HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/1974 Meeting
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
July 8, -1974
- Regular meeting of the'Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by
His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on July 8, -1974 in the Council Chamber with
the following Council members present: Tom Williams, James Hershner (lert't early), H. C.
McDonald (arrived later), Wickes Beal, Beth Campbell, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood.
Councilman Keller was absent.
(0001) I - Public Hearings
A. Community Goals - -1974 Update
f Community Goals Update - Copies of information were previously distributed-to Council
; members- with regard to Community Goals, -set for public hearing at the July 8 Council
!meeting. It included June 24, 1974 Planning Commission report; June 11, 1974 trans-
jmittal from the chairman of the Community Goals Committee to the Planning Commission; :
[Manager's June 5 letter to Irvin Fletcher, Lane County Labor Council, in response to Comm
!eaL'lier corresondence requesting delay in action on the Goals update to allow more 7/3/74
, ,
!participation from organized labor; and Mr. Fletcher's June 21 response. Pub Hrng
.-... ., --........ -... - ~- -- ---. - .--
--- --....~.. ..._..~._---~.. .. .. ...... _.---$....
Planning Commission official report d~ted ~~~--2'4':-~974'~~~ read recommendi~g adoption
of the -1974 Community Goals and Policies document as a supplement to the 1990 Plan,
- giving special consideration to proposals in Chapter 2 (Citizen Participation), Chapter
3 (Growth), and Chapter 14 (Metropolitan Problems). The Commission did not wish to
de-emphasize the importance of all the proposals in the document, but felt priorities
of emphasis necessary, recommending top,priority-toProposal 3 in Chapter 14 and to
Proposal 1 in Chapter 3. The Comm~ssion recommended also that the Council specify
future full-scale review of the Goals document every five years to alternate with
1990 Plan view, but not to preclude amendment before expiration of that five-year
period. Attention was drawn to minority report suggesting a different,approacp to
sections on growth, transportation, downtown development, and economic development;
letter from Jane Novick, 3960 Blanton Road, suggesting amendments to p~esent wording
. and proposal priorities; and list of priority nominations submitted by Betty Niven,
chairman of the Goals Committee. Copies of the three presentations were distributed
to Council members.
Public hearing was opened.
(0097) Mrs. Niven read the list of priority nominations and explained the rationale behind
each, suggesting Council adoption in the order presented.
Irvin Fletcher, secretary-treasurer of the Lane -County Labor Council, referred to
his letter forwarded to Council members requesting delay in consideration of the
Goals Committee report to give the opportunity for input from working people. He
claimed the people working on the Goals Conference did not adequately represent all
e the people of Eugene. He said he was not suggesting working people were not invited,
but that their views were not actively solicited.
Steven Deutsch, professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, read a prepared
statement expressing concern about the process involved in making the Goals recommenda-
tions. He asked.that the' report. not be accepted as presented, rather that it include
a section providing for procedures whereby all citizens could have a voice in similar
planning reports in the future. He proposed that the Council adopt a resolution
mandating the Manager, the Planning Department, and the Conference Committee to develop
a plan for implementing. full citizen input in considering this report.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
Councilman ,McDonald.entered the .meeting.
Manager took exception to indication in -Mr. Deutsch's statement that there was no
advance notice of this meeting_other than that necessary to -meet legal requirements.
He said the matter was well covered in the Register-Guard and by radio stations.
JohnP6~ter, planning director, commented on inference in the statement that the
priorities reported were the same as listed by the Planning Commission. He said the
Commission had drawn its own conclusions about priority, items separate from the
Conference Committee~ so there was agreement in the two bodies on the various issues.
~.) Betty Niven told of her efforts ~o gain participation from different sectors of the
community over the years and esp~~ially the frequent contacts withxhe Labor Council
in an attempt to get - suggestion of names of people interested in taking part in br0ad
community issues. "Blue collar" workers were invited through neighborhood organizations,
and invitations issued th!t\lough the Guard for people to ,take part .in the Goals Conference.
She expressed regret that only professional people accepted. At-any rate, she said,
the group was not dominated by anyone small group. And the participation was better ....
7/8/74 - -1
L 232. ./
,
and more broadly based than the previous C:;oals Gonference. She felt that the next update
might gain even 'better representation from the community. Mrs. Niven suggested that if
adoption of the report was delayed on the basis of charging staff and the Conference
Committee to set up a system for getting in touch with people, it would also be
necessary to determine a source of money for funding that activity, as well as decide ~
who wou Id be on the committee. She felt thos ewho had already served would not be - ,~
willing to continue. '
Councilman Williams echoed Mrs. Niven's sentiments. He felt, criticism of the Conference (0429)
Committee for having no "blue collar" representation unfair and cited his unsuccessful
experience on num;erous occasions trying to interest employes in submitting names for
membership o~ various boards, agencies, or other types of community involvement. .
He thought those people getting the Goals Conference togeth'erhad been faced with the
s.ame s.ituation,~ no one would ,e:x:press. willingness. or giYe the time . 11r. W:illiams
didn't think any fault' shouidoelaidto the Conference 'Committee of the Council for
being deliberately exclusionary as to the people invited to participate.
Councilman Murray pointed to the attempts to broaden participation in this Conference and (0467)
felt representation was much better than in the previous one. He shared the frustrations
of not always being suC'!cessful in trying to gain citizen participation, he ~&1d,~~_~Dd lie
thought perhaps more could have been done at this time, recognizing that perhaps more
time should have been spent on a different process for getting the Conference together.
However, he was reluctant to eonsider delay in adoption ,of the Goals report since it
seemed the opportunities had been available for participation. - -There had been a lot of
community input and he thought to go into reverse at this point would not be giving
consideration to those who did take part. tit'
Councilwoman Campbell commented on the lead Eugene had taken in involving"ci tizens in -
policy formation and said other cities were asking ,this city' for help in that regard.
So even though there might be something lacking, she said, at least citizens had beeIl
involved.
Mr. Deutsch agreed that Eugene was a progressive city and said that his statement was not
intended as a critique but as -a suggestion how to better the process for citizen
involvement. He said that if the report was adopted now as official policy of the city,
without reference to a process for citizen participation, there would be about the same
4ncrement in participation until the next update as since the las~, and he felt that
would De inadequate. He said there were written reports to' the Goals Committee that
did not appear in the final report, and he felt that ~ouldbe one of the devices for
soliciting participation. ,In addition, he said he would like to see new efforts toward
inclusion of participatory politics.
Mayor Anderson asked Mr. Deutsch for one outstanding example the Council might follow
to achieve participatory decision making. Mr. Deutsch answered 'that town hall meetings
might be an example, saying the~ewere a_variety of ways to, achieve participation. ,He
felt a specific effort should be ma~e to go to the Labor Council, senior,citizens, etc.,
but he didn't know what the result would be. In response to Mr. Anderson's inquiry, ~
Mr. Deutsch said he would be willing to prepare a document suggesting how participatory ~
decision making could be achieved but called attention to_the full-time city staff paid -
to do that:~ype-Qf,work.
Councilman McDonald noted small interest over the years on the part of citizens in attend- (0645)
ing public meetings to discuss improvements or- other city activities. He felt the
inference that the city was not trying to involve citizens was unj ustified.
Councilwoman Campbell wondered whether proposed Priority 3 -Appointment of a social
priorities committee - would help to involve other citizens. Mr. Fletcher said his
suggestion that the Goals Conference was not inferring that labor people were not invited. ~
His point was that he felt '~t-. incumbent upon the city administration to go into the
communi ty where people work and solicit their input. And hie was suggesting this as an
alternative for gaining participation. He said the wQrking people do care about what is
happening that affects their jobs, environment, etc., but pecausemany meetings are held
during the':day most working people do not have the oppor~i.mity to attend.
Mayor Anderson remarked that it seemed all were interested in achieving the same thing -
broader participation - but there didn~t seem to be any new ideas on how to bring it
about. He noted the limitations on Council members' time" too, when it came to when-~
and how many meetings could be attended. . _
Mrs. Niven called attention to one proposal in the Citizen Participation section ofthe'~
Goals report that the city should explore other mea~sthan the public hearing process
for citizen participation - random samp;Le polls" small group discussion workshops,
suggestion box. She suggested the Council might give special attention to, that proposal
in adoption of the Goals repor't.'; She noted too th~t adoption~of the report would not
preclude amendment of the Goals document prior to its next update. She didn't think
postponement of adoption would be wise Because to do so awaiting input from Labor Council
l'- 2"3"!> 7/8/74 - 2 " '~,
- ~
meetings might call for further postponement be~allse of other input from other
Sources. She preferred a basic document adopted, 1Daking amendments as changes
seemed necessary. With :regardtoattempts at citizen' involvement, Mrs. Niven re"':
called the protest .,from a neighbbrhood on a sidewalk installation wherein the project
-'. was delayed to give the opportunity for'public meeting In- the neighborhood. Shesaid
every member of the' Council and Planning Corrunissionwas present, but only s,even people
from the neighborhood attended, so she had no illusions about trying to gain Interest
from the general citizenry in community problems. ,
Councilman Murray thought the priority proposals having to do with citizen participation
in the Goals report were excellent vehicles for the kind of involvement desired -- the
citizen committee studying growth and 'the social priorities committee.
Co 830) Councilman McDonald waS in favor of adopting the present report even though he' fel t
there was no question that there were not enough people involved in its preparation.
He felt all possible had been done to gain 'citizen participation. . "
I '" ,
(0862) Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Council -recognize the"
goals and assumptions and adopt the policies listed in the 1974' GoalS'
document, recognizing as prior>ities those listed as JLt6ms "1", 2 and 3 in_the
Priority Nominations submitted; further that the Community Goals Steering
Committee look at the policy proposals and testimony presented at this
hearing and recommend at some future time two or three more posposals'that
should be given high priority. .
. Councilwoman Beal asked for clarification of the motion. She wondered about the
.' suggested amendments submitted in the letter from Ms. Novick and the items submitted
;.
,-
in the minority report. Councilman Williams stated the intent of his motion. He
added that in looking through the suggestions submitted by Ms. Novick he had the
impression she did not have a copy of the final amended document since most of the
suggestions dealt with word changes which had been taken care of in the re-engrossed
copy. With regard to the minority report, Mr. Williams said the major thrust seemed
to be with the question of transportation policy - that unless masstransi twas
made successful it would be necessary,to build more highways. He said the Conference
gave serious consideration to the matter of transportation and came to the conclusion
that it would not be appropriate to make a formal statement that delay in construction
of limited access highways would be tied to the success of alternate transportation
systems. He thought if there was more use of buses and bikes there would not be
as great a need, for more highways, but only time would tell. Councilman Murray said
he believed the issues mentioned in the minority report received the most attention
~\ and discussion, there were not close votes, so there appeared to be, no--obligation
to' give them further review. He added that most of the items submitted by Ms. Novick
were also considered and discussed in the Conference.
Councilman Murray asked whether the motion would also specify that the Goals document
would become a supplement to the 1990 General Plan. He said the Conference discussed
'.~, that point at some length and came to that conclusion. Mr. Williams said the motion
did not deal with that. He had no particular objection but did have some concern with
rega~d to the impact of a supplement that was not adopted through the normal Plan
amendment process. Manager said it was his understanding the Goals document would be
considered as a refinement of the General Plan and would not become a part of the
Plan unless adopted by all'three governmental bodies - Eugene, Springfield, and
Lane County. The Goals were guidelines and proposals to be used by Eugene in implement-
ingthe General Plan. Planning Director agreed and said the General Plan clearly
indicated that' only when there were amendments to the total document could changes
be made in the Plan. However, the Goals document in no way conflicted with the Plan,
he said, it paralleled tlE Plan and in some cases evefiW-e'nY~r4rt":frer.
(1021) Vote was taken on the motion to adopt as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Anderson expressed appreciation for participation of Councilmen Williams and
Murray on the Goals committee, saying the document presented was excellent and that
he hoped many of the goals therein would be a.chieved.
It was understood that a resolution ~ould be prepared in line with the motio~ and
brought back for adoption of the 1974 Goals'upd~te.
, " Councilman Hershner left the meeting.
,
'.6) ,
--
B. Rezoning area east of, Tyler Street between 15th and 16th Avenue - Fro~ RG-PD to RG-SR
IPlanning Commission Report - June 4, 1974 !
IA. Rezoning Lots 2200, 2400, and 2500 east of Tyler between 15th and 16th _ :
i From ~G-PD.to RG-SR (Plan~ing ~ommi~sio~) i
B. Amend~ng C~ty Code, deletLng SLgn DLstrLct Boundary Change application fee. !
Fee will be established by Council resolution. (See Item D) , Comm
6/26/74
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to schedule public hearing Pub Hrng
. on both items for July 8 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimOUSly.
'-, -,-- - ,-,~ .,..- -.- --. ----- ------.:- -- --, --- '_..-----2~ 4 -- "" - .'- -,- - . -'.-.,--.----..
J /8/'J4 -:: .3 v
,
Recommended by the Planning Commission on June 4, 1974. Manager explained the zone
change would 'permit development under sitereview'proceduresinconj-unction with property
to the west with the understanding the development would, proceed.. under contract with .- "-
the property owner. -..- . -. ,_ __:
Public hearing was held with no testimoDypresented.
No ex parte conta'cts or other reasons for absi;ent.ion - were.. declared by Council' members.
Council Bill No. 681 - Rezoning area east of TylerStr'eet between .15th' and ,16th- '..
Avenues to RG-SR was read by council bill number and title
only, there' being no councilman present requesting that .i t be read' in- full.
Mr. Filliams moved seconded by Mrs.. Campbell .that, findings support-ing,the zone change
as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of June 4, 1974 be~
'->'. adopted by reference thereto-; that the bill be read the- second time by council bill
- number only with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion ca~ried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by
council b:i-ll numberon-Iy-.-""
Mr. Williams"moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell-- th'at. the bill-be approved and--given
final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present, voting--aye',Councilman
" Hershner not present; and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17143.
.-.~~
C. Bids - Various. Public Works. ImprovementProj-ects -" " (-1 ~
1. - July 2 "opening :=-;-'"
I----~~-- Cost to ------;rrnaurlt ..-,
~cm& of Bidder and Project Contract Co~t Abutting Prop, Cost to City Budge,ed
--~._--
l'.-WING:
r,---sai1ey Hill Roaq.from 11th ~venuel
- to 18th Avenue (989) . ALTERNATE ~
1. Wildisl'\ Construction Comp1\ny.,...... ..$ill,278.05,... .$111.801.8\)..'..... ,28' Pav......$ lS.02/F.F,..., ..,..Ex,ra Depth...$ 9.150,00", ,$64.409.00
2. Eugene ~and & Gravel Company........,.$+28.179.71,...,$129,312.21 36' P1\v......$ 18_.34/F.F. Extra Width...$ll,520,OO
3. Devereaux & Pratt. Inc,.............,.$132.120.05.,..,$130.831.65 44'-Pav......$ 24.18/F.F. ~tm. Sewer,...$10.690,OO
4: Babb & D~li:a Construction C~"..,.,...N~jBid....,.....$133.413,10 San,Swr..,~..$ 0.082/S.!,.
5. Benge Paving. Inc..........,......,.. ,Nt), Bid.."..,.. ,$133.583.28 Servo Line.. .$576.00 Each
Servo Ext....$160.00 Each
,.j..
, '.' , COMPL~'fIOI'1 DA1EI Qc,ober 1. 197/,
-------~---------~------------~-------~~-~~-"r~~---~-----~.~~-~~-----~~----~--~~~~------------------~-----~----------~----~~~-~----~-------_._----~~---~~-~
2, Fox HolloW Road (relocated) 'from .
50 feet south of 43rd Avenue to
East Amazon Drive; and Dillard Road
from Fox Glen to ve1qcatef! Fox Hollow,. ! ' .
Road (52) >
1. Hildish CO!1ptruction Company...."..;' ,$ 74,75+.65,.,,, $ 7,7 .0,'j~.10.".,... .28' pav..." ,$. ~~,10/F.F. "" ,.P1\V, VflC1\tab1e $14.149,25) , ,
2. Devereaux & Pratt. Inc..,...:,.....,...$ 95,30:\,.80",,,$;1.03,209.90 '36' PIlV....,,$ 2Q.00/F,F. , Froptage )".$43,83t':OOI
3. Eugene S!l)ld & Gravel, Inc........." ..$lq2,~08.63", ..No Bid ., Extra ,!idth & )"
;, \, Depth>.....,..... $ 9.714,21) I
! ''''Bike Path........$ 5,048,20,..,$ ~,448.00
Stm. Swr..,......$15.178,OC.,.,$13,520.00'
San. Swr.........$:4.60ij,OO......,..,..0 ;
. ..,
COMPLETION DATE: October 1. 1974 ,
L - 1" __ ~-"""''''"'r;.'':'',",,-~<-~':'!.~'''T n_. _ ~_ _ .. _~_~~___"_________."'_____~~~""_""':'.~~"'_--::~. .""'~,.,~_~-=~""'~_~__...____~:-:-_:-_ .j ..,r~ _~
PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER; ,
,3, Warren Street from 450 ft, South of
I 'Kevington to 1500 ft. South of Kevington
(1063). ALTERNATE BASIC '''',., , j
1. Wildish Construction Company....... .,.$41,725.20..... .$47,521.40......... .28' Pav. ."..$ 14.14/F.F...... .Stm, SWl'. $8.910.00. ~-".".., ,P....', t
2. Kenneth R, Bostick Construction Co....$45.529.50......No Bid 36' Pav.",..$ 17.35/F.F. E~t. Width $4,540.00 '
3. Eugene Spnd & Gravel. Inc,.........".$46.878,80......No Bid San. La,.....$ 0.095/S.F. E~t, Depth $2.880.00
4. Dan Allsup Contractor, Inc...,....:...$47.507.30.".,.$54,227.10 San. Serv....$522.00 EaCh
5. Devereaux. Pratt. Inc...."...,."...$51.129.65..",.$56,441,75
6. Dabb & Delta Construction Co..........No Bid,.........$54.535.96
7. Benge Pi\ving..Inc.............::...:..No Bid.,.,......$49.044.00 COf'IPLETION DA'rI\; Octoper 1,1974
;
_______________________________________..._~~__---------__~-,---------------------~------------_--___---~--r-----------------------------------------~-~~~
I" StreatA within Somernet lIilla II Subdivision; \ ' ,
:-inn I tllry Sower and S tortn ScwC"r w II h fn ROlllt":rnct - ~. I
lIi11s II and within 160 ft. of ppundaries . T
thereqf (1020) Cost Per Lot
1. Wildish Construction Compflny.,.,:.....,.,..., ,$113,1l9.~6,..",..,... .Pav........... .$1.665.00.,.... ,.. .Stm, Swr. $1.3.990;00,..,. ,': $37 ,000.00
2. Kenneth R. Bostick. Constr~ction Company,.....,$117.288.70 St~, Sewer.....$1.250.00 Sap. Trunk ~ ~,490,00
.. 3, Eugen~' .S~nd & Gravel" I~c:.... '. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . $122,171. 70 San. Lat....... $ 680.00
I 4. Devereaux & Pratt. Inc.-....,,!.............,..$125.679.10 San, Serv......$ 230.00
. 5, Dan A,llpup Contrac,or. Inc,........".,.,... ..$146.044.83 , l/U Levy..... .$. 44.00 ... . . \
-' $3.869.00 COMP~j;:TION DAn;: Oc~ober 1, 1974
r ----------~-----~---~n-~-~~-~r~~r--r--~-~~~-~~-~~~~-rr--~-~---~---~~-r~-~-r-~-~---~-~--~---~-~--------~~--~-----------------~-------~~~_..-----r----~~--J
SANITARY SEWER: I I
), Between Stewar.t Road .~nd 11.th Av.enu~ frp~ .
Berte1seu Road to Amazonihanne1 (977)
1. Shu r.-. Way ,c.on..tra.,.c tP.r~;. Inc............ ~........... "..$ 6.255.00",!....."",... .Latera],,. ,$ 0.10/S,F.... ,..........", ,Q.., t.,..,.""".. .0" I \.--~.
2. Kenneth R. Bostick COllstruction CompaI\y"... ..$.. 6,311.00 "
3. Norm Green ~ ~ons..,., '.. .. .. . :.. .. . .. .. . , " , .. $ .6.341, 00 "', '" /
4. Hildish Cona.truction Comp1\ny.... ", .. ! . .. .. " , .', $ 7.382.00 .;,..--
i?'.;.'....~i!.'v",ForJ:ester ccin~tr.uctian company..:::..~.. ..".:..".$ 7,464.60 I
. 6.' Dan A1;lpup Contractor, Inc....!................$ 7,56l!..80 . 0 "74
,.." .,.. . ,,- ,: COf'IPLETION DATE I ^~!;.'la t 3, L .
. .',,1;.:,...... -._-, .:; _ _ ___ _ ___._ ____ ___________________ _______~...-_;.;;:_ __________._ . ~
7/8/74 - 4
,~ 2~5 j
, - - " -',' , ,~-- -- ....,..., 't':~;';-:;'~l" - -- . -- Al1loun t 'T-)
-- ..- __.M , , ,:' -, . . Co~~ ~o ' Cost to cfty BudgotOQ 1
iNa,,,, ur Biitder an,1 fr',)joct Contrpct Cost ,~buttwg Prop. ' I
;~' .n.,~--":'-....,.__""""'_' .....--------~.~. \1
(STO'''[ SEHER: I
Ir.------!~ Oflkmont ,Jay flnd 01\!<way Torrace i
;' [rOI1l Oa;MOY Ro~u to ~Y-De-Court (404) I
" . -- 0... ............,............,.,...,...........$47,54Q.00
l. 1. Dan "Haup eel' tractor. Inc.,......,......". ..$46.501. 70........,..................., , Engr: Eatimate
~ ? Shur-Hay Cor,crac~ors, Inc.........,........,..$54.156.12 " _ "
a. f' 3, KomWthR, ~.,"ti.ckConat.r\lc.tiOnco.mpony.......$68.291.~~ ' '.'.. __
.. I" Rob€'rt L ~i('r,sen......,......,............'''' $77.706. (I
~ j 5: W~ldish con~'tl'uctiop CO)1lpO!1Y.:..,.,..,,,...... $77 .805.00 COMPI,jtION P^T~~:' !<uguat 30. 1974
L____._______,_________;._________________________.;..;.____---'-'--------~------'---'-~---""-"'_..-::-:'-:--~""-- - -. ~. ",'., '.' :;..:~-----------.--~---
.' ....... .
Don Allen, Public Works Director, review,ed.,bids. Award of contract to the:- low bidder on
each project was recommended, except that no ~ecommenda~ion was, made on Item 3 - paving
and sewers on Warren Street. Mr. Allen explained th.at a ,portion of the properties compri-
sing the 51% on the petition for paving Warren Street were included in another contract.
Also, that two parcels were yet. to be dedicated with the poss ibili ty condemnation might
be necessary.
_..-~.-
-~-'::~.....;;:;.':'- -l'~-;::'~-J':-"-::'''';''e._~.~ ---.------ ..:. -=:'";..-'---'':;;7!-:;;:_~. --. .- -.," ~_,
-._~P.':ili-lic-h~aringwa~,opened.... '-'.~._ . H_ _._
..~ ~-4._w~
RUby Burton, owner of property on Old Dillard Road, inquired about the cost of the project,
noting two figures quoted. Mr. 'Allen answered that the estimated costs were $16.10 per
-7 front foot for the section paved to 28.-foot width, $20.000 for the portion paved to 36-
foot width. He estimated the 28.-footsect'ion would ,be about 212 feet and would be the
Old Dillard Road portion bordered by the one property about which Ms. Burton was inquiring.
Manager explained that the figures given were estimates only, that actual costs would not
'. be known until completion of the project and figuring of costs on unit prices bid.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to award contracts to the. low
bidders on each project.
(1208.) Mr. Allen said recommendation was withheld on the paving and sewers on Warren Street
because it was his understanding that the owners of the property needed for the right-of-
way would be present to protest the project. Contract award was recommended to the low
bidder, recognizing that the matter might be brought back to the Council with regard to
the right-of-way problem. He explained that the Planning Commission had approved Phase
~ 2 of the sUbdivision contingent upon paving this portion of the road.
Councilman McDonald expressed concern because of possible future objection to the
Warren Street proj ect and because of Director's reference to unbudgeted funds for
Item 6 - Storm Sewer in Oakmont Way area. Manager explained that other, parties interested
in the Warren Street project were aware that the contract award would be before the
Coun~il at this meeting, and in view of their absence staff would make a firm recommenda~ion
for award of the contract. With regard to the Oakmont Way storm sewer, Manager explained
that it would be met from funds in the bond issue approved a couple of years back. The
. fact that each project was not listed individually in the budget did not create a problem
~- from the standpoint of funding, and the recommendation on this also was to award the
contract.
Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated, to award contract to the
r), 'low bidder in each project. Motion carried, all council members voting aye,
Mr. HBrshner not present.
A short recess was taken.
(1245) 2. July 8 opening
t..... -_..~ "~._~__'h' ~ ~, c .. _.
:!i',::' cffl BiddH 8!1rJ I'.,.oject '"-
1--- ""7.~:~---"~-'-'--'--_. ---r----:;-r-r--
t..~1Y~av ,~rojec_tJ:' u," _ Wild ish Copstruction Co. Eugene Sand & Gravel Benge Povin!\
r n;.!';ard Ctrcer", Uth Ave.."' $13,400.00 $16.170.00 -
It" 'o__Bror~~vay
\ - .
,S~ltY Way, G:llbl^ to_Norwood ~'3,347.00 . $3,850,00 $3.730.00 Over~I\Y Budget'- $:J.~O.OO(
"
1 Charn61ton. 5tr. t" Hh Ave. $ '5.:;70.00 $6.~liO,00 _
I Lincoln St., 14!:h to 18th Ave. $ 9.300.00 $9.685.00 $10.823.00
I ' . . .. , , ,
4th Ave.. Cpal'!,dt:c1!1 1'0 1/~ $ 1.207.50 $1.750.00 -
I ;l1(J,ck H,
I
. ! Clit.. \'iew. lAth If' gl~t f,vP. $ 7.190,00 $7.543,60 _
\ .' I L";,~enca St" IllL to 19th Ava, $ '4,050,00 $4.233,00 $4.650.00 ,.
I ,:j " . . ,:..". ' .' "
.\JdqIC Street, :l(,rl. to 27tl\ I\V!" $ 2,175.00 $2.250.00 $2.344.50 :c.~
L ''':". ;}t.
\ Charnelton.,pt., Amazon Dr. to $ 4,505.00 $4,566.20 $5;083.00 I
17th AVd,
'__'-' __~__~____ ______~~_0--'.2':"_: 50 ______~_____ _ __Jli6, 8'U,,,:~~_ _________,.--=---__ ,__________ L__ _ __ .
7/8/74 - 5
~ 2~b
.{
G~~~".~L~_~~~', a~_:,~_o-~~ct t.., .~ ......
f Wi1dish Constr.uction-Co. Benge ,Paving
i 0 ()yerlay 'yroi.~c t s_: Eugene Sand & Gravel
I ..""
! High Street, 6th to 9th $ 9,98~.50 $ lO,050.00 -
-,
Elgh se,! 6th to C::-_e~hire $H,068.50 $ 11,400.00 .., .
., th Place, Carfi ,,,1e: ~o Mcj{1!lley St. $16,464.00 $ 18,060,00 ~
City Vie", 14tb I:" 18th Ave., $10,160.00 $ 10,437.50 -
,\.cthur St! t 18U'! cc g3rd f\.ve~ $14,+07,00 $ 14,800.00 $17,247,00
c.Oth Ave" Chan:c,lton ~o Jeffl'rsop . $ 8,502.00 $ 9,300.00 $10,858.00
:iayc!B St., 18th ~l) 22nd ^,venuc $ 6,210,00 $ 6,625';00 $ 7,875,00
I $' ~,124.00 $ 6,340.00 $ 7,591.00 .
i 1,:~lson St" 5th t.) 7th Ave.
\ 'f:, th Ave" City ':'Le" to lVi1son Ct. $ 5}050.70 $ 5,096.50 $ 5.823.30
L- $87,668.70 $ 92,109.00 -
...
Rublic Works Director reviewed the bids on overlflY projects, explaining that bids were'----.:...____
t?ken on individual projects. Contract award was ,recommended to th~ ,low bjdder'on e~ch
~ . ~ :,',-. ,
.....pt'oJect.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to award contracts to__the, low bidder <-
on each project. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner
not present. . ,
D. Code Amendment - Deleting amount of Sign District Boundary Change ap~lication fee
(to be established by Council resolution)
Recommended by the Planning Commission on June 4, }974. Manager recommended holding the
bill after first reading until resolution setting the fee schedule, as well as the schedule
of fees for sign permits and appeals fDom Sign Code Board of Appeals, was ready for Council
action. That would be forthcoming upon completion of sub90mmi tte,e study on planning fees
.
now underway.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council'Bill No. 602 - Amending Section 8.725(a)(c) and 8.804 (3) of City Code
and deleting Section 8.820(2) re: Permit .fees for .signs
and appeals on signs; and sign district boundary change was Dead by council bill
number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be
read in full.
Mr. ,Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the, bill be held until resolution
setting fee schedule was ~eady for adoption.
In response to Councilman McDonald, Manager said three.different fees'.were involved and that ~.
a fee was required for signs if they required permit for installation.
Vote was taken on the motion to hold the bill. Motion carried unanimously:. Mr. Hershner
not present.
E. Class A Dispensers Liquor License --South Park Building, 855 Oak Street (13C:l;L ')
...-..' - - .U'_ .____". __ ... . _ _ .
iSouth Park Building (no name for establishment), 855 Oak Street - Request
I from Wayne Henninger and Steven Nosler for Class A Dispensers license for
[new location when building completed. Comm
, 6/2\6/74
I Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to set public hearing on Pub Hrng
I the application for July 8 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. I
,
Requested by Wayne Henninger and Steven NosIer for an establishment in the building at
this location upon its completion. OLCC report of contact's 'in the area indicated one
objector, six not objecting. Staff saw no reason to recommend denial.
Public hearing was opened.
Dan Herbert, architect for the proposed building, spoke in favor of the request, noting '.
advantages of that type diversity in the building.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented.
Mr. Williams; moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to recommend approval of the application.
Councilman Wood noted a number of recent applications recommended for approval by the
Council and denied by the.'OLCC on the basis that there were sufficient outlets in the area.
l 2.~1 7;P8/74 - 6 .~
He wondered if there was ever any evaluation with regard to possible GLCC action prior
to Council consider.ation. Manager said there was no effort to evaluate thenwpbers of
existing outlets. The city looks at the building itself from the standpoint of whether
it is structurally sound, traffic problems, record of the op~rator from the police
-- standpoint, etc. And if there are nearby incompatible uses, that is usually brought
to the Council's attention.
Vote was taken on the motion to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously.
(1363) F. Levying Assessments - Nelson Plat
Council Bill No. 543 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm
sewers within Nelson Plat, and sanitary sewer in area
between 450 feet west and 1000 feet west of Bertefsen Road from iith Avenue
to 1000 feet south~(73-30) - read the first time on May 6, 1974, referred to
Assessment Panel for May 13, 1974 hearing, brought back for consideration of
recommendations on May 20, 1974 and held at that time - was brought back for
consideration and read the second time by council bill number only, there
being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Manager explained that the bill had been held on May 20 at the request of Herman
Hendershott, attorney for Howard Nelson, to give him the opportunity to discuss with
the Public Works Department what could be errors in the assessment process itself.
Public Works Department believed the assessment correct, not only in terms of measure-
ments and cost but also as applied to city assessment policy. City Attorney's memo
. was read stating the opinion that the assessment as proposed was correct, there was
no legal basis for r~opening the hearing, nor was there anything to prevent the
Council from acting affirmatively on levying. the assessment. Manager said that staff
reviewed the assessment and was of the opinion that it should proceed, however the
Council had the right to further discussion of the matter if it was desired.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to reopen the hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
"
.
Public hearing was reopened.
0-407 ) Mr. Hendershott reviewed the amount of assessment involving storm sewer construction
only and said his client was objecting on the basis that the 821,691 assessm~nt against
his property was made in error and should be assessed to adjoining7~rop~rty. He said
he and his client were expecting some conference with the Public Works' Department but
to date had not been contacted by them. He felt the question raised by the City
Attorney with regard to Mr. Nelson's waiver of right to object because of the agreement
h~_made with the city could be settled only in the courts. He said that when Mr.
Nelson signed that agreement for the improvement and assessment of Nelson Plat he did
not agree to pay for improvements benefitting properties in other companies.
.,.;..---,~ - - '---.,.-
(A) Public hearing was closed, there .!?~ing.n9 fupt.h:=~ teS"timony.
. Manager said that the Public Works Department had discussed with Mrs. Nelson, ,
representing Mr. Nelson, computations of the assessment and why the assessment was
applied the way it was. Whether that information was relayed to Mr. Nelson and to
Mr. Hendershott, of course, was not known. Apparently there had been no conference
between Public Works, Mr. Hendershott, and the City Attorney's office regarding the
computations. Alternatives suggested were: Public Works Director could review the
challenges to the assessment filed by Mr. Nelson and the Council could become
involved in that kind of discussion; the. Council could assume the staff had reviewed
the Charter, ordinances, measurements, etc., and felt the assessment was correct
and should proceed, expecting some sort of legal challenge; or Public Works could be
asked to make direct contact with Mr. Hendershott. Manager advised that staff did
feel secure in the City Attorney's opinion that the assessment was correctly made.
Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said the disppte was a fairly technical one.
He felt an essential point was that there was contractual provision for payment of
the assessment and he hoped that no part of that contract would be waived by agreeing
to discuss its terms.
(1517) Councilman McDonald asked if there was actually benefit to adjacent property, to
,. property other than just the Nelson Plat. Mayor Anderson asnwered that it would be
better were the Council to avoid having to make a determination in that regard;
that it would be better to take a proper position on the assessment in the event of
further action in the courts.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to hold the bill for two weeks
during which time the Public Works Department and Mr. Nelson and his attorney
should discuss the matter and determine whether there were any grounds for
the Council to consider alterations in the assessment, and that in adopting
23e, 7/8/74 - 7
the motion there was no acknowledgment on the part of the Council that it
recognize or expected any variations to occur. Motion carried unanimous.ly.
G. Street Name Change - Lorna Linda Lane (l~~
Legal advertising prior to former Council acti9n making the street name change did ....
not occur, and staff recommepded corrective action. ~
',- Public hearing was, held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 603 - ~peati.!!g Ordinance 17071 and renaming portion of 33rd,~~_
34th, and Lorna Linda Drive.to Lorna Lipda Lane was read
by council hill'number and title only, there being no councilman present
re~uesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded~~y 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, Mr. Hershner
not present, and the bill was read for the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given
,final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Councilman
Hershner not present, and the bill'was declared passed and n~mbered 17126.
II - Items acted upon with one motion aft~r~discussion of individual items if requested.
Previously discussed in committee on Jtme 26, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council'; - -~ , _
members Williams, Hershner, McDonald, ~Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and ~
on July 8, J974 (Present: Mayor Adnerson; Council members Williams, Hershner, Beal, .
Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics.
-." ..... '-"--'"
:A. Liquor- 'License Applica dons' , \
,\ ,1. LaMars, 795 Willamette ~ Renewal of DA license was requested by Bud Nixon and 0
I
\ Larry Sharley to permit retention of the existing license until completion of
\ purchase of LaMars by Mr. Nixon. Purchase is contingent upon settlement of I
'J law suit involving OLeC suspension of the license. Staff recommended refusal i
of the renewal.
\
!
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to recommend disapproval of : .
license renewal. i
i
Councilman Williams was concerned about taking action on a matter involved in ~
a judicial process, more or less making a negative decision before any deci- I
sion was made in the courts. Mr. Wood said his motion was not based on whether i
\ the applicant was guilty or not guilty, rather on the consideration that action i
I was requested. Councilman Murray asked for elaboration of reasons for recom-
! mending denial.
Manager explained revocation of LaMars license by the Oregon Liquor Control 411
Commission was based upon a number of violations of liquor laws. That revoca- '"
I tion was being appealed and revocation of the license suspended until the I
case was settled. He noted counts for violation of municipal ordinances pending\
i in municipal court and general knowledge of the type of operation at that loca- i
I tion over the last year or so. Manager pointed out that the flexibility of ;
i thE' Council's recommenda tions was such tha t if the Counci 1 fel tit was not a ;
, desirable operation in the community it had the right to recommend that the
! license not be renewed. He said a case ~ould be made for violation of State
raws - if it was not well operated or managed, if it might be an attraction
; '. fbr law violators, if it was unclean, etc. Councilman Wood referred to viola-
! tions listed by the OLCC 011 Mr. Nixon's operation of the former Golden Canary
: tavern and said that included several instances of employes' serving minors. '\
i Mr. Murray said he found it difficult to evaluate a list of violations unless
I ,
; there was some comparison to determine whether violations were "run of the mill" ;
! for taverns or were extraordinary offenses. 1
: Councilman Keller felt court action would take care of the matter of its Own !
accord. He was uncomfortable taking action with the law suit pending. Council- i
man McDonald was in favor of recommending discontinuance of the l.icense, rely- :
ing upon staff's recommendation.
I _
i Councilwoman Campbell wondered when settlement of the law suit would occur.""
Manager answered that it was probably anticipated that if transfer of the
LaMars operation to Mr. Nixon did occur the suit would be dropped.
7/8/74 - 8
,~ j
-
Councilman Hershner saw the case before the courts and the request to the
Council as separate issues and saw no reason to delay action on the renewal.
Mr. Murray was in favor of taking action but wanted more substantial evidence
for the denial recommended. Mayor Anderson expressed the opinion that the es- :
- tablishment was a continual source of problems for the police department
indicating that it was not the type of establishment which deserved a recom-
~ mendation for relicensing.
Councilwoman Beal was puzzled about voting against renewal of LaMars license i
when it was actually in the process of being transferred to Mr. Nixon. She
fel t the Council should make it clear it was voting against both applicants i
if neither was desired as an operator of the establishment. Manager explained
that the Council recently had recommended approval of Mr. Nixon's application
for LaMars (Tiffany Club), that it was a problem of timing. Councilman williams
said he would support the motion since the Council's action would probably not
be final decision so far as the court case was concerned.
Vote was taken on the motion to recommend disapproval of LaMars DA Conim
renew.:ll . Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, 6/26/74
except Councilman Murray voting no. -- ' S~~~~tM.~_h-
-- -, -.,' .-_. .. - - Be low
Larry Sharley, petitioner for the renewal, reviewed the history of hi~- ,connection
with LaMars and other business interests. He felt the establishment ~rovided an
acceptable form of entertainment and said there was no substantial evidence that
it created police problems, that police calls from LaMars were from the owner for
~- help in~~isturEances at the place. He reviewed the action of the GLCC in suspending
their liquor license and noted court action remanding the license to GLCC for further
action. Mr. Sharley felt the operation contributed to the downtown area and asked
fayor~le recommendation on the renewal to enable the operation to continue.
(1693) In response to Councilman Williams, Police Chief Dale Allen said that the Court of
Appeals had sustained the GLCC allegation~t LaMars was maintaining a lewd establish-
ment. The charge that it was an insanitary operation was not upheld and the matter
w:as referred back to GLCC for penalty.evaluation. Manager said there were still the
two charges pending in municipal court for violation of the city's touching ordinance.
In response to Mr. Sharley, Assistant City Attorney said one. was a complaint from a
citizen, the other by a police officer.
(1721) Councilman McDonald said he would vote against_revewal if there were complaints filed
with the police department on the operation. Councilman Murray felt if the recommenda-
tion against renewal was based on police problems, then he would have to have more
elaborate information to give an opportunity to compare the record of this operation
. with other establishments in town. Manager explained that the recommendation against
renewal was not based primarily: on tne 'number of police calls, that it was a judgment
of whether the operation was adequately run and a desirable one for the community.. He
said his recommendation was based on~inany police reports which covered .the kinds of
It things which could not be defined as '''topless entertainment". Mr. Long pointed out
the difficulty of discussing the investigations with regard to LaMars because of the
two court cases pending. He said it was a question of consistency, that,the city in
making recommendations to GLCC has taken the position that violations of the city code
is one ,reason for a negative recommendation. If the court resolves the two pending
issues contrary to LaMars, he said, there would be two separate grounds for denying
the renewal.
Councilman Murray recognized that it was improper--to divulge information on.cQprt cases
but he felt he would be voting without sufficient information. Councilman Williams
thought another factor was the question of making moral judgments which he felt was
not a matter to be determined by a legislative doby.
(1825) Councilwoman Beal agreed that the license renewal should not be based on a moral ;;
judgment, but she felt Council was being asked to pass judgment on investigation
by staff in which case she thought action should be postponed until there was further
information. Manager reminded Council that the Court of Appeals had found in favor
of GLCC's charge that the establishment w:as operated as a lewd establishment. Councilman
McDonald added that he thought the Council normally acted on recommendations of the
police department."
, Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray that committee action be amended
-' to state that the renewal application for LaMars would be transmitted to
GLCC without recommendation on the grounds that there had been no opportunity
to review appellate court decision and/or to cQnsider cases pending before
the municipal court.
Councilwoman Campbell inquired about the penalties for violation of city ordinances
in this case, whether any had been levied. Mr. Long answered that the matter was set
for trial but continued to some future dat~ at the request of the defendant.
-- - c...,,'<-'o- -_ .~~-:=-...;o...-:-.~: _~ _~--' '.-"";- -:-...:. -:." , --.....:. 2:.'<-'-
- , " ' .... _~-o._.~:'" . - - ---~
" . .."'" '~.-' -..... -,._~ --.' -'._-'" "
-- _. '_..c___ ""':""_r .- . 7/8/74 - ~_-'_-''''_~~_~,,_.
240
.. ::.. ~.,== ---,.- - -
I
/
Vote was taken on motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously, ~r. Hershner
not present.
2. RMB Renewal - Cracker Barrel Tavern, 211 Washington Street . ~
13. Barger Drive Market, 4925 Barger Drive - PS - Change to corporat~on, Barger -
Enterprises. Staff reported no reason to recommend denial-. ~----
~......... .-.." ."
", Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to recommend approval Comm
"'~:, of both applications and authorize immediate release. Motion 6/26/74
~ carried unanimously. Approve
,_, ,,_"__, '_, " "_ " C'", \
U. I Fourth streef "Depot;--453" Willamette- Street-"iG~idis -Hoidi~g ~ Inc.) ~--
:Change of ownership and trade name (formerly Snappy Service #3) _ RMB l
o;;:-J Scott's Restaurant, 100 East Broadway - Renewal - R
i Comm
M W"ll' d " " i 7/3/74
q r. ~ ~ams move seconded by Mr. Hershner to recommend approval A
I of th 1 . t . . . . ~ pprove
e app ~ca ~ons. Mot~on carr~ed unan~mously.~ "
B. Armory - Copies of letter from County Commissioner Ken Omlid were previously dis-
tributed to Council members, summarizing the County's position with respect to use
of the Armory building and requesting those interested in using space in the build-
'ing to present proposals by September 1, 1974 together with firm commitments for
'funding remodeling of the building to make it safe for public occupancy. Manager '\ l '1\
;explained that in a meeting with County Administrator Elfers and County Commissioner : tit.
:Elliott, they indicated if the building was preserved the County administration and 1 -
~architectural consultants have strongly recommended it should be used for County
;operations. Until the County considers this new recommendation, he said, it would
'appear better to delay action so far as any city proposal for its use.
:Also distributed previously to Council members were copies of proposal submitted by
:Councilman Murray for city use of the Armory which would allow a one-year lease I
for $1.00 during which time the Historic Preservation Committee would develop ,
, I
specific funding proposal to allow the building to be used for public assembly and/ :
or office space and a precise means of providing funds - (1) extension of Eugene I
renewal boundaries and appropriate use of Federal funds, (2) phased funding over
several years utilizing room tax funds, (3) a bond measure, (4) a Federal grant.
,The Committee, under Mr. Murray's proposal, would pursue with the County responsi-
:bility for operations should the planning and funding develop successfully, with
ongoing ownership or lease of the building discussed and determined at that time. I
If planning and funding were not successful, then the city lease would not be continued.l
I
Councilman Murray referred to County Commissioners' consistently seeking public input I
and ideas with regard to whether the Armory could be used, how, and how funded. He !
;said they were at this time determining the fate of the building and it seemed im- 1 ...
:portant that they have all possible options before them in that determination. If, ~
: the County decided not to use it and the city has not presented a proposal, he said, I '
,then the city would be facing a decision already made. He said he thought the
:Armory was an adequate building and structurally sound for many viable community
uses and economic benefits when compared to cost of present-day construction.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to endorse the June 17, 1974
proposal for city use of the Armory.
~ Councilwoman Beal expressed confusion because of the recent County po'si tion that
,
I the building should be used for County operations if it was to be used at all, where-
as Mr. Murray's proposal was evidently predicated on Commissioner Omlid's request
for proposals to be submitted by September 1. Councilman Keller's interpretation or
the motion, verified by Mr. Murray, was to have a proposal in front of the Commis-
sioners as quickly- as possible for use of the building.
Councilwoman Campbell wondered why the County's architects were recommending its
use for County purposes only. Manager explained the schematic plan discussed in
meeting with County people - low profile buildings in the Osborn apartment area
connected by a tunnel across 7th to a two- or three-story building north of the
I '
I Armory and/or including the Armory area. Space studies have indicated such a scheme -
\, would more closely integrate that space, whether the same or remodeled, with the rest '_
\ of the operating functions and provide more desirable and efficient relationship be- ~
! tween operating departments.
!
_ 7/8/74 - 10
2~1
~
. Councilman williams hesitated about supporting a one-year lease, feeling it was ask-
ing a delay on the overall County project with accompanying possible increase in
; construction costs. He said the County's plan had,been a matter of public knowledge
! for an extended period of time and he was not sure it was invalid, but he was satis-
-- : fied it would be ,to the public benefi t if the ,.cost of the County's program was
,lessened. Mr. Murray's reply was that the presence of the Armory would in no way !
interfere with the County's building program. The most prevalent scheme and the !
one recommended to the Commissioners was that if there was no use for the building "
it would be town down. His proposal, he said, was only a request to the County Com-
missioners,giv~pg thema~_qption to respond to as they wished.
,-
Councilwoman Beal was not sure of the proposal's relevancy because of the County's
expressed desire that the space would be used for County purposes, regardless of
whether the building was demolished. She thought the city within its rights to
! express interest in seeing the Armory preserved, but was qoubtful about trying to
: lease it when the County had not said it would. .She wond~red whether a Ii ttle dif-
I ferent proposal than leasing might be more appz'Opriate. \
"~ Mr. Murray repea~ed his argument that if action wasn't tak~n now then they would be
facing a d~cision already made. Now is the time fot. iJ,;ipv:~:""<he said, and if the County
later made a finn public decision to use the spacefror County purposes then nothing
would be lost. He said there had never been any retrabtion of the County's previous i
, I
;.offer-to--lease" thebuildingfo-r. $L.OO otlJez:. th_an bi t!~aI]d pieq?.,~ _0.:( in,formatjop._ from _ j
, "hall way" con versa tions. Manager explained tha t informa tion about the COl;lnty' s posi - !
. tion was gained from a meeting to which he and Assistant Manager Martin were invited I
for the purpose of bringing the city up to date on the County's program. He added ,
I
that there was no particular Objection to indicating an interest in the Armory in . I
;
line with Mr. Murray's proposal if the County decided not to use it itself. However, I
it was hoped not to inject city staff or consulting effort if the County was taking :
another direction. Mr. Murray thought any staff work or research should be contingent I
upo~, the County's accepting the proposal. He did want to get the mechanism in motion
and he felt this was the correct time.
Councilwoman Campbell noted former Council support of Armory preservation in response
to a request from the Historic Preservation Committee and felt favorable action on
Mr. Murray's proposal would be consistent with that action.
Mayor Anderson commented that the issues seemed to be largely based on personal
. prejudice. He felt the issue of economic significance would be valid and- he would, 'I
go along with the proposal if it was an overwhelming matter of use and economic benefit
I
. to the city. However, he thought from an economic standpoint the county had indicated 1
: it did have a practical use for the space so it would seem presumptious for the city I
i to interject itself on the basis of economic use. He felt it premature and that there!
: was nothing to be gained by launching staff on a proposal which according to
: Mr. Murray's motion would involve the Historic Preservation Committee. He was con-
. fident that communications at the staff level would alert the Council so that there
I
,would be ample time for input and discussion of any further proposal by the. Council.
He felt the matter at this time was not one needing urgent decision.
Councilwoman Campbell was skeptical about future credibility of committee recommenda-
tions, saying it was the Mayor's committee created through passage of an historic
preservation ordinance which initiated the idea of Armory preservation. The Mayor
I
I said it was a matter of public input and he was stating his disagreement with the
proposal so far as the Armory's historical significance and architectural value.
Councilman Murray fel t there were three other issues .- (1) that it would be more
economical to remodel than to construct a new building, (2) county and city both
I were in need of office space, and (3) the assumption _in the Community Goals state-
, ment that an auditorium would be provided somewhere in the community, which would
present one option for the Commissioners to consider.
Counci~man Hershner wondered if a substantial amount of staff time would be involved
with adoption of the motion. Councilman Murray replied that it ~ould not unless the
County accepted:it. Manager agreed that although it probably would not take staff
time now, if the County advised it could not make a decision wjthout sp~cifics it
could lead to that situation.
. ' Cquncilwoman Beal stated her support of the motion because she thought the Armory
, building an old sound building, full of usable materials, with a lot of space, and
represented cheap office space which was suitable and usable. She added that if and
when the County accepted the proposal then commitment of staff time could be considered.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. ,u,C0mrn- -
"._~..._!,.- .. --,,- - -.. .-_. -... ...... --.- ---. ...-... ---... ......
6(26/74
See Action Below
L42. 7/8/74 - 11
'-
Manager called attention to excerpt from July 3 ~inutes of Lane County Commissioners
meeting (copies distributed with agenda). He read a portion of'the excerpt indicating
action of the Board withdrawing its letter reques~ing information and firm commitment
for use of the Armory beca~se the County will need the spa:e fo~ County use regar~less ~
of whether the Armory remalns. Con~ensus was that any actlon wlthregard to commlttee- 'II'
of-the-whole,report would be moot.
". - I
C. Neighborhood Group Recognition - Copies of charters were previously distributed to I
Council members for: I
1. iLaurelhi11 Valley Citizens Association r
2. 'Whiteaker Community Council
I
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray to accept the charters and Comm
recognize the groups 'as representative of those neighborhoods. Motion 6/26/74
carried, all Council members present voting aye, Mrs. Campbell not present. Approve
D. . EWEB Transactions . _
~l~ Quitclaim easement south of Barger Drive between Laveta Lane and Regina Street
(Kenneth D. Gilbert) - No longer needed for power lines and no other utility
purposes involved.
I
!~:2,. Deed land east of Laura Street to Lane County for street purposes, retaining .
f existing facility easement. Located where extension of couplet north of
, Q Street crosses SP right-of-way. ~
Cornm ,.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to a~thorize both deeds. 6/2~174
Motion carried unanimously. Approve
E.; planning commission Report - June 10, 1974
J",. Vacation of Larkwood Lane on east side of Fox Hollow between 44th Avenue and
Larkwood Street (Henry Blair SV 74-2)
Planning Commission recommended approval. However, recent information indicated
I ,less than 100% agreement by owners of abutting properties, and because of obliga-:
tions and liabilities if vacated without total agreement, postponement of con- I
sideration was recommended. ,
I
I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to postpone public hear- C
I ing on the vacation request. Motion carried unanimously. 6/26~~
'. Approve
! 2~ Vacation of portion of Wall~s Street between Stewart Road and West 11th ;
I - I .
: frontage road (George Wingard SV 74-3) l
I Planning Commission recommended approval. The area to be vacated is an un-
I ,
I developed right-of-way in the center of an industrial area, has never been !
used, and has no purpose. __
3~ utility Easement Vacations ! .
'?~ Between 12th and 13th west from Taylor Street (Breeden Bros. EV 74-4)
.b'~' Near northwest corner of Obie Street and 11th Avenue (Lanz EV 74-5) ;
~~. South side of Stoney Ridge Road east of Agate Street (LaDuke EV 74-6) Cdmm
. bl ' . 6/26/74
Mr. W~lliams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to call pu ~c hear~ng A
. , f h 11 . ' d h b1 . t '1 . pprove
for cons~derat~on 0 t e Wa ~s Street an tree pu ~c u ~ ~ty
easement vacations. Motion carried unanimously..
.. (
F. . First Annual Review, 1990 General Plan - Transmitted by the Planning Corrimissi-on -~
for Council recognition and approval of minor revisions as submitted by the Metro- !
politan Area Planning Advisory Committee. They were A-l, 2, and 3 on page 5 of \
,the Review; B-4, 5, and 6 on pages 5 and 6; and C-7, 10-g.h.i.j, and 11 on pages i
6 and 7. Because they were minor revisions it was recommended by the co-ordinating\
committee of the area planning commissions (Eugene, Springfield, Lane County) to I
delay 1990 Plan amendment process until the 1975 review. '
! i
I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to recognize and tentatively ;.
: approve the Plan changes as recommended, but hold formal amendment of the l .
I
f 1990 Plan until the 1975 review. ." '
: Councilman Murray said he had thought of the Plan review as a more ambitious pro- ,
i ject and fel t the minor revisions were a reflection of the inadequacy of staff ' !
support. He hoped other governm~ntal agencies involved would take the same stand.
I
..._. .~"___." . ," .~.,..~.._..) '""'"...~._r '/
7/8/74 - 1.2
;;-'243
'Councilwoman CamPbell asked how amendments to the 1990 Plan~o~ld be initiated _
wheth~r they shouldcome.from the governing body or MAPAC itself. Manager replied
i th~t ~t was not ,necessar~ly a "cut and 'dried" process. He noted a couple of
I th~ngs the Comm~tte~ w~s requested to look at, one being whether Lane Community
;College should be w~th~n the urban service boundary. The Committee decided it
should not, so n~ change wa~ initiated. Planning Director added that anyone
. of the three bod~es - Counc~l, Planning Commission, or MAPAC - could initiate
:amendments. ,However, only the Council could actually autho;ize amendment to the
,Plan. counc~lma~ Wood thought many of the changes which MAPAC was looking at
',wol.lld be automat~c. u___"___
. '."'" ... ..... ~._....--._-~--...
. . _ . ~. _ "'." .
:Councilwoman Campbell stated her impression that.the South Hills study wou]a~
;result in a change in the urban service boundary. Planning Direptor sr3id MAPAC
[precisely declined to consider any change in the boundaries already established.
iHe added that the forthcoming Goals update statement might activate the Com-
imittee sirtce it included a recqmmendation that the governing body initiate a
:study on costs and problems of 'growth and how that miqht be considered in light
~ of keep~nJ.~,!!"!.-~c:,lJ~~_economy in this area.
--. .- -- -. ... .. --- . ...u .---
-., - ..
,Councilwoman Beal was in favor of the changes suggested but wanted to h
, d . , . . ear some ,
i ~scuss~o~ w~th regard ~o implications. Planning Director said the most signifi- i
cant port~on o~ the rev~ew was that it did not recommend inclusion of LCC within i
,the urb~n serv~ce boundary at this time. The ,changes recommended were mostly ,
grci1!JI!la,!:~,c:... ____ _____ '._--_ ,___u___ __" - --__. _.,____ ______.__. ._h ' i
:Galen Howard, LCOG staff member assigned to work with MAPAC, explained the -----------
Ichanges recommended and said the Committee felt they were not of sufficient .
I -
;significance to complete the Plan amendment process. He too said the Committee ,;
e ldid not recommend changing the urban service boundary to include LCC (that re-
Iview having been requested by Lane County Planning) so no amendment procedure
!was necessary in that instance. He said the Committee would probably appreciate
~some outline of what the Council would like to see happen, perhaps giving priority j
iJ'an.:!cin.:~_czn__ the issues it would like to see studied in the 1975 annual review. ;
Councilwomr3n Beal referred to the suggestion on page 5 of the Annual Review
that criteria should include consideration of actual cost of urban services. She
'felt it very important to have that type of information if the Plan was being
:~mended and would apply to future annexations. Planning Director explained
ithat the items referred to were for clarification of that section and that those
:issues were being looked at now. Manager commented on the desirability of having
:that type of information, but felt regardless of whether it was written into the
,Plan, the Council had the right to request what information and take whatever
iaction wanted based on the information requested. In specific instances of
(annexation, he said, the Council could request a complete analysis of cost of
,fservices regard'less of whether the Plan made that provision. But evidently j_
'MAPAC thought going through the amendment process with the three governing bodies "
:was hot justified just to give Eugene authority it already had to request that
L info:r;mq, t;,iOJ2! ,... ,u._._'_'" ..-...... _.._~ . _.~. - . .
. -.--. '.'-". .... - ",>-.~.' - -----. -",-,"'."
,Mrs. Beal referred to her repeated requests for analysis of cost of extension
- :of city services to all undeveloped areas and an analysis of capital costs. She
'said this MAPAC suggestion seemed to take care of that request but since it was
not being formally adopted she wondered if it ,would be only some "future" policy
so that this might be the time again to bring up the-cost question. Councilman I
Williams said there was a very strong statement in the Community Goals document
dealing with the overall question of growth and that a study with necessary fund- i
,
ing was called for in that statement. Mayor Anderson added that it would also
be a consideration on an area-wide basis rather than just for Eugene. Mrs.Beal
then asked if staff could now provide an estimate of the cost for providing such \, -
a study as she had requested previously when the original request for the study
was not accepted. Consensus was that because of the impending discussion on the
Community Goals statements, one of which covered the question of costs of urban
services, 'requesting that information at this time would not be timely. Mrs.Beal
agreed to wait until the Goals adoption. ." -- -,..., - j. ." --" .-- - .. .. - ..-- _... - .. .._-.. ---. -
. .n. ....__...__._. - "", .. ,.;'. on .__.__n~ -.' ;..~~ ",- - "
Vote was taken on the motion to recognize the recommended changes Comm!
and postpone Plan amendment until the 1975 review. Motion carried, 6/26/74
all Councilmembers present voting aye, Councilmen Hershner, McDonald, Approve
and KeJlernpt p.!'.esent. -- .._.._._.--~~-' ~ -- -..."
- - ---
Improvement' petitions "
G. Sanitary sewer between 500 feet and 900 feet east of North Shasta LOOp and
- from Vine Maple Drive to 500 feet south - {7%
Sanitary sewer south of Storey Boulevard" east of Friendly, and west of I
i
View Lane - 100% Comm!
., 6/26/711
Mr. williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to accept the pet~t~ons~
Motion carried unanimously. . . ' Approve
. " ,..... . ".' . .Id
Petition, Sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lots 500,600,700, and 800 off 30th Avenue i
Petitioned by owners of 100% of abutting properties. Cornm
I
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the petition. 7/3/74
Appro~e
Motion carried unanimously. I
, ---7f8t.,tr-----r~- - -- ~ ~,,- ..'-'
_. - _..__._- __._._.__.________R. ,_ _." -- 244 -.-----.- - . - ,~.
---- +--._- --.-- -"-'"--- ~ - ---
. -- .-. "--.-------- '
; ,--~- ---- --'-..- "-. ----._-
. ---
,
H. variance Continuation, 1247 Villard (Gordon York) - To permit construction of a small
animal hospital. Extension was requested to provide option for location of Dr.York's
, hospi tal should his presen-t property be sold. ,
Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded, by Mr. Williams to approve renewal of the variance. ,
In answer to Councilman Williams, Manager explained that variances expire if not re- ,
newed annually. Once the property is used it becomes a nonconforming use. Planning '.
Director added that the ordinance covering variances was outdated in 1968.so there
would be no precedent for not extending it. ) ;
Comm
Vote was taken on the motion as sta ted. Motion carried unanimously. 6/26/74
~----. ".-". - -- --. - ."-.- ----_. -
Approve
1. Appointments
1. Charitable Solicitations Committee - Mayor Anderson recommended appointment
of Cliff Cole, 4433 Altura, Univeristy Development Fund, to 'replace william
Korns, resigned, as a member of the Charitable Solicitations Committee for
the term ending January 1, 1978.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the Comm
appointmen~. Motion carried unanimously. 7/3/74
Approve
2. Eugene Renewal Agency - Council President Williams asked that appointment of'
William Korns, 2309 Fairmount Boulevard, as a member of the Eugene Renewal i
Agency, replacing Ray Hawk, for the term ending July 10, 1978 be placed on Comm
the July 8 Council consent calendar for approval. 7/3/74
__. __ __H_ __ __ ___ ____ _ Approve ,
i
J. Assessment Panel Report, July 1, 1974 - There were no requests to be heard on .
assessments represented by:
C.B.595 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Mark '.J' I
;
Pa~k Subdivision, Buck Street from north line of Mark 'J' Park to north
boundary of Last Addition to Acorn Park Subdivision; and Quaker Street
from 13th Avenue to 300 feet south, and sanitary sewer within 200 feet
of plat boundary of 1st Addition to Mark 'J' Park (72-45)
C.B.596 - Levying assessments for storm sewer 550 feet north of wi11hi Street i
from Echo Hollow Road to Belt Line Road (73-03)
C.B.597 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area between 28th Place and
350 feet south of 28th Place from 300 feet west of Miramonti Drive to I
300 feet east of Miramonti Drive, if extended (73-73)
.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the council bills Comm
be presented for final passage. Motion carried unanimously. 7/3/74
. )' Approve
K. Appeal, Preliminary Approval to Covenant Park PUD, 38th and Hilyard - Information
with regard to appeal was distributed to Council members for public hearing at
\ July 8 Council meeting. Councilman Williams presented a petition he received --
\ signed by a number of residents living near the proposed development requesting ,
postponement of the hearing to the July 22 meeting. They were unaware a public hear- I
! i
!
was schedul ed . Mr. Williams noted Council and staff concern about a decision on the I
,
development as soon as possible. I
~
. -' ,
I Roberta Robertson, 635 East 39th Avenue, speaking for ~he petitioners, requested )
,
delay because many of those interested, not knowing the hearing was scheduled, had )
left town for the ~oliday weekend and would like the opportunity to meet before a !
public hearing was held.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Williams to postpone the hearing 7/~~~:
to the July 22, 1974 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. SAt'
_ _ ___ _ . ee c lon
- -. . ~ .
Below ,
,
Councilman ~urray.sald,h: was not aware at time the hearing on this appeal was set for
the.July 22 Counc~l meetlng tha\ a delay would have very serious consequences to the '.
~roJ:ct. He asked Council recon3ideration and suggested calling a special meeting to
consl~er the appeal on J~ly.JS instead. He thought the merits of the project should
be welghed rather.than rlsklng loss of the project simply by biding time. And he felt
there was ample tlme to notify appellants 'if the hearing was scheduled for July IS.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. William~ to conduct the hearing on the Covenant (J~
Park PUD.ap~eal on July lS, with the understanding that staff would notify those
people slgnlng the appeal petition by phone immediately of the change.
Councilma~ McDonald said he would vote against the motion, that the hearing had been set, j
and that rt would lead to the same. type of action in other instances. Mayor Anderson i
thought there were extenuating circumstances involved, and Councilman Wood noted that !
------ 7/8/74 - ,1.4 j
'2A-S .-..,....w
"
legally the hearing could have been held at this meeting, extension to July 22
was at the request of interested citizens and that could also be considered
\,,- precedent. At Mrs. Beal's, suggestion Council was polled and it was determined
. that a quorum would be available on July 15.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council
members present voting aye, except Councilman McDonald voting no,
~ershner not present.
L. Council Minutes - May 6, 1974 as circulated. ~:.. Approved
..;":7';
M. Procedure, Limiting Length of Council Meetings - Copies of proposal for limi:ing
length of Council meetings submitted by Council President williams were prev~ously
distributed to Council members. It was understood discussion would be scheduled COTI:m
:for a future committee meeting. 7/3/'74
--- . - --- -- - Affirm
N. Weyerhaeuser Invitation - Council members, Mayor, and others of the city organiza-
'tion interested were invited to a full-day trip into Weyerhaeuser's tree farming
operation for a demonstration of high-yield forestry and accelerated growth Cc5mm
practices any time between now and September 1. About five or six indicated 7/3/74
interest and i.t ~c:is unde.r:7tqod a __da~~ would be arran9,~d.__ AffirJll
O. 'Livingston & Blayney Report on Goodpasture Island Area and demand for commercial ----,
luses in the Central Lane area was presented by John Blayney. He acknor.dedged the !
-~, work of Bob Glover, principal planner, and the firm of LeBlanc & Company; economists,
'together with co-operation from Eugene Renewal Agency, LCOG, Lane Transi t ,Oregon
:Department of Transportation and local planners, but said his firm alone was re- ,
;sponsible for conclusions drawn from the study. Copies of summary of the,report
:were previously furnished to Council members; finalieport was to be printed and
'distributed by July 10, with detailed discussion scheduled for July 17. Maps were
'displayed showing areas referred to in the study and potential uses. I
I
i I ~
:Mr. Blayney pointed out that the maps were not plans as such, but were merely to
:facilitate explanation of the study. The purpose of the study, he said, was to :
,look at commercial needs in the Eugene/Springfield metropoli tan area wi th particular I
t
:emphasis on the relationship between the downtown Eugene area and the Goodpasture i
:Island area, site of Valley River Center. He explained bases from which conclusions I
:were drawn ~ need for commercial development, analysis of land now zoned commercial,
:criteria as to timing and sequential development, relationship between downtown and
:outlying commercial uses, and between commercial development and transportation
:facilities, identification of large scale commercial uses, etc. - to determine when
land where commercial development pressures could be expected, to what extent the
I
city had the ability to control and direct those pressures, and what kind and how "
much control which was really in the public interest it desired to exercise. He r
e cited the three alternatives uses - (I) maximum downtown development, (2) maximum
Goodpasture Island development, and (3) new regional shopping center at a third site -
;for analysis of feasibility and impact to reach a single set of recommendations.
I
Iconclusions were that maxim~m downtown development would have the most favorable
;impact on the overall environment - fiscal, economic" social, and physical. However,
:even with maximum downtown retail expansion, it could not capture a large enough
jshare to remove the opportunity for a new outlying regional shopping center some~
:time after 1980. That third center could be located on Goodpasture Island, which
would be the greatest threat to the vitality of the downtown area, or at another
,location. Mr. Blayney said every effort should be ma.deto attract retail outlets
'to a shopping site expansion west fr~m the downtown mall. Even with the success of
that effort, he said, it would not affect the potential for an additional outlying
regional center. He(~ent on to describe: the impacts of various development alterna-
tives, saying the most favorable were for maximum commercial downtown and maximum i
residential on Goodpasture Island with construction of a regional shopping center
iwhen there was sufficient market to support it. A need for increased retail space
was predicated by LCOG population projections for Lane County at a 2.3% annual
!growth rate. Another key element, he said, was the substantial increase indicated
:in personal income over the last few years, as well as the five-county marketing
;area served by this metropolitan center. He expected the present 5MM square feet
.- ;of retail space to double by 1990 with about half of that increase going into shop-
iping centers.
I
,lMr... Blayney discussed analysis of existing commercial zoning which indicated only
labOut 22% of all commercially zoned land in Eugene was vacant and readily available
r
l'for development. He fel tit wise for Eugene to continue its present "tight" pOlicy
Ion commercial zoning - the system of withholding final approval for commercial
,zoning until evidence was presented that the type of commercial development desig-
nat~~ fo:r;__a__$it;;~, was_ what would actu_~lly_ bebupt;~ W~ the. r_egard_t~~ tr'!ir!E~!:,,=--ation
... -~ .
\ \
- - 2.4b 7/8/74 :: 15
:I;r;pac-i:: -Mr~.BTa'-yn~y - expTained that the'" study iiidlcat~d there--was-no - particul?1:i' 1-
difference between downtown and the Goodpasture Island area because both were close
! to the center of the metropoli tan ar'ea. Down_town was better served by mass tra"nsi t
:and probably would continue to be better in that respect because of its adaptability .
to a-transit system. Calculations were made with regard to investment in mass
:transit to avoid street widening, also the effect of removing parking~ It was con~ .
;cluded that costly additional traffic capacity would be needed on Goodpasture Island
ito serve full development, regardless of whether it was commercial or residential -
:either widening the Belt Line bridge, new construction north of Belt Line, or ex- ,
;tending a bridge across the River at Park Avenue. A new regional center would
:generate more total traffic than either downtown or Valley River because of its
I
,less centra~ location. There would also be little difference in costs of locating
:retail or office space in the downtown area compared to outlying sites. The study
suggested an oversupply of office space for some time taking into account the present
high-rise construction in the downtown area., The downtown free parking program tended:
,~, to act as an equali zer. Mr. Blayney noted the considerable amount of obsolere housing;"
near the downtown business district and suggested further study and possible urban i
renewal project for new housing close in. )
. 'i
Policies recommended-were: j
1. Identify potential regional centers and protect those sites from piecemeal develop-
'mente Suggestions were north of Valley River, Coburg and Belt Line intersection,
and Gatewa~ south of Belt Line north of Springfield.
-"."
,2. A development plan far more detailed than the 1~90Plan to provide for a
second renewal project west of Charnel ton Street, and a site reserved for an -'.
enclosed mall regional shopping center at the west end of the Eugene mall.
! Mr. Blayney encouraged attraction of two large departmeQt stores or relocation
i of present stores to ensure the downtown's future. Possible use of tax incre- ,
I I ment funds'for the mall expansion and close-in housing development was suggested
I "
as one way of financing. ,
,
.'
. ' ,
, 3. Consideration of an all-day parking tax in the downtown development district to
fund transit service. Mr. Blayney thought at least 30% of all employe trips
should be by mass transit.
4. Continual review of the downtown free parking program to maintain equity between ,
offices and retailing. ~..,..../;i'--~~_...
. . _~"/~.._,_,,~J_________ .
5. Commercial develOpment ~hould be lLmited to the area south of the gravel ponds
on Goodpasture Island and the remaining 300 acres devoted to residential uses.
P" .
Mr. Blayn~y---s8:1a by no means did the study indicate there should be no further
development on Goodpasture Island. Limiting commercial development would avoid
a mixture and a commercial strip' which would detract from the quality of resi-
dential development on the rest of the land. ~ ---
_...... / -
.-
~------- -- ~:~ . .
~Q.- -Wi-thhold zoning for a new outlying'~egiolJal shopping center until there jJi -- ~___
- -~ "'"---"..7"-
assurance of two department stores in a 500M square foot development and until
review of an economic impact report analyzing effect of the new center on exist- .
ing retail complexes.
7. Alternative uses_for land now zoned comme.rcial but having little potential for
developmeift in the near future should--:Jje-.studied with continuance of the policy
for final approval of new commercial zoning only after assurance that'develHR-
ment would occur.
John Porter, planning di~ector, said the key element of the report for his office
was t-he projected doubling of retail floor space- to 10MM square feet. That informa-
tieI1, he said,'woul.a allow a better updating of the General Plan.
-----
Councilman williams thought that to pre~ent_a third regional Shopping center until
what appeared to be the appropriate- time seemed to call for control outside the__
:purvielv of the ci ty of Eugene. He wondered if i t- was aSsumed that the 1990 General
j -~ ~
'Plan would be the vehicle to provide control of that development.Mr: Blayney agreed
,that it was very seldom that one jurisdiction had the power to control commercial
:development. However, he felt the high level of co-operation between jurisdictions
for the --total good of this metropoli tan area was commendable, and would work for a
greater interest in the quality of development rather than the fiscal impact. , .
---
Councilman Murray asked if projections of the study would indicate how much commercial;
space was needed in ratio to population and the degree of historical economic impact i
on the downtown area. Mr. Blayney replied that the projections were limited to i
statistics available. Oregon's havi~g no sales tax resulted in meager information
with regard to gross sales. But at this time both downtown and Valley River had a
-
\ \ 7 (8(74 - 16 '
2.41
-
healty sales picture, there was enough sales volume to match the available retail
space, including that under construction. However, as new centers opened sales
would again dip. He said the downtown would be jeopardized if too many department
stores moved and that was why the study's recommendation urged efforts to hold what
was there or attract either relocation or construction of new large department stores
-. downtown. In answer to Mr. Murray's comment tha t in looking back three years or so I
,.., there may have been a surplus of commercial space and the sales were just now catching:
up, Mr. Blayney said that three years ago there was a recession and probably less f
buying power than now. It could be said there was surplus space, he said, but lack i
of accurate figures made it difficult to make that kind of analysis. i
Mayor Anderson wondered if there was any standard on which to base a decision that ~
the right amount of space or retail capacity was available. Mr. Blayney said that
setting a standard was very difficult because of constant changes in merchandising
and the wide variety of types of merchandise in different types of stores. However,
an economic study with co-operation of retailers would establish whether new develop-
ment would be taking away from old ones.
. Councilwoman Campbell asked ifit was less expensive to get space in Valley River
than downtown and whether use of urban renewal in expanding the downtown would lessen
~he cost. Mr. Blayney replied that their figures indicated very little difference i
between cost of retail space downtown and in outlying areas, which meant that the
free parking program was very important. The assumption was that major department .j
stores would .n()t ~~~,~._t9_. .!:oc:.C!_~!f, ,~o.I!!Lt.o_l!.n,.i:f."t;12~~€L .I:'~!?..._p__q__t:, _€!npllgh . f:~e..e ~arking. .~pace_:__J
Councilman Keller asked for and received verification of the projected ~ncrease
.~ in retail floor sp~ce in the metropolitan area from 5MM to l~MM square feet ~y 1990.
~ He asked what reta~l space would encompass. Mr. Blayney rev~ewed the types of
goods attracted to major shopping centers - shopper and convenience items for the
most part. He. said car sales would not be included as part of a regional center.
Mr. Blayney identified, in answer to Councilman Murray, the opportu~ity area north
of Harlow Road immediately east of Interstate 5. Mr. Murray asked why the study
,recommended extension of the downtown mall to the wesb rather than in some other
direction. He said commercial interest appeared to be to. the north. Mr. Blayney
a~swered that the area to the west was one needing attention, there was nearby
;residential area supplying a potential commercial market, and that new development ·
, !was already occurring in other directions from the mall. Mr. Porter added that the ,
I area to the north had been designated as a special d_istrict, and the civic center c
'was designated for the area to the east. It was suggested that the project extend "
1no farther to the west than Lincoln Street with commercial operation, he said,
~which would be a natural extension of the present commercial activity on the Broad- ~
way mall. David Hunt, ERA director, disclaiming ERA responsibility for planning,
ls~id the ERA had always anticipated the northern portion of the mall would be used
~'for purposes incidential to commercial uses, and the most logical extension of com-
mercial uses would be to the west. He noted the amount of space in the western
area now owned by the Agency which could be used to provide parking to influence
It ,location in the downtown area. Mayor Anderson called attention too to the trans-
portation problems inherent in expanding northward because of the railroad tracks.
Councilwoman Beal asked what the thought was with regard to commercial, uses to the .'
'east where there was a large concentration of students and young people. Mr. Blayney
said the area to the east was blocked by office and other noncommercial uses so the
only open direction was probably to the west. He added that the type of questions i
being raised could only be answered through a planning study ?n the entire downtown I
area.
p '0'
Mr. Murray asked for elaboration of the mention of traffic problems for the resi-
dential area surrounding downtown in one of the al~er~atives. Mr. Blayney responded
that projections indicated that additional traffic.to the downtown in a few years
would make th~ surrounding narrow residential streets much less desirable. However, i
1 a strong transit program to handle more downtown employes would reduce that effect. i
When asked if a development plan could include a means of protecting those residential \
streets, Mr. Blayney said about the/best that could be anticipated would be to desig-
nate some. of the streets as arterials, leaving others for a more desirable living
environment. He suggested that some of the traffic ways already proposed should be
pursued to provide access to the downtown. He said some high volume traffic streets :
have very successful residential units, designed for "inward" living, when Mr.Murray
~.' 'commented on the critical considerations in terms of traffic volumes on residential ,
"'streets bordering the downtown area. I
I
I
Discussion was concluded by the Mayor with the understanding further discussion l
would be scheduled for the July 17 committee meeting. At Manager's suggestion it cb
was agreed to invite Lane County Commissioners and Planning commission,Springfield7t~V~~
Council and Planning Commission, as well as those agencies represented at this meet- ~P:flrm
ing, Eugene Renewal Agency and Eugene Plannjng Commission.
_.____0--________ .. ,.~ -. - '.-_ .... _.._. . ...~ _ _," ....__ .. ". .._._..,",...~_ ."_.'_'___
, \ 7(8/74 - 17
2.42>
.___.___ ~_...~_ ""'___ _ ._~ __+..,._,_.......v _._.._.~_.~.~~___ ..~......... ...-,_._.~_.. -- ---....-.. _.--.-.-~_._.._~
P. Alley Assessment Drdinance - Copies of draft of ordinance with regard to assessments-;:
- for alle~ improvement were previously furnished to Council members. Councilwoman ,
,Beal, ch~irman of the subcommittee charged with reoommending change in th~ assessment \
\ 'policy, expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed ordinance. At her request, dis- I
cussion was, delayed until the commi ttee was reconvened for further consideration of l.
, f h' , t d Comm ..
the subJect, apd urt er report re urne . '. Tf3/74 ..
_" " \. .A.ffirm
Q.~City Attorney Opinion re: Council attendance at Planning Commission meetings when
rezoning, sign districts, PUDs, or conditional uses are dis~ussed - ~reviously dis-
tributed to Council members. 'The City Attorney , advised attEmdance/at Planning Commis-
r -
sion meetings should be avoided in view of the hazard of ex parte contact on t~seCom~
. issues wi thin the Fasano ruling. . . I 6/2Ct74 \
, ~FJ..a:e
. '.. .. - . (\:
. - ."..... ..., . -.
R. Ivacanc:i.es, Human Rights-coWnission - Mayor Anderson I asked the Council for sug- of ---
. 'gestions with regard to filling three vacancies on the Human Rights Commission.\
He said there was particular interest in having on the Commission someone from \ Comm
~he business se~tor and someone to represent Native Americans. 7/3/74
File
,. 'I
S.Resignation, Budget Committee - Letter was received from Myron T. Bagley announc-
ing his resignation from the Budget Committee because of his move to New York City. Comm
713/74
_ file
T. statements re: Bowles Incident - Copies of statements issued by Manager's office,
and Police Department were distributed for Council information. 'The Manager's
statement was in response to inquiry with regard to whether a special investiga- ~
tion would be made of police activity in connection with the search for Carl Bowles, ,.,
. State Penitentiary escapee. The statement from the Police Chief was in the form Comm
of a news release explaining the police department's exoneration of officers 7/3/74
suspended temporarily as a result of reports on the incident. File
U. Rai1roadC~ossing protection project~ Funding - Copies of -June- 24; 1974 memo froni
Public Works Director to Manager were distributed for Council information. The
memO dealt with change in funding,because of change in Federal law apd state action ~
creating a fund for crossing protection. As a result applications will be filed ';.1
ifor prot~ction on SP crossings at Seneca and Bertelsen, leaving only Danebo and ;
~Roosevelt Boulevard unprotected.. Also, the change will delay until about the firstC~mm.
iof next year construction for crossing protection at High, Pearl, Lincoln, Lawrence1i3/74
:Madison, and Monroe. File
r- --' -- --..... -- --'. '- - -
J
V. I Introduction; Greg Page -Technology Agency for the city of Eugene to work out
r of the City Manager's office. . Comm
?~~ i 7/3/74
, File
Mr. William.$;"moved seconde,dby Mrs. Campbell to approve, affirm, and file as noted
Items A throD:g):1 V, except Item A.i. - LaMars License, amended; Item B- AI'mory, filed; .-
and Item K - Covenant Park Appeal, amended. Rollcall vote. All Council members <W
pI'esent voting aye, MI'. HeI'shneI' not pI'esent. mo~ion carried.
III - Ordinances
Council Bill No. 595 - Levying assessments foI' paving, sanitaI'Y and storm sewers within
Mark 'J' Park Subdivision; Buck Street from north line Mark 'J' Park to north boundary of Last
Addition to Acorn Park Subdivision; and Quaker Street fI'om 13th Avenue to 300 feet south' and
sanitary sewer within 200 feet of plat boundapy of 1st Addition to Mark 'J' Park (72-45)~ "
read the first time on June 24, 1974 and I'eferred to assessment panel for hearing on July 1,
1974; was brought back, with no protests noted, and read the second time by council bill number
only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams m?ved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Hershner not present the
bill was declared passed and numbered 17127. '
Council Bill No. 5~6 - Levying assessments for storm sewer 550 feet north of Willhi Street
from Echo Hollow Road to Belt Line Road (73-03); read the first time on Jure 24, 1974 and referred
to assessment panel for hearing on,July 1, 1974; was brought back, with no protests noted, and
read the second time by council bill number only, there being no councilman pI'esent requesting _'
that it be nead,in ~ull.
,
Mr. Williams mov~dfseconded by Mrs. Ca~pbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. ,All Council members present voting aye, except Mr., Hershner not puesent, the
bill was declared passed and numbered 17128.
\ '
, \
~~ 7/8/14 - 18
, ~
Council Bill No. 597 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area between 28th Place
and 350 feet south of 28th Place from 300 feet west of Miramonti Drive to 300 feet east of
Miramonti Drive if extended (73-73) was read th~ first time on June 24, 1974 and referred to
<- assessment panel for hearing on July 1, 1974; was brought back, with no protests noted, and
\ read the second time by council bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting
that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and gi~en final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Hershner not present, the
bill was declared passed and numbered 17129.
Council Bill No. 604 - Calling hearing August 12, 1974 re: Vacation of portion of Wallis
Street between Stewart Road and ~1th Avenue frontage road 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. Williams 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 c?uncil bill
number.only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill
was declared passed and numbered 17130
. Council Bill No. 605 - Calling hearing August 12, 1974 re: Vacation utility easement
between 12th and 13th Avenues west from Taylor 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. Williams 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. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present.voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill
was declared passed and numbered 17131.
Council Bill No. 606 - Calling Hearing August 12, 1974 re: Vacation utility easement
near northwest corner Obie Street and 11th Avenue 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. Williams 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. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill
was declared passed and numbered 17132. .
Council Bill No. 607 - Calling hearing August 12, 1974 re: Vacation utility easement on
south ~ide of Stoney Ridge Road east of Agate Street 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. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous, consent of the eouncil, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only. I
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be a~proved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill
was declared passed and numbered 17133.
Council Bill No. 608 - Sanitary sewer between 500 feet and 900 feet east of.North ~asta
. Loop and from Vine Maple Drive to 500 feet south 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. \iilliams moved seconded by Mrs. _ CalTlPbp1-l that the bill;:!?e reid--the'seCO~d>time pycouncil .
. -', . - --.. - ~ , . J" _.. _ ~ .' . "
bill numb~r only','w'i th unanlmoll~ conss::nt of the Council~} <3.nd that enactmen~_ be cons~deredat
this time.< :M~tio~ carried unanimo~sly and the bill was read the' secona'time by council bill
number only.
.r-;. __ .- ' -. -----~ - -- -
- ~,
-=---. ' - ~ ""; ,-
'. '. '7/8/74 .- 19
- . -..
'- .
2.S0
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, IJr.. Hershner not present, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17134.
Council Bill No. 609 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer between 500 feet .
and 900 feet east of North Shasta Loop and from Vine Maple Drive to 500 feet south was read the
first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present request1ng
that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams 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. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17135.
Council Bill No. 610 - Sanitary sewer south of Storey Boulevard, east of Friendly Street,
west of View Lane was read the first time by council bill number and title only, tnere being no
councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams 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. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17136.
Councii Bill No. 611 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer south of
Storey Boulevard, east of Friendly Street, west of View Lane 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. Williams 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. Williams moved seconded byMr~. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17137.
Council Bill No. 612 - Sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lots 500, 600, 700, 800 off 30th Avenue
near Agate Street 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. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read"j:l1.e, second ::f:ime 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.
r
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17138.
"
Council Bill No. 613 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer to serve Tax
Lots 500, 600, 700, 800 off 30th Avenue near Agate Street was vead the first time by council
bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by 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 consi~ered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by ~rs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage. .
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was
. declared passed and numbered 17139.
Council Bill No. 614 - Sanitary sewer - relocation to serve Lot 2, Block 6, 5th Addition
to Highland Oaks was read the first time by council bill number and title only there being no
councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
> --
~f!t. . f"......
,
,~ .....- " . ~ - -, - - ,- . '
.'. 7/8/74 - 20
2.5/
Mr. Williams 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, the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
e Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17140.
Council Bill No. 615 - Adopting plans and ,specifications for sanitary sewer - relocation
to serve Lot 2, Block 6, 5th Addition to Highland Oaks 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. Williams 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, the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only. I
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17141.
-, IV - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2307 - Authorizing q~itclaim deed on easement south of Barger Drive between
-- Laveta Lane and Regina Street (EWEB) was read by ,title and number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
Council members present, Mr,. ,Hershner not pre~ent, voting aye. Motion carried.'
,
<Resolution No. 2308 - Authorizing deed conveying land east of Laura Street to Lane County
for street purposes (EWEB) was read the first time- by title and number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
Council members present, Mr. Hershner not present, voting aye. Motion carried.
Resolution No. 2309 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for
I period June 24 through July 8, ~ .1974 was read by title and number only.
i ,
I , .
I
I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
I
Council memb'ers present' voting. aye, Mr-. Hershner not present. Motion carried.
, J
Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday,
July 15, 1974. I
'.1 J '..
- . . .
- . . .1 ..' ,
1< .', .
r.
, . ~.j r
McKinley
Manager
l .
,~
/
,.
I 2S2 7/8/74 -:- 21