HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/24/1974 Meeting
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
June 24~ 1974
'4It Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the
meeting held June 10,1974 - ,was called to order by Council President Tom Williams in the
absence of Mayor Anderson, at 7:30 p.m. on ,June 24, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the
following Council members present: James Hershner, Vice President, H. C. McDonald, Wickes
Beal, Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, Robert Wood. Councilman Neil Murray was absent.
(0001) I - Proclamation - Canvassing votes was read showing results of June 18~ 1974 election:
Yes No
Measure No. 51 - Levying taxes outside 6% for City budget - $3~172~334 3,491 3,811
52 - " " " DDB" 113,000 4~359 2,921
53 - Charte~ amendment re: Assessments for alley improvements 3,730 3~524
"
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to accept the proclamation. Motion
carried unanimously.
(0044) II - Public Hearings
A. Budgets
,~ 1. Supplemental 1973-74 - $554~847
_ Manager explained the purpose for the supplemental budget for the current y,ear was
to protect Council and staff against violation of State local budget laws re-
quiring certain processes for the expenditure of city funds. Various fiscal
actions during the year resulted in adjustments, none of which exceeded funds
available but which do require appropriation from various funds where they occurre~.
A list of the appropriations was presented totaling $554,487.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
. Council Bill No. 587 - Adopting supplemental budget for 1973-74 in the amount
of $554,847 was read by council. bill number and title
only~ there being no councilman present J~equesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded ,by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the
second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the
Council, and that enactment be considered at this time.- .
In response to Councilman Keller, Assistpnt Manager explai~ed that some outstand-
ing warrants on the 10th and Oak Overpark were redeemed but were not taken into
account at time of:t5up.get adoption. Receipt of those funds must be shown during
.. the current year.
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. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell'that the bill be approved and
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present 'voting
aye, Mr. Murray ,not present, and the bill ,was declared passed and rmmbered
17114.
2., Fiscal Year 1974-75 - $36,384~304'
Manager reviewed the budget~ prepared on the basis of five functional areas or
programs~ and explained that regardless of voter rejection ,of levy outside the
6% limitation necessary to balance, the budget, ,appropriations would. have to be
made by the Council in order for the city to legally spend monies after July 1,
1974. In response to. Councilman McDonald, Manager said this budget was'that
approved by the Budget Committee 'for'the 1974-75 fiscal year and was properly
advertised. He added' that if a levy was approved by, the voters sometime prior
to deadline for certification of the tax levy to the County Assessor, the additional
amount which might be approved would be added to the revenues and would not affect
the appr.opriations authorized. If a, levy was not approved-then appropriations
-., would have to be reduced through Council action,. In, the. meantime,: adoption of this
, ordinance would permit city operations to continue after July 1.
FuBlic.hearing ,was' held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 588 - Adopting 1974-75 fiscal year Dudget.in the amount of
$36,384,304 was read by council bill number and title
only there being no councilman present' requesting that it be read in full.
6/24/7& - .1
). 209
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the b~xJ:'_be read the second time
by council bill number only ,with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact-
ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read
the second time by council bill number only.
M::. Her~hner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the council bill be i?-pproved and .
glven flnal passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr.
Murray not present, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17115.
B. Bids - Finance Department Bonds ( 0276 )
1.' $3,300,000 GO Street and Sewer Projects
2. $1,100,000 GO Parks and Recreation Facilities
3. $ 920,,000 GO Bancroft Improvement, Series "B"
4. $ 445,000 GO 10th and Oak Overpark Bancroft Improvement
Finance Director Sherm Flogstad reviewed bids received in opening at 2:00 p.m. on June
24,1974. He explained that a number of banks had withdrawn their bids just prior to
the opening, probably because of the recent increase in prime lending rate to 11-3/4%.
Acceptance of the bids was rec0mmended in view of the fluctuating interest rates and
anticipated higher rates in the near future.
PUblic hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Councilman Hershner wondered why the interest rate decreased during'the maturity
period than increased again toward the end. Speculation was that it w.as to more or
less guarantee amounts large enough to cover any contingencies toward the end of the .
maturity period. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Finance Director explained that
two bids were received on the 10th and Oak Overpark bonds but one was withdrawn just
prior to bid opening. Bids were also withdrawn, he said, on both Bancroft bonds by
Oregon Bank just prior to the opening.
Councilwoman Campbell commented on the bids submitted by local banks, saying she was
under the impression that only eastern f~nancial institutions bid in the municipal
bond market. Mr. Flogstad said that prospectus of the bond sale was mailed to a number
of banking concerns throughout the United States which normally would result in a number
of bids. Local banks, he said, have been the low bidders in past'sales and had it not
been for their bidding on this sale there may not have been any bids received.
Manager pointed out Eugene's credit rating in both Moody~s~and Standard & Poor's and
said because eight out-of-state firms withdrew bids just prior to the opening it
would seem to indicate they thought their calculations were too speculative because of
the jump in the, prime ihte:re:st rate. He noted the 5.45% rate on Bancroft bonds two years
ago and said that in terms of actual interest rates it didn't appear the rates on the
present bids were too far out of line in view of present conditions. Councilman
Williams noted the Federal market rates of about 12-1/2%.
Resolution No. 2296 - Awarding bid for $3,300,000 GO Street and Sewer Projects.
Bonds to U. S. National Bank at an effective interest rate .
of 5.9661% was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved.seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion
carried on rollcall vote, all Council members present voting aye, except
Councilman Keller abstaining.
Resolution No. 2297 - Awarding bid for $1,100,000 GO Parks and Recreation Facilities
/ Bonds to U. S. National Bank at an effective interest-'rate of
5.9661% was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion
carried on rollcall vote, all Council members present voting aye, except
Councilman Keller abstaining. I
Resolution No. 2298 - Awarding bid for $920,000 GO Bancroft Improvement Bonds, Series
"B"~ to First National Bank at an effective interest rate of
5.7576% was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion
carried on rollcall vote, all Council -members present voting aye, except
Councilman Keller abstaining. .
Resolution No. 2299 - Awarding bid for $445,000 GO 10th and Oak Overpark Bancroft - ,;/
Improvement Bonds to First National Bank at an effective interest
rate of 6.0812% was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs:. Campbell to adopt the resolution., Motion
carried on a rollcall vote, all Council members present voting aye, except
Councilman Keller abstaining.
6/24/71 - 2
l 2..0
" ,
1
C. Abatement, 1891 Bailey Hill Road
i Building report was read with regard to efforts to get the property at this location,
owned by Marylhurst College, brought to code. The report indicated deteriorated I
condition of the building. Staff recommended that abatement proceed. \
. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. I
i
\
\ Resolution No. 2300 '- Authorizing abatem~nt, 1'891 Bailey Hill Road, was read by \
I number and title.
\
.
,
I;. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. ,i
. ' Motion carried unanimously.
i
D. Code Amendments i
,
1. Fire i
I 2. Structural Specialty
I i
: 3. Housing
,
\
i 4. Masonry Contractors
i
i 5. Mechanical Speciality
6. Swimming Pool I
--.--"- .----.----- I
Fire Code Amendments - Copies of memo from Fire Chief Ev Hall were previously dis-
tributed to Council members .~xplaining changes in the fire codE! to be effected
. through adoption of the 1973 Uniform Fire Code and bringing the ci ty code into con-
i 'formity with recently adopted 'State legislation. Chief Hajl said amendments in-
cluded regulations for fire alarm systems and prohibition of sale of fireworks
. inside buildings in add~tion to minor changes clarifying language. I
!
i
Councilwoman Beal was under the impression that city ordinance prohibited sale of
i fireworks entirely. Assistant Manager said that only certain types ,were legal and I
regulated under this code. ' ~
\
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the adoptin of the
I
1973 Uniform Fire Code. Motion carried unanimously.
Assistant Manager called councii's attention to major deficiency in State legislation
with regard to the fire code - it did not require sprinkler systems in structures
higher than five stories, providing instead for alternative fire protection measures.
Chief Hall explained that the'city by law cannot adopt measures more restrictive
than those adopted by the State. He fel t requirements, for sprinkler systems in
high-rise buildings important and asked the Council to give all possible help in
seeking amendment to the State code in that regard. ' Assistant ,City Attorney John
, Franklin added that there ,was some indication the ~tate Attorney General was of the I
i opinion that local fire regulations could be more restrictive than the Structural
. Speciality Code"in which case the city would probably be able to require sprinklering
systems in high-rise buildings.
. i Councilman wood expressed concern for safety reasons and favored doirg everything
possiDle to gain State amendment if the requirement was not permitted under city
regulations. Assistant Manager said a definite response on the Attorney General's
opinion would be forthcoming.
\
Councilwoman Campbell asked whether plans of high-r.ise buildings now under construction
could be adjusted if this code was adopted and was told' that the amendment would have
I : ~<:>. be-Flq"qg..:re.troacti.v..e." J.nTf';!?P9ns~..to",Col,l.n~ilman_ Mc.Don,alq '.!3. .ques~ioI'J _?b<?l1,~. pc>s,i tion
rof 'insurqnce"people in this regard and whether State or,city would inspect, Assistant
, Manager said there had been no response from insurance companies although they had
been asked for comment in terms of deficiency points in the city's fire rating. He
said the city would continue inspections under State certification.
I
0" j
;Councilman Wood wondered what determined the five-story height over which the fire I
;department people thought sprinklering was important. Chief Hall answered that that
; height was within the limit of their cap?bilityfor rescue efforts with an aerial
ladder.
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to support the recommendation for
amendment to the State Fire Code to require fire sprinkler systems in
buildings higher than five stories, if further staff investigation shows
. the city cannot make that requirement under its Structural Specialty Code.
.,,-...:. y' Councilwoman Campbell felt the cost and risk to builders on structures now being
erected should be considered. David Hunt, Eugene Renewal Agency director, said
those buildings under cons~ruction in the downtown area were having to meet a much
stricter code than that being adopted. He cited fLre protection measures required
by the structural code and the heavy penalties if those regulations were not met.
So there was no reason to believe, he said, that the buildings under construction
i__ ._.__l!9.ll.1d constitute fire hazards. '...- . . --'''-''''.---.- . . -'" --
_'_"__H._.~""__ - .'-~ ,. - ._~ -..,.....-.~<~_.- .-- - ---. ..~.--.- _..-- .- -~
2.1 , 6(24/74 - 3
l
'--Vote -was taken on the motion as s ta. t~d . Motion carried unanimously.
Building Codes Amendments - 1973 Editions - Copies of memo from,Mick Nolte~ ~uperin-
itendent of building inspection, were distributed to Council members summar~z~ng up- ,
ldating of building and realted codes - Structural Speciality, HOu~ing, Masonry Con-
:tractors, Mechanical, and Swimming Pool - to bring the city code ~nto conformance i .'
with recently adopted State legislation. I
iMr. Nolte explained that it was decided to update all of the codes in the process~of !
!compliance with State legislation and that since use and enforcement of the one~
land two-family dwelling code utilized over the past two years could not be cont~nued I
Ithe city would have to rely on provisions of the uniform structural codes. 1
I Commi
I
I Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing on the 6/19/74 :
I proposed amendments. Motion carried unanimously. . ~~_ Hrng1
I
lRecommendation'was to proceed with the am~ndments to brin~ the city.co~e into con- I
I
jformance with national standards. Memos were read from flre and bUlldlng departments 1
with regard to the amendments.
J
I
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. ,
-j
Council Bill No. 589 - Amending Sections 8.190 and 8.200 Eugene City Code re: Fire Code
was read by council bill number and title only, there being no
councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time .'
_ by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact-
:.ment be considered at this time.
CouncllmariMcDonald w-o-nder'ed if-the--dty wouTdbe' ali6wedto-have more restrictive-'---------.H,
regulations than the State. Manager replied that until the last sess~on of. the i
Legislature cities were not required to follow State codes. In a?Optlng unlfo:m i
codes for the State cities with certain exceptions were no longer allowed strlcter .i
, . . . 1
amendments than State codes. In general, Eugene as well as other cltles were ln !
favor of this because varying restrictions within the State resulted in different i
Istandards of construction. The major deficiency now was lack of requirement for
'sprinkler systems in high-rise buildings .which s~aff felt.should be corrected. Manager
:said that if there was any way of requir1ng sprlnklers wlthout amendment to State
tLaw, staff would pursue it, but as it now stood local requirement would not be proper
without amendment to the law. In further response to Councilman McDonald, Manager
said the city does--the inspection under both the fire and building codes under State
,certification, not because the State does not do an adequate inspection service but
jbecause city inspections would be more prompt with personnel'on the ground.
I
Councilman McDonald asked then if it was correct that as a result of Council's adoption j
1
of this ordinance the city would follow entirely the State restrlctions,without any I
possibility of the city's making more restrictive measures in any portion of the codes. .
I
He said he was not too happy with the "State's taking over the city." Councilman I
Williams relied in the affirmative, saying the ordinance would adopt uniform standards I
which were pretty much nationally recognized standards including minor amendments at I
i
the State level which preclude local amendments. He added that there was a strong I
Federal push to make building codes uniform across the Nation, but he would be surprised I
to see much done with regard to requiring sprinlering of, high-rise buildings in the !
uniform building or fire codes. [
-- !
Vote was taken on motion for second reading. Motion carried unanimously and the
bill was read the second time by council bill number only. I
I
Mr. ,Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the council bill be approved and I
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye,
except Mr. McDonald voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17116.
Council Bill No. 590 - Amending Sections 8.005, 8.020, and 8.025, and repealing
Sections 8.021 and 8.022 of Eugene City Code re: Structural i
I
; Specialty Code was read by number and title only, there being no councilman
f ' present reques~ing that it be read in full. ' '.
'I .", Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the s~cond time , .
Iby council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment I
,I be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously, the bill was read the second I
I time by council bill number only. ,
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the council bill be approved and I
given final pass~ge. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill
was declared passed and numbered 17117.
212 6(24(74 - 4
~
I
Council Bill No. 59.1 - Amending Sections 8.300 and 8 .~l20,of Eugene City Code re:
Housing Code was read by numbe.J~ and title only there being
no councilman present requesting tnat it be read in full.
,,_ Mr. Hershner moved seconded ,by Mrs. Campbell 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. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill b~ \3,:pppoyed,and
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council merl)ers present voting aye;
the bill was declared passed and numbered:'.17118,.
......
Council Bill No. 592 - Amend~ng Sections 8.430, 8.440, and 8.445 of Eugene City
Code re: Masonry Contractors Code was read by number and
title only, there being no cOlli1cilman present requesting
that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell 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. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and
given final passage. ,Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting-aye,
,. the bill was declared passed and numbered 17119. f."- I ' ~. f' --r
Council Bill No. 593 -Amending Sections 8.495 and 8.500 of Eugene City Code re:
Mechanical Specialty Code was read by number apd title only
there being no councilmanprese!TIt requestIng' that' it be ,")
read in .full. . - . '- ,"'-.-. 0" --' , -
Mr. Hershner moved seconded ~bV.M'Y;s.Campbell 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. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye,
the bill was declared passed and numbered 17120.
Council Bill No. 594 - Amending Section 8.895 of Eugene City Code re: Swimming
Pools was read by number and title only there being no
councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell 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. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council meniliers present voting aye,
the bill was declared passed and numbered 17121.
Resolutions setting fee schedules were presented. Manager called attention to ommission
of schedule on planning fees which were referred to a special committee for recommendation.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Resolution No; :2301 - Setting fee schedule re: Fire Code was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion
carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 2302 - Setting fee schedule re: Structural Specialty Code was read
by number and title.
'. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion
~ ~~~~~d unanimously.
- ,
Resolution No. 2303 - Setting fee schedule re: Housing Code was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion
carried unanimously.
2'! 6/24/74 - 5
Resolution No. 2304 ,.... S.etting' fee schedule "re : Engineering"inspection , . and,
administrative costs for public improvements hot performed
by ~ity was read 'by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the resolution be adopted. .)
Motion carried unanimously.
1\ J\ E. Class A Dispenser License - Foo's, 2200 Centennial Boulevard (0828)
Report from' OLCC'ondicated one objecting, 11'not objecting in contact with tenants of
-:":~.J? neighborIng properties to the new location. "City department reports show-no'reason
to recommend denial.
.. .
Public hearing was opened.
Rob~rt Moulton, attorney representing Foo's, explained that'the new locatio~ was
necessitated by the establishment's having to move from the ERA downtown project area.
~
Public hearing was 'closed, there being no further testimony.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. ~ampbell to recommend approval of the
application.
In answer to inquiry from Councilman Hershner, Manager said the new location would be
in "a newly constructed building on the south side of Centennial Boulevardr,acr,oss fr~ro_t
{lfne3 former Toshio restaurant. ~c..e':'!"-' ,~. ..
~- .
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously.'
, F. Charter, Downtown WestsideAssociation (0877)
v
r.---' ~._n__-:'____" ,.,---~",'-'- ..~..; . .._ _. _,., ," _ ',. ..'."~ ._0,.-'''''' --:--. __
Charter, Downtown westside Association - Copi'i:!S were' prev1.ous}ij' distributed to
Council members together with minutes of three meetings of the group. The area
covered is primarily commercially zoned property between 6th and 13th, Charnelton
and washington, with membership open to property owners and tenants in that ,area.
, Assistant Manager said staff had reviewed the charter and while there was some,
i reservation about the size of the area, proponents had a continuity of interest
and had indicated no particular interest in expanding the size of the neighborhood.
i
In response to Councilwomen Campbell and Beal, Chester Pietka, president of the
! A~sociation, said 30 to 35 people usually attended larger meetings comprising a
: good cross section of business people, residents, and property owners in the area.
; Bob Golden, 860 Lawrence Street, opposed granting a charter to the group. He said
this Association was different from any others requesting city recognition because
it was made up almost entirely of business people. In a sense, he said, it broke
away from the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project as a committee of that group .
for the central westside area, and only one of the existing executive committee
was a resident of the area. He said the Association was not too interested in ^,
: mailing notices of meetings to all residents of the neighborhood, that they were
more interested in converting use of the properties in that area to commercial pur-
poses rather than keeping it as a residential neighborhood. He noted recent efforts
of the group to locate a County civic center in that area and said they were more
interested in a quick profit on their investment. He had no objection to formation
of a downtown business group but did object to their recognition by the city as
speaking for all the residents and property owners in the area. Mr. Golden asked
that the Council at least have a public hearing on the issue so that residents of
I the neighborhood could express their opinions on it.
;
iMr. Pietka took exception to Mr. Golden's statements. He said a petition was cir-
lculated to owners and residents of the area asking if they wanted representation,
!that many of the people belonging to the group live in the area ~nd have businesses
. there. He said they had a telephone committee for notification of meetings as well
~as mailing through the city planning office and advertising in the paper. Mr.Pietka
!said in view of his experience with other neighborhood groups he felt attendance
land interest In this group were very good.
r
fFrank Bonson, 390 West 23rd Avenue, expressed an interest in the group and the area, .
[saying he owned property there. He favored acceptance of the charter. Paul Gil- .,'
Ibertson, 1312 Lincoln Street, also favored acceptance, saying business people who - ~. .-;
'had liv~d in that area for years were interested in good solid development compatible
wi th the adjacent downtown area.. -
~
.
6/24/74 - 6
2.14
: Councilman Keller referred to statement attributed to the Planning Director in
minutes of January 17 meeting of the Association - "...group was too small for fair
1 treatment from the planning department and should consider merging with the Downtown
:Association." Mr. Porter explained that when he met with the group he was concerned )
. · about precedent in considering the small area represented by the group. Planning had
- . . ! thought in terms of 10 to 15 groups in the ci ty, but if the, areas 'represented were
:,of,the size of this Association it could mean 25 to 50 groups in the city, and he
:f~4t planning could not provide help and staff for that many. Because 'of the com-
mf';tcial interests of that area,-he said, he 'suggested merger with the Downtown
:~$"sociation which had parallel interests, or if it tended toward residential then l'
it would seem better to ally with the westside Neighborhood Quality project rather,
than a separate group representing a smaller area'. Mr.' Porter said hehcid advised
, the group that in refinement of the overall Plan this area was being considered for
: medium density housing rather than commercial. The group ,had been asked for specific
i backups to the design plan b,u~"there had- been no response.
..' \\'. I ~ , .
. Assistant Manager thought recognition would seem appropriate since it was a cohesive
unLt and would give a mechanism for working with people in that area ,until the general
~_characterof the neighborhood was defined through refinement of the General Plan.
0" ." .._....n _ .... .. __~_....,_.-:._._.,. ~~..,_._~..._,_.' _ . u_ . ..'-'..r _. _,,,,._. ~_...,,_ . ".. ..--_. _. . . ._,'au
-:
~ response to Councilwoman Beal, Pla~l'ng~i5irecto.r s'aid the area was.. basically zoned i
!C-2 with some R-3. There was no R-l. with regard to whether there was indication i
:of a desire to change any of the zoning, Assistant Manager could answer only that I
! bunds were budgeted to start a -refinement study of the 'near. westside downtown area I
Iii rafter the Bethel-Danebo and Willagillespie studies were completed. That study would ;
~ !give a better basis for determining how the area should be zoned. Planning Director i
iexplained further that the area represented by this group had to be looked at in the
!larger picture of relationship of the whole downtown area with the Goodpasture Island
:area now 'under study. Although there was no definite conclusion at this point there
:was an indication that the near westside should go to medium density housing.
:Mayor Anderson brought discussion back to whether the charter qualified the Westside
!group as a neighborhood organization, saying it was not a matter of future plans
. since the important feature of neighborhood organizations was that they would be
!able to formulate their own plans. The Mayor commented on the critical nature of
the area, similar to that on the east between downtown and the university where a
'neighborho.od organization would-be helpful in wor~ing ,with the citiz,?1J.s on issues.
affecting commercial and residential areas. '
i Mrs. Beal moved ~econded by Mr., Keller to schedule public hearing on the
charter for the Downtown Westside Association. ;
,
~Councilman Murray thought the pUblic hearing would be the best course of action, say-
iing there was no reason to deny the charter unless it could be demonstrated in some i
! fashion that this group did not fit the neighborhood organization policy. He said .
... I Mr. Golden did raise some issues which the Council could consider in deciding whe-
~ ! ther there was a violation of that policy. He thought the size of the area should
be ~~pt in mind too if there was possibility of recognizing other groups repre-
senting l2-block areas.
Councilman McDonald wondered if a public hearing was necessary, noting staff's
recommendation to extend recognition to the neighborhood association and the group's
; charter provision for open membership to property owners and tenants amking it no I
I different from others accepted by the city. Mayor Anderson said that although there'
I .
I were minor variations the charter was essentially the same as others accepted.
i However, he noted that action taken now was informal and subject to public hearing
at the regular meeting to give residents of the neighborhood an opportunity to be
heard by the Council.
Vote was taken on the motion to schedule public hearing. Motion carried cJmm
, unanimously. ,,'_ ,." '. _'.. .. ...,._ _.,.,...-> .,6/19/74
, Pub Hrng
Manager reported that notification of meetings of the Downtown Wests ide group
anddist:i~uti?n o~ the proposed charter had been adequate to provide an opportunity
for p~rtl?lpatlon ,ID recent actions, although during early stages of the group's
organlzatlon there may have been less than adequate notification.
f~ Public hearing was opened.
Paul Gilbertson, 1312 Lincoln Street, explained that the group was organized as the
(0911) result of feeling by some members of the larger Westside Association that the smaller
area i~ediately adjacent to the downtown had unique characteristics needing special
attentlon toward upgrading to make it more compatible. He described the area covered
by the proposed charter and the type of development there.
6/24/74 - 7
2/5
Bob Guldin,' 860 Lawrence Street, read a petition signed by people living within the
proposed neighborhood area requesting the Council not to recognize the group as speaking
for th at neighborhood because it represented only business interests and there~cwas no
real effort to involve people living in the neighborhood. He said that despite the fact .
that the area is zoned for commercial uses there were several single- and multiple-
family residences and those people were concerned with what the Association was doing.
He said there were serious questions about whether the Downtown Wests ide group met
qualifications set out in the city's police on recognition - geographical area, history
of the group, availability of membership to a total and diverse area.' He noted the area
covered approximately three blocks by seven blocks and wondered if that size would make
an appropriate unit for the planning staff and Commission to deal with. He said it was
originally part of the larger Quality Project group until the business people felt they
should pullout, and that the history of its development as a group should be examined
to see whether they really did speak for the people in that neighborhood. He noted that
the 1990~Plan designated the area for medium density residential (so that planning for
commercial uses would not appear to be a "cut and dried" thing. Mr. Guldin hoped the
Counc~l ~ould no~ recogniz: the group as the ~fficial neighborhood organization, saying
he d:dn ~ feel :t wouldflt the general requlrements of the city's neighborhood
organlzatlon pOllGY.
Others favoring 'Mr. Guldin's view and asking Council not' to !3.pprove the proposed charter (1067)
were Nancy Tuuk, 814 Lawrence; Alen Setzer, 860 Lawrence; and Jerry Litz, 961 Lawrence.
There being no further testimony, the pUBlic hearing was closed.
Councilman McDonald was of the opinion that as long as the membership in this group was ~
open to tenants as well as property owners, and charged no dues or fee for voting rights,
there would be no reason not to recognize them as the neighborhood organization. He
recognized that it was an unusual area so far 'as zoning ,and'uses were concerned.
Councilman Keller saw the problem of two organizations representing the wests ide area (~60)
and the unique characteristic of the smaller neighborhood. However, he thought that as
,long as residents of the commercial area had notice of the group's meeting it was up to
them t.o participate and in that way express their opinions with regard to what was
happenlng to that area.
~ouncilman Wood said there was no doubt the Downtown Westside group was one of special (~~77)
ln~erests. He n~t~d concern that there would be precedent in recognizing this charter
WhlCh could preclpltate r:quests for separate charters from other special interest groups
who felt theJT,"wer~"~ot.bel?g?~ar.din,t~e g:r'oup in wh~ch~hey were. participating. Also,
the conc:rn ~xp:s-e_ss~d,J)_~ci3,'1:l8~" ~~,;._~e~' !:epr.~s~~t.e~..was, a transi tio.nal,one .~: .He'G0uldn' t
see ~ythln~ wrong Wl th allowlng a cliartei'>""f'Or 'atratrs'i9:'-rori""a-l ai>ea ,~v~n=topee;pr;- with
~artlcular lntersts" calling at~ention to. the fact that any neighborhood group was advisory
ln nature. . He felt the assumI'tl~n. was belng made that whatever position a neighborhood
group took that woul<il.. b.e ~he I'osHlOnadopted by the Council. He felt the co'nflict
between the two westslde',gpoupswoilld"create a healthy atmosphere for mak. d . . "
. th ubI. . ' ... : "" , lng eC1Slons e"" ~
ln . e p " lC good --:- ~osJ:-:=Ions or both groups would be adequately expressed in Council's '
d:liber~tlons,on posltlon lt would take. He wondered if there had been any staff con- .
~nderatlon of reco~izing the general area surrounding the downtown business section, as
one group re~resentlng small business or commercial interests rather than thinking of
those areas J1n terms of west, south, north, etc.
Randi Reinhard-::', planning department, said that the Eugene Downtown Association had been (1214)
approached about taking membership from this area and areas to the east and south of
d;wntown, but the Association preferred not to actively solicit membership from those areas.
The interests of the downtown commercial areas seemed somewhat different from those sur-
rounding it because of mixture of residential uses with commercial in the neighborlng locat
locations. She felt smaller groups such as the Downtown Westside Association should be
able to work within the larger groups as a subgroup having common interests, rather than
splitting off. With regard to the notification process, Ms. Reinhardt explained that
there Has time for only one mailing before the meeting of th,is group and normally two
or three meetings were necessary before addresses taken from computers were straightened
out to ensure receipt of notice by all" those interested.
Councilman' Wood asked whether any of the people signing the petition presented by Mr. Guldin (1249)
had "attended meetings of the Wests ide Quality project prior to establishment of the new
group. Ms. Rein~ard ~ad no kno-;ledge in. that regard, she said, since the split came before _"
she started worklng wlth the nelghborhood groups. ~
Councilman McDonald wondered if any' or 'the hiiinness people east or Charnel ton ,p~id into (1255)
the free parking district.' Manager answered that the district was bounded by Charnel ton
Street on the west. Mr. McDonald further expressed his opinion that the group should be
recognized in view of their meeting criteria set by the neighborhood 'organization policy.
He ,fe It the Council was in better legal position -if each charter was resognized as .
presented, if the prganization criteria was met.
- 6/24/72 - 8
216
Mrs,. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller to call for the question. Motion:;
carried unanimously.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to recognize the Downtown
.' Wests ide Association and grant the charter.
Councilwoman Campbell was concerned that there was no presentation of tenants in the
area on the ,executive committee of the organization. She felt that even though 80%
of the property was zoned for commercial us e , the people living in the other 15%
should be represented. She recognized the importance of recognizing the group because
. 'v'
of the need for communication intransitlonal area. Councilman Wood thought that
because it was a transitional area~there could be consideration of withdrawal of the
charter after a period of time.
,
(1334) Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried' unanimously.
Councilman Williams noted th~ many opt~ons available to those people living within
the Downtown Westside area for getting the group to change its direc.tion ?-nd merge
with the larger Wests ide Quality Project. He urged them to work with the group to
make it function. Speaking to the Downtown Westside Association itself, Mr. Williams
said the politics of exclusion would not make the community function, recognizing
that the charges of exclusion might or might not be valid. He .urged the Association
to involve those people protesting adoption of the charter. To the Council,
Mr. Williams said the problems presented at this hearing were an example 'of what .
could be expected in consideration of recogriizingneighborhood groups in ,the future.
ce+) A short recess was taken.
G. Bids - Public Works IT@:ro}reri1~t Prgj ects _: (l)pened June 111 1974)
_____ ..______ ._ ,. ....:~.. "r ---.. ~ ~ ._-~.~ An:oull t
Cost to
') L LJ(1 .'1" ~,;ld ; cc t Contract Cost ^butting Prop, Cost to City 1J1Id~ctcd
. ----.--.--- . ------...--.
f^",v 11\.16 '.
f.; - - S"rcctS "ithin S\:\lI..lling Plat and nenson
, ?\~ (1018 & 1019) (28' Paving) BASIC 'ALTERNATE
i [\lcene Sane ,', :rav:1 Co'"pany..,........ .No Bid....... .$14.259.29.,....... .Pav,.......$ 20.16/Fr.Ft.....,.......,.....0
I
I SI,~r-\':~y C0::::- ,:tors. Inc....,',....,...$15,076.57....$14,710.35 San.Serv...$1.120,OO/Ea.
!
; \,:ildish Can': --:etian COTI':pany...,.,...,. .$15.659,61... .$15,009.86
];",'ore::u:< i. :: _Oct. Inc,.,."....",..., .$17,553.31... .$16,096,12 COMPLETION DATE: August 30. 1974 1
-----. ---------------..---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------
'O,VIrr'0,n S'fOP.:-l SctJ.GZ.;
:,2::- tIle...lo-:'-Gno fre; - Mop1e Street to
I Uistll Street ("7.', (41,' Paving) ,
',:U,'i ';, Ce'n, , ,'tion Company..,...,.... .$51.793,39,., ,$46.313.29"....... .Pav,.......$ 27.19/Fr.Ft....... .St,".""r.. ,$9.800.00..... ,$14.699,00
l)e'\'cr""ux " : :.:"t. Ine................ ..$56,000.20.. ..$51,401.85 7"Drive""y.$ '1. 73/Sq,Ft. (74-75 Budget)
Eugene S"nd C, .'::avol Company,.....,:,.. .No Bid.:-.:... .$52.156.32 San.Serv.. .$1,568.91
, _ COMPLETION DATE: August 30, 1974
'---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------~-----~-~------------------------------------------I
/.30 If HI' Avenue froc. 1':'0' Northeast of
~~;ard Drive t-: . ,.;56' hTest of Bailey
o\iU Rooe (953) (48' Paving)
. Eugene Sand ~ Crave1 Company............No Bid.......~105,602.52..........36' Pav....$ 20.73/Fr.Ft........Pav......$23.127.51....Pav....$42.140.00
I Dovereaux & fccct. Inc,.,...,..........$113,793.35...$109,436,20 Stm.S"r..$34.045,55 Stm....$32.360,OO
Kcnn.th'R~ Ec.~~ek Construction Co......No Bid.......$113,860.39 (74-75 nudGet)
\':ilc;ish::'C'onc t, '"::tion Company.....,',... $123. 774 .04. .. $119,078.38
Dan ,\llsup C:':-,u'i)ctor. Inc............. .No Bid..... ..$131,433.46 COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1974
- -- --- --- -- --- ----- - -- --.-."- - ro-------':""--':"".":"". --------------- -------------------------------------
---~.:..._:-~..:_':"'--:C--:_..._:_ - . .- .
!'-':::'::I\I'~, SA,ITARY Sl~';l::__,'"\)D STORN SEHER: \
4:- ~rcet5 ",ithiI' S>.cpy Hollow Subdivision i
' '''-:0 Sa"i car)' S,-".,LeK within 160 ft. North
.':d South of S12e r:,- Hollow Subdivision (179) ,
(23' Pa\>ing) BASIC ALTERNATE I
;
$50959 40 28' Pav $ 23 91/Fr Ft......,San. Trunk,......$ 1.279.60,.,..0 !
Ku:meth R, '::;:t:ick Construction Co.......No Bid......... . . ........... ...... /' S S, $24 06090
$57 111 00 $56 445 67 Lat $ 0075 Sq.Ft. tm, ~r.."..." . . i
Sh.;r--\",y Cc::t,':,etors. Inc.,............... , . ..... _' . .........$ 0'005/S F. Deferred (San.
I ' '( 1 C No Bid $5/ 366 19 Levy.,....... q. t
E:,;:;cllo Sane", :""ve ompany............. ..........' Stm $"r $856 46/Lot (9) S,,-r.) Assm'ts...$ 4,873.41
i Dever~nux ~ i"-"tt"Inc...................$58.537.65.....$58,486.20 S 'i .....$ 30'84/Ea (7) (outside city)
\,ild~sh C01,,:.:',:ction Company............ .$69.638.05.... .$69,589.55 erv ces.... . .
')3n i,llsup C: ,crc:ctor. Inc...............No nid.........$70.375,67 CO~IPLETION DATE: October 1,1974
i ..-.. ~ ... - - - ---~._-- -- -.... -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------- - ---- ----------~
'.'.1; : ;'.\'.:r~:~ I\!~;) ST- ~;FhTR:
\5';- ktuJ.;<.".~."T(Zr~""'~:-;t & fbdison St.
! r:roM "lit!. ,\vem" '< 24th Place (1035) (14' Paving)
! \:ildi.sh Cons:'.'I.lotion Company...................$ 8,172.80......:.............14' Alley Pav..$15.56/Fr/Ft.........",...0 I
! Devereaux & -,',tt. Inc,.........................$ 8.829.70 f
! S:-,uc"-1iay Co:, 'Iotors. Inc..................... .$10',544.24
I Don ,I.l_lsup I.. -' .r:lctor. Inc................... ..$11,890.18 CmlPLETION DATE: August 30, 1974
I ---------------- .----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i-- --
,,',X: ",'1 SEHER:
".' ~-'--.JXtt\ ,,~~;-:-iro'" ~li ''1'rd Street to Alder
I 'toec (<leconsu',,'cion) (978) BASIC ALTERNATE
, , , - $ 6 919 00 0 ............................86.919,00.................0
I }\cnnetL R. t-: .i.tck Con~;tructlon Co.......No Bid......... t . .................. to.
Shur-'":,,y (Oil:' '-,'otors. Inc............... .$10.982.00..... .$11,212.00
~cn Allsup CC' ;~"etor. Inc".,...........No ,Bid.........$15.324.72 I
Ac.lInsen Co.,'....." Gelco Grouting Serv......$11,230.00.....No Bid COHPLETION DATE: September 27.1974
---;_._---------------~~---------------~---------------.---------------------------------------------------~--,------~-~--=-~-~~~~~~~~~~-----------------
'\
"
6/24/74 - 9
2.17
----- --.----
~._.- -------'---------~--~- Cost to t~!il'(:)unt~
l_l~~l.~....:L 13i~.:~~~l__- ~>jcct Contract Cost Abutting Prop. Cost to City Budgeted
7. Cl1vin Street -twmDulles Avenue
co 30G :eet N, :tC\>9)
I J. Ker,r.Q~h R, :... .,':ick Construction Co.............$ 1,970.10........... .Lat.........$ O,08/Sq.Ft........................0
2, Shur-iJay Cc::c:c..ctors, Inc......................$ 2,483,30 Serv, Line..$409.00 $780.00
J, Norm Greer. C ::,Jns....,.........................$ 2,499,50 Deferred Assessment .
'" h'ildiEh CQ::;,:'llction Company...................$ 2,641.00 (outside city)
Dan Allsup cc..Lractor, Inc.....................$ 4,183.18 . _~
COMPLETION DATE: August 30, 1974 ~
-------------------- -_.._----------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
t .~T~~~~~2~: ~
e. 2.:ith Avenue fre::: :::~lyard Street to
:\:::a20n Channel (1.....\J1)
L Shur-Hay Co::cr"ctors, Inc............,........ .$59,616.00........................... .0............................. .$59,616.00....., .$108.000,00
2, Robert L. Jc::..n...................,...........$64,133.60 '(74-75 D"~r::\
J. De':ereaux & ",Cttt, Inc....................... ..$71,466.20
". Kenneth R. 2:itick Construction Co...,.........$78,156.40
5, Dan Allsup 1...:,:l:ractor, Inc................... ..$81,519.52 :
6. Hildish CODotc'Jction Company.................. .$87,221.16 I
COMPLETION DATE: September 27, 1974
-- - ------- ---- --- ------------ - ~ - ----- --- -- ------ -----------------
Public Horks Director reviewed bids. ,Recommendation was to award contracts to the
low bidder on each proj ect , with the award of contract on Item 4 (Sleepy Hollow
Subdivision) subject to acceptance by the property owner.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. (1424)
"~:':~ l~r.,)f~;slriier' moved "~~~;nded by 'j@s,~~ Camph~lE"'~-6"award ~c0nt-nq,gj;S <'t9 ';th~~ low - " ,
~-b Idcrer '2iY.~~acli_ pro j ~cii~a:s-- :rE? com.mendeg, - tnf~;.a~ard,.. of . cQntract~ QI:1 It em -J.t:J S) eepy ~ '.-
-, :Hol;L6w,_~Subd~1:sf~nrsU1J~~Qt~to'accepfancelD-f~~he -DId by ,the prop"erty-,owner. ):~,~--
~~ '. .-..,.>:. -',- '.-- - .,= - -- - ~ _ i::, .___-.....::.-.!
:.-= ~ ,...-;;;'--,-
In response to Councilwoman Campbell, Public -W~rks Director saidthat..Item 8 (25th _
Avenue storm sewer) completed the project in that area and removed the drainage facilities
entirely from Roosev.elt Junior High property. In answer to Councilwoman Beal, he said
that the paving and storm sewer on Meadow LCl.ne (Item 2) was. peitioned by owners of 58%
of the property to be assessed, and that Item 3 (18th Avenue) was initiated by the
Council at staff request and completed the 18th Avenue improvement. .
Rollcall vote was taken on motion7as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
H. Petition '- Sanitary sewer on Central Boulevard from 28th Avenue to south 1200 feet;
and between Central Boulevard and Spring Boulevard to serve all lots in Hunter's
Haven SUbdivision - 43.03%
. -~~ - . ~ ,. ... _' .__' ._.~ .~. . ",' '" ~ '_.' ..4"_' _,_~".., _._,
)Petition, Sanitary sewer on, Central Boulevard from '28th Avenue" to south 1200 feet; :
! and between Central Boulevard and Spring Boulevard to serve all lots in ,
Hunter's Haven Subdivision - 43.03%1
;Public Works Director asked for public hearing at this stage rather than at time of
contract award because of the controversial nature of the project. He said in- i
jterested property owners were advised the issue would be before the Council on
! June 24.'
Mrs. Bool moved seconded by Mr. Wood to schedule pUblic-iieari'ng-at-the 'C' e
24 '1 t . t . . d . 1 ' omm
June Counc~ mee ~ng. Mo ~on carr~e unan~mous y. / /
6 ~9 74
J Councilwoman Beal expressed the hope that if there were a number of hearings Pub 'Hrng
!scheduled for the June 24 meeting the agenda would be split so that part of it could
; be considered at another time rather than having a lengthy meeting and making deci,- I
,
: sions sO,late in the evening. Mayor Anderson agreed.
Public Work:: Director said the project involved about 20 parcels. As a resui,t of
discussion with owners of other properties .(besides-those represented on the petition)
there was now 48% of the properties represented on the petition. Public hearing was
requested at this time rather than at time of contract award. The Director cautioned
the Council about deliberating on percentages when considering petitions fo~ installa-
tion of sewers in view of accepted policy that eventually the entire city would' be
provided with sewer facilities. He noted that some of tQe property owners in the
subject area were protesting installation of this \:~ystem becaus.e they had been permitted
to pump effluent into other ~stems from septic tanks, and that permission could be
;interpreted as a way of avoiding any sewer assessment. Those properties, he said, have
not paid any s ewer assessment although they have been utilizing the " city facilities.
He added that he felt a 48% petition was a reasonable request for sewers, that the city
had to look at its obligation to provide s ewers to everyone in the city. In res pons e to .. "_
th~ Manager, Public Works Director said that the' assumption was correct that any septic '~
tank effluent from that area now or in the future would drain into the Laurelwood golf . ."
course drainage and eventually into,the Amazon Channel.
Public hearing was opened, the Chair explaining that it was not the final
hearing, and that there would be the opportunity to be heard at that time
of contract award. No testimony was presented and public hearing was closed.
6/24/74 - .10
2'8 i
/,
.
I
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. 'Campbell to accept the petition.
Motion carried unanimously.
III - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items_ if requested.
. Previously discussed in 'committee on-"June;l2, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council
members McDonald, Beal"Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and on June ,19, 1974'
.- (Pres ent : Mayor Anderson; Council members McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray
and Wood). Minutes of those meetings are printed below in it'alics.
A. !Room Tax Allocations - Copies of Room Tax Allocation Committee minutes (May 28,1974)
,and letter from Catherine Lauris, chairman of the committee, were 'distributed to
Council members. The following recommendations were considered: I
, [ ,'" J
1.pregon Bicentennial Commission - $8,000.00 1
iAt Councilwoman Campbell's request Mrs. Lauris explained the funds were requested!
(to enable purchase of a shop building and woodworking equipment for use of be-j
tginning and advanced students researching,' designing, and constructing a series i
jof traveling mural reliefs of the history of Oregon. The murals would become 1
1an exhibit traveling over the entire State, eventually becoming a permanent I
~exhibit in Eugene. The building also would become permanent public property. r
i\ I
:Mayor Anderson explained that available Federal grant money could not be used i
:for capital expenditures. Assistant Manager said that because of current city J
'space problems staff felt approval should be on the condition that the building J
iwou1d revert to the city for its use when the,:students'work was finished. :'
:I.~
e :Councilman McDonald felt the Council should not be asked for a decision at this ~.!
time since the letter of recommendation had just been distributed. Assistant I
Manager noted that minutes of the Allocation Committee meeting had been sent I
with the agenda, although the'chairman's letter was just distributed, recogniz-
ing ,that there would be opportunity for review prior to final action at the i
:June 24 Council meeting.
" Connn
Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the allocation of 6l~2/74
$8,000.00 for the Oregon Bicentennial Mural Commission. Motion Ap,prove
carri:ed lJnanimously. - :'j
-~''''''' ~11
2. fFriends of the Museum - 1. Docent Council requested $2,000.0~; $1,000.00 ~ ~l
'~ Connn
allocation recommended 6//12/74
2., Satellite Museum - Recommended $1,100.00 Approve
3. Parks & Recreation Department - 1. Competitive bicycling $2,000.00 1
"
2. Slide show 600.00 1
i
! 3. Park Maps 950.00 j
4. Canoe and boating maps 300.00 j
I .
!
i 5. Childrens sculpture 500.00 i
I
6. Contingency funds for 1
e ! tournament expense 500.00 '"
l
t $4,850.00 I
; Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve allocations as I
j Corron
recommended to Friends of the Museum ($2,100.00) and Parks and' j
Recreation Department ($4,850.00). Motion carried unanimously. 6~12/74
- A~prove
,
4. fEugene Symphony Association - Requested $25,000.00; $15,000.00 allocation :
recommended i
, !
]counci1~n Keller noted the request for $10,000.00 for sustaining funds for i
f
'the Symphony Association and wondered if that would fall within the stated I
f
;uses of room tax monies. Assistant Manager noted the recommendation from I
1
ithe Committee was to allocate $15,000.00 for operations expense only. i
!
i i
: I
'Joe Warr, manager of the Eugene Symphony Association, described the activities j
of the Symphony in comparison with symphony associations in other cities. He'!
said the $10,000.00 request was to start a sustaining fund, an 'interest earning,
'account not to be used for operating expenses: .- . ....,,, .-.....'~'".~~.-_.........---
......_.~--;.~....._..~..........., -. . ....~...- ~"-' ,-~ .- ,-...,., .'--" '. ".'---'
.I " Mrs. Beal moved. s,econded by Mr. Keller to approve an allocation of
$15,000~00 to the Eugene Symphony Association.
. :Councilwoman Campbell didn't object to the motion but felt it did not cover
the request. She moved seconded by Mrs.' Beal to amend the motion to include
the $10,000.00 ~equested to start a sustaining fund.
__......__.u~._ ....,' "r_ _ ......~... ".:- :-.~.- .-..---._._ _'___.~ ._... __.____._.__ . ...~ _~_._.___ ~__._.......__.____ .~._.,. _.~ _...__~______ _~ __ .. _" _ . ,._ ~.._ ___ _
6/24/74 - 11
2Jq
~.. _.~- --- --' ,-- ..- ----., .--~~-
. '--'-".-- - .-." --. ...... -~- -~...~.~._--_....:~- ...--'"
iM;~: L~uris e~pl~ined that the Committee was reluctant to a11ocat~ too large a
:percentage of room tax money to anyone group but, recognizing the Symphony's
:need, preferred to recommend in future years a steady annual fund of $10,000.00.
They therefore suggested that the Symphony Board return with a request for
appropriation ~fter their ~ntici~ated private ~und drive had been completed.: .
Mrs. Lauris sa~d that cons~derat~on of a11ocat~ng the $10,000.00 would be met ,
,when that occurs.
Councilman Keller again questioned whether the $10,000.00 request would be a
'proper use of room tax fundsl He felt a report from staff would be desirable
: before action was taken. Councilman Murray preferred having advice on legali ty :
~of the allocation also before voting.
:Councilwoman Campbell with consent of the second withdrew the amending motion,. ,
:exp1aining that because the Lane County ~uditorium Association had received ;
'funds from that source over a period of years she felt this allocation to the
:Symphony was not completely out of order.
, , 't.. 't' Co.mm
Vote was taken on allocation of $15,000.00 to the SympHony Assoc~a ~on.. "
. , , , 6/.:12/74
Mot~on carr~ed unan~mously.-" ,',.: ". .
See"..&~t 109
I Councilwoman Bea1 expressed dissatisfaction with the allocation guidelines.' : Below
,She said it was very clear at one time that the Auditorium Association was to ,
: receive a considerable portion of the room tax money. Since the auditorium
'project was rejected by the voters, she said, it would seem new g'uidelines were~
,necessary. A~sistant Manager noted recently adopted guidelines which had been \' ....'
: forwarded to the Allocation Committee. He suggested also that a staff person ,.,
, serve as secretary to the Committee to provide minutes of discussion rather
',than just a report of action taken. Mr. Wood suggested an opinion be given on '
the legality of the Symphony sustaining fund request prior to its coming back
:for Council consideration.
Joseph Warr, 1810 North Park Avenue, manager of t~e Eugene Symp~o~y Association, read (,1538}
,a prepared statement making an appeal for allocatlon of the, addltlonal $.10,OOOreques,ted.
Ke said interest earned from that aIDO unt wouldcQyer the salary of aJIluch needed
ticker manager/secretary worker. 1tl.i th that assistance- mL accelerated pr0gX>am could be
started seeking state and federal funds.' - '
Councibnan Ril1ia:msreferred to the City Attorney's opinion stateii1g that the purpose
for wh ich the. $:10 ,000 was requested (ta initiate a sustaining fund for the Symphony)
was very que~tlonable so far as use of Room Tax money. Manager said that the City
Attorn:y belleved a $~O,OOO grant would be substantially more than a contribution,
refe:rlng to the r:qulrement that Room Tax monies be used on the basis ofcpr6viding
sepVlces for the Clty on a c~ntractual basis. He added that although the City Attorney
stated that he could not advlse that the allocation would be lawful' h d.d I
' t. .'., , e l eave a
nega lve connotatlon rather than'say~ng,specifically that it could be done.
Councilman Hersh~er asked if the $.10,000' request hadheen~efore the Allocation Co.mmi ttee el_
and what the actlon was there. Mr., Warr answered that the purpose of the $iO ,,000 was to
start a sustaining fund for the Symphony with the idea that the: interest ,therefrom would
provide operating funds in the future. Operating funds would cover' the"' hiring of a
'ticket manager/secretary for part-time work~ that work is now being handled'by members
of the Symphony on a voluntary basis. Manager referred to the Allocation Committee
minutes which indicated an allocation of $15,000 was recommended. He read the trans-
mittal letter fpom the Committee chairman which explained that the $10,000 was requested
for a sustaining fund and that the Symphony membership was planning a private fund drive.
The Committee, it was indicated, was concerned about allocating too large a percentage
of the Room Tax monies to any one group and recommended an annual allocation of $10,000
suggesting the Symphony Board return with a request for the sustaining fund after
completion of their private fund campaign. In further re~ponse to Councilman Hershner,
Manager said $15,000 was allocated for the prior season. He added that it appeared the
Council had authority to include as a part of the contract the necessary funds to support
a ticket manager/secretary potition as an operating expense which would be a different
approach than that suggested by the Symphony.
Councilman Keller was not~in favor of making a commitment of a $.10,000 allocation annually
nor did he think Room Tax monies should be used for the purpose of establishing a
sustaining fund. He said he would support inclusion of funds for employment of part-
time help as suggested. ~
Councilwoman Campbell was supportive of a $10,000 allocation on a one-time basis to
~pearhead the Symphony's plan for establishing a sustaining fund. She said the City
Attorney's opinion was solicited on the basis of whether it would come under the Room
T~ Allocation guidelines if it was allocated only one time for that purpose. Stan
Long answered that there was a serious question whether even one contribution to a
sustaining fund was legal.
6/24/74 - i2
220 1
Councilman Hershner although not comfortable with granting a lump sum for investment
purposes recognized the Symphony's ucrrent needs for operating expenses and suggested
increasing the allocation by $700. He also recognized the desirability for Allocation
. Committee review of the additional funds suggested: Councilman Williams and Wood
agreed that the proper procedure would be for Room Tax Committee consideration.
Mr. Wood said he would not be opposed to doubling tbat amount if the money was to be
used to organize a fund drive.
Mr. Williams said it would be assumed, lacking any amendment, that the allocation of
$15,000 would be approved~ and that the Symphony; Association would approach the Room
Tax Committee for a recommendation to the Council with regard to additional funds for
employment of a ticket manager/secretary. .
Further discussion centered on activities of the Symphony for the coming season
and time element involved (July 15, deadline) to enable proper handling of ticket
sales, etc. i
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to allocate an~additional $1,000 to
the Eugene Symphone Association, the additional funds to be used for employment
of part-time ticket manager/secretary, and that this action be referred to the
Room Tax Allocation Committee for their concurrence or disagreement by July 15, 1974.
Councilman. Keller stated his opposition to the motion on the basis that the "ground
rules" were being- changed and this was not the proper procedure for doing that. He
. said the request was totaily different from that originally,referredtot~e Allocation
Committee and should come to the Council on recommendation of the Committee itself.
Councilwoman Beal agreed but felt there was a question of timing because of the
Symphony's needs in relation to the dates of Room Tax Committee meetings.
Councilman McDonald deplored the manner in which the Room Tax Allocations were being
pandled, saying the procedure seemed to be straying from that intended. Councilman .
Wood had no reservations about changing the allocation. He saw no reason to send
it back to the Committee.
Councilwoman Campbell called for the question and.vote was taken on motion to
increase the allocation by $1,000 ($16,000:total), the money to be available
to the Eugene Symphony on July 15, 1974 if there was no objection from the
. -.~ RoomTax'Allocat ion Commi tt ee . Motion carrie~, Councilmen Hershner, Beal,
"'--".-.. ------- -. -.
Campbell, and Wood voting,aye;'Councilman Williams, ,~cDonald and Keller voting no.
. " . ~-...
5. : Upward Bound - Requested $4,000.00 1
\
: The Allocation COmmittee recommended rejection since it did not fit the legal) Comm
i contraints on use of the tax monies. No action was taken. ;1 6/12/74
I 'I .
'1_._..... "'___", ._..,.. "~"'" "._.,,, ". ..,. "_,, _ ,_'.. ____'. ,"_" '<<.:: .,." __" __.." ..__..~.._.1" No Act~on
'ta . ' vious1y distributed to ,
B. ~contr~flow Traff~c ~yst~m fO~o BU::~ ~o~~~~e~/:o~~~a;~~: ~~: lanes. Assistant \
:Counc~l members ~nd~cat~ng P ,PO, on Charne1ton'and 10th were far in the future.j
;Manager explained t~at th~se~nd~ca~e~ f the one on 8th between Linco1~ and Pearl. '
i.More immediate cons~derat~on was as eo,
f . d h tem and how it would' service the
'AI Williams, traf~ic engineer, eX~la~~e ~ ~t~y~etween willamette and Olive. The
proposed bus term~na1 on the ~o~t s~.e oln to Pearl on the south side of 8th with
proposed bus lane would exten rom ~ncothe one-wa westbound traffic on that
,buses travelin~ west to east contr:r~h:of10W of busYtraffic in and out of the.pro-
'street. Hepo~nted out on a ske:c d t of the contraflow lane at. various ~nter-
!posed terminal and bus movemen: ~n ~t o~'on to the need for removal of parking from
sections. He called the Counc~l s a en ~ . co1n and between Oak and Pearl to
! both sides of 8th Avenue between c~a~~:~~~~ ~~s L~~e bus lane. Also, the possibili ty:
:provide room for two full ~anes 08thbetwee; Oak and Pearl and at the southeast ;
:of some street reco~struct~on o~aid that significant modifications would have to i
corner of 8th and L~nco~n: He . I and that although financing was not a ,
be made in signing, ,~tr~p~ng, and S~g~: ;~deral money available for a portion of !
consideration~t th~s t~me the~~ ~a~hat the Planning Commission pad approved the I
the work. Ass~stant Manager a e
concept of the bus lane on 8th Avenue.
.- I .' sed change could be accomplished on Charnel ton I
; Councilman Murray asked ~f thepxc;r E ineer answered that the proposal a,t this !
without widening the street. Tra ~cd ~~arnelton were shown only to indicate how i
: time was for 8th Avenue onlY~ lOth ~ture. In response to questions from Council- j
the route could be expanded ~n.the , r s id the bus lane would be separated
woman Campbell and Be~l, Traff~c Eng~~~~bleq ellow no passing, center divider now ,
from automobile traff~c by the ~sual h !Jld be' no raised dividers since it waS!
'ng traff~c T ere wou I
used to separate oppos~ t ff: d size of the vehicles there would be no
felt with the volume ~f b~s, ra ~c ~ . . ...___~_,_
blem with their ma~nta~n~ng the r.~gh~~".~_,,!a~,.,_.._ ., -- ".. ----, -' ,- , '..'
pro ~_.,,_' ______ __', _ _~._____,_..,...,---"'~
'2.. 2..1 6(24(74 - .13
L.-
in respons"e to CouncIlman )lctiOiiaTd~~"Traffid Engineer sa.1.i{ tl1~ "planning Coiniiii"5siOil
had approved the concept presented which would necessitate removal of parking.
jHe commented on the availability of off-street parking in the Pearl/High area,
:inc1uding lightly used space underneath City Hall, recognizing however the possi-
Ibi1ity it would become more heavily used upon completion of the Federal building.. .
; MIs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to accept the contraf10w
: traffic system-for buses.
i
I ,
Councilman Murray asked whether staff felt this system would increase traffic I
pressures on the remaining portion of the roadway to the extent that alternative
traffic patterns on 'other streets would be necessary. Traffic Engineer answered !
Ithat no substantial incr~ase of traffic on 8th was anticipated in the next 10 to
i 20 or even 30 years. The existing lanes provided capaci ty far in excess of what
;was necessary now. John Porter, planning director, added that it was brought out
iin Planning Commission discussion that unless preferential treatment was given to
bus systems it would be necessary to expand auto facilities. provision for the
,contraf10w bus lane would tend to make less demand for auto facilities and even
[though it was long-range thinking it seemed a step in the right direction. I Comm
1 6/12/74
Vote ~as taken on the motion as stated. MOtion carried unanimously. Approve
. - '. ~ . - ~- ~ . - ,. "..' .' ~-, .. ~~ 1
c. 'Air and Noi~eImpact Study - West Amazon Facility - Staff recommended approval of
- 'an agreemen t with Northwest Environmental Technology Laboratory of Be11evue, !
f.Washington for monitoring of the projected West Amazon traffic corridor (from; .
IAgate to'Be1t Line along east/west routes between 11th and 18th). The monitoring .
:wou1d measure existing air and noise quality against new DEQ standards. Assistant i
'Manager explained that this firm submitted the lowest bid and also assured the use;
lof city staff to the greatest possible extent in order to reduce cost of the study~
\ -
iAuthorization was requested to expend up to $35,000.00 for preparation of the '
!materia1 for an 'impact statement on the West Amazon corridor. I
1 . :
-I In -response to Councilwoman Campbell's question about source of flmds, Assistant '
~Manager said it was included in the Public Works Department planning division sec- i
t tion of the budget .,1
[ .~
1
(Councilman McDonald mentioned past discussion about the possibility of bike paths
:in the' West Amazon area, and the purchase of a nuinber of properties to provide
iright-of-way for the West Amazon traffic faci1i ty. He said he would favor the
. .$35,000.00 expenditure for the study if work went ahead on the traffic facility, I
;but he would not if nothing was dQne. Assistant Manager said the only funds ex-
:pended were to purchase properties when development seemed about to occur and ~
, tpresence of the plan for the arterial caused economic hardship on property owners. ;
[He said the study would determine transportation demand along that corridor, and',
j100k at alternatives. If it was decided construction was not to take place, then i
:other uses, possibly park uses, would be made of property there in city oWl2~rship. i a
'LA study of this kind was also necessary to provide information to the voters under i _
( ,
jthe Charter amendment calling for a vote on proposed freeways. i
! Mr. . Keller moved seconded by Mr,. Murray to authorize expendi ture up to .I; Cjmm
$35~000.00 as recommended for noise and air study on the West Amazon e 12 74
facility. MOtion carried unanimously. fipprove
D. ,Liquor License Renewals and Foo' s, 2200 Centenn1.iill ---
:Retai1 Malt Beverage - The Keg Tavern, 4711 West 11th (renewal and dropping partner)'
, Murphy & Me Tavern, 1475 Franklin Bou1ev.ard
i
iPackage Store - The Market, 1201 West 11th Avenue
Class A Dispensers - Larry's Prime Rib, 2855 Wil1amette
In addition application for Class A Dispensers license was submitted for Foo's
Restaurant at 2200 Centennial Boulevard. OLee report indicated one objector to
the new location.
Comm
MI. Wood moved seconded by MIs. Bea1 to recommen~ approval of the . 6/12/74 ~
renewal applications, and schedule public hearing on the app1icatidn Approve ...
for Foo's. Motion carried unanimously. . ' .'.
6/24/74 - .11.f.
223 ]
,
E.. . 'Annexation, DOerksen Property (between GoodpastlJ,re Island Road and Bel t Line
Road across from K-Mart) - Request was received/rom Robert Moulton, attorney
representing applicants for annexation of the supject property, for consideration
/-. ,of the issuea~ this time now that the Livingstqp & Blayney interim report on
~. !annexation in the Goodpasture Island area had been received. Mr. Moulton said
:the interim report recommended that annexation of the Doerksen property be al-
'lowed but with the clear under~tanding of all parties that there would be no ,
,commitments made ,with regard to development. He asked that th~ Council forward I
:a recommendation to the Boundary Commission where the annexation request was I
:previously tabled awaiting a recommendation from the city. Mr. Moulton recog-
:nized that the question of development of the property ~ould hav.e to come before I
the Council after the final report was received from Livingston & Blayney but "
: wanted the annexation question out of the way before that time to speed up the
'overall process of getting the property developed.
Assistant Manager said that although it was apparent the property would eventually'
become ~ part of the city there was a question of timing as to when that would .
occur. I The emphasis in the Blayney report, he said, while saying the area could
be annexed, recommended that annexation not occur until the city was ready to ad- !
dress' the total problem of development and density. Staff supported that stand.
'Mr. Moulton repeated his understanding of recommendation in the report that an- I
;nexation should proceed but with the clear understanding that there would be no I
'commitment to development until a development plan for the entire area was ready. i
He said his clients understood that and agreed to that stipulation.
I
.. j !
'Councilwoman Campbell asked for further staff clarification of the interim report ,
!in view of the differing interpretations. John Porter, planning director, said
it would be a matter of judgment by the Council. He felt that the timing of
,annexation would not make much difference from a test standpoint. The matter of i
:land use was of concern because one "scenario" for Goodpasture Island contemplated!
housing in that area in conflict with the 1990 Plan. If the final Blayney report I
'indicated going toward housing it would mean amez:2dment \to the 1990 Plan and could
:mean possibly two or three years before use of the Doerksen property would be de- !
termined. If the property was annexed then city taxes would be based onAGT zoned!
, (County) land which in turn would put the pressure on the Council to allow some
higher use. H~ added that Mr. Moulton un~er~too4 that problem but was willing to
go ahead with the annexation.
I
"
Assistant Manager said that because the matter did come up on the spur of the
moment, not having been an item on the regular agenda, perhaps the Council would I
want to review the Blayney interim report before . ,taking action. Planning Director!
inoted too that the matter of annexation in l~ght~9t the,interim report had not yet:
[been considered by the Planning Commission. It,~as understood the item would be i
ientered on the consent calendar for the June 24 Council meeting where it could Co~m
j ba__~egreg~te.dtQ~_~urt;h.e.r d:f:scussi.o.n i_fr~qu_et;ted. ..'. .- ..;e>~/J!}'E!!:_
,'~ ..Approve.d L
. Referred to Pian~- Cbmm.
Robert Moulton, Attorney representing EmeraldiDel ta, in request for favorable recom- ' , - --'"
mendation on annexation of the property in question, referred to the Livingston &.
Blayney interim report which indicated the property should be annexed if that was what
was wanted. Mr. . Moulton said the petitioners did wish the property annexed: and that
t~ey would pay Cl!~ taxes. It was his hope the Council would recommend annexation in
tlITle ~or July 11 ;Boun.dary Commission considera!~on'_._Ii:.said there was clear understanding
that If the property was annexed there would~b~_~o .commitments with regard to its develop-
ment, and that the current County AGT zone would persist.
Councilman Keller sa~d his impression wa~ that action taken in committee was as requested
by Mr. Moulton. Asslstant Manager explalned that there was no definitive action in com-
mittee, that it was recognized the normal procedure on annexations was refferal to the
Planning Commission for recommendations, so that was indicated on the consent calendar
recognizing the item could pe segregated for further action if desired. '
The Cha~r ruled the action shown on the consent calendar - referring Item E (Doerksen
annexatlon) to the Elanning Commission - would stand.
Council~oman Campbell remarked on-;-the delay experienced by, the petitioners for this
annexatlon and wondered when the final Livingston &. Blayney report would be completed.
. She wanted the record to show there was at least one Council member concerned about the
delay who felt action should be taken as rapidly as possible toa:c<;offiIJida.ate'.t'he~pe'titioner.
Staff consensus was that ~lanning Commission consideration could take place in time f~r .
recommendation to the Council at its July 22 meeting.
6(24(74 - ..15
~ 224
.
F. Liquor- Licenses- --- --_ '___,_,__ .. _--. _'q__ _
Renewals for Fords Restaurant, 1769 Franklin Boulevard (Restaurant)
Eugene Hotel, 222 East Broadway (Class A Dispensers) ,
Columbus Club, 1144 Charnel ton (Class B Dispensers - 500/1000 members)' _
: Change of OWnership for Emerald Baseball, Inc., 2000 Block of Willamette Street .
.. (Civic Stadium) (formerly Eugene Emeralds) - RMB
,Assistant Manager explained that the Emerald Baseball application was brought
· prior to receipt of OLCC and police department investigative reports to ex-
pedite processing of the license. Staff had no objection to approval and re- ,
. lease prior to formal Council meeting upon receipt of favorable, reports. : Comm
6/19/74
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mrs. Bealto recommend approval of all the Approve
applications. Motion carried unanimously.
G. Fire Code - Support amendment to require sprinkler systems in high-rise buildings. Comm
(See Committee, 6/i9/74, Public Hearing, Page 3) 6/~9!74
-A~p-rQye
,.-.- '- - --" ,...--.-.. .." -. - ,."" "-.. -.'.. ,.. ,-- '- ,
G. !Salvage of Demolition projects - Council members "were previously furnished with copies";
)of letter to the Edi tor of the Register-Guard wri tten by Howard Leighty of Marcola. I
iMr. Leighty suggested enactment of an ordinance regulating demolition projects under !
:a permit system to allow general public salvage of building materials. i
I ,
I
, I - _
! Renewalll,ejency Director Hunt reviewed ,efforts of the Agency toward greater salvage, ..
I since the Subject was las~ before the Council. Contractors had been allowed ai,
! longer period to permit removal of inside materials before demolition, but limitations
I
: in terms of liability and insurance prevented free public salvage. ,He said an effort
; was made to work with recycling groups but they were also limited in what they could
'do. Higher costs resulting from allowing enough time for salvage before demolition
iand legal complications prevented more progress in that direction, although special
effort was being made tq save everything possible.
.
:Assistant Manager explained that because of the serious public safety questipns. and i
lliabili ty, staff time was not fel t justified to pursue Mr. Leighty's suggestions !
; further. However, more time would spent on exploration if Council so desired. :
!Councilman Keller felt a lot of progress had been made in salvaging materials from i
; buildings removed from the downtown renewal area. He noted the number of legal 1
opinions issued that a waiver of liability would not remove responsibility for i
:liability or the possibility of legal action. .
i \
{Councilman Wood wondered about the difference between a recycling agency such as
iBRING and the general public in salvaging ~terialsso far as liability was concerned.
tIt was explained that a demolition contractor accepts the liability for whoever is _
!permitted on a site. Mr. Hunt ,said ,ERA projects are g~verned by Federal regulations, i e
; that the contractor once a project ~s turned over to h~m has full control of the I .
jproperty and must have liability insurance, be lice~sed, and meet other technical
jrequirements.
I .
iCouncilman Murray explained that neither Mr. Leighty's interest nor his own stemmed
lfrom ERA projects exclusively, although he recognized any regulations governing
ldemolition would probably have to make special provision for ERA. He felt discussion
jin terms of hazards would tend to discourage further exploration and would fail to
/recognize the possible merit of such an ordinance. He felt there was a lot of waste
~_ qene.r.al__~rec)dng of buildings, materials whiE12.c:ouJd b~ valuabl;;in vie~ of the
pf-esent tight economy and materDil shoitages~' He'sugges7:ed'tbiJ.t'-the"stafrgive--"---:
imore time to exploring the process and report back on the feasibility of drafting l
Itan ordinance. He recognized the problems involved but thought perhaps some of them::
,could be ironed out if a~ attempt was made. I
t i
I
!Mayor Anderson agreed that an ordinance probably could be worked out but thought
:in the long run its administration would be so difficult as to make it unworkable. i
~He. said most items of salvage were wood products manufactured many years ago which '
'could not be used in modern day construction: On the other hand some items could
be used, such as bricks, so it therefore seemed impractical to launch staff on a
project unless theY were provided with some direction as to types of salvage which .-.
'were to be regulated. ..
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that staff check existing ordi~ances I
that may be in operation in other ci,ties, with some exploration of the
practicality of those ordinances, and report back to the,Council.
6/24/74 - 16
225 ~
~
;In making the motion Mr. Murray commented that there' seemed to be no knowledge or
jinvestigation made as to whether such an ordinance existed, or if it did how it worked;
'He didn't think. it would take a great deal of staff time and would give some basis for:
. ~~re serious e~plora:io~ of the iss~e. council~man Beal s,uggested salvaged materials'
. IlUght be used ~n ass~st~ng elderly~n home repa~ror would, be of value to people
:interested in "do-it-yourself" projects. She thought a step ,in that direction would
,ibe of public interest and change the whole philosophy of "tear it down and throw it
away." Mayor Anderson !;aid he was not in any way opposed to salvage if materials
could be used in an economical, aesthetic, and structurally feasible fashion. But
'.be was concerned about spending an undue amount of staff time in administration of
Ian unworkable program. He suggested rather than a lengthy investigation that staff
;merely determine whether such ordinances exist. Consensus was that that was the
Jintent Of, the rrotion. '
iCouncilman McDonald stated his opposition, saying he 'would not be a part to permit- ,
jting public salvage under conditions where the city would stand liable., Also that "
~use of salvaged materials in construction 'may not be permitted under building depart~ ,
I , _ . .. ,
Iment regulations. He couldn't see any point in delaying demolition to permit salvage :
iof materials which might not be approved for constructin purposes.!
~ x . - ~
I
, Howare Leighty explained that he did not necessarily intend to advocate an i
:ordinance which would ensure delay of demolition for free public salvage. Rather, i
:it was to encourage wreckers-to salvage more materials themselves and reali~e if I
:they didn't they would be required to delay. He' said there were many current pro-
~ ,grams where people actively sought out the type of materials found in older build-
~ ;ings. He recommended further exploration of the suggestion, saying this city could
show national leadership with an ordinance of that type.
Councilman McDonaid asked about the cost for demolition when time was allowed for
salvage prior to wrecking. Mr. Hunt answered that two bid forms were issued -
one with and one without salvage. ERA tried to sell everything from their build-
ings before demolition:'" fixtures, carpeting, etc. Then it was the contractor's
responsibility. If delay was required for salvage, that became a part of the bid
price. Councilwoman Beal expressed appreciation to Mr. Hunt for the progress ERA
~ had made in salvaging materials.
Co rom
Vote wa~ taken Qn t~e motion as stated. ,Motion carried, a~l council 6/i9/74
members . present vobng aye., ex.cept.Counc~lman !1cDonald vo_t~!lfJ no. Approve
I
J ,
/ I.: Community Goals, 1974 - Copies of recommendations from the co~un~ty Goals. 1974 '. ~
, iConference were distributed to Council members~ p~anning Comm~ss~on recommendat~ons \
;on the Goals were expected prior to suggested hear~ngdate of July 8. .
: ~rom
J Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood to schedule public- hearing at the. 6/19/':14 I
__ '1, July 8 Council meeting. Motion carried unani~u~::~'>__"__'d'"_''' ". _~....,_' ,ApP~o~~J
l.__..d...._.....__ ...., ..'"..'........'d_'. "-..., , ...,..,...,...
~ .P'
J. !Appeal, Denial of rezoning RA to RG-20-SR on North Delta property, M&M Deve~opment j
,planning Commission denied the rezoning on June 4,.1974. Staff notes and,m~nutes
,of that meeting were to be distributed to Council members prior to the suggested
: hearing date of July 22. C
I, OIllIn:
i Mrs. Beal moved se?onded-bY ~r. Wood to schedule public hearing at the 6/19/74;
'I . M' 't'" , d 'mo sl Approve
July 22 Counc~ meet~ng. 0 ~on carr~e unan~ u y.
I
K. I Sidewalk, 2490 Agate Street - Council was asked to initiate construction of sidewalk
!at 2490 Agate Street to complete a gap in the walkway. Contacts with the owner~of
I abutting property seeking voluntary compliance were unsuccessful.
Corom,
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Murray to initiate sidewalk construction as.. "
requested. Motion carried unani..mously. ...._, '.._ ,. 6/1.9/74.
."....,... ," '.-j'...... .." .. ....... ,.... Approve
L iinterim Working Bikewal) Plan - Recommended by the Planning Commission on Mal) 20,1974. '
J . IDarrel Wilburn, assistant traffic engineer, explained that a working plan was a State
;requirement with application for funds. Approval of the proposed route was requested,
. lito allow proceeding with an application. ,
'Mayor Anderson said it appeared that the path along the east side of the willamette
! River was a path to nowhere. He asked if it should follow the left bank. of the
: River instead. Assistant Manager replied that work was in progress on property I
matters in that area and proposals addressing concerns on fOllowing the east side ,
I
would be brought soon. C !
onnn
6/i9/74
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve the interim working bike. Approve
, , d . I ~~
plan. Mot~on carr~e una12;z.p~..~,~y.~__. _._-=-...._,~--_-_-__ _ __.. M'" -....-~
,._~..,._-------_. .-- . , _.------...- - . ':~~..:'.'~'_.P __.' ~._..........,- . .. . ,
~ 2.2.b 6(24(J4 "' ..17
,.
M. :Sa1vaging i-i,iterIa1s in Bui1ding-Demo11. tion - At Counc1Tman Murray's reques-t' i"t';
:was understood discussion of possible ordinance regulating demo1itio~ of bui1d-\" Carom
ings would be scheduled on the June 19 comrnctttee agenda. ! 6!~2/74
., A .
.,. . "--" "ffll'JU
. _..,~'- .. '. ~ '", . .
N. Armory Report - Councilman Murray asked for scheduling of discussion on the Armory:
Comm
report (issued by the County's Vision 2000 committee) on the June 19 conmritte~ 6\112/74
agenda. In response to Mayor Anderson's suggestion for more definitive area of , Affirm
discussion in view of the man'y-faceted report, Mr. Murray said one of the main
issues in the community debate on the Armory was what, if any, continuing interest
,or role the city would have. It was agreed the item would be scheduled June 19
to define the Armory issues to be discussed at a later, date.
.-.... +:+ -",-- - - -.- ~ . - .- ---~.- '~'W' ......_~.'..~ .- .
o. Eugene Renewal. Agency Appointment - Councilwoman Bea1 reported a call received
from Robert Zagorin stating he had asked Manager's office for permission to speak
at this meeting insuppdrc of Ron Boutell's application for appointment to the
Eugene Renewal Agency. Assis'tant . Manager explained that he had talked wi th
,Mr. zagorin, who understood if h~ submitted a letter to the Manager's office he
:would be assured a place on the agenpa. Copies of the letter submitted by
I,
,~'iMr.zagorin had been attached to Mr. Boutell's application and included with
~other applications for distribution to Council members. Assistant Manager said
il!le explained to Mr. Zagorin that speaking before the Council in behalf of one J
~.applicant might be a departure from procedure agreed upon by the Council for i
~considering applicants, so there was hesitancy about placing it on the agenda !
I '
unless brought up by a Council member for determination whether he should be " ! --
heard at this time. ~
.
~~~!i~~4er~on comm~nt~d"'th~t h~aringMr~iagori; at this time wo~ld b~' h'ighiy'
;irregu1ar and not in line with the process set by the Council for selecting 1
land interviewing candidates for the ERA position. He felt the proper time for ,
:
,hearing support of a candidate would be in the screening process. ,
i
;Counci1woman Bea1 thought it was not a good precedent to hear recommendation
;in behalf of one applicant without hearing for all, but suggested giving
~Mr. Zagorinthe opportunity to speak because of the misunderstanding. She moved
:to make an exception in this case and listen to, Mr. Zagorin for no more than Comm
ithree minutes. The motion had no second. \6/12/74
Mayor Anderson noted the question was one of timing and said Mr. zagorin would ~".File
I
ihave further opportunity to make a presentation before the Council. I
Copies of app1iqations for appointment to ERA were distributed to Council members. Comm
,It was, agreed the Council would consider them at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 19.6/12Z74
. Affl,rm:
P. :Arrrory- 'Copies.of letter fr~m Lane c~unty coffimissiori~~ Kenneth Omlid wereprevlous[y
'distributed to Council members. The'letter outlined the County's position with re- .
igard to the Armory and asked ~ho~e who wished to use space in the bui~ding if it "
iwas preserved to let the Comm~ss~oners know by September 1, 1974 the ~ntended use ,
ialong wi th firm commi tments for funding. I
i
!In answer to Mayor Anderson's inquiry about whether the Council's opinion was
jcrucial to any decision by the County, Mr. Murray said he didn't know how much i
[controversy there was on the Council itself about the Armory but it was conceivable
ithe Commissioners would be discussing the situation and he felt Council input
jwould be beneficial to them. He added that he would suggest acceptance of the
ICounty's earlier offer for city lease of the building for $1.00 to be active over
ia one-year period, during which time the Historic Preservation Committee could be =--;
;charged with providing a specific example of how the building could be used for !
:public assembly and/or office space and a specific funding proposal which would
iconsider several different possibilities including (1) extending ERA boundaries i
'and appropriate use of Fe~eral funds, (2) phased funding utilizing room tax funds,
: (3) bond measure, or (4) Federal grant. If at the end of a year the plans were not
successful nor imminent, use of the building would revert to the County. Or if
!they were successful then the city would explore remaining questions of'responsi-
:bility for operation and ongoing ownership or lease of the building. ' ; COJJlJll
6/-i19/74
:In response to Assistant Manager's reminder~of-the September 1 deadline in Affirm .
I - =. ,---j
,Mr~ Omlid's request for information, Mr. Murray said--he was puzzled about that
'date in view of an implementation meeting scheduled in the next two or three weeks ,
I
;at which he understood a decision was to be made. Mayor Anderson doubted whether
any decision on the fate of the Armory would be hasty and suggested a week's delay "
:in discussion would not alter future use of the building. He preferred an oppor-
!tunity for full discussion and further review of 'the Vision 2000 report on the
:Armory before any presentation to the County. It was agreed that the issue would
':...be a priority agenda item a t the June 25 commi ttee meeting. ~
2.2.; 6(24/14' ,... -18
j
~--'"
Q.' Alternative Employe, Transportation Modes and Flexible Work Hours - Copies of memo
were previously distributed 'Co Council memhers addressed to Lane County Commis-
,sioners from Bob Elfers, County administrative officer. The memo set out a ~um-
;mary of proposals for incentives for alternative employe transportation modes
a" . :and flexible work hours. Councilman Murray said he asked for diS. cussion to de-
:termine whether the city could or was pursuing anything along those lines.
I
;Assistant Manager reported that although no single, comprehensive report had been
Iput,together a number of things had been implemented. They were flexible working
hours in nonshift departments to match bus schedules or car pools; the encouraged
u~e of b~cycles, inc1qding use of two city-owned bikes for. work.o.rient~d. ,t:r:ips
r around town, and conven~entlYP1acea-Dike' racks; reducing monthly parking charge
~from $8.00 to $3.50 for those employes participating in car pools; free parking
'underneath City Hall for employes' motorcycles; provision of bus tokens to em-
jployes at a 20% discount. In addition, employes making out-of-city trips have' \
,been asked to use mass transit ,rather than city vehicles. Assistant Manager Comm
j ~ai~ that preliminary. eval~at~on of employe residence~ in relation to ~us ~ines 6/~2/74
~nd~cated about 390 l~ve w~th~n two blocks of a bus l~ne. However, go~ng ~nto i File
!a subsidization program similar to the county's proposal would cost about $30,000. ~
R. ;Rezoning Request, Sladden Park Area - Councilman McDonald reported several calls
:received from people objecting to a development in the Sladden Park area which \
:they said would'take away public access to the riverfront. He said he had been
'asked to attend Whiteaker neighborhood meetings at which rezoning request re-
I . '
~lated to the development would be discussed but wondered whether that was per-
, mitted under the Fasano regulations. Or whether he would be able 'to vote on the
. ,issue if it came to the Council if he attended Planning Commission meetings at
.. ~which the request was considered. Assistant Manager answered that earlier ad- i
:vice from the Ci ty Attorney's office indicated that while they would ,not en- I
~courage Council attendance at Planning Commission meetings, Council memhers as I
)e1ected officials do have the prerogative of declaring any ex parte contacts . Comm
I
;and that any ex parte contacts would not affect any judgment in a hearing before 6/i12/74
ithe Council. He added" that further advice would be forthcoming from the Attorney' sl rile
~ffice after further study of recent decisions under the Fasano ruling. 1
. I
. .
s. iSign Code Enforcement re: Billboards - Councilwoman Campbell asked about existing
~illboards in the city 'and wondered when removal was scheduled. Assistant Manager
!replied that discussions had started on proposals received from the billboard '
!,indus-try wi th regard to amendments affecting billboards. Final staff session
~wi th industry people was expected in the next week, after which a report would;
iPe brought to, the Council. Schedulin~ of that, he said, would depend upon final ,I Comm
'neg~t.ia};ion9. and upon other committee c!9~l}da.items alrea~!1s.et;~..__.____._., 6jf2/74
I__.~_,~,- ~._., . -.---_...~_...)h,."_....."-.,.--..-.--...~-.,,----...~--......-.- File
T. '~Fee ~~vision - co~ncl1m~n Wood reported that his commi ttee would be meeting next Comm
::week for consideration of planning fees revision. 6/12/74
. :,,-,---,- --";,"- .-------..--.-.. -,,,-.. -.,,-. -,' - ~ -- ..~~. '~ ',~ ri~e
u. iDEO Approval, Parking Faci1J.. ties ~ Copies of 1e~t~:r from Department of Envi'rb~,i:mta1J
loua1i ty were distributed to Counc~l members adv~s~ng of approval for c:onstruct~on ,)
'Iof six parking facilities totaling approximately 2210 parking spaces ~n the downtow~1
, Camm
,urban renewal area. 6/~2/74
.....,.....-........,.....,......,......... ...... ...._'.. ----.... -.........---.., ........h_._,...___.. -.. '----File
V. ,Goodpasture Island Interim Report - Prepared by Livingston & Blayney, planners,
charged with making a study of commercial needs in the Goodpasture Island area.
.Copies of interim report with regard to annexation of properties in that area \
were previously distributed' to Council memhers. Assistant Manager said a time
schedule had been worked out with Mr. Blayney for presentation of the final
jreport on July 3 with subsequent discussion by the Council on July 17, formal'
;consideration to take place at the July 22 Council meeting. He suggested Plan-
!ning Commission attendance at those meetings. Council agreed to that procedure.
Councilman Murray said the interim report had raised questions,in his mind not I
'so much with annexation issues as to what might be expected in the final report. Comm
'H~ was curious about how some of the conclusions were'reached in terms of sup~ qI.1~/74
'portive evidence and data. If the final report was scheduled for July 3, he sa~d'File
._ ;questions he had after reading the interim re~r~_ PC?u1d be h~lc:?, unti1~~,a_~_~.~~~~ '
W. (Skyline Loop Annexation, State Heal th Findings - Council members were advised that,
!the State Health Divison findings of June 4, 1974 declared that a health hazard !
:existed in the Skyline L09P area and that it could be solved through annexation. Comm
\Thfil__i:~e.m.,w~s. sC;he.~lJlf#..Q....9n the..!3~un9~:.!!._ C'?IrIlTlission~~_._Ju1y 11 ag~n~a. 6/12/74
. - 'File
6/24/74 - .19
l ~26
- ~
x. "~June--18 Election - Mayor-Anderson took noteof'-voter' refection of request for
$3.1 outside the 6% limitation for city budget purposes and the apparent lack of
voiced opposition prior to the election. He thd~ght the defeat especially dis-
couraging in view of the fact that the heaviest 'opposition came from those areas ~
receiving a disproportio~ate share of city reso~rces. He said he hoped there .
: would be no critical reductions in the budget b?,fore it was again presented to'
, " the voters. Councilman McDonald suggested an~ducational program in an effort . : Camm
: to get people to vote on city issues, taking note of the small turnout in the --6/19/74
June 18 election (12.8%). File
Y. i Painting Curb Addresses - Councilman Murray repqrted calls from constituents
reporting notices,left on doorsteps advising hou.~e numbers would be painted on
the curb unles$ notification was given that it,'~as not wanted and asking about ,Comm
its legality. 'Assistant Manager advised that th_s matter was under investigatioI1.6/.:19/74
File
Z. 'Budget Meeting June 25 - Scheduled for 7:3.0 p.m~ in the McNutt Room at City Hall, \
" . t b d' t 'b t d ,Camm
to discuss results of budget election. Staff recommendat~ons were 0 e ~s r~ u e /
, 6 ~
to Council members prior to the meet~ng. File' "
Mr. Hershner maved secanded by Mrs. Campbell to. apprave, affirm, and file as
nated It~ms A thraugh Z, nating amendment an Item A-4. Rallcall vate. Matian
carried~ all cauncilmen present vating aye.
IV - Liquar License Applicatian - LaMars, 795 Willamette - DA Renewal (1904J
Copies af letter from Bud Nixan were distributed to. Cauncil with agenda explaining the .._
request af Larry Sharley far renewal af the Calss A Dispensers license. M~. ~ixah,was ~
purchasing the aperatian but there was daubt the transactian wauld be campleted priar to.
expiratian af the current license periad, sa application far renewal was filed to. enable
aperatian af the business after July 1., II1anager said that staff was nat in pa'sitian to.
recammend approval af the renewal, explaining suspensian af the license by OLCC ~nd
appeal to. the caurts. In additian, two. city vialatians were pending against"the ,previaus
aperatar, mak~ng an affirmative recammendatian incansistent. ,0'
,
Public hearing was apened.
Bud Nixan said he had purchased LaMars subject to. appraval af the city and OLCC. Hawever, (1928)
because af new OLCC palicy requiring personal histary af applicants the finalizatian af the
transactian ,had taken langeI' than anticipated. He. said OLCC had given no. decisian an his
applicatian and that he had been tald that if all dacuments cancerning it were in the
hands af OLCC by June 25 there was passibility af a decisian. Therefare, he asked that
no. actian be taken an the applicatian far renewal until the decisian an the Nixan
applicatian was knawn. If there was no. decisian, he said, then actian an the Sharley
applicatian cauld be taken at the June 26 cammittee meeting. '
No. actian was taken.
V ~ Ordinances ' ~
Cauncil Bill No.. 595 - Levying assessments far paving sanitary and starm sewers within Mark
'J' Park Subdivisian; Buck Streetfram narth line af Mark 'J' Park to. narth baundary af Last
Additian to. Acarn Park Subdivisian; and Quaker Street fram 13th Avenue to. 300 feet sauth; and
sanitary sewer within 200 feet af plat.baundary af 1st Additionta~1ark. 'J'Park(72-45) was
read the first time by cauncil bill number and title only, there Deing no. cauncilman present
requesting that it be read in full.
I ~
Mr. Hershner maved secanded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be referred to. Assessment Panel far
hearing an July 1, 197Y. and braught back to. Cauncil an July 8, 1974 far cansideratian af Panel
recammendatian. Motian carried unanimausly.
Cauncil Bill No.. 596 - 'Levying assessments far starm sewer 550 feet narth af Willhi Street
fram Echo. Hallaw Raad to. Belt Line Raad (73-03) was read the fi~st time 'by cauncil bill title and
number anly, there being no. cauncilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner maved secanded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be referred to. Assessment Panel far
hearing an July 1, 1974 and braught back to. Cauncil an July 8, 1974 far cansideratian af Panel
recammendatian. Matian carried unanimausly. ' /'. '.
. Cauncil Bill No.. 597 - Levying assessments far sanitary sewer ,in area between 28th Place and .'
350 feet sauth af 28th Place fram 300 feet west af Miramanti Drive to. 300 feet east af'Miramanti
Drive if extended (73-73) was read the first time by cauncil bill title and number anly, there
,being no. cauncilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner maved secanded by Mrs. Campbell that 'the bill bereferr~d to. Assessment Panel far
hearing an July 1, 1974 and braught back to. Ca~ncil an July 8, 1974 far cansideratian af Panel
recammendatian. Matian carried unanimausly. 6/24/74 - 20
2~' .j
-
Council Bill No. 598 - Construction of sidewalk at 2490 Agate Street was read the first
time by council bill title and number only there being no councilman present requesting that
it be read in full.
.' Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number Dnly, 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. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Gampbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
17122.
Council Bill No. 599 - Construction of sanitary sewer on Central Boulevard from 28th
Avenue to the south 1200 feet a~d between Central Boulevard and Spring Boulevard to serve all
lots in Hunter's Haven Subdivision was read the first time by council bill numbe~ and title
only, there being no council man present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell 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. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final pass~ge.
_,- Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17123.
Council Bill No. 600 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary
sewer on Central Boulevard from 28th Avenue to the south 1200 feet and between Central
Boulevard and Spring Boulevard to serve all lots in Hunter's Haven Subdivision was read the
first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting
that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell 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. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17124.
I
VI - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2305 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period June 10 through
e June 24, 1974 was read by title and number only.
Councilman 'McDonald asked ab6ut payment of $1,937 for converting the Jefferson Pool
heating system from oil to natural gas. Manager answered that during the fuel
shortage last winter future supplies were assessed and it was decided that the
use of natural ga~ would be more apt to assure a source of fuel.
t
Mr. Hershner moved seconded ,by Mrs;. Campbell that, the resolution be adopted. R'011call vote.
Motion' carried unanimously.
(2007) Upon Motion duly made, seconded, and carried the meeting was adjourned
~p/F
Hugh McKinley
City Manager
.
6/24/74 - 21
230
-