Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/1974 Meeting . Side I 0001 - . . , ,i MINUTES EUGENE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBER FEBRUARY 11, 1974 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 February 11, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Messrs. Williams, Hershner, McDonald, Mrs. Campbell, and Messrs. Murray and Wood. Council members Beal and Keller were 'absent. ' I - Public Hearings A. Appeal, Sign Code Board of Appeals Denial Holiday Inn SIgn Variance Copies of November '19, 1973 minutes covering Sign Code Board of Appeals denial of Holiday Inn request were previously distributed to Council members. Council members also had viewed the property on tour. The request was for variance from the Code to permit location of the sign now in front of the Inn on Coburg Road to the southwest corner of the property so it would be visible from 1-105. In addition, the Inn re- quested permit for installation of a pole-mounted sign with attached reader board within the lS-foot setback from the property line on Coburg Road reserved for identity signs only. Public hearing was opened. David James, attorney representing the local Holiday Inn, said that they did not be- lieve it was the intent of the Code to deny variance for nonconformance to national firms with standard signs. Discontinuing use of the standard Holiday Inn sign, he said, would also represent economic hardship since its value was placed at $20,000 and it could be used for about ,37 years.' He felt the use of the standard Holiday Inn \ sign important to his client. N. W. Hager, 2076 Westwood Lane, manager of the local Inn, felt the type of sign allowed under the Code on Coburg Road'would create a safety hazard because if would not be seen by motorists on Coburg Road far enough in advance to avoid sudden stops for turning into the Inn. He called attention to the Holiday Inn frontage on Coburg Road and said other motels in the city with less frontage would be allowed larger signs than they. And he felt some consideration should be given use of their sign for announcements of civic and University events. He felt the Holiday Inn was in a different position because of being a top contributor to the room tax revenues and, through employment of local people~ to the general economy of the city. He thought location of a sign in compliance with the lS-foot setback would be of no value so far as advertising the Inn. Mr. James described the property on which the Holiday Inn was located and the proposal for moving the large sign now facing Coburg Road to the new location faving 1-105 where only one side of the sign'would be used. He felt there was discrimination be- cause many motels with more frontage would have a competitive advantage since identity sign space was calculated on a front footage basis. This he felt significant because of reliance of the motel industry on traveling people. He mentioned too.the frontage on Coburg Road in relation to other businesses which would block a conforming sign from view of motorists. He also felt it would constitute discrimination if the variance was denied when the request was for a standard sign used on a nationwide basis. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Patti Johnson, building division of Public Works Department, explained that under the Code the Holiday Inn would be allowed 100 square feet per face' on a sign on Coburg Road within the identity setback, and 480 square feet of miscellaneous signing any- place on the property so long as it was behind the lS-foot setback. The Holiday Inn proposal would total 1904 square feet. Mr. James, in response to questions, said that authorization was received from Holiday Inns to r~move a portion of the present sign. He added that the existing billboard facing 1-105 would be removed. He pre- sented a sketch of the sign proposed for theCoburg Road side and said the roof top sign for:' the restaurant could be removed if that was a requirement for granting the requested variance. Manager explained that Council was not prohibited from granting a variance because a sign was of national standard. He added that the limitation on amount of signfng per front foot was based upon the purpo'se of the sigh ordin'ance to reduce the to'tal impact of signing on a street by reducing the cluttered appearance, and it would not seem' the public body's responsibility to equalize the competitive advantage because an estab- lishment had more front footage so had more sign' sp'ace. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Manager said a reader board would be permitted if it was located behind the lS-foot setback. A sign showing the name "Holiday Inn" only could be located within the setback area. 40 2/11/74 - 1 In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Manager said the Thunderbird motel had been issued a permit and would be installing a conforming sign. Plans of FirstNational~~k were not known, but it was believed their sign did conform to the Code. In answer to Councilman Murray, Mr. James cited specific sections of the Code setting out criteria for granting variances. He recounted the reasons he thought a variance ,should be granted - conforming sign on Coburg Road behind the setback area would be blocked from view by First Na:tional Bank building resulting in economic loss of the cost value of the existing sign and from drop in business from inadequate advertising i'by the conforming sign. A plot plan was shown and location of proposed signs pointed out. . Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to deny the appeal and adopt by reference thereto the findings supporting the denial as set forth in the Sign Code Board of Appeals minutes of November 19, 1973 on file in the City Re- corder's office. 0548 Councilman McDonald asked whether code provisions covered instances of signs being blocked by buildings on adjacent properties, or 'when construction of a new building blocked an already existing sign on adjacent property. Manager answered that the Code did allow business identity signs to be located at the property line, even with some overhang in some cases so it could be seen. He didn't believe there was, any provision for denying the full use of property because of signs on adjoining properties. Build- ings may be located as close to the property line as setbacks allow without regard for signs on adjacent buildings. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Williams abstaining. 058. B. Rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to RA (Suburban Residential) the area west of Danebo Street at north end of Candlelight Drive (Gilbert)(Z-74-1) Planning Commission on January 8, 1974 recommended rezoning this property in conformance with abutting properties (RA). Copies of January 8, 1974 Planning Commission minutes and staff notes were previously distributed to Council members. 0591 Public hearing was opened. Jim Keefe, 1189 Fairfield Drive, representing the petitioner, supported the position of the Planning staff and findings of the Commission.. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Council Bill No. 446 - Rezoning to RA Suburban Residential the area located west of Danebo Street at north end of Candlelight Drive was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. . 0632 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission minutes and staff notes of January 8, 1974.~e,adopted by reference thereto and filed in the City Recorder's office; 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. '. In answer to questions from Councilman Murray, Jim Saul of the planning department ex- plained that a request for development of the property for a mobile home park to accom- modate 333 to 341 spaces had been filed and was scheduled for hearing before the Hear- ings Official on February 14. He said the Commission specifically stated that affirma- tive action on the zone change was not to be construed as tacit approval of the mobile home park. Staff had recommended denial of the mobile home park because of design prob- lems and other factors. Mr. Ray Ackerman, Bethel School District, answered Mr. Murray that present enrollment of Candlelight Elementary School, abutting the petitioned prop- erty on one side, was now 292, total capacity 300. Councilman Murray said he would presume the Council's stand with regard to mobile hom park development would be that of the Commission unless otherwise stated. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16979. --.. ."- 41 2/11/74 - 2' .~ '- II - Consent Calendar . Items upon which action was taken with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed in committee on January 30, 1974 (Present; Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Williams, Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and February 6, 1974 (Present: Councilmen Williams (presiding), Hershner, Beal, Campbell, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings are shown below printed in italics. 0688 , . ~ '1 ", ...... ," . r- ".' ~ ".." V .~'I..:: ~. " I ..,' , ,_ ,., . . ..;; " . ' . " . .~'. . . . / A.Ordinance re: Tree Cutt~ng- A recent clear cutt~ng operat~on ~n the Crest Dr~ve . area in the southern hills of the Ci ty prompted Council concern wi th r~gard to , preservation of trees in that and other areas of the City. Memo from City At- 'l ,torney was read transmi tting a second draft of a regulatory (permi t system) '1) Ordinance on tree cutting. The proposed ordinance, reflecting changes to in.... '.~ 'corporate concerns of the Council subcommittee on tree cutting, was also read. j i 1 !Stan Long, assistant city attorney, emphas~zed.that th~ proposed o~dinanc~ would ~ 'not institute an absolute ban on tree cutt~ng ~n the C~ty, rather ~t prov~ded i for a system permitting trees to be cut under appropriate circumstances. Manager 1 I explained that the proposed permi t system would require a review by a staff person'1 of trees proposed to be cut. Costs of administration of the system was estimated at $40,000 annually. -, lCouncilman Williams asked whether the provisions included trees which had to be I cut to allow construction on which a building permi t was issued. He wondered about the resolution of conflicts - criteria on which decisions would be based - in issuing permits when perhaps scenic considerations were to be weighed against . those 'of home construction. He fel t vagueness of the proposed ordinance in the area of standards to be followed would make ~he regulations constitutionally - '-'-' ..... .....,"- -. -. -"---'--'---- _. 'questionable. Mr. Long answered that the regulations would extend to trees on iproperty on which a building permit'had been issued. He added that decisions : to gr~nt or not to grant tree cutiting permits would be a question of judgment . and. no more questionable on a constitutional basis than any other judgmental i decisions. Councilman Murray noted that the subcommittee did discuss the regula- tions in relation to subdivisions and hoped there would be some followup in that , regard. I I _ --1 1 Councilman Hershner expressed concern also about criteria or standards on which issuance of permits would be based - whether there were published standards for USe in horticulture, silviculture, and landscape architecture. He felt another factor which should be considered and not covered by the proposed ordinance was that of the desires of the property owner. Councilman Wood explained that the subcommittee did discuss rights of property owners and other factors which the subco~ttee felt would be carried over into administration of the ordinance. . Councilman Williams wondered whether any contact had been made with other cities operating under this type ordinance. Ed Smith, parks and recreation director, replied that similar ordinances were in effect in San Mateo and Monterey, California. Those cities indicated no problems other than minor technical re- v~s~ons. He explained the primary difference between horticultural and silvi- cultural considerations were those of shrub type and forest type growths re- spectively. I Councilman Hers~er wondered how exceptions in Section 3(c) would affect the value or utility of property - whether it would apply to only the property on ., Which trees were growing, adjacent property, entire City, etc. He felt clarifica- ! tion was neefi.ed. Councilman Murray answered that the intent was that it be a , general property consideration and that would be the appropriate area for staff consideration in issuing permits. Councilman Keller explained that all types of Problems were, discussed in subcommittee, with the conclusion that supervision of tree cutting would tend to provide for replacement when undesirable trees were : taken out. He said property rights should have priority. Councilman Wood added that the system would give an opportunity for alternatives if the property owner were required to contact the parks department before removing an undesirable tree. I , -- : Councilwoman Beal asked how the regulations would affect trimming of trees to ; clear overhead wires. Mr. Long answered that the ordinance relates only to : falling or removing trees completely. It does not change any existing standard, i he said, nor reduce any public utility obligation to trim. : Councilman McDonald referred I a tree should be cut because , answered that Code provision , partment people to determine hazard. to Section 3(e) and asked who would determine whether! of Obstructing the view at intersections. Manager allows the City through the parks and traffic de- when there is an obstruction which is a traffic ~:-. J i , '" 42 2/11/74 - 3 Councilaman Williams asked for examples of tree cutting which would not have been : permitted under the proposed ordinance. Councilman Murray said the purpose of I the ordinance was to prohibit indiscriminate cutting of trees not necessary to be i cut for any constructive use, and to give the opportunity to save trees on private i property which might be removed because they were thought to be diseased or dying. , Checking with knowledgeable City people could result in saving trees under those circumstances. Parks Director explained that the permit requirement would give the opportunity to offer consulting advice, perhaps shortstop "fly-by-night" tree removal merchants ~tying erronerous advice, afford an opportunity to remove . some trees that are safla1:.Y hazards, replace trees which had to be removed, etc. . He cited instances of tr~nsplanting unwanted trees as a gift from private prop- erty to parks property, replacing them with trees aesirable to the property owner. ; He felt the permit system would offer more opportunities of that nature. -- I I 1 . Charles Dallas, president of the Spencers .Butte Improvement Association, aske4 whether this ordinance if adopted would be considered the solution or if supple-' .mental legislation would be considered. Councilman_wood answered that .the sub- committee would address other concerns - residential building sites and subdivi- sions, other types of vegetation mentioned in the SoutQ Hills study, etc. This was not considered the final solution with regard to trees in the entire City, he said~ Fred "Tex" Braatz, responsible for the logging in the South Hills area prompting Council consideration of the tree cutting regulations, asked where liability for damage would lie in the event a permi.t is refused to remove a tree from private ,property which the owner has deemed dangerous. He added that specifications should be spelled out in the ordinance and said he thought citizens would be limi ted in their desires to the likes and dfsl~k~~ of the .l!~r~~ dep'a::trr;en~. City Attorney answered that the City would not incur liability. Issuance of permits under the regulations was clearly the exercise of a discretionary function. -- In answer to Mr. Dallas, Councilman Wood said the regulationS would not restrict nor control the pruning or trimming of shrubs or trees. City Attorney, in answer , to Fred Webb of KUGN, said there was no requirement that trees be cut to ground ; 1 evel when removed. : Marvin Boyer, logger who removed the trees for Mr. Braatz, said that many of the i trees in the South Hills area were mature, should be removed, and were at their : prime market value. He noted one tree was left above the 700-foot level (re- Istricted level set by South Hills study) when the cutting was stopped and felt it ; constituted a hazard to adjoining property. He thought those types of concerns , should be considered in any tree cutting regulations. Councilman Wood answered . that the limitations would not extend to trees considered a safety hazard nor . WOuld they prevent cutting trees for economic benefit to a property owner; the . permit system would allow the City to exercise discretionary judgment. . . Vernon Gleaves, 2515 Highland Oaks Drive, suggested delay in adopting the ordinance to provide opportunity for. further study. He questioned provisions in the ordi- .nance which would require decision from the parks department for removal of trees . from private property, saying that placed too great a restriction on the rights of the property owner. He said the private property owner would not be relieved (Of liability if a tree damaged adjoining property after a permit had been refused. tHe urged further study and refinement of the ordinance before it was adopted. In answer to Mr. Dallas, Manager explained that the $40,000 cost was that esti- mated to enforce the ordinance; actual amount would depend upon the quantity of .activity generated which would govern the amount of necessary labor, materials, 'bookkeeping, etc. Further questions concerned legal ramifications if permits were denied for management of timber stands on larger tracts of property. Also whether potential damage to other properties from removal of trees - either the view or from soil erosion - would provide a basis for denial of cutting perm~ts. City Attorney explained that there is no tort liability where a government agency or employe performing a discretionary function makes an error in judgment. He said relevant factors would be considered in issuing any cutting permit. -~ /~~ . Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to adopt the ordinance and call a special meeting of the Council after this meeting to enact it. Councilman Hershner was concerned that the general thrust of the regulations did :not give adequate recognition to rights of private property owners and was sub- 'stituting the judgment of a City staff member for that of the private property owner. He felt in meeting the rec~nt problem of clear cutting in the South Hi11s 43 2/11/74 - 4 "-;- . area, action was hastily being taken which would affect each individual in the City. The moratorium suggested to prohibit cutting more than a certain number of trees in one ownership, he said, was more desirable. ~,- . iCouncilman Murray disagreed that the ordinance would substitute the judgment of a staff member for the private property owner; he felt as a public employe the ~taff member would be administering public policy under guidelines from the Council. :He said the same concern with destroying visual or aesthetic values by cutting ,large stands of trees would apply to neighborhood areas where removal of large :individual trees would affect the appearance of the neighborhood. In answer to IMr. McDonald, he said a "large stand of trees" was similar to the area cut in the South Hills, it was not the language of the ordinance. 't;~aYor Anderson suggested changing the motion to "the earliest possible time" ,"rather than "after this meeting" because of legal requirements for notice of Council meetings. Manager explained that 24-hour notice to the press to allow igeneral public notice is required by State law unless there is sufficient emergency !to waive that requirement. He added that the City Attorney advised the issue was : not of sufficient emergency to be able to defend the calling of an emergency session. . i Councilman Keller felt the proposed ordinance went beyond what was desired to ',' stop the cutting the South Hills area; he recognized the impact on the entire , citizenry and felt there should be mqre public input. Councilman Wood thought the intent was not so much to stop cutting as it was a monitoring and approving , process. . Mr. Braatz said th,ere would be no more cutting 6n the Crest Drive property and i that instructions to that effect had been given the loggers. The only operation : to continue was rerroval of the down trees. He mentioned tha,t~h~r~_ were a few , snags left until a decision was reached on the permit system. He felt it 'should be recognized that developers do not intentionally destroy the value of their properties. He noted developments in the South Hills area where stand- c ing trees were incl uded in overall development plans. Mayor Anderson recognized the community attitude toward preservation of trees but was not convinced that immediate enactment of the proposed ordinance was necessary to stop cutting in the Crest Drive area. He said Mr. Braatz had , given his assurance that further cutting in the area would not occur. He ,strongly recommended referring the ordinance back to the Council subcommittee. I He added that he was disturbed about the high estimate for cost of administering 'the regulations. And he agreed that modifications could be made which would : bring the ordinance more into line with the real intent, saying delay would be ,better than enacting poor legislation through hasty action. . ;In answer to Councilman Wood, Parks Director said there was no way of making a !fi~m estimate on costs of such a program because there was no way of estimating I the volume of permits which might be requested. The $40,000 estimated was the ~result o~ applying what would be done to the existing operation on street trees. Initiation of the program would have to be done with present staff which would reflect 'on other programs; he suggested employment of a qualified urban forester would,be necessary. Councilman Murray felt the estimate was not out of line when compared to costs of other projects which he felt had less community support and less impact. Mayor Anderson was not sure $40,000 value would be received working under the ordinance as now written. He felt it important to write good regula- tions first, then give proper funding to enforce it. Councilman Wood didn't think the cost excessive and felt the ordinance was responsible legislation. However, he felt enactment at the next regular Council meeting, rather than a special session, would be appropriate. Councilwoman Campbell expressed frustration in trying to stop the which occurred in the South Hills area and felt a special meeting the cutting occurrred could have prevented the present situation. her motion, with the consent of Mr. Murray, to adopt the ,ordina~ce special session to be held as soon as legally possible. tree removal at the time She changed and call a - Councilman Keller was in favor of the ordinance but thought enactment should be delayed long enough to give the public an opportunity to be heard. Councilman Williams felt approval of the ordinance prior to public hearing had no official meaning and seemed unwise, especially when there might be additional input from the public and the city attorn~y. Councilman Wood suggested amend- ment would be possible if the item were carried to the next regular Council meet- ing on the consent calendar. Councilwoman Campbell questioned th~ requirement for 24-hour notice. Manager and City Attorney explained that State law requires official notification of the time and place of all public meetings to assure opportunity for interested +4 2/11/74 - 5 parties to be present aiiilto be heard. Such notice is 'not given to -members'Qf'- the press as such, but for notice to the general public. Also members of the:, governing body must be notified. Vote was taken on the motion to adopt the ordinance and call a special session of the Council as soon as legally possible. Motion carried, Councilmen McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Williams, Hershner, and Keller voting no. . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that a special meeting of the Council ;be called.for 4:00 p.m. on January 31,1974 in the Council Chamber. . Comm 1/~0/74 Approve , Councilman Williams said he would be unable to attend at that time and wanted the record to show that he felt unnecessary legislation was being adopted on , an emergency basis and that he thought it unwise. (See Coupcil 1/3l-/74) Manager reminded the Council that ordinances containing the emergency clause (which provides that its provisions take effect immediately upon adoption) must have six affirmative votes. And that any ordinance iequires unanimoUs vote of Council members present for enactment at the same meeting at which it is introduced.: Vote was taken on holding special meeting January 31, 1974. Motion carried, Council McDonald, Bea1, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Williams, Hershner, and Keller voting no. . B.'Ambulance Rates - Request was'-recelved-from Oregon 'EmergenciTMealcal Transpoi:fi-~-. ,tion Services, Inc., for rate increase for ambulance services~ Manager explained that Springfield received a like request and had assigned a staff person and asked one council member to meet with Eugene for review of the ambulance rates. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood to appoint Councilman McDonald and authorize selection of a staff person to meet with Springfield representatives to consider rate change for ambulance services. Motion carried unanimously. C .:Appointments, Council Representation IS,Regional Sewer Commission - Councilwoman Beal expressed interest in repres~nting \the Council on the Regional Sewer Commission if neither Councilmen Hershner nor ~Ke11er were interested in serving. They have represented the City to, this point in joint meetings with Springfield and Lane County in formulation of a process whereby sewer service could be provided to unincorporated urban areas. Councilman Hershner declined consideration as an appointee to the Commission, not because of disinterest, he said, but because of the press of business. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to appoint Councilman Keller as , Eugene's Council member on the Commission, and,in the event he! declines, to appoint; Councilwoman Beal, consensus being that experience gained by Mr. Keller in work on the regional sewer planning to this time would be helpful to a member of ' the Commission. The motion included the understanding that staff would determine Mr. Keller's desires about serving. Motion carried unanimously. ~n answer to Councilman Williams, Mr. Hershner said there was no discussion in past r.egional meetings of qualifications for the citizen appointee to the Commis- ,~_.-+_... - - ..-;-,. ....--~_:... 0 __ . -. ++."............' .' :sion. Mrs. Beal suggested appointment of a university person associated ~with . . urban planning. Councilman Hers~er noted that the citizen appointee from ;Springfield-was a representative of the Springfield utility Board and wondered ~:; whether Eugene's appointee should be a- representativ.e of the Eugene Water & -!Electric Board. It was brought out that the SUB appointment was provided for ,because that agency handles Springfield's sewage treatment. Other suggestions 'were that names be solicited from various groups in the City or that the Mayor be authorized to make the appointment, consideration of a member of the League ;'of Women Voters in view of their recent research and study oJ? metropoli tan 'sewer system, news releases to solicit interested persons, etc. ,Final agreement was that recommended names submitted by Council members or other [persons for citizen representation should be received in the City Manager's ,office by February 19, thereby giving the opportunity for distribution to Council :at committee on the 20th and review prior to the February 25th meeting. It was : understood staff person to meet with the Regional Commission would be selected by Manager. By way of clarification because of apparent misunderstanding that proposed legis- ~lation was a "back door" approach to annexation o'f unincorporated areas, Manager (explained that at the time creation of the Regional Sewer Commission was approved 45 2/11/74 - 6 Comm ., 2/6/74 :Approve . Comm ! 2/6/74 (See: action ~elow) , \ I, -- . 0710 0900 ~733 . -- . I'it was' understood enabling legislationwo'ulc[ be sought to permit Eugene and :Springfield to jointly fund a regional sewer system through joint sale of bonds. :'He said the legislation was drafted and will be considered at the special session ~of the State Legislature scheduled to convene February 11. The proposed legis- ,la tion in no way requires annexa tion, nor does it in any wa y require sale of bonds or that there be any ki!Jd of regional system. It would permit the two cities ,Jointly to hold bond elections. The sale of bonds, if approved by the voters, .Jwould provide funds for a regional sewer system. Manager added that the misunder- ;~~tanding probably arose because of the present policy of both ci ties to permi t no ',extension of sewer service to .areas outside their legal boundaries . That policy, b.he said, would have to be considered by the Sewer Commission and the two councils ~if and when plans for a regional system are put forth. But the present legisla- [tion to be cons~dered has.no bearing on that policy. -... -_._.~..~.. _.__~._ "'<0*_______" - .___ ...._,~ _____.....-._____._-'-....-_,_.._____.__'..~____.,....___.._.___ _,~..~_. '. __._.__.____.__.._._......; MaY0r Anderson said Councilman Hershner was willing to serve as the City's representative on the Regional Sewer Commission, recognizing his activity in origination and development of the regional sewer program to this point, if Councilman Keller was unable to serve. Mr. Hershner asked however that someone else be appointed as the alternate for LCOG repre- sentation if he was to serve on the Sewer Commission. Councilman Wood wondered if both Mr. Herhsner and Mr. Keller would give an evaluation of the time they would be able to give to the task. He said he would like to have assurance they had the time and enthusiasm to pursue the work of the Sewer Commission. Mr. Hershner said if appointed he would attend the meetings, giving the Sewer Commission the benefit of background information he had from participation in the program to this point. Manager referred to enabling legiSlation introduced at the special session of the Legisla- ture being challenged as a device of enforced annexation by people outside the cities of Springfield and Eugene who do not want to become a part of a city to get sewer service. He explained that the proposed legislation' was drawn to provide for joint bonding by the two cities by contractual arrangements and had no bearing on annexation. However, there was apparent concern that if the two cities were allowed to proceed in that manner it would force annexation of areas. He pointed out that other statutory provisions would allow joint, funding of regional sewers but would be more cumbersome and less desirable than the proposed legislation. He suggested any Council members having' contact with legislators should let them know the proposal was enabling legislation only and had no effect on those fearing annexation. , D. I , ".;' .': ,:-o~..... " i 2. [Lane Councilor 'Governments - Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr~ Hershner to appoint i iCouncilman Wood to replace Mayor Anderson (previously requesting replacement) as ! ;the City's representative to LCOG. Motion carried unanimoUSly. Mr. Hershner ! iagreed to continue serving as alternate representative. : . ..._._..,.....,.-~..... --.-. .-...~.....-,'-.__..'-_. ,-... . .. '. - '. ----.~-..:-~......J iRoomT~~ AllocatiOil'~;-;;;Port - January 23, 1974.~" '," " IAllocations recommended were: I \ \ l. .2. 3. 4. Women's Choral Society Boys Clubs ot Eugene, Springfield, Lincoln Community School Oregon Track Club 5, SWOMSI, and Lane County $ 1,250 5,000 400 20,000 8,500 "\ i I rAction was deferred on requests from: 1.... Asian-American Cul tural Awareness Center 2. Summer Workshop & Festival of Music :.':\ l ','\ \ \ $ 3,725 ' 7,500 4' , Catherine Lauris, chairman of the Room Tax Committee, explained that the recommended allocations were for the most part one-time requests, the Women's Choral Society and SWOMSI being possible exceptions. icoundilwoman Beal questioned whether allocations to the Oregon Track Club and the , i Boys Clubs were a proper use of City funds. She felt money to the Oregon Track j Club seemed to be rebuilding State facilities, and that the Boys Clubs should I i operate on its own funds. Mrs. Lauris noted the precedent in a'11ocation of room \ ! tax funds for high school track facilities. Also the benefit of track faci1ities~~,', ! to the community in general. She explained that the Boys Clubs had been i'n operatio;"j j in this area for only, two or three years, and they provided a worthwhile activi ty for i ; young boys who wou:ld not otherwise have it because of, unsatisfactory family or school situations. They are sponsoring a private fund drive, and fu~ther requests for funds ;from them 'are not anti.ci])ated. j J .'Couricilman Hershner said it was b.li3 understanding the, System of Higher Education does I .not have any funds for track facilities ,at the University. He couldn't see where the i : use of toom tax funds for COllege level track would be different from their use for ihigh schools, especially 111 view of the apparent current financial difficulties of 'nunor spOrts activities ,at the University. Manager added that the track facilities :at.the I' ~versity are used daily by the general public much as park and, high school ,-facilit~ ~aZ:~_,!:lsed. 2/11/74 _ 7 "4b-', Counc-ilman Wood felt alloea-Bon -to the Track Club was a leg-itimate use of room tax funds in that there is a reciprocal benefit from the University to the community in the way of tourist and student trade. He felt the Boys Clubs of great benefit to youth in the community. In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Wood said he would as readily support allocation to a similar type activity for girls. should it be requested., .' ~- Councilman Williams said he was impressed with activities of the Boys Clubs organiza- tion in the East and thought their problem in this area had been in establishing a financially sound basis. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the recommended Comm 2/6/74 Approve allocations. .: 'In making the motion, Mrs. Campbell remarked that she had reservations about holding money in the room tax fund. Also, 'that applications had been investigated by the Room Tax Committee and its recommendations should be accepted. 'Vote was takeno~:,t;he. ~tj.q!1,..~~.stated .f1ption, carr);.,.fj;<1:.,>unanimously. ~ Councilman Murray asked that the record show his abstention from votlng on the allocation to the Oregon Track Club. ,07-73 E. ;7JUTaelTiies"'for"Allocations, Transient Room Tax - copies-were 'previously i~rnisheci: .., ! Council members of suggested guidelines for allocations of room tax revenues to- i Lgether with defini tions of purposes established for use of the funds. Staff recom-_ '\ mended referral to the Room Tax Allocation Committee for suggestions they might i feel helpful to the Council in considering adoption of the guidelines. . i Cornrn 2/~/74 Approve .,,_. - .._____~'"'--. .-",_' ..,__.._......._... .. _,_,,_~,_ __,.______,,,, _.,.____. _'.0 ~_ ._._.___ 'O"~-j F. icounty Library System - Letter from Lane County Commissioner Omlid together with sug- \gested program and budget for proposed county-wide library system were distributed ')previously to Council members. Staff took the position that there was not enough tinformation about the proposal and its effect on the City's library program to give ~an intelligent resppnse as to whether the City would co-operate in a County-wide '[system should it be approved by the voters. Commissioner Omlid suggested-a meeting 'of the Library Board and/or the Council with the County Library Committee before a position was taken, but he was hopeful a position would be stated as soon as possible .since it was desired to place the issue on the May primary ballot and deadline for ballot title approval was March 15. Staff recommended referral to the Library Board ] for a r!!99mmenda,tion-,~~_o transmi-t,ting the suggestion that-~uncil members be in- vited .to participate in deliberations of the Board with the Courity,Committee with regard to questions such aswhat would happen under the proposed sy~-t~ to the City staff and building ownership and maintenance.. Also to be considered wob]'d~be the disposition of facilities should a special levy be approved now but rejected in ;future elections. , I :Mrs.Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Library ~County-wide libra~y system proposal and~bring recommendations 'carried unanimously. i Councilman wood questioned the suggestion (No.9) for denial of funds to applicants , having as a part of their program the teaching of a religious ideology. He could ; see the possibility of church-sponsored programs, such as housing, which would not . necessarily be teaching the ideology of that church. He also wondered whether the requirement (NO.3) that programs be predominantly recreational, cultural, convention; or tourist related to receive funds should indicate ~lso social or educational areas. \ " .Mrs. Campbell noted that the Charter amendment covering the room tax spelled out the i jbases for uses of the revenues. \ I lMr. Hershner ithe Room Tax 1 unanimously. L. _'O. 'O" __._____.~._. ~.. moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to refer the suggested guidelines to Allocation Committee for comment and suggestions. Motion carried . Board consi~the " to the Council. Motion t ~-~. Councilwoman Campbell offered information she had accumulated to other Council member~ ,and hoped they would meet with the County Committee to become familiar with the pro- posed system. Mrs. Weaver'f_speaking for Katherine Eaton, chairman of the county Com- "mi.ttee-;--;"oted seminar---scJleduled for February 23 on the proposal and meeting of the ~county Committee scheduled for Tuesday, February 12. Consensus was that staff would 1 ' . \con:~ct co~ncil members to determine which one could meet wi th the _ County cOmHI~ ttee // or ~ts cha~rman. '. . ". ... ,. ..- Cornrn 2/6/74 Approve e: G.Roosevel t Freeway (Highway 126) Funding -Copies of-"letter were previously dist~ibuted :to Council members from Fred Klabaoe, administrator and State highway engineer for :Oregon State Highway Division, with regard to changes in the 1973 Federal Highway Act. The only Fedralfunds available for a project such as the westerly extension of High- ,Wgy 126 from Washington and .Jefferson Streets are Federal-Aid Primary urban extension J.unds. Mr. Klaboe advised that the change in the 1973 Act eliminated funds previously " 41 2/11/74 - 8 . : considered avallable for that extension. Manager detailed StatE/. a'l,locat'ions of ,Federal funds over the next two years and notes that there were many other projects on their program having higher priority. As a result the State is reluctant to fund an environmental impact statement on the extension with no prospects for actual construction' should the impact statement indicate the project proceed. He could see no way con- struction of the extension would occur unless it was decided to use local funds. Dis- cussions are in progress at staff level in the LCOG Transportation Planning Committee with regard to allocation of about $12 million of highway bond funds and unless the Highway 126 extension takes top priority on that list its construction appears un- likely. Manager suggested that the LCOG Transportation Planning Committee might be asked to consider this project as one of those being considered for the bond money. , In answer to Councilman Williams, he said County Commissioners had been sent a copy of Mr. Klaboe's letter. Also, that he was satisfied with Mr. Klaboe's interpretation ! of changes in the 1973 Highway Act. However, with regard to whether the changes wQuld be doing what was intended by Congress, Manager thought it would be desirable to raise that question. It had been the understanding that once the interstate road system was completed Federal funds would be shifted into urban areas. It appears the 1973 Act reverses that understanding, since there seems to be sufficient money ,available for rural highway construction which prev.iously was to go into urban areas. lManager noted additional funds coming into urban areas known as "urban funds." However,. ithey are not sufficient to cover a project of the scope of the Highway 126 extension. rThey were proposed for such things as the Pearl Street connector to High Street, 'planning and design of West Amazon Parkway, and had to cover the entire project _ I impact statement, construction, etc. ~ . I ;Mrs. Beal suggested contact with the Oregon Congressional delegation asking clarifica- : tion with regard to the shiff' of funds under the 1973 Highway Act. It was also sug.- ~gested to ask the LCOG Transportation Planning Comm,ittee to consider inclusion of : the Highway 126 westerly extension from Washington and Jefferson Streets as part of ibond'fund expenditures. Councilman Wood wondered whether more information should be gathered before referral { to LCOG. Public Works Director explained that the Highway 126 extension was included in considerations for expenditure of the $12 million bond funds. However, priorities were not yet established by thB.-_19cal community. Manager suggested a Council request for consideration of allocating funds for the Highway l2fi extension would not"h'e asking that it be given top priority. Mr. Wood was satisfied with that position and hoped that would be'communicated to LCOG in the referral. Councilman Hershner felt the issue of actual extension of Highway 126 was highly controversial, but referral in this case was merely calling LCOG Transportation Planning Committee's attention to deletion of Federal funds for the project and asking consideration of'funding from State bond funds. . Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to advise the LCOG Transportation Planning Commi ttee that Federal funds are not available for the westerly extension of High- way 126 from Washington and Jefferson Streets and ask their consideration of the Comm , project in terms of priorities with projects to be funded from State bond funds 2/6/74 : fqr this area:...... .._.. ._,._..._._. ___,_ . ".' .~.. ____...______._ ________.n..__--.-..--.-.--.j'L,Approve . ~In answer'to Mrs. Campbell-; Manager explained the first expendi ture if the funds jwere made available would be for,impact statement to assess impact of the facility Ion the transportation system and the community. According to Mr. Klaboe'w estimate, ; ihe said, that would cost about $i mi;Llion of the $12 million available. 'The impact \ !statement would be necessary for voter information prior to an election as required \ tby. Chari;er amendment. If voter approval was given, thEm construction money would be \ . \ [sought. Public Works Director explained that use of Federal money makes an impact i I statement ,mandatory; it is not a mandatory requirement if State funds are used. He \ !felt the State attitude would be that preparation of an impact statement in order to '\ !have information to present to the voters would have to be a local expense rather !than a State requirement. He doubted whether the State at this time would finance : I ! I allY thing other than construction costs from the $12 million. In answer to Mrs. Campbell! ;he sai'd that if the State appropriated money for the project cost of any impact state-j' :ment would have to come from general City funds. Manager said that staff could bring ia suggested processing for the Highway 126 projeot for consideration. I ;' , / i I Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion oarried unanimously. 0779 Councilman Murray mentioned his absence from committee when this item 'was discussed and asked what the money was being requested for. Manager explained that Lane County's portion of State money, part of a $150 million bond issue, was $12 million. Because,the 1973 Federal Highway Act withdrew money which would have been available for this westerly ex- tension of Highway 126 it was suggested the City ask LCOG to add the project to its list of projects'-for which the $12. million would be used. The quesi:.~fm. ~as ~aise.d at comm~~ttee, 4f> 2/11/74 - 9 " . oW< he said, whether any of the State money could be used for development of an impact statemeny. An impact statement would not be a legal requirement if the project were not Federally funded and therefore not constructed to Federal specifications, so it would be question of whether there would be local requirement for environmental impact statement prior to submitting the project for voter decision. It was decided to ask LCOG to considercthe use of State money, part of the $12 million, for the Highway 126 project among other projects being considered. However, it appeared City or other local funds would have to be used to develop an impact statement if one was desired. . Manager further explained l,D. answer to questioI].s from Councilman Murray that money ,from the $12 million fund. would be for construction costs only.' Money for an impact statement would have to come from some other source, either City funds or with County help. The Council has not decided an impact statement must be developed although it had been as~umed there would have to be one if it was a Federally-funded project. However, the change in funding has changed that requirement. Councilman Murray indicated he would vote against referral to LCOG and hope the record would reflect the reasons for the referral as stated by Manager. Councilman Williams explained that the referral was not to ask funds for the extension, rather to consider the project along with others in terms of priorities in overall trans- portation planning for which the bond money would be spent;~ Counc~lman Wood added that he would support the referral since it was asking consideration of priorities only. He added that possibly money for' an, impact statemi:mt. 'couid come from the bond funds also. He didn't feel referral. in that contextwouid'be taking a supportive stand on this particular project. Mr. Murray felt a request for consideration prior to discussion was an implicit statement that priority was wanted. .. Mayor Anderson said no action was going to be taken until an impact statement was submitted. The intent was to keep the project alive for those who wished to see it achieved; it was not the intent to stifle it, unless that was the Council's wish. He said it seemed considera- tion should be pursued this far in view of public bodies' subscription to overall trans- portation ~lanning (ESATS). An~ ~ublic input m~ght be gained with proper background for consid~rat~on at the time a dec~s~on on the proJect was to. be made, and after' submission of an impact statement. Councilman Hershner noted that he had made the motion for referral to LCOG and it was not his intent,that his .,q.ffirma.tive position 0nc, the motion was to be interpreted that the project taketbppr1Q:0tty;::Rather there was some'question that if the motion was not made as e~- plained it would be interpreted as.anegative position of the Council. Manager noted the large number of projects propoBed-for funding from the $12 million bond funds, far exceeding the amount of money available. The intent of the motion, he said, was to ask that this project be added to the list of prpjects being considered for State monies because Federal funding was withdrawn. Councilman Murray said he was not opposed to submission of impact studies but his position was that it was inappropriate to spend money in any way towards freeway development. He thought this referral did ask consideration of that, and he preferred some alternate mode of transportation. 0900 .. H. -va'catI"ori-;easementnear-sOUfheast -corner"oIGn'Jiam-Roadan(rsaily-'Wa'y'-tCltyf-'--"'~ ''- Planning Commission on January 14, 1974 recommended vacation. It was understood public hearing would be called (March 25, 1974). Comm . 2/6/74 Approve .-..,...-'........., .''','-''-'' ....~'.." P 1\1'," -.. I.~eqUest for Moratorium on Mobile Home Parks in Bethe1-Danebo Area - Copies of letter were previously distributed to Council members f~om School District #52 requesting 'moratorium on additional construction of mobile home parks in the Bethel-Danebo area. )council members on tour viewed'some of the existing mobile home parks in that area. Manager explained that mobile home parks ~re a conditional use in appropriate zones . and permits are handled by the hearings official: He suggested acknowledgment of : receipt of the letter indicating the Planning Commission will be considering the : question of mobile home parks in conjunction with a study program being developed . by the Planning staff and will refer to the Council its findings. Planning Director t said that the study had not progressed sufficiently to determine whether temporary i control of IOC>bile home parks was warranted. He recogni zed the potential problem in \ that area and felt referral of the request to the Commission would be appropriate. i He added that an interim report might be available in three to six weeks. I i !Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to refer the request to the Planning Commis- : sion and advise the School District of that action and the time element involved. I icomm 'J 2~6/74 Apifrove I .e " : Councilman Wood asked whether Lcoe Committee on Education was aware of the request 'and it was agreed they should be informed. Councilwoman Beal asked whether there were rough estimates of the number of children in an average mobile home development. Planning Director explained the inadequacy of the present mobile home ordinance because of rapidly changing situation in mobile home ownership. He added that Planning Commission discussion would include that facet. 4<<) Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 2/11/74 - 10 .' J. Improvement Peti tions 1. Paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Mistletoe Subdivision '2.. Storm 'sewer between Willakenzie and Cal Young from east side of Coburg Road to the east Both were petitioned by owners of 100% of property to be assessed. City cost on the,Willakenzie storm sewer was estimated at $2,300. i~~. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the petitions. !~, unaniJTK)usl y . \,.....~_.,----.................. - - '"~-~--'--_._.,- ..-.-. --- -. - -:-----.---------.- - Corrun 2/6/74 carried Afprove Motion ,-_..__._.'_....._~-:-.~- -".- .- --.-,'--.-__._..1 K.~~dinancere: Council Meetings - Would provide for official meetings to replace !those displaced by holidays, delineate between adjourned and regular meetings, I " ' : and forego the necessi ty of Council rescheduling meetings when they .fall on a : holiday. ,It was understood the ordinance would be placed on the consent calendar for at the February 11 Council meeting. Corrun '?/6/74 Approve approval 1 L.;Ordinance re: Gambling, lotteries, punchboards - Would repeal sections in the City : Code which have been superceded by State law. Recommended by City Attorney. It was understood the ordinance would be placed on the consent calendar for approv,al at the February 11 Council meeting. \ icomm 2/'6/74 Approve I i ~ M. RMB License Application - Brass Rail, 1143 Oak Street (New outlet) - OLCC report ,indicated several contacted in the neighborhood objected to the location. Staff suggested public hearing. . [Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Wood to schedule public hearing on the application ,. rfor February 25 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimoUSly. !Corrun 2/j6/74 App{OVe , I I . N.IGoodpasture Island Plann~ng Contract - Proposed contract was presented between the' :City and Livingston and Blayney, San Francisco planning consultants, to cover study 'of co~ercia1 needs in the Goodpasture Island area in accordance with Council resolu- tion and subsequent discussions ,.between staff and the consul tant. Manager explained that, the contract spelled out a series,of work programs at a maximum cost of $65,000. Depending upon the conclusions from data analyses with regard to the amount of staff ,time apd material which can be provided by the City, if further fol1owup of recdrrunenda-, ~tions is found unnecessary, a portion of the contract c;ou1d be eliminated thereby" ,reducing the cost. Should changes to the General Plan be recommended, further steps 'lwou1d be necessary. Manager felt the proposed contract appropriate for the study ;,desired. , i' .r . ""."" ~!>""~ ".-'.~. . ' '} :P1anning Director added that because of the time element only one midpoint public ireview would be possible. Livingston & Blaynet, he said, have employed the economic I [consulting firm of Lloyd LeBlanc & Co. who are familiar with economic conditions in I'the Willamette Valley area. A recorrunendation at the midway point has also been' re- :quested with regard to whether annexation of the entire Island area should occur rimmediately. The contract also provides for 'expansion of the consultant's services !ShOU1d the city of Springfield want additional information. He explained time and ,materials, billing, and itemization details of the contract and said completion of ~the study is anticipated for presentation to the Council the latter part of June. -q In answer to Mrs.Beal, Planning Director said the cost of the South Hills study accomplished by planning staff was estimated at $25,000 plus some benefits received from other City departments and other agenci.es'. He said the Goodpasture Island study , dealth with complex economic situations between the downtown area and Valley River i. and was not comparable to the South Hills study. I - --: .? -~ . . Manager explained that staff proceeded on the assumption tentative Council approval was g~ven when previous report' on the direction taken was given. At that time an . estimated cost of $45,000 to $70,000 was given. It was also noted at that time that , the expertise necessary for the type of study desired was not available at the staff : level. He said copies of the contract would be distributed to Council members prior ; to the February 11 meeting and the City Attorney also would have an opportunity for ,review. In answer to Mrs. Beal, Manager said the study would not define urban service 'boundaries in the Goodpasture area; it is already completely surrounded by the City. :rt was understood the contract wolild be an item for at the February 11 meeting and that Council members contract for revi.ew 1;>.efore that time. ',Comm approval on the consent calendar 2/6/74 would recei ve copies of the Ap.prove I I .J . -'~----'----+--- 50 2/11/74 - 11 .. d :0. Apj:x5infmen'ts ;;73ciards ana COmmissions Mayor Anderson announced the following appointments: Building/Housing Code Board of Appeals - Reappointment of Paul Edlund, 547 Ful Vue Drive, term ending January 1, 1977 : Human Rights Commission - Reappointment of Bobby Edwards, 885 East 37th Avenue " Theo Allen, 4927 Old Dillard Road !I William WOlfe, 220 East 37th Avenue Appointment of Ruby Brockett, 895 Lariat Drive !I Jean Cumby, 2395 West 14th Avenue for term ending January 1, 1977 Appointment of Benjamin F. Smith, 880 East 37th Avenue, for balance of term ending January 1, 1975 (replacing Jose Romero, resigned) i Room Tax Allocation Committee - Reappointment of Art Fairchild, 2830 Dapple Court, : for term ending January 1, 1977 Zoning Code Board of Appeals - Eleanor Mulder, 2775 Emerald, term ending January 1, 1979 The Mayor also requested Council confirmation of the following appointments: Airport Commission - Reappointment !I of John Alltucker, 1860 East 28th Avenue Jan Amundson, 938 East 22nd Avenue for term ending January 1, 1978 Sign Code Board of Appeals - Reappointment of Rod Gillilan, 2460 Willamette Street Appointment of Eric Haws, 564 Sierra Street for term ending January 1, 1977 Library Board - Linda Forrest (Mrs. A.M.), 210 East 49th Avenue, for balance of term ending January 1,1977 (replacing Muriel Keever,.resigned) Mr. Williams moved seconded .oy Mr. Hershner to approve the appointments. Motion carried unanimously. Councilwoman Beal wondered whether a list of future appointees, especially new ones, could be made available to Council members before the appointments were made. Mayor Anderson explained that these appointments were made quickly be- cause of forthcoming meetings of the various bodies. '. P. -j~i?olntmerii:., Room Tax Allocation 'Advisory Coinmittee- Mayor Anderson's reappoint- ment of Edwin E. Cone, 2130 Olive Street, as a member of the Room Tax Allocation Commi ttee for the term ending January 1, 1977 was announced. Mr. Hershner moved . seconded by 'Mrs. Campbell to affirm the reappointment. Motion carried unanimously ~l Q. Citizens Advisory Commi~tee, Tree Preservation Ordinance - Councilman Wood, chair- man of the Council subcommitt~e appointed to make recommendations on an ordinance regulating cutting or removal of trees, announced the appointment of a citizens! advisory committee. He explained that creation of a citizens group seemed.a de- sirable way to expedite adoption of an equitable ordinance. The advisory com- . mittee's charge was to review testimony submitted to the Council, the proposed . ordinance (previously considered by the Council and referred back to the subcom- : mittee), similar ordinances in other cities, staff recommendations, legal aspects, , and any other pertinent or related material, returning a report to the subcommittee; within 30 days. The appointees: Susan Franklin, 890 West 3rd Avenue Edna Shirey, 3217 Whitten Drive John Phillips, 550 East 50th Avenue Tom Slocum, 1957 Potter Street John Breeden, 4072 Normandy Way Richard Unruh, 3225 Fillmore Street George Jette, 2465 Harris Street Staff ex officio:' Ed Smith and Bob Mazany, Parks Department Jim Saul, Planning Department Ci ty Attorney Mr. Wbod added that written suggestions concerning tree preservation should be addressed to the Parks Department at City Hall. Councilwoman Campbell suggested that Hans Linde at the University of Oregon be involved with the work of the citizens committee. She said he had definite ideas about constitutional rights about which some concern had been expressed in testi- mony on the proposed ordinance and that he was an expert in that field. 15\ '2/11/74 - 12 . . Corom 1/30/74 Approve Corom 2/6/74 Affirm . Corom 2/6/74 Affirm .-' =-: ., ~ '. \ . , 0895 0926 0939 . R.iParking Violations, 14th and Hilyard - Councilwoman Campbell reported complaints ., received about parking on the sidewalk and on a vacant lot on 14th Avenue between Hilyard and the University campus which forced pedestrians to walk in the'street. It was understood staff would investigate the violations and return a report to the Council. Comm 2/6/74 Affirm "~,,,'~-'~ --.-.--.- -.-.........---------__~~......_.....:___,_._,__......J . , S. Representation, LCOG - Mayor Anderson said he would like to relinquish his posi- tion on the board df directors of Lane Council of Governments. He asked the , Council to consider pppointment of a replacement.. Comm :1/30/74 ~; File -. .... ----.---,..-.--.,..-'.-.---. -- ... '.--- ._-~-_.._-_..., . -.,. ~'. ~.~ '~-"" --~_.- -.. .~.... '..-.,<-. ... -,..._' . .~..~- i -'-.,_.-1 :Possible review of the Teleprompter franchise was suggested prior to its expiration date of 1980. Mrs. Campbell asked that a copy of the opinion be sent to George Kaufman in the Business School at the Unive~~ity. He raised the question initially and , Mrs. Campbell felt he would indicate whether the matter should be pursued. . Manager said consideration is to be given to the cable television industry and its availability for public purposes since some Federal positions on what can be done with television will require discussion of arrangements with the cable television industry prior to 1980. Considerable support will be provided for use of cable teevee by the pUblic through negotiation with the company which is not now provided , under franchise rights. I Councilman Wood wondered whether extension of existing cable service was covered by \ franchise. He wondered if there were restrictions on~capital construction or time. : limits on providing service after an application was received. City Attorney answered i : that the franchise was essentially a permit to carryon business. The company does :not have any obligation other than its own business interests and trying to perform fan adequate service. Manager added that the franchise provides that they "must pro- I vide service where economincallZ; feasible." \ No action was taken.. 'Comm 2/6/74 ...---..-.......----' File U.NLC congr'"essional/City Conference, Washington, D.C., March 3":'5' - Notice of the ;conference was brought to the Council's attention with request that those wishing to attend notify the Manager's office. Manager said this year's conference appeared .to concentrate on community development, block grant legiSlation, energy conservation, [Congressional reorganization, transportation. He added that an effqrt is usually Comm ;made at the winter session to brihg local officials into contact with Congressmen 2/r~74 I' ~~__ Was~~ngton . .. '....u., _....JF ~l e Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve, affirm~ and file as not:d Items A through U as noted. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councllmen present votlng;~ye, except Councilman Murray voting no on Item G - Referral of Highway 126 project to LCOG. III - Authorization Convey to Paul Hansen land south of Jacobs Drive, west of Small trianguiar piece of land left over from platting subdivision, sold at appraised price. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to authorize deed for the property. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Fairfield to Paul Hansen IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 437 - Adding Section 4.030 and amending Section 4.890 of City Code re: Prohibited Weapons was submitted and read the first time on January 28, 1974 and held over to this date,now brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present re- questing that it be read in full. City Attorney advised there was some question about compatibility of this ordinance with State law. Recommendation was to delay to give Attorney opportunity for further work on it. It was understood the ordinance would be held over. 51 2/11/74 .:.. 13 Council Bill No. 447 - Calling hearing March 25, 1974 re: Vacation of easement near southeast corner of Gilham Road and Sally Way was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. 09y.7 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. .: . Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16980. Council Bill No. 448 - Amending Section 2.010 of City Code re: Council meetings was sub- mitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present re- questing that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. ......- ~- Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16981. -- :. Council Bill No. 449 - Repealing Sections 4.275 and 4.295 of City Code re: Gambling, lotteries, PUDchboards was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present r~questing that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner-~that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of tqe Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present yoting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16982. Council Bill No. 450 ~ Paving streets within Mistletoe Subdivision was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimou~ consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. ..-- '. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16983. Council Bill No. 451 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Mistletoe Subdivision was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no council- man present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16984. Council Bill No. 452 - Sanitary and storm sewers within Mistletoe Subdivision was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. ~ ~ / Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Rollcall vote. All councilmen 16985. Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given present voting aye, the bill was declared passed Cj~ final passage. and numbered . ',.- - , 0971 . . :1 ~ Council Bill No.' 453 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary and'storm sewers within Mistletoe Subdivision was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that~nactmeht be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Hershner~that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present votihg aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16986. Council Bill.No. 454 - Storm sewer between Willakenzle Road and Cal Young Road from Coburg Road to the east 150 feet was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye,-the bill was declared passed and numbered 16987. Council Bill No. 455 - Adopting plans and specifications for,storm sewer between Willakenzie Road and Cal Young Road from Coburg Road to the east 150 feet was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16988. Council Bill No. 456 -Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue north to Amazon Creek (72-63) was submitted and read by council'bill number and title only, ther.e being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to hearing panel for February 18, 1974 hearing and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendations on February 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 457 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers on Kimberly Drive within 1st Addition to Firland Heights; sanitary and storm sewers to serve area lying within 500 feet of that section of Kimberly Drive located in 1st Addition to Firland Heights (73-19) was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred'.::to hearing panel for February 18, 1974 hearing and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendations on February 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 458 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on east half of Beat Lane from Willakenzie Road to 500 feet north (73-11) was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in fUkl. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to hearing panel for February 18, 1974 hearing and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendations on February 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Wood offered to serve on the assessment hearing panel in Councilwoman Beal's place since she would be absent from the City at the time hearing is scheduled. v - Resolutions Resolution No. 2256 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period January 28 through February 11, 1974 was submitted and read by number and title. Councilman McDonald asked about the payment to Willamette Glass Company ($2,485.00) for re- placement of jalousie windows. Manager explained that the jalousie windows in City Hall were replaced by solid glass panels to curb heat loss thereby conserving energy. ~______5~ ' Councilman Hershner asked about the payment to Eugene Downtown Association ($14,904.16). Manager explained that all funds received for the Parking District were handled through the City. The Association provides supervision, promotional efforts, etc., to attract people to the downtown area. Funds received from property tax and license fees come to the City by contract with services performed by the Downtown Associati~n. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2257 - Supporting field burning legislation' (H.B.3299) correcting definition of combustible materials in seed grass burning was submitted and read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion , carried ,all cou:b~ilmen present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, February 25, 1974. :::?/tStc ~:~nley City Manager '55 . 1052 .~~-". -, . '. .