HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/1973 Meeting
Council Chamber
Eugene, Oregon
October 8, 1973
.' The regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, ,Oregon was called to order
by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on October 8, 1973 in the Council Chamber
with the following councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Williams, McDonald, Hershner,
Mrs. Campbell, and Messrs. Keller, Murray,and Wood.
I - Public Hearings
A. Vacation of utility easement between City View and McKinley south of 20th (Powell)
Recommended by the Planning Commission on July 24, 1973.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 385 - Vacating utility easement between City View Street and
McKinley Street south of 20th Avenue 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 council bi~l 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 council bill be approved and given
final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was de-
clared passed and numbered 16921.
B. Code Amendments
l. Adding Sections 5.232 and 5.233 re: Downtown Free Parking Program
Downtown Free Parking Program - Counc~l members were furnished with copies of
ordinance setting forth regulations which would provide a free parking program
for the benefit of shoppers rather than employes and employers in the downtown area.
Ai Williams, traffic engineer, reviewed changes to be made in the ordinance prior
to enactment at the October 8 Council meeting. section 5.323 would provide forI
boundaries beyond the District to prevent parking across the street from a boundary
of the District. Section 5.233, which requires employers to supply the City with
a list of employes' automobile license numbers, will be changed to provide for a
supplemental list as needed such as when temporary employes are hired during the
Christmas season. He added that a penalty clause has not been included because
the ordinance will come under a section of the Code in which there is already a
maximum $50 fine, thereby giving administrative staff authority to establish a
fine up to that amount. It is anticipated a $20.00 fee for violation will be es-
. tablished. Traffic Engineer reminded the Council that the proposed program is for
unlimited free parking for customers of businesses within the District. This
ordinance basically is to keep cars now parked on a monthly basis in the spaces
they are now occupying rather than moving into spaces used by people doing business
in the central district. He said it is not anticipated a smooth free parking pro- \
I gram will be in effect immediately on the first day of operation, now scheduled
for October 15. Problems are anticipated as with any new program but staff feels
they can be worked out.
Councilman Hershner questioned whether the regulations would deprive employes in
the downtown area of the right to park in the downtown area at any time. Traffic
Engineer said that before any prosecution, an investigation would determine whether
a car was parked while the owner was working or shopping. Assistant Attorney Swanson
added that the language is such that the regulation does not apply to an employe
any time when not engaged in employment.
Anwering other questions from the Council with regard to two cars in one family,
use of a car for transportation of an employe with subsequent use for shopping,
etc., Mr. Swanson answered that there is no prohibition any time a person is not
engaged in employment in the downtown area. Mrs. Beal questioned the prohibition
against persons registered as guests in a motel or hotel within one-half mile of
'. the District, saying she thought that would discourage out-of-town people who may
shop and not be able to have parcels delivered. Mr. Swanson agreed tha t was a
valid point and suggested amendment of the applicable section.
Councilman Murray asked if there was current information on the number of employes
downtown in relation to the number of available parking spaaes for them. He thought
it would be unfortunate if the program resulted in making parking lots of nearby
re~it!.~~t:~al ~!!as for emp~oyes who could n~t locat_e.!",ont3IYJ?ii~~~!1g_~pace. Tra!.fi..~~
2.9~ 10/8/73 - 1,
I
Engineer -saIa' ther-e 1s no numerical information. fIe added that there should be no
change wi th regard to those who now have space on 41 monthly basis. However, a
long-term parking demand and supply will create a side effect in the future and .-
will have to be taken care of or problems will arise.
Questions were raised by Fred Webb, WGN, and Ed Kenyon, Register Guard, with regard
to short-term parking required by news media representatives. Traffic Engineer re-
i terated that any person if not an employe or employer in the downtown area would
have the privilege of parking. The purpose of the ordinance is to keep employes
in monthly slots rather than switching to spaces which would be for the use of down-
town customers. He recognized the fact that there would be abuse of the free park-
ing but expressed the hope that chronic violators could be apprehended. Assistant
Attorney Swanson said there are doubts that adequate enforcement of this ordinance
can be accomplished, but the only alternative is to place a time limit on parking
spaces which was not acceptable to the Downto~ Development Board.
Councilman Wood asked if the- proposal is similar to programs in other cities after
which it was patterned. Traffic Engineer ar.swered that the models used incorporate
a time limit, but the DDB felt that completely free parking should be provided here
to give ample time for shopping, especially for those people from outlying areas
who do not travel to the downtown area on a daily basis.
In answer to Councilwoman Bea1, Traffic Engineer estimated enforcement cost for
manpower at about $3500 per month for off-street spaces, $500 for on-street, and e
$1100 per month for administrative costs, all included in the Downtown District
budget funded through a property and business tax within the District. He added
that the program is an innovative proposal, never before tried, and that difficulties
would be encountered before its operation is free of problems. Amendments may be
required, or additional ordinances needed, but the program does have a lot to offer,
he said, in terms of trying to solve the problem of attracting shoppers to the down-
town area.
Councilman Keller noted tha t he served as a member of the Downtown Development
Board and that the questions raised have been brought out many times before. He
expressed appreciation for the fact that the Traffic Engineer in working for de-
velopment of the proposal never ',wavered, in his determination to initiate a free-
parking program and make it work. Comrn
10/3/73
Councilman Williams asked if problems were anticipated with regard to' delivery Pub Hrng
vehicles. Traffic Engineer answered that loading and unloading zones will be main-
tained, some short-term spaces, and use of alleys for short-term loading and un-
loading will be the same as now. I
It was understood public hearing on the ordinance would be held at the october 8,1973
Council meeting. e
Provisions of proposed ordinance were read which would prohibit parking by certain
persons in the downtown development district, thereby leaving parking within the
district available to people having temporary business or activity in that area.
\?
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 386 - Adding Sections 5.232 and 5.233 to Eugene Code concern-
ing motor vehicular parking in the Downtown Development
District 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
passage. li.Qll_call vote. _All councilmen present vo~ng-aye, theb~l was declared
passed and numbered 16922.
-- e
--...
2. Repealing Section 5.160 re: Trains blocking railroad crossings
-lie -eaT'sEiCtlon 5.160, 'E~~e'i:;e' C~de, r-;;: - Railroad Crossings Regula~ions - s~ate' legis-
: 1a~ion now provides that cities may not regulate the leng~h of t~me a tra~n :y t of ~
'block a railroad crossing. That authority is now vested ~n the stat~. Enac en .
an ordinance was requested to bring the City Code into conformance w2th State law.
- - -. - - ,.- - .- - .- ~ __ ____._____ -'o-r-~_ _ ------.-.
2.9b 10/8/73 - 2
.
Councilman Williams didn't like the idea of removing local authority which might
legalize blocking of railroad crossings for long periods of time. Assistant Manager
- answered that the regulations will be administered by the Public utility Commissioner
and that the City under the recently enacted law has no authority in that regard.
Traffic Engineer added that hearings are anticipated before the PUC to establish
limits on length of time a crossing may be blocked. It is fel t then there will be
stronger enforcement wi th regard to any violations of PUC orders than would be possible
under municipal regulations. Assistant Attorney Swanson noted that the language of
the State legislation pre-empts enforcement of city ordinances after October 5, so
the only practical way is to try for enforcement action through the PUC. He sug-
gested the Council may want to adopt a resolution directed to the PUC with regard Comm
to blocking railroad crossings in Eugene. 10/3/73
Pub Hrng
Mrs. 13eal moved seconded by Hr. Murray to amend the Code as requested. Motion carried,
all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Williams voting no.
Councilman Wood asked whether it was intended to direct a resolution to the Com-
missioner as suggested. Assistant Manager replied that staff will be pursuing the
matter because ofCJUestions concerning emergency equipment crossing the tracks, etc.
. ......., ", . -. "'~""-"~'"""--"~"'~'.' _.~', ........_-
Assistant Manager said that in a conversation with the Public Utility Commissioner since
the October 3 committee meeting it was recommended that this section be left in the City
Code until the PUC develops regulations under the new law. The PUC indicated support of
e that section of the City's Code until their regulations are formalized.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
No action was taken.
C. Bids
1. Remodeling Council Chamber - Bids received September 14, 1973:
Honer & Associates $ 24,798
Vik Construction 18,946
V. A. Harding Construction 18,346
A. E. Stafford 17,951
Alternates: l. Stafford Complete " $ 17,951
2. Stafford less all deletions 14,087
3. Stafford less deletions with fans 14,787
4. Stafford less deletions with teak 14,437
5. Stafford less deletions with fans and teak 15,137
.
Manager reviewed bids for remodeling the Council Chamber to provide office space
for Council members. He said negotiations with Stafford resulted in a cost for
- the remodeling less than the $15,000 originally estimated. This was accomplished
by simplification of the air return system and deletion from the original specifica-
tions.of loud speakers and two exhaust fans. Award of contract to Stafford on
the bid price less deletions at a total price of $14,437 ,was recommended. In
answer to Councilman McDonald, Manager said the total amount budgeted for the
work was $17,000.
Councilman Hershner ask~d wh~~ the t~ak,refer~ed .to in the bid tabulation. Manager
explained that consideration was given to deletion of the teak plywood finish on
the remodeled portion, using instead painted sheetrock. It involved about $350.
Staff recommended going ahead with the teak finish to keep the decor of the re-
modeled portion similar to the rest of the Chamber. Mrs. Beal felt maintenance
would be less with the, use of the teak finish.
. .
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract to A.E.Stafford
on Alternate 4, less deletions with teak, on the bid price of $14,437.
Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried.
e 2. Phase II Echo Hollow pool Landscaping - Parks Department (Opened October 3, 1973)
Wildish Construction Co. $ 12,812.90
Devereaux & Pratt 8,476.70
Nicholson Construction 7,300.22
'. Concrete Unlimited ,6,923.14
"
Office Estimate 8,670.10
..
10/8/73 - 3
297 .
Councilman McDonald wondered whether additional expense would be encountered in
this work in view of the wide variance between the low and high bids. Details of
the work covered were not known. Manager said Phase I is under construction, in- e -
cluded with bidding on Echo Hollow Road paving, and that a total plan for the work
was approved at one time. He said bids have been received in the past from Concrete
Unlimited for this type of project.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract to Concrete
Unlimited on bid price of $6,923.14. Rollcall vote. Motion carried,
all councilmen present voting aye.
3. Petersen Park Storm Drain - Parks Department (Opened October 5, 1973)
D&D Backhoe $ 23,884.50
Devereaux & Pratt 22,660.33
Bostick Construction Co. 20,556.05
HWildish Construction Co. 20,469.75
Norm Green & Sons 19,344.41
Office Estimate 22,530.00
Award of contract to Norm Green & Sons on bid price of $19,344.41 was recommended. .
- ---<-.--
.--- -
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract as recommended.
Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
4. Paving parking lot at Broadway and Lincoln.', - Public Works Department
Opened September 2, 1973.
Contract Cost to
Project and Name of Bidder Cost Parking District
Parking lot, Broadway and Lincoln
Wildish Construction Company $ 14,943.10 $ 14,943.10
Devereaux & Pratt 15,493.08
Benge Paving, Inc. 15,917.25
Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. 17,744.95
Completion Date: October 26, 1973
,
Bids were reviewed with explanation that work would be paid for by the Parking
District and included in its budget for this year. Funds would not come from the
General Fund. Award of contract to the low bidder was recommended. -
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract to Wildish Con-
struction Company on bid price of $14,943.10. Rollcall vote. Motion carried,
all councilmen present voting aye.
II - Rezoning area north of Willamette River directly west of Valley River Center
From County AGT to C-2 PD (Montgomery Ward/Valley River)
Public hearing was held on August 13, 1973 and the issue tabled to August 27, 1973 Council
meeting. Council on August 27, 1973 voted to rezone, contrary to recommendation of the
Planning Commission, thereby sending the issue toa joint session of the Planning Commis-
sion and Council on September 27, 1973, continued to October 1, 1973.
Additional testimony was presented at the September 27 joint session after which the Plan-
ning Commission vote was 3-3 on the issue, resulting in no recommendation back to the
Council from the Commission.
Mayor Anderson said no additional evidence or testimony would be taken at this meeting,
that the public hearings have been completed.
Councilman Williams commented that his motion to rezone the area for C-2 uses under planned .
unit development procedures at the August 27 meeting was intended as first reading of the
rezoning ordinance and that he would now make a motion for final adoption.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the application of Valley River
Center for a change of zone of a portion of Tax Lot 1000 - Assessor's Map
17-03-30-2 and Tax Lot 3200 - Assessor's Map 17-04_25 from County AGT (Agriculture,
'2.9B 10/8/73 - 4
Grazing, and Timber Raising District) to C-2 (Community Commercial District)
be approved and that the following findings of fact be adopted by the City
. Council:
l. The proposed change of zone is consistent with the planned diagram
and the objectives of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area 1990
General Plan in that:
a. The Plan diagram at pages 18, 19, and 20 indicates that the
area under consideration is suitable for commercial purposes.
..b. The findings on page 29 of the General Plan confirm that an
expansion of Valley River Center was contemplated.
c. The objectives on page 29 of the General Plan indicate that
we should strive to r'maintain regional shopping centers and
the central business district as areas that serve the entire
metropolitan area. II
d. The Valley River Center qualifies as a regional shopping center
within the meaning of the General Plan by virtue of its size
and trade area.
e e. At page 29, the General Plan establishes as an objective the
utilization of large vacant or near-vacant parcels for those
specialized commercial projects requiring such parcels.
f. The findings on page 36 of the General Plan, when discussing
the indicated opportunity area to the north of the subject
property, confirm that regional commercial use was intended
for that area.
g. The present request is consistent with previous zone changes
in the contiguous geographical area. Through the use of con-
ditions to this zone change requiring dedication, adequate
provision can be made for public usage and scenic preservation
of the riverfront in accordance with objectives of the General
Plan stated at pages 53 through 56.
I 2. There is a public need for the rezoning by virtue of the following findings
of fact:
a. All available retail space in the existing Valley River Center
is filled.
e b. This rezoning is necessary to allow expansion of the Valley
River Center.
c. The General Plan, at page 28, acknowledges that regional com-
mercial facilities are of vital importance to the entire metro-
politan area in that they supply residents and visitors with the
needed variety of goods and services and serve as a major area
of employment.
d. Evidence received in these proceedings indicate a public need
for continuation of the Montgomery Ward retail facilities in the
Eugene-Springfield area; rezoning of the land in question will
facilitate the construction of such retail facilities.
e. The proposed commercial development of the land in question will
create additional jobs and will help reduce unemployment in our
community.
3. The public need for rezoning will be best met by rezoning the land in
question as compared with other available property by virtue of the
e following findings of fact:
Location of the proposed commercial development of the land in
a.
question will help prevent further scatterization of retail shop-
ping facilities and their consequent demand upon public utilities.
b. It is in the public interest to concentrate, where possible, new
commercial facilities in existing commercial areas.
299 10/8/73 - 5
c. The evidence in these proceedings has not shown the existence of
any alternative site that is as suitable for the proposed rezoning
and subsequent commercial development that is contemplated as is _-
the site in question.
Based upon the foregoing, the Eugene City Council finds that the applicant has
carried its burden of proof and has shown by sufficient, probative evidence
that the proposed zone change is consistent with the comprehensive zoning plan,
that there is a public need for the zone change and subsequent commercial de-
velopment of the land in question, and that this public need will best be
served by changing the classification of this property as compared to other
available property. The following shall be conditions to approval of this
zone change:
1. The property shall be developed under planned unit development pro-
cedures of the city of Eugene.
2. The areas westerly from Valley River Inn and owned by Valley River
Center situated between the north line of the property previously
dedicated by Valley River Center to Lane County and the south line of
the May Company ownership shall be kept free of buildings and structures
(except the existing maintenance building) with the covenant to be evi-
denced by recorded restrictive c9venant.
3. From_a point due north of the westerly terminus of the bicycle path .
now being constructed under contract with the State Highway Division
and continuing to the most northwesterly point of Valley River owner-
ship, Valley River Center shall dedicate or grant a public easement
for bicycle trail, pedestrian way, and incidental public uses covering
the property situated between the north line of the property previously
dedicated by Valley River Center to Lane County and the northerly line
of the top of the berm or existing dike, subject to the following fur-
ther conditions and limitations:
a. The city of Eugene will maintain all public improvements build
within the easement area.
b. The Valley River Center will be responsible for maintenance of
the berm as a flood control device and shall have the right to
enter upon the dedicated area for the purpose of necessary repairs
and maintenance provided that any damage to public improvements
thereon occurring as a result of the activities of Valley River I
Center shall be promptly repaired by Valley River Center.
d. The north line of the dedication to be made hereunder shall be .
surveyed by Valley River Center within 60 days from the date here-
of to establish the north line of such dedication,:and Valley River
Center shall thereafter complete such dedication within 60 days
after receipt of the final survey report.
d. The city of Eugene shall be responsible for widening in a northerly
direction the top of the existing berm in the area beyond the pre-
sent fill made by Valley River Center to a width of 20 feet on the
tope of the berm as measured from the south line along the top of
the berm in the event development of the bicycle and pedestrian
trail occurs prior to development of the adjacent property.
e. The Valley River Center shall be responsible for widening in a
northerly direction the top of the existing berm in the area beyond
the present fill made by Valley River Center to a width of 20 feet ;_
on the top of the berm as measured from the south line along the top
of the berm in the event development of the adjacent property occurs
prior .to development of the bicycle-pedestrian trail, and shall notify
the City when such widening is completed.
f. Within 60 days after the widening of the top of the existing berm in .
the area beyond the present fill made by Valley River Center as pro-
vided under d. or e. above, the City shall complete a new survey of
the ~idened area, and Valley River Center shall complete the dedica-
tion of the top of the widened berm within 60 days after receipt of
the final survey report.
~OO 10/8/73 - 6
g. The Valley River Center shall obtain in wr~ting the consent of
the Eugene Parks and Recreation Department prior to the removal
- of any vegetation in that area previously dedicated or the area
described above, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. .
h. In no event shall the north line of the finally dedicated area
be less than 28 feet north of the line now staked which is in-
tended to mark the northerly line of the area previously dedicated
to Lane County.
Councilwoman Beal asked if the applicants - Valley River Center or Montgomery Ward -
had been consulted with regard to conditions of the rezoning. Manager answered that the
City Attorney's office, after Mr. Williams requested staff assistance in creation of a
motion covering all findings, did confer with Valley River's attorney. It was Manager's
understanding that Valley River did not agree with nor like portions of the conditions
included in the motion. However, that motion if adopted and rezoning accomplished would
probably be accepted by them. He, added that they hav.e the right not to accept the terms
if they so wish.
Councilman Murray reiterated his opposition to the rezoning. He said the applicants
failed to demonst~ate that the public need would be best met by this zone change, and
that they had failed to demonstrate that need because it was an impossible task -
impossible because the City is already overloaded with commercial properties; there is
e commitment to strengthening the downtown apea as the heart of the City; the downtown
area is zoned C-3 to preserve that function; ,transportation heeds are best met in the
downtown area by easy access from major arterials, central mass transit station, and
ample free parking; the downtown area risks nothing in the way of preservation of scenic
riverside development. He urged the Council .to recognize the seriousness of the pro-
posal and reject the change, saying there js an opportunity no~ to prevent the core of
the City from being left to deteriorate. He said that process would be encourage and
would spread outward, eventually taking in the entire community. He said the decision
on this issue will not decide everything; other vital decisions will be required, and
.the time to say "no" is now.
Councilman Wood agreed with Mr. Murray's objections to the zone change. He added that
other than having the opportunity to do something about the downtown area, there was a
responsibility. He said land is becoming more scarce so there should be a good look
at the entire area before rezoning this particular parcel for the best interests of
those who own it.
Councilwoman Beal said that although in the long run the Valley River location may be
the best for Montgomery Ward she was voting against the change. She said studies to
determine optimum use of that entire area were requested by the Council when presented
with other requests for zone changes there, and until answers are available there should
- be no commitment to any individual rezoning which would set a pattern for the entire
area. She felt the Council was being forced into the position of making an "ad hoc"
decision when best uses for a much larger area should be the consideration.
Councilman Keller expressed the opinion that Montgomery Ward's moving would not be
I critical to the downtown area. He was encouraged by employment opportunities which
would be offered by the proposed development and felt the proposed land use would be
much better than that at present. He added that the need was there as expressed to him.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Williams,
Hershner, and Keller voting aye; Councilmen Beal,' Murray, and Wood voting no;
Councilmen McDonald and Campbell abstaining; and Mayor Anderson voting aye.
In casting his vote in favor of the motion subject to conditi'ons contained therein',
Mayor Anderson reviewed objectives of the City as outlined ip the 1990 General Plan and
expressed his concern too about maintaining a viable central core, protesting the
Willamette River, and need for alternative methods of transportation to prevent expansion
of asphalt lots. He recognized ambiguities and conflicts in the 1990 Plan and said there
must be a distinction between Planning and zoning. Plans must become more specific;
they must be refined and changed, but should not be changed merely by zoning. It should
be a matter of public will. He said he would endorse immediate steps to modify, refine,
. and define elements of the Plan to erase the ambiguities and indefinite elements. In
the meantime, the decision of this issue should be made on the existing Plan. He said
that testimony presented, staff notes, and discussion on this proposal, in his opinion,
were evidence that the requested zone meets criteria of the Plan. Moreover, he said,
there was no overwhelming evidence .to support the contention that the proposed rezoning
would mean the death of the central business district. And, if conditions in the motion
are met the riverbank will be preserved. After noting that his vote would result in
changing the zone he observed that the important lesson to be gained from deliberations
~()' 10/8/73 - 7
on this issue was that interest needs to be directed toward total development of the
community, not any one specific area. He hoped the applicant would see his responsi-
bility of allegiance to the entire community in developing the area. The Mayor added _-
that perhap$ now the 19,90 General Plan can be reviewed so ,that the City's objectives
of a good environment and sound economic growth can be developed.
Manager noted that adoption of an ordinanc,e would be necessary to implement the zone
change. He submitted ~he following council bill:
Council Bill No. 388 - Rezoning to C-2 PD the area located north of the
, ,Willamette River and directly west of Valley River
Center, incorporating therein the findings of fact and conditions of rezoning
set forth in Councilman Williams motion, was read by~council bill pumber and
title only, there being no cQuncilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Beal moved second~d 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.
Councilman Williams said he clearly indicated in his motion at the August 27 meeting that
it was to be the first reading of a council bill effecting the rezoning, thereby requir-
ing at this meeting a vote only on final passage. (Council bills cannot be given second
reading on the same night they are introduced without unanimous consent of the Council.)
Mr. Williams felt deferring the issue ,should unanimous consent ,not :be given to second .
reading would re~Ult in altering the outcome of the issue because of possible absence
of Council member or members. He asked Vern Gleaves, attorney representing Valley River,
to read from transcript of that meeting prepared by a court reported keeping record of
the meeting, for him (Gleaves). Mr. Gleaves read from the transcript the portion in
which Mr. Williams' motion was made and said he was sure the intent of the motion at that
time was to give first reading to a rezoning ordinance, even though the issue went back
to the Planning Commission because of action contrary to the Commission's recommendation.
Mrs. Beal felt her position would be difficult if she voted "aye" for unanimous consent
when she opposed the rezoning. Mr. Murray said he would not change his vote simply for
the sake of protocol.
Considerable discussion followed with regard to minutes of the meeting which did not re-
cord vote on ~n actual council bill, although they qid indicate that Mr. Williams' motion
to rezone carried.
Mr. Williams strongly objected to possibility of carrying the council bill over to another
meeting in view of the lengthy hearings and, deliberations already experienced. He main-
tained the transcript of the meeting read by Mr. Gleaves was correct and,that initial
reading of. the, rezoning ordinance was given on August 27, even though a bill as such was
not presented. Unless second reading of a bill presented at 1;his meeting was given .
unanimous consent, he said, the result would be that rezoning of the area would be based
on who is or is not present at the next Council meeting.
Councilman Hershner supported Mr. Williams' stand and urged completion of, the action at
this meeting. He thought it ridiculous to stand on the technicality of whether the bill
was in written form when it was the intent to rezone.
There was further discussion with suggestion to amend the August 27 minutes to provide
for first reading of a council bill. Manager read the minutes covering that portion of
the August 27 meeting which reflected Mr. Williams' intent that his motion be considered
as first reading of the ordinance, and City Attorney's comment that action contrary to
the Planning Commission recommendation would automatically refer the issue to a joint
session where findings of fact could be included in the action. Manager pointed out that
unanimous consent at this time would be on second reading of the bill, not on its content.
He suggested perhaps a tabling motion, s~tting aside the second reading to allow amendment
to the August 27 minutes, then removai from the table and proceeding to copsider the
motion for final approval.
Councilwoman Beal and Councilman Wood said they would give consent to second reading of
the bill presented at, this meeting iT). order not to delay action, then they would express
their opposition on the motion to approve. Councilman Murray said he did not want to vote --
in favor of the, bill, yet was not interested, in delaying action further, so he would ab-
stain from voting on second reading. Councilman McDonald commented on the many times he ~'='"
had voted in favor of second reading in ord~r not to delay the final decision on a bill.
,.- ,. .
Vote was taken on the motion to read the cOUncil,bill the second time by ~"
counci,l bill number only and-consider ena,ctm~ni;, at,,,tnis time. ' Motioncarr.ite"d=,f~'''.
. . -.' -. ." .. . _.'O-.~ . ....... .
'ail'councilmeri preseri:fvotirig''''aye,'exc:ept Councilmen McDonald, Campbell, and
Murray abstaining, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number
only.
302- 10/8/73 - 8
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the council bill ~e appr~ve~
e and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Councllmen Wllllams,
Hershner Keller and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Councilmen Beal, Murray, and
Wood voting no; ~ouncilmen McDonald and Campbell abstaining; and the bill was
declared passed and numbered 16923.
III - Consent Calendar .
Items acted upon with one motion after discussion~of individual items lf requeste~.
Previously discussed in committee on September 26 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Councllmen
Beal, Williams, McDonald, Hershner, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and October 3, 1973
(Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Beal, Williams, Hershner, Keller, Murray, and Wood).
Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics.
A. ERA Development Plan North of 8th Avenue - Frank Shearer, chairman of the Eugene Re-',
newal Agency, explained that the purpose for requesting a meeting with the Council
,was to review redevelopment plans for the area between 6th and 7th, Olive and Oak,
and the half-block between 7th and 8th facing Willamette Street. He said since the
auditorium/convention center originally planned for that area did not materialize
' it was felt important to proceed with other development and the Agency does not
want to go ahead without consensus from the Council on what is being done.
David Hunt, executive director of the Renewal Agency, noted previous distribution
e of preliminary narrative description of plans for the area and reviewed briefly
history of the renewal project. Brochures published in 1968 were distributed show-
ing a schematic drawing of the entire renewal area indicating locations of various
activities used as an urban design plan which was the basis for redevelopment.
MOdification to plans now call for provision for a two-level parking structure on
the half-block south of 7th at Willamette to include a bus terminal on the ground
floor and retail spaces fronting on Willamette; hotel development on the block
north of 7th between Willamette and Olive; and office development on the block
east of Willamette. Mr. Hunt pointed out on slides details of the plans and gave
specifics of discussions and negotiations leading to the type of development proposed.
He stressed the importance of a hotel development adjacent to the mall and the need
for mass transit facilities in that area. He concluded by saying that technical
questions will" fJ,.eed Council decisions. For instance, the parking structure would be
constructed by the Agency then turned back to the City for operation and maintenance,
the bus terminal to be maintained by the Transit District or perhaps by the City on a
contractual basis; retail space probably would be leased on a basis similar to those
in the 10th and Oak Overpark; etc.
Councilman Hershner asked about plans for Willamette Street itself in that area.
Mr. Hunt answered that it would be about the same as Broadway between Oak and Pearl
- where new sidewalks were recently constructed and mall-type plantings installed.
Councilman Williams wondered if the development plan proposed was the only one the
Council would be given to consider or whether there would be options. Mr. Hunt
said the plan proposed was the result of trying for a development that would accommo-
date the interests involved - hotel, offices, transit terminal, parking. The Agency
felt the proposal was the best direction to follow.
Councilman McDonald asked who would own the parking structure. Mr. Hunt said the
co-operative agreement entered into between the City and the Renewal Agency when
the renewal project was put into effect provided that project improvements as they
developed were to be taken Over by the City and maintained. The parking structure
would be one. He added that the City may have to build the facility since there is
still some legal question whether a parking structure is considered a public improve-
ment under the urban renewal law. He assumed the retail space would be handled a~__
that -In-cth;;lOth'and Oak parking structu'rewhere1Jy pre-lease-funds would be used.
Public funds cannot be used to provide retail space. With regard to the transit
terminal, Mr. Hunt said, the City would want to retain the option of removing the
retail space if the transit terminal proves successful and use of the entire structure:
for transit purposes is desired.
- Councilman Keller asked if any projections were made with regard to cars and buses
taking exit from the parking structure at the same time onto 7th Avenue. Mr. Hunt
answered that those types of things have yet to be determined. Before detailed
. studies of that nature and contact with the State Highway Department with regard
to exit onto 7th, the Agency wanted to have some idea of whether the Council felt the
proposed plan was what was wanted.
----------.-.---.-- --- --- ._, --- .- - - -- - --. ~---__---J
)
\;.
-:!>O3 10/8/73 - 9
'"
_.... - - --- .-- --- -- ,--- .-. ..'- -.'- .--
David Hoffman, Planning Commission member, inquired about the hotel parking provided
under this proposal. Mr. Hunt estimated 178 spaces in the hotel parking space which -~
would provide room for a high degree of landscaping. He added that there is poten-
. tial of structure parking there with other development in the future, although it
is not planned at this time. )
: Councilman McDonald said it was his understanding the Agency was offered $1.00 per
square foot for the hotel block contingent upon construction of the parking facility.
Mr. Hunt said the land was never offered at any price; no price was set. He de-
tailed the method of selecting the developer of the hotel site, Harold pollin of
Portland. Considerable time was taken to develop the scheme presented because
'Mr. pollin was adamant about not locating on the half-block area and a great deal of
discussion took place trying to solve the transit and parking problems and to assure
: him that something would go on that half block. Mr. Hunt said the block east of
Willamette was considered for offices because it was felt that was about the last
. space adjacent to the mall area available for office use, and Mr. pollin wanted
'assurance the office block would be developed or option to develop it himself. He
also wanted solid development of the half-block with retail space as the activity
center. Parking need for the hotel would be fulfilled by the space provided on the
hotel block, but additional parking was considered necessary for other tenants in
I the area. All in all, it was considered important not to isolate the hotel develop-
ment from the center.
Vernon Hicks, 640 Willamette, and Archie Weinstein, 666 Willamette, inquired about ,} e
land prices of the area under discussion. Mr. Hunt said Mr. pollin's offer for the
hotel site was $150,000. He added that he would have to consult the records with
regard to price for the block between 7th and 8th, willamette and Olive, since
purchase included land, buildings, fixtures, etc.
~. -- . - .-.
;Mr. Weinstein asked if his letter addressed to the Mayor had been made available
, to Council members. Mayor Anderson said it was not pertinent to this discussion
,since this was one of concept, not negotiation. For the Council's information,
'however, he said Mr. Weinstein had made a tentative offer of $250,000 for the
property between 6th and 7th, Willamette and Olive. Mr. Weinstein said he also
J offered to develop that block for retail sales. Mr. Hunt said he had previously
. responded to Mr. Weinstein's offer that the renewal plan provided for retail services
, in that block incidental to other permitted uses, not as a primary use. He said this
, was discussed wi th Mr. Weinstein as well as several other reasons why his offer
~could not be aaoepted. Under procedures established for considering the purchase of
property, the pending pollin proposal must be accepted or rejected before any other
offer can be made for the property. He said two appraisals were obtained but it I
must be kept in mind that there have been no new hotels built in the downtown area
for a good many years because of land prices. They have been built on expressway
locations which carry farmland prices. The decision to be made is whether the e
Agency and the Council desire a hotel in the proposed location and whether it is
considered important to the downtown and long-range impact on moving ahead with the
total redevelopment of that area. He thought the increased interest cost should
also be kept in mind; it is expected to go to 6%, and when considering a $9.5 million
loan, moving ahead on the project is important when it is recognized that completion
of the project even one month sooner will result in a saving of more than $50,000.
He said the total impact on the project should be considered, not, just the price of
the land itself.
James Bernhard, Planning Commission member, asked whether the parking area south of
8th was permanent. Mr. Hunt answered that 'it was because sales of adjacent properties
,were made with that commitment. It would be left as a lot until the impact of transit
;on parking needs is determined.
I
Councilman Murray expressed his pleasure and said he was impressed with the plan for
!a major hotel development downtown rather than along an expressway.
,planning commlssicm'Meiribei'AlanMaxwell asked wh'ether expansion of the County " .
parking facility was considered. Mr. Hunt said it was but its construction would
:not permit additional floors. The cost to make addition of floors possible would
;be prohibitive. It would also be very difficult to arrange access to upper decks. .
Maurie Jacobs asked if there were any estimates of the total cost of the hotel
:development. Mr. Hunt replied that the architect's preliminary estimate was
$3.5 million. That is for the one hotel block and does not include the office
plock east of Willamette. If the Agency should decide to give an option for de-
:velopment of the office block, then negotiations would be necessary to determine
a development time schedule, land price, and specific plans.
l
~O4 10/8/73 - 10
Considerable discussion followed between Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Hunt with regard
to the number of retail businesses before and after the renewal project, new re-
e tail businesses in the central core, reasons for some businesses no longer being
in the project area, etc.
Howard Bonnett, Planning Commission member, inquired about the height of the
proposed hotel. He was concerned about its impact with regard to Skinners Butte.
Mr. Hunt said the developer was talking of ten stories. However, the building
would be set back from the street. The height would be about the same as that of the
stage house on the auditorium had it been built.
Mayor Anderson suggested that the development plan should be reviewed by the Planning
: Commission in order to give them an opportunity for comment as well as general public
'comment. In answer to Councilwoman Beal, Mr. Anderson said he was not asking approval,
of the proposed plan. Only that if Council members completely disapprove of the
proposal and general concept it would not be worthwhile referring to the Commission. ;
He added that if it is referred to the Commission, review should be requested as
. quickly as possible because of details involved.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to refer the proposed plan to the Planning iComm
. Commission. 9/~6/73
Ap~rove
:Councilman Williams said he would vote for referral but in no way wanted that vote to I
~ . imply that he either supported or rejected the concept presented. He said there would,
'be a great many questions needing answers. Mrs. Beal agreed.
'Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Weinstein wanted to discuss further the concept of the proposed development.
versus retail and commercial uses but wa,s ruled out of ord~r ~!?.th?"Jl!f't€J.1;;;t,ng._adjou!:!le~:
,,- - -- ~ - -'.... .- . ..- - . .' . -
B. : Appointments announced by Mayor Anderson:
,1. Airport Commissic'n - Dr. Robert Furrer, 1170 President Street, replacing
Philip Tillman, deceased, for balance of term ending
January 1, 1975.
j
:2. Library Board - Dr. Charles E. Stephens, 360 East 48th Avenue, replacing ,
, . Winfield Atkinson, resigned, for balance of term ending
January 1, 1977. Comm
: 10/3/73
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the appointments be confirmed. i Approve
Motion carried unanimously.
.-- "'-.- - .-- - .__._l;.,__ _ ,~.. ____...____., ...___..__.
4It C. Voting Delegate, NLC Congress of Cities, San Juan - Mrs. Beal moved seconded by
Mr. Williams to designate Mayor Anderson as voting delegate at the National League Comm
of Cities Congress of Cities in San Juan, Puerto Rico, December 2-6, 1973. At the '10/3/73
suggestion of Councilman Murray and with the consent of Mrs. Beal and Mr. Williams Approve
I ,the motion was changed to include designation of Council President Beal as alternat~!
jvoting delegate. Motion carried unanimously. !
I
D.Vacation Shields-Gateway Road located between Garfield Street and Cleveland Street
,north of West 28th Avenue was recommended by the Planning Commission on August 27, Comm
1973. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to call public hearing on 10/3/73
1!,:vs."!.ber ?6, 19~3: Motion carried unanimously... .. ________ Approve
E. Veterans Day Observance - Recent State legislation designated November 11 as
Veterans ,Day rather than the fourth Monday in October (OctOber 22) as designated
by the C~ty. Because of. legal restraints as to when Municipal Court can operate
and to maintain consistency, staff recommended observance of Veterans Day on Novem-
ber 11., City offices would therefore be closed on Monday, November 12, since the
11th th~s year falls on Sunday.
Councilman Williams said he would prefer to dispense wi th enforcement of parkin
tit me:ters on that day also, since ,it is a State-declared holiday, and the shoPPinggarea
, .w~ll soon be under a free park~ng program anyway. Assistant Manager answered that
the fr.ee parking program is expected to be in operation by mid-October. Other than
that ~n other areas of the community not covered by the free parking program the
most effective way of getting parking turnover is to have the meters enforced.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to designate November 11 as Veterans "c
Day. Motion carried unanimously. ., / omm
10 3/73
- --~-- -- -'-..-- ~------- ----- Approve
305 10/8/73 - 11
- _~____ - - .. __ __ _'_ __.___~'--.' __. _____' - '+ - __ _____ - _.'_""~__ _,_ .n___' ......
Assistant Manager reminded Council that the second Council meeting in October was
scheduled for Tuesday, October 23, and because hearings have been advertised for it -
that date there can be no change at this time. ,
I ~
F. Housing Assistance for Elderly, Joint Housing Committee Recommendations - Copies of
Joint Housing Committee recommendations for expenditure of $150,000 budgeted from
revenue sharing funds for housing assistance for the elderly were previously dis-
tributed to Council members. Robin Cushman, housing expediter, reviewed the recom- I
mendations.
...........,.. ,..""
~l) $28,000 to an elderly home owner repair program, $10,000 'to b~ released i~itiail~.
to continue home repair program initiated by Senior Services and Opportunities
(SOS) plus minor plumbing, electrical, and heating repairs and limited remodel-
ing to make homes suitable for occupancy. This portion will be administered by ,
sos with City staff help. $2,000 of the remaining $18,000 would be reserved for
major exterior maintenance by any neighborhood organization submitting an accept-:
able pilot plan. Funds would also be made available to continue SOS operation
between June 1974 and October 1, 1974, and use of the balance would be de-
termined by the Jo::,nt Housing Committee after review of initial expenditures.
'(2) $72,000 to presbyterian Action for Development (PAD) for aid in development of
I.- 24 units at 38th and Hilyard for the elderly or disabled. This contribution
will reduce the mo~tgage, thereby reducing rental cost~: ~
(3) $50,000 to Breeden Bros. to provide a direct rent subsidy for 30 tenants of
multiple living units similar to the development at 1560 Lincoln Street. The
units are "quint-type" - five bedrooms built around a central lounge area.
They provide separate sleeping and bath facilities with shared kitchen and
dining areas. Rent would average about $53.00 per month after taking into con-
sideration City subsidy and property tax relief, all utilities furnished.
Councilman Williams, member of the Housing Committee, described the method of arriv-
ing at the recommended proposals and the criteria established to ensure the most
! efficient use of the money with maximum service to the elderly needing housing
i assistance. He suggested Council approval of the proposed expenditures, with the
! understanding that $18,000 of the program to be administered by SOS would remain
:.uncommitted until review of the initial program. Also, that the Joint Housing
: Committee be authorized to oversee the programs so that if in the Committee's judg-
I ment they are not operating properly in two or three months corrective action can
'be taken. Councilman Wood, also a member of the Housing Committee, supported the
i concept and cri teria upon which the proposals were based. He said sponsors were I
:not given preference; rather, the projects were chosen on the basis of criteria
; set. He added that as the issue relates to PAD he would abstain from voting.
I Mayor ~~~er~o~ commended the Housing Committee for its proposals and was pleased ~
to finally see launching of a program delineated by a housing resolution adopted
,by the Council in 1968.
In answer to questions from Councilwoman Beal, Mrs. Cushman explained subsidies,
property tax relief, etc., that would reduce average rent for the Breeden Bros.
project to about $53.00 per month. With regard to amount of income one may have
to qualify for occupancy Mrs. Cushman said details of that nautre will be nego-
tiated in contractual arrangements between sponsor and the City. The City will
determine also eligibility for aid to the elderly under the SOS sponsored program. I
She added that income levels would be well publicized when that is determined.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the recommended proposals. i
i Councilman Murray asked whether there would be money in addition to the $2,000
I allocated for major exterior repair if it is found a neighborhood pilot plan is
acceptable. Councilman Williams explained that the $28,000 to SOS was for an ex-
perimental program. SOS requested $10,000; $2,000 more would be used if a reason-
able plan for exterior maintenance is brought forth. The balance will not be I
allocated until there has been opportunity to review use of the original $10,000. ~.
The general idea, he said, is that the money would be used for maintenance and, _
repair, for elderly and disabled households. Mr. Wood added that the program is .~~
subject to Joint Housing consideration and approval and it is hoped a good program
will become available for use of the funds. i
\
Councilman Keller wondered whether the minor plumbing, electrical, and heating '-', I
repairs could be accomplished under apprenticeship programs of the trade unions, ~1
I thereby reducing costs. Mr. Wood said that idea dould be explored but it had been i
; his experience that work of apprentices cannot be used.
30c.:, 10/8/73 - 12
In answer to Councilman Williams, Assistant Manager said there are no legal barriers'
with regard to entering into contract with PAD as it relates to any conflict of
- interest.
Councilman Hershner asked if residence requirements would be a part of the cri teria I
:for eligibility. He was concerned that the assistance offered could attract people
,to the community only to avail themselves to the program. Mrs. Cushman answered
: that it was found residency requirements were unconsti tutional when that issue was
.raised with the Housing Authority. She wasn't sure whether units could be rented
ion a preferential basis to local people, but said that possibility could be explored.
. Council woman Beal suggested seeking legal counsel on tha t concern. ,
. -.. . ,., "-" .. .~.. ," . ~ -.. . ~. - .. _ ..._.___ ________._....c_. w_.__..__.__..___ __,_.__,___.__.__. ,_
Councilman Williams said that if the Council approves the recommendations, then ,
contracts would be neogtiated by the City Ma::lager in consultation with the Joint
;Housing Committee. Assuming the Housing Committee agrees with terms of the con-
,tracts, he said, other than to report, there is no plan to bring the matter back
:to the Council. Mr. Hershner recognized that approval at this time is conceptual;
but felt it important that some preference be given local residents. Councilman
'Wood commented that equal housing laws suggest applicants be considered on date
or application only. Councilman Williams said the Housing Committee is aware of
concerns with regard to eligibility and that he felt they would want to favor
local residents. Although he thought there was no way to accomplish preferential Comm
,treatment, he said it could be explored. 10/3/73
. Approve
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members :
present voting aye, except Mr. Wood abstaining with regard to $72,000 allotment J
to PAD. __d_ , , _-0 __ __ ___ .._~ .. -. - - ,---
,.- .-" .- -- .-.--.... - _r _,. _~.__ -
G. 'Abatement, 2475 Miami Lane - Abatement was recommended by the Building Department
on the basis of overall deterioration of the building resulting in fire and health Comm
hazards. Council members saw the property on tour.
10/3/73
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to call a public hearing on the abatement. ,Approve
Motion carried unanimously.
H. Segregation of Assessment - C. M. Knowlton, 3495 West 25th Avenue, requested segre-
gation of paving assessment against property on the north side of 25th Avenue be- Comm
tween Hawkins Lane and Brittany Street. The amount to be segregated ($1,489.71)
I has been paid leaving a balance of $3,278:89. 10/3/73
Approve
I Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize the segregation as requested.
Motion'carried unanimously. l
,
I
!
e I.: Des-.J.gnation of one-way alley westbound from Olive south of Broadway between Olive i
,and Charnel ton was requested to accommodate traffic flow because of the extension .
. of mall development to 10th Avenue. Owners of abutting properties have no objections~; Comm
101/3/73
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize the one-way alley as requested. Approve
I Motion carried unanimously. .. - '-.--
....---"- . . _ ';..-- ",
.
J. Liquor License Applications "
\
1. Change of location - Club Cigar Store, Olive between 10th and Broadway
RMBA-PB - Ben P. and Dorothy S. Raykovich
2. New - Dr. Jekyll's and Mr. Hyde's of Eugene, 44 West 10th Avenue \
RMBC - Virginia M. Caldwell, Raymond & Kathleen Huff, Richard and Mary Nesheim"
Staff has no basis for recommending denial. Cornm
\ 10/3/73
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend approval of the licenses. Approve
Motion carried unanimously.
K.: Staff Appeal of Sign Code Board of Appeals Decision re: Signs of Boon's Red
. ' Carpet Motel and Pape' Bros. - Copies of Building Department memo, Planning Depart- :
ment memo, letters of appeal from Boon's Red Carpet Motel and Pape' Bros., and
agenda and minutes of September 17, 1973 Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting were
distributed to Council members. Both establishments have non-confOrming signs.
Staff recommended denial of permit to retain the signs; Sign Code Board of Appeals ;
granted a variance for each sign; hence the staff appeal to the Council. Council
members viewed the signs on tour. Comm
10/3/73
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that public hearing on the issue be set Approve
for October 23, 1973 Council meeting. Motio~ carri.~d_u.~an.~IlI9'IJ.s~!t.
- . ~ - ------------.- ~
'307 10/8/73 - 13
r,
L. Council minutes for August 27, September 10 and 24, 1973 - As circulated Approve
.,. -, --...---- ~---. ------ .-
M. Realignment of Ward Boundari~s ~ Councilman Muriay--comm~~1;~d' on the difficul ty
faced by himself and Councilman Hershner in representing voters of Ward III
because of its geographical boundaries and diversity of land uses. He said he
would like to see realignment of ward boundaries and asked for informal dis-
:cussion at committee in the near future. He suggested realignment perhaps to
; result in eight wards, or election of council members on an at-large basis.
Councilman Hershner thought it would be beneficial to review objections pre- Comm
'sented during previous discussions on changing ward boundaries. Consensus was 10/3/73
. that the issue would merit new discussion and it was understood the item would Affirm
be a matter of committee discussion in the near future.
0-.. _
N. Procedures Under. Fasano--Veclsion - Councilman Murray asked - if Council. ;;~mbe- '-"--'--,
ld . . rs
wo~ rece~ve ~nforn~tion with regard to voting on zone change issues under re-
qu~rement~,of the Fasano case rUling. He asked specifically whether a member of
; the Counc~l who has received a campaign contribution from one who might benefit
from ~ zone change could vote on that issue. Councilman Williams included the
quest~on whet~er absence from any formal session at which a zone change is dis-
cus~ed would ~n~alidate a Council member's vote. City Attorney Art Johnson ex-
pla~ned the des~re to discuss the history of the Fasano decision on a broad plane: -
. a~d.the.probable necessity of adopting procedures to be followed under that de- :
c~s~on ~~ resolution or ordinance form. He noted the memo previously distributed
to Counc~l rr:embers setting forth procedures for the September 27 joint session of: Comm
~he ~omm~ss~on and Council with regard to the Valley River/Montgomery Ward rezon- [9/26/73
~ng ~~sue. However, he.sa~d answers to the specific questions mentioned by i File
~o~nc~lmen.Murray and W~ll~ams would be available to Council members prior to the!
Jo~nt meet~ng. /
Councilman Murray stated his uncertainty as to procedures under which the Council was
acting in zoning matters. He said the language of the decision on the Fasano case was to
protect the impartiality of the decision making body, but it seemed Mrs. Campbell's case -
being advised she was disqualified from voting after she had made herself familiar with
the Valley River issue - and other factors which cast doubt upon impartiality in conflict-
of-interest type issues created a real problem of credibility. He felt a list of regula-
tions would be necessary if the Council were to continue to operate in that fashion! He
expressed the hope that the City Attorney's review of procedures under the Fasano decision
would soon be ready.
Manager said a good deal of staff time had been spent trying to develop a procedural
ordinance and set of rules for that ordinance both to meet stringent legal problems and
still allow kinds of public participation and discussion that questions ofzohing should .
properly permit. The Attorney's second draft of a proposed ordinance has been prepared
and hopefully a final draft will be ready soon. The process is very complicated and staff
is expending a great deal of effort because of the importance of zoning decisions and trying
to avoid recommending a procedure which might be faulty.
Councilwoman Campbell said she had been asked why she didn't appeal the City Attorney's
decision or advice to abstain from voting after attending the Planning Commission hearing
on the Valley River rezoning. She said she had never been advised how to appeal that legal
advice. She did feel representative form of government was at stake since zoning issues
under the Fasano ruling couldn't be discussed with the public or other Council members.
Manager said the appropriate way to challenge legal counsel is to ask the Council's advice -
a vote of the Council would indicate whether it was appropriate for a member to vote on an
issue. He said that although the City Attorney's opinion is not binding, the Council's
defense in the event of a challenge would be weakened should the Attorney's advice not be
followed.
o. Dedication, Lane Med-:Net - Councilman Wood reported on his attendance at the
September 19 dedication of the Lane'Med-Net, a joint venture of the city of Comm
Springfield and the Oregon Emergency Medical Transportation Systems. He com- 9/26/73
mented on the availability and excellence of such emergency communications File
in this area. .
. P. Adoption 1990 Plan, School District 4J - Notification was received from Thomas Comm
Payzant, superintendent of School District 4J, of adoption of the 1990 Plan as 10/3/73
revised by unanimous approval of the Board. File
:30& 10/8/73 - 14
'1\
Q. Correspondence re: County Library - Copies of letter from Lane County Commis-
sioners were previously furnished to Council members for information only.
e The letter sets forth the recommendation for creation and funding of a con- -.
solidated library system throughout the County. Staff will be working with
the County with regard to. the basis on which cities would be willing to relin-
quish ownership of structures which might be considered a part of a Countywide
library system.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve, affirm, and file Items A through Q
as noted. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, Councilman
Wood abstaining on Item F (Housing Assistance for Elderly) as it relates to appropriation
to Presbyterian Action for Development (PAD).
IV - Ordinances
Council Bill No. 389 - Calling hearing on November 26, 1973 re: Vacation of Shields-
Gateway Road between Garfield Street and Cleveland Street north
of West 28th Avenue (Pioneer Title) was read the first time by council biil 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
e 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
16924.
V - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2222 - Calling hearing October 23, 1973 re: Abatement of buildings
at 2475 Miami Lane (Bebb) was submitted.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
councilmen present voting aye, motion carried.
...
I Resolution No.2223 - Establishing as one-way westbound the east/west alley between
Broadway and 10th Avenue, Olive Street and Charnelton Street,
was submitted.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
. councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. .
Resolution No. 2224 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for
period September 24 through October 8, 1973 was submitted.
Councilman Hershner inquired about the $400,000 item listed for Oregon Bank. Finance
Director explained that it was for purchase of an investment for the City and really
should not have been listed as a bill.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to
Tuesday, October 23, 1973.
/ /
~? -,
, . /- /) ,~,.
~/7/i(~
~,,/'6 ,
",'
Hugh McKinley
.- City Manager .--. e
30' 10/8/73 - 15