HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/1988 Meeting
e MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Council Chamber--City Hall
September 12, 1988
7:30 p,m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Debra Ehrman,
Freeman Holmer, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue.
The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His
Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie.
I. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Obie welcomed those attending the meeting and said the council has a
mandatory adjournment time of 10:30 p.m. unless extended by majority vote of
the council. Mayor Obie said the public forum is an opportunity for people
to express opinions and provide information to the council about issues that
are not scheduled for council consideration. He said the council will not
respond immediately to the concerns expressed in the public forum.
e June Ketel, 3606 Hawthorne, spoke regarding an elderly couple being evicted
from their motor home located on the rear of their son1s property. She asked
for special consideration in enforcement of the ordinance restricting lots of
this size to single-family dwellings. She also was attempting to draw
attention to the problem of homelessness which she said was increasing
dramatically.
Mayor Obie directed staff to investigate the situation and report back to the
council . Ms. Ehrman recalled that the same or a similar situation had come
before the council during a previous public forum. Ms. Brody said the
Planning Commission had directed Planning staff to proceed in the development
of a provision that would apply in this case. She said that provision would
come before the commission and council for a public hearing later this fall.
II. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING HISTORIC PRESERVATION
(CA 87-1)
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Jerry Jacobson of the
Planning Department gave the staff report. He described the draft historic
preservation ordinance as a more comprehensive approach to historic
preservation management for Eugene. He said the changes are consistent with
State and Federal standards for regulation of historic landmarks. The draft
before the council was the result of nearly two years of research, debate,
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 1
.
e and consensus. Many issues developed during the process and some are yet to
be debated.
Mr. Jacobson summarized highlights of the draft ordinance as the following:
1. The role of the Historic Review Board would not change in terms
of its decision-making capacity.
2. Appeal of Historic Review Board decisions would be to the City
Council instead of the Planning Commission.
3. The composition of the Historic Review Board would be altered
to include more professional expertise.
4. Properties on the National Register and not on the City
Register would have protection that would prevent possible
demolition.
5. Properties initiated for designation would be protected and
regulated.
6. Interior features could be designated subject to certain
conditions that would include the designation of the building's
exterior, accessibility of the building to the public, the
non-residential nature of the building, and the feature's physical
attachment to the building.
e 7. Properties that have been surveyed and ranked primary would
receive interim protection until the designation process could be
initiated.
Mr. Jacobson referred to a letter in the council packet from the Eugene Area
Chamber of Commerce. He said the most significant issue that has been raised
relates to Goal 5 of the Statewide Planning Goals. Planning staff's initial
response is that the Goal 5 issue is a complex, statewide one and the City's
designation process is consistent with Goal 5. Mr. Jacobson expressed the
department's willingness to request a formal response from the Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCO) regarding GoalS consistency. Mr.
Jacobson said the chamber also asked for consideration of the role of the
Historic Review Board and the criteria for historic designations and
demolition.
Mr. Jacobson indicated that while the OLeO considers the proposed ordinance
an improvement, it had suggested the addition of a provision allowing the
public, in addition to the council, board, and property owner, to initiate
the designation process. The OLCO also maintained that information from new
inventories should take precedence over consistency with existing Metro and
neighborhood plans in the criteria for designation. An additional concern of
the OLCO related to National Register landmarks. It was recommended that
National Register properties should become city landmarks rather than just
being regulated and protected. Mr. Jacobson anticipated working with the
-- MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 2
.
. OLCO on the first and last issues, but said the issue regarding information
from new inventories should be addressed by the City Attorney's Office.
Responding to a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Jacobson said copies of the
OLCO letter were available at this time.
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
Brian Simonitch, 208 East 2nd Avenue, said he was a resident of a historic
district but had not received notice of the hearing. He spoke in favor of
adoption of the ordinance and said the basic issue involves balancing
property ri ghts. Mr. Simonitch believed there had been unwarranted
demolition in the past and he urged care in preserving Eugene's history.
Ross Sutherland, 300 Frederick Court, identified himself as a graduate
student in the areas of interior architecture and historic preservation. He
spoke in favor of the designation of interiors. Mr. Sutherland said very few
interiors would be affected by this section of the proposed ordinance. He
cited the Hult Center as an example of a building that would deserve future
designation on the basis of its interior rather than its exterior. He
pointed out several businesses whose success he attributed to their location
in historic buildings with historic interiors. Mr. Sutherland said the
proposed ordinance balances aesthetic concerns with financial reality. He
asked for the council's support of the proposed ordinance which he said would
be a model for other cities.
- Nancy Nathanson, 2865 Taylor, spoke as the vice president of the Eugene
Planning Commission. She reviewed the highlights of the commission's
discussions of the proposed ordinance.
Removing the commission from the appeal process was regarded positively
because of the commission's lack of technical expertise and direct
responsibility to the voters.
Ms. Nathanson said the composition of the board relates to the issue of
fairness. After discussing whether expertise creates bias, the commission
suggested minor wording changes and reached agreement with the task team's
recommendation in this section. The commission concluded that special skill
is needed to determine the historic quality of a building. The suggested
addition of a developer to the board has been incorporated into the draft
before the council. Because the decisions of the board are quasi-judicial,
it would be required to make findings to support its decisions. If there is
real or perceived unfairness in the board's action, recourse is to the City
Counci 1.
In the area of interior designations, the Planning Commission suggested that
interior features must be those that are attached to the structure itself,
interiors may only be designated if the exterior of the building is
designated as a landmark, and the public must have access to view the
designated interiors. These suggestions have all been incorporated into the
draft under consideration.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 3
e The Planning Commission also discussed the need for balance between the
public interest and the rights of private property owners. Additionally, the
commission found a need to balance the public benefit of designation against
the future benefit of developing a piece of property. After lengthy
discussion, the commission was satisfied that the language in the proposed
ordinance would achieve the necessary balance to be consistent with Goal 5
and adopted plans.
Consideration of the potential financial burden being placed on individual
property owners by application requirements for demolition and moving led to
the commission's recommendation to reduce the number of required newspaper
listings and delete the requirement of listing the property with a local
rea ltor.
Ms. Nathanson referred to the assignment of costs in the ordinance and noted
the use of the word "may" which she said would allow consideration of
hardship cases.
The Planning Commission considered the $500 penalty for violation of the
ordinance to be inadequate to discourage violations. It was suggested that
the council, with the advice of staff and the City Attorney's Office,
determine a specific monetary penalty that would serve as a deterrent.
Finally, regarding public notice, Ms. Nathanson said the commission considers
historic preservation an issue of community-wide interest and, as such,
e notice of public hearings related to historic preservation issues should
receive community-wide newspaper notice.
Michael Shellenbarger, 1820 Olive Street, Director of the University of
Oregon Graduate Program in Historic Preservation, identified himself as a
member of the ordinance revision task team and past member of the Historic
Review Board. Mr. Shellenbarger expressed his strong support of the
ordinance before the council and said the process that created the draft
brought a diverse group of people together to produce a nearly unanimous
recommendation.
Mr. Shellenbarger concurred with Mr. Sutherland's statement about the small
number of structures with interiors that would qualify for designation.
Mr. Shellenbarger considered the 90-day temporary protection of structures
that have been surveyed and identified as primary a protection of the city's
investment in its surveys. He said this addition to the ordinance would help
prioritize the expensive and time-consuming designation review process.
Bob Moulton, 294 Sterling Drive, spoke against the proposed ordinance on
behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. He noted that the chamber supports
historic preservation and had requested review of the ordinance in 1986. He
expressed concern that issues the chamber had identified have not been
addressed. Mr. Moulton said historic preservation is a land use decision
regulated by Goal 5, which requires the historical significance of properties
to be reviewed and balanced in terms of their environmental, social, and
- MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 4
e energy consequences. Mr. Moulton could find no reference to balance relative
to designation in the proposed ordinance and he said this was indicative of
the ordinance's failure to adhere to GoalS.
Mr. Moulton said the chamber is also concerned that the board will function
in a biased manner because its members must have a demonstrated interest in
historic preservation. He said the board should be advisory and decisions
relating to the application of Goal 5 should be left to the Planning
Commission or City Council.
Mr. Moulton referred to the criteria for designation in Section 2.407. He
considered words such as integrity and style to be so vague and subjective
that it would be impossible to prove the application of the criteria was
based on the rule of law and not on the whim of an individual. Mr. Moulton
asked for the use of more concrete language in the criteria.
Mr. Moulton said the Historic Review Board is permitted to limit the uses
that can take place on or in property. He considered this a zoning ordinance
limitation that amends the zoning ordinance and said the board is the only
body that is allowed to take such action without the usual public hearing
process.
Mr. Moulton encouraged councilors to read an attached letter from the Chamber
of Commerce and said the chamber hoped to work with the council on the
ordinance revision.
e Dan Giustina, 2821 Spring Boulevard, spoke against the proposed ordinance.
As a partner in Broadway and Pearl Associates which owns the Quackenbush
Building, Mr. Giustina said he had no quarrel with the City's desire to
protect historic buildings, but he felt the proposed ordinance
inappropriately outlines procedures for protecting building interiors. He
considered this a significant expansion of the existing ordinance which would
enable the board to designate interior features without being required to
consider economic feasibility. He said interior designation could occur
without the building owner's input and consent. Mr. Giustina referred to
Federal law which he said requires an owner's consent in exchange for
specific economic incentives designed to encourage historic preservation.
Mr. Giustina asked the council to consider his remarks and those of
Mr. Moulton and to form a committee to address their concerns.
Mayor Obie closed the public hearing.
At Ms. Ehrman's request, Planning Director Susan Brody responded to the Goal
5 issue. Ms. Brody indicated that further discussion with the DLCD is
planned, but it appears that the proposed ordinance is similar to the
procedures for designation that are used by other municipalities in the state
and that are deemed consistent with Goal 5.
Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that Goal 5 requires, during the
comprehensive planning process, an inventory of assets and their
- MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 5
.
e categorization as needed when balanced against conflicting uses that could be
on the property instead of the protected resource. He said there are
questions with respect to this ordinance, as to whether GoalS applies or
whether Goal 5 is restricted to the comprehensive planning process. If Goal
5 does apply, Mr. Sercombe said there are questions regarding the definition
of conflicting uses in the context of historic preservation. Finally,
Mr. Sercombe said the ordinance criteria with respect to designation,
alteration, and demolition, require that each of those decisions be reached
after consideration of a number of factors. In each case, one of those
factors must be in conformity with the comprehensive plan and applicable
neighborhood plans. The comprehensive plan has certain policies addressing
each one of the energy, social, economic, and environmental (ESEE)
consequences of the decision. By testing the specific historic preservation
decision of designation, demolition, or alteration against the plan, an ESEE
process is being accomplished. It must be determined whether, if Goal 5
applies, that criteria is sufficient for compliance with the Goal 5 rule.
Ms. Brody added that GoalS is difficult to interpret.
Responding to Ms. Schue's question about the role of the Chamber of Commerce
in the ordinance revision process, Ms. Brody said that many of the issues
raised by the chamber were discussed by the task team, but the task team did
not include members of the public. She regretted that the chamber did not
testify at the Planning Commission's public hearing on the ordinance.
Mr. Holmer noted that the chamber was present at the joint hearing held by
e the Planning Commission and the Historic Review Board in May.
Mr. Jacobson observed that no written testimony was submitted by the chamber
at the public hearing referred to by Mr. Holmer, and he said many of the
issues in the letter submitted this evening were not addressed at that
earlier hearing.
Ms. Brody pointed out that there is a difference between discussing issues
and responding to them positively. If an issue has been debated, it has been
addressed regardless of whether it has been incorporated into the draft
ordinance.
Ms. Bascom applauded the inclusion of interiors in the proposed ordinance.
She asked that the questions raised by Mr. Giustina be addressed during
future work sessions.
Ms. Ehrman likened the historic preservation ordinance to the solar access
issue and was optimistic about working out problems after its adoption.
Mr. Rutan respectfully disagreed with Ms. Ehrman. He viewed the proposed
ordinance as substantially flawed and said the first item on the work session
agenda should be to determine the process for resolving the issues that are
brought up.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 6
e Mr. Bennett noted that all who had testified regarding the ordinance had
stated their support of historic preservation.
Mr. Miller suggested that the council deal with the issues that have been
identified in a systematic way during future work sessions and he requested
specific examples of how the ordinance would apply to individual structures.
Mr. Holmer said he was pleased that the ordinance was ready for council
review. He asked staff to make the West University Neighborhood Cultural
Resources Survey, August 1987, available to each councilor.
Mayor Obie asked staff to propose an alternative to placing the burden of
historic preservation on individual property owners. He indicated his strong
support of historic preservation but said the community should share the
burden of designation.
Ms. Schue stated her concern about a property owner's potential inability to
use property if it is designated. Mr. Bennett voiced a similar concern and
added that the key to private participation and the long-term success of
historic preservation is to encourage the economic success of the site or
property. In his opinion, there is a greater burden on the owner of an
historically designated property, but to the extent that it is one's choice
to own the property, incentives, cost, and responsibility associated with it
should be weighed by the owner before making that choice.
Mayor Obie thanked those involved in developing the proposed ordinance.
e Ms. Wooten asked that the chair of the task force and the president of the
Planning Commission be present for the council IS future discussions of the
item.
III. PUBLIC HEARING: REVISION TO SOLAR ACCESS REGULATIONS--INFILL WAIVER
(CA 88-3)
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Jim Croteau, Planning
Department, gave the staff report. Mr. Croteau explained that the code
amendment would revise the exemptions under the Solar Setback Standards to
allow waiver for in-fill situations. The amendment would allow a waiver to
the normal solar setback requirements for any new construction in the case
where there is a vacant lot located between two developed lots that each have
developed structures that are at least 20 feet in height and do not provide
the amount of solar access protection required in new development. It would
allow the house that is granted the waiver to be the average of the height of
the two adjacent structures.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing at which several people
testified. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment.
Notice of that hearing and the one this evening was provided to the original
mailing list involved in the solar access amendments. Eugene Water &
Electric Board submitted written testimony in support of the amendment.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 7
.
e Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
Susan Jakobosky, 2018 Orchard Street, president of the Willamette Valley
Solar Energy Association, spoke in support of the revision to the ordinance.
She said the revision is a reasonable compromise that will not Significantly
sacrifice the solar resource in Eugene.
Hearing no further requests to speak, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing.
CB 3068--An ordinance concerning solar setback standards;
amending Section 9.535 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and
declaring an emergency.
Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill, with
unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by
council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at
this time.
Mr. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to amend the
ordinance to amend Subsection (1) of Section 9.535 of the
Eugene Code, 1971, by changing the proposed new subparagraph
(d) to read as follows:
d) In-fill waiver when all the following conditions exist:
1. The lot being considered for the waiver is vacant and
zoned either RA or R-1.
e 2. The lot being considered was created before
January 1, 1987.
3. The lot being considered is located between two
developed lots.
4. The home on the lot being considered will be no more
than the average heights of the two structures on the
adjacent lots.
Mr. Miller said his proposal would simplify the ordinance and make it more
understandable to the people it affects.
Mr. Bennett asked for clarification of the street orientation described in
the ordinance. Mr. Croteau responded that streets running north-south would
be affected. He continued by saying the changes proposed by Mr. Miller would
delete the solar factor benchmark. He explained that the ordinance, as it
was prepared, was to be rather narrow, to fit situations similar to those
existing in Portland on older, fairly narrow lots. In its unamended form,
the ordinance was not intended to apply to a larger lot with a solar factor
of greater than 75 feet where there is more fleXibility to move the house or
change the roof style. The solar factor was included to narrow the use of
the waiver.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 8
e Mr. Bennett said he needed to consider specific examples in order to
determine whether the owner of a lot created before January 1, 1987, that is
part of a subdivision and has a solar factor of greater than 75 feet could
build a house that would be consistent with the neighborhood building type.
If the ordinance would preclude such construction, Mr. Bennett said he would
be concerned. He said he supports the infill concept.
Mr. Croteau responded that the intent is to allow building that is in
character with other existing dwellings. If there are no bUildings on the
adjacent lots that set the character for the neighborhood, there is no need
for a specific waiver.
Mr. Bennett said he supported a solar ordinance and EWEB supports a solar
ordinance for technically sound reasons. While he supported some amendments
\
to the ordinance that did not pass, this particular issue had sufficient
council support for the amendment to be presented. He favored an amendment
that is broad enough to allow an infill situation to occur. He expressed
concern about the need for clarity.
Ms. Bascom considered the wording of the ordinance to be reasonable and she
hesitated to alter it.
Ms. Wooten concurred with Ms. Bascom. She said the proposed ordinance would
address some of the concerns that were raised at the last session regarding
the solar access ordinance and she was not prepared to significantly alter
the amendment language without more careful consideration.
e Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed 5:4, with
Councilors Bennett, Rutan, Holmer, Miller, and Mayor Obie
voting aye; and Councilors Bascom, Ehrman, Schue, and Wooten
voting against.
Ms. Brody asked the council to delay its further consideration of the
revision to the solar access regulations in order to have a work session on
the extensive alterations to the ordinance that would result from passage of
the motion as amended.
Mr. Miller indicated his preference to move forward to allow infill.
Mr. Bennett agreed with Mr. Miller in principle, but said he was willing
follow staff's recommendation to consider the matter further. Ms. Ehrman
noted the importance of seeking public input and a better understanding of
the implications of the new language before taking final action.
Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to table
consideration of the ordinance revising solar access
regulations to the first meeting in November. Roll call vote;
the motion carried 5:3 with Councilors Bascom, Bennett,
Ehrman, Schue, and Wooten voting aye; Councilors Rutan,
Holmer, and Miller voting against.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 9
.
e IV. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE REGULATING AUTOMATIC DIALING SYSTEMS
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Lieutenant Vic Mann,
Department of Public Safety, gave the staff report. He explained that the
ordinance under consideration would update the City Code to address the 9-1-1
system in general. Several incidents have been experienced by the Central
Lane County Communications Center involving automatic dialing telephone
systems. When these systems, that are programmed to dial the the 911
emergency number directly, malfunction, they can "jam" the 9-1-1 telephone
system and prevent legitimate calls from getting through to the center.
Lieutenant Mann said this potential disruption of the 9-1-1 system could have
catastrophic effects during a natural disaster when alarm systems have a high
fa 11 ure rate.
Lieutenant Mann explained that the ordinance would also prohibit the
deliberate calling of 911 in order to test systems. He said Lane County will
consider a similar county-wide ordinance being proposed by the Lane Council
of Governments.
Ms. Ehrman suggested publicizing the problems during the 9-1-1 Public
Awareness Week September 11-17.
Mr. Rutan asked about notification and enforcement if the ordinance is
passed. Lieutenant Mann answered that the usual public information release
process would be used. Passage of the ordinance would enable the department
to trace calls and fine violators. Responding to Mr. Rutan's observation
e that the fine or jail confinement penalties are excessive, Lieutenant Mann
said the penalties are consistent with the County proposal. Mr. Sercombe
added that the City Prosecutor would not object to the fine being lowered to
$500 which might resolve a potential legal problem with the severity of the
penalty. Lieutenant Mann indicated a lower fine would also be acceptable to
the department.
Ms. Ehrman supported the City's recovery of costs associated with
enforcement. Lieutenant Mann explained that the costs of sending an officer
out would be covered under the false alarm ordinance which has a penalty for
initiating an alarm.
Mayor Obie opened the public hearing.
There being no requests to speak, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing.
CB 3069--An ordinance concerning improper use of emergency
telephone system: adding Sections 4.900, 4.902, and
4.904 to the Eugene Code, 1971; amending Section
4.990 of that code; and declaring an emergency.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 10
----
e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom that the bill, with
unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by
council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at
this time.
The bill was read a second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to amend the
ordinance, Section 2, Subsection (14), to indicate a fine not
to exceed $500.
Ms. Wooten suggested that the citation of someone interfering with the 9-1-1
system should be dependent on whether the act is deliberate or accidental.
She considered $1,000 an appropriate fine in the case of deliberate
interference. Mr. Sercombe referred to the State offense of initiating a
false report that he said is roughly parallel to this offense. The City is
required to bring its criminal laws into conformance with State law in terms
of penalty. The City's Prosecutor has advised that there may be a
dollar-height issue, but the risk associated with the $1,000 fine would be
small.
Responding to Mr. Rutan's point that $500 is a substantive fine, Ms. Schue
commented that $1,000 would be a maximum penalty, with its imposition left to
the discretion of the court.
e Roll call vote; the motion to amend carried 5:3, with
Councilors Bennett, Bascom, Rutan, Holmer, and Miller voting
aye; and Councilors Ehrman, Schue, and Wooten voting against.
Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0.
Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. All councilors voting aye,
the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance No. 19576.
V. MINUTES AND FINDINGS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL/APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (ALLEY PAVING BETWEEN 10TH and 11TH AVENUES) (JOB #2370)
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. He said Les Lyle was in the
audience and available to answer questions.
Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the
Hearings Official minutes and findings of August 30, 1988, and
to approve the improvements for alley paving between 10th
Avenue and 11th Avenue (Job #2370). Roll call vote; the
motion carried unanimously, 8:0.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 11
.
e VI. FINDINGS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL/APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ALLEY
PAVING BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH AVENUES) (JOB #2329)
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item.
Ms. Wooten, moved seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the
Hearings Official findings of August 30, 1988, and to approve
the improvements for alley paving from 15th Avenue between Oak
Street and Pearl Street and from Pearl Street between 14th and
15th avenues (Job #2329). Roll call vote; the motion carried
unanimously, 8:0.
Ms. Ehrman asked Mr. Lyle to report back to council on plans for the alley
between 15th and 16th avenues.
VII. MAYOR'S NOMINATION TO THE SOUTHERN WILLAMETTE PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to appoint Jacquelyn
Romm to the Southern Willamette Private Industry Council to
complete an unexpired term ending December 31, 1988. Roll
call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0.
VII I. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the City
Council meeting minutes of May 9, May 11, May 18, May 23
(Dinner/Work Session), June 6 (Dinner/Work Session), June 8,
June 15, June 22, June 27, July 11 (Dinner/Work Session),
July 11, July 20, July 27, August 8 (Dinner/Work Session),
August 8, and August 10. Roll call vote; the motion carried
unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Obie announced that the Library Finance Subcommittee would meet
September 13 at noon and he invited interested councilors to attend.
Mayor Obie requested a staff report on drug paraphernalia.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
.Respec~fullY submit~ed,
, . ,. ..,~'
.- , .. .- .
( . ...'.- .r-- .L .:.!~ -. .~'...~. f~' '.:.."....:...,..__~
,
/'
Micheal Gleason,
City Manager
(Recorded by Mary Feldman)
mncc 091288-730
, MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 1988 Page 12