HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/1974 Meeting
-
(0001)
'.
(0060 )
-
.
~
"
M I N 'V T E S
EU~ENE CITY COUNCIL
May 20, ..1974
Adjaurned, meeting of the Comman Cauncil af the city af Eugene, Oregon - adjaurned frQm the
meeting heldMi?-Y 13, .1974 - was called to orde:r by His Hanor Mayor Lester E. Andersan at
7:30 p.m. on May 20, .1974 in.::the Council'Chamber with the fallawing'CQupci:L members present:
Tam Williams, James Hershner, H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal, Beth Campbell, Gus Keller,
Neil Murray and Robert Wood.
J- Apnouncements
A. Appaintment, Subcommittee to meet with Library Baard ,
CauDcil, member,s Williams, ch.?-irman" Beal, and Hershner.
B. Items Withdrawn from Agenda
1. Code amendment (C.B.554) re: Fees for Various City Services, and Resalutian 2287:
setting fee ~chedule. Pastpanement was recamm~nded because af que~tions with
regard to advertising. There was no objectian and the Chair ruled that actian
be :postponed. .
2. Assessment Ordinance (C.B.543) for paving and sewers in Nelson. Plat.
Pei:;ition was received fram attorney 'far-Howard Nelsan raising a number af .<
factual questions. Postpanement was recommended to give the apportunity ,
to. examine the questions raised. .Tkere was no abjection and the Chair. ruled
that action be pastpaned.
II - Public Hearings
A. So~ills Recammendations
,
'South Hills Study - Plan~ing Commission on April 9, 1974 recommended adoption of recom~ I
:mendations contained in a report on the South Hills study, copies of which were previously
'furnished to Council members. Manager said staff would bring to the May 20 Council
,meeting description of the study and changes from the primary draft presented some
: time ago.
Mr. 'Williams moved secondeq by Mr. Hershner to schedule public hearing on
the recommendations at the May 20, 1974 Counci~ meeting.
.. - . - ~- ... - .'. ". . - -
!iCouncilwoman Campbell assU1l!ed the r,eport was acceptable to the Council in view of the
,public hearings and joint meeting with-the Planning Commission. However, she thought
~:i.f ,therewere"questions"they-should"be presented now so the committee would be prepared
.toanswer. at the hearing. She noted that the report resulted from a year's s(uqy C!.ml_--
:th~t""manY~hange;;' hid been' ~de ~s a re~~c;fthr'ee public -h~arings. - Ai;;; ,
rthat the. value of this 'type of'study in the implementation of communi ty goals ·
iwas being recognized in the current meetings on goals uPdate. She complimented j
ithe planning staff for what she termed along, hard study and said they- ,deserved j
;much credi t. !
I
Murray wanted to underscore the fairly comprehensive process gone !
ach.ieve the report, including a great deal. of technical data. He felt f.
a significant modification of the original study, and that the modifica~'~
direct result of the public hearings held. He shared Mrs. Campbell's i
the planning staff for the amount of work accomplished. f
r~
: Councilman
1through to
:'the report
I
'tion was a
:tribute to
Councilman Hershner commented in response to Mrs. Campbell's request for questions \;
that he had no particular reservations at this time but he did want to review the
report and the document preceding it. So he hoped any questions he might have at
,the hearing would not be construed as trying to "shoot anything down."
Vote was taken on the
unanimously.
I
;Comm
motion to schedule public hearing. Motion carried 5/i5/74
. . Pub:, Hrng
~. .........-.-~..-vt--....- _. ~. ...,._..:.-" _ -.____._._~. ..~-~.-._.. ....... ..-.'..,. ..-f
Letter transmitting recommendations an the South Hills study fram the Planning Cammission
was read. Several calls and letters were noted favori.ng adaptio.n of the recommendations.
A letter w.as received from Terry Tillman, 1500 Norkenzie Raad, raising questians and
~reGc5rtirrlep.aipg'~delEitioris - and changes _ 'ii1'tl1e 'study, as well as'''- ?ne frari1';'Oak-~1fiilS'
Homeowners Associatian suggesting minor revisions.
)
Councilwoman Campbell, chairman of the Joint Parks CaTIlffii ttee (Cauncilman Murray and
Planning Commissian members Haffman and Maxwell), read a brief histary relating to. the
study.. She nated that the preliminary ,version was madified as the result af hearings
before the Joint Cammittee and the present recommendations came to. the Cauncil with
unanimous approval af the Planning Commission. It was considered a refinement af the
1990 General Plan, she said, and would be fallowed by similar studies in ather areas
9f the c.it:y.,
149
5(20/74 -.1
:-
Jim Saul, planner, described the study and recommendations resulting therefrom as a policy
base and definition of critical areas in the southern portion of the city to guide decisions
with regard to development in that area. He outlined modifications to the preliminary
study with regard to the ridgeline park concept, density, urban service area, .and
development standards:
Ridgeline Park - The.original statement of purpose.for preserving from development
all vacant land above,t;he.900-foot level was revised to clarify that not only areas
of visual significance 'were to be protected,but traiIs would be provided between
major recreation areas, and open space along the urban service area margin would".,be
provided. An exception was made to the original recommendation which excluded
intensive development'of major subdivision and planned unit developments to allow
single-family residences on single lots. Also, an exception was proviqed to permit
development under planned unit development, procedures when it could be 4emon-
strated the basic objectives could be achieved on a more suitable, portion of a
'pa:bti-cJ:1lar.;,property. Along with that recommendation, because of concerns expressed
that th~~wor"ding represented an attempt to confiscate private. property, and in order
to clarify and make clear that the city was not contemplating confiscation, the
recommendation was made that the Joint Parks Committee be instructed to prepare
cost estimates. and Cl-nanalysis of funding sources for acquisition of areas specified
for preservation. It was anticipated such a process ,would involve detailed
appraisa~s, but,that it would not be warranted until Council approval of the
concept itself, Specific recommendations were also,added,with regard to active-
use park areas.
De~sity - No modifications to the preliminary report were recommended by either
the Joint Committee or the Planning Commission although there were some sugg~stions
that there be no exception to the low",density standards for controlled. income/rent
housing. It was. felt tbat s;P1ce the city-had ado:pted CI..%"oli.cyof increased density
fop erR housing in the entiPe city., the Southern ~ortion' shoilla not be excepted.
Also, suggestions were not accepted with regard to possible,desirability of flexible
guidelines - letting design excellence or site characteristics, for instance, guide
the density ofo.the project.
Urban Service Area Definition - Recommended in the preliminary draft that the actual
urban service area be defined as the present city limits and that expansion w.as to
be considered only if vacant property was substantially utilized or if the growth
rate exceeded that projected. Owners of timbered properties felt clear cutting
was the only answer to investment. in that area if annexation was out of the picture
and some urged the city to immediately' annex all property to the ridge line. That
suggestion did not gain favorable reaction from people owning sizeable properties
and the Committee therefore deleted the entire recommendation with regard to annex-
ation. It was recommended instead that future annexation would be based on ability
to provide public services and the previous maintenance of property as desirable
residential envi-ronment, the standard for determining "desirable residential
environment" to be the anticipated tree p_reservation ordinance. Other factors now
considered in deciding annexations yvere:;,also.:-to be taken into consideration. As
the result of deleting the original recommendation on annexation, it was necessary
to delete a number of others in the preliminary draft, all covered in the final
report from the Joint Committee.
Development Standards - As a result of hearings before the Joint Committee and the
Planning Commission, the requirement was added for planned unit development pro-
cedures on any parcel larger than four acres' characterized by more than a 20% slope
belOW the 700-foot level.
Mr. Saul noted that the final recommendations were adopted by the Planning Commission and
recommended to the Council on April 9::. He emphasized the-':fact that the study represented
a process orientation to.planning that did not attempt to make every decision, but would
,ppov.ide the .policy, data and the analytical framework on which to make decisions as
issues arose.
Public hearing was ope,ned~
Mary Briscoe ,1822 -Ch?I'n~lton' Street, and Annable lU-tzhaber, 189_2 West 34th Avenue,
speaking,for the L~agueof Women Voters, both supported the study,recommendat~ons
and urged Council adoption. .
Ron Eber, 127 NortQ Lawrence, speaking for the Sierra Club, supported the recommendations
but expressed concern about the exception allowing rest~icted development. above the
900-foot l~vel. He called upo~ homebuilders and deve~oPers to co-operate in fully
implementing the pu!poses and re~ommendations of the study. '
''''-k
5/20/74 - 2
\50
(0200)
.
W"
.
(0545 )
.
~
-
.
(0853)
e
(1050 )
r.
L
BobWazeka, 2728 Baker Boulevard , urged' 'adoption,- say:ihg if would 'permit orderly.
growth in-'cthe South'Hills area with somelirriitati6ns~ 'would give st'a.biiity'while
providing: a range of 'USes, 'made' adequ'ate' provisibnfor' preservation of natural
environment, and provided clo's'e-in recreation areas. 'He ' felt that . although t.her~
would be some cost involved in acquiring properties 'for park purposes, it might
in the long run be less expensive 'than having to provide public' services should'
that area be allowed to develop. He also felt that preservation of the South
Hills from'development',would not result. in 'pressure to 'develop prim'e agriCUltural
land.. " ." . '. . . .'. ,', :. - " , ' ' . .
Jean 'Smi th; South 'Eugene' s 'Residenf~~League, 5290' Saratoga Street:; Edna Shir~y,
32.1.7 WhittenDrive;chalrman of Crest Drive Citizens' Association; and Pain'Strimlirig,
3820 Monroe Street, spoke in favor of the study recommendations 'and urged adoption
without further changes, saying the revised report .answered concerns of citizens
in the South Hills area.
George McGuinness, 2680 Floral Hill Drive, member of:Laurelhl11 Citi~ens Association,
urged acceptance of the' study as presented. He felt'it a significant s~udy not only
because it was the first' large scale specific planwithih the General Plan but also
because of the involvementof:so m'any'people, both for and :aga:inst'theresulting
recommendations. . . .
Charles Dallas, president of the Spencer Butte Improvement Association, also Urged
adoption of the recommendations. He ndted that most of the arguments in favor of
development above, the~OO-foot level had a financial base or were slanted toward'
the possible taking' of property rights. 'He 'felt his property rights would be . '
violated if :the rest.rictions were not adopted thereby 'allowing developm:ent 'and a'
change in the pre'sent environment of that area.
, .
Dan Chil~ess,;1845 Universi.ty. Street; member of the Local' AffairsCoIllJt1ittee of ,.
SW Oregon Chapter of AIA~' called' attention to a letter from that c6mmittee which
supported the goals of maintaining and enhancing the environment of the South
Hills. Howev~r ,he felt the study was lacking in s'ome areas -' costs of extending'
services in other areas were not included, street widths and design criteria
should be r~-evaluated, ecolpgical and management program were not:very well produced.
He thought there were portions in which things were implied which should nave beEm
more firmly expres::;ed. ,He'urgedamendment to 'provide for continued study and re':'
finement of the 'reportand consideration of'its relationship 'to other areas within
theci-ty.
Nils ~ult, 2400 South Louis Lane, recognized as commendable the purposes 'of the .'
study but wondered whether the public could afford in dollars the'preser'lation of
that type of land (South Hills) in comparison to the need for housing. Or the
restriction of housmg'in the hills 'and resulting development of agricultural areas.
He thought the South. Hills would lend itself very well to good' planned housing', and
suggested that if it was decided to set aside portions for scenic value 'alone the
economic. impact should be carefully-weighed. ,Also; if it was set aside, the people
of ' Eugene should have an opportunity to say whether they were willing'to pay for
it.' He felt there should be consideration of'the difficulties faced by land owners
'who had invested in tho?e properties.
Bill Briot" r.epresenting Eugene/Springfield Home Builders. ASsociation, '308 East 50th Ave
Avenue, read a prepared statement calling for a balance between human needs-and
legitimate environmental concerns. He cited the rising cost of housing caused
in part by more restrictions on use of land, and he made suggestions for amendments
and deletions in the 'study. Copies of the' statement were distributed to Council
members. ,Mr.' Briot urged careful consideration of.the suggested change's prioy,.to
final action on the study, recommending development iri the 'hills area to. avoid
urban sprawl and to provide'housing.within economic range of all the'people.
, '
Norman Savage, 1942 Kimberly Drive, expressed concern about the PUDrequirement 'for
development' above the 700-foot level. He thought low-density;. single-family develop-
ment was preferable to'apartments and townhouses and suggested that low-density'
housing be excluded from planned unit development requirements. '
Bill Slattery, 1551, Oak Str.eet,. also was concerned:about high-density development.
He felt it would, have an immediate economic impact on landowners because of the open'
space requirement in ~UD procedures in addition to tendency for 'shorttermtenantsand"
increased traffic.
Quincy ,Powers ,1924 -Kimberly Drive, fel't expense connected with, PUD procedures
would eliminate medium-priced single-family land owners and, force devel'opment in
large multiple-family units t00cover the added costs' and ,that. reservation of'open
space to meet PUD requirements would decrease the tax base thereby increasing the
tax burden over the balance of tJ:1e,'entire city. He felt the recommendations lacked
<9, -'".'5'
5/20/74 - 3
specifics with regard to the source affunds for acquisition of park properties, as well
as maintenance costs. And that the type of development allowed (using PUD procedures)
would be more visible from the city than single-family housing..' He recommended return
of the study to the Joint Parks Committee for further consid~ration and that the
Committee be~expanded to include representation from small home builders as well as
individuals knowledgeable on taxation to deal with financial impact and evaluate the
impact of land use development as it relates to the tax base.
e~
Dick Unruh, 3225 Fillmore Street, felt the issue should be referred to the taxpayers
since achieving the goals of the study would represent a substantial resource coming
from virtually every citizen in the city. He was especially concerned with the preser-
vation of land above the .900-foot ~evel from intensive development, saying that if there
was'po plan for the open space or if resources were nqt'availab'le to maintain them they
would probably deteriorate. .
( 1130 )
Tom Slocum, 1957 Potter Street, said that needs~expressed for refinement of the study
were ignored resulting in transmittal to the Council in about the same form as in the
preliminary report. He said' about 'the only change was revision of the urban service'
area definition. He was opposed to the recommendations as submitted and presented a
prepared ,statement (copies distributed to Council members') indicating differen'ces between
the preliminary report and the- one-under consideration' together. with his recommendations
for revision. ' , -. - ,.,
Short recess was taken.
Stu Burge, Route 10, Box 250, opposed adoption of the recommendations. He felt it"would
result in a dr.ast-ic 'increas.e' in- development of agricultural land "and a high degree of
legal risk for the city. He maintained that a small group of people were trying to
convince the Council that they represented the majority through neighborhood groups and
that the decision on the recommendations should be left to the entire populations. He
felt it an unwarranted restriction on private property at the expense of the land
owner and' the majority of the taxpayers. He asked that Council members Campbell arid
Murray abstain from 'voting on the adoption of the recommendations saying he felt their
positions would be biased because of membership'on the Joint Parks Committee.
Gary Leeper, 3895 Spring Boulevard, president of the Oak Hills Homeowners Association,
presented copies of a prepared statement to Council members. He urged some modification _
exclusion of-connective~trails between park areas on the basis that they would represent
an intrusion on prIvaey of residents and a threat to ecology of the hills, and use of
the majJr subdivision process as an alternative to PUD procedures above the 700-foot
level for retentionQof lower densities and more private housing. He said members of the
Oak Hills group would rather forego open space in favor of residential development that
would protect'all of the hills area:
."
'.
,"/
Dave Pedersen, planning consultant representing Davidson IndUstries, 460 East 2nd'Avenue,
saw the ridgeline park system as the key and central issue rather than development standards.
It was his opinion that the method of park property acquisition would have to be deter- III
mined before other' issues to' 'assure the 'practicabili ty of' development standards, espec- ~ ~;
ially those applying to areas above the 900-foot level. . He urg~d careful--cons~deration
of the ridgeline park-in reaching' a decision whether properties above theleve~ should
be in city ownership or permitted to be developed.' OWners of large parcels of property
in that area within the city limits, he said, should know how it was to be handled since
it had been a matter of deliberation for some 'two years: He urged some decisio~ and
detailing of cost figures within the next two months so prope~ty owners ~ould know whe~e
they stood. .
Otto Vonderhei t, 3240 South Louis Lane, identified hims!illf as a pri vate citizen, 'not (.1!l54)
representing a client, in order to disassociate himself-from any interest in the is~ue_
as a member of his law firm in which. Councilman Hershner was a member. Mr. Vonderheit
noted that 55% of the study'area was outside the city. He felt Councll adoption of
recommendations reserving open space and placing PUD restrictions on property not within
its judsdid:ion would be illegal. And he said it would be condempation without
compensation should the city acquire property for open space through'r~qui~ement for
dedication in the PUD process. He urged rejection of that specifi~ recommendation., Mr.
Vonderheit thought consideration 'should be given to the unfairness of the balds of
"visual assessment", that mentioned in the study as being made by people from their yards
at the lower elevations, because of the short period during summer months when peop~e were
in their yards. He urged the Council not to adopt an ove'rall 'undesir,able' plan which had .~
illegal,,,;unconsfitutional provisions. ~
Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe Street, expressed concern ~out the requir~ment for development
above the 700-foot level. He asked delay of action on'the study and. expansion~ of the
Joint Parks Committee to include attorneys, foresters, property' owners, ,etc. , gJving
them a limited time in which to bring revisions which would riesuit in a better study.
5/20/74- - 4
1'51.
,,~
/
(1565)
.
e
(1675 )
(1676 )
e
(1708)
(1744 )
It
~
Public hearing. 'was c}.:osed, there pelng no further testimony.
, . ,
Jim Saul responded :to 'theobj ections raised.. With regard, to ,claim of illegality, he
said all of the' 'recommendations. supmi tted had been reviewed by ;the City Attorney's
office'an~- a~surance' given that .no legal problems would be incurr~d. The effect,of
PUD requirements for development above t~e 700-foot l~vel; he'said, would not
eliminate single-family housing, PUD's can ~~d d<? inclu.de single-family units,
although it was F~obably .tr~e that it would tend to diminish- the amount and lead to
a greater emphasis on cluster type developments, either townhouse condominiums or
apartments. He tho~ght, however, that ~esult should be considered in the light of
existing conditions - greater degree of slope at'higher el~vations,greater visibility,
more severe soil and geological consideratiohs, necessity for cleararice of more
vegetation on steeper slopes to permit constru~tion. Tradit~o?ai -supdivisions with
standard streets and drive~ays would have ~ significant ef~ect on the character of
the hills. . He added t?-at although the, cluster type, development, would probably increase
there would :also be a proportionatel:y"' greater amount of open space which would become
a trade .off for; the singie-famiiy lot. 'Further,staridard &Ubdivision development in
the hills WQ,uld -result in an extremely low density - one" or two' units:=: to the .acre -
and Mr. Saul. thought 'a, serious consideration should be whether that level' of density
was desired'in view'6f'the overall General'Plan goal 6f a concent~ated Urban service
area. The PUD requirement also was an attempt to accommodate in an adequate' fashion
the needs of an increasing population which the community'will be facing. With regard
to the increased cost of housing because of PUD development; he .said that'situation
already exists in the South Hills area - none of the single-family construction
occuring there is designed' for the moderate':':' tolow-ihcoine range. He thought only
through planned unit developments was there a chance of achlevfng' lower 'income housing.
With regard to. objections to preservation' of open space: areas above I the 900-foot level,
including access, Mr. Saul said response was adequately made in the final report of
the Joint Parks Committee.
Councilman McDonald asked ifiit was the intent of the rec6mmendations that low-cost
housing be constructed betweeri;~the 700~'and 900-foot l'evels~ Mr., Sai.1l replied that
there was no relationship between. low-cost housing ahd the:700-foot. level development
requirements, that in line with stated city policy housing related to the CIR ~xemption
could occ~ wherever develop~ent could occur .U?der this'study~
Councilman Williams said he was unaware that PUD's:contained single-family residential
units and' wondered to what extent single-family residences would be'possible in the
South.Hills if the study' was adopted. Mr. Saul referred to some existing PUD's
containing single-family units. He had no exact figures but assumed on the basis
of past developments that about a fifth of a PUD could be devoted to single-family
residences. The resulting density of about three, more or less; to the acre could be
picked up on other portions of the site. Such developments vary, he said, some having
traditional lot arrangements, others followirig a circular' lot concept'withcommon open
space. . The variations depeI'ld to a great degree' upon' the' desTgn 'u'eam: but usually' place
a .greater emphasis" upon common open space and greater. mix of hOUsin~ types';
Mr. Williams referred to'a recent. Salem case where the courts declared the city could
not prohibit'development of' land 'until a public agency had money to: buy it.. He',
wondered" about the recommendation in this study calling for city acquisition of land
above the 900~foot level' and wondered about the legality of preventing development
until the city could acquire it for park purposes. Mr; Saul replied that if the
Council adopted the concept of preserving that area for park purposes one recommendation
was that the Joint Parks Committee immediately develop cost figUres for acquisition of
those properties. Then it would be a responsibility of the city to proceed with that
acquisition. He said. that the majority of those properties recommended"for preser-
vation as open space 'lie outside' the city,- so there is -a relatively limited amount
of property the city is faced with buying that lies within the city. He verified
Mr. Williams' statement that if the city doesn't arrive at some decision on funding
for acquisition then it is not intended to continue the moratorium on development
in that area. ,.' '
Councilman Murray'said he had no. intention:.::of abstaining from the vote' as' s'uggested by
Mr. Burge. : He felt his service. on' the Committee, which would best 'qualify him to vote
because of his knowledge of the issue, was as 'charged by the Council and he was meeting
that obligation. He discounted the objections basedoh the 'amount .of developable land
above the 900-foot level"marked for open space calling attention to the small percentage
of ,that land having a 12% or less slope. He said that"the study did aQ:.low exceptions
based on strong valid criteria ~'development above the 900-foot level would, be allowed
when the developer could demonstrate it would better meet the obje'ctives of the study.
Statements that the 900-foot Hone was too' arbitrary, he questioned' because ne felt it
was a matter.of degree - if. ,there was no. definite..a..ine then it would seem that where
preservation.wouldoccur'would take continual analysis of individual properties~ The
Committee, he sa1d, felt properties above the gOO-foot level were of greatest visual
impact, provided an excellent buffer, and were'valuable for recreational use.
,~~
5/20/74-5
With regard to arguments that the density limitations were too strict, Mr. Murray said
he felt lower density standards were not in keeping with previous discussions about ,
density st.andards in the entire city. He felt the limit~placed by this study would -:;",:
accommodate growth occurring in the South Hills. Too, there were-@~yc other"'areas' c3.f:the
city in which residential growth could occur, and filling in thos'e vacant areas would
be in line with the city's stated policy. He added that the density 'restrictions were
based also on the adequacy of public services in that area. Mr. Murray referred to the
city's policy with regard to dispersal of low-cost housing throughout the city and said
it would be inappropriate to recommend contrary to that policy, especiallY inyyi~w of
the severe shortage of that type of housing. With regard to objections raised on use of
PUD requirements at the 700j900-foot elevations; he said PUD's seemed the best tool for
satisfying the environmental criteria: of the study, so it would seem clustered housing
would have to be used if there was to be open space,preserved.. He said that use of PUD's
would not necessarily eliminate single-family development. And they would seem to allow
savings over construction of standard subdivisions where design necessitates costly
sewer and streetextensionsr He said it was obvious that. homes in the South Hills were
more highly valued than those in the rest of the community 'so the argument that PUD's would
be changing any existing situation by increasing the market :value of homes was inadequate.
Mr. Murray felt that adoption of an exception for developments of four units or less to
the acre was ill advised ,would in no way reduce the cost of housing, and would amount
to a drastic new city policy contrary to the general plan. He thought it was impossible
to put a dollar value on the implementation of this study without going into a very
extensive piece-by-piece exploration of property. That would be the next step if the
study was <;i,dopte(i, coming back to the C01IDcil , with the property owners taking part and
the costs made public. He .felt cost of implementation of the study would stand up equally
well as the purchase some time ago of Spencer Butte land. He concluded by saying that the
study had very extensive preparation and considerable modification, and he 'hoped the
Council would adopt it.
, " "I-
I
, I
.
-
Councilman Hershner referred to the recommendation that all vacanttproperties above the
900-foot level be preserved from intensive level of development subject to exceptions,
one ,of them being to allow development under planned unit procedures when certain
conditions were met. He asked what kind of development was envisioned other than intensive
level of development, and why if those properties were not" developed at all a provision
was ~ade to allow some development. Mr. Saul said the word "intensi veil was added after
public hearings indicated. a need to provide for single-family dwellings on existing lots.
The Committee in providing for that exception didn't want to contradict' provisions
providing for preservation of open space, recognizing there were properties at that
elevation that because of theirtotai2. invisibility from the city and physical character-
istics would allow development and still maintain the overall basic intent of the study.
Councilman Hershner said he sensed a philosophy to the effect that development of
property above the 900-foot elevation under PUD procedures'would be dependent upon
dedication of acreage to the public. He felt the thrust of that recommendation was in
the direction of taking property without compensation to the property owner. Mr. Saul
agreed that the 'PUD ordinance provided that dedication might be required as"a2condition '~
of PUD approval if it could be clearly shown that the dedication would be of benefit to 'IF
residents of the development. However, a density credit is usually given when dedication
is required, he said, resulting in the same number of units, so that credit could be
considered adequate compensation for the developer. . He added that it was possible to
have the required open space remain in the ownership of a particular development, yet
still have density credit. In ans\wer to Mr; Hershner"s question about how policies
adopted under this study would affect annexation in the South Hills, Mr;-.Saul replied
that logging or lack of logging was of primary' concern in' that area. Annexation would
hingg on whether properties .were maintained as residential sites (as opposed to land
clear"Ocut for timber purposes). Other factors on which annexations' are decided would
be the same in the South Hills as in other areas'- availability of public services,
contiguity, etc.
Councilman Hershner referred to previous abstention from discussion or voting in matters
before the Council with regprd to PUD's in the South Hills. He said his law firm was
not retained by any client with regard to the South Hills study nor had it eve~ been so
he didn't feel he had to abs'tain on this 'issue. He felt i,f he abstained onss{i~' a
general issue lt would follow he would have to abstain on issues invoivlng the downtown
ar~age~erally, or other general areas of the cities, which would result i~ a never ending
abstentlon on general matters before the Council.
Councilman Keller asked whether. there was more demand for single-family housing 6r for
the cluster type and what size property was adaptpble for a PUD. Planning Director replied
that more than 50% of the people in Eugene were renters, and only about one-fourth of the
people were in an income bracket that could afford ownership, accounting for the decision
to try the PUD concept to allow a variety or1IDits throughout'the city. . Only parcels four
acres or larger in size were eligible for planned unit development unless there were
physical or other characteristics requiring special attention;' He' added that during
January/April this year there were 100 single-family building 'starts compared to 633
mul~iple-family bui~dings. 5/20/74 ~ 6
'~1-,
C1.)
~
.
.
e
(2091)
II
~
Councilman Hershner asked if an owner of property abbve'the 900-foot-elevation filed
for a stan,dard subdivision -that met all criteria of the law and this study had been
adopted, would the city: be in'.a position .:to r>eject that request .if that property
owner did not dedi;cate open space. Mr., Saul answered that..would, be the case, except
that if the. study was adopted the city wouid be dealing with PUD's rather than
standard subdivisions.
Mrs. ,8ampbell moved seconded by.,Mr~',M~ay to accept the Joint, Parks' Committee
report on'the South Hills -study.
In response to Councilman Williams inquiry with regard to assuming the prerogative
of making the motion, Mrs. Campbell said she had' taken.the prerogative as Joint Parks
Commi,ttee' chairman. She referred- to Mr_~ Burge's suggestion that. she' abstain from .
voting on the study as a probable misunderstanding' that the Council'0n this issue was
operating under Fasano regulations. She explained that the study was not a' zoning
matter.
In answer to Councilman Wood's. inquiry" about the' amount of land aboV-e. '!=h~ 908-foot
lev'elwith .12% or less siope',"Mf.: Saul' sqid'ther~,..w,<?-2- appr~~irriately .15'90'or about.,
130 acres. Mr. Wood then asked an out the exception for PUD's in that area and
whether it was connected to stability of the soil. He wondered. about the effect
of removing any reference to development based on elevation as requested by the
Home Builders.' Mr. Saul answered that testimony in Committee hearings indicated
development was preferable at lower elevations. He. said to remove any reference
to elevation would leave no way of identifying critical areas of concern and no
major standards. Recommen9-ations previously. presented were to substitute'slope
factor of 30% which he felt would be as arbitrary as using the 900-foot elevation
standard. Use of slope as criteria would eliminate the potential use of' a major
portion of that area as active-use parks. To remove the 900-foot element would
necessitate. revision. of the'entire study.
Councilman Keller said it. was difficult to accept PUD'.s,as,the.only alternative,
especially when it might ,cause extreme hardship on the developer of. small parcels.
He was concerned too about the densities. Those and- other questions, he ,said, would
probably cause him to vote against adoption even though he was convinced the study
itself was of tremendous bene:li t.
Councilman Hershner agreed, saying he too had substantial questions even though there
was considerable work and very much good contained in the study. ,He,referred again
" .
to the recommendation with regard to development of properties above the 900-foot
elevation restricted .to existing lots for s,ingle-family. residences. And to the'
requirement for dedication in the case of PUD's, saying he was seriously concerned
that that would be taking property without compensation.
Councilman Wood supported the plan itself but thought more detailed. consideration of
concerns raised would be helpful. He didn't suggest a prolonged consideration but at
the same time saw no emergency calling for immediate' adoption of the plan.
Councilman McDonald said, he would, prefer amending the'motion to send the' matter back
to the Joint, Parks Committee. He thought there was consensus on the plan itself but
felt reconsideration to take into account testimony heard at thi~ meeting was important.
Mayor Anderson referred to the Laurelhill study on which the Council was agreed as to
concept and where a Council subcommittee was' appointed toworLwith members of.the
group. He suggested appointment of a Council. sub commit t'ee to go through the areas of
concern on this study and-come back' tOe the Council with a final,document.
Councilman Murray said he recognized that other Council members'were not as familiar
with the study as he and Mrs. Campbell, but he questioned the appropriatene~s of
creation of a new committee to go through the plan. He thought referral to the
Joint Parks Committee would be the ,logical,move. Mayor Anderson suggested then that
discussion in a committee-of-the-whole work session would give the informality necessary
to clear,up any questions and to more expeditiously handle, the matter;
Councilman Williams said there wel?e two areas of concern to him - he would like to have
the city attorney's opinion with regard to the condemnation,~uestion on PUD's, and
he thought a tour of existing PUD's.. in the city in which there was single-family.
development w,ould be of benefit. Hesa).d he was thinking of the expense to owners
of small parcels having to develop under the PUD regulations, and that,before a decision
was made requiring PUD regulations for all development he would like to, see how it
would apply on the ground. ,
Councilwoman Campbell had n,o' objection to Mr. Williams' suggestion" however she ,thought
a lot was being asked of the Parks Committee. She felt if the Council wanted to take
on the exhausting work, staff could make the refinements desired. She called attention
'55
5/20/74 - 7
to the great amount of work that went into the study and the considerable modifica-
tions making it less restrictive than the preliminary report. Councilman Wood said
:'that no one was 'questioning the th9~oughness of sincerity of the Committee, but like
many> other, situations ,there' was the:;q1:l.€\sti0I). offi;'UI1derstqnd~'ngall the issues. There
were also concerns about the woraing and other minor points which should be looked
at. Mayor Anderson suggested further discussion of the study on Wednesday; May 22,
since the usual committee session for that date had been cancelled~ '
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to hold discussion over to a
Wednesday, May 22, committee meeting, devoting the bulk of the Time to a
tour of PUD's.
Councilwoman Beal called for a point of order, saying there was a motion on the
"floor,~but^"th~,Chair ruled' ~he motion'was,fQ hold o,,-er._,.::~tMrs. Campbell's reques1;
Mr. Anderson further clar~fied the issue by saying the Wednesday meeting would deal
primarily with Council discussion, the public hearing portion was o~er, and the motion
on the floor (to adopt the plan) would be held over.
Vote was taken on the motion to hold further discussion until the May 22
committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
A recess was taken.
~B. Vacation of easement between Pearl and Oak, '18th to 19th (Teshner) (EV 74':"3)
Recommended by Planning Commission on March 11, 1974.
Public he~ring was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 546 - Vacat'ing easement between Pearl and Oak Stree,ts from
18th to l~th Avenue was read by ~itle and number only,
there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr, .Willrpms', moved ~ecol1desI b:y ~~' ~ersh!,ler tha.t -:th,ebilJ-, be re.a9- the sec9n<t. ti.!!1~.l:JY
council bill. number.only.;, 'with .u,naniftious~c'6hSerit or,theCoU11cil','-;artd' tl1at ,enactment
be: consid,ere(t afthis:-time. Motion carrienu:q:ailimousJf:au9::-the. Bi.1;:L_"wa$'-~read- .th,e .
;. s.:econd_ tim~}Y'-=C:6iin,c:l.:1:-~l?i~{number qnly". - -, .
. ,
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the council bill be approved and
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except
Mr. McDonald and Mr. Hershner who were not present, .the bill was de~lared passed
and numbered 17070.
C. Li uor License - Silver Dollar Club, 1775 West 6th Avenue - RMB (new,
Application submitted by Bud Ntxon, 3088 West 15th Avenue 9. OLCC reported four
of seven interviewed in the neighborhood objected to issuance of the license.
Public hearing was opened.
. -
Mr. Nixon stated the application should not be considered "new" since the establish2
ment for which it was requested was~previously located in the ERA project area
downtown (Jack's). Application at another location was withdrawn because of
neighborhood objections, so it was hoped this location, in an industrial area,
would be approved.
Tony Kalez, owner'of a lumber yard directly across 6th Avenue from the proposed
location, objected to another tavern in the area, saying there were four outlets
within a one-block area. He called attention to apartments adjacent to the tavern
property as well as across the street in which children lived, and to the existing
traffic congestion to which he felt the tavern would add. He thought the Council
would be doing a disservice to people in the area in recommending approval of the
outlet.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further ~estimony.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to recommend approval of the license.
Manager said that staff concern centered on compliance with various building codes
prior to occupancy of the building, but it was understood the ,owner had agreed to
that condition. And it was understood that before a favorable recommendation would
be forwarded to the OLCC there would have to be received a signed affidavit of non-
discrimination as required by the Council. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Manager
explained that the signed affidavits were usually submitted at the time the appli-
cations were filed. However, if for some reason they are not submitted at that time,
it was understood that a favorable recommendation would not be forwarded to the OLCC
unfil the affidavit was received.
5/20/74 - 8
l'5b
.."",
~ ;;.:;,.0
--
11
-- -~
( 0 0''82 )
.
~
.~
e
e
.
Vote was taken on the motion to recommend approval. Motion carried, all::present
voting aye, except Mrs. Beal and Mr. Keller not present.
D.
Street Name
,october 26,
\A venue, and
Change, LOrna.' Linda La.ne"- PlannJ.ngCommission recommended 01'l
1970 change of name for streets formerly known as 33rd Avenue,
Lama Linda Drive south of Crest Drive to "Lama Linda Lane."
34t;h
, Mr. Williams mov~d seconded by Mr. Wood to schedule public hea;rwg
f..:.,," ."...9T}." t.?2~,pa!!'.~__qf1all~,.-,,-.~~E,=!:9..!l_.,?aE.!i. ed ,.' u~aI:!~IlIOusl y.
-'
Comm
5/15/74
Pub Hrng
Recommended by the Planning Commission to rename portion of 33rd, 34th, and Loma Linda
Drive to Lorna Linda Lane.
Public Hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 547 - Naming portion ,of 33rd, 34th, and Loma Linda Drive south
of Crest Drive "Loma Linda Lane" was read by number and
,title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in
full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time
by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the. Council, and that. enact-
ment be considered at this time. Motion carried u:ganimQ us ly; and" the bill was read the
second., time by council bill'-nUmber only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the council bill be approved and'
given final passage. ,Rollcall vote. All Councilmembe~s present voting aye, except
Mrs. Beal and Mr. Keller who were not present, the bill was declared passed and
numb'ered 17071.
E. Cocle A~eridments
'1:lQrdinancEl,; Felling and.-Removal' of Trees ''';''Copies of proposed6rdinance with letter
:of'transmitt~ were previously distributed to Council. Councilman Wood, chairman
!of the subcommittee charged with preparation of the ordinance, explained its provi-
'sions. He said it would cover primarily undeveloped'property and trees farther than
;100 feet from a building. It would not prevent; cutting of trees. but was meant to
!prevent mismanagement of undeveloped land through indiscriminate remd'J~~~qf any vege-
:tation contributing to environmental qua'lJ..ty~. It requires a permitbaliid.' on ;reason-
:~ble guidelines and provides an appeal p;:'d~edure' in the event of. deni.~1::1~t.::permit.
!Appeals would be heard by athree-membercorrimittee comp:r;ising one person chosen by
: appellant, one chosen by pa.rk department, and a third chosen by the other two, none'
ito be members of the parks department itself. In case of disagreement on the third
Imember, the municipal judge would appoint the third member. The tree commi tt$e'
:recommended that the conqern with cutting of single trees on developed property be
laddressed by the parks department through an educational program. ~lso, .~haf the
icommi ttee continue to function, working wi th the.parks department, to assess the
:conce.rns on street trees and bring back proposarfor changes that might be beneficial.
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the ordinance and schedule
public' hearing, direct the parks department to initiate an educational pro-
gram with regard to single trees on developed property, continue the subcom-
mittee to work with the parks department '.in reviewing the street tree ordinance
and consider.any Changes which might be of belle fit, and forward th~ ordinance
to the Planning Commission for considerationo~ criteria in deliberations on C m
PUDs and standarq s::bdivisions.' .' ~/f' 4
; , . '.::,: "BtibS ,jH&g
iCouncilwoman Campbell commented,on,-removal of treesfro.m public rights-of-way by ,~,-'~ .
'ci ty crews wi thout notice to people in the area . 'She. wondered whether there' was someJ
:provision for notice in the event of such action.' Ed'Smi th, parks director, said I
:that would be a part of the proposed educational'program, making people aware of the
;co-operative basis on which trees would be handled. He saw no need to spell out'
:in. the ordinance a provision covering that aspect.
:Edna Shirey, member of the ci ti zens commi ttee working wi th the COuncil subcommi t;tee,
:commented on the strong feeling in the committee that something should be done with
iregard to educating the public and the need to cataJog trees of special interest to
j1;h'ecity. .. . .
r .' " ~. .'"
(councilman McDonald noted his intention of abstaining from the vote. He referred to
Jhis personal interest in a small lot anq his uncertainty about how this ordinance
1would affect removal of trees there in the ev~rit he wanted' to build.
,
~..--
'"
~-""'....._~., -
. "-~--"--~-"--'
_k_.,,-,- __________
. ~:.~...:.,.- '-"'."'-' -- . --.- ---'-
5/20/74 - 9
.1~1
)co oun.,c~,:.,~,/.BK;;l,ler;;o.~~ed-o~ the ~X~~~~;~;f--;;;;~-judgment in ~;~sentation o.P:~1CI
~rd ~n~e. ,He felt the.Counc~l should be commended for not rush~ng to a'hasty de- ~~
Ici' ,,,when the issue was before them previously. The committee bringing the pro-
.! regula tions, he said, was a good cross-section of the communi ty, producing the
of judgment needed.
.
Councilman Murray supported the ordinance as presented. He said that although it was
better .than existing conditions, it st;opped short of what he had originally hoped for.
'.. ,"
\",,~
. Vote was taken on the motion as stat;ed. Motion carried, all,councilmen
present votiIi-g aye, except Mr. McDonald abstaining. /
~~~~ ~.......
",=,,,-~,
Mayor Anderson expressed appreciation for participation and input from the lay members
I .
lof ehe committee. He asked that the word specie (coin) in t;he first paragraph of
I ., . .
(section 3 (6.310) be changed to species (genus) .____
Councilman Wood briefly reviewed the ordinance and recommended its adoption, clarifying
at the request of Councilman Williams wl1atwould be deemed pecuniary interest in the event
of substitution for a parks department member on the appeals board.
Don-Lee Davidson, 4098 Castelloe, expressed concern with language in the ordinance pre-
venting development under certain conditions. He said the .city d~9- n0t:have.r fim.ds :.budgeted
to buy the property for park purposes, nor were the owners permited to benefit from
removal of the trees. Councilman Wood answered that the ordinance was flexible enough
to allow marketing of timber, that it merely called for responsible cutting.
(0.
Charles Dallas, Route 4, Box 308, felt the ordinance was not strong enough to prevent
harvesting of trees. He referred to instances of properties being annexed to preserve the
trees, then development allowed to protect the investment because the trees w:re not
allowed to be cut. He thought the ordinance as presented addressed only the lssue of
mismanagement of forested property, not the preservation of trees.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
Coun'cil Bill No. 54-8 - Amending Eugene Code Section 6.990, and adding Sections "
6.300; 6.305., 6.31.0, 6.31.5, 6.4-30', 6.325,6.330 re: Felling
and removal of trees was read by title and number only, there being no councilman'
present requesting that it ber~ad 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 billnumbei> only..
Councilman Wood said the ordinance did. restrict. cleai? cutting, the type which was in
progress when the issue was brought to the Council in a crisis. sitLlation~ <. Also, there
was assurance from drafters of the ordinance that it would' restrict irresponsible
cutting. He didn't think an ordinance covering undeveloped property should go beyond
that, to be so restrictive as to prevent any cutting, and he didn't think that was the
intent of the Council.
.
'.
Councilman Murray said he would vote in favor of the ordinance~ He didn't think it was
strong enough, however it would do more good than harm.
Council~oman Beal wondere~ what this o::dinance woW:d do that the. South. Hills study would
not. do If adopt~d. Councllman Wood sald the study was a concept" this: d.ocument as an
~rd~nance would address the problems encountered when the issue-' was brought: up., He felt
:fl t was found not strong enough , it could be i>eviewed. Councilman Ke'ller. added that
It ad<;Iressed tree problems in the entire eo:mmunity too~. no'fjust the South Hiils..
Councllman ~i~liams', interpre~at~on'waS .'~hat if property Was clear cut, the city would
have the ablllty to deny a bm.ldlng peI'1lflt ;'as a penalty.
Vote was taken on motion for second reading. All cO\ll1cil m~mbers present voting
aye, the bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the council bill be approved and given
final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17072.
-,
Councilman Wood left the meeting.
See Page l8la for Resolution 2289 authorizing education and information program.
:.;,
-
'"
IS&
5/20/74 - 1.0
:e
.
.
(0505)
'.'
:\ -
2.
Weed Control
~ -.
Weed 'COntrol brdliianc:e ':" .Copies of propos(:!d changes wez.e~iireviously furnished to
CoUncil members. The amendment provided better definition of weeds and grasses
:Covered by the regulations as "obnoxious vegetation," changed starting date from .
:JuntL+_to........:z.un.e-L~...DJ:;.QJLided. f~r. waiyer, fqL.?,€Lr..1L lar!l.!f4../jJe~l?r..; o.r rO,uCI,h p;r9p'~:rtif?~ f.J
'made' pub12shed not2ce the off2c2al not2ce w2th a "courtesy" not2ce st;2ll ma2led.:
itO property owners,. and provided appeal procedure. Manager pointed out that ....
:the rate shown in the drafted resolution distributed to Council to cover cut~ing~
each lot or part of lot, for cutting requiring more than one hour when a power . !
,mower was used, and minimum billing would be changed to $25.00 ($22.00 shown); !
for hand cutting, to $21.00 ($18.00 shown); and for transporting cuttings to the:
,dump, to $18.00 ($15.00 shown). '
:,In response to Councilman McDonald, Manager explained that the te;rm "obnoxious
:vegetation" was felt to be more descriptive of the types of growth covered than
:t;hat contained in the present ordinance. In answer to comment on the rate for
!hand cutting, ManageI' explained that the fees proposed were an attempt to cover
(all city costs, including cutting, notification, legal advertising, collection
,costs. He added that in !;?ome instances cost of collection from property owners
for cutting amounted to about half of the total cost involved when the city per-'
iformed the work. .
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to schedule public hearing
on the weed control ordinance and fee s;hedule, to include changes noted. Comm
.!19.t491J. .r;:,ar...:r.4.~q_llI)a.n}ITlQllsly~ . .___ h..'__ _,.___~,___....,.. ,~-,_...._._,.._....----,-~,-_....,,___.......,_,?L 15/7 4
Pub Hrng
Manager reviewed purpose of the ordinance which primarily set new controls, changed
the fee schedule, and redefined the kinds of weeds to come under the regulations.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 549 -,Amending Eugene Code Sections 6.515, 6.517, 6.519,
"6.521, 6.523;.6.527, and adding Section 6.525 re:
Obnoxious Vegetation was read by title and'mrmber only, th'ere being no'
councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. He~shner 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 council bill be approved
and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting
aye, except Mr. Wood who was not present, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17073.
F.
(See page l8la for Resolution 2282 setting fees)
. . -. . .
Bids - Public Works Improv,ement Projects (Opened May 14, 1974)
Contract Cost
Cost to
Abutting Prop,
Cost to City
UBi1\'. l\f Bic.1dr~l' onJ Project
I ALj:I':;-];AviNG~'--'-- ,
.C-"ij~t~13th Ave, I~ 14th Ave. fro om
Pearl St, to the North-South alley
I bQtween Pbarl St. & High St. (1041)
1. Devereaux & Pratt, Inc.. .'..;.............,.,. .$4,917.85....'.........,.,.. .Pav. i i .$14.40}Ft.E't.."........,.....,."...0
2, Wildiah Construction Company.'.......,........$5,564.35
]
1
1
'. .... .. . .. . COMPLETION DATE: August 1, 1974 .... i
...__.._____..._______...~__...u_.;.;_______...__________......__.....;...____--___...._____i-...____....._......__O;;._.._............._____..;~__..._;.................._;,..___-----.......-----...-...-.:..---....-..:.---:...---...-:...--1--....;.;.-...----......--1
2. n"tween Hill St, & Ferry St. from ' I
Jrd Ave, to 1/2 block North (1061)
, . I
1. Devereaux & Pratt; Inc.............".. i.'.', .$3,519.10.1..........1,..... ,Pav;.; ,$12.60/FtlFb! I.".; I..., I j; 1.....1,.0
'I 2, IVildish Constructiciii. Compa\ly'.................,$4,070,60 .. .... .. '" .. . .~.
I . . ..... ". ..,.....'.... .... . .COMPLETIO~DATE: ,A~gust,1.1?74 I
I________l-~~~_..._..........___~...._____..._...___......______...___~I____~~~~...-_..._____________..._______w________.........________~~____l-...___________...______________________l-__......__...____...
;.~':'_~~:~~:::. . ,
:3, Corydon Lane from Between Forrester '. I
i-.'ay nnd Tandy Turn to Tandy Turn (1040) I
moun
Budgeted
BASIC
ALTERNATE
1. DeVereaux & P~att, Inc....,.,.i,..,...$ 51822.05...1.$ 5.345.64...,....,...Pav"'i$15.75/F't.Ft.,..,..,..."",Pav...i$ 550.00.,;",..,,0
2. Wildish Construction Company......i...$ 5,837.63.....$ 5,456.37
}: Benge Paving, Inc...............,.... 1$ 5,460.93.... .No Bid
4, Eugene Sand & Gravel Company......",.$ 6.307.49...,.$ 5,801.88. ,
;---------------~----~_.,-----~-~~--------~-~-~~~~-~-~---~-~-~~~----~------~~~-------~--------~------------------~-~~~~~~~~~~~~2~~~_~~~~~~_:~_:~~:___~______J
14. ,nell Street from East Amazon Drive .,' . I
. I
i to Snell Court (926) !,
~ ALTERNATE
L Wild1sn Construction C6mpany..'...... .$15,010.00.... .$14.602.65....,. ..28' Pall.., i$i6.90/Ft,Ft. i......, ,EXtra Widthi .$1,635.00. i......,.O
2, Eugene Sand & Gravel Company......,.,.$15,482,35.....$15.164.25 36' Pav...,$20.90/Ft.Ft.
}, Devereaux & Pratt, Inc.............., .$15,215.40.... .~15;01l;30 Driveway
4, Benge Paving, Inc.....,........,......$l5;861.73..i.,No Bid D1rect...$300.00
COMPLETIOli DATE:
AugUst 15; 1974
~-~~---~----~~-~~---~-~-~---~---~----"------.,----=-~-~~--~--~~-~--__~~~~~______~~____~_M___________~_____~_______~________-----------\~7-------------
...l.",.;
,s~..
5(20(J4 0:::.J..1
I'
Cost to
Abutting Prop.
Cost"to City,
Amount
BUdgeted
~.\. . !.
',l~:~t~._"~:....~~~~: and Project
PAVl ';'] AND STORM SE\ffiR:
-S;-'-"iippy Lane from Goodpasture Ts1and Rd.
to 450 .feet South; and streets within
D~lta View Subdivision (396)
Contract Cost
Pav.,... ,$15. 75/Ft.Ft.... .1. .Storm Swr". .$3,780.00........0
Pa.v.;... ,$20. 30/Ft.Ft..
.
BASIC ALTERNATE
Benge Paving. Inc..;................... $21. 638.37. . . . .No Bid.........,....... 28'
Eugene Sand & Gravel Company..........$22.390.61..,...$24.320.37 36'
), lVildish Construction Company........ .,.$23.171.30.... ,$24.265.40
Devereaux & Pratt. Inc.......,.,..,.. .$23.366.05... ..No Bid
"
;
~
I
J
COMPLETION DATE i AUgUs.~15. 1974
,___________~_~__M~____~.__._________~~_~~__M~~_~~___._~~~_~___~~________________~_____~____-~--w~-~.---~-~---~-~---------------------------~----------------~
i
5
~
c~ .
Golden Gardens Street from Barger
l!r.ive to Jessen Drive (360)
; 6.
I
,
:/
BASIC
ALTERNATE
[,
Eugcne Snnd & (lrave1 Company........ .$167.295.19... .$167.191.21.......,.... .28'
Devereaux & PrEltt. Inc...........",.$169.386.55....$168.739.45 . San.
Benge Pa,J1ng, Inc...,...........,....$172.084.77....No Hid
Babb & Deita Construction Company....$175.754.45....No Bid
Kenneth R. Bostick ConstrUction Co...$182.580.60....No Bid
lVildish Construction Company.........$189.886.35....$187.217,75
Pav..,..$ 16.00/Ft.Ft,.,.,. ,Extra lV:!.dtlu .$17,360.00......0
Serv...$532.00 each (2) Stm. Swr.....$79,680,OO".$133;OOO,OO
(74-75)
i .
3.
I"
5 ;
6,
COMPLETION DATE! October 1. 1974
-------------------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------------------
'7.
llar:unerhead turn-around at south end of
University Street 300 feet south of
39th Place (1055)
1.
2.
3,
4.
5.
BASIC ALTERNATE
Benge Paving. Inc......,.".....,... ,$ 2.299.28... .No Bid........,........ .Hill House of $2.950.00......."." ......0
Wild ish Construction Company.... ii.. ,$ 2,836.28... ,$ 2.700.03 Dregon Ltd. (PUD)
Devereaux [, Prl'tt, Inc...f...........$ 3.447.42....$ 3.559.57
Shur-lVay' Contrllctcirs. Inc............$ 3.646.67.. ..$ 3.727.45
Eugene Sand & Grave1 Company.........$ No Bid $ 3.792.05
COMPLETION DATE:
. .....~.
___ _ -.-=-\-,_.~:..~v-:' ",:.~.....__~t:
,c:,:~ytc':~' SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEHER. PEDESTRIAN WAY:
'3: '~tthin Meadowbrook 1st Additioa (860)
-'~".'_._"" '" -.,."....
August 15. 1974
---------~-.-~-~~---~-~~~
Cost Per Lot
..
,.
1, Eugcne Sa~d & Gravel Company,..........,...... $71.867 .44 t.. .. . . . . . .Pav. ,. '. , .. . $1. 375.00. . . . . . . . . , ' . . . , , . , . . . . . . , . . '.' , .0 .
_. Devereaux & Pratt. Inc..,...................;.$76.4l0.25 Stm. Swr,..$ 465.00. . ... .
,', Hildish Constructio,..ompany...:",..........,$77.676.06 San, Lat..,$ 980.00 ~
4, Bnbb & Delta Construction Company.......,.....$77.903.20 San. ~erv..$ 145.00 ~
"' Kcnneth R, Bosl:ick Construction Company..:... .$81.119.20 l/U Levy..$ 45.0.0 ;\ -+- (".
. .. . $3.010.00 CO~LETION DATil: 1/"1'" I., _
---------~--~-----------~-~-----------~;~~~~--~---~~~~-ry~~--~~-------~--~~-----~~---------------~-~----~~-~----~-~--------~-~--~---~----~------------------;
; .~~_:.f::G. SANITARY SE1,ER AND STORM SEHER:
: 9. \litl1in Churchill Heights Subdivision;
[""ving 25th Avcnue feom 220 ft. East of
C:hau~er \lay to ,he East 415 feet; S(ll)1tary .
Sevcr along East boundary of Churchill Highlands
llld J\ddl t i.on from In,tween Stratl!111ore Pln~~ and
,,'vJll,',lO'l\ AWl\l1C to. the North" bp4ndnry of Churchill,
il4ightc, (988) .
. ;
..,
Cost PIll' Lot
BASIC ALTERNATE . (Storm)
1. Eugene Sand [, Gravel Company.......... .~82.242.38,... .$82.177 .29. .Pav....... .$1.180.00..,., .........,. .Stor1ll,."..$ 120,00".... .,;;'".$3.185.00
2, Kenneth R, Bostack Constructio~'Co.:...No B1d,..;.....$95.592.70 Stm. Swr..,$ 255.00 EWEB.Pav...$6.360,OO' (74~7?)
3. Wild ish Construction Company........"..$99.604.63.....$98.368.95 San.. Lat...$ 775.00
4, Devereaux & Pratt. Inc..................$87.360.l5.....No Bid San. Serv..$ 90,00.
), Babb & Deltaicmstructiori CO!l\pany::.,..$90..203.10.....No Bid 1/2t. Levy,.$ 40.00 COMPLETION DATE: 15..1974
, . . . ... . . ., $2.340.00 . . . September,
I _________--__________~__-_---_-_---__-_----__-~-~----------------~--~~~-------~--------------~---~~-------~~--------~~~---~-----~-~--~~--:~--------r~--~----.
10. 1...'ithin English Oaks Supdivision and ... . . ,
~ind1ey L~ne from Ceptennia1 Blvd. to
aardell ^"enue(1013) .
I'
(Outside city)
I. . Devereaux & Pnctt, Inc.,....,...',.,....."". .$52.447,05,........ .Pav..,.....$ 17.20/Ft.Ft..,.,... .Deferred.. .$11.410.00
2. Eugenc Sand [, Gravel Company.......,.,........$54,30!!,.42. . ,San. Lat...$ 0.10/Sq.Ft. San. Swr, . .
'. Hildi.h ConstructioTl CO]llpany........,......... $98. 974.:0?~c. 0_': - 'Sari.: Serv," $ - 380; OO/each .
COMPLETION DATE;
:'
"
September 15. 1974
'-\iJ
--~---~~-~-~--~..~~~-----------
.
.,.~.":,,,~":".~J';P.c:."':::'"
'3Ml] J':.KY. SEh'ER:
'.U-:-X~'ea bct,;een 1500 feet North and 1300 feet South
([ 25th Avenue froin 50.0 feet East of Brittany
~:treet tc, 160 feet Ea'st of Hawkins Lane (976).
1. Hick Bros. Excavation., i................... .", .$36.397.55..........".. .San.
Da~ Al:.up Contractor. Inc...."...,........,.$41.529.20 San.
Shur-'\~ay Contractors. Inc.................... .$44;869.10
Kenneth R. Bostick Construction COinpany..,..,.$51.871.00
lVildJ.sh Construction Company...'..............$57.400.00
Cascada Ditching Company.,........,...........$67.747.70
Lat.,..$ O,054/Sq.Ftl"';"'; i'..""'" ,()
Serv..,$270.00/Each
5.
(, ,
COMPLETION DATE:
.
September 1; 1974
"
w..~__~~~~~____~__~~.~~_____~__~~~___~_~_-_~_~~_~______M~~~_~~r---~
~'''''
---------T
Public Works Director reviewed the bids, commented on its being the first major opening for
this season, and said it appeared costs had increased about 25% over those for 1973 .
projects. Award of contracts to low bidders on each project was recommended, except there
was no recommendation on paving and storm sewer for Golden Gardens Street on which owners
of 23% of abutting property presented protests; and on paving and sewers within Engli~h
Oaks Subdivision on which recommendation was to award with the stipulation that contract
be held until confirmation that cost 'of the paving which abutted property outside the city
would be paid by that property owner; and there was no recommendation on sanitary sewer
for 25th Avenue, BrittanYLa.nd Hg.wkY1$ Lane area since it was bid on a,23% p~:t;:i):ion ,ap..-'L~
was theH first~:phase:of a, two-phase' syste~ t?~ :??rve the' E1ntire'",a~~a. . '_.
.
,~
Public hearing was opened.
Paul Rohne', 2059 Golden Gardens; Marilyn Davis, 2056 Golden Gardens; Roy Tyson, 2085
Golden Gardens; and Joyce Cully, 2064 Golden Gardens Street objected to the paving of
the street abutting their properties. (Item 6 on bid tabUlation) They felt it was un-
necessary, would destroy existing landscaping, would create a greater traffic flow, and
\bO
5(20(74 - .12
~.'
.
If
.'
l\
~-
at present inflationary costs would be more than the property owners could meet.
IMs. Davis said those living at the north end of the street petitioned the project
i and she and her neighbors owning properties at the south end could see no need
: for it. \.
Councilman Williams asked if staff would consider paving half of Golden Gardens Street.,
Public Works Director said that removing the first block (at the south end) would
leave much more than half to pave, and the contract would have to be renegotiated. He I
said there was the possibility of withdrawing the contract, maintaining the unit bid,
;however, terms of the contract call for rebidding if it was not awarded on the bid
basis. He said the project was initiated by a 50.5% petition, 23% were protest~ng.
Manager added that those protesting lived at the south end of the street and removal
of that block from the p:'oj ect would leave an unpaved gap between the paved portion
,and B~ger Dr~ve, scheduled for improvement next year.
:Ralph Hansen, 2615 Tandy Turn; John A. Fer-t:.?-l, 1040 Corydon Lane; and Leo Kappenman,
'1885 Pierce Street objected to paving Corydon Lane in the Forrester Way, Tandy Turn
area,. Mr. Hansen said thos-:e petitioning it did not need it for access and that the
;paving would serve no purpose. He said when the petition was circulated it was with
.the intent of learning the cost of the paving, not for the actual construction. In
,answer to Councilman Williams, Public Works Director said that none of the owners
;of abutting properties was in favor of the project.
:-'-' Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to award contracts to the low bidders
on Projects 1 and 2, and Projects 4 through 11 as recommended, with the contract
on Project 10 (English Oaks Subdivision) held pending confirmation of payment
for paving abutting property outside the city. A rollcall vote was taken with
all councilmen~; voting aye, except Mr. Woods who was not present.
II - Items acted upon with one motion after discuss~on,_of individual items if requested.
Previously discussed in. co:mrnitt~e on May 8, .1974 (Pres~nt: 'Mayor AndersoD;:c'eouncTi ~__
members Williams, MCEJonald, :Beal ;.:Campbel1 ,:C-Keirer.~ :::-Mtirray; ,- and 'Wood) - and on May 15, 1974
(Present: Mayor Anders'on; Council membe~s Williams, Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell,
Keller, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings are printed b~low in italics.
A. :Speeds, South Willamette between 29th and 40th - Councilwoman Campbell referred
. . to recent accident on this stretch of road resul ting in a fa tali ty and asked
:about the procedure for changing speed limits. Don Allen, director of Public
, IWorks,explained the procedure of preliminary investigation by his department,
"referral to the State Speed Control Board, etc. He said that results of studies
"by his department were not as a rule brought back to the Council before referral
,to the State unless the investigation indicated the existing limit was proper and!
,should not be referred. He said that the recent accident did raise questions
with regard to the pedestrian way in the process of being restudied for permanent
sidewalks on the west side of Willamette, but investigation showed it was not the
cause of the accident, rather speed far in excess of the limit was responsible.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to investigate speeds on
Willamette between 29th and 40th.Mo~J--qll-,:;g.,n::Le-,l.!lna.!!i11lQl.!~J.y..
B.
Comm
5/5/?>/r74
^ !.';
Highway 99N, south of conca>l5~~e
Reconsideration of Hansen Rezoning Request (west of
east of Jacobs - From RA to C-2 PD - Z 7476)
f'eti tion was received from Robert Moulton, attorney for Paul Hansen, requesting
'reconsideration of his request for rezoning property near IED development west of ,
Highway 99N on the basis of new testimony which he felt would support the public
'need for the change of zone.
;Stan Long, assistant city attorney, reviewed procedural alternatives available
to the Council. He said if a motion was' made to reopen the issue, testimony
previously presented could be reconsidered or the applic~nt could be permitted to
introduce new evidence. In dealing with this type of question, courts feel they
:inherently have the power to reopen a matter if there is some reason - e~ample,
!a pet;itioner reports evidence which he did not pre~ent! or new evid~nce that had
,been found. Courts usually respond by requesting a general descrpt~on of the
'evidence to be presented without actually receiving the evidence. Then a deci-
'sion is made on whether reopening would be substantially fair and just under
'the circumst;ances. Mr. Long added that the Council at this' point could limi t
ithe applical)t to the type of addi tional evidence. and why he thinks it is now
appropriat;e to present it. If reopening is permitt;ed, he said, it; wouLd have
to be at a duly not;ed public hearing.
;Councilman williams asked if the issue was ,reopened and new evidence heard whethe~
a decision would then have t;o be made to reconsider, or would there have to be a '
'formal motion for reconsideration concomitant to reopening. Mr. UJng answered
;that reopening t;he issue would negate the previous decision (denying rezoning);
!the hearing would be reopened to take new testimony and to make a new decision
Iwhich may be the same as before or a different one.
io.
- -~....-------------~-- ---..-~~-- --
\(0\
5(20/~4 - .13
~.~ ~~-,-.:._.- .~
-~_.- --:::- --.-----=--
Councilman Murray asked whether previously presented testimony would be taken
again. Mr.' Long answered that the Council had the right if the hearing was re-
opened to limit what would occur. If the applicant was allowed to reopen testi-
mony then he could be restricted to issues the Council felt worthy of looking at
'j again. For instance, the Council could limit the evidence to that on public ~
,need only.
(e~
In'response to Councilwoman Campbell's inquiry about why the evidence was not
presented before by the petitioner, Mr. Long said that was one of the ques-
tions on which the petitioner would comment - describe the evidence generally
land say why it was not given before - to give the Council a basis for determin-
ling whether to reopen the issue.
\.
"^,
"
Councilman Murray suggested postponing any lengthy debate until other regular
agenda items had been considered. Councilman Wood felt lengthy debate would
occur only if the matter was reopened and in that; event.?a"]jearing would be
scheduled at;,~some later time. He asked what ,-rdle- the Planning Commission would
play if tJj'e hearing was reopened ~ Mj3n.ilger answered that if the hearing was re-
opened and resulted in a decisioncrontraryto the original Planning commission
recommendation (to deny), then the matter would go back to them. Otherwise, the
Planning Commission would not be involved.
Mr. Moulton expressed appreciation for the expeditious handling of his'petition
for reconsideration and proceeded to explain the type of evidence he would like to
introduce, saying that the issue would have to go back for Planning Commission
hearings, assuming the Council approved what the petitioner wanted to do with
the property. He said information gi ven at this time would be limi ted to the
question of public need only. If testimony in addition to that on public need
was requested, that would be included. They intended to refer to the type of
'commercial activities and uses available in the vicnity, the quality and quantity
-of ~ommercially zoned properties not being put to commercial use, and the types
of facilities the petitioner felt were needed. As to the reason this evidence
was not presented before, Mr. Moulton said he thought that although it was
plluded to it was not specifically mentioned. He suggested that determination
of public need in a large sense was a legal question, and he felt an attorney
could better point out evidence on questions to which the Council must address
,itself in making quasi-judicial judgments. He hoped to do that with reference
to public need. He asked the opportunity to present to the Council a legal
memorandum with regard to the types of evidence appropriate in determination of
public need, saying the motion to reopen the hearing was within the discretion
of the Council. He noted the concern of the public with regard to the general
area and called attention to the fact that since another petition would not be
filed before a year had elapsed, other public agencies involved would have to
make other plans.
..
Councilman WilJ~ams ~rought to the-Council's attention his discussions with
Bill Jones, superYntendent of Intermediate Education District (development
immediately adjacent to the subject property) which occurred aftercthe~foriner
'decision to deny the rezoning. He said the discussions presented no particularly
new information that would not be made available to other Council members and
would not change his opinion or particularly influence him one way or the other.
:He repeated his statement made at the time of making the motion to deny that he
iwas not satisfied with that action but felt it was necessary under the circum-
Istances (Fasano requirements).
! Counci 1 woman Beal and Councilman Murray reporteLcalls from Ray Bradshaw, Bethel
:School District, with regard to the issue, but neither discussed the issue with
him, advising him of their position in light of the Fasano ruling.
e
,C6:rmn
',5/8/74
Apppove
Councilman McDonald expressed the opinion that courts by virtue of decisions handed/
ldown had become legislative bodies. ,~
\" Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimouslY~~
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to reopen hearing on rezoning
property west-'of~HJ.ghway 99N, south of Concord, east of Jacobs from
RA to C-2 PD for the purpose of receiving ad~itional testimony limited
to the showing of public need.
C. 'Charters -; "N'elghhorhood 'brganfzation~\
\ Recogni tion, Neighborhood organizati'ons' ~ --C:opies7)f chart'i,,!rs Tor--ere'fit Drive 'cITIzeiis
\ Ass~ciation, South,university Neighborh~od,Association, ,Westsid~ Neighborhood Quality i
\proJect, and Oak,H21ls H~meowners,As~oc2at20n were prev20usly d2stributed to Council'
members, along w2th a br2ef descr2pt20n of the process for organization and adoption
fof the charters by the groups. Staff members met with spokesmen for the groups to
:get some feel of the r~prese~ta~ive natu~e qf ~he p~ocess_and t;o express administra-
.
\b1.
5(20(74 - ..14
J
five opinion about the need for
!could be assured that spokesmen
ct.'?!' th~ Jl~.ig hl:x?:r:.t!oo.Q.._,grC?,yps",-_ ___
monitoring process so that the Council in the future
appearing before the Council would be valid spokesmen
.
JManager called attention to the requir~d $5.00 annual dues payment for membership
lin the Oak Hills organization. Staff recommended de~letion of mandatory dues pay-
iment because it could mean people who might want to belong and participate could
inot do so because of the inabili ty to pay the fee. Al though the ci ty has no
:authority to tell any group that dues cannot be collected, it can make decisions
;as to whether an organization meets Council standards for recognition as representa- ,
:tive of a neighborhood in.city matters.. Other than this exception, the four organiza- \
itions proceeded 'properly to this point in seeking recognition as neighborhood
!organi zations.
!Councilman Wood questioned inclusion in the Oak Hills title the word" homeowners,"
!saying it might tend to suggest restriction on membership to those owning homes
tin the neighborhood. Manager noted that Section 1 of Article IV provided that
~membership was open to owners and tenants' of properties wi thin the defined area,
Jand staff felt so long as that provision was included there would be no problem.
lRandi Reinhard, planning, added that there were no questions raised about the
~rganization's title because of the membership qualifications and perhaps because
iwith one exception there were no tenants in the Oak Hills area. Councilman Murray
!felt that although it was a minor issue because of the nature of the Oak Hills area
'jdeletion of the term " homeowners!' would be more in keeping wi th policies and charters
of neighborhood groups.
-
Cordelia Ruddy, 3614 Agate, Street, member of the Oak Hills group, explained that the
rame was adopted because the area covered by the organization was only the Oak Hills
~ubdivision and additions, and it did not occur to them there would be any Objection
to the name chosen. She didn't believe there would be any problem with deletion
'pf the word "homeowners" so that the group would be known as the Oak Hills Association.'
I
I
pouncilman Keller expressed co.~cern about what represented a quorum in meetings of I
:the neighborhood organizations. He noted that in some instances ten members con-
ptituted a quorum, in others 25. He thought it important that adequate represe~ta-
;~ion of neighborhoods was present at meetings in which action was taken to bring
:.t!ol!-.cy statements to the~ Council. Mayor Anderson agreed that adequate repre!?entation i
,would be an issue l.n pohcy matters so far' as' the 'Couhc~l was:conr:::erned. ile fel t ,'-,
;though there would be no problem with the way the charters were written since the re-
:quirements for quorums set forth would mer~ly allow the organizations to conduct
!business in an orderly fashion. In matters coming before the Council, he said, if
it appeared there was not sufficient public support then the Council had the re-
isponsibility to seek it. Councilman Murray related some of the background on the
lissue of quorums. He said that in hearings before t;he Planning Commission when
:neighborhood organization policy was adopted the question of quorums was expressly
:omitted in recognition' of the advis~ry nature of the groups. It was felt the Plan-
ning Commission could weigh the breadth of representation on issues coming before
(them. To this point, Mr. Murray said, there had been no problems; when major issues
)were faced the groups made effort to broaden the base of those attending meetings
.through surveys, notices, etc.
e
.
!Councilwoman Beal asked whether a double vote would be involved in the event both a
ihomeowner and his tenant were members of an organization. Manager noted the member-
~ship list -made up for each organization and said that the general, theme of the f
:charters was -.that anyone in a.ttendance at meetings would have a r~ght to vote. That .
!would presume that hUSband/wife, ~wner/tenant, etc., each would have the right.to vote!
. i
;Councilwoman Campbell raised the question of membership of people living outs~de the I
city limits, referring to the boundaries of the Crest Drive group. Mrs. Reinhard
;answered that there had been no discussion on that point in the organizations' meet;-
:ings because of the feeling that the bulk of the members and majori ty of support
:came from those lilho did live inside the city. She added however that the question
1would have to be addressed in time because of the number of cal,ls received from
;residents outside the city wishing to become affiliated with Eugene neighborhood'
~roups. Manager compared the situation to membership on the Planning Commission
iwhich permits two members from outside the city, recognizing their interests in the
:city even though their residences were in the county. He said however the question
of neighborhoods entirely outside the city becoming affiliated with city groups
i10uld take some consideration because of staff and budgetary assistance.
i
i
.1
j
I
1
'Discussion turned to membership dues required by the Oak Hills group. Mrs. Ruddy , _I'
faid it was understood"in the organization that voting privileges would not be denied
~ecause of nonpayment of dues. Dues were initiated, she said, to provide rent for a I
meeting place, postage, clerical work, etc., and whenever discussed in meetings were
~etained by membership vote. She noted that the group no longer paid rent, meeting
~n a city facility, and said she was sure that the organization would r~ther h~V~
,their charter. accepted than continue to insis~ on_~y~ent of dues.
'5/20/74 - i5
~-
\~~
In answer to Councilman McDonald, Manager explained that the Budget Committee
appropriated funds in the 1973-74 budget to the planning department to assist neigh-l
borhood groups with organization and administrative costs. That assistance covered "
,such things as secretarial help, printing newsletters, postage for notices, et,c. i
I
'Co~ncilwoman Campbell asked how an organization would proceed in the event it; re-
qu~red legal aid in a zoning issue - how would an attorney's fees be met M I
"d "," . anager,
~a~ ~e d~dn t th~nk the Counc~l was in position to tell a neighborhood organization
that ~t shou~d not have mo~ey available for that type of activity. The question
was whether ~t w~s appropr~ate to require a fee as a condition of membership. He
suggested reword~nq of Art~cle IX, Section 2, to delete the provision for ma'ndatory
payment of dues. There would be nothing to prevent collection of funds on a
voluntary basis or through fund raising events.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the Council accept and
apfrove,the charters of the four organizations (Crest Drive, South
un~vers~t~, Westside Quality, Oak Hills) with the understanding that
the Oak H~lls charter would be amended to eliminate the word "homeowners"
from ,the ~itle and to elimin~te reference to mandatory payment of dues
(Art~cle IX, Sections 2 and::3J..'MQtion,carried unanimosul'y--".--- ~
Charter, Active,Bethel CiEizeiiS"- Cop'ies- were" previou~ly distribut;ed to Coundl'~','"
Manager recognized the ABC neighborhood group as t;he most active over a longer ,
period of t;ime, working wi thout; formal recognition for a great deal of input and.
,in~lvement in Planning commission concerns. He called attention to' provisions
'in the charter which could cause concern in view of the att;empt to develop 'criteria:
to assure the Council over the years that these neighborhood groups were formed in '
'a manner to give full opportunity for represent;ation. Also, from time to time to
give t;he opportunity t;o determine whether democratic represent;ative process was
.~cont;inuing. One was the limitation of membership to residents of the area. In
'operat;iC?n, property owners or tenant;s of commercial properties-who do not live in
t;he area are not precluded from participation but; they are not; given voting
privileges., Secondly, there is no requirement for a quorum to conduct; business.
lAI though it is not; a problem now, there seems to' .be the potential for problems in
the future.. A t;hird provision allows raising of funds wit;hout indication of how
:it occurs or what e~fect failure to'contribute would have on one's membership.
Comm
H 5/8/74 .'
Approve
(Alse{ 9~e
, action
next page) I
,
~. \
Eric Haws, speaking for the ABC; explained that a treasurer was provided. for in
jthe original chart~r of the group, although one has never been elected nor have any
~unds been accumulated. He said'itwas never contemplated to raise money, and the
~roup would probably be willing to reword that; particular section. with regard to
~equiring a quorum, Mr. Haws said there had been no problem except; ininst;ances of
administrative hangups with ,mailing of notices or .occasionally because of bad
weat;her~ with regard to voting privileges for people living outside the area, he.
,said this issue had been debated several times. It was the feeling of most of_
~the people attending' those meetings that if persons were not; concerned enough with
:the' area t;o live there they should' not be allowed t;o vote on issues concerning t;he
:neighborhood. Mr. Haws said the group does welcome a t; t;enda nee of business people
br anyone else living outside the area at t;he meetings but askedth~ Council to
consider voting regulations comp?irable to t;hose requiring residency for voting on
:7~~~e: "~~. ~~ s,t;8:~..9.! ci ~.~~
!Discussion tu;ned'to ~uidelines set out in the neighborhood organization policy
!adopted by the city and conformance of the charter thereto. It was noted there
!were no limitations in the'polic~ with regard to membership or quorum.
!councilman Keller asked about r~sponse from commercial entities ~n the area. "Mr.Haws
;replied that in initial meetings of the ABC group it was agreed not to exclude anyone'
;wanting to attend so long as residents of the area had control of the organization.
iHe ~aid industrial and commercial establishments had been sent lett;ers with regard
!to the organization a~ only two of several hundred responded.
r
iMayor Anderson expressed concern about the lack of requirement for a quorum to
lconduct Dusiness. He felt assurance of a certain degree of participation would be
iof benefi t to the group and would offer protection to the neighborhood organizat;ion . .'
j~tself so far as creditabilit;y of action taken if it was spelled out in the charter. .
;Mr. Haws said the question of requiring a quorum could be brought to the next ABC
\meeting and asked for suggestion as to a suitable number. It was understood staff
iwould lend assistance in that regard. Councilman Murray commented that if ABC
~agreed and wanted a quorum he thought it would be reasonable to have. However, he
;thought the most important thing was the public notification and open participation
I\in meetings. He pointed out that a quorum was not required 'by the neighborhood'
lorgaruzation policy.'
Mr. williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the ABC charter with the I Comm
clear understanding t;hat payment of dues would not; be required as a condi- /5/15/74
ion of membership. Motion carried unanimously. ~ Approve
I ~q. ~~
5/20/74 - .16
.~
-
e
:-
J. .
.1
-
.
-
.
~
/'Coun~ilman Keller was doubtful about the residency :r,equirement for voting eligibility.
. , in thp. Active Bethel Citizens charter. He vlasn't sure that was proper when all the. \
other charters' did not have that :t'estriction and ailowed property owners or commerclal \
tenants to vote. Councilma~Williams agreed but stated two conditions: The groups
were citizen associations and as such they made the decisions as to eligible voters, not
the Council; ,and in practically no other instance ,did a citizen vote where he was.not a
resident. Councilman Murray also agreed that it seemed faire~ to allow those ownlng
property'or commercial interests in an area to vote, bu~ ~e added that t~ere was no .'
violation of n~ighborhood organization policy and the cltlzens had the rlght to set thelr.
own v<?_t~!l~g_ ~~i_tE?r~~...:...... ~~,__,_,,,,,;,,_,,_'~'_~.._.~._..,_.__...... _ ____.___.~~
~s. Ruddy, 3614 Agate Street, said their organization~ Oak Hills Homeowners ~
:Association, did not wish to amend the title by deleting the work "Homeowners".,
iCouncil had no objection to the title remaining as the members wanted it up0n ,;
iassurance that the charter did provide that anyone living ~n the area, property ;
!owner or renter, would be eligible to vote. r
,
i
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the requirement for name ,I
change be deleted from Council action for approval, leaving the name "Oak
Hills Homeowners Association". Motion carried unanimously, Mr. Wood no}: ....
pr~.:;;eDt !.___. "~.--"- ~:__",~""_"_",,-,,,,,,,,_-,,:,,'''---:;;;.-:':c.:,~':::-;:''::-''-'''!'''',-'::-;'."-"-"--'-" ,...-~.-'-- '-..' -----.--.-
D. )it:ea-wide Planning Co-ordination, S.B.100 - Copies of letter from Lane .Council of
Governments were previously distributed to Council m~rs requesting,the Council
to advise Lane County its desires with regard to responsibility for planning in
this area - whether it should lie withLCOG or with the County. S.1J.lOOallows
the county to function as the do-ordinating agency, and in absence of planning
action by cities the county would automatically function in that capacity or es-
:tablish a regional agency such as LCOG. Lane County Commissioners have not yet
decla,red their intention and would like to have recommendations f!.om dities in the
,county. Manager suggested that unless Council members felt it unnecessary the
;LCOG request be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation and input.
!Councilman Wood noted that this was an item for discussion at the next LCOG meeting
:and wondered if Planning Commission recommendation would be received prior to that
:time. Consensus was that; action at the May 20 Commission'meeting.could be brought
'to the Council at its May 22 committee meeting in time for referral to LCOG's May 23.
lu,eeting.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs.
sponsibility for area-wide planning
for recommendation. Motion carried
'. Co.mm
,5'V8/74
Approve
Beal to refer the quest~on of re-
function to the Planning Commission
unanimously.
i
I
I
Ell' ..
. ;P ann~ng Comm~ss~on
!Planning .Commission
Report - April 15, 1974
recommended code amendments which would:
:A. Delete" filing fees" from the code and provide for adoption of fee schedules
by resolution; and
.B. Add "hearings official" and "site review committee" to the statement with
regard to fee refund denials.
,!The Commission also suggested that the Council give special consideration to con-
itrolled income/rent housing and certain social service conditional use permits
'in its deliberations on revision of the fee schedule. A table on fee information
was forwarded with the Commission report.
I.
Manager explained that the amendment with regard to denial of fee refund was recom-
mended on the basis that funds derived from f~es cover the costs of advertising
:and staff time applied to applications and would accrue regardless of whether an
!application'was granted or denied, therefore the fee should not be refunded. He
:added that revision of the fee schedule would be an item for consideration of the
icommittee appointed earlier in this meeting.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the code amendments be
scheduled on the next Council agenda for consideration.
, .
!councilwoman Campbell' suggested that instead of deleting filing fees from the code
;there should be provision for charges in terms of percentage of costs involved in
!processing applications. She felt that method instead of setting a specific figure
:~ould obviate changing fee schedules, each time.
. .-.-.--, ~...A....t.._ a..__,,- _ _ __.__.~..__.....~_..._.._____... -----.-._..._._.___ __. '___"._'_'.~ _.__~~,__.__________
\ Ic?~~~<
~~-
5/20/74 -17
Councilwoman Beal suggested that the committee appointed to study fees take a look
Oat regulations of various codes concerned with the building industry to determine
Itheir part in the cost of structures. She felt they added more to the ultimate cost.
!of a building than the fees charged by the city based on cost of services. Council-:
!man Williams called attention .to the necessity for adoption of nationally recognized:
'codes as a condition for approval of a workable program under HUD regulations. He
'.fel t the approach suggested worthwhile if it could be accomplished on a local level
but was afraid it would involve modifying national codes. Mrs. Beal said that many
:people believe the building codes were .formulated by industries covered bl/ those
codes and so' were based o'n self-interest rather than safety:- She felt theCounCir--
should have the codes reviewed in the light of costs to the consumer, that a report..
would be helpful and recommendations at least could be made.
e
Discussion was brought back to the recommendation of the Planning, Co~ission, and
Councilman Murray asked whet;her there was any difference in a legal sense adopting
fees by resolution rather than as a part of the code. Manager replied there was
none because issuance of permits and collection of fees both were administrative
responsibility. Therefore, permits could be withheld until payment of fees. The
purpose of adopting fees by resolution, he said, would make it unnecessary to re-
print the code each time a fee change was made. Over the years an attempt has been
made to delete from the code those kinds of references to fees and responsibilities
which change from time to time, thereby cutting the expense of code changes.
Mayor Anderson left the meeting. Council President Williams assUmed the chair.
'In answer to Councilman Murray, Manager said public hearing on the recommended code
amendments would be delayed until a new planning fee schedule was adopted so that
. there would be no gap. Councilman McDonald approved delay on fee adoption. He said
;regardless of objections registered by builders that the consumer would ultimately
:pay the increase. Further discussion resulted in the understanding that public hear-
;ing onEhecod~a_mendments would be scheduled at the >appropriate",,~tirire-".- when revised
planning fees were ready for adoption.
) .~~
.
:Councilwoman Campbell repeated her opinion that fees based on a percentage of
costs involved would be better than setting specific figures.
Vote was taken on motion to schedule public hearing on recommended code
amendments when revision of planning fees was settled. Motion carried,
all council members present voting ay~ except; Mrs Campbell voting no.
I
I Corom
~/8/74
Approve
F .Pet-i~tions~==o~.
\,1~ Sanitary sewer, 1st Addition to Mahalo Hills - Petitioned by owners of 78'Yo
'\ of property to be assessed. ,.-=,,_
\2. Paving intersection of 13th Avenue and Quaker Street - Peti tionea<hy owners of
100% of property to be assessed.
,Manager explained that; the paving of the intersection at 13th and Quaker would be
.accomplished under private contract in connection with Quaker Street PUD.
.
In response to Councilwoman Beal's inquiry about the 22% frontage not represented
Ion the Mahalo Hills petition, Public Works Director pointed to the area on a map and
rexplained that the 78% pe.titioning the sewer was in one ownership. Manager added .
lthat the proposed sewer would become on integral part of the city's sewer s7ystem. "
, Comm
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to accept the petition. Motion 5/8/74
~ q~rried unanimousll/. Approve
3.Petition for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Sleepy Hollow Addition, ana
kanitary sewers within 160 feet north and south of Sleepy Hollow Addition
!Manager explained that 49% of the area to be assessed lies outside the city. Assess~
Iment for that portion would have to 'be deferred.
I
! Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the petition.
'Councilman Williams asked how long t;he collection would be deferred, whether a
time limit could be set. Manager explained that there was no annextion applica-
tion pending. The sewer, running along the city limits line, was petitioned by
.owners of property inside the ci ty. Properties abutting on the other side cannot
1egally be assessed nor can they use the sewer until they do annex. Assistant
:Manager added that the sewer was designed so tha t when the entire area comes wi thin'
'the city it could be served; the area outside'consists of single, developed lots
I 'd
:and when it is annexed the assessment will have to be pal. .
\..
\
Vote was taken on the motion to accept the petition. Motion carried
unanimousl .
;
" Corom
/ 5/15/74
Approve'
5/20/74 - .18
\bb
J
-
e~
--
--
L-
iG. Appointments
1. Zoning Board of Appeals, Charitable Solicitations Committee - Mayor Anderson,
asked Council for suggestions for replacement of Alton Lenhart, resigned, on:
the Zoning Board of Appeals, and William Korns, resigned, on the Charitable
Solicitations Committee, both terms expiring January 1, 1978.
.2. Garbage BQard - Reappointment of present members was announced: Former
Councilmen Robert Deverell, Wallace Swanson, and Charles Teague.
\
~
3. Library Board - Reappointment of David Spark.s was recommended by the Mayor,
who explained that Mr. Sparks had agreed to serve another two or three'
months (his term expired.January 1, 1974) until the current Library study
is nearer completion. Suggestions were requested for replacement to be ap-
pointed at the end of Mr. Sparks' service.
I
i4.
i
5.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve reappointment
of David Sparks as recommended. Motion carried unanimo~sly.
.--..............,.. ".~"'-;'-"
- -. . ..---.".. ..- + -',.- ~
Comm
5/i5/74
A~rov: .
.: ,."
_....._. -c. .
...-._--~-----..,........._--~ ...-,'
Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee - Terms expire June 30, 1974
for Eugene's representatives, Dorothy Anderson and Lewis Manhart; and
Eugene Renewal Agency - Terms expire July 10, 1974 for Ray
Appointments For both agencies are Council responsibility.
mitted his resignation, effective at the end of the term.
Hawk and Joan Mazo.
Ray Hawk sub-
i
/j
: H.
Councilman Williams, Council president, suggested executive session of the
Council prior to the meeting Monday, May 20, to set guidelines for appoint-
ment procedure. It was agreed the session would begin at 7:15 p.m. in
Council. offices at City Hall.
i
t
\
\
Council Subcommittee, Library - Mrs. Beal moved that the Council appoint a sub-
committee to meet with the Library Board to seek answers to criticisms and
questions relayed to her with regard to Library management, uncatalogued books,
etc. Councilman Williams seconded the motion with the agreement of Mrs. Beal
that it 'be changed to provide for appointment of the subcommittee by the Mayor.
Councilwoman Campbell reported receiving questions with regard to recent resig-
nation of the children's librarian and favored meeting with the Board to gain
more information about the Library operation~
Vote was taken on the motion for'appointment of subcommittee by the
Mayor to meet with the Library Board. Motion carried unanimously.
I
.
,
Carom
5/15/74
. Approve
Mayor Anderson said that Library Board Chairman Duguid had ind~cated to him such
,a proposal would be welcome, that it would give a better opportunity for the
Council to be informed on Library matters. The Mayor added, however, that all
'meetings of the Library Board were open to the public and to the Council at; any
.time. He asked that any Council member interested in serving on the committee
'contact; him about; appointment;.
'I.
Assessments Hearing Report - May 13, 1974
Present: Council members Campbell and Murray; Citq Engineer Bert Teitzel.
The following council' bills to be considered by Council on May 20, 1974:
:1. C.B.54l-Levying assessments for paving streets in 2nd Addition to Candlelight Park
2. C.B.542-Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in 2nd Addition to Candlelight Park
City Engineer explained that the sewers served the new subdivi- (73-08 and 73~09)
sion on an already paved street. ~he paving. involved a short street required to
serve property to the west of t;he subdivision.
No written protests were received.
Gordon Gallic, 1686 Gilham Road, objected to assessment against his property (paving -
$2,495.99; sewer - $799.36). He claimed he ~as being assessed for ,improvements over I
which he had no control, no knowledge or cho~ce as t;o whether the ~mprovement would be
constructed or who would put it in. He explained that he had purchased the property
after the subdivision was created but before the improvemenes were put in and had
never been notified that he would be liable for the cost. He felt that the city
should have notified him when the building permit was issued that there would be a
lien against the property.
Mr. Teitzel explained the legal procedure followed in letting contracts and that
assessments were computed after completion of the work. He said the developer
'was well aware of the cost involved for this project and that it would be assessed
against the property purchased by Mr. Gallic. The sewer was under contract at the
....:..-.,_ time building permi t was issued for._,!=.E.c:..~_:..property, he said. In response to
--_. ' ...
\ Co"
~ ~. '..;<
,s',\,.
i9
5/20 (74
Mr.- 'Gall ic 'squestlollabo';t--t-he-' ci ty , s collecting 'the'asse-ssmenT-lromthe bl.iIYaer~ "
Mr. Teitzel explained that the city had no legal way of doing that, that under
Charter provisions cost of projects have to be assessed against abutting properties
In answer to Council members, he said this situation was not a frequent occurrence,
,normal~y a purchaser is notified by the developer of costs involved.
e
IMr. Gallic felt the city' should adopt; some procedure whereby prospective buyers
'of properties would be notifjed of liens at the time building permi ts were issued.
:'Mr. Teitzel explained that the city would have no record of properties held in
'escrow for a developer. He said the city did have a procedure for trying to
:notify people of proposed projects when normal bid procedures were followed, but
,in this instance although the contract was awarded by the city, the normal bid
'procedure was waived and bids handled by the developer....
.f-.I,i.'
Council members expressed the op~nion that there "was notillng the C1. ty could do,
that it would be a matter to be settled between Mr. Gallic and the developer.
Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed.
3. C.B.543 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Nelson
Plat, and sanitary sewer in area between 450 fe~t ,west and 1000 feet
west of Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue to 1000 feet south (73-30)
Mr. Teitzel explained that the paving and sewers were. constructed to serve an
industrial tract; that the sanitary sewer did not serve the entire subdivision'
since a portion of it was already sewered. When petition for the work was
initiated the developer was advised of city requirement for storm sewer and that
he.would be required to pay for the equivalent of a 24" pipe, standard city policy.
The improvements were bid and contract accepted by the developer and the city.
Mr. Teitzel added that to the city's knowledge at the t;ime the subdivision was
put in, bi~s taken and approved, the developer had no objection to paying for
the 24" equivalent'.
:.
No written protests were received.
.Howard Nelson, owner of the property and developer, objected to paying for the
744 feet of storm sewer running along the west property line. He said it served
i only to pick. up water from areas not under his ownership. It was his impression
\. that the adjacent property would be assessed for a portion of the cost. He dis-
played a plot plan and pointed out his understanding of the drainage before and
after the installation and the portion of sewer which he felt did not benefit
his property.
:J
iIn answer to Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Teitzel calculated the amount of assessment to
'which Mr. 'Nt:llson objected at about $8,000 or $8,500. He added that the storm
:sewer picked up ~ater from two ditches which previously had run over the land.
'However, Mr. Nelson differed, saying he felt the sewer could have taken another
'~oute and that the adjoining property being served should have to stand ~ portion
'of the cost. '
-
Councilman Murray asked the status of the adjoining property. Mr. Teitzel
answered that it; was vacant land and was not assessed. There was no contact
with owners of that property when t;he development went in. However, Mr. Nelson
at that time agreed to pay for the 24'" equivalent. In addi tion, the sewer re-
placed a ditch running to about the middle of Nelson's property. Mr. Nelson, in.
answe:o to Mrs. Campbell, said he was paying for 24" of the line serving his i
property, but he felt the 744 feet to the south was not to his benefit but tha~ :
,it was put in to serve future development on other properties.
f i
Councilman Murray asked whether the adjoining property would benefit from the;/
storm sewer and why there was no attempt to assess that side. Mr. Teitzel '
answered that it would be benefited to a certain extentr determination as 'to ,
how much was difficult because of the flat terrain. Mr. Nelson wanted to ,develop:
his property and the city had a signed agreement with him that he would pick up .
the cost for 24" of the sewer so no attempt was made to contact anyone else.
Although the agreement does specify the payment by Nelson of 24" equivalent it
does not specify the amount of pipe which would be installed. But he was aware
at time of contract award of the estimated cost of the project. Mr. Nelsov
maintained he didn't know how much of the cost would be charged to him until
notice of assessment was received.
. 'f
..
Discussion continued between Council members, City Engineer, and Mr. Nelson with
regard to drainage of the properties, Mr. Nelson's contention that the 744-foot
extension did not benefit his property and that he did not know until assessment
notice how much of the project would be charged to him, agreement on payment of
cost of storm sewer between the city and Nelson, etc. Councilman Murray expressed
some concern abOut; lack of assessment; against; adjoining property but he felt t;he I
situation would be reversed if that charge was made at this time.
\ foe,
5(20(74 - 20
.J
:ouncil members commented that legal procedures ~ere'followed in insta~lation of "
;the sewer and notice of assessment and that in view of' the agreement w~th regard
10 paying for the 24" equivalent there was no ot;her course but to levy the assessments;
.
.
In answer to Mr. Nelson's inquiry about presenting his argument to the Council, /
lit was explained that this meeting constituted public hear~ng on the assessments/
but that the COllncil had the option to reopen it if new ev~dence was prese.nted. /
, /"
Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed.
----'
"d F _..~_.. '.
r.:- "
4. C.B.544 - Levying assessments for paving," sanitary and storm sewers within sa~ .
Paul's Park Subdivision; Satre Street from Western Drive to 150 feet '
south of Bailey Lane; Western Drive from 250 feet west of Satre Street
to 250 feet east of Waverly Street; and sanitary and storm sewers in
area between 160 feet south of Western Drive and 150 feet south of
Bailey Lane from 150 feet west of Satre Street to 160 feet east of
Waverly Street (if extended) (73-38)
, No written protests were received. No one was present Objecting to the assessments.
Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed.
.
'5. C.B.545 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Desoto
r Lake Subdivision; and paving Cody Avenue from Golden Gardens to 750 feet
west (73-40)
City Engineer explained that the entire project was inside the subdivision except
Cody Avenue, an undeveloped street on which paving was required for access to the
s~bdivision. Notices were sent to' owners of properties abutting Coqy at time of
b~d award. Howev~r, property belonging to Newmans, who asked to be heard on the
assessment, was.parb.of ~ minor ~ubdivision which was not listed on the County
~ecords from wh~ch c~ty ~nformat~on was taken in June 1973. Notice of public hear-
~ng, therefore, was mailed to the prior owner. .
Councilman Murray read letter of protest signed. by Bill and Roberta Newman,
2l9~ Dew~~ s~reet, and Raymond, Herman, and Claudine Dennis, 2188 North Danebo.
The~r obJect~ons were that i(l) no notice 'was posted, (2) they were not advised
the work was to be done, (3) they received no notice of estimated assessment.
T~e~ ~lso felt the assessment for work on Cody Avenue should be borne by the sub-
d~ V~S~On. '
Mr. and Mrs. Newman said they had lived on the property since 1969. Also, that
other people living on that street had not received notice of assessment. (Note:
Finance Department reported no return of receipt for certified mailing of assess-
ments to Elton and Linda Turner, 2135 West 19th Place, and Everett and R. Brackett,
901 Grant Street, listed as owners of property on Cody Avenue. Neither was receipt
returned from Sig and Kay Moe, 3698 Franklin Boulevard, althqugh it was reported
they had received the notices of assessment.)
I
\
r
\
\
\
I
\
\
.
Mr. Newman inquired whether Cody Avenue had to be improved and was informed that
in order to gain access to lots in the subdivision the street had to be pay~d.
However, the city under Charter provisions cannot assess the cost of such improve-
ment .to other than properties abut;ting the improvement; so the subdivision wowld
pay for its half of the street and properties abutting the other, side would pay
the other half.
I
At Councilman Murray's request Mr. Teitzel explained the city's legal responsibilitieS.
with regard to notification of property owners. He said that in addition to adver-
tising improvements in the local paper, a legal requirement, the city as a mat;ter
of policy an1 courtesy sent notices of public hearing to property owners at time
of contract award. The only means available are use of County records - recorder's
~ffice, not the tax rolls. Some of' those records were not up to date and accounted
for failure of notices to reach some of the property owners on Cody Avenue.
Generally, any assessments sent to a previous owner are brought to the city's
attention and redirected to, the current owner.
~.
Councilman Murray said it could be assumed that even if the ~ssessment was post-
poned and the notice procedure gone through again, decision t;o make the aSSeSS-
ment would still be the same.
,Don Hatfield, 2189 Dewey Street, an interested o~looker but not party to the
assessment, commented, on the la'ck of information given property owners. He was
a newcomer to that area and said he would not like to see such a project commence
without knowing about it or having some control or choice_in the matter. Hefelt
the project should have been posted in the area. 'In response to Mr~ Teitzel's
explanation that Charter requirements provide for posting or advertising in a
local paper, Mr. Hatfield suggested a Charter change to provide for better
lnotification of intended improvements to those who would be paying the assessment.
'~..
.' '
,.
\~
5/20/74 - 21
~
~~~n~~~~i~u~~:~t~:~~yt~~~S~V~~~~:~:~:~~~:t~::i~h~e:S~=~~::tw=~:~:;=i;
,The Charter requ~res assessment to abutting properties, he,~aid, and that cannot;
be changed wi thouta vote' of the people.
In response to Councilwoman Campbell's inquiry as to whether the objectors felt
:the.paving added value to their properties, Mr. Newman replied that he didn't
ithink it would, especially if the subdivision was for apartments which would in-
:~~;~.2:~ ~~~~-f;t~., st~~~t?;N};~taq ta~~~~~e~helorh1~en%e~~1:{~e 05Ft~~a~~1ii9Jf1s~~~enue
without owners of the abutting properties knowing it was'to take place. For
that reason she felt the subdivision should bear the cost. Mr. Teitzel' explained
that the Charter requirement was baseq on the premise that every property owner
in the city would pay a fair share of street paving in the city. He repeated
that under the Charter the city could not legally assess the subdivision for
more than its frontage.
Further discussion centered on notification process, and reliance on County
r~cords to determine owners of the properties. Mr. Teitzel said tax records
could not be used - when Mr. Newman remarked the County records were accurate
so far as sending out tax notices - because of the number of land transactions
under sales contracts which would result in sending notice of improvement;
projects to loan companies.
.
'Further discussion touched on interest charges, possibility of Bancrofting for
assessments, number of owners who did not receive notice that the improvement
was proposed, percentage petitioning the project, cost per front foot, etc.
.
Council members concluded there was enough procedural confusion to warrant going
through the notification process again, even though the end result; would be to
levy the assessments as legally required, and recognizing that legal procedure
was followed in notifying the property owners. Mr. ,Teitzel noted that tbe city
owns one lot abutting Cody Avenue so that the petition on the project probably
was signed by owners of more than half the property to be assessed. He also
,noted resubmission of petition to correct possible deficiency' in notice to prop-
erty owners would not result in another public hearing on award on contract; since
:the project was completed.
Recommendation~ Postpone assessment and request that petition for the
project be. resubmitted to permit notificatlon to prop~rty
owners.
~anager said that if there was no Objection staff comment would be prepared,and
idistribu'ted wi th the Council agenda prior to the May 20 meeting with regard t;o, \
:the Panel's recommendation on Desoto Lake Subdivision and paving Cody Avenue (C.B.545).i
!The recommendation was to postpone assessment to permit resubmission of the im- , /
'provement petition and notification to property owners of public hearing. Manager !
said that in view of the fact the work was completed and assessment needs to be made,'
,staff would like to comment on the implications of going through the procedure again.
It was understood ,those perspns Objecting would be notified of discyssion of the
assessment at the May 20 meeting. In response to Mrs. Campbell "s comment that the
Objectors ~ere questioning whether t;hey should have legal advice, Manager said they~
would have the opportunity to testify at the meeting but as t;o whether they should/
have an attorne~ present, that would ~e at thei~ discretion. A/ Comrn
_ . . . . . . 5 .15/74
Approye
See AC,tion B.elow,
sewers Desoto Lake
.
Coun'c':iY-BIIT j-}0~. -5l~'5'
SUbdivision (73-L~0)
Recommendation was to postpone assessment, go through the notification procedure,
and hold public hearings again, recognizing the improvement was completed and would
:have to be paid for either by the city,other property owners, or those property
owners normally assessed. Staff recommended proceeding with ~evy. of assessment
'or making an alternative proposal, seeing nothing to be accomplished by going
I '
I through the public hearing process again.
]
!Bill Newman, 2199 Dewey Street, told the Council he had received no notice that
ithis project was to be constructed, that he know nothing of it until after the
iwork was done. Manager called attention to memo from Public Works Department
; explaining the notification.process on this project, both legal advertising and
I~otices sent to each property owner as a matter of policy. In this instance, he
I
. said, because of faulty records, properties having changed hands, and subdivision
I process, some notices did not reach present property owners. However, there was
;.0 question about benefit to the properties from the improvement, and the notifi-
cation was legally sufficient.
- Levying assessments for paving and
A,'
W!~,
\-,0,
5(20(74 - 22
J
(CJ94\J )
.
~ouncilman Murray member of the hear~ng panel with Councilwoman Campbell, recognized
,that the legal no~ification requirements were fulfilled. However, he said he thought,
tit was sufficiently confusing when four property owners did not receive notice to
~ring to the Council's attention that there was some inadequacy. Mrs. Campbell
,added that something should be done to update the County's records since they were
the basis for sending notices; that Mr. Newman had owned his property since 1969.
..' , ... r , _----..
In answer to Councilwoman Beal's question about how the project was initiated, ~
Public WorKS Director explained that subdivision to the north of these properties .
was petitioned. Cody Avenue was a boundary line street so was initiated on a
50% petition. He went on to explain the change in ownerships resulting.in notices
going to a third party, and gave the individual assessment figures on the four
properties protested.
e
fCouncilwoman Beal asked if there was any procedure whereby the city could assume a
ipercentage of the assessment against the four properties to relieve a portion of
:the levy. Manager explained the Charter provision covering assessments to abutting
!properties benefitted by an improvement. If there was no benefit found or less than
ifuli benefit then it would be assumed there would be a reason for not making the
iassessment. He cautioned the Council that these lots did not appear to be any
I
'different than many' other corner lots in_the city. And if a portion of the assess-
iment was excused, it would be setting a new assessment policy. Assuming notification
:had been received by the proper persons, the project would probably have gone ahead.
:as it did. Mrs. Beal felt the city was at fault even though legal procedures were
;followed, and she thought the Council had the power to maJ<e some arrangement'to
assume a portion of the assessment.
'Councilman McDonald felt to change the assessment would set a precedent that
~ould lead to the Council's receiving appeals asking for relief every time there
Mas some similar error in the future. Councilman'Hershner agreed. He thought
;the city had followed legal notification requirements and to say those assessed
;could be relieved of a portion of the levy just because of an error in the County's
,records would be at the taxpayers' expense. As long as the law was folloVled,
he said, the assessment should be levied.
:Councilwoman Campbell wondered about the function of the assessment hearing panel
!{0 ~0t to call the Council's attention to faulty procedural methods. She wondered
;why a hearings official wouldn't suffice. Manager replied that the Council is
;required by law to make assessments. It could delegate that function to a hearings
(official, but it would then have the responsibility of accepting that recommendation
!because the hearings official couldn't make the assessment. He explained that the
I
;Council's function was to hear protests which might result from an assessment mayb~
!resulting from errors in fact such as frontage, square footage calculations, owner-,
IShip, or questions of benefit. If there was some negative decision in tho~e
, .
!:instances, then there vlOuld be a basis for not making an assessment.
,~
e'
i---_ . .
!Councilwoman Beal thought there should be some double~check procedure to make sure present
:property owners received ass'essment notices. She thought this was a unique situation
meriting some adjustment in the assessment. Manager said th8re had not been a history
,of problems in getting notice to property owners. He questioned whether the expense of
!spending more time on notification prior to award of bids was justified.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the city assume 25% of the
assessment cost because of error.
'Manag~r suggested requesting the City Attorney's oplnlon about
:action. Mayor Anderson said it would be a dangerous precedent.
i:'espo::siDili ty to serve individual notice, and the notification
;caused no problems. Mrs. Beal replied 'that because it normally
I ,
jjustified some.restitution in this instance.
:Councilwoman Campbell said it occurred to her that the real function of the hearing panel
!was to "take the heat off" the departments. She resented that position, she said.
iShesaid too that the property owners in this instance would have to pay interest on the
!assessment, whereas if they had known at the time of construction they could have
accumulated money to avoid paying interest charges.
,
the legality of the proposed
. I
There was no legal . I
process used nor~ally 1
was not a problem 1
I
i
I
I
i
:.
I
iCouncilman Murray agreed that the procedure was confusing, but felt he could not vote
,:to assume a portion of the cost without setting dangerous precedent. He felt mistakes
iwere a part of institutions and that the city probably made its fair share. Councilman
iMcDonald couldn't see where staff had made any error. He saw the motion as setting a
:very difficult practice for future assessments. Notification was not received because
:of change in ownerships, he said, and that could not be controJ led by the city.
Vote was taJ<en on the motion to assume 25% of assessment cost.
Councilwomen Beal and Campbell voting aye; Councilmen Williams,
KeJleT ans3. MUTT9Y2Qt~_ng_ nO;..~2Y-nc:Ul1lc3Jl., Wood nO!_RI'~~_en't.,__
Motion defeated,
Hershner, McDonald,
-----.---
~-
.' "t
5(20(74
23
J. Room Tax'''ATioca'El.-on'I?ecorrunendations - - ApriL 30'; i974 - Requests recorrunended for--
appro,val were to Chamber of Cormnerce - $36,500.00; and Center for Educational
Reform - $406.50. A request from Surmner Youth Symphony for $J,750.00 was tabled
by the Allocation Cormnittee until receipt of more information. Money allocated
to -the Chamber of Commerce would'fund the convention and visitor promoti.on function.
Manager explained that the money requested by the Center for Educational Reform
was to be used as "seed" money. If the project was successful it was al}ticipated
funds for continuance would be available from Northwest Regional Educational
Laboratories and possibly from revenue sharing funds. However, because there was
some question about whether use of funds for this purpose fell within -the s90pe
of the allocation authorization, the city attorney was asked to review the request.
His opinion was that, the educational nature of the project made ,it ineligible for
room tax funds. Staff recommended that the request not be approved.
f'
'- \
\
lI,
\
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the allocation
to the Chamber of Commerce of $36,500.00.
Councilwoman Beal sugges-ted delay until Council members had an opportunity to
review the Committee!s recommendations. She urged distribution of reports in the
future prior to consideration by the Council. Manager submitted copy of the
Chamber's application and Room Tax Committee's minutes, explaining that their
brevity and lack of the usual letter of transmittal with the recommendations was
the reason no distribution was made. Mrs. Campbell wondered if allocation guide-
lines and legal opinions could be made available to the Committee to avoid recommenda-
.tions to the Council on requests from ineligible organizations. Manager replied that
written opinions had been forwarded. in the past, but without receiving the usual
letter of transmittal there was no knowledge of the discussion resulting in the
:cecommendation on the Center.
vote was taken on approval of the Chamber of Commerce allocation.
Motion carried unanimously.
Comm ·
5/15/74 :
'Approve'
,
~-K~lvelage, speaking for the Center for Educational Reform, said she had not
been inforl!'ed of any objection raised by the city attorney nor of the guidelines
and had no opportunity to prepare a presentation. Mayor Anderson told Ms.Kalvelage
. she would have an opportunity to speak at the May 20 Council meeting.
~
K.. Public Improvements for Council Ini tiation Ci ty County Assessed
i\....Paving 18th from northeast of Harvard to 1000 feet
west of Bailey Hill Road - to connect 18th through
to west of Bailey Hill Road due to new PUDs in area $ 7,450 $ 58,250 $ 50,800
2; Paving Bailey Hill Road from 11th to 18th -
inadequate width and poor condition
59,300
80,000
3. Paving 11 th from Seneca Road to Bailey Hill Road
'inadequate width and poor condition. Includes
intersection with Bailey Hill Road
4..paving 43rd Avenue connector - to realign inter-
section of Fox Hollow Road, Dillard Road, and
East; Amazon Drive at 43rd Avenue
5. Intersection at 29th and Willamette - to
improve the intersection to provide left-
turn lanes
31,400
72~600
7,900
33,800
25,900,
Const. 42,000
(R/W 73-74) 92,000
42,000
6.,Sidewalk on Bailey Lane from Coburg Road
to 550 feet east - to provide safety for
pedestri~ns, especially children walking
, 1=0 school
7. Sidewalk on 28th from Friendly to Chambers -
to provide safety for school children and
other pedestrians.
R/W 1,650
2,375
R/W 24,500
$175,500 $224,750
11,086
$242,761'
Total
Council viewed all of the proposed projects on tour except the' sidewalk on Bailey
Lane. Councilman Williams recommended initiation of that project, saying it was
badly needed.
t> .~
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Williams to proceed with the projects listed.
Motion carried unanimously.
COTDll1
5/15/74
Approve
5/20(74 - 24
l'2.
.
, '
\
e
,it
.
IJ
.
,t '.
L. !Mobil/;! Home Space, Request for Hearing - Petition was received from mobile home
(dealers in t;he Eugene/Springfield area requesting public hearing on their concern
tabout the critical shortage of available spaces to place mobile homes. Manager
:said the planning staff was working on an .ordinance revision, studying problems
'involved, particularly with regard to placement of mobile homes in neighborhoods
:of conventional homes, placement qn individual lots rather than confined to mobile
home parks, or placement on single lots in subdivision created exclusively for
:mob~le homes. He said the' many technical questions were delaying to some extent
, the availability of'mobile home park sites and he was not convinced a pUblic hear~
:ing at this time would accomplish anything other than permit discussion of the
\ problem.
: John Porter, planning director ,reported that all of the many applications for
imobile home sites in the Danebo area were denied except one because they did not
: meet criteria. He thought the issues th,e .mobile home dealers wanteq to bring to
: t;he Council had been before both the Planning Commi,ssion and Joint Housing Com-.
imittee and that reports would be forthcoming from them. He said the Planning Com-
\mission considered asking for a moratorium on construction of mobile home parks
I "
!in t;he city. However, staff recommended against it and the issue was tabled until
~June. He.said the Housing Committee was also looking at the problem in detail.
iBecause of divergent opinions he felt it could be some time before any recommenda-
'tion was ready.
~ .
-
:Mayor Anderson said it could be construed as a delaying action if the mobile homes
'dealers were told the matter was being studied and they were given no opportunity
i to present their views. He suggested some deadline or schedule to give t;hem an
:opportunit;y to be heard, recognizing the large inventories many of the dealers'
maintained and the potential for extreme financial hardship.
I
[Councilman Williams not;ed the number of questions involved, including citizen
:pressure with regard to location of mobile home parks and demand for mobile home
ihousing because of construction cost of conventional type housing. He thought the
I
fJoint Housing Commit;tee the most appropriate group to cons~der the many facets and
;suggested a public hearing at this time would cover only the mobile home dealers
;'point of view. -
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray to refer the request for public
heating' to the Joint Housing Committee, requE!sting them to give the Council
within 30 days a statement of what it intended to do with the request.
till
.councilwoman Beal wondered whether the request would be referred to the Planning
Commission after i t; wa~ deal t wi th by the Housing ~ommi ttee. She thought the mobile I
home dealers should be notified of the steps being taken because of the time fra~e
if recommendation did call for referral to the Planning Commission before final "
action by the Council. .Further discussion led to consensus that some decision \
should be. reached quickly as possible in response to the petition for public hearing.'
, Comm
Vote was taken on the mot;ion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 5/15V74
-,,~""--'Approve
M. JRelocation, Clear Lake Road - Authorization was r~uested for,deed to Lane County ;
:conveying right-of-way for relocation of Clear Lake Road through city-owned property~
:Public Works Director said the present dedication for the road would b~ vacated, re-;
verting to city ownership. He pointed out the area and explained location of the :
road in relat;ion to the clear zone at the south end of the airport.
N.'
Liquor Licenses .~~
...:..' SIlver DoDar-Club, 1775'West 6tb:A,v~ri'Cle ~ -RMB(new)
, The Bavarian, 444 East 3rd Avenue - DA (Greater privilege)
~
requested. C
. om
... ,-. -~'--"5/i5/74
ApPr:'ove
Hr. Williams 'lTX)ved seconded by Mr. Wood to authorize the deed as
Motion carried unanimously.
_____ __ ._,,, "..'_" 'n_"'~""~' ,oF' -. -~. , ~
,OLCC report on the Silver Dollar Club noted four in the neighborhood objectiny,(.
three not; objecting. Manager s~id the city had an understanding with the prop~rty'
owner that if the license was granted by the OLCC the property would be improved
to meet code requirements before it'was occupied and opened for business. Both.
est;ablishments are located in proper zones.
Pub Hrng
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to recommend approval of
the licenses. Motion carried unanimously.
\
\
)
I
/Comm
5/15/74
Approve
',/ .
~,,/
I
fIt; was understood those Objecting would be notified of public hearing at the
. May 20 meetinc.:T. ~ ,__ ,--
~
\'3.
5(20(74 - 25
o. rAPPolntm€!Dt~ commlttee~ 'to Study' Proposed piannl~g'-F;;~~ - M~y~'x'A;;d~r~on announced
'the appointment of Councilman Robert Wood, chairman; Lee Penny, chairman of Budget'Comm
. Committee; John Boyer, Associated General Contractors; John Breeden, contractor; 5/8/74
. and Betty Niven, chairman Joint Housing Committee. Affirm
:.
"
P. :Location of Taverns Near Churches - Councilman McDonald reported a number of
,calls with regard to recent Council endorsement of liquor license for the Brass
Rail, 1143 Oak Street, across the street from the Christian Church. He wondered
!whether further consideration should be given to that endorsement-,--also to future'
~r.equests.~for/loca.tiC5f:l-of t;averns neg.r......ghurehes~M~y9r ,Anderson answered tha t
;endorsement of the Brass ~l~w~s made on the ba~is~ of evaluation of police de-
ipartment report and any-further aec1sion would now be up to the Oregon Liquor
IControl Commission. He said that although applications were evaluated on the
rbas4s_of-police department reports, the decision on endorsement was a matter of
iCouncil vote. ZOning would have to be proper and other'considerations properly
~met. l!e added that whether taverns are to be located near churches was not a
~policy matter, put one of individual decision in individual cases.
cOliJin
.,5/8/74
J,:5'fi.2'e
Q. 'Introduction, ~;ary McDOnald - Parks
ColoradO, spending a week in Eugene
Eugene's parks director. Mr. Smith
future.
and Recreation Director from Lakewood,
on exchange visitation with Ed Smith, .
will spend a week in Lakewood in the near I
.'
.~
,~'
Comm
5/8/74
rile
R. IAlmou~ceme~ts . . "., .
~i Workshop, Land Conservation and Development - Scheduled May 13, 1974, 7:30 p.m.,
'in the Eugene Hotel to obatin views and concerns about land use goals and guide-
,lines. The workshop will be sponsored by Department of Land Conservation &.
: Development and is one of a series being held throughout the State in developing
: a plan as directed under S.B.lOO. Planning Commission authorized its chairman
: to present a statement primarily on adopted goals of the city and 1990 Plan an~
) suggesting those areas_to_which they fel t .!.lle_S.ta4;e_shou~.2ive-at:tentioii -:.,.
. areas of high park-and recreat;:fbn~va:Eue~aesfheticallY water oriented areas,
~s wf!h~geographical hazards, industrial areas which affect living env!ronment;
: around them, etc.
2., Bicycle Hearing - Scheduled May 10, 19'!-4", 10:00 a.m~to .10:00 p.m., at Harris
Hall to take testimony with regard to bicycle Jaciliti"es inthe city.
, ~ =-=~~~-' _~ =......--r'._" --.-
3.; Fluoridation of waterSupp1Y - Letter~was received from, A. K. Hottle, director
i of La9~ County Co~ynity Health & Social S~rvices, requesting Council co~sidera-
i-tidrrat "thff'-appropriate time for mandatory fluoridation of the cit"yrs-water-
: supply (referring to recent action in this reg~rd-bY State Health Commission).
: Councilman Williams asked whether.~the.Jssue- O'P,fluorida.tion would come before ~
, the Council formally~---=Man~~g--;;r said it was his understanding there would be :.,
public hearings,b~f6re the State Health Commission and the C9unci1's role would
; be one of support or opposition, ei.ther as .a b,ody, Qr._as individuals, -to the Com-
imission'~der for mandatory fluoridation of ~ater supplies throughout the State. ~
!
4. i League of
6:30 p.m.
5. I Communi ty
Oregon Cities, Regional Meeting - May 9, 1974, 4:00 p.m. workshop,
dinner, at Black Angus.
Goals Update - Second session, May 8, 1974, at Eugene Hotel.
J
Cdmm
5/ ~~ 74
~tile
s. [Jobs .;;:S~- p~iT~tion ..: CounCllman Mc[x;nald referred to a 'recent' arfLcle -Tn'-fhe-',
.Register-Guard quoting Ed Ramsay of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce with
;regard to pollution of the Willamette River and t;he question of industry and
;job loss versus pollution. He proposed creation of a Council subcommittee to
idetermine the city's stand on the issue. Mayor Anderson noted the technical Comm
.aspect of the issue and the probability that not enough facts were known at this5/15/74
time to warrant Council consideration. It was agreed actioz; would await further1 File
developments. ~
u.
f Smoke Testing of Sani tary Sewer Lilies incl uding house connectlo~s"'Is bel.ng'- car'iied'-;
on by the ci ty to determine where water from gutters and roof drains is entering ~,
,the sanitary sewers. Manager announced the program for/Council information and said'
: that; it was strictly nonhazardous .Connn
5/15/74
,fntroduction, Jack Guthrie - F~m Public Works Department who assumed the rotat~l File
:ing position of Community Relations Assistant in the Manager's office, replacing,
{Paget Engen. Mr. Guthrie, engineer, served as liaison between engineering de- ~
jpartment, property owners, and contractors in Public Works.
-,~~';<
,T'
T.
,.,~
5/20/74 - 26
Comm
'0/15/74
rile
. j
.'
.
.,
./.:
. ~ '- r
~'
~\
III
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. He~shner to appro~~ Items A through U, noting
amendment to Item C (Oak Hills charter) and to Item I (holding assessment against
Nelson Plat and levying assessment against Desoto Lake Subdivision). Motion
carried unanimously on rollcall vote, Councilman Wood not present.
Councilman McDonald left the meeting.
Liquor License Renewals
Retail Malt Beverage - Abby's Pi zza Inn, 1970 River Road
East Broadway Pizzeria, 652 East Broadway
Ed's Taco Villa, 2750 Roosevelt Boulevard
El Sombrero, 146 East 11th
Friendly Tavern, 1667 West 6th
Laurelwood Golf Course Pro Shop, 2700 COlumbia\
Louie's Village, 947 Franklin Boulevard
Nine T Nine Tavern, 20 ,Highway 99N
Oakway Golf Course, 2000 Cal Young Road
Pizan's, 1225 Alder Street
Sam's Place, 825 Wilson
Spigot Tavern, 2841 Willamette
Taylor's Coffee Shop, 894 East 13th
Tiny Tavern, 394 'Blair Boulevard
i
\
,
Package Store
-,Amazon Food Market, 1815 West 11th
Andy's Food Market, 304 East 13th
Bamboo Pavilion, 1275 Alder Street
Barger Drive Market, 4925 Barger Drive
Becker's Market, 1123 Monroe
Billy's Market, III Monroe
Bi-Mart, 1680 West 18th
" 2030 Riv;er Road
Bob's Superette; 595 East 13th
Custom Meat Co., 577 Pearl
Dari Mart #3, 1735 West 18th
" #6, 800 Highway 99N
" #7, 2429 Hilyard.
" #8, 1153 Goodpasture Island Road
" ,#9, 853 Wes t 28th
Drive N Save,- 2370 West 11th _________
" 3061 Hilyard
Duke's Market, 430 Gilbert
E Z Shop Market, 2489 Willamette
18th Avenue Market, 1684 West 18th
Everyone's Market, 1245 Echo Hollow Road
:Hafa Minit Market, 1697 Orchard
\Hilyard Street Market, 1698 Hilyard
I
lJiffy Market, 3443 Hilyard
iJo's Market, 1976 Roosevelt Boulevard
:Jones Market, 347 West 13th
!L & L Market, 1591 Willamette
;Lawrence Street Grocery, 395 West 11th
ILittle & Super Market, 603 West 19th
,Little's Market, 544 East 13th
IMarketeria, 2390 Agate Street
Mayfair Market #402, 2175 West 7th
" 408, 15 Coburg Road
" 418, 57 West 29th
iMiller's Grocery, 1065 East 20th
jMinit Market, 536 East 11th
iMom & Pop Market, 2920 West 11th
iPayless Drug Store, 57 West 29th
Porter's Foods, 125 West 11th
Safeway Store #190, 1840 East 13th
" 234, 849 W~st 6th
" 288, 145 East 18th
" 319, 2060 River Road
" 320, 1500 Coburg Road
" 338, 1156 Highway 99N
" 513, 40th and Donald
Serv-U Market, 5045_~~.!ger Dti~~~_.._,,___.._._--
,
\
\.
..
"5~
';--.<1' ~ ',=~'-,:
l:..:~';
5/20/74 - 27
" I
~
~~;J.
-". --.>.- -""-' -.
.. i
17th and Lincoln Market ;H295 'West 17th
Shopper's Market, 2699 Roosevelt Boulevard
Tom's Market, 1490 East 19th
24-Hour Market, 2750 Roosevelt Boulevard
Willakenzie Market, 1645 Coburg Road
Of Grape & Grain, 45 West 29th Avenue
.
IRestaurant
- Bavarian, 444 East 3rd
Lou & Ev's Cafe, 1295 Highway 99N
Moreno's Mexico, 433 East Broadway
Pizza Palace, 2890 Willamette
Spaghetti Warehouse, 725 West 1st
Tino's Spaghetti House, 1491 'Willamette
Mazzi's, 3377 East Amazon
I
~lass A Dispensers -
i
,
i.
i
Allison's Coffee Shop, 1166 Highway 99N
Asia Gardens Restaurant, 44 East 7th
Bliss Steak Ranch, 2891 West 11th
Branding Iron, 579 East Broadway
Embers Club, 1811 Highway 99N
Feed Mill, 259 East 5th Avenue
George's Restaurant, 1224 Willamette
Holiday Inn, 225 Coburg Road
House of Lee, 165 West 11th
Thunderbird, 205 Coburg Road
Veterans Memorial Association, 1626 Willamette
Villa Roma, 440 Coburg Road (and adding partner)
World's Fare Restaurant, 252 Valley River Center
Black Angus Restaurant, 2123 Franklin Boulevard
,4'
!A Dispensers (less than 500 members) - Town Club, 222 East Broadway
!
I
lC'Dispensers (1000 or more members) - Elk's Club', 2727 Centennial
Moose Club, 1685 West 13th
--- Eagle's, 525 Willamette
Mr. Williams llloyed seconded by Mr. Hershner to recomniend approval of the applications.
]JJotion carried unanimous,ly, Councilmen McDonald and Rood' not present.
IV - Ordinances
Council Bill No. 541 - Levying assessments for paving streets within 2nd Addition to
Candlelight Park (73-08), read the first time on'-May 6, 1974 and referred to Assessment Panel
for hearing on May 13, 1974, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy
as prpposed and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no
councilman present requesting that itre read in full.
,.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill ,be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not present,
the bill was declared passed and numbered 17074.
Council Bill No. 542 - Levying assessments for sanitary sew,er wi thin 2nd Addition to
Candlelight Park (73-09), read the first t'ime on May 6, 1974 and referp.ed to Assessment Panel
for hearing on May 13, 1974, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy
as proposed and read the second time by council bill number andl 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 approv~~ and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not present,
the bill,was declared passed and numbered 1707-5.
Council Bill No. 543 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within
Nelson Plat, and sanitary sewer in area between 450 feet west and 10qO feet west of Bertelson
Road from 11th to 100 feet south (73-30), was held. See page 1, Item B-2, these minutes.
',.
, ': -.
Council Bill No. 544 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within
Saint Pauls Park Subdivision; Satre Street from Western Drive to 150 feet south of Bailey Lane;
-:'Western Drive from~2:50;f.eet we~;t;~bf7Satreto'2SCf feet east:-of Waverly; and sanitary and storm
~ewer':"in area betw~en "'i60'feet~th of WestertiJand--15breet-south~..:.of 'Baj.~-lEW T,A..ve" from 160 feet
west of Satre to 160 feet east of Haverly (if extended) (73- 38),:. 'r'easl'~Jj.I'~t~,1]IDe .on ~a..Y.E?,
i974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on May 13, 1974;~as brought back f6r
- - .. --
,'b
5/20/74 - 28
A
consideration of Panel recommendation to levy as proposed and read the second time by council
bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in
full.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage
Rollcall uote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not present,
the bill was declared passed and numbered 17076.
Council Bill No. 545 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewer within
Desoto Lake Subdivision, and paving Code Avenue from Golden Gardens Street to 750 feet west
(73-40), read the first time on May 6, 1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on
May 13, 1974, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy as proposed
and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman
present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council memb~rs present voting aye, Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not present,
the bill was declared passed and numbered 17077.
Council Bill No. 550 - Providing for issuance and sale of $3,300,000 general obligation
street and sewer projects bonds wassubmitted and read the first- time 1;>y 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 Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald
not present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17078.
Council Bill No. 551 - Providing for issuance and sal.e of $1,100,000 general obligation
parks and recreation facilities bonds was submitted and read the first time by council bill
number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams move4 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 Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald
not present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17079.
-
Council Bill No. 552 - Authorizing issuance and sale of $920,000 general obligation
Bancroft improvement bonds, Series "B" was submitted and read the first time by council bill
number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by ,councit
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 Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald
not present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17080.
Council Bill No. 553 - Authorizing issuance and sale of $445,000 general obligation
10th and Oak Overpark Bancroft improvement bonds' wassubmi tted and read the first time by"
council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be
read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the, Council, and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, expept Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald
not present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17081.
- ~ "...-
~-
~
. - .~,,-.._- .- --...-~-- :- ~
~~-=;':
e!' :"".0 ~ ~
-.>- .;'
-~;-.-:--'-""v" .-'-.-
",
5/20/74 - 29
Council Bill No. 555 - Paving intersection of 13th and Quaker was submitted and read for
the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no~councilman present
requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17082.
Council Bill No. 556 - adopting plans and specifications for paving intersection of 13th
and Quaker was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there
being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. 'Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with uanimQus 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 Council members present voting aye, e~cept Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17083~
Council Bill No. 557 - Paving Fox Hollow Road (relocated) from 50 feet south of 43rd Avenue lit,
to East Amazon Drive; and Dillard Road from Fox Glen to relocated Fox Hollow Road was submitted
and read for the first 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 hill
number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17084. . ./
Council Bill No. 558 - Adopting plans and:specification~ for paving Fox Hollow Road (relocate )
from 50 feet so.uth, :9f 43rd Avenue to East Amazon Drive; and Dillard Road from Fox Glen to
relocated Fox Hollow Road was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title
only there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill ,be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage_.__
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17085.
Council Bill No. 559 - ?aving Bailey Hill Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenue was
submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no
councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bil~be read the second time by council bill
number anly, 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 Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17086.
Council Bill No. 560 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Bailey Hill Road from
11th Avenue to 18th Avenue was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title
only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
.., =---,i
,.
.
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 a~ this
time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number
only.
\i6
5/20/74 - 30
'l
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, {-e'~ep.t J1r. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17087.
Council Bill No. 561 - Paving 18th Avenue from 100 feet northeast of Harvard Drive to
1056 feet west of Bailey Hill Road was submitted and read the first time by council bill number
and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, ffild 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 Mri. Hershner that the bilL.be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared p~ssed and numbered 17088.
Council Bill No. 562 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving 18th Avenue from 100
feet northeast of Harvard Drive to 1056 feet west of Bailey Hill Road was submitted and
read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present
requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
tit number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye., except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17089.
-
e'
~
Council Bill No. :xi3 - Paving 11th Avenue from Seneca Road to Bailey Hill Road was
submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no
councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hersb.!l.er that the bill be ,read .the secoI1a time-;:~":1;ly~col1ns-i~_,
Ybi'rrnumber .only ~ :.wii::h unan"'imo"'Us'.c6~ni oftKe--C0unCil;. i:tndthcit'enactm~rii;~i:ieco'ns}Ger~'d ~at
,,:j)l{~ ~'{~~e.!':-~~~t-r0i:lCanF~~e;d~",.i;u1afr.lin9usiy an9:;:~'e~bIIt-was--'r.ead -'the second"time by councii bill
numbe nnly. . . '-'""'~ ' . .'
Mr. Williams moved seconded ~y Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the biil was declared passed and pumbered 17090.
Council Bill No. 564 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving l1th'Avenue from
Seneca Road to Bailey Hill Road was submitted and read the first time by council bill number
and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill.
number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17091.
Council Bill No. 565 - Paving streets within Sleepy Hollow Subdivision was submitted and
read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present
requesting that it be read ih 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 Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed numbered 17092.
Council Bill No. 566 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Sleepy
Hollow Subdivision was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only,
there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
'-
-::-
-:r .....
~-~,;.
- -~ 1-;='{';;: .- ft.'".
'.':~._,
"~
5/20/74 - 31
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. r'Motion carried unanimously and; the bill wa~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 COUDcil members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17093.
.
Council Bill No. 567 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Sleepy Hollow Subdivision
and sanitary sewer within 160 feet north and south of Sleepy Hollow Subdivision was submitted
and read the first time by council:bill number and title only, there being no councilman preseBt
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 Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17094.
Council Bill No. 568 - Adopting plans and specifications for Sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within Sleepy Hollow Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160 feet north and south
of Sleepy Hollow Subdivision was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and
title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17095.
Council Bill No. 569 - Sanitary sewer within 1st Addition to Mahalo Hills was submitted
and read the first time by council bill number and i!itle 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 Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17096.
.
Council Bill No. 570 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer within 1st
Addition to Mahalo Hills was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and
t~tle 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 Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17097.
Council Bill No. 571 - Sidewalk on south side of Bailey Lane from Coburg Road to 550 feet
east was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being
nocouncilman 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 ~
'.
y
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rolicall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17098.
~, \80
5/20/74 - 32
(~
'.
'.
'.
~
Council Bill No. 572 - Sidewalk on 28th Avenue from Chambers to Friendly was submitted
and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member
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 Bnactment be considered at
this tim~. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr..Wil1iams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17099.
,
Council Bill No. 573 - Sidewalk on Bailey Hill Road from 11th to 18th was submitted and
read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member
present requesting that it be re~d 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 Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not
present, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17100.
v - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2283 - Prescribing form of notice of sale of $3,300,000 general obligation
street and sewer projects bonds was read by number and title only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the I'esolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not present.
Resolution No. 2284 - Prescribing form ,of notice of sale of $1,100,000 general obligation
parks and recreation facilities bonds was read by number and title only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all Council members present voting,aye, Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not present.
Resolution No. 2285 - Prescribing form of notice of sale of $920,000 general obligation
Bancroft improvement bonds, Series "B" was read by number and title only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to abopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all Council members present voting aye, Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not present.
Resolution No. 2288 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period May 6 through
May 20, 1974 was read by number and title only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Wood and Mr. McDonald not present.
Upon Motion duly made, seconded and carried the meeting was adjourned.
Note: As a matter of record, Steven J. Mayer,
director of personnel for U.S. Plywood, was
appointed to the Human Rights Commission
for the balance of the term ending January 1,1975,
replacing Jack Shadwick, resigned.
City Manager
\It,
5/20/74 - 33
_ _ _ ()"pr
Resolution No. 2282 - Setting fee schedule for cutting obnoxious vegetation was
submitted and read by number and title.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all
Council members present voting aye, Councilman Wood not present.
.
Resolution No. 2289 - Authorizing and directing Parks Department to start a public
information and education program~'withTr~gard to tree removal was submitted and read by
number and title.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all
Council membeFs present voting aye, Councilman Wood not present.
.
~
-
.
\~\-~
~