intent of the fee was to cover plan checking on . com- mercial or industrial type buildings primarily and would not apply to sing1e- family construction. Mr. Mortier said the $40,000 figure established as the break- ing point for building permi t fees could be eliminated. Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Williams to schedule public hearing on the. plan checking fee schedule. Motion carried unanimously. proposed Comm 4/25/73 Approve F,Purchase Norkenzie Road Right-of-Way, MabeL C. Perdue, 1450 Norkenzle Road - 'Authorization requested to purchase for $3,500. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray to authorize the purchase. Motion carried unanimously. G. Agreement, 'State Highway re: Park' between Wa,shington and Jefferson, 1st and 7th - Authorization was requested to sign contract with the State whioh provides that State will install grading, walkway, drainage, grass seeding, irrigation, trees and shrubs, and City will maintain in accordance with understanding at the time contract was signed for the structure to 6th and 7th. Comm 4/25//3, ApproYe . Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve the contract. Motion carried . unanimously. Comm 5/2/73 Approve H. Abatements 1.1955 West 23rd Avenue - Owned by Mrs. C. F. Burgoyne, living at that address. 2.4291 East Amazon Drive - OWned by Mr. and Mrs. John F. Rogers, Box 272, Mira Loma, California. Copies of memos from Superintendent of Building Inspection were previously furnished Council members giving reasons for recommending the abate- ments. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to call public hearing on both. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 5/2/73 Approve I. Notice of Federal Condemnation, Alleys in Block North of City Hall (6th, 7th, Pearl, High) - Notice of condemnation was received wi th regard to taking of the alleys in preparation for construction of Federal buildings at this location and on Scharpf's Twin Oak pre'perty across High Street. Manager explained that the Planning Corrunission appruved vacation of the alleys and expreSSed an interest in negotiating a val ue for ('1 ty' s interest in those alleys, al though that interest was not a part of the action recommending vacation. He suggested that the City Attorney explore with Federal people whether to vacate or fight the conde1lU1ation to recover the value, at least City's investment in facilities in the alleys. . \~b 5/14/73 - 6 . - '- . IIn answer to Councilman w~ lliams, Manager said the alleys in the block now occupied by Twin Oaks are not involved. Assistant Manager said that staff has est~mated the value of the City's interest at $64,000 - land value plus improvements, plus a major change in storm drainage or curb grade. Staff feels the $1.00 proffered is not acceptable. Manager cau- tioned about creating a public appearance of resisting the Federal project because of t;he number of years spent encouraging construction at that location. However, there is the obligation to see that the City is treated fairly. In answer to Councilman Williams, Assistant Manager said that franchise agreements are being reviewed with regard to any obligation of the City to remove privately- owned publi c utili ties from the alleys. He said so far nothing has been found, but that it would be a matter for the City Attorney to resolve. Franchise agree- ments generally provide that where the public interest is to be served, the public is not obligated to pay for removal of private facilities. Comm 5/2/73 Approve ... i Mrs. Beal moved seconded ]:Jy Mr. Williams to authorize negotiation, of a. fair price for vacation of the alley~.. .Motion carried unanimously. J.Improvement Petitions 1. Paving Jacobs Street from Concord to Fairfield - petitioned by owners of 100% of p'roperty to be assessed for the project to serve a development approved by the Planning Commission on property owned by Hansen Bros. 2~ Construction of sanitary sewer in area between 1500 feet north and 1300 feet south of 25th Avenue from 500 feet east of Brittany to 160 feet east of Hawkins Lane - fetitioned by owners of 23% of total square footage to be assessed. Manager explained that the sewer will be extended,-ap!,oss a large undeveloped area to service the area petitioned, Ees-Elting_in deferral ~liection of assessment against the vacant property. On questioning from Council members, Public Works Director said the facility is one of two systems which will serve the entire area. An agreement has been reached on deferring collection of assessment against the undeveloped property in return for easement. Properties in the ownership of those signing the petition plus the undeveloped area represent about 70% of the total square footage to be assessed. The lOCation of the sewer line is the only practical way to reach the properties to be served. Payment of the de- ferredassessment will come from sewer utility funds, monies collected from water user charges. Those people not signing the petition will be notified of public hearing at time of bid award. "- 3. Paving Meadow Lane from Maple Street to Vista Street - petitioned by owners 'of 58% of the properties to be assessed, to serve an industrial area south of Elmira Road. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the three peti tions. Motion carried unanimously. CO!lll1l 5/2/73 Approve K. permi ts, Mobile Homes for Watchmen in Industrial, Zones 1'.' Bruce Werth Trucking co., 71 North Danebo 2: Loggers Equipment Exchange, 3709 West 11th Avenue Staff recommends approval of both permits. Comm 5/2/73 Approve Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the requests" Motion carried unanimously. L.Annexation, Bonnie View Lane and Sarah Lane (Marvin and Leslie Allender) - Peti- tioned by owners of 100% of property involved (Tax Lots 200-300-400-500), creating an island of an area outside the City previously annexed by the Boundary Commission, the legality of which was challenged in court. Planning Commission on May 1, 1973 recommended that the Allender property be annexed and asked that the Council trans- mit that recommendation to the Boundary Commission for its May 3 hearing of the petition. The petition was initially filed with the Boundary Commission, so statutory time. limitations require action by.that body. If the Boundary Commission . approves the annexation;' it would appear the law suit is moot with regard to whe- ther the previous island annexation waslerJall!l..constituted. Councilman Murray a$ked i..'" there were ang p~ojections in the 1990 Plan about growth in that area. Manager an,;wered that all of the area to the McKenzie River is in- cluded in the urban 'servi ,::e boundary. Comm Mr. williams moved seconced 1,JY Mr. Mu'rrag ~o transmit to the Boundary Commission 5/2/73 the reoo'!'IRendation to annex the Allender pro.pertg. Motion carried unanimo.uslll..~ Approve M. 's .B. 73 - State Building Code. Subcommittee supported Superintendent of Build- ing Inspection Mortier's position that if a State Building Code is adopted, 'uniform national model codes should be used. Mr. Mortier was authorized to present testimony in the way he presented it to the subcommittee, opposing the bill in its pre~~nt form. Comm 5/2/73 , l:lpprove 141 5/14/73 - 7 N. 5.B.846 - Would hold cities responsible for building defects where plans did not bear architect's stamp. 5ubcomndttee authorized Mr. Mortier's testifying in opposition to the bill. Carom 5/2/73 Approve ~anager explained that the bill would add to the State tort law that the City has responsi- bili ty for any building in which defects show up as a res"Ul t of Code violation unless the building is designed by a licensed architect or engineer. Opposition to the legislation is ~ecommended because it would place an impossible liability upon the City in the con- struction of a building - responsibility for damages to property owners. ".- Councilman McDonald expressed his opposition to the legislation. However, he felt there should be no question about the infallibility of City inspections. For that reason many people feel the City does have a certain responsibility for any defects inconstruct~on. Councilman Williams felt the proposed legislation woUld result in too much liability. further he felt the bill as written would provide an opportunity for the City to say it has no responsibility when plans are approved .by an architect or engineer, and if that is the case then all buildings in the City shoUld be ~ appr<Dved by an architect or engineer. ,". - 0.S.B.836, 837, 702,373 - Would remove municipal jurisdiction for mobile home parks regulation. Subcommittee authorized testimony in opposition to any I effort to remove control over mobile home parks from the cities' jurisdiction. COIlIll1 5/2/73 Approve p.Traffic Legislation - Subcommittee authorized testimony as proposed by the Traffic Safety Commission on a list of bills presented having to do wi th ,traffic matters. COmIn 5/2/73 Approve . Q.H.B.2263 - Would make, collective bargaining mandatory for public agencies. Councilwoman Beal said the bill was not available at the time of subcomnattee meeting so no position was taken. However, Manager was authorized to testify as to his point of view. That testimony was not to be interpreted as the Council's position. Manager elaborated on the concerns with provisions of the bill with regard to (1) local option; (2) supervisory-manager exclusions; and (3) the final method of impasse resolution. He said a letter expressing his personal beliefs had been sent to members of the Lane delegation. : Councilman Wood asked clarification of Manager's position on the "local option" ! provision. Manager explained that his posi tion, and that of the League of 'Oregon Cities, is that cities should have the authority to establish their own procedures ei ther by ordinance or by Charter, assuming that procedure gives equivalent protection as proposeq in State law. COIlIll1 5/2/73 Approve . '_. .., . . ,_ _:~ ":;':,V-.~ ",.... R.purchase, Mathers Property - Manager said that it is hoped to clarify the Council's legal position on the purchase of the Mathers property with regard to the Freeway Charter amendment prior to the May 14 Council meeting. It is de- ,~ Comm : sired to resolve the issue at that meeting because of the length of time already,5Y9t73 . taken to complete the transaction. A price has been agreed upon if the City pro-~ ~ ceeds to purchase. Manager said a price has been agreedur->ou'withtheMathers for' acquisition of their property which lies, within the proposed alignment of West" Amazon Parkway should it be constructed. Ymltiple-family housing development is proposed for the property and purchase was recom- mended to forego having to pay also for cost of improvement at a later date. It was recog- nized that should the arterial not be constructed, the property could be used for park pur- poses or sold. Question was raised whether the purchase woUld be in conflict with the Charter amendment requiring voter approval of any limited access facility. Council members also wanted to be sure no personal liability would be involved in the event of a challenge to this or any other similar action. Opinions from the City Attorney were developed ,and distributed to Council members with agenda for this meeting. Manager noted that Councilman Williams had reviewed the: personal liability aspect with his own attorney who gave the opinion there is no conflict between the purchase and the Charter amendment. Staff would like to proceed with the purchase at the agreed-upon price. - CouncilwoJDan Campbell asked that her "yes" vote in previous action on this acquisition be changed to' "no ~ fT1: Manager explained that previous action was to authorize negotiation of a purchase price; action requested at this time is to authorize purchase. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize purchase of the Mathers property. In making the motion, Mrs. Beal asked that the record show she would vote "no." Councilman McDonald said he would abstain, that he did not want to gamble on being sued. . Councilman Hershner said he would prefer studying the City Attorney's opinions before' voting. Manager suggested vote on authorizing purchase subject to a majority of,the Council's indi- cating either at the May 16 committee meeting, or as soon as possible, satisfaction with the legal opinions regarding both the 'Charter amendment and personal liability, this to permit giving Mathers a reply before the next formal Council meeting, May 29. l4f) 5/14/73 - 8 . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to s'ubstitute for the motion authoriza- tion to purchase the Mathers property subject to majority approval by individual Council members of the legal opinions. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Council- men Williams, Hershner, Wood, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Councilmen Beal, Campbell, and Murray voting no; Councilmen McDonald abstaining. Councilman Hershner asked whether the City Attorney's opinions would be made a part of the Council record. Manager replied they would by reference, and that copies would be ,retained in an opinion file in the City Recorder's office. S. First Avenue/I-105 Connections - Copies of staff report were previously furnished . Council members covering meeting between City and State Highway Division staffs to 'discuss whether alternative solutions to closing the First Avenue connectors would be sufficiently acceptable to justify a request for renegotiation of the existing City/State contract. Also distributed to Council members previously were copies . of a report from Whiteaker Community Association, letter from Eugene Downtown . Association, and letter from Wilson Investments located at Roosevelt Boulevard and Highway 99 North. Manager introduced Bob Royer and Bill Cranford of the High- way Division staff and Howard Buford, transportation planner for LCOG. e Manager reviewed the City staff memo which basically states the staff's position that there exists a firm contract with the State Highway Division, County and Federal government on construction underway on I-105 extension to 6th and 7th, and so long as that contract is valid staff position would be to live up to its terms which include disconnection of the 1st Avenue ramps upon opening of the extension, scheduled for mid-June. Both City and State staff people feel the safest alternative is carrying out the contract as origina1yy provided and discon- nect the ramps. ,- There was exploration at the staff meeting of implementing Plan 2H as shown in the Highway Division report (provision for an acceleration lane at an estimated cost of $350,000 by widening the bridge where the temporary northbound on-ramp meets the main freeway). Staff consensus was that it would be a marginal facility from I a safety standpoint; that it could be implemented if modification of the existing I contract is approved by the Secretary of Department of Transportatioll; that an estimated expenditure of $350,000 would be necessary if it is implemented to up- grade the northbound on-ramp from 1st to I-10S; that while awaiting approval and construction,improvement adjustments to the overhead facility would have to be made to move northbound traffic into the inside lane to allow traffic from the -on-ramp to feather into the outside lane. In that interim period the overhead capacity would notme~!.~_ak hourt!~1!Iands ~r~!!ultin~. in congestion and high potential for rear-end accidents. Request for te:rtporary ~se oi/..lternate'2~ if decided upon, would be transmitted to the Highway Commission and with their approval, to the Transportation Secretary. If the Highway CommissiOll approves, . there is a possibility of 50/50 sharing of costs with the State; possibility of Federal sharing is very remote. City Attorney's office has indicated they do not Ifeel an election is necessary to proceed with such a program. The local Federal , : office could be asked in the meantime to give permission to continue the connection: ; of the ramps and also open I-lOS to 6th and 7th in mid-June. I. , If the request is disapproved by the Secretary of Transportation there would be no choice but to comply with the existing contract and remove the ramps. If it is approved the anticipated life of the temporary facility would be about ten years or until an extension of Highway 126 is developed at some location between the River and the railroad tracks. Engineering staffs see no way to continue use of . the ramps together with an extension of 126. Present projections of traffic . volumes indicate that extension should be constructed as soon as possible. However, . the local Charter amendment makes a difficult situation since it requires vote of the public before the City can enter into a contract to proceed with construction, and it doesn't seem reasonable to submit a project for approval prior to development of an environmental impact statement. That is the responsibility of the State High- . way Division who are not inclined to work on an impact statement without knowing what the electorate will do with the project subsequent to the statement. There is little possibility that work on a statement could be started before a year from now, if then. Both State and City staffs feel very strongly that there is critical need for updating of ESATS and its adoption. .' Manager continued that improvements to 6th and 7th and Blair to make them better able to accommodate traffic now using 1st and shifted to 6th and 7th with the opening of the I-105 extension are estimated at about $725,000. Costs originally were to be shared 75% State, 25% City; whether that formula would still apply is not known. !:.~ -:; ,~ Councilman Wood referred to the City's responsibility for removal of the ramps should the temporary alternate be disapproved and noted there was no cost mentioned. J'!~nager sa~~~ .~!!~~I?:.~9rm.~~~~C:12- rec:ei ved wasJ::!!at. if the removal resul ted in addi- "1.-< l4t9 5114/73 - 9 ;;:r . tional' costs-over - and above that of removal in' the present contract, - then the - Ci ty probably would be responsible for that additional cost. If it does not exceed what ~is allowed in the present contract, then it would be covered by existing funding. !Councilman Williams asked about the seriousness of the potential for rear-end :accidents in the use of Alternate 2G (moving northbound traffic on I-l05 to the linside lane to allow feathering of traffic from 1st to the outside lane), and how :long it would be before Plan 2Hwould be ready for use. Manager said anticipation of accident potential is based on the congested situation that occurs when merging ~traffic into one lane on a fast moving facility. Mr. Royer doubted that an estimate 'of the potential could be made, but it is there because of the vol umes using that 'lane and which will come to a stop in the merging movement. Traffic Engineer Williams said the hazard is in the use of the facility by northbound travelers not familiar with the pattern who will not know to shift to the inside lane. 'Mr. Royer estimated two years to complete the design work on Plan 2H, call for :pids, approval of SecretarY,of Transportation, etc. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Mr. Royer explained that the poorly designed Iramps and tendency of motorists on high-speed faci'li ties to misjudge stopping distances contribute to rear-end accidents. He explained that the present ramps were designed as temporary facilities to be used during construction of the over- 'head extension. Traffic Engineer in answer to Councilman Wood said that experience, _,has shown that additional signing would have little effect; regardless of how well :'a route is signed, accident problems continue. There was further explanation of traffic patterns and provisions for merging traffic from 1st Avenue to I-l05 after the extension is opened and before Plan 2H could be completed. Councilwoman Beal didn't understand staff's position that an environmental impact study would be required when the structure has already been built. Manager ex- plained that the impact statement was a question which would have to be resolved by the State with the Federal government. Although the design, contract, and con- struction were completed prior to requirement for impact statement, there is a question as to whether any change in that. design will require a statement. Mr. Royer , !said long- and short-term effect of a project would be one item covered by an impact 'statement; if continuation of a business became contingent upon use of the ramps, ~ :then they could not be removed later. Many have not realized the ramps were for Itemporary use during construction of the overpass. Councilman Murray quoted a letter from the State Highway Division in 1970 in answer to an inquiry about the ramps stating "...problem requiring removal of ramps not . one of merging. . ." but rather because of future design to accommodate connection ___ c _ of the OakHi1l section to I-l05. He asked what had happened in the meantime 'to make the merging significant when in 1970 the substantial reason for removal was the intent to build the Roosevelt Freeway. Mr. Royer said it appeared in 1970 evaluation was only on the construction of the westward route so merging was not investigated. He added that there could have been a number of reasons for that statement; he did not know the basis on which it was made. Councilwoman Campbell questioned the reason for the two-year period to have Plan :r.eady for use. Mr. Royer said the two-year period was an estimate only, in the imeantime traffic would be moved in the one northbound lane while construction is proceeding on the ramp. 2H \ : Howard Buford recalled that plans 10 to 15 years ago for an east/west oouplet using' '1st Avenue and Clark Street were frowned upon because it was felt it would bring too much traffic into the Whiteaker neighborhood, whereas with the present plans for closing the ramps that neighborhood fears it will be isolated. He said the most important factor to consider is the traffic flow to the west because of re- cent improvement on other facilities feeding traffic onto I-l05. He felt the Whiteaker neighborhood. would be better served by construction of Highway 126 since it would provide overpass over the railroad and free access to both east and west, although access to the River Road area would be limited. He said that acute traffic conditions could be expected in this area in the near future without completion of 105 and 126. He said that Alternate 2H i,s not as good as that now programmed recog- , :nizing the traffic loads projected, and added that it will not be any easier to con-; Ivince people in that area to remove the ramps after ten years than it is now, and :it will be necessary to remove them. ! In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Mr. Buford explained that no impact statement !has been mads, or scheduled, on a faci11ity carrying traffic west to the Coast. 'However, there are plans ultimately to have four lanes to the Coast; route has been surveyed between Veneta and Poodle Creek, and 126 tentatively between I-105 and west of Eugene. Other than that the proposed alignment is not known. !Councilwoman Beal asked what the Council could do to hurry completion of the ESATS updating. She felt it of utmost importance to prevent further piecemeal planning. Mr. Buford said the City is already helping with planning staff, and that addi- ISO 5/14(73 - 10 .- - .~ . - -- ,. , I . . : tional staff, addi tional money, addi tional equipment might step it up three months ~""'\ Presentations could be made by June 1974, discussions possibly within a few months from now. Manager said the ability to get the work done depends upon official adoption of the budget with the funds kept in it for this study. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Mr. Buford said the City could help with funds, there are limitations on Federal funds set by the Federal Highway Administration. Mayor Anderson brought discussion back to whether the ramps should be removed. 'Manager read a letter received from Eugene Chamber of Commerce endorsing completion of the Highway 126 extension. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to authorize staff to pursue all possible avenues to secure all necessary agreements and renegotiate exist- ing agreements to construct Alternate 2H. '1 I I I e Mr. Murray said he believes closure of the ramps would seriously hurt the surround- ing neighborhood, causing hardship and removing easy access. It would increase traffic through the general westside neighborhood, including those streets lying . south of the immediate area. Plan 2H appears to be less costly than any other alternative with any practicality. Mr. Murray said he would not argue against the Roosevelt Freeway but felt the question of the ramps should not be based on a ,projected freeway not even being considered at the present time. It is questionable:' that it will be constructed in view of its being a major part of the ESATS plan 'which has not been adopted and is now in the process of being revised. In addition, impact statement and Charter amendment requirements must be considered. Mr. Murray continued that since contracts with the State were signed on this project, the 1990 Plan has been adopted which includes several objectives of crucial importance to any decision on transportation, three of which are social costs to a neighborhoodj :of any route, avoidance of bisecting or isolation of neighborhoods, and the impact i 'of a route on a neighborhood. ! i Councilwoman Beal said that her objections to disconnecting the ramps seemed another;/ step taken to approve Highway 126. She did not like the Council's being put in the posi tion of having to make a decision on a portion of an entire plan which has i been repudiated and which was certain to be changed. She was opposed to making any! I commitments until the ESATS plan was updated. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to amend the motion to provide that the Council ask the State Highway Division to implement Option'2G as a less expensive temporary solution until a determination is made on al- ternative, to be pursued. _~___n .. ._....~.A';...__P.,~~"....._....~_......... '_".. ~,- ~.. ._ e Mr. Williams questioned the expendi ture of $175,000 for Plan 2H', assuming 50/50 ;sharing of. costs with the State, when it would not be in operation for two years yet and with the possibility another alternative might be adopted in the meantime. 'Update of ESATS expected in perhaps a year and after that possibly some final de- cision on traffic handling system in the entire area would seem to make Plan 2G ,preferable to give short-term flexibility at the least cost. ,COuncilman Hershner agreed and fel t the Council would want to keep options open. Be also agreed with Councilwoman'Beal's expression of not wanting to be ,backed into approving the Roosevelt Freeway. He wondered whether Plan 2H could be ex- plored with the Federal government, at the same time putting 2G into operation. It was"his understanding chances of approval of2H are slim which would make ,choice of that alternate unrealistic. If ESATS is updated to exclude the Freeway, then machinery should be started now to see whether Plan 2H will be allowed, and use of 2G would allow that without committing $175,000. Councilman Wood questioned whether the Federal government would consider any sub- 'mission which was not an absolu~e request for approval of a certain plan. Manager wanted the Council to onderstand that Plan 2G also would have to have both State ,and Federal approval prior to implementation. He thought the City could explore ; the possibility of such a temporary arrangement. Mr. Royer stated his personal opinion that before approval is given by the Secretary of Transportation he would ,have to be sure that he is approving what the City wants. It would weaken the 'chance for approval if requests were submitted for trials of alternatives. . Councilwoman Beal noted that I-105 would have to operate under Plan 2G temporarily :while trying to renegotiate, the contract to make the change to 2H and that would give time to re-examine ESATS and determine the direction the City wishes to take. She didn't want to see the City default on its contract with the State and felt i negotiation for 2H was the only way to go. Discussion continued on manner of approach to Federal government for approval of temporary arrangement, allowing use of ramps and the opening of I-10S extension, interpr~t?~~q~of request for temporary arrangements as request for consideration -~:0"1 v:?!.Y>. . ~- - ---. - ---- - --- -~ - ---.----- . . '. . . ""1,' \5 , 5/14/73 - 11 . , , ~0[reroutlng-126 Tn-'-ffiatarea;-esfImatij-oI 'time' for Tmp1emen-tcit1.on of id. In answer ,to Councilman Hershner, Mr. Royer said 2G could probably be completed more quickly !than 2H but that he seriously doubted approval would be received from the Federal lpeop1e on 2G. If the City does nothing, the ramps will be disconnected; if it is decided to renegotiate the contract, Plan 2G would be implemented while awaiting the outcome. .- :Counci1man Murray felt implementation of Plan 2G would preclude keeping the ramps operating. Councilman Wood felt adoption of Plan 2H would give a two-year time lag 9nder which an extension of 2G could be requested to give an extension of time wi thout cost. Councilman Murray took issue wi th argument based on "cost," saying ,that $350,000 took on a different light when compared to cost of the entire project.' and 'that pursuit of Plan 2H would assure the availability of the 1st Avenue ramps : for public use. . Mayor Anderson asked if adoption of 2G would negate a pe17manent solution. Mr.Royer answered that a reason should be given for its adoption which would be the comple- tion and adoption of ESATS. Councilman Hershner felt 2G would be the only practical solution and thought Federal and State people would understand the situation to , allow resolution of the entire problem. , Manager noted that the discussi@n revolved-around optimistic timing for updating '! of ESATS and making of permanent decisions. But in reality that could take as long ,as fi ve years. He said that over and over the statement has been made that ESATS : has been repudiated. There is a tendency to forget that while a political decision : to that effect has been made, from a traffic movement standpoint there is no statis-: ,tical information to indicate that existing facts in the existing plan will not be las valid when ESATS is updated as when the plan was produced. Manager continued that after very brief discussion with the City Attorney, the Attorney is exploring the possibility of submitting a ballot measure to the voters based on schematic pro- jections of a number of choices of where Highway 126 might be located to try to determine someway of working within the Charter amendment, which will allow getting: . some public reaction to the idea of a Highway 126 without pinning down its location ; but that would be SUfficiently definitive to give some impetus to proceeding with , the required impact statement. The amendment requires specific alignment and vote : within one year of actual construction. It might be possible in getting voter re- action on schematic designs, knowing it can't be within one year of construction, to have a challenge thereby getting into court to resolve practical questions with regard to the amendment. e . . _"_ . _ _ __ _ . ~ _ .". l...~ . ~ There was further discussion in clarification of time for proposed opening of the I-105 extension in mid-June, traffic handling under alternatives 2G and 2H, , and purpose of the original motion and amendment. I : Mayor Anderson said he felt everyone recognized that the present arterial auto : transportation system is in limbo and outlook for resolving the issue not very i good. Furthermore, dependence of implementation of the 1990 Plan on a good ; transportation system also puts that Plan in limbo. He said it is impossible to :.sleparate land use from the transportation system, ,and the subject of land use has , been overlooked in the current discussion. Mr. Anderson said it is most important to maintain the City's credibility in honoring contracts, and that any solution at this point should be considered strictly a temporary one. But of utmost importance , in any solution is the consideration of trading off between maximum cost and safety. . He thought $175,000 while not a great amount in terms of $16 million for the entire project still amounted to quite a bit in terms of the City's own budget where trade . offs to be considered are social programs, better housing. etc. e Councilman Hershner said he does not follow the philosophy of comparison between ,the $350,000 and $16 million because it would seem a decision on that basis would ;be a permanent decision. It would seem to be foreclosing options with regard to , the Roosevelt Freeway. : Councilwoman Campbell deplored the lack of input from the Planning Co~ssion or the LCOG Citizens Advisory Cbmmittee prior to a decision on this matter. Vote was taken on the amendment which would Plan 2G while exploring other alternatives. men Williams, McDonald, and Hershner voting Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting no. ask State to implement Motion defeated, Council- aye; Cbunci1men Bea1, , ; Corom 5/9/73 \. Vote was taken on the original motion to renegotiate State contract for implementation of Plan 2H. Motion carried, Councilmen Bea1, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Williams, McDonald, and Hershner voting no. , IS 2... 5/14/73 - 12 .- Mayor Anderson expressed concern about choice of Plan 2Hset forth in the State Highway re- port because it is the least desirable of any mentioned and because contract between the State and City will have to be renegotiated. He said this decision borders o~ violation of the contract which was accepted as part of a transportation plan to allbw traffic con~ nection to the west. Now there is no alternative offered for a permanent solution to the need for transportation service to the west, pointed out previously, and leaves only the admission that the City is not willing to face the situation squarely and in so doing is passing the decision on to ~he Secretary of Transportation. Mayor continu~d that at no time was 1st Avenue considered a part of the. transportation plan upon which design of the 1-105 extension was based; nothing has changed in that respect. Keeping the ramps open violates acceptable standards of highway construction, 'and is the type of installation which should not knowingly be accepted as adequate for the citizens of the community. Its acceptance also violates land use objectives for regional planning as covered in discus- sions on community goals and the General Plan since it is paramount -that land use planning must relate to a transportation system. In not ~llowing for better transportation facilities to the area to the north and northwest when considering the adopted land use plan, the City is not facing its responsibilities for regional planning. There is still land in that area available for residential development which 'does not' have suitable access to the City, and the 1990 Plan does not indicate stopping, controllling, or even reducing planned growth in that area. - . e With regard to the ESATS plan, Mayor said it hasheen in existence for some time, only re- vision is being considered at this time. So consideration of the revision should not be used as an excuse for inaction and delay to prevent moving forward and developing a transportation system for tpe north and western areas of the community. Mayor ,continued that no updating or revision of ESATS is necessary to make a decision on extending trans- portation' facilities to the north and west. Arguments presented at the several hearings with regard to the ramps have been highly questionable. Concern' has been expressed for maintaining the residential character of the Whiteaker neighborhood, yet a basic knowledge of planning points up the fact that residential development is not acceptable with commercial development, and that more / traffic promotes commercial development. Protests were heard that closing access to 1st Avenue would isolate the Whiteaker area from the rest of the City,_ but isolation does not affect the residential' character of a neighborhood; in fact a few. residential areas desire access to a high~sp~ed facility. He questioped the effect 1st Avenue's use as an arterial would have on the proposed park under the I~105 structure, and whether an impact study so far as use of the ramps had been considered. He mention.ed testimony on a previous rezon- ing issue at this meeting ihdicatiI).gWhiteaker School was losing. pupils .It appears to be a transitional area needing very careful consideration if it is to be :preserved with its present characteristics. The Mayor also noted the expense of some $350,000 for a temporary structure which would give it a degree of permanence. e Mayor Anderson said if the Roosevelt Freeway concept is rejected then a look should be taken at alternat.ives for 6th and 7th and even keeping 1st Avenue open , since.' there is no other good transportation basis for expand~ng. land use planning to the northwest area. This particular corridor is vital and is already affecting development in that area. From a sound planning standpoint it would seem the best way to proceed would be to close the ramps and begin immediately on developing a transportation system in that area. He recog- nized it would be an unpopular decision but unless p;r>ogress is made on a good transporta- tion system in 'that area there will be muchmo;r>e discussion in the future. 'He said it was not: his inten'ttocontinue debate since the Council- has heard all sides of the. question, but he wanted to state his opinion, feeling he would not be diligent were it not entered in the record. . Counciiman'Williams reported he recently returned from a business trip to Washington, D.C. While there he had occasion to visit with a friend on the immediate p8rsonal staff of the Secretary of Transportation and presented to him the problem facing this community with re- gard to the 1st Avenue ramps and the Roosevelt Freeway. The general response was that the Secretary of Transportation at this' time would probaPly not be able to authorize any varia- tion in the State Highway plan. However, if amendments to the Federal Highway Act now be- ing considered are adopted the Secretary would be, permitted to give such authorization, and-it'is felt he might look favorably upon' granting Option 2G. Implementing that alter- nate would give the 'Cityan opportunity tostudy~he process and reach a proper solution. He said even' if the' Secretary had authority to allow deviation from the State Highway.. plan at this time, it is extremely doubtful that he would approve implement ion of Plan 2H. Adoption of Plan 28 at a minimal cost would give' time to establish 'an overall plan, and Mr. Williams felt that considering all trade offs that would be the decision to make. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that staff request the Secretary of Transportation for approval of Plan 28,..through the State Highway .Depart- ment, telling them the City wishes adequate time' to review, update, and adopt a transportation plan for this community that would finally resolve this matter on a permanent basis , and that it is the . City's belief this interim solution would be the most workable at the least cost. \ '5"3 5/14/73 - 13 Councilwoman Beal said she understood that Plan 2H was the choice of the State Highway De- partment. Her impression was that Plan 2G would be put into operation anyway while await- ing outcome of request for approval of 2H~' Mr. Williams said it was not his intent to cbn- vey th~t he had the inside word tha~ the Secretary of Transportation preferred one plan over the other, only that chances are very slim under the current law of obtaining ap- proval of either ~ne. -.- Fred Manela,. 88 North Madison, called for point of order, saying a motion was on the floor at the time Mr. Williams' motion was made. Mayor An~erson explained that action taken in committee is unofficiai so that the p~esent motion i~ considered the original one. Councilman Murray felt it highly unlikely- Plan 2H would be acceptable to.~the neighborhood because of congestion, merging of traffic, etc. .He said he was aware of the difference be- tween the two choices and was not opposed to 2G as a possible way of keeping the ramps open but that he would still favor 2H. Mr. Williams said it would probably take a year or two to settle on a transportation plan and another long period of time between Council action and decision by t he Secretary. He explained he was trying to convey thinking in the Secretary's office on ~robable action at that level. Councilwoman Campbell wondered whether Councilman while in Washington or on behalf of this Council. to a friend and the discussion in no way CQUld be Secret~ry nor did it have any legal standing. Williams was speaking on a personal basis Mr. Williams explained he was speaking construed as a formal request. to the Councilman Wood .recognized the conflict between retaining the residential neighborhood and expanding commercial use already there, also the safety hazards involved in moving traffic on and off the ramps. He felt Plan 2H a piecemeal approach with a iong-range impact so far as. decisions which could restrict future planning, or even the intended result of the Charter amendment. He.favored retaining the ramps, but if the request is denied and they are closed he felt it could bring realization of the real impact and spur long-range practical solution to the entire problem. . Councilman Murray said Plan 2H was very clearly the sounder of the two proposals and was selected on the basis of all testimony presented, so it did not seem right to accuse those in favor of that plan of ignoring safety factors and other considerations. However he was prepared to support 2G if it is more-likely to be approved. It is not satisfactory but if it assUre~ keeping the ramps open, he would be in favor of it. Mr. Williams said he. didn't think either alternative would be approved, but if the law is changed to give the Secretary authority his impression was that either 2G or 2H would be acceptable. The question he was trying to determine in Washington was something to give the community options for' a short time while .getting a transportation plan adopted.' There was further discussion on Pian 2H as opposed to Plan 2G and relative costs and safety factors. Manager noted that the preference of the Highway Department was to disconnect the ramps, not Plan 2H. It was the most acceptable alternate if the City decides to retain the ramps. He reviewed Mr. Royer's testimony on marginal safety of 2H, and said 28 was con- sidered less safe on an extended basis. He said it should be clarified that the only way of implementing Plan 2H was use of 28 ,so regardless of the decisi~:m on this motion Plan 2G would be implemented 'and at no cost.. Manager explained that Mr. Williams' trip to Washington was not on behalf of the City but was a personal business. trip and he pursued the question of the ramps while there. Manager reminded the Council that .the Assistant Superintendent of School District 4J in his testimony- qualified his recommendation by sahing only if the facility is safe should the ramps be kept. open. . Councilwoman Campbell said she would vote against Plan 2G because she was concerned that it would lead to an absolutely permanent situation. She recognized funds would be needed to implement Plan 2H but felt the ramps could be removed after ten years if it is decided to build the Roosevelt Freeway. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all councilmen present vote aye, except Mrs. Campbell voting no. Mayor Anderson strongly recommended that the Council take some specific action to accelerate a solution to transportation problems in the northwest area. He suggested perhaps a special committee to see ~hat steps might be taken to speed up revision of the ESATSplan. T. Rezoning area on east side Portland between 29th and 30th. from RA to R-2-4 SR with minimUm of 4000 sq. ft. per unit (Pohll, O'Conner, Melevin) - Set public. hearing for May 29,1973 Approve '. u. Vacation West 13th between Amazon Channel and City View (McKay) - Call public hearing for June 25, 1973. Approve V. Designated Truck Routes - Set public hearing for May 29, 1973. Approve R. Council Minutes, March 27, 1973 - As circulated ,...,-",.,\ ~. ,~ '.'.' Approve ,~+ 5/14/73 - 14 x. Appoint~ent, Human Rights Commission - Mayor Anderson . announced the appointment; of Ms. Pat Johnstone, 4560 Fox Hollow Road, as a member of the Human Rights Commission for the term ending January 1, 1976. . Y. 'Planning Commission Background Material - Councllman Murray asked whether . Council members could be furnished with a packet of background material on 'zoning and other Planning Commission issues coming to the Council for considera- tion. It was understood the information would be furnished on an individual :basis to those Council members requesting it. . ._.. . ,-. ~... ~'. .+ ..:. ~ ., -'_.~1'-- .._.~--+- z. 'Alton Baker Park Hearing - Scheduled for this evening (May 2, 1973) at 7:30 :in the Council Chamber before the Lane County Commissioners. It was understood that the City's position with regard to road alignment (discussed in committee ,on April 25, 1973) would be presented at the hearing by Howard Bonnett, Plan- J}j.Eg_C<:>'1ll1!!~:;;!;;~9!l m~l}!ber .___..... __.' .__ __ _ __ ._.._,..~.o_ . _...._.... ....---_......___.._.._h AA. H.B.2853- Joint Operating Agencies bill which would set up an organization . through which pUblicly- and privately-'Owned utilities could acquire, maintain, and operate a wholesaling electric utility system. Subcommittee ~ook no posi- ,tion, feeling the proposed legislation was of utmost importance to the City , and should be discussed more fully. Mrs. Beal eneouraged other Council members: ,to attend a meeting of the subcommittee on May 7, 1973 at which time someone from the Ci ty Attorney's office will be present to apswer questions to develop information for further discussion. The meeting was not to be a public hear- ~.n~,. .~~~ those in_t_e..::!!~ed ..!:!3......<:.t..~.=-n,~i_r:<;1 .w.o~!a. bew~lcome ~..__.... . ., "'''':''-'"--'."" ~ BB. LCOG Information Meeting - Letter was received from Ken Omlid, chairman of the LCOG Board, suggesting a meeting of LCOG staff with the Council to discuss iLCOG's activi ties and manner of providing adequate information to each of its member agencies on LCOG programs, policies, and operations. It was und>2r- istood t;ime would be set aside on a committee agenda in the near future for this discussion. CC. 1st Avenue Ramps, WaShington/Jefferson Bridge - Copies of Highway Department staff report, wi th City staff input, were distributed to Council members for \ \ their information and study prior to the April 30, 1973 hearing. The report ' deals with proposed removal of access ramps at 1st Avenue upon opening of I-105\ .from WaShington/Jefferson Bridge to 6th and 7th Avenues. Highway Department 'staff people will be available in the Council Chamber on Monday, April 30, ibetween 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m. and between 6:30 and 7:30 p.m. with maps and :charts ~()_(3xplain and. give informatioTl.on.thefac~lity p'rior..._t:.().~l}.E!.l1~.~!.i.nff.~~ . DD.'~oston Marathon Victory, Jon Anderson - Councilman Keller mentioned watching a ihational television son, was introduced were offered to the :_w~ th Jon. EE. Improvement, Echo Hollow Road - Letter was noted from Robert D. Ri chmond of \ Anderson, Ri chmond & Owens, representing a number of residents of the Echo Holl()Vl:; Road area, concerning recent bid award for widening of that street and construc-. t 'tion of bicycle path. Reconsideration of the matter and further public hearing i was requested on the basis that the residents involved were not provided adequate\ .opportunity for hearing with regard to the design plan for the facility. Manager' : noted administrative hearing was held by staff in the neighborhood and public :hearing before the Council at time of bid award. Also, the contract was awarded, ;signed, and in the hands of the contractor. City Attorney advised that problems : would be encountered in renegotiating a contract and that; there is no legal reason : for reconsideration, this in view of warning by Mr. Richmond that writ of review ,might be sought. ! . .' ; Councilwoman Beal asked if something could be done about the parking area for ! Everyone's Market whi ch will be affected by the wi dening of the street. Publi c ..j Works Director explained that consideration is being given to a revocable permit ! to allow continued 'use of the parking area by the Market. It is public right- , of-way and will be used for the widening project. I ~Mayor Anderson suggested that utilities companies should be notified with regard '. to underground wiring on Echo Hollow. Glen Stadler, EWEB, said he would convey : that information to the Board. .i ..No_a..c:tion was taken. --""""-.--_.c___. ____.....----.__+______ ~.. Councilman Williams said he and Councilman Murray had talked with citizens area with regard to the proposed improvement of Echo Hollow Road and found in the adoption of a plan which did not provide parking along that street. Comm 4/25/73 Affirm Comm 4/25/73 Affirm Comm 5/2/73 Affirm Comm 5/2/73 Affirm Comm 5/9/73 Affirm Comm '4/25/73 File Comm 5/2/73 File Comm 5/2/73 in the Echo Hollow ther~ was hardship He said they left lSS 5/14/73 - 15 those people ~ith theunderst~di~g that.ifthey could~repare a plan for that project which they could brlng to the Councll wlth SOlld support of cltizens in the neighborhood, the Council might reconsider its action. He presented petitions representing 85 to 90% of prop- erty owners on Echo Hollow, and about 52% of the front footage, stating they are in favor of 40-foot paving to provide two 12-foot lanes with room on each side for sidewalks to accommodate pedes~rians and bicycles, thus supporting the concept of parking on the street. Another petition was presented from residents in the general area favoring the same concept but not owning property which would be assessed. Mr. Williams continued that he felt there is a need for parking on that street. And that combination pedestrian/bicycle use of the sidewalks would be safer than bicycles traveling in the street. The Bicycle Committee recom- mended elimination of the center turn lane to provide room for.,both parking and bicycle lanes on eaCh side of the street if the original plan is not pursued. .- Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to reconsider award of contract on improvement of Echo Hollow Road. Council questioned several aspects of procedUre for any change because of contract already awarded. Public Works Director explained that the bids were taken on both 44- and 40-foot paving so renegotiating the contract would be no problem so long as any change stays within reasonable limits of those two designs. Councilwoman Beal questioned discussion of the project before a vote on whether it would be reconsidered. Vote was taken on the motion to reconsider. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mrs. Campbell vot!ng no. Considerable. discussion followed on location of bike lanes and parking lanes and types of construction which would accommodate both without overlapping. Couri'cilwoman Campbell felt these things had been taken into consideration by the Public Works Department prior to the bid call. She thought property owners should provide the parking space. Manager said the Public Horks recommendation was based on the Bicycle Committee's original recommendation which they thought was the first choice from a safety standpcirint for bikes and autos on the same thoroughfare. Traffic Engineer explained the Bicycle Committee's thinking in making their recommendation and said they would still choose the.44,..footpaving without parking. If the 40,..foot paving is decided upon there are iriherent safety hazards such as opening car doors on parked cars, movements around parked cars, etc. Manager said the Committee also suggested there would have to be some right-turn lanes which would remove some of the on- street parking. . Councilman McDonald noted estimates were made and contract awarded on that basis and wondered how a change would affect assessments. Public Works Director explained that every improvement cont~act provides forsa 10% leeway in bid quantities. Since this project was bid on both 44- and 40,..foot paving the contract could probably be renegotiated with no change in. unit prices. Owners of abutting properties still would be paying for only a 36-foot width, . anything beyond that would be paid by the City. There was further discussion on whether property owners understood method of assessment, whether a change would.make the project more expensive, and whether changes could be ex- pected on every project instead ,of following the Public Works' recOmmendations. Manager noted that this project was the first effort in Eugene to design an arterial which would accommodate Dikes, pedestrians, and parking. . . - Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to reaffirm the Council's choice of 44-foot paving, and direct the staff to eliminate insofar as possIble the center left-turn lane in order to provide parking on both sides of the street wherever possible and to provide bike lanes as the staff deems appropriate. There were further suggestions for design of the arterial, consideration of zoning status in the area, possibility of curb cut locations~ Mrs. Beal suggested inclusion of further nego- tiationwith people on Echo Hollow Road in an attempt so far as possible to eliminate side- walk requipementalong the large undeveloped parcels with the idea that they would be in- stalled when the properties are developed. Mr. Williams had no objection. There was fur- ther explanation of intent of the motion with Mayor Anderson suggesting the idea was to re- tain the 44-foot paving, giving staff latitude as to what is most pertinent. Mrs.Campbell was concerned about property owners' objections to assessment for the project. Mr.Williams pointed out thatthe'present proposal would cost less than the one originally acted upon. Vote was taken on the motion, adding Mrs. Beal's suggestion with regard to side- walk requirements adjacent to undeveloped properties. Motion carried unanimously. '. FF. Appointment, Human Rights Commission - Mayor Anderson announced that Don Low, recently appointed to the~Human Rights Commission, will be unable to serve. Comm 5/2/73 File IS'=' "0. . 5/14/73 - 16 i . GG. 'Notices ,"lu--:Workshop for Elect;ed Officials on Aging Programs - Friday, May 18,1973, at the Local Government Center, 12th and Court Streets, Salem; Oregon, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 2.. Annual Meeting OANA - Saturday, May 5, 1973, at the Holiday Inn in Portland, Oregon beginning at 8:30 a.m. CQmm 5/2/73 File HH. i ist Avenue Ramps, 6th/7th Extension I-l05 - Staff will develop as much information as possible on procedural process necessary for accomplishing Alternative 2H listed in the State Highway report to give a complete understanding of what it involves when brought for discussion at committee on May 9. In answer to Council- : man Murray, Manager sai d the information developed would include an opinion as 1 to whether an election would be required and about the cost of alterations to , 6th and 7th should that become necessary. Councilman Williams suggested includ- I ing Howard Buford of LCOG in the discussion of impact of traffic moving to the ' River Road area via Blair Boulevard, and the use of the ramps on a long-term basis. \ Gordon Elliott urged Mr.. Buford's input also with regard to relationship between the proposed Roosevelt Freeway and the ramps. ! I Comm 5/2/73 File II. Councilwoman Campbell suggested some discussion about use of automatic closing gates at the~<3:.rnPs. d~ing peak~raff!-:..P€!rJ_o.a.s. ____._ _ , Salvation Army Week - Proclamation was i~;~ed "~">" .....c.... ,May 14-20, 1973 as Salvation . b~ ~ayor Anderson proclaiming :the Salvation Army in its out~:Yd~eek. Rec~gn~t~on.of the week is to salute . .' _ _, ... .... n ~ng commun~ty serv~ce. e JJ. . ~cho Hollow Road Improvement - Councilman Williams advised the Council that he . ~ntends to m~ve for, reconsideration of the Echo Hollow Road improvement at the ~ay l4Co~nc~1 meet~ng. He explained that he and Councilman Murray have been : ~nvolV~d ~n ~xten~ive discussions of the project and although he is not sure recons~derat~on w~ll be requested if it is it will be:B th ! mi tt ' , or e purpose of sub- ! ~~g a ~ncrete proposal as an alternative. He said that staff is aware of I : the d~scuss~ons. \ .Comm 5/9/73 File KK.i Legi~lation, H.B.2853 - Councilwoman Beal, chairing the Council's legislative I comm~ttee, d~stributed copies of a report from the committee with regard to . H;1. 2853 h~v~n~ to do With, creation of Joint Operating Agencies by pub).ic and . P vate ut~l~t~es. She sa~d the committee was unanimous in submitting the re- I port but no act~on on ~t.is requested until EWEB has had an opportunity to t and make known ~ts pos~t~on on the legislation. examinel Comm /5/9/73 'j'. Councilman Williams distributed copies of a memo which he said he prepared on : the ass~mption the ,Council would be requested to oppose the bill. He said it ! deals w~th a number of questions raised and was presented to give the Council I another viewpoint. e Mary Briscoe, president of League of Women Voters, read a statement opposing the legiSlation and said the League's position is that the bill should be rewritten if not tabled. Jane Novick, Future Power Committee, stated that Committee's opposition to the bill. She said formation of Joint Operating Agencies would limit public utilities in their operation, management, and control of power generation and that voters would no longer control the bond- ing procedure. She asked the Council to register its opposition to the bill or ask further hearings at which provisions of the legislation can be examined. Councilwoman Beal referred to the legislative subcommittee's report recommending that the Council not support H.B.2853. She said although Councilman Williams had presented comments on the legislation he is now in agreement on the subcommittee memo. Mayor Anderson noted that the Eugene Water & Electr.ic Board at its meeting this evening favored passage of H.B.2853 for a four to one vote. . Councilman Williams said that he understood that private utilities have the right of eminent domain for kinds of purposes contemplated in this legislation, and that was one of his con- cerns., However, in view of the endorsement of H.B.2853 by the officialselected to take re- sponsibility for generation and transmission of electrical energy, he felt it would be un- acceptable to send a statement on behalf of the City to the Legislature without further consideration of the bill itself. , ' Mrs. Beal agreed that private utiiities do have, the right of eminent domain, but that it would be out of context in relation to this legiSlation since the bill has to do only with genera- tion of power. She said the bill under consideration would insulate generation and wholesaling of electric power from the general public by substituting control of Public Utility Commis- sioner over the Joint Operating Agencies. It would give the opportunity for those agencies to have unlimited power to sell bonds and spend money. .D 15' 5/14-/73 - 17 Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the city of Eugene adopt the Council subcommittee report on H.B.2853 stating the City is unable to support the bill. Councilman Wood said there should be further hearings to clarify points raised. Councilman . Williams wanted to hear what transpired in the EWEB three-hour discussion prior to their endorsement of the bill before the City forwarded a statement to the Legislature. Council- man Hershner agreed. He and Councilman McDonald said they would vote against the motion be- cause they would like to have more information from the Water Board itself. Mrs. Campbell concurred with the subcommittee's position that this Council should neither support nor openly oppose the bill. -.- Mayor Anderson suggested rephrasing of the subcommittee statement to indicate the City's taking no position in view of EWEB's support, and perhaps listing the concerns and questions raised. Councilwoman Beal suggested the wording "...does not support in its present form and raises the following questions," but Councilman Williams said he would feel uncomfortable with that wording. Mrs. Beau i:iaid sne didn't think the City wanted ~ tQ go the .directiQIl t~i~ '-'~.E:~is~~- ~ . tion was pointing. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Beal, Campbell, ,:Murray, and Wood' voting aye;' Councilmen Williams, McDonald, and Hershner voting no. M~yor Anderson suggested the wording in the statement read "...city of Eugene takes no posi- tion onH.B.2853 because ofthe.following concerns;..." listing the questions raised. He felt it would have the same effect and bemorec"eonventional so far as the Council's relation- ship with EWEB is concerned~ Mrs. Beal agreed to change the statement, with consent of other members of the subcommittee, so that it raises the questions but does not actually commit the City to a position. Councilmen Wood and Williams concurred. . Mayor Anders on the statement. the concluding s.aj.d:::he assumed Mrs. Beal said point should be reconsideration would also apply to the concluding point in only the opening statement would be changed, she didll't feel altered. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through KK, except that separate action was taken on Items R (Purchase of Mathers property), S (1st Avenue/I-I05 Connections), EE (Improvement Echo Hollow Road), and KK (H.B.2853). Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously, except ~ouncilman McDonald abstaining on Item H-l (Abatement, 1955 West 23rd). III - ItEmlS Not R~~'viously'Dis,~u~'sed ' A. Norkenzie-Road Right":'of-way - Approval of options was requested: . 1. Doyle and Betty Ann Sheets, Route 2, Box 466, Elmira $ 527.00 2. Mary E. Wiest, 1605 Cal Young Road 1,435.00 3. George A. and Jessie V. Lindly, 1732 Norkenzie Road 375.00 4. James W. and Rena Sheridan, 1885 Norkenzie Road 370.00 . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve exercising the options. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. B. Norkenzie Road Right-of-way - Authorization of condemnation was requested: 1. Donnie and Janice Teague, 1437 Norkenzie $ 356.00 2. John G. and Eva I. Willener, 2086 Norkenzie 890.00 Manager said negotiation. would continue even with authorization to condemn. Council Bill No. 244 - Authorizing condemnation and tendering $356'.00 for Nor- kenzie Road right-of-way to Donnie and Janice Teague was submitted and read by council bill numb~r and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All qouncilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16777. :,. Council Bill No'. 245 - Authorizing condemnation and tendering $890 .00 for Nor- kenzie Road right-of-way to John G. and Eva I. Willener was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. ,se 5/14/73 - 18 Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rol19all vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16778. C. Council Bylaws re: Agenda Items for Regular Council Meetings and Public Hearing Procedure Copies of pr?posed changes were previously distributed to Council members. .,._ .. .,... " ': ~!rMI1',W't" Resolution No. 2175 - Amending Council Bylaws re: Agenda items for regular Council meetings and public hearing procedure was submitted. ,", . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by"MY'. Williams to ad9pt the resolution. Mo~ion carried unanimously. IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 208 - Amending Sections 9.392, 9.394, and 9~396 of City Code re: Resi- dential Professional Districts, read the first time on March 27, 1973 and held pending more information on buffering, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. It Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. Williams voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16779. Council Bill No. 246 - Calling hearing June 25, 1973 re: Vacation West 13th Avenue between Amazon Channel and City View Street was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no.councilman present requesting . that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and~umbered 16780. Council Bill No. 247 - Sanitary sewer on Jacobs Drive from Concord Street to Fairfield Street was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council- man present requesting that it be read in full. e Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by cO.uncil 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 councii b~ll number only. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16781. Council Bill No. 248 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer on Jacobs Drive from Concord Street to Fairfield Street was read the first time by council bill nuIDber'and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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 oniy. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was dec~ared passed and numbered 16782. Council Bill No. 249 - Paving Jacobs Drive from Concord Street to Fallir.field S~reet was read by council bill number and title only, ther~ ~eing no councilman present requestin& th~t it be read in full. . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read 'the second time by council bill numb e r only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and .that enactment be considered at this time Motion carried unanimously and the bill was r~ad the second time by council bill number only. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final 'passage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16783. Council Bill No. 250 - Adopt.ing plans and specifications for paving Jacobs Drive from Concord Street to Fairfield Street was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there bein~ no cQupcilman J?resen t requesting that it be read in full. .. . \5' 5/14/73 - 19 Mrs. Bealmoved seconded by Mr., Williams that the hill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, anq, that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously. and the bill was read the sec9nd time by council. bill number only. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by MR. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll- call vote. All counqilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16784. Council Bill No. 251 ~ Sanitary and storm sewers to serve area lying within 500 feet of that section of Kimberly Drive located in Fi~st Addition of Firland Heights was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. .- Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final pa$sage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and nuIDbered 16785. , " ':Q~\l.pcil Bill No. 252 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary and storin'sewers to serve area lying witqin 500 feet of that section of Kimberly Drive located in First Addition to Firland Heights was read by cduncil bill number and title ,only, there being no counciiman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. 4It Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll- call,vote. All councilmen present voting ,aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16786. Council Bill No. 253 - Paving Kimberly. Drive within First Addition to Finland Heights was' read the first time by council bill nuffib~r and title only, there being no councilman present re- questing:that It be .read in .full.. i; Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams' that the bill.be read the secondtime'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._ Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. :Roll~ call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16787. Council Bill No. 254 - Adopt.ing plans and specifications for paving Kimberly Drive within First Addition to Firland Heights was. read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in fUll. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent'of the Council, and :that enactment be consider.ed at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number onlyl. . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16788. Council Bill No. 255 - Sanitary sewer in .area betwe,en 1500 feet. north and 1300 feet south of 25th Avenue from 500 feet east of Brittany Street to 160 feet east of Hawkins Lane '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. Mrs. .'Been moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill b.e 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 167,89. Council Bill No. 256 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer in area between 1500 feet north and 1300 feet south of 25th Avenue from 500 feet east of Brittany Street to 160 feet east of Hawkins Lane was submitted and read the first time by council bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting that ftbe read in full. . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given f~nal passage. Roll- call vote. All councilmen present voting aye,the bill was declared passed and numbered 16790. lfeO '. . e . Council Bill No. 257 - Sanitary sewer in area between 160 feet north and 200 feet south of Martin Street from. West. Amazon Drive to '160 feet east of Center Way was submitted and read the first time by council bill number only, with unanimous conse'nt of the 'Councfl/ ' '.Mrs. Beal moved secondedhy 'Mr. .Williams 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. ' Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be 'approved and' given final passage. Roll- , call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16791. ' Council Bill No. 258 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer in area between, 160 feet north and 200 feet south of Martin Street from West Amazon Drive to 160 feet east of Center Way was. submitted' and read the first, time' by 'couricil bill :number only, .wi th unanimous consent of the Council. Mrs. Bealmoved seconded by Mr. .Williams 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage; Roll- call. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16792. "Council Bill No. 259 - Paving Meadow Lane from Maple Street to Vista Street 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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.1 Motion carried unanimously and the bill' was read th~ second time by council bill number only. : . , , Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll-: call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was decl~ed, passed and numbered 16793. Council Bill No. 260 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Meadow Lane from Maple : Street to Vista Street was submitted and read the first time. by council bill number and title onl~, there being no councilman presen trequesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill I number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, .and that enactment be, considered at this time.i Motion carried unanimously and the bill was' read the sec?nd time by council bill number only. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill b~: approved and given final passage. Roll-: call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16794. Council Bill No. 261 - Levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on 15th Avenue from Acorn, Park to 300 feet east (72-39) was submitted and read the f~~st time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be referr~d to Assessment Panel for hearing on May 21, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendation on May 29, 197q. Motion carried unanimously. V - Resolutions Resolution No. 2176 - Authorizing agreement with State re: Park area between Washington and Jefferson Streets from 1st Avenue to 7th Avenue was submitted. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. ca~ried, all councilmen present voting aye. Motion I .. ..~". i{:esolution No. 2177 - Calling hearing May 29, 1973 re: Ab,atement 1955 West 23rd Avenue (BurgoYQe) was submitted. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the resolution be adopted. Rollcall vote. Motion cal~ied, all councilmen present voting ,aye; except Councilman McDonald abstaining. Resolution No. 2178 - Calling hearing May 29, 1973 re: Abatement 4291 East Amazon Drive (Rogers) was submitted. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried ~ all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2179 - Transmitting to Boundary Commission for hearing May 3, 1973 annexation' of area at Bonnie View and Sarah Lane (Allender) was submitted. ~s. Beal moyed seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present yoting aye. \fe\ Resolution No. 2180 - Transmitting to Planning'Commission for hearing June 5, 1973 various requests for rezoning~and zoning newly-annexed areas was submitted. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, , all councilmen present voting aye. tit Resolution No. 2181 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period April 23 through May 14, 1973 was submitted. . .Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present votingaye~ Resolution No. .2182 - Requiring affidavit of non-discrimination for new"or renewal of liquor licenses was submitted. Mrs. :Bealmoved seconded by Mr. Williams to. adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. VI. - Liquor License, Renewals - Retail Malt Beverage Class B El'SoIDbrero, 146 East 11th Avenue Retail Malt Beverage Class C . J Duffy's, 801 East 13th Ed's Taco Villa; 2750 Roosevelt Boulevard Murphy &, Me, 1475 Franklin Boulevard. Nine-T-Nine Tavern, 20 Highway 99N (dropping partner) pit Stop; 2222 Highway .99N, Robinson's Tavern, 550 East 13th Spigot Tavern, 2841 WillametTe Stadium Club, 375 East 7th -- _IV Restaurant (A) - Excelsior Cafe, 754 East 13th Lou &, Ev's Cafe, 129S,Highway 99N Rico's 'Red Lion 'Pizza P~lors, 179'5 West 6th : Tino's Sp~ghetti House, 1491 Will~mette (change to corporation, same owners) Restaurant (B) - Pizza Palace, 2890 Willamette . I 1 I, ," - J ' . ~ Package Store Class B I " , t;.,. - Albertson's #507,1675 West 18th " " . '#515, 3299 Hilyard " #531, #2 Oak Mall 'Bamboo Pavilion, 2175 Alder Barger Drive Market, 4925 Barger Drive' Becker's Market, 1123 Monroe Big "C" S,tore, 2010 Goodpasture Island Road Billy.'sMarket, 111 Monroe Bob's Superette ~' 595 Eas t 13th Club C~gar St~re, 814 Willamette Custom Meat Company, 577 Pearl Drive N'Save, 2370 West 11th " 3061 Hilyard E Z Shop Market, 2489 Willamette 'Edelweiss Wine Chalet, 34 East 10th 18th Avenue Market, 1684 West 18th Everyone's' Market, 1245 Echo Hollow" Road Jo's Market, 1976 Roosevelt Boulevard Jones Market, 347 West 13th L &, L Market, 1591 Willamette Lawrence Street Grocery, 395 West 11th Little Y Super Market, 603 West 19th Mayfair Market 418,'57 West 29th Avenue McKay's, 2101 Bailey Hill Road " 1960. Franklin Boulevard " 2021 River Road Of Grape &, Grain, 45 West 29th Avenue One O'Clock .Market, 698 West 6th Payless Drug Store, 57 West 29th Porter's Fine Foods, 125 West 11th Safeway Store #190, 1840 East 13th II V #234, 849 West 6th " "#288, 145 East 18th " "#319, 2060 River Road " "#320, 1500 Coburg Road " "#338, 1156 Highway 99N " "#513, East 40th and Donald , c. '2.. .. I . . Package Store Class B - (Contd) 17th & Lincoln Market, 295 West 17th Shopper's Market, 2699 Roosevelt Boulevard 24-Hour Market, 2750 Roosevelt Boulevard Ye Olde Wine Shop, 260 Valley River Center . -....;.;" Class A Dispensers - Charter Oak Restaurant, #1 Oakway Mall Ming's, 26 West 7th Class B Dispensers - Allison's Coffee Shop, 1166 Highway 99N The Branding Iron, 579 East Broadway Eugene Hotel, 222 East Broadway Feed Mill, 259 East 5th Avenue George's Restaurant, 1224 Willamette Holiday Inn, 225 Coburg Road House of Lee, 165 West 11th Seymour's, 996 Willamette Thunderbird Motel, 205 Coburg Road Veterans Memorial, 1626 Willamette C Dispensers (Less than 500 members) - Town Club, 222 East Broadway C Dispensers (1000 or more members) ~~Eagles, 525 Willamette Moose, 1685 West 13th -- Manager said that unless the affidavit required by Resolution 2182 were completed, the re- newal applications would be forwarded to the OLCC with a negative recommendation. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend approval of the license renewal appli- cations subject to completion of the affidavit affirming non-discrimination. Motion carried unanimously. I-I05/1st Avenue Ramps Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that staff renegotiate contract with the State Highway Commission to implement Plan 2G as contained in the State Highway Divisilion report on alternates to closing the I-I05/1st Avenue ramps. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion Quly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, May 29, 1973. '\ - y~c ?~c;::ley City Manager ei 'fD~ . . ~