HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/1974 Meeting
.
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 1974
Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His
Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on June 10, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the
following Council members present: Tom Williams, James Hershner, H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal,
Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood. .
(0001) I - Public Hearings
A. Vacation of alleys between 6th and 7th, Willamette and Olive, and between
7th and 8th for one-half block west from Willamette (ERA)
Recommended by the Planning Commission on April 8, 1974.
'.
-
(0245 )
(0254)
."
Co 36 8 )_
~
I
Public hearing was opened.
Lloyd Hamel, attorney; Delna Jones, District Manager; Pat Hickey, Commercial Manager;
and Lawrence Haverkamp, District Engineer, were introduced as representatives of
Pacific Northwest Bell. Mr. Hamel said that the Council's authority under the
franchise to require a change of location of faciEities;on the public right-of-way
did not apply to buried conduit. Even~h9-uga poles and like structures were removed
because of a previous alley vacation petitioned by the Renewal Agency, Mr. Hamel
said, Pacific Northwest Bell should not be required to remove them for ERA or
beneficiaries of ERA action. He referred to pole facilities in the east/west alley
.and buried conduit in the north/south .alley between 6th and 7th';, they had no
facilities located in the alley: between 7th and 8th. He said that because PNB had
permission to place the conduit in the right-of-way and because of vested interest
therein they could not be forced to remove it without compensation. He urged amendment
of the vacation ordinance to reserve PNB rights in all alleys involved. He thought
the public interest would be better served by use of buried facilities, and that the
Council could not require relocation unless it could be shown that. its continued
presence was a public nuisance. Mr. Hamel said copies of his arguments had been
presented to the City Attorney's office and that although he agreed with ERA's
attorney that other authorities, required removal of the cable, he believed those
other authorities reached different conclusions based upon differently phrased
franchise terms and statutes not appl~cable to this situation. He referred to a
situation in Portland where PNB.and the public agency were forced' to settle their
differences, and said he felt the same could apply here - if the franchise agreement
was discussed the cable would not have to be relocated, and perhaps' the proposed
construction on that block could be designed so as to keep the conduit substantially
in place and build around it. .He asked postponement .of action on the vacation to give
the opportunity to work out something of that nature with ERA and the developer. If
that action was not taken, Mr. Hamel urged that the vacation be subject to PNB rights
in the alleys vacated. Failing that, he asked vacation or the north/south alley in
which the conduit was buried without prejudice to PNB right to continue maintenance
of the conduit until PNB received compensation for relocating it. He added that PNB
did not intend.to move one inch of cable until compensated,'which might require ex-
tensive litigation.
In answer to Mayor Anderson's remark that. he had asked for testimony in favor of the
vacations, Mr. Hamel said that PNB did not resist the vacation .if it was, made
subject to PNB rights.
Joe Richards, attorney for Eugene Renewal Agency, commented on meetings with the
City Attorney and legal couns.el for PNB. He pointed out that no provision of State
law, City ordinance, or franchise agreement permitted or required reimbursement to
private utilities. And he said that the time element should not be overlooked.
Postponement was necessary because it had been suggested toPNB previously that
Renewal Agency plans go forward and then litigate the question of compensation.
However, he said, PNB indicated an that time also that they would not remove the
conduit until the matter had been litigated and compensation paid. Mr. Richards
went over legal questions involved and noted ambiguity of the franchise agreement
in its reference to removal or relocation of "poles or other structures" when they
interfere with public convenience and the differing opinions as to whether "other
structures" was intended to cover conduit. He cited cases stating-that franchise
rights were not vested property, rights, merely permissive use when public need
required it. He pointed out that postponement could delay closing out the ERA
downtown project and run into considerable ~xtra expense, and that the City Attorney's
opinion was that the City.was entitled to vacate the areas immediately without
provision for compensation. He 'urged-immediate action in line with that advice
especially in view' of the fact that PNB had previously removed conduit in like
circumstances.
Public hearing was closed;' there being no, further testimony.
\~~
6/10/74 - 1
Stan Long;:- assistant city attorney, said salient points were that the City had a
contractual obligation to 'co-operate with the Renewal Agency, that the franchise -..
under which PNB placed the conduit was in the nature of a revocable type license,
and based on research and previous arguments it was the opinion of the City
Attorney's office that compensation was not required - if it was to be required,
the appropriate place to determine that was in the courts. He added 'that if the
City decided payment was required from ERA it would seem right for. ERA to be
reimbursed, and that would entail some risk'since the Council did not have.
authori ty to payout public funds unless it was a clearly- established obligation.
There was no vested right under the franchise or State Law, he said, and if that
was in error the proper place of determination would be in the courts. He
suggested that if the matter went to litigation, ERA would be in possession in
a short time thr.ough condemnation anyway. And if there was delay, .pu!,chas ers of
ERA property would have some claims, which would add to the prob~ems.
Manager noted the same question raised previously in the vacation of other alleys
in the downtown project area, the lengthy discussion at that time with regard to
whether it was of benefit to the public or the redeveloper. Council at that time
decided it was a public purpose. He _reminded the Council that the Renewal Agency
was the city and not a small group of men engaged for their own benefit or profit.
Also, the PNB ratepayers are the same public. He noted the contract between the
city and ERA calling for vacation of alleys in accordance with the renewal plan
for the downtown area as redevelopment o'ccurred. And he said itE;.eEl!ll~d, :.p.ari;iGularly
important in indicating his feeling to note that the City Attorney and ERA's-
attorney had given advice which should be followed because he' could see no reason
why the vacation should not proceed and the question of compensation settled later.
If arrangements could be worked out to build around the conduit as suggested, that
could also be worked out after the building design for that block was further along.
He recommended proceeding with the alley vacations.
Council Bill No. 574 - Vacating alleys between 6th ann 7th, Willamette and
Olive, and between 7th and 8th for one-half block
west from Willamette was read- by council bill number and title only, there
being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time
by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact-
ment be cons idered at this time. ... .~~~~
.J---
-,:: ~- --~ ~
~
-.'
.:
~ -
~. .,~_. ; "~'-
Councilman Williams could see no.~fault with the argument that the vacation could
proceed at the same time settling in the courts the matter of compensation. However,
he wondered why immediate vacation was requested if the design-for buildings on that
block was not far enough along at this point to determine whether" the conduit could
be accommodated in place. Manager noted delay which had already occurred because
of rescheduled Council meetings in May. He said the hotel project on that block
was tied in with the transit terminal and parking district projects on which commit-
ments were made. Also, replacement conduit should be ordered as quickly as possible
because of apparent problems in obtaining proper materials to do the job. Dave Hunt,
ERA director, added that it had been three months since the vacation petition was
actually filed and two months since it was recommended by the Planning Commission.
Discussions with PNB had been held over a long period of time, with regard to
vacating downtown alleys, he said,-and they have indicated they would not start to
relocate this conduit until the alleys were vacated. He said even a two-week delay
would put the project into bad weather. Also, talks with the developer with regard
to locating on this block occurred about a year after the last Council discussion
on a similar vacation, so even though ERA could talk about a design to accomodate
the conduit they would not offer a site with an easement running through the middle.
Mr. Hunt said they would be happy to discuss with the developer possibilities for
retaining the conduit in place, but it would be the rdeveloper's decision because a
cleared site-had been offered with no easements and a substantial contract was
involved. Mr. Hunt didn't believe a two-week delay would provide enough time to
develop design criteria:oto~determinewhether the conduit could remain.
In answer to Councilman McDonald, -Mr. Hamel said he believed a delay would glve the
opportunity to determine whether.the conduit could be moved: to a lower depth in the
same location. Also, that delay would expedite an ultimate decision because it
would avoid litigation. Mr. McDonald could see no reason $6r~n9t delaying a
couple of weeks to allow an opportunity to resolve the issue.
Councilman Hershner saw the question as one of compensation, saying there was no
question about whether the alleys would be vacated, and that it seemed the attorneys
were pretty much at odds as to whether compensation could legally be a~lowed. He
was curious whether PNB would request compensation in the event the conduit could
be placed at a lower depth in the same location. Mr. Hamel felt that would be
difficult to determine: He believed there was room for compromise depending upon
the ex~ense involved.
'~3
6/1.0/74 - 2
Go
( 0 379 )
.
.'
.
/-
~.
.
(0585 )
.'
, v .;
(0617)
J
Mr. Hershner folt the matter should be disposed of, as did Councilman Murray'.
felt not to do so would be going against legal advice of the city's and ERA's
and would not serve the public interest.
They
attorneys
(Oe)
Assistant City Attorney Stan Long was asked to cormnend on Mr. Hamme'l's statement that
the city might be faced with extensive litigation before anything could be done.
Mr. Long noted the City Attorney's suggestion that the vacation proceed, with the courts
settling any dispute about compensation. Wi t)1 .regard to delay be"cause of litigation
if the alleys' were vacated., he said that ERA could file a condemnation suit and apply
for a court order allowing immediate possession to facilitate construction.
"
Councilman Williams said he would vote in favor of vacating the alleys, but he felt there
were two questions needing resolution - whether PNB's rights in the alley needed to be
terminated and whether the language of the franchise needed consideration. 'He hoped in
the future that rights 'of utility companies, ERA, or others could be determined prior to
consideration of right-of-way vacations by the Council. And he felt there was danger of
,
infringing upon the rights 6f the utility companies. He thought there could be sub-
stantial cost to PNB's ratepayers without compensation and with questionable benefit
to those ratepayers. . .
e
Councilman Hershner felt the only issue in this instance was that of compensation and
that that would be settled in the courts. In previous consideration of alley vacation
wi;ehin the ERA proj ectarea it was a matter of public right versus private right of the
redeveloper. He' expressed.concern . that .PNBwasun~illing to enter. into s'omekind of
stipulat~~ situation so the courts could decide whether they were entitled to
compensation, saying it was a legal question rather than a political one.
" .
Councilwoman Campbell inquired about costs involved in ~liconstruction in the civic
center, -- who was paying, were they shared -- in view of complaints received from
citizens with regard to successive instances of opening streets by different utilities.
Mr. Haverkamp, PNB engineer, replied that they do work with other utilities and with
the' governing body in construction projects. However, it isn't always possible to
know at the time one utility is working that another project 'will be necessary. Manager
added that the city has had excellent 'co-operation from PNB in the downtown area as well
as in the rest of the city. There is a good relationship and the city is appreciative
of the fact that the phone company is dressing up their faci'lities in the downtown area
to be more attractive and to fit into the downtown redevelopment. He didn't expect that
to change in the future.
Councilman Keller thought that settlement of the issue would really be up to the
developer and PNB. He recognized the general cormnent that all agencies were co-operating;
yet the fact remained; he said, that the streets were still dug up. Mayor Anderson felt
that both PNB and the developer of the hotel proposed for the blo'ck in question would
fact higher costs should the project be delayed. He supported vacation of the alleys
if for no other reason than to' clarify the issue as quickly as' possib'le. .
e
Vote was taken on motion for second reading. 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,
the bill was declared pas'sed andnumbered.17101., ..
(0769 )
B. Rezonihg property west of Highway 99N, south of Concord, east 'of Jacobs' Drive (Hansen)
From RA to C-2 PD( Z 74-6)
Denial recommended by the Planning Cormnission March 12, 1974. Upheld by Council in appeal
hear April 8, 1974. ( .
Manager explained that hearing was scheduled for reopening 'on petitlon from Robert
Moulton, attorney for the petitioner, that the question of public need had not been
properly presented.
,II
Councilman Keller noted that he had not voted on the Council\s initial decision to deny
the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission denial of rezoning. He wondered whether
he could vote if new testimony was presented. Assistant City Attorney Stan Long replied
that if a Council m~mber had reviewed transcript of previous testimony and exhibits and
felt himself qualified to participate, it was app~opriate to do so. If there had been
no opportunity to review the evidence,. then it would be.inappropriate ,to participate.
Mayor Anderson reopen~d the public hearing., limiting testimony' to the matter of public
need only.
Co 80 5 )
Robert Moulton, attorney representing Paul Hansen, distributed. to Council memb'ers copies.
of prepared testimony and a memo of law covering' elements 'of public need for C'ouncil
consideration in determining whether there was public need for the rezoning requested.
He summarized the material presented and quoted'legal opinions, stating that a general
~.
l~
6/i0!74 - 3
defini tion of "public needs" could not be made, that .the deterJDiniation of public need
should be based on evidence presented in each individual case. Such evidence could
cover highest and best land use, surrounding buildin'g development" access, etc., all
concerning elements of a comprehensive plan co-ordinated between all levels ofJ _
government relating to .land use, transportation systems, education systems , recreational
facilities, etc. Mr. Moulton introduced others interested in the issue: ' Ray Ackerman
for School District #52;. Don Olson e~ecuti;ve director of ' Lane Housing Authority; Glen
Pederson, ,~epr~senting the Sorgenfried'development to the west of the subject property.
He also presented a letter from Williams Jones of Inter~ediate,Education District
expressing concerns of that agency with regard to integration of their facility with
the proposed C-2 development under discussion.
Mr. Ackerman presented School District #52 viewpoint. that denial of, C-2 zoning would
result in development of the proporty'"in multiple-family' type housing which in turn
would further complicate.present overcrowded school C:onditionsin .that district.
Further, it was their understanding properties abutting Highway 99N.would be developed
to commercial uses, reserving properties to the. west of Jacobs Drive for residential
purposes, and they. preferred that arrangement. Mr. Ackerman said from an economic
standpoint the School District tackpayers would benefit more from commercial uses
(Higher tax revenues) that from residential uses.
Mr. Olson stated his und'erstandin'g when the Housing Authority's development (Village
Square) for senior families was proposed that the area under discussion would b'e . '
developed in light commercial uses - medical, legal, etc., type activities convenient
to older people. It-would be disturbing, he said, if that property was to be developed
in multiple-family housing which would increase traff,ic and where there would be
children having a tendency to play in areas reserved for the senior citizens. He
pointed out on a map location of the Authority's'development..
Mr. Pederson described the development proposed under a conditional use permit for
property across' Jacobs. Drive from the Hansen property for. elderly and handicapped
people. He said it would b.e important to the tenants of that complex to have pro-
fessional commercial facilities within walking 'distanc'e such as legal offices', opticians,
etc., and that apartment development would. have an adverse effect.'
Mr . Moulton then identified on a map locations o'f -the various developments "'1p~ntj._oned,
stating that the developer of the Housing Authority complex was supportive of "commercial
uses on the Hansen property. He said that he felt "public n,eed" :was indicated by
showing existing development, what was found to be needed, and what was pr9posed.
Paul Hansen, 8137 Royal Avenue, owner of the property; said that.in a survey of vacant
commercial properties in the. Highway99N area only two small parce'ls .were found', all'
other ground was filled :in or, if vacant., plans were . already underway for development.
He noted a survey of Village Square, the Sorgen fried development, indicating tenants'
desires for adjacent commercial uses -- 'attorneys, accountants, beauty shops, coffee
shop, optician, branch library, etc. Their main concern, he said, was that part of
the property be left in'open space.
Mr. Moulton described the proposed development of the subject property -- a limited-
height structure (possibly three stories) with quite a bit of open space-, -ingress from
Highway 99N which, he said, would not be possible if apartments were built there. It
would be a pedestrian oriented development to meet the needs of retired people living
immediately to the west and of lED and its employes to the north. He cited LCOG
population growth projections in the Bethel-Danebo area and said commercial development
on the Hansen property would serve not only the immediate area but a larger area to
the west and north, reaching even into the River Road/Santa Clara area. He felt there
was public need because the property had peculiar suitability for particular uses
required by adjacent lED and retirement facilities; that need would be met with
r~ference to healthful, safe', aesthetic surroundings, and concern' of various govern-
mental agencies that the property would be developed as (proposed; It was the,only
property in that area that would meet that needs, he said, and he felt .it appropriate
that it should be used in that manner.
Public hearing .for presentation of testimony was closed.
.
(0916 )
.
(0989 )
(1012 )
e
(1096 )
Jim Saul, planner, questioned whether the evidence presented could be considered "new"
since it was essentially the same testimony presented at previous hearings iIi letter
form. With regard to impact on the shcools in that 'area,"Mr. Saul said .the property _,_,
as now zoned (RA) would have to be developed under planned unit development procedures ~
which would call for-a judgment with' regard TO the 'adequacy.of public facilities. The
School'District would be consulted and every effort made to work with them. With regard
to convenience of proposed commercial facilities, Mr. Saul said the distance from the
existing housing developments to the Hansen property was greater than to the Gilbert
Shopping Center in most instances, in any event less than a block away from the ,';;:.'~
Gilbert Center. He said it had been implied that if the Hansen property was rezoned C-2
c it would he devoted to meeting commercial convenience needs of the tenants ,of residential
.1&5
6/~0/7'+ - '+
~
:\e
--
(1300 )
(1346 )
.
(1370)
(1411)
.11
,
(1428)
l.
developments nearby. However, at previous hearing petitioners proposed limiting
convenience commercial activities, to. the groUrid'floor of a .three- to five-story
bui,lding, indicating locat'ion o.fan..insurance company regional office' iii the balance
of the building. He said there was no coimnl tment. 'or iridication by the developer. that
the desires of adjacent tenants would be met 'in. what was constructed. Neith'er did he
think a regional insurance office would be compatible with existing developments
devoted to retirement housing. Dealing with presumed lack of property available in
the area ,he said vac.ant or available properties besides those indicated by the p'etitioner
could be pointed out. Mr. Saul. reviewed similar previouS requests for commercial zoning
of the Hansen property and said that based on testimony presented at this meeting there
was nothing that would modify the Commission decision. While this hearing w'as limited
to the question of public need, he said, if it was decided to take affirmative action
on the rezoning it should be pOinted out that there Wr3reno 'posi tive' findings supporting
its conformity to the General Plan, only to support a denial of the zone change. Nor
were there findings with regard to comparison of this property with other available
properties.
Councilman Williams wondered if there was a way of precluding.a three- to five-story
structure to house either a regional or local type' commercial facility if C~2. or C-l PD
zoning was aoopted. Mr. Saul answered that the City Attorne'y had given some indication
that PUD procedures could no.t be used to preclude otherwise permitted uses in a zoning
district. PUD procedures had not always been applied that way, he said, but there were
conflicting opinio'ns, and on the basis of general C-2 provisions there would be no
limitation on building height. He said the C-'lzone would .limit to a greater de'gr'ee
the types of convenience commercial us es, but offices were apermi tted us,e. ' However,
C-l did r~stric~ building height to ~~ stories, or 30 feet whichever was less.
Councilman Murray' asked .where the nearest p'rofessional services 'to "the area under
discussion were located, and' how. traffic generated by an apartment complex w.ould compare
to that generated by a commercial or professionaldevelbpmEmt.Mr. 'Saul sa:id'th'ere
was a medical/clinic complex immediately 'acros's, the s'treet .fro'm Pthe 'IGilbert Center,
contiguous to the Sorgenf~ied housing development. Public Works Director said that
about the only distinction with re'gard'to traffic would be that' commer'cial peak . loads
could be more easily acco'mmodated than 'peak loads ,generated by, the usual' 8 :00' a. m~ /
5 :00 p.m. apartment residents. Commercial traffic, he said" would be more eVenly'
distributed throughout the day. '
Councilman Williams' asked Mr. Hans.en whether he in,tendedto build for convenience
commercial Uses. or a three- to five-story office building. Mr. Hansen explained that
the office structure was contemplated because of interest' 'expressed by an insurance
company for offices. However, there was no intention of building a large office complex,
he, said, sincerthey were interested in working with the people living in that area who
indicated in the survey their opposition to offices. It was intended to develop the
property in a way that would be compatible with surroundingresiderl'tlal uses.
In response to Councilman Murray's question about the professional development across
from..:the Gilbert Center, Mr. Hansen said it comprised a small clinic, one dentist
and one doctor, and there were no expansion plans to meet the need expressed by residents
of the housing developments. Mr. Moulton noted the lack of other pr~fessional services
near the Gilbert Center.
He pointed out that there was no access to the Hansen property planned along Jacobs
Drive, allowing'safer conditions for pedestrian traffic. Apartment construction there
would require access on Jacobs, he said.
, ,
Councilwoman Campbell noted her previous concern that a commercial development would
not be too attractive to people living across Jacobs Drive. She-wondered whether
there was a small park area planned as seemed to be indicated by sketches shown.
Mr. Hansen replied that a two- to three-story building -~, not ailye-story s~ructure
was settled upon to comfllement the nearby lED ,building." That type of buildipg, he said,
rather than a low spread-out structure would leave open space and accommodate planting~
or other economically feasible landscaping 'under planned'unit development procedures.
In response to Councilman Wood, he said there was only 2500 square feet of,space now
available in the 140,000 square foot Gilbert Center.
Councilman Hershner wondered if commercial zoning along the west side of Highway 99N
was to a certain depth . Mr., Saul answered that it averaged about 150 feet with some
irregularities. He added that was ohefactbr cited in previous. hearings., the commercial
zoning along the highway would back to R-l residential zones without buffering.
Mr. Moulton was given the'qpportunity to respond to Mr. Saul's reference to nonconformity
of the proposed zoning with the General Plan. He said C-2 zoning on the Hansen property
would conform to the General Plan according to the Plan Diagram because there was well
under 30 total acres now being built up in that area and the subject property was within
the area designated in the Plan for community commercial facilities. It also conformed
,&~
6/ j"O /74 - 5
with goals of the Plan, he said., and' didn't Gonstitute strip zoning because it was part
of an area of community commercial facilities. Mr. Moul~9n felt the testimony presented
showed a definite public need for commercial activities; -'it wouldprovid~' professional
services .tomeet the needs of retirees livingadjciCent to the proposed" dev~loPInent, and
would give .a choice of nearby medical facilities. He felt reference to expansion of
commercial activities to the west were without basis, that each property had to be
considered individually on needs of the particular area. He adde~ that a ped,estriafiJ
oriented facility would seem the .mostappropriate for that area ,because of the surround-
ing developments and that development under PUD procedures in conjunction with the lED
development would make the best possible use of.the property and within the community
commercial uses proposed by the 1990 Plan. "
Public hearing was closed.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the rezoning request pe referred
back to a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commissibn for consideration of
rezoning the subject property C-2 PD and/or possibility of rezoning to C-1 PD.
I.' . .
In making ~he motion'Councilman Williams. felt there were two major considerations
. whether th~ current. zoning on the property was adequate. If it was. determined not to
be, then it followed that the process for estaplishing a need to change. was star~ed.
Secondly, he felt there would seem to be a public need when so mU,ch testimony from a
broad range of pe9plewas' presente4 in favor of permitting community commercial acti-
vities on that proper.ty. He thought it should.at least be discussed with the Planning
Commission~ '
In response to Councilman Murray, Councilman Williams further explained his first
consideration that if the current zone didn't appear adequate, if, it didn't properly
serve th~ people, then a public need might be established. He didn't feel, that.
residential zoning on that property would adequately serve the public based on the
property's relationship to a high densitythpro1.igb-f~~.
Councilman Murray commented that it would appear if the commercial activities proposed
were to serve the largeE Bethel area in addition to existing adjacent housing
developments, those people traveling from the Bethel area would~be using the same
streets abutting the housing developments.
Councilwoman Campbell brought upprocedurc3J. questions with regard to referral back to
the PlanniI7-g Cornmission and whether discussion of proposed construction. in rezoning
deliberations was appropriate under 'Fasano regulations. It .was explained that a Council
decision contrary to a Commission recommendation automatically went to a joint meeting,
and Councilman Williams said in this~instance because it seemed worthwhile he would
like to see further discussion of the issues. Manager noted that the present zoning
carried a PD suffix.,and act.uardevelopment plan was a part of the issue.. Mr.. Saul added
that the PD suffix provided an.opportunity for control if particular proposals were'
desired, normally a zone change concerned in a broad se~se the appropriateness of
permitted uses.
Councilman Wood said it didn't appear any truly new evidence had been~submitted to
change the previous decision not to rezone or refer back to the Planning Commission.
Stan Long said whether new evidence was presented would be matter of Council decision..
He added that the scope would be narrowed when the definition of public need was ,
identified as whether the public would be best served by rezoning of a particular piece
of property.
Councilman McDonald could see no":new"evidence in the testimony presented and could see
no purpose in referring the issue to a pint meeting. Mr. Murray' agreed and felt there
further ~ppeared to be confusion with regard to whether adequate com~ercial facilities
were available in that area. Neither was the question of increased traffic conclus'ively
dealt wIth', he said. Councilman Hershner agreed to some degree with referring to the
Commission, but he thought if it was for possible pursuit of C-1 zoning then the
petitioner should refile for that type of zoning.
,Vptewi3-s taken.on .the'ri16.:ti~r.t~as~.stated;. , Hot.ion defeated, Councilmen Williams
and Campbell voting ,aye; Councilmen Hershner,~McDonald, Beal, Keller, Murray, and
Wood voting no.
There was nO further action taken, and it was understood Council's previous decision to
deny the rezoning would stand.
Short ne'cess was taken.
6/iO/74 - 6
.1e.1
,.:
.....-- -"
(1486 )
(1494)
(1.)
(1526 )
(1534 )
.
(1555)
....j'
'" :..::::::-c'".:.
A
.
c. :South HillsR$OOmmendCitions - Discussion continued from the May 20 formal CounciL
meeting on Planning Commission recommendation for adoption of the South Hills
,recommendations in its official report of April 9, 1974. Council members, prior
to committee meeting, toured several planned unit developments in the city.
Councilwoman Campbell distributed copies of memorandum from the planning depart-
mentcontaining suggested rewording of the Specific Recommendations for Ridge1ine
;park to provide for development consistent with the purposes of the study (II-1.b.),
:and to provide that existing parcels less than four acres in size above the '
i700-foot level would not come under planned unit development procedures when
,site review procedures were followed (No.1 under Development Standards).
Councilman Williams acknowledged that four acres was a reasonable size for PUD
'procedures under R-2 densities but questioned whether in the South Hills area
'that type of development would occur. He felt there might be a substantial
'number of sites five, six, or seven acres in size that would not successfully
accommodate a PUD with a mix of housing. He wondered if the four-acre limit
could be changed to six or seven, retaining site review procedures, to make the
smaller sites more practical and still preserve the integrity of the area. In
answer to Councilman Murray's question whether the suggestion was in reference
to the 500~700 foot elevation, Mr. Williams said he was making the suggestion
in terms of using site review procedures on all smaller properties to possibly
six or seven acres in size rather than PUD for everything above the SOO-foot
'leve1 on properties larger than four acres. He noted the recommendation calling
for PUD on anything .larger than four acres between 500/700 feet on more than
20% slope.
I.
j
(
I
I
J
J.
/.i "
-
.~
i
i
I
Jim Saul, planner, answered that the planners' concern was the desire to preserve!
as much open space as possible and they felt the PUD procedure would accomplish i
that. He felt it wbul"d be a question of trade-offs.. A number of multiple- ~.~
i
family developments might result in preserving open space which otherwise would
,be taken up b1.l streets, drivewa~sl etc., for sinq1e-:fami1y units. He thought if.
the parcels not developea. under UD were---Targer there should be criter~a deal~ng
,with slope also. John Porter, planning director, added that it would be neces-
:sary to develop criteria so determination could be made at an early stage whether
,a development would be acceptable because in developing cluster type structures
'it would not be possib~e to change dwelling sites. He said both PUD and site
'review procedures were subject to public hear~ng so it would be important to
establish criteria for careful evaluation of how a property would develop.
Councilman Wood agreed with Mr. Williams' concern and suggested substitution of
;seven-acre parcels for four-acre parcels in exemption from planned unit develop-
,ment when site review procedures were followed.
--
iMayor Anderson suggested that the planning staff be asked to recommend specifica- !
itions that would establish criteria for development in those instances. Planning:
!Director said his department would like to have the chance to discuss the sug- i
gestion with the Joint Parks Committee, also the parks department, before bringing
any recommendations.
I
;Councilman Murray had no objection to allowing reasonable exemptions from the PUD(
,requirement but he didn't want to defeat the purpose of the study. He was not !
sure of the impact of enlarging the size of properties exempted from PUD require-j
ment and favored gaining more information before making the decision. !
/.
:Councilwoman Beal asked whether owners of large tracts - 40 to 50 acres -would
ibe able to sell off small portions for single-family residences if they didn't
[want to develop the entire tract themselves at one time. She wondered whether
!a person would be prohibitied from developing a 10- to 30-acre tract in single-
ifamily residences to a density of three per acre, and whether there would be a
\limit on the lot size. Mr. Porter explained differences between minor and major
Isubdivisions when property is divided. He said that under the study recommenda-
Itions a person asking for a minor subdivision so a portion of a property could
ibe sold would be required to disclose what was intended for the entire prop~rty.
!This, he said, would prevent sale of key portions of properties necessary to the
!best overall development of an area. Mr. Porter said selling a portion of a
:property for single-family development was technically possible but the cost for
,public improvements and facilities would probably make it prohibitive. Hesaid
[the minimum lot size was 6000 square feet. He added that these were issues in-
rvolving a series of questions regarding economics and would probably inVOlve
IpoSSibilities of discussing the whole subdivision process.
iCouncilman Keller commented on his research of the area which revealed that be-
itween the urban service boundary and 2000 feet of the ridge line of the South
;Hills there were about 76 parcels of land five acres or less in size. About
'65 we~~_.ov.:er fiveac~."---.H~!i~id.._aJx)Ut fo~of those parcels !_ep!~~!i~nt~(:L2?~_
\&!>
6/i0/74 - 7
~..
,of the total study area, and it was his feeling that to eliminate one-fourth
of the South Hills area from individual construction, putting in'PUDs, was
totally wrong. He suggested the study lacked some very good knowledge of the
impact of carrying out the recommendations, ,that the indecision between whether
four or seven acres was the proper limitation for exemption from planned unit
development called for more specific input. He said there was strong indication
that a parcel of 30 acres might be necessary for a feasible PUD in order to pro
rate costs so people could afford to buy. He felt people in the home building
industry should be supplying some of the information in the study since they were
the ones furnishing the homes and supplying the capital to build them. Mr.Keller
thought that more help was needed before implementation of recommendations that
may not prove practical.
.
'Councilman Murray thought it misleading to suggest the choice was between
single-family residences and'PUDs since many of the PUDs comprise in large part
~sing1e-fami1y residences. He said they were not talking about eliminating
single-family homes but were concerned about single-family structures in the
South Hills area being too costly for a large portion of the community.
.Mr. williams agreed that it would be costly and that it would probably be some
time before there would be a demand for single-family sites in that area.
,However, his concern was that on smaller sites, five to seven acres, there
:wou1d be nothing but apartment construction if the PUD requirement applied, and
:he would rather see the options kept open for single-family structures. It was
,Councilman Hershner~s idea that probably it was the larger PUDs that included
:single-family housing. He also wondered whether even the larger PUDs were
heavily oriented to multiple-family even though there were some separate single:
: uni ts invo1 ved . I
, i
.
,Planning Director pointed out the relationship between single-family and
multiple-family units on sketches of several PUDs - Somerset Hills, Edgewood
West Jimber Village, Ot'lkway. It W:~S b!-,qught, out: tbat ..tile largest - Some,r,set -
had a total of 112 acres with the bulk of the units in multiple housing, but
:the bulk of the 'acreage in single-family.
'Councilwoman Campbell expressed her conviction that the SQuth Hills recommenda-
,tions were'consistent with what the city was trying to do with diversi.fied housing.)
.She pointed out that single-fa~ily development in the hill areas, besides being I
(
,quite expensive, would not provide the desired open space. She thought the I
provision for multiple-family housing in that area would provide homes for
,renters - those who did not buy. If it was not desired to develop properties
:in line with the city's policy and community goals, she said, perhaps it would
!be better to rethink the community goals.
:Councilwoman'Bea1 wondered whether single-family homes in the South Hills area
:would be completely out; under what circumstances could property owners build
single-family homes for themselves. Mr. Murray said the city did provide for
that type of development, even above the 900-foot level. However, Mrs.Campbe1l
:pointed out they would be very expensive and Mrs. Beal agreed, saying the cost
'would be out of reach of the middle-income person.
.
'Further discussion led to the conclusion that there was no disagreement with the
I
concept of the study recommendations, rather there was question about details.
Mr. Saul cited statistics on the number of four-acre or less sites in the study
area and the percentage which were vacant. He said there had been no attempt
to determine the number of parcels suitable for major subdivision versus minqr
subdivision. Councilman Keller suggested appointment of a committee to include,
builders and developers who would know whether the recommendations would prove
:economically feasible. i'
.,
Mayor Anderson suggested that the planning staff be asked to bring back several
alternatives for Council consideration before the committee process was started
again. He thought if consensus then was that the staff suggestions ,-"ere not
practical other people could be brought into the discussion.
Councilman Hershner agreed with following that procedure. He noted the change
in wording suggested in the Ridge1ine Park Specific Recommendations (II-1.b.)
to permit development under PUD procedures above the 900-foot level when it
could be demonstrated "...a proposed development is consistent with purposes
of this section." He asked what the purposes of the section were. He expressed
concern tha t tha t wording would throw it back into the ca tegory of previous
objections - that development under PUD procedures would be allowed only if it
was shown the public need would be served. He thought that,in an indirect way,
would be obtaining property from ownerships above the 900-foot level. He ob-
:jected to the philosophy of using the PUD requirement to force property owners
to dedicate property for a public park in order to be able to do anything with
their property.
.
\tB
6/j,O/74 - 8
,I,j
.
:Councilman Murray answered that the purposes of the section were in a sense
,the purposes of the study itself. He said it was not the intent to take private
'property and he didn't read that ipto the section. He explained that the in-
:tent was to preserve that very significant part of the city and if it couldn't be
'done in a way compatible with the purposes of this study and allow development
at the same time then there was an obligation to develop a satisfactory way of
,resolving that problem. He didn't see it as a "taking" kind of recommendation.
':Councilman Hershner commented on the trend of government going from condemnation
'and fair reimbursement type of action when property was needed for parks, streets,
:etc., to saying a zone change would be allowed if the property was dedicated for
;those public uses. He fel tprobably people wanting to develop were willing to
give property for needed access, but he thought government was moving farther
iaway from the public's paying for what it needed. Councilman Williams suggested
staff might 109k at that guestion when bringing alternatives with regard to lot
sizes. He thought it should be made very clear that what was being proposed was
'a condemnation sort of action rather than that of police power.
.
Mrs. Campbell noted that five areas were designated for parks imd that was
clearly spelled out in the study. She said the public was well aware of the
'proposal because of previous hearings. She didn't see the PUD requirement as
;a threat to the property owners. Mr. Murray noted familiarity with the study
;he and Mrs. Campbell had because of their membership on the Joint Parks Commi ttee '
land first-hand knowledge gained from the public hearings. He aidn' t feel anyone
'thought of it as being "heavy handed." He said there was consistent comment
from o~ers of large parcels that they would dedicate park property on their
own initiative. He felt that was one of several ways the purposes of the study
could be accomplished "
toun~ilman Keller said that although confiscation wasn't mentioned and was not
:the ultimate goal, wording of'the recommendations could lead to it. The
;proposal, he said, was for a trail park and that could involve about 40 acres.
He noted there was no indication of width of pathways so there were no specifics
:with regard to what would have to be dedicated, for public use.
!
;Mayor Anderson thought that consideration of details at this point would weigh
: down the entire study in its purpose of preserving the South Hills. He suggested
:the legal staff could develop some clarification of the question of dedication.
:Mr. Hershner was in favor of staff's working on it. He said it was one thing
!in working with a developer under PUD procedures to have him leave a portion of
:his property in its natural state or vacant, but entirely different when telling
~one a certain portion must be dedicated for public use. That distinction was
'his concern. In answer to Mr. Saul, Mr. Hershner said he felt the modification
:on specific recommendations for the Ridgeline Park was too broad and that c1arifi-~
cation there would be desirable.
-
,Councilman Wood felt many other things in the study should be considered besides
;economics - drainage, erosion, slope, etc. And since there appeared to be con-
Isensus on most of the study, he said, he would support staff's bringing back
al ter na ti ves .
'Mr. Murray expressed concern about discussion of the modification presented
,on the Ridge1ine Park wi th regard to development. He wondered whether under the
'broader wording the Council would be discussing proposals that would not have
qualified for discussion in the initial stages of the study. Mr. Saul said that
;the impression staff received from comments at the public hearing before the
Council was that the original wording was ambiguous. He explained that it was
~n attempt to set forth a better standard to which a development proposal could
,be tied so that a judgment could be made as to whether the purpose of the study
:was being met. In, answer to Councilman Murray, he said the rewording would not
,change the amount of property that could go through PUD procedure, it only re-
;defined the process.
Manager noted that when the study was adopted it would be adopted as a statement
of policy requiring implementation through specific language. Development of an
,ordinance in that regard could spell out definite kinds of criteria which would
meet some of the concerns expressed.
~.
Councilwoman Campbell expressed disappointment at the Council's reaction t;othe
:recommendations. She hoped in future instances that Council members would be
more receptive to committees' requests for comments so there would be more input
:prior to the last hearing 'and the process would not be prolonged.
Manager wondered whether Council desired distribution of a letter received since
the public hearing from Don-Lee Davidson, Davidson Industries, which pointed
;out problems with properties in their ownership in the South'Hills. Council
members wished to have the letter and it was understood copies would be made and
distributed.
~\
,~O
6(iO('J4 - 9
... ..'-,-"
Councilman Wood took exception to Mrs. Campbell's comment about lack of Council
input until this time. He thought it unrealistic for individual members to
stay abreast of every step. That was a subcommittee's purpose, he said. Also,
until an issue came to the Council as a body and details brought out in public
hearing it was difficult to understand and analyze the positive and negative
criticisms.
--
/"""
-.
It was understood staff would return alternatives with regard to possible
modi fi ca tions of lot si zes requiring p1a,nned uni t development or si te review
procedures, and response to the concern about requiring dedication of property
for park use in the PUD procedure.
; Comm
5/29/74
Approve
.-""'-...;.-
South Hills Recommendations - Copies of planning department revised recommendations
iwere previously distributed to Council wi th regard to expressed Council concern about
taking of private property in implementing the South Hills study. Also, with regard
:to concern about requirement for planned unit development procedures on all prop-
erties above the 700-foot level except for parcels smaller than four acres.
,
'With regard to the concern about possible taking of private property (requiring
dedication for public use in return for PUD approval) planning felt any modification
'to the present wording would substantially compromise objectives of the study.
'Instead, it was recommended to add at the end of the Ridgeline Park section "It is
,the legislative intent of the City Council that the recommendations of the Ridgeline ;
Park $ction of the South Hills study be achieved through clearly constitutional means."!
Councilman Williams wondered whether the addition would mean anything. He felt it
~question of when police Rower was properly exerc~_and when riqht of eminent
domain'was'proper,1y exerciseq;-arid that the language, proposed'l'Iould not substan-
;tially change anything. Assistant Manager ~greed that it was a question that could
;end up in the courts but thought there might be some advantage to stating publicly
;that it was not the Council's intent in implementing this study to take property
iwithout compensation.
.--------:
.
'Councilman HershneL could!t see where the additional language would add anything
of substance. He expressed concern also that adoption of the South Hills study
,was referred to as "essentially a policy statement" (referring to staff's comment
'under 1. of June 3 1974 memo). He felt the thrust of that comment was to say that
policy statemen~were really not laws or ordinance, which was true, but he be-
.lieved that adoption of a policy statement should be fairly stable, that it would
~have significant impact upon what is done in the way of enacting ordinances. He
was still concerned about the statement that development under PUD procedures would
be allowed only when it w~s consistent with objectives of the Ridgeline Park section.
'because those objectives were considerbly other than just preservation of the wooded
iareas and view from the areas below. The study made reference to active type park
trail system and other uses, he said, which m~de it appear a policy was being
:developed requiring an owner of property above the 900-foot level in effect to so
:develop his property that some of it was available for active-use park areas.
:Mr. Hershner felt theLe should be some statement included to say that so far as
possible a planned unit development should be designed in a manner to preserve the
pristine nature of the South Hills without reference to all the other purposes re-
,ferred to in the study.
.
:Councilman Murray said he was sure it was not planning staff nor joint comnattee
.intent to take the word "policy" lightly, that it was taken very seriously and
thought to be something that would be followed. He said the initial recommenda-
,tion was considered to be within the intent of the charge given - that there was
to be no development above the 900-foot level. Even with the previous modifica-
,tion, the idea still was not to have massive development above that level. He again
called attention to the voluntary offers from property owners to dedicate property
'primarily for trails, and noted that there were opportunities for trade offs for
;density rights and access, which he felt 'was a fairly well established precedent ! .
.in other areas .for bike paths, etc. He agreed the added language didn't change
'anything and was happy that it didn't, because to do otherwise he felt would
:raise questions about the capability of accomplishing the purpose of the study.
'Councilman McDonald referred to staff's statement under 3. in the June 3 memo and
:asked if the city would be obligated to buy properties above the 900-foot level
:for park purposes. He also asked clarification of "credit for density."
;Assistant Manager explained that the study did contemplate acquisition in some
:areas, and alternatives for method of acquisition would be considered when im-
plementation of the study was commenced. Those alternatives could include 4IIr
,dedication or donation, allowing greater density and thus greater return on in-
'vestment in approval of a development for property conveyed for public use, out-
right purchase, etc. Anyone of those methods could be used to acquire properties.
Mayo~ Anderson wondered whether thece was obligation to return the study to the
; Planning Commission if amendments were adopted. Planning Director answered that
the changes to be considered would not change the basic thrust of the report and
i unless there were substantive chang~s there would be no need to send it'back.
191
6!J.~!~4
-10
'~
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner' to insert the suggested
wording - "It is the legislative intent of the City Council that the
recommendations of the Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills study
be achieved through clearly constitutional means." - at the end of the \
Ridgeline P~rk section.
.
In making the motion Councilman Williams said he thought it was proper city action
'to protect the South Hills ridge line as a park, maintaining 'the trees and as much!
'of the area above the 900-fqot level in its natural state as the people of Eugene
'were willing to pay for. He thought it appropriate to give them an opportunity
to make their decision on access to that land. He had no quarrel, he said, if
there was transfer of property rights that were satisfactory to the land owner,
but the city did not have the right to say property above the 900-foot level could
not be developed and that the city had no intention of buying it. He was saying
the option should be kept open to allow city purchase, permitting the voters to
make a financial commi tment. Mr. Murray said he had no disagreement wi th that
viewpoint.
Assistant Manager cautioned the Council about closing the door on use of police
power in interest of ,p~blic safety, that is when terz'ain, soil condi tions, etc.,
would call ,for rational , police power decision that certain land uses could n9t.
occur. Mr. WiJ.l~ams answered that where constructIO,n on hiTls~de proper'ty was
,risky from a public safety standpoint, the Council could clearly say development
there could not happen. His concern was about using police power not for safety
purposes but for public desire.
'1
I
.
Discussion ensued between Councilman Williams and Councilwoman Beal with regard to
authority of a governing body to permit reasonable uses of property without obliga-
:tion or responsibility to protect property owners against financial loss because
'of their own speculation. Mr. Williams said that when Council decision was that
jno development or use of property should occur, then the question became one of
I
: acqui,ring that property. To' say development could not occur at all wi thout ac-
'quisition would have to be for valid safety reasons, not for scenic beauty. Mrs.Beal:
:reCOgniZ~d tha~ the city could not have agricultural land beca~se of its dedication \
,to more ~ntens~ve settlement, but she wondered about the loss ~ncurred by a prop- !
lerty owner who purchased land for development - land designated by a land planning I
ibody for farm use which could not then be developed in the public interest - and :
'suffered loss because of the refusal of the governing body to permit subdivision !
'development. Mr. Williams' understanding of the law was that a governing body
,could properly deny the right to speculative development of land - if property was
,farm land when purchased ,the governing body had the right to say it would remain
; farm land. He said it was conceivable that property above the 900-foot level in
: the South Hills could be called farm land ,(tree ,farm) but there would be no guarantee'
ito protect its purchase for development. However, there was the right to use that I
;land to some extent. Assistant Manager noted recent legislation in Marin County, I
'California whereby development of farm lands was restricted to one unit per 60 acres"
:based on land use studies. The result was that development was abandoned, with
:farmers obtaining more land. In acquisition of property, values rose from 5% to
:20%. He felt that, type of preservation should be considered.
icouncilman Murray asked for clarification of the motion - whether it 'would be con-
;sidered an amendment to the motion on the floor at adjournment of the May 20
Council meeting. Mayor said it would be considered an amendment, to be acted
upon formally at the June 10 meeting.
'.
Counoilman Keller asked if it was Mr. Williams' intent that purchase of ridge line
property would be referred to the voters. If so, what time schedule would be in-
rolved for people wanting to sell land or make trades. Mr. Williams answered
,that eventually a recommendation would be made for purchase 'of substantial amounts
,of land above the 900-foot level which would properly require provision of f~nds
by the voters. Mr. Murray didn't disagree but asked the Council to bea~ in mind
'that such a move was speculative. Jim Saul, planner, at Councilwoman Campbell's
request, explained that one of the study recommendations, if adopted, was that
the Joint Parks Committee proceed immediately with detailed price figures, designa-
tionof specific areas for acquisition, and report to the Council with suggested
funding sources and mechanisms for acquiring the properties. The time element
would be at Council's discretion, he said, but the staff and the Joint Commi ttee
were aware of the urgency of the matter if the study was going to be successful.
.
Councilman McDonald asked if the intent of the main motion, including this amend-
'ment, if adopted, was to obligate the city to purchase of ridgeline park property
:at some future time. Mr. Williams answered that it was not the intent of/this
motion to obligate the city to purchase the properties. The intent was to give
that option if the voters so desired. In the ~vent that was not their desire
and other acquisition techniques were not acceptable, then property owners would
have the right to use thei~ land under normal city ordinances and zoning procedures.
He agreed with Mr. Hershner's understanding that this amendment would provide that
'property above the 900-foot level, if it could be :reasonably served with municipal
'services and if it could be developed so as not to be hazardous to the public
safety (land slides, surface water, etc.), could be developed rather than the
ci,tg:1?, saYJ:_I}~i t had~" be_J:~,!._t. 9P-~!l...fo:r:_v~,~~i.I2~:_~__~ _.'~__ ___ _, _ _'.' ..___' _-____,_._'
~\
, ~2..
6/i0/74 - ii
vote was taken on the motion to add the recommended wording. Motion
carried unanimously.
~iscussion turned to the recommendation for development standards calling for PUD
procedures for all major development (development in excess of minor partitions)
'above the 700-foot level, previously modified to except existing parcels smaller
'than four acres when site review procedures were followed. . Planning staff in its
June 3 memo recommended (1) adopting the Joint Parks Committee original recommenda-
'tion; (2) adopt'ing the previous modification; (3) revising the recommendation so:
"All major developments (developments in excess of minor partitions)
occurring on property above an elevation of 701 feet shall be reviewed by
the Planning Director to determine if standard subdivision procedures,
site revieYl prQcedures, or_p,lanned. unit development,procedu~€!...~__sl-}ould, b,e \--'
required. In reaching a determination, the Planning Director shall
evaluate the following factors: (a) the potential for surface movement;
(b) the view potential qf the property; (c) the nature of existing
vegetation; (d) the nature of surrounding development; and (e) the
nature of the development proposal. The decision of the Planning Di-
rector shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and thence to the
City Council."
:(4) revising recommendation in (3) to delete reference to standard subdivision
;procedures; or (5) revising recommendation in (3) to specify it applies only to
:parcels larger' than four acres with automatic si te review procedure for parcels
'smaller than four acres.
Icouncilman Williams said he was satisfied with the solution provided by the
[third recommendation. He felt it would give better planning control on a parcel-
!by-parcel basis than the previous recommendation tied to four-acre parcels, and
'it provided for appeal to the Planning Commission and the Council. Assistant
lManagersaid staff would prefer the original recommendation, but if modification
was to be made the third one on which Mr. williams commented would be their choice.
,Mr. Saul said there was some reluctance about the recommendation (3) because staff
:felt a considerable amount of time - staff, Commission, and Council - would be spent
;'in reaching decisions on best development of particular parcels. One advantage
'of the original recommendation was that it would eliminate any of that potential~
although the new recommendation would permit consideration of individual properties
rather than making an overall judgment in advance. Planning Director added that
staff's main concern was the time factor~ He thought though that if problems did
arise in working under that recommendation staff might come back to the Council
with a set of standards on which to base decisions sq that there would not be an
appeal on every development proposed.
~Councilman Wood was in favor of the recommendation. He felt decisions on individual ,
:properties would be more suitable, considering diversity of concerns - soil condi-
tions, slope, etc. He preferred seeing some single-family construction rather
than entirely apartment construction if it could be accomplished without going
:contrary to the study itself. .
;Councilman Murray opposed it. He shared the planners' concern that the recommenda-
ition would set off a continual battle. And he didn't think it good judgment to try
;to get around planned unit development in that area because he fel t that was the
'best mechanism for getting the type of development desired by the public. He noted
;the number of existing single-family dwellings in the South Hills and ample provi-
sion for further single-family construction under PUD requirements. Added to that,
~e said, was all the existing property in the rest of the city suitable for single-
family construction and vacant. He felt reasons set out in staff's memo as to why
~he Joint Committee initially selected the PUD requirement were valid. .He cited
~tudies reviewed in a publication - ,Local Government Policies for Urban Development -
,which indicated cluster type housing more economical for all - developer, owner,
a~d taxpayer. He felt the recommendation under discussion would run the risk of
development by conventional standards of a majority of the property between the
:700- and 900-foot levels. Mr. ,Murray favored the initital wording contained in
:the study in this regard.
,Mr. williams recognized the potential for "haggling" in reaching decisions on prop-
erty development under the recommendation, but he felt after three or four develop-
;ments more concise standards could be written than he was willing to write at this
itime. Hecpmmented that he knew of no time the Council ha~ not approved use of PUD
iprocedures, it had always been supportive of that type of development. He had no
,intent of trying to abolish use of PUD procedures, he said, but felt that w~en it
'was not logical, and was unfair or impractical, then other options should be available.~
"
~
:Councilman Wood didn't see the recommendation as allowing standard subdivision
!throughout the South Hills area. He did believe that all high-rise construction
!would,be contrary to public desire and that some flexibility in decisions for that
; area would be preferable.
"3
6!i0/74 - i2
.
.
.
.
/
~-
J
.
:Councilman Keller agreed with Mr. Williams view that working with the recommendation
would provide staff the opportunity for creating a better set of standards than could ,
ibe prepared at this time. He wondered if staff's fee1.ing that they would be "haggling":
,a good deal of the time resulted from their strong conviction that unit-housing should
be encouraged. He thought if development in that area was approached with that con-
viction then community support would not be evident because he had seen no over-
whelming public support .for that type of building, nor for the park itself, for tha t
matter. Mr. Keller felt the recommendation (3) would take care of concerns expressed
in meetings to this point. He expressed appreciation for the information supplied
in ,the curumtIl!emo withregardto proI!erties at diff(;r~nt eleva~ions. He wonderf:liJ.,
however, when emphasis was placed on the number of vacant propert~es from 700-root ,
elevation and higher, 'why the report took percentages on properties between the i
ridge line and the 500-foot level. Mr. Saul, answered that computer data which
follows section lines was used to arrive at the figures. The 500-foot elevation
happened to follow section lines in many instances whez'eas the 700-foot level did
not. Staff realized this at the time, but because manual calculation following
actual section and parcel lines'would take more time it was decided to go ahead
with the computer data.
"
.
Councilwoman Campbell, in ,answer to Mr. Keller's comment about public support, com-
mented on the tremendous support she was aware of - a coalition of about 3000 people;
'supporting the study and favoring its adoption without further modification. :
Mr. Murray explained that his commen't about public des,ire did not necessarily
mean the public wanted mul tiple-family development;: exc.Z usi vel y. ,And he did not
,accept the premise that PUD requirements were synonymous with multiple-family hous-
ing. He wanted to underscore his thinking that this recommendation would not
cripple the study, but he thought it would be a mistake for which the consequences
would have to be paid.
comm
i 6/5/74
Approve
./
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr.' Keller to amend the study by deleting
the wording in the first recommendation contained in II. Specific Recom-
mendations under Development Standards section'and substituting therefor
the wording contained in the third recommendation of the June 3 planning
memo in that regard (as shown above).
Councilwoman Beal said she would vote for the motion on the basis that most of the
:time PUD procedures would be used, but she didn't want to rule out other types of
,development. She hoped that it would not alter the original purpose of the study.
Mr. Saul explained that in making the recommendation under discussion staff felt
~twould not substantially weaken the objectives of the study, considering the
;various factors that would be taken into consideration in determining whether PUD
procedures or standard subdivision would be followed. Mr. Murray commented that
Ithe motion ignored the development already in the South Hills and it was erroneous
I ,
,to base the reason for passage on the need for single-family development.
.
i Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Council members
Williams, Hershner, Beal, Keller, and Wood voting aye; Council members
McDonald, Campbell, and Murray voting no..
~ayor Anderson explained there would be no further public input on this provision,
ithat it wouid come to the formal meeting on June 10 as amendments to the motion on
!the floor for adoption of the South Hills reco~endations.
!
. I
l- ___'~~~''''__,",_", "......_, ......~.' ......__,.
Manager called Council's attention toresoiutlon prepared for adoption of the South Hills'
~ecommendations in line with action taken at the June 5, 1974 committee meering.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr.' Hershner to adopt the South' 'Hills'
recommendation with modifications. Mo~ion carried unanimously.
"
~ouncil members Murray and Campbell expressed their appreciation tdthe 'many citizens'
providing in~ut at Joint Parks Committee deliberations, and to Jim Saul, plann~r, f9r tr~s
effort and tlme spent with the Study. Mrs. Campbell eommented that adoption of the South
Hills recommendations was extremely significant to the city, $qual to adoption of the
1990 'General Plan.
.
Manager for plrposes of clarification 'asked that the record sh6w"thaT discussiontc:i this
point should not be construed to mean the Council intended to abandonregutaruses of'
propertyfo r all: lawful purposes, inCluding aestheti:c consideratioris ,nor did it 'creat~
any obligation for expenditure Of pUblic funds except as the law woi.lln otherwise require.
Resolution No. 2295 - Adopting South Hills 'recommeridat'ion' 'as amended, and adopting
findings supporting the recommendations as set forth in
preliminary draft of South Hills Study and official report of the Planning Commission
dated April 9,1974 was read,by number, and title only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Motion' carried
-
unanimous,ly.
'94
--~~
6/iO /74 - i3
~
'...,.......-..... .. .-.,-,...........
. _....4_.. ._.. _ _,_,'~'''._ _~"'.'_'''_' ...,.,',.,.._.,.~._.. '~'.,"_'''''''-__ .'".~......__, _~....... __. "..... ... ,..,,,,., ' . ...._ _ .
D. ,Street Name Change, Hawkins Heights Boulevard - Planning Commission on April 22
recommended renaming Hawkins Heights Boulevard to Hawkins Lane, and east/west
portion of Hawkins Heights Boulevard at Broadview Street, to South Lambert.
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to schedule public hearing
,on the name change. Motion oarried unanimously.
comm
: 5/29/74
Pub Hrng
Puhlichearing Wg.s opened.
11:r?s-. 'Roo.ert f!iller,287Cl Hawkins: Lane,' s'aia she represented several residents living
on' Hawkins' Lane ,. and Hawkins" Heights Boulevard all desiring the Jiame "Hawkins, Lane"
~o~ the entire Street. '
No fur~her testimony was presented, and public hearing was closed.
Council Bill No. 575 - Renaming Hawkins Heights Boulevard "Hawkins Lane" and
east/west portion'ofHawkins Heights Boulevard between
Broadview and South Lambert "South Lambert" was read by council bill number and
title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. ~ill~ams moved seconde~ by Mr. Hershner that'the bill be read the second time
by coun~l.l b:111 nu~er :>nly, Wl. th unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment
,b: consl.dered.at !hl.s tlme. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the seco d
tlrne by councl.l bl.ll number only. n
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the council bill be approved and
given ~inal passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the
bill was declared passed and numbered 17102.
E.
Zoning Newly Annexed Areas
. . "'~. -. ....' _.' --~ -''';;:;; ..,.-,- ~.., -. ~?" .....------- .~.. ~
'Planning COmInission ,Report - May 7, 1974
'A. zoning newly annexed areas recommended
1. Willagillespie-Russet Area - RA and C-l
2. West end of Hunington Avenue west of Donald - R-l PD
B. Sign District Boundary change recommended - north of River Avenue, south of
Belt Line, and west of Ross Lane - From Residential District to Outlying Commercial,
C. Recommended approval of open space land designation for assessment purposes -
Nob Hill Homes Association, timbered property located along the south side
of 30th Avenue east of Agate Street, with conditions.
., ,'~".. .'
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to schedule public hearing on the
items for June lO Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
comm
6/5)74
Pub Hrng
i. Willagillespie-Russet Area - RA and c-1 (City)
2. West end of Huntington Avenue west of McDonald - R-1 PD (City)
Public Hearing was held, no testimony was presented.
Council Bill No. 576 - Zoning newly annexed willagillespie-Russet area RA and c-1
was read by title and number only, there being no councilman
present requesting that it be read in full.
:CouiiCIlmari'Williiims' wondered-whether 'i tw6Uldbe' proper '~to 'inClude fin~d:Lngs 'inst.aff
botes and Commission minutes in the motion to approve when there appeared to be no
~indings in those documents.
"
lJim Saul explained that the recommended zones were the same as the properties carried
!in the County, and that the Commission had not hesitated to add the PD prefix to the
,
Hunington Avenue property. He said there was no major requiremeDt for positive findings
~to support the recommended zones on either property. Stan Long, assistant city attorney,:
..advised that the Planning Commission minutes could be incorporated into the, motion for
whatever content they would contribute to support the zoning.
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, and that the Planning Commission minutes dated May 7, 1974
/; be incorporated as a part of the record to suppor't' the zoning.
;..;"'"
Councilman Herstlner wondered whether the c-1 ~oning recommended in the Willagillespie-
Russet ar'ea was becau.se-6ftne' exlsting'small grocery store ,whether that zoning was
desired there rather than designating,th~'store as a nonconforming use. He was not
opposed to it, he said, but was wondering how the area would fit into the overall plan.
Mr. Saul explained that there was commercial zoning ~till in the Countynext.to that
particular piece of property. The occupant had plans to expand the stor,e whl.c~ would
'ctS
6/iO/74 - i4
(i670)
'.
.
( 1692 )
-.
r::- ~ .
;tt. >,,-/
. 'C'-
~
j
(1764)
..
->
.
(1776 )
.
(1796 )
(1817 )
~.
~\
be precluded if the property was, .zoned residential. He said it was a case of trying
to respond to the particulars,'" of the existing situation.
Councilman McDonald commented' on the length of time the grocery store had been at the
existing location and that it .was a matter of continuing zoning which applied while
the property was under County jurisdiction.
Vote was taken on second reading. Motion carried unanimously and the bill w,as
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 17103.
council'Bill No. 577 - Zoning newly annexed area off west end of Hunington
Avenue west of Donald Street to R-1 PD 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 findings supporting zoning as L.~
set forth in Planning Commission minutes and staff notes. of May 7, 1~74 ~e adopted \
be reference thereto; that the bill be read the second,t1me by co~nc1l b1ll n~e~ only,:
~with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment bed c9ns1gered at.lhb~111me.
~Motion carried unanimously, and the b1ll was read the secon t1me y counc1 1
...~_. ----.--..
h)J,r@e:r>~d-~''--'-''.:z,r~:,. --:- ~.'.~:,;~o:-_._ ---,'- ~--, ~ ~~' :;;;;;-~ -". - ~- -'" ,
Mr"William~;n;oved' ~econded by Mi'dvHersIiner 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 17104.
F. Sign Distr{ctBoundary Change
Area north of River Avenue, '8vu.ch of Belt Line, and west of Ross Lane (Baker)
Planning Commission recommended on May 7,1974 to change from Residential District to
Outlying Commercial District to conform to present land use.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 578 - Changing sign district for area north of River Ayenue,
south of Belt Line Road, and west of Ross Lane to
Elutlying Commercial District was read by title and
number only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in
full. ,. ,
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood that findings sUPP9rting sign district
change as set forth in Planning Commission minutes and s,taff notes of May 7, 1974
be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Motion2carried unanimously, and the bill was read the
second time by council bill number only'. .
Mr., Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Hood that the council bill be approved and
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, ,except
C6uflcilman Williams abstaining, the bill was declared passed and' numbered 17105.
G: Open Space Land Designation
Area on south side of 30th Avenue east of Agate Street (Nob Hills Homes Association)
Recommended by Planning Commission on May 7, 1974 to preserve the timbered undeveloped
aspect of a triangular parcel owned by the Nob Hills Homes Association. By so doing,
taxation would not be so great as to force development.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the Open Space Land
designation as recommended.
Councilwoman Campbell wondered about the effect the designation would. have on possible
future assessments if sidewalks were installed. Manager replied that the property
under discussion was behind those abutting the street so would not be assessed for
any future improvement in that area.
Councilwoman Beal inquired about the difference between tax rates for open. space land
and ordinary residential property. Manager answered that it would probably depend upon
the value placed by the County Assessor. This property if designated as open space
land would be assessed as open space rather than as developable land. Mr. Saul added
tJ1at under i ts'.present designation assessed value would be about $2500 per acre,; under
open space classification, about $40 to $80 .per acre.
\~Co
'"~.
6/:10/74 - i5
In response to Mr. Hershner I s question about the authority for changing land' classifica-
tion for assessment purposes, Mr. Saul cited ORS provisions and procedure followed in
bringing the application to the Council for approval. He said it was initiated by the
land owners and that if approved it would not necessarily prevent applications .for
'building permits. However, State law dId p!!:1ovide fairly heavy penalties if construction
took place. The open space slassification would have to be removed, and in that .event
the property owner would be liable for pyament of taxes which would have been due under
the higher classification. ,
.
Councilman McDonald wondered where responsibility for the property and any future
assessments would lie. He ,wasconcerned,too about reduction in revenues if other
properties were.so designated,resulting'in lesser. tax monies returned to the County.
Manager said it was his understanding the Homes Association was incorporated and
members were those people owning property abutting the open space area. They as a
corporation had title to .the property on which open space designation was requested.
The open space designation would have no .effect on any future improvement assessments
against the property if it was benefited, unless the Council decided the restrictions
were reason to exempt it from assessment, which he felt would be stretching the point.
(1903)
Vote was taken on the motion to approve the open space land designation. Motion
carried unanimously.
II - Items acted upon with one motion after,discussion of individual items if requested.
Previously discussed in committee on May 22, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council
members Williams, Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and'Wood); on
May 29, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members. Hershner, Beal, Campbell, .''''-.,-
Keller, Murray, and Wood); and on June 5, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members
Williams, Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and ~ood). Minutes
of those meetings are printed below in italics.
;JC ApPointiiients'-'-->-~- - .
1. Electrical Board - Mike McCall, 3230 Bell Avenue, recommended by the Mayor
for term ending January l, 1977.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
~omm
5/22/74
Appt'ove
2. Masonry Board - Cecil Saxon, Route 4~ Box 193D, reappointed by the Mayor
for term ending January 1, 1977.
\
In response to Councilwoman Bea1, Mayor Anderson explained
of board members were specified by ordinance and that they
if it was the Council's desire to include consumers or lay
that qualifications]
could be reviewed Comm
members. 5/2~/74
Approve
3. Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee (LCOG) - Councilman williams
announced reappointment ?f Dorothy Anderson and Lewis Manhart as Eugene's
representatives for the term ending June 30, 1977; and
;comm
5/2;2/74
I
App;rove
.
4. Eugene Renewal Agency - Reappointment of Joan Mazo for the term ending
July 10, 1978. Mr. Williams reported that the Council decided to solicit
applications for the vacancy 2reated by the resignation of Ray Hawk. The
Agency, he said, was preparing application forms to be available in the
City Manager's offipe. Applications were to be taken for two weeks from the 'eomm
time forms ,were a,vailab1e, permitting screening and !interview in time for 5/'f2/74
formal appointmen,f; at the June 24 Council meeting. Approve
"
. .-.._"'---' . '. ....-... .-_...... -. .'-:-----.--... ..-..~;~. 1
B. Various liquor License Renewals, and Change of Location, c1ub Cigar Store, \
933 Olive Street (RMB) - Request was recei ved from Ben Raykovich for approval of .
;relocation ina new building ~t 933 Olive Street of the former Lucky's Club Cigar;
'Store~Mr. Raykovich is moving from a building acquired by the Renewal Ag~ncy ,
land needs Council action prior to the june lO meeting to permit moving his 'es-
tablishment next week and to receive renewal application for the new location i,
for the 1974-7S year.
The following renewal applications were also presented:
I Retail Malt Beverage ~
!
: Package Store -
PaddOck Tavern, 335S East Amazon
Pit Stop, 2222 Highway 99N
Rancho Tavern, 1466 West 7th
Rod's Hofbrau, 1030 Highway 99N
Side Pocket Tavern, 846 West 6th
Stadium Club, 375 East 7th
Albertson's #507 - 1675 West 18th
" #515, 3299 Hilyard
" #531,#2 OakwayMa11
.
,q,
6/iO(74 - .16
,~
.
e
,e
.
~\
Edelweiss Wine Chalet, 34 East 10th
McKay's, 2101 Bailey Hill Road
" 1960 Franklin Boulevard
" 2021 River Road
One O'Clock Market, 698 West 6th
Palace Market, 3225 Donald Street
Restaurant - Excelsior Cafe, 754 East 13th
Rico's Red Lion, 179S West 6th
iC1ass A Dispensers - Ed's Pit Barbecue & Hunter Room, 959 Pearl,
Seymour's Riviera Room, 996 Wil1amette
Valley River Inn, Valley River Center
"'.1...
Mrs. Beal' moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to recommend approval of
the licenses and release prior to the June 10 Council meeti!lg.
" '!I.gt.~on .carried unanimous!::.y~~ ___ __ ...__ ~p' ..,. .._.____",._ _ ,
-',~.~ ....~ ~~'7' .-:....
ADDED SINCE COMMITTEE
Package Store - Corner Cupboard, 4690 Royal
Late Shopper, 230 River Road
7':1l Food Store,
II II'
.~
\
II 11,-
II "
445 Coburg Road
1316 Alder Street
2777 Friendly Street
2270 West 18th Avenue
588 West 7th Avenue
II "
i
Class A Dispensers - Ron & Maddy's Caravelle, 160 Park Street
"'~-4__L:.~
Liquor.License Renewals were presented along with request for recommendation on
change of ownership and trade name of Tiffany Club, 795 Willamette Street (fo~erly,
LaMars) from Bud Nixon (DA) and for greater privilege for Duffy's, 801 East 13th, /
,from Steve NosIer and Bill Baker (now RMB, requesting R). The renewals were: '
: Retail Malt Beverage - Black Forest Tavern, 2657 Wil1amette
The Cooler, 20 Centennial Loop
Duffy's, 801 East 13th
Robinson's Tavern, 550 East 13th
Sidetrack Tavern, 295 Highway 99N
Machine Gun Alley" 730 WiIIamette
,~, ,=.V{a.f:;~J:ga.t_~_,_TgVe!:n.,.,20Q9 ,W'es.t 11th
,/
,0-:'
-,\, .
t '.
1. :,.
'\'
,
, Package' Store - Baza I r Foods, 2010 Goodpasture Island Road
Consumer Warehouse Foods, 225 River Road
German Smoked Meats, 2805 Oak Street
The New Frontier Market, 1101 West 8th Avenue
Thrifty Drug Store, 194 West Broadway
Warehouse Food Store, 2101 West 11th
Ye Olde Wine Shop, 260 Valley River Center
Class A Dispensers - Back Door, 1046 Oak Street
Bev's Steak House, 1905 West 6th
Charter Oak Restaurant, #1 Oakway Mall
Club Crosstown, 1797 West 7th
Foo's, 764 Willamette
Hide-a-way, 796 Highway 99N
Staff presented no reason for denying approval of the applications.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to recommend approval of the
lic:e?~~_s._,'3.E!. ,presented. Motion carried unanimously.
",,:::,;,l
c.
FlOOd Disaster Protection Act - Council was advised of resolutions to be
ibrought for consideration at the June 10 meeting which would authorize
!the city's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. Public
Works Director explained that within ten days of adoption of the resolutions
:anyone in the city would be eligible to obtain Federally subsidized flood
: insurance. He said, in answer to Mrs. Beal, tha t .i t was his understanding
jtheinsur~nce would be under policies separate from other insurance.
'Planning Director advised that both Lane County and Springfield had enacted
Isimi1ar legislation. ~~
'-
I
\
,
\
I
\
\
\
i
.- - ---
, -,~--" ---"~' -----J
\~6
6/10/74 - i7
-.:.
comm
5129/74
. Approve
comm
6/5/74
Approve
_ __._.....___.,._.J__.
Councilman Hershner referred to previous consideration of this program and
recollected that costs of participation in the program made it not worth-
,while. Also, that it was decided there were too few properties in the city
'apt to flood to make it worth staff time and cost. Public Works Director
answered that at the time of previous consideration it was not mandatory
,for flood plain zoning. It is now and will involve about a four-ye8:r process.
Assistant Manager added that unless the city qualified for the subsidized
flood insurance, property owners, including the city itself, would be pre- "
'-;
eluded from g~tting any relief. Too, without flood plain zoning there would " C
b F d 1 t.. . . 1 omm
e no e era par ~c~pat~on ~n any land purchases or subsidized programs such5A29/74
.as FHA. A I
~prove
.
, .
D. ; Easement, Storm Sewer from Bedford Plot to the east - Authorization was re-
: queste~ for purchase of storm sewer from John and Soffina Meeks ',...$47S.00,
'and Sk~p and Dorothy Hathaway - $484.00. Cost would be primarily for,damages
: to planted areas to allow extension of the drainage system to connect Oakway
,Road along the north edge of the Oakmont property betweenPioneer'Pike and
Frontier Park.
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the easement
purchase as requested. Motion carried unanimously.
'comm
5/29/74
Approve
. .. .._ ,,',_,. :- _. . '. .' ,_-:-.-::".......~ '. . > ,J.. , ':J.. 4. __ "_.~ ~ ,.'
E. lEasemen+;, pede'stl::1.an and Bicycle path,-"viifLe-ii'River .:;' Accept,ince of' Dlcqc~~ . an'\. ..~
:pedestrian easement along the Willamette River on the west side of Valley River' \
,Center was requested. Aerial, pl}oto of the area was shown and proposed route
pointed out.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to accept the easement
as requested.
:It was brought out that no plan or proposal was yet developed for a route extend-
;ing north from the one under discussion, so there had been no contact with prop-
erty owners to the north for easement. Also, that the easement presented for
acceptance would provide a path along the top of the riverbank. Public Works
Director noted that the location of the path was in line with Planning Commis-
:sion and Council requirements for the ,Montgomery Ward planned unit development.
Vote was taken on the motion to accept the easement. Motion carried
unanimously.
Comm
5/29/74
Approve
i
f. :Abatement, 1891 Bailey Hill' Road - Request for abatement action was received
: from the building division of the Public Works Department together with photos
and report on condition of the building. It was understood Council would view
: the site on tour before formal consideration of the request.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to call public hearing on
the abate~ent. Motion carried unanimously.
edmm
5/29/74
G. ,Petition, paving and sanitary sewer within Boyd Plat - Petitioned by owners ofA~prove
- . I
lOO% of property to be assessed, a subdivision located off West Amazon Dr~ve. i
Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to accept the petition.
Motion carried unanimously.
comm
5/29/74
I
Approve
:Petition for sanitary sewer between Stewart Road and 11th Avenue from!
: Bertelsen Road to Amazon Channel - 100%
Comm
6/5/74
"0' ApPfove
...,.-..........,. -..-
H., ,A,reiiJ-wide Planning Co-ordination, s.B.loo - plannj,ng Commission, in response to
referral" by the Counpil, recoImlended that LCOG be designated as the ci ty I S
representative in area-wide planning required under S.B.IOO. Manager explained
that the new legislation, adopted in the 1973 session, allows either the County
to act as area-wide planning co,-ordination body, creation of a regional planning
agency, or LCOG's funotioning in that capacity. Because LCOG is set up for that:
!kindof worj{- and the County is not; the commissioiifelt.'r..CoG' s' designation' would ~
iavoid duplication and nonproductive effort, recognizing that the County 'has the',
iauthority for the final decision.
--
,~
6/iO/74 - i8
.
.
e
~
"'"
.'
,~
'.
,Councilman Murray expressed his concern about the ongoing proliferation of groups
~)with overlapping functions, referring to the creation of the Metropolitan Area
planning Advisory Committee (MAPAC) whose functions, he said, s$emed to be parallel
to those of LCOG. He felt one problem with MAPAC and the feeling of loss of citizen
: input was the lack of staff support, and he wondered whether other governmental
agencies.cou1d give some. In-,answer to Mrs. Campbell's impression that funds were
: allocated in the budget and that the County and springfield were contributing.
Assistant Manager said both the County and Springfield had been asked to participate
C in financing MAPAC staff.. 'However , Springfield decided not to increase its par-
;ticipation in LCOG funding above 6%. Concern about that limitation on LCOG programs
iwas to 'be a matter of discussion in the next Budget Co~ttee meeting. He v.erified
ithat the Eugene budget did provide an allocation for MAPAC staffing.
.
:Manager said that staffing requirements were not known for the land conservation
: and development co-ordination required under S.B.lOO. However, MAPAC responsi-
!bilities were somewhat different from the co-ordination role in that they were
: charged initially with updating and refinement of the 1990 Plan for this metro-
politan area. The area-wide planning role was broader and would require co-
ordination of local planning activities with State land use planning. Planning
Director added that LCOG deals with the County-wide planning while MAPAC deals
: only with the metropolitan area, that MAPAC is within the structure of LCOG itself.
: Final determination on land use planning would be made by the LCOG Board which, he
: said, would incorporate advice from the citizens advisory committee. He had no
. knowledge of funding for the co-ordination role but thought there might be some
State support to the agency designated. His understanding was that there would
. .
, be no additional money from the County for"MAPAC ahd a relatively smaJ.l amount
: from Springfield. But until requirements of the co-ordination function were
more clearly known, it was felt LCOG would best serve the purpose.
: Councilman Murray, r~cognizing that LCOG could function in the co-ordinating role,
: felt LCOG and MAPAC could conceivably end up competing for staff support. ,He '
, didn't see why, if MAPAC served only the metropolitan area, members represent-
. ing other areas of the County could not be added so that MAPAC could function as
. the co-ordinating agency. Planning Director responded that MAPAC was a part of
, the LeOG structure and could not be separated, that the LCOG Board was made up
,of elected officials for policy direction whereas MAPAC was an advisory land
use planning body.
.
-
'Councilman Wood noted that using MAPAC would call for creation of more citizen
',groups throughout the County whereas LCOG was already set up in that respect.
;Hesaid it was his und~rstanding that staff would be nBde available regardless
iof Springfield's decision and that MAPAC's information would be integrated into
the co-ordination function through LCOG. He thought some unversity help would
'also be available in the updating function of MAPAC. He added that S.B.lOO
would add increased burden and regardless of which agency was designated ear
, the co-ordination function that responsibility would have to be funded in some
fashion. Mr. Murray had serious reservations about staffing, remarking that
,without significant increase in staff support there could be no advisory work
accomplished and he didn't see how Eugene could take that responsibility by it-
,self. He noted MAPAC's year-and-a-ha1f existence with minimum staff help which
,was supplied by Eugene.
i
Councilwoman Beal wondered if LCOG took on the co-ordination role required by
S.B.lOO whether it would be financed primarily by Eugene since others were not
'budgeting funds for LCOG. Planning Director replied that was not the case, - i
,that a financing plan for the co-ordination program was not yet devised~ The I
,funding would have to be supplied by the County if it accepted that responsibility,(
'the same was true of LCOG. It was hoped the. State would allocate Federal funds I
,for that purpose but in any event Eugene would probab.ly fund its share, based I
:possibly on population. It was assumed that MAPAC would be a part of the effort I
; if LCOO was designated as the responsible agency. \
I
~
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. .Wood to recommend designation of
Lane Council of Governments as the area-wide planning co-ordination
agency with the idea that MAPACwould playa very important role in
that function.
.
Manager in general comment on the question raised by Mr. Murray said that at sOllJe
point in time it would be well to' take a gopd look at the committee structure of
.LCOG and the cost of operating. In the proqess of encouraging citizen participa-
tion in planning decisions, he ~.id;, it ~f!3~e?_ t~:.:-=_.'should ,~~__~,?m'::_l2?~l1~ a~__. ---~
1.00
6/i0/74 - i9
~
'which a decis1.oii oil cost benefit was made. HefelEUthere was- no-knowledge at
this time of the cost of operating the complicated LCOG committee structure nor
,of how many committees and subcommittees could be afforded or time lapse which
could be accepted in arriving at planning decisions. Manager added that he
would like to see some attention given to the total LCOG committee structure
and cost of serving that total to see if there were areas which ,could be con-
solidated, even to the point of sacrificing some participation in order to move
; the planning process along. He referred to the transportation planni~g process
on which there was, a technical committee and a citizens advisory committee, each
working separately from the other, with th~ request for addition of another com-
mittee comprising administrative people of agencies involved in order to gain
eligibility for Federal funds. He thought someone should look at the whole
process since so much staff time was absorbed in serving committees rather than
doing work which could be done.
.
Mayor Anderson concurred ,in concerns epxressed by both Councilman Murray and
Manager - lack of, staff time and proliferation of committees. He wondered whether!
a calendar ,could be prepared to better acquaint the Council with LCOG activities I
wii:.~ the idea of suggesting improvements for moving the planning function more
,quickly. He felt it necessary at some point to establish channels.-of input tc)
'get the work done even though they might seem restrictive'.
,:Councilman Wood with regard to designation of a co-ordination agency said he was
", in favor of LCOG's performing that function because it was already set up and
staffed. The concern about committees, he said, had been discussed by some of
LCOG citizens advisory groups as to need for staff support and the time lag ex-
ipressed here, so it was of concern withinLCOG itself. Manager asked that his
;Temarks not be interpreted as criticism of the advisory committees nor of the
:LCOG BOard. It was only comment on the result of natural growth process in-
~vo1ving a lot of people in a lot of different concerns, and he was questioning
:at what point 'the value was Iost because of being bogged down in mechanisms.
jMayor Anderson suggested a complete rundown on LCOG activities, perhaps in dif-
"iferent sessions - one on structure, another on staffing, and perhaps one on actual
''functions. Manager was not sure this was the proper time because of LCOG' s being
in the process of acquiring a new director. It was understood the matter would
be kept in mind and brought back at a more appropriate time.
.
Vote was taken on the motion to recommend designation of LCOG as the
area-wide co-ordination agency in this area. Motion carried unanimously.
comm
5/29/74
Approve
~<
1. !Purchase, Golden Gardens' 'Street Right-of-way - From John C. Wells for $237.00.
Recommended by staff to purchase the 10'xl01' strip.
Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to purchase the right-
of-way as recommended. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm
5/29/74
Approve
.
J. ,Purchase, Street Right-Of-way" Old Dillard Road - Authorization was requested ',-;--,.,
to purchase stree't' right-Of-way from John W. and Bertha King, 4040 Diliard Road,
for $6,600.00. Sketch of location was shown and it was noted that Council mem-
,'bex,s viewed the si te on tour. The property would provide right-of-way for re-
,al~g~ent of the intersection of Dillard Road and Fox Hollow Road. Assistant
,Manager explained that lengthy negotiation resulted in understanding by the
, sell~rs that they would have a street assessment against their property abutting
the ~mprovement when it wa~ installed. The city would also have an assessment
against adjac~nt ~roperty it owns which would be paid by whoever owned the prop-
erty at the tJ,me ~t was dev~loped. Staff recorrunended proceeding with the purchase.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to authorize the purdlase.
'In answer to Councilwoman Beal, Assistant Manager explained that the property
iowned by the city lies between the remaining King property and that on which the
street improvement would be made. It was understood in the negotiations that
,assessment for the portion of street abutting the city-owned property would
,be levied against the city until such time as the property was sold and request
-for development came to planning. At that time payment of the assessment would
be required. He estimated the lien at $4,000.
Councilwoman Campbell asked where that type of agreement would be recorded to
'make possible future buyers aware of the lien. Public Works Director answered
,that the assessment would be against city property and deferred until such time
,as the property was sold. Then collection of the deferred assessment would be
a prerequisite to transfer of the property by deed to whoever purchased it.
Assistant Manager, in answer to Councilman McDonald, said the property contained
,14,266 square feet. ' ,
Cormn
6/5/74
Approve
.
VotE! was taken on the motion to purchase the property. Motion car-
ried unpnimo~sly.
~3-~o'-r ( 6/iO!74
20
~
.
e
a);
(2064)
-
~
K. Budget Hearings - Copies of recommendations for 1973-74 supplen,ental budget were
previously distributed to Council members.' Assistant Manager explained that ad-
justments were necessary to cover actual expenditures during the 1973-74 fiscal
,year. Also, in order to have a valid budget for the 1974-75 fiscal year, begin-
ning July 1, regardless of the outcome of the June 18 budget election, a legally
advertised hearing was necessary.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to schedule pUblic hearing on
1973-74 supplemental budget and 1974-75 fiscal year budget for the
June 24, 1974 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
, comm
6/5/74
Approve
.' ..
.. ~:-- ... -'.' '..'
L. Room
Tax Allocation Recommendations - May 28,1974
Summer Youth SymPhony - $1,000.00
African Students Association - $500.00
-\
\
!
!
\
:Assistant Manager explained that both recommendations were of an emergency nature
:and taken ahead of the formal report from the Tax Allocation Committee. He said
:.the Sutnmer Youth Symphony could not occur wi thout the requested funds and that the
;African Students request was to cover loss of funds promised from another source
[for a cultural event at the University. Both requests were considered at a special
;meeting of the Allocat~on Committee because of the time element.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the allocations.
Manager read the Allocation Committee report and a letter from the commi~tee chairman
recommending the $1,000 allocation. Dave Pompel, Parks Department, 'said the $1,000
would not permit the program to proceed as planned, that it would probably have to
be cancelled.
Councilwoman Campbell was in favor of allocating the additional $750. She felt use
of room tax funds for this purpose appropriate. Mr. Po~pel said he felt there was a
misunderstanding which ,resulted in the recommended allocation of $1,000 and there had
been no time to return to the 'Allocation Committee to explain the need. He explained
the budget for the summer program, saying that what fees were charged were to provide
training at the beginning level. Those taking part in the concerts were not required
to pay to participate, the concert program 'was based on volUntary participation. He
added, in response to Councilman Keller, that the program, originall~ sponsored by the
city, had moved to the,School District. But as a result of cutting back in School
District summer programs, unless the city pi:cks it up, the program would not be able
to function.
Councilman McDonald stated his support of the program and favored adding the $750 to
the allocation. Councilman Williams felt it would be appropriate to increase the
allocation to $1,750. However, he repeated the strong feeling expressed by Council
members that the process for allocating room tax funds was extremely unsa'fisfactory.
Reports were inadequate and in this.instance there was no indication of whether the
Committee would approve an additional allocation. Other Council members shared that
opinion of the process, noting a recdmmendation in this case of $1,000; the Committee
chairman's recommendation to allocate $1,500; and the request from the Youth Symphony
group for $1,750. Mrs. Beal suggested approval 0:6 the extra $750 subject to aj~quate
documentation at the June 12 committee meeting to e;vidence the Committee's approval.
,.' .Mr.,~ Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to amend Item L, making an allocation
of $1,500 (instead of $1,000) but that release of the funds would be dependent upon an
affirmative recommendation from a quorum of the Room T~ Allocation Committee.
Manager wondered whether the summer program could proceed if quorum of the Room Tax
Committee could not be reached. Mayor Anderson suggested allowing the recommended
. 1.02
6/i0/74 - 2i
$~,ooo' allocation immediately and give consideration to further allocation when a
recommendation was received from the Room Tax Committee. Further discussicncentered
on the confusion should the additional allocation not be made after the program was
started. Mr. PompeI further described the events leading to the differing recom-
mendations and time element involved. He hoped the entire amount could be approved
to avoid having to drop the 120 or so children from a partially completed summer
activity.
.
11r. McDonald moved seconded by Mrs. -~eampbell to amend the motion to allocate
~~J5o.w:.ith theunde.;r>s.tanding'th,e. l2a.l?ks...D.epartment wOllld.,take~the question up
w~l.th the Allocation Cainmi:ttee~to,a-Y0id ,h.olding,llp the program., Motion carried
unanimouSly. .
Vote was" taken on the original motion as amended. Motion carried unanimOUSly.
M .~;Sou'theri1 facific . c6mpciliy' ilgi-~i;iUi?ni: ':'l;~'th;rlzati~~' ;~~~~~~~d ~~~ 'one-year
extension of construction time for A-3 Channel across Southern Pacific property. ;
-~ .-.0
... t
Com
6/5/74
Approve
N. icommiznitYGoai;;'''co~f~'I-'~~'ce - Copies of letter 'were distribut.'eci to"Col.ind'iT --':""
;from Lane County Labo~ Council suggesting involvement of working people in
:discussions on Eugene's future. The letter stated that appropriate action
,for the Council to take would be to mandate that the report from the Com-
:munity Goals Conference be held off until September to provide opportunity
:for input from working people to come through dialogues held throughout Eugene
~ over the ne;t three months.
, I
jAt the conclusion of other business, Councilman Murray reminded Council members I
!of the'fina1 meeting of the Goals ,Conference on Wednesday, June 5, 7:30 p.m." '
:,,at the Eugene Hotel, and that whatever recommendations adopted from that
~Conference would eventually come to the Council for consideration. Mrs.
;Campbe1l referred to the Labor Council's statement about lack of participa-
: tion in the Conference by working people. She wondered if labor prople were
; considered in making up ~he list of invitations to the meetings. Mr. Murray
answered that there was an,attempt to broaden the base of participation over ;
that of the 1967 Conference ~n terms .of geographical area, professions, special!
interests, etc. Although he felt it did fall short of perfection, there was
an effort and .he felt there was much broader participation than before.
Mayor Anderson noted solicitation made of the labor unions, Chamber of Com-
merce, and civic groups for suggested conferees, saying the opportunity was
there for participation. Planning Director added that articles about the
Conference appeared in the Register-Guard and it was reported by other news
media in an attempt to gain broad participation.
.
,Further discussion resulted in agreement that there should be response to
i the Labor Council letter explaining steps taken in getting the Conference ,
!together and indicating the concern with community involvement in the process. j
Other-Council members were reluctant to accept Mrs. Beal's suggestion that i
labor people be invited to the final meeting on June 5 because of the an- )
!nou~ced procedure and plan for conduct of the Conference and the necessity ;
; for attendance at all meetings to enable informed voting on the recommenda-
:tions to be made. Mr. Murray suggest informing them that whatever'emerged
;from the Conference would be a document for. public ftiscussion before the
; Council.
!
,
i
I
,
.
,
'---
It was understood staff would respond to the Labor Council letter
as indicated.
comm
5/29/74
Affirm
o. propOse-a ''rel"eprompter Rate - Incieaf;'e'-c:::.r.e,tt~i":-;'~s received from Te1ePrompter------
!informing the Council of their intention to raise monthly cable TV rates from
!$S.OO to $6.95/ and from $1.00 to $1.50 for additional out1ets, effective
I September 1/ 1974. Manager noted .that although the city did not set cable TV
'rates, under the terms of TelePrompter's franchise the Council had the rigbt
ito cancel it after six months notice if rates we~e deeme~ unreasonable. . ~e
isaid that Springfield, having received the same ~nformat~on, suggested Jo~nt
:review of xhe.proposal with Teleprompter people. Also, that Councilman McDonald
ihad informed him that at the time of previous adjustment. of cable TV rates the
(Teleprompter people indicated they would be in a position to extend service to
I new areas if a rate adjustment was grante4at that time. Mr. McDonald felt that
',~, ~-had not been entirely successful and suggested it be considered in the present
.,( rate review. And he volunteered to work on the committee reviewing the rates
'if one was appointed.
.~
~,
6/4:0/74 - 22
~
203-
cou~cilm~n Murray favored having more information on the previous rate increase
, and. 'reaspns for such a large increase at this time. Manager said the last rate
\inct:ease' was in January 1970 and that.those were primarily an adjustment in in-
.f staillatl'on rates rather than the monthly charges. In answer to Councilwoman
!,dampbel~ff,;;h'e said tlie' franchise fee was 3% of gross. . The company pays property
! taX' and'"also has :use of the public right-of-way for p1.acement of cabl.e.
: Mrs..~pb~ll remarked that the company would seem to be in better position finan-
j c.i,all!r~s' a result of the recent change to charging individual apartments rather
,~. than ''';)~fsfee for an apartment house. Manager replied that the City Attorney felt
the frahchise was not definitive enough to permit Council review of that rate change.
.
With Council agreement the Mayor said he would ask Councilman McDonald and a 5/2~~
Finance Department staff person to meet with Springfield and TelePrompter people f{
, to review the rat~ increase and bring recommendation to the Council for considerat~~h.~rm
'."- ~
i.-
P. 'Goodpasture Island Interim Report - Councilman Murray noted receipt of copy of
': interim report requested by the Council on annexation and zoning issues in the.
\ Goodpasture Island area. The report was prepared py Li vi ngs ton and Blayney,
lp1anners charged with making a study of commercial needs in that area. Mr.Murr~y
;wondered if the Council would have an opportunity to discuss and raise questions~~
~' on the,' issue. l't was understood the report would be a future agenda item for '. ,
I'commi ttee-of-the-whole discussion.
I
-
Q. . County Proposal, Incentives for Alternative Employe Transportation Modes and ;
i Flexible Work Hours - Councilman Murray presented copy of a memo from. ,Bob Elfers,~
i chief administrator for Lane County, addressed to County Co~issioners proposing~
: incenti ves for al terna ti ve employe transportation moq.es and flexible work hours.'
! Mr. Murray asked that the memo be a matter of discussion by the Council at next :
: week's commi tte-of-the-whole meeting. He said the proposals were impressive and'
: comprehensive and he would like', to see whether there was any applicability for
I the city. It was understood the memo 'would be on the next committee agenda.
I
R. ~ Waste in Wrecking - cou~cilma~ Murray presented copy of a letter from How~rd' D.
f Leighty, Marcola, to the editor of the Register-Guard deploring waste of good
i materials in building demolition and suggesting enactment of regulations by the
f City Coun6il which would permit salvaging of materials. Mr.-Murray requested
i commi ttee discussion of the possibili ty of enactment of an ordinance in that
'; respect and it was understood the matter would be a future agenda item.
.- ~; .07.
_,"'r- "'_H.~.__ _. _
comm
6/5/74
Affirm
comm
6/5/74
Affirm
corom
6/5/74
Affirm
I,' ,
S.Limiting Duration of Council Meetings - Mayor Anderson asked Mr. Williams as
Council president to Eeview the possibility of setting a limit on the duration
of formal Council meetings, referring to the May 20/21 meeting which adjourned
. at 1:00 a.m. Tbe Mayor 'asked for a procedure which would allow adjournment at
. : the time designated or continuance to another meeting, suggesting incorporation
of that procedure into the Council's bylaws. ,) comm
l 5/22/74
File
--
T. i. Posting Truck Routes -
, Works Director said
. routes in the ci ty.
~ ~
In response to inquiry from Councilman Murray, Public
he would find out and report the status of posting' truck
.. '-- '.':~'~"-'~-"-:-
u. 'posting Truck Routes - In answer to Councilman Murray~ Manager said that the
: Franklin Boulevard phase of the truck mute through the city was posted last week.'1
. Agreement with the State was expected next week on the balance of the route after
which the posting would be accomplished, probably by July 1. When asked by
~.Mr~ Murray why it could not be posted~until July 1 if approved next week, Public
Works Director explained that it would take that amount of time for city crews
to make up the signs and install them.
v.
~ 7 _
Primary Election, May 28 - Mayor Anderson offered
'W6pd upOn ,his nomination for the office of County
pressed disappointment over the failure of Ballot
: the voters (use of a portion of_..~i'f.!}way taxes for
'" ".- -- --~
congratulations to Councilman,
Commissioner. He also ex-
,Measure 2 to gain. approval
mass transit).
.-.-...,-,.--- -
corhm
5/22/74
File
i
1 Carom
,.5I~9/74
File
of :
, carnm
\5'/29/74
, ,.J File
w.. South Hills Recommendations - Councilman Murray asked when staff al ternatives on ':,
the South Hills recommendations requested by Council would be brought back for ;
consideration. Manager replied that they would be an item on the June 5 com- \
mittee agenda. Planning Director explained that there was delay because certain
computer data to allow evaluation of different size parcels of land in the South) C
Hills area was not available. He added that Jim Saul, planner, would contact \ amm
C '1 H h .&' 1 Of 0 to f 1 1 ., , ,5'/29/74
ounc~ man ers ner .Lor c ar~ ~ca ~on o,ega questl.ons w~ th regard to ded~ca- .
[".tiQ!!,o!J)rope~~y f.or public use. ,.,- __'__._,J Flle
.'.
~\.'
a.~
6/i0/74 - 23
204 -
X. ;Speeds,"Willamette between 29th and 40th - c~uiici1woman' Campbell asked if there.
. was any report on investigation of speeds in the South Wi11amette area previously!
; requested. Public Works Director answered that work orders were written and re- I
: port will be brought as soon as the work is completed. i Connn
51/29/74
i File
con- !
;
;
Y.jBike Fees - Councilwoman Bea1 wondered whether fees were being collected in
;nection with the ordinance adopted some time back requiring bike licenses.
i Manager said he would find out and let her know, at the same time informing
. members of the Bicycle Committee.,
Comm
-5/29/74
File
z. :':'Q~~rum Required, June 24 council Meeting - Copies of memo were d,istributedj
, I
. to Council requesting advice as early as possible with regard, to presence I
"at the June 24 meeting. Sale of $5.8mi,llion in bonds scheduled for that
meeting requires a quorum.
Connn
5/29/74
File
;AA.
; _~__..--~. ,_ _ ..J,.....~....,
:Request for Hearing, Mobile Home Dealers - Letter 'was' read from the Joint Housing!
Committee (Betty Niven, ?hairman) to whom the Mobile Home Dealers petition was
referred. The Committee's ~tudy and recommendations' with regard to availability ponnn
of mobile home sites in the city will be presented to the Planning Commission 5/Q9/74
. by July 1 for its consideration and submission to the Council. ' i File
i
i
and Springfield; Connn
Si --;ial servic '29/74
File
BB. Budget Meeting, Social Services
on June 6, time and place to be
, 'budgeting process.
- Joint meeting with Lane County
announced later, to complete the
CC. [TelePrompter Rate Increase -'Councilman McDonald referred to a recent editorial
!in the Register-Guard. as well as calls and letters received wi th regard to the
'proposed TV cable rate increase. He said review of the proposed rates by the
;join: Eugene/Springfield committee would proceed properly, taking into account
:prof~ t and loss sta tements of TelePrompter' on a ,local basis.
,I
DD.!Historic Preservation - Councilman Murray called attention to an article in a
;recent issue of Nation's Cities covering what cities across the country were do- Comm
ling wit~ rega~d to historic preservation. He felt it topical because of antici- 6/5/74
pated d~scuss~on by the Council on'an hi~torical preservation ordinance for Eugene. File
, " I
EE .Co'un'Cil Subcommittee Meeting wi th LlbraryJ30ard - Councilman williams, chairmiw . I
i
iof the subcommittee appointed to con!er with the Library Board on citizen concerns \
irelated to the Library, reported that a meeting had been held in that regard.
He said it w~s felt that many of those concerns were the kind of concerns that
needed to be addressed but that the Council was not responsible for Library opera-
tions. That responsibility lies with the Library Board under State law.
Mr. Williams said the concerns had been transmitted to the Board and that Council-
woman Beal,a member of the subcommittee, intended to attend Board meetings and
report back if Council act~on seemed appropriate.
Comm
1,6/5/74
File
, Comm
6/5/74
File
FF. Bike Centennial - Councilman Wood reported a call from Jim Richardson, a member
of the research team for the National Bike Centennial scheduled for 1976, wanting
information relayed to the Bicycle Committee with regard to that event. Mr.Wood
said that about 60 cyclists a day were expected to pass through Eugene requiring
lodging accommodations. Ernie Drapela, assistant parks director, said there was
close contact between parks and Centennia~ people with regard to facilities, Connn
lodging, etc., and asked that any further calls be referred to the parks department. rile
6/5/74
GG. Committee-of-the-whole Agendas - Councilman Keller reported receipt of his com-
,mittee agenda just prior to the meeting. He was joined after the first verse of
the haunting refrain by Councilmen Hershner and McDonald, and Councilman Murray
said he sometimes received his on Thursday. It was understood the matter would
be looked into.
Comm
6/$/74
File
f u.,. J ,.
HH.: Distribution 'i
'1. Letter from Oregon State Highway Division commenting,on the conclusion of
the TOPICS program.
Connn
6/5/74
File
Connn
6/5/74
File
Connn
6/5/74
File
2. Announcement of National League of Cities Congress of cities in Houston,
Texas, December 1~5, 1974.
"
3. LeagUe of Women Voters pamphlet quoting from Eugene's budget and commenting
on its clarity.
4.
, ""-.-j
Distribution of copies of letter to Fletcher & Smartt from Public Works !
'Department with regard to city policy on maintenance of streets and alleys.
!
Connn
6/5/74
File
6/10/74 - 24
205'
..:
'.
It
.
J
.~
(2144 )
.
-
.
"
~\
Ti1"
.:y..il-...
i Suit for Declaratory Judgment re: Downtown Parking Program -
, informed that the City Attorney would handle the defense for
(Mayor, Council members, and some city stafE).
Council members were:
all named defendants' Comm
6/5/74
f
! File
1
JJ "
Assessment Hearing Panel for the period July through'September - Councilmen
Hershner and Wood.
I'
~ Comm
I'
6/5/74
File
....-........,....... -,-... .....-
, .
Mr. Williams m~ed seconded by Mr. Hershner to
noted Items A throu.gh JJ, -no-tlDgc rt'!3mL , which. was
Rollcall vote. Motion carried -unanimously.
approve, affirm, and file as
. _. _.._-- -- -~ -" ~
amended to incre~e allocation.
III - Ordinances
Bouncil Bill No. 579 - Paving streets within Boyd Plat was submitted and read the first
time by council bill number andititle 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 urianimous 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 nwnber,_on~y.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17106.
Council Bill No. 580 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Boyd
Plat 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 eouncil members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17107...
Council Bill No. 581 - Sanitary sewers within Boyd Plat 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' byl'lr. 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 nwnber 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, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17108.
Council Bill No. 582 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewers within Boyd
Plat 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 nwnber 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, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17109.
Council Bill No. 583 - Sanitary sewer between Stewart Road and 11th Avenue from Bertelsen
Road to Amazon Channel 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 b~ 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.
6/10/74 - 25
"1o~
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed ang numbered
17110.
Council Bill No. 584 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer between Stewart
Road and ,11th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to Amazon Channel 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 ead the second time by, couf!cil
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
num rer 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, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17111.
Council Bill No. 585 - Sanitary sewer to serve the Willagillespie-Russet annexation area
between Goodpasture Island Road on the north, Norkenzie Road on the east, Country Club Road
on the south, and Delta Highway on the west was submitted and read the first time by council
bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in, full.
Mr. Williamsmovea 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, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17112.
Council Bill No. 586 - Adopting plans and specifications f9r sanitary sewer to serve the
Willagillespie-Russet annexation area between Goodpasture Island Road on the north, Norkenzie
Road on the east, CQ~ntry Club Road on the south, and Delta Highway on the west was submitted
and read the first time by council bill number only, there being no councilman present request-
ing 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, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17113.
--
~-
IV - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2290 - Stating intent to enact adequate land use and control measures for
those areas having flood hazards for participation in National Flood Insurance Program was read
by title and number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution;. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all council members present voting aye.
Resolution No. 2291 - Authorizing review of building permit applications to determine flood
hazard - National Flood Insurance Program was submitted and ~ead by title and number only.
I
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resQlution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all Council members present voting aye.
Resolution No. 2292 - Calling hearing June 24, 1974 re: Abatement 1891 Bailey Hill Road
was submitted and read by title and number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carrie~, all Council members present voting aye.
.
Resolution No. 2293 - Authorizing agreement with Southern Pacific Transportation Company
re: One-year extension for A-3 Channel construction over SP land was submitted and read by
title and number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution.
carried~ all council members present voting aye.
Rollcall vote.
Motion
6/10/74 - 26
,J
.~2.o'
.
.
-
.
~
Resolution No. 2294 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for
period May 20 through June 10, 1974, was submitted and read by number~a~~"-title only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all Council members present voting aye.
Manager distributed to Council members copies of memo from Bob Elfers, County Administrator,
with regqrd .to modes of transportation and flexible work hours for County employes.
Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried,the meeting was adjourned to Mond~y,
June 24, 1974.
6/10/74 - 27
208.