HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1982 Meeting
j
M I NUT E S
e Eugene City Council
City Council Chamber
November 17, 1982
11:45 a.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, D. W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller,
Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten (commencement to
1:10 p.m.).
COUNCILOR ABSENT: Sr i an Ob i e .
Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called
to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller.
I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS
A. Petition Regarding Naming of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts
Mayor Keller referred to a petition received by the council at its November 10,
1982, meeting regarding the naming of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts.
e He noted that a lawsuit had been filed on the matter and asked Tim Sercombe of
the City Attorney's Office to review the suit and discuss the alternatives for
action available to the council.
Mr. Sercombe said that a complaint had been filed in Lane County Circuit Court
on November 8 regarding alleged violations of the Oregon Open Meetings Law at
the council's meeting of September 23, 1982. He said that the allegations were
1) that the meeting was not open to the public, since the meeting was held at a
banquet with a charge of $10 per person; 2) that the required 24 hours' notice
was not provided in a manner reasonably calculated to reach the public; and
3) that the notice was not specific enough as to the subject(s) to be covered at
the meeting. Mr. Sercombe said that the intent of the suit was to void the
council's action and to recover attorney's fees and court costs for the complainant.
Mr. Sercombe said that it was the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the
case lacked merit and could be decided in a summary manner. Regarding the first
allegation, Mr. Sercombe said that the defense was factual: employees at the
doors to the room where the meeting was held had been instructed to allow
interested people to attend. Regarding the second charge, he said that the
defense was also factual: notice of the meeting was provided to local radio and
television stations and the local newspaper more than 24 hours before the
September 23 meeting, and the September 23 meeting was announced at the council's
Wednesday noon meeting on September 22. Mr. Sercombe said that the defense to
the third allegation was both factual and legal. He referred to Section 192.640
of Oregon Revised Statutes, which requires that the principle agenda items be
e listed in advance on notices only for regular meetings and not for special
meetings, such as the September 23 special meeting. Mr. Sercombe said that even
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 1982 Page 1
I
if specific information regarding agenda items for special meetings were
e required, it would be the City's contention that this requirement had been met
in the meeting announcements. Mr. Sercombe added that the City Attorney's
Office had some question regarding the standing of the plaintiffs in this case.
Mr. Sercombe estimated that it would take five to six weeks to obtain a summary
decision on this case, at a cost to the City of approximately $2,000 to $3,000.
He said that if the case went to trial, it could take up to a year for a decision,
at a cost to the City of approximately $5,000. Mr. Sercombe said he felt the
case had little value to the City in terms of setting a precedent, since the
council rarely holds special meetings.
Mr. Sercombe suggested two options for council action on this matter. He sa i d
that the council could decide to pursue the matter and seek a summary decision,
with the understanding that if the matter did come to trial the costs and time
would be as described above. He said that another alternative available to the
council was to hold a public hearing on the naming of the center and take action
on the matter again. He said it was the opinion of the City Attorney's Office
that this would moot the litigation.
Mayor Keller said he believed that there was a need to arrive at a resolution of
this issue and that the time and expense involved in a court case that could
last as long as a full year was an inappropriate action given the nature of the
matter and its lack of precedential value for the City. He felt that the
council had an obligation to the donors to resolve the issue soon.
Councilor Smith said she would favor the holding of a public hearing, with the
- council making a determination as a result of that hearing. She felt that the
intent of the hearing should be made clear to the public, so members of the
public could limit testimony to the issue being considered by the council.
Councilor Miller said that while she believed the process followed in announcing
and conducting the special meeting on September 23 was legal, she felt it was
not the best process and could have been more sensitive to the needs of the
public. She therefore felt it was appropriate to reconsider the matter and
allow members of the public to speak on the issue.
Councilor Wooten said that the people of Eugene have come to expect that they
will be given opportunity to address the council on matters of importance to
them. She therefore agreed that the council should hold a public hearing and
reconsider the naming of the center.
Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the City Council call
a public hearing for Monday, November 22, 1982, to consider the
naming of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts.
Councilors concurred with Mayor Keller's suggestion that thirty minutes be
allotted to those who had petitioned the council and thirty minutes to those
speaking in opposition to the petition. Mayor Keller suggested that staff
provide a clock large enough to be visible to all those in the Council Chamber,
so that those wishing to testify could work to keep their comments within the
time alloted for testimony on the item. He felt that a clock that would show
e elapsed time would be most appropriate.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 1982 Page 2
..
e Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, councilors concurred that it
was their hope to take final action on the matter following the hearing on
November 22.
Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Selection of Date for Balloting for Applicants to be Interviewed for
Opening on the Eugene Planning Commission
Councilor Miller suggested that balloting for those to be interviewed for the
opening on the Eugene Planning Commission be done at the council's November 24,
1982, meeting, so that the interviews could be held early in December before
councilors leave town for the Christmas holidays. She suggested that the
deadline for submitting applications for the Planning Commission position be
moved from the current deadline of 5:00 p.m. on November 24 to 5:00 p.m. on
November 23, so that the council could ballot on the 24th.
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the deadline for
applications for the position on the Planning Commission be moved
to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 23, 1982, and that balloting for
those to be interviewed and scheduling of interviews be done at
the November 24 council meeting. Roll call vote; motion carried
unanimous ly.
II. EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD CONVENTION AND VISITORS' BUREAU PRESENTATION
e (VIDEO AND MARKETING PLAN)
City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced Mike Hartnett, Executive Director of the
Eugene-Springfield Convention and Visitors' Bureau. Mr. Hartnett distributed
copies of the bureau's marketing plan, which he said was based on four simultaneous
goals: 1) attracting the convention business of state, regional, and national
associations; 2) attracting corporate business; 3) booking events; and
4) promoting tour and travel activities. Mr. Hartnett said that the bureau had
recently finished developing a presentation to be made to convention planners
regarding Eugene-Springfield's offerings. He sai d that the bureau apprec i ated
the funding it received from the City of Eugene and was seeking additional
funding sources. Mr. Hartnett introduced Doug Daggett of Clearwater Productions,
who had produced the presentation. Councilors viewed an audio-visual presentation
on the plight of a meeting planner, highlighting the offerings of the Eugene-
Springfield area.
Counci lor Smith said that as a member of the Room Tax Committee she was del i ghted
with the presentation and the bureau's marketing actitivies. She felt that in
the past the council had not been well informed of the activities of the bureau
and said she was pleased to see this effort at communication of the bureau's
aggressive marketing program.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Appeal of Administrative Action to Remove Parking on the East Side of
e Olive, North of 11th for Lane Transit District Bus Stop (memo, additional
information distributed)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 1982 Page 3
)
Mr. Gleason introduced City Traffic Engineer Jim Hanks. Mr. Hanks said that the
. council was being asked to hear an appeal of an administrative decision to
remove three automobile and one motorcycle parking spaces on the east side of
Olive Street, north of 11th Avenue. He said that the parking removal had been
requested by Lane Transit District (LTD) and noted that a memorandum on the
matter from Ellen Bevington, Planning Administrator for LTD, had previously been
distributed to the council. Mr. Hanks said that if the council took no action
on the matter, the staff decision would be upheld but that a council motion
would be needed to uphold the appeal.
Public hearing was opened.
John Hammer, 369 Sunset Drive, said that he and Don Furtick were owners of
the buildlng at the northeast corner of Olive Street and West 11th Avenue.
He noted that the building had in the past few years attracted six new businesses
to Eugene. He said that he and his partner had more than $500,000 invested in
the building and that they feared removal of the subject parking spaces would
cause tenants in the building not to renew their leases. He said that buses
stopping in front of the businesses would detract from the visibility and
identity of the businesses in the building.
Edmund Gibson, 2606 Windsor Circle West, represented himself and his wife,
owners of Gibson's Hair Design, located in the Hammer/Furtick Building at 11th
and 01 i ve . He referred to the memo from Ms. Bevington cited above by Mr. Hanks
and said that the 14 parking spaces that had already been lost due to remodeling
of the bus transfer area were already a great detriment to area businesses. He
e said his business was totally dependent on automobile traffic and parking.
Charles D. Hawk, 3069 Kentwood Drive, said that the parking spaces recommended
for removal were directly in front of his business and that buses stopping there
would block the visibility of the business, thus detracting from the walk-in
trade on which the business relied. He said that the bus stops would also cause
traffic and pedestrian congestion in the area.
Glen Bluestone, 2980 Madison Street, said that his business needed exposure to
the public to survive. He felt that the buses would detract from this exposure.
He was concerned that the noise of idling motors of the buses would interfere
with business activities.
Gre~ Marsh, 1860 West 14th Avenue, said he hoped that LTD would re-examine the
optlons for this area, since he felt having the buses stop in front of his
busin'ess would have an adverse impact on the business.
Kim Bedell, 1071 Olive, said she was the manager of the Eugene Plasma Corporation,
located in the Hammer/Furtick Building. She said that twice a month large
semi-trucks park in the area under discussion for parking removal to pick up
plasma from the business. She said the trucks were too large to use the alley
and therefore needed the on-street parking spaces. She said that the business
also received deliveries of supplies three times per week and that these trucks
also needed places to park. Ms. Bidell said that the business discouraged
loitering in front of the building, and she was afraid that having the bus stop
there would create a loitering problem. She said that donors at the center use
e the parking spaces in question. She opposed removal of parking in this area.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 1982 Page 4
, ,
e Jan ca71e, 1001 Fir Acres Drive, said she owned Buffalo Jeans, located in the
Hammer Furtick Building. She felt that shoplifting problems in her business
would increase due to loitering that she felt would occur if the proposed bus
stop was located in the area. She was also concerned with the safety of her
employees. She noted that buildings near other bus transfer stations have high
vacancy rates and said she did not wish this to happen in the area of her
business.
George Burwell, 77 West 11th, said his business, Shamrock Press, was located in
the Hammer/ Furtick Building. He felt tht elimination of the parking spaces
would be detrimental to his business.
Bonnie Jorden, 1960 East 17th, said she was the Assistant Manager of the Eugene
Plasma Corporation. She said her business was working to improve the image of
plasma centers and was particularly working to eliminate loitering in front of
the business. She felt that placing the bus stop in the area would increase the
loitering problem and could create a problem with litter as well.
Jean Gay, 77 West 11th, said she was an employee at the Eugene Plasma Corporation.
She concurred with Ms. Cagles' remarks.
Ellen Bevington, 1775 West 17th, said she was the Planning Administrator for
Lane Translt District. She said that LTD requested the council sustain the
staff decision. She said that having a stop for buses at this location was
essential to the safe and efficient operation of the new transfer site, which
was jointly funded by the City and LTD. She distributed supplemental graphics
e indicating the layout of the new transfer site and used these graphics to
explain why LTD felt there was a need to have a bus stop at the location in
question. She said that buses entering the transfer site traveling west along
11th and then turning north onto Olive needed a location where they could pull
in and change their signs before they entered the transfer site. She said that
in this way people waiting for the bus could read the correct destination signs
as the buses pulled into the transfer site. She indicated that the new layout
of the site would include departure points for specific neighborhoods and that
this made accurate signage especially important. She said that LTD was also
attempting to minimize the walking distance for patrons transferring from one
bus to another and that this consideration had played an important role in the
layout of the site and thus in the need for the requested stopping and sign
change area. Ms. Bevington said that LTD was sympathetic with the concerns of
the merchants but noted that the businesses were adjacent to two major downtown
free parking areas. She also noted that the district brings 6,000 people to the
mall each day.
There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hanks emphasized that the bus stop in question would not be a layover point
and that buses would only be in the stop periodically and for short periods of
time.
Responding to a question from Councilor Schue, Ms. Bevington said that buses
would use the stop in pulses, with three buses arriving approximately every 15
minutes and remaining in the site for approximately 10 to 15 seconds each.
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 1982 Page 5
.
Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Hanks said that 14 parking
e stalls had been lost due to remodeling of the transfer site at 10th and Olive.
He estimated that from 100 to 200 free parking stalls remained in the area.
Ms. Wooten asked if stopover sites such as that proposed generally cause loitering
problems. Ms. Bevington said that this was not the case and used the analogy of
an existing stopover site in front of the Sears garden shop on 10th Avenue,
where there is no loitering problem. She said that the proposed stopover was
not a place where people would wait to get on the bus.
Several councilors expressed concern with accommodating the delivery trucks
mentioned by Plasma Corporation representatives. Mayor Keller noted that there
was currently an area of approximately 38 feet south of the present parking
spaces and asked if this area could be used to accommodate the needs of the
buses. Mr. Hanks and Ms. Bevington responded that the area closest to the
corner cannot be used and must be reserved as a sight clearance area. They also
said that the turning radius and pull-in requirements of the buses would not
allow them to pull in close to the corner.
Responding to a question from Councilor Ball, Ms. Bevington said that destination
signs on almost all LTD buses must be changed manually. She said that automated
sign change equipment for the LTD fleet would cost approximately $250,000 and
that the LTD board had rejected this expenditure after a public hearing on its
budget. Ms. Bevington wondered whether the parking spaces in question were
presently regularly available for delivery trucks, since they were standard
two-hour parking spaces and were not limited to use by delivery vehicles. She
felt that LTD and the plasma center could work out a compromise solution for use
e of the spaces to accommodate deliveries to the center.
Councilor Wooten left the meeting.
Responding to a question from Councilor Schue, Ms. Bevington said that sign
change points such as this were needed so that buses could enter the mall with
the correct signage.
Councilors agreed that City staff should work with business and LTD represen-
tatives to seek a compromise to meet the needs of business deliveries and of
LTD. Councilor Miller asked that the Downtown Commission pay close attention to
this issue, since the surface lots in the downtown area will eventually be
turned to uses other than storage of vehicles and since it was clear that
businesses in the area had strong feelings about those lots. She felt that the
City policy that City streets were there primarily to meet transportation and
not automobile storage needs was a sound one and should be maintained. Councilor
Ball said he would like more information on automating sign changes for buses.
Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to hold item III-A over
for one week to the November 24, 1982, council meeting. Ro 11 ca 11
vote; motion carried unanimously.
Councilors asked staff to schedule site tours to allow councilors to view the
area of the request. Assistant City Manager David Whitlow said that staff would
notify councilors of tour times and dates.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 1982 Page 6
, ~
Mayor Keller left the meeting. Council Vice President Schue presided.
-
B. Supplemental Budget No.3 (memo, detail distributed)
Mr. Whitlow said that this supplemental budget had been discussed and approved
by the Budget Committee on November 16, 1982.
Public hearing was opened.
There being no public testimony, public hearing was closed.
CB 2579--An ordinance adopting a supplemental budget; making
appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 1982, and ending June 30, 1983; and
declaring an emergency.
Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, 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.
Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill 2579 was read the second time by council bill number only.
Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All councilors present
e voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19059.
IV. DOWNTOWN COMMISSION MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS, AND WORK PROGRAM (memo,
graphic distributed)
Mr. Whitlow introduced Jim McCoy, vice chairperson of the Downtown Commission.
Mr. McCoy said that the work program of the commission included setting out a
process for identifying what it is that makes and will make the downtown a
success. He said that the work program elements included 1) examining parking
and transportation issues and needs; 2) developing a downtown plan to be used as
a context for making decisions regarding the downtown; 3) developing a program
for marketing the downtown; and 4) encouraging physical redevelopment projects.
Mr. McCoy said that the commission was extremely interested in involving the
public in its work. He said that the commission hoped the council would adopt
the proposed program so the commission could get to work on the program items.
Councilor Schue said that the council had appreciated the briefing it received
on the Downtown Commission's work program at the November 15 council dinner/work
session.
Councilor Lindberg said that he was particularly concerned with vagrancy problems
in the city and in downtown area. He hoped that the commission's work program
was flexible enough to allow the commission to address this issue. Mr. McCoy
responded that the commission's work program was open-ended and would allow the
e commission to work on a number of items, such as vagrancy concerns.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 1982 Page 7
- .'
e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, to approve the Downtown
Commission Mission Statement, Goals, and Work Program. Ro 11 ca 11
vote; motion carried unanimously.
v. GOODPASTURE ISLAND TRANSPORTATION STUDY (memo, additional information
di stri buted)
Mr. Whitlow introduced Pat Decker, Planning. Ms. Decker said that this was an
informational item. She said that the City of Eugene and Lane County were
engaged in a joint study of the transportation needs of the Goodpasture Island
area. She said that the Eugene Planning Commission and the Lane County Roads
Advisory Committee had held a joint public hearing on the matter and that the
Planning Commission had voted to recommend that consideration of transportation
issues related to Goodpasture Island be included in the upcoming major update of
the T-2000 transportation plan, due to the magnitude of the recommendations
included in the Goodpasture Island Transportation Study. Ms. Decker noted that
Mr. Hanks had headed up the City's staff involvement in the study.
Ms. Schue thanked Ms. Decker for her report and said that the council would
expect to hear more on the matter as work on the T-2000 update proceeds.
Mr. Whitlow noted that a council work session on the Oregon Department of
Transportation's Six-Year Plan concerning improvements to 6th and 7th avenues
and on the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan had been scheduled to follow this
e meeting. He said that the item on 6th/7th had been scheduled at the request of
the counci 1. Councilors agreed, due to time constraints, to postpone the work
session.
Meeting was adjourned to~ovember 22, 1982.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ;..;
..-
....
~
Micheal D. Gleason
City Manager
(Recorded by Darcy Marentette)
MDG:DCM:dcm/CM23bl
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 1982 Page 8
-