HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/1975 Meeting
e
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
January 27,1975
Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from
meeting held January 13, 1975 - was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E.Anderson
at 7:30 p.m. on January 27, 1975 in the Council Chamber with the following Council
members present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley,
D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey.
(0001) Council member Edna Shire~ selected to replace Robert Wood, resigned to become County
Commissioner, took her seat on the Council after havillg signed the oath of office.
(otla)
(0696)
(0738)
.
I - Public Hearings
A. Rezoning
1. Roosevelt Boulevard between Lassen and Foch (Olsen)(Z 74-26) _
From RA to RG-SR
Recommended by the Planning Commission October 28, 1974. Jim Saul, planner, dis-
played slides showing vicinity map and structures on the property. He said prop-
erty immediately to the east was zoned RG. No ex parte contacts or other reason
for conflict of interest were declared, other than Council members Haws and Shirey
stating their intent to abstain from discussing or voting on the issue. Planning
Commission staff notes and minutes of October 8 and October 28, 1974 were made
a part of this record by reference thereto.
Public'hearing was opened.
Frank Bonson, 1677 Coburg Road, designer representing the developer, said,they
had worked closely with the pl~ning depart~ent and 'were in full agreement with
recommendations set out in planhing department reports.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
Councilman Bradley asked in what way, this proposal was inconsistent with the
General Plan. Mr. Saul answered that it was the Commission's determination that
the proposal was not inconsistent ~ith the General Plan. TheYlan, he said,
does treat this area as a redevelopment area but that was conditioned on the
extension of Highway 126 through the area. The Commission felt that extension
could not reasonably be anticipated because of the substantial questions involv-
ing voter approval, funding, etc.', so the designation as a redevelopment area
was not appropriate.
Mr. Bradley thought then it would be better to have a Plan amendment rather than
rezoning. Mr. Saul said the Commission's position was that a Plan amendment was
not necessary in view of the character of surrounding zoning and development,'
particularly to the north.
Council Bill No. 711 - Rezoning property north of Roosevelt Boulevard
between Lassen Street and Foch Street to RG-SR
was read by council bill number and title only, there being no.Council
members present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved seconded 'by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the
rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of
October 8 and 28, 1975 be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill
be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous
"
1/27/75 - 1
consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this
t'ime. Lacking unanimous consent - Council members Murray, Keller~
Seal, Williams, and Hamel voting aye; Councilman Bradley voting no;
and Council members Haws and Shirey abstaining - the bill was held
over for second reading.
*Note: Vote on C. B. 711 was taken after public hearing
on Greenacres Road rezoning.
2. Greenacres Road and Delta Highway (Planning Commission)(Z '74-29) -
Rezoning property on both sides of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway - From
RA and C-2 to C-l PD, R-2-2.l PD, R-2 PD, R-2-3.6 PD, C-2 SR, and RP-SR, with
Sign District Designation of Integrated Neighborhood Shopping on C-l PD zoning
(Planning Commission )(Z 74-29)
Recommended by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1974.
was asked to review history of the area without commenting on
rezoning itself. Public hearing would be held at the January
-
Jim Saul, planner,
the merits of the Comm
27 Council meeting'1/22/75
Pub Hrng
Councilman Williams asked if discussion now would be appropriate under'Fasano re-
quirements in the absence of Councilman Keller. Manager replied that the intent
was not to discuss the issue itself, only how the recommendation happened to come
from the Planning Commission. However, Stan Long, assistant city attorney, advised
against any discussion on the matter at this time.
At. the conclusion of other business, Councilman Williams commented on his question-
ing the advisability pf discussing the Delta Highway rezoning. He said the legis-
lative'subcommittee had established aS,a priority some legislative clarification
of the Fasano regulations to avoid the lengthy and complicated procedures now in
force. Manager noted a great deal of interest statewide in this particular problem.
Jim Saul, planner, displayed slides showing vicini~y map, subject property, and
surrounding area. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 17,
1974 were made a part of this record by reference thereto, No ex parte contacts
or reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members.
Mr. Saul explained that the Planning Commission initiated this zone change as the
result of reluctant denial of request submitted by Mike Safley to rezone to RG
about 6.3 acres in this area. That denial was appealed to the Council where it
was tentatively upheld, pending preparation of negative findings. Subsequently,
staff recommended they be given the opportunity to work with Mr. Safley to reach
some overall solution for development of the property. Action was therefore
postponed, and if the proposal now submitted is approved, Mr. Safley will with-
draw the previous applica~ion.
Mr. Saul described the properties involved - approximately 75 acres east of
Delta Highway, north and south of Greenacres Road to north of Belt Line Road.
He noted present zoning and uses of the properties and zoning proposed (see ,
planning commission staff notes and minutes December 17, 1974). He noted staff
assumption in attempting to find a solution for development of the general area
that the Eugene Sand & Gravel operation was permanent.
Councilman Keller entered the meeting.
So in considering the rezoning of this property and to mitigate the deleterious
effects of that operation as well as proposed Lane County shops nearby, repre-
sentatives of tho?e oreganizations were to work with the developer to establish
operating standanS if the rezoning occurred. He said the Eugene Sand & Gravel
would be subject to DEQ standards. Also, acoustical engineering reports indi-
cated there were construction practices available for reduction of noise impact.
1/27/75 - 2
J6
e
(0137)
.
e
(0475)
e
(0532)
(0678)
(0639)
e
The 1990 Plan does recommend community commercial center at the northeast quadrant
of Delta and Belt Line intersection, he said, so on the basis of those considera-
tions the present proposal was recommended. He presented slides showing the
various zones recommended which staff feels do comply with the General Plan -
community commercial adjacent to Eugene Sand & Gravel east of Delta withoInte-
grated Neighborhood Shopping sign district designation, limited multiple-family
with gradation of density between the commercial and the mobile home park to the
east, and commercial, multiple-family, and residential professional south of
Greenacres, all with either site review designation or under planned unit develop-
ment (see planning staff notes and minutes). Mr. Saul continued that staff and
Commission took the position that there was overriding public need to determine
an appropriate development pattern for these properties in accordance with what
occurred on properties in the County to the west - Eugene Sand & Gravel and County
shops.' If an appropriate development pattern could not be developed, the General
Plan would have to be revised or properties developed on an individual basis.
Trygve Vik, 1675 Firland Boulevard, and Doug Larkins, 1862 Taylor Street, were in
favor of the rezoning, saying it feel within the 1990 Plan and definitely should
be approved.
Walter Sands, 1121 Balboa, said that most of the residents in the area were not
aware this rezoning was being considered. He was not opposed to the commercial
rezoning bud did object to the proposed density under planned unit procedures
because of the current level of school population in that area and the addi-
tion of another low~cost housing development. He said he would like to see action
on the proposal postponed until people in the neighborhood could get together and
decide on a stand they would like to take as a group.
Bruce Taylor, 507 Ayres Road, was in favor of the proposed zone changes south of
Greenacres Road, including the residential/professional zoning. However, he took
issue with what was proposed north of Greenacres Road. He disputed the validity
of the proposal for high- or medium-density use in that area, saying the Plan
called for agricultural use there and that the proposed residential use would not
be compatible with adjacent industrial uses. He cited code provisions as they
applied to protection of people from incompatible uses creating noise, dirt, etc.,
and said is seemed obvious this rezoning would be in conflict with the code in
that respect. He said the illusion was given that the commercial development
north of Greenacres Road waul buffer residential areas, providing adequate sound
protection. However, there was no assurance that the commercial and residential
developments would occur simultaneously. The DEQ should be asked to comment on
the feasibility of sound buffering in this instance, hs aid. Mr. Taylor continued
that there was no need.for a change of the kind that would "slap apartments up
against industrial." He asked denial of the rezoning proposed on land north of
Greenacres Road and proposed instead its use for agricultural purposes as a buffer
between the industrial and residential areas. He referred to the twelve findings
of fact set out in planning commission minutes and said the first four dealing
with desirability of neighborhood commercial were not valid because there already
was commercial zoning south of Greenacres Road. Also, the next six findings
dealing with protection of existing and proposed residential uses against en-
croachment he thought were a violation of regulations. And other findings stating
the proposal would provide adequate low-income housing were not valid because of
the number of existing high-density developments on Belt Line.
Steve Kenney, 1150 Balboa, asked postponement of action until people in the area
had an opportunity to gather and talk about it. He noted his participation in
both county and city planning activities in years past and expressed surprise that
this proposal had come up without any notice. He said there was a Willakertzie
neighborhood association just now forming in the area, and this proposal was the
type of thing that group should discuss.
\9
1/27/75 - 3
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
Manager for purpose of clarification explained the Bar-Bre request for annexation
of property east of the proposed rezoning now under discussion. That annexation
request was based on some understanding that there would be multiple-family or
mobile hom~ development. One reason the annexation request was rejected was be-
cause it would have created an "island" subject to annexation by unilateral action
of the city. It was presumed that the neighborhood organization now being formed
would comprise people from both inside and outside the city who could decide whe-
ther annexation was desired. Manager thought there might be confusion between
that issue and the one now being discussed which had been "in the mill" since the
rezoning proposal ,submitted by Mike Safley and postponed in order to try to develop
a pattern of zoning that would be compatible with the neighborhood and developed
properites to the east and which a number of property owners would find suitable.
Mr. Saul cited code provisions for notice of rezoning and gave details of how those
code provisions were met. He referred to a request that staff comment on rezoning
the property immediately east of Delta Highway to agricultural use and said that
staff would not recommend that action since the property was well within the urban
service area and within the city since at least 1970. He pointed out that if the
General Plan was not imple~ented in that area - community commercial center sur-
rounded by medium density residential use - the options were to amend the Plan to
provide for alternate uses, and if the recommended alternate use was agricultural
it would also carry a contingent recommendation for de-annexation. He added that
even if the city de-annexed the property, it would have to be rezoned by the county
and there was no guarantee that the county would rezone it for agricultural use.
Councilman Murray wondered what opportunity there would be for further review of
impact of industrial noise on the proposed medium density residential development.
Mr. Saul replied that one of the primary reasons for recommending planned unit
development procedures on the property was to assure retention of competent de-
sign architects and acoustical engineers and an opportunity to review the specific
plans. He said there would be public hearings during the PUD review process.
Councilman Bradley asked about the need for more C-l zoning. He wondered if this
rezoning for commercial use would have the effect of creating a regional shopping
center because of available transportation facilities. Mr. Saul answered that the
proposed rezoning for this area was recommended in the light of long-range develop-
ment - an overall plan for the area. He had no specific response with r~gard to
C-l zoning because commercial needs were listed in a much broader framework and not
broken down between C-l, C-2 etc. The attempt in this instance was to provide com-
munity comm~rcial zoning to ensure commercial needs for the nearby residential de-
velopment. The General Plan, he said, encouraged more neighborhood centers to
lessen the need for people having to travel to regional shopping centers.. He added
that the range and uses of C-l would not approximate what would be needed to sustain
a regional center, and the amount of land proposed for commercial use here would not
be adequate for a regional center.
Councilman Bradley then asked whether the credibility of the Willakenzie Interim
Plan would hold in view of its being the basis to a substantial degree for the
General Plan in this area. He wondered whether it might be appropriate to take
another look at the Plan, changes might have occurred justifying an entirely new
analysis of the entire area. Mr. Saul answered that the Willakenzie Plan was as
credible and reliable as any planning document before the Council for adoption.
It was his opinion that there were only a limited number of options for develop-
ment of this property and he felt there were no others that would be any more
desirable than the proposal presented if the area was accepted as being within the
duban service boundary and suitable for urban level development.
1/27/75 - 4
20
(0755)
e
( 08 32)
(0859)
-
(0874)
e
e
Councilman Bradley suggested that rezoning the area a~ this time might be pre-
mature, given the General Plan projectin over the next IS years. He thought
sequential zoning over the next IS years might be preferable. He inquired also
whether the property was within tpe flood plain. Mr. Saul answered that the
hesitancy over rezoning the property was requested by Mr. Safley was because of
the presence of Eugene Sand & Gravel. However, it had been established that
that operation would remain over the period of time covered by the General Plan.
He added that one problem with sequential zoning would be the treatment of prop-
erties on a piecemeal basis rather than development of an overall plan for the
entire area. He said the entire area was designated as a flood hazard area and
site review and planned unit development procedures were recommended require-
ments in order to establish floor elevations as required by the Federal government.
In response to Council members Haws and Shirey, Mayor Anderson explained pro-
cedure of requiring unanimous consent for second reading of a council bill in
order to adopt ordinances at this meeting. Councilman Bradley asked whether
the public hearing would be continued if the issue was carried over. Discussion
and conference with city attorney brought out that the hearing could be con-
tinued. If it was continued to a specific time, city attorney said, notification
requirements had been in compliance with the code and there would be no need for
further notice.
Council Bill No. 712 - Rezoning to C-l PD Tax Lots 1002, 1200, and 1204
north of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway
was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council
member present requesting that it be read in full.
e
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the re-
zoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of
October 28, 1974 and December 17, 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. Lacking unanimous consent - Council members Murray, Keller,
Beal, Williams, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and
Shirey voting no - the bill was held over for second reading.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to continue the public hearing
on C.B.712 to the February 10,1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 713 - Changing Sign District on Lots 1002, 1200, and 1204
north of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway to
Integrated Neighbprhood Shopping was read by council bill number and title
only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the re-
zoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of
October 28, 1974 and December 17, 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:beconsidered at this
time. Lacking unanimous consent - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal,
Williams, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey
voting no - the bill was held over for second reading.
e
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to continue the public hearing on
C.B.713 to the February 10, 1975 Council Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
1/27/75 - 5
'2.'
Council Bill No. 714 - Rezoning to R-2-2.1 PD Limited Multiple Family
Residential (minimum lot 2100 square feet) Tax
Lot 13QO north of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway was read by
counci~ bill number and title only, there being no council members present
requesting that it be read in full.
e
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the re-
zoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of
Octobe~' 28,1974 and December 17, 1974 be adopted by referance 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. Lacking unanimous consent - Council members Murray, Keller Beal,
Williams, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey
voting no - the bill was held over for second reading.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to continue the public hearing on
C.B.714 to the February 10,1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 715 - Rezoning to R-2 PD Tax Lots 1400 and 1500 north of
Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway was read by
council bill number and title only, there being no council members present
requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the rezoning
as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 28, 1974
and December 17, 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. Lacking unanimous
consent, - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, and Hamel voting
aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no - the b111 was held
over for second reading.
e
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to continue the public hearing on
C. B. 715 to the February 10, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 716 - Rezoning to R-2-3.6 PD Limited Multiple Family Resi~
dential (minimum lot 3600 square feet) Tax Lot 1600
north of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway, was read by council bill
number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that
it be read in full. '
Mr. Murray moved ~econded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the rezoning
as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 28, 1974
and December 17, 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. Lacking unanimous
consent - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, and Hamel voting
aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no - the bill was held
over for second reading.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to continue the public hearing on
C.B.7l6 to the February 10, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 717 - Rezoning to C-2 SR Tax Lots 1202, 2000, and portion 2900 ~
(17-03-18) and Tax Lots 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600 .
(17-03-l8-4l) north of Belt Line Road east of Delta Highway and south of
Greenacres Road, was read by council bill number and title only, there being
no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
1/27/75 - 6
--........
22..
.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the rezoning
as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 28, 1974
and December 17, 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. Lacking unanimous
consent - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, and Hamel voting
aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no - the bill was held
over for second reading.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to continue the public hearing on
C.B.717 to the February 10, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 718 - Rezoning to RP-SR Tax Lot 1800 south of Greenacres Road
east of Delta Highway and north of Belt Line Road was
read by council bill number and title only, there beipg no council. member
present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the rezoning
as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 28, 1974
and December 17, 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. Lacking unanimous
consent - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, and Hamel voting
aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no - the bill was held
over for secon~ reading.
e
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to continue the public hearing on
C.B.718 to the February 10, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 719 - Rezoning to RP-SR Tax Lot 1007 north of Belt Line Road
east of Delta Highway and south of Greenacres Road
was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member
present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the rezoning
as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 28, 1974
and December 17, 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. Lacking unanimous
consent - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, and Hamel voting
aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no - the bill was held
over for second reading.
.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to continue the public hearing on
C.B.7l9 to the February 10, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Sign District Change - 400 and 500 blocks between Washington and Lawrence
(Planning Commission) (SDBC 74-6)
e
Sign District Change in 400 and 500 blocks between Washington and Lawrence _
From Residential to Industrial (Planning Commission) (SDBC 74-6)
Maps were distributed with the agenda.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to set public hearing for
the January 27, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm
1/15/75
Pub Hrng
Recommended by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1974. Slides showing
vicinity map and land use map were displayed, and Jim Saul, planner, described
the area now zoned M-2 with less than 50% developed for residential use. He
1/27/75 - 7
23
noted recent Council action changing sign district to Industrial (Scarlett) on
property adjacent to those covered by this recommendation.
No ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared
by Council members other than Councilman Williams stating his intent to'abstain
from discussion or voting on the issue. Staff notes and planning commission
minutes of December 3, 1974 were noted and made a part of the record by
reference thereto.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C.B.720 - Changing Sign District to Industrial on property in the
400 and 500 blocks between Washington Street and Lawrence
Street was read by council bill number and title only, there
being no council member present requesting that it be read
in full.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the sign dis-
trict change as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of
December 3, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto; that the council 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. Lacking unanimous
consent - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey voting
aye; Councilman Bradley voting no; Councilman Williams abstaining - the bill
was held over for second reading.
Councilman Haws wondered whether the Planning Commission had before it at time
of making the recommendation for change to Industrial a letter from the State
Highway Department opposing the sign district change. He asked too whether
the city had an established policy with regard to placing signs on or near its
parks. Manager wasn't familiar with the letter mentioned and said the question
of signs near parks had never been raised before. Mr. Saul said that when this
request was before the Planning Commission, the comment was that the range of
uses allowed under M-2 zoning would have an impact on adjacent park uses far
more serious than could be effected by an industrial sign district. (Note: The
letter mentioned from the State Highway Department opposed the industrial sign
district on the basis that it would have an adverse effect upon the Washington/
Jefferson park.)
C. Code Amendments
1. Parking Requirements for Quad and Quint Developments
Parking Requirements, Quad and Quint Developments - Recommended by the Planning
Commission on December 3, 1974 'which would require two and 'a half parking spaces
per quad living unit and three parking spaces per quint living unit.
Hr., Murray moved seconded by Hr. Keller to set public hearing on the
amendment for Januar!! 27, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimousl!!.
Parking provisions proposed for quad and quint developments were reviewed (see
committee minutes above).
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 721 - Amending Sections 9.254 and 9.586 of City Code
and adding Section 9.587 re: Parking requirements
for quad and quint .developments was read by council bill number and title
only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
1/27/75 - 8
2-1"
.
(1112)
e
(1148)
Comm
1/15/75
Pub Hrng
.
e
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller 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.
Councilman Haws asked what had happened to the proposal that residents of quad
and quint developments having cars would have to rent parking space, those who
didn't would not have to pay for parking space. Manager replied that the Com-
mission questioned the validity of such legislation and decided that even if it
was valid it would be almost impossible to enforce.
Vote was taken on second reading. Motion carried unanimously and the bill
was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting
aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17235.
2. PUD or Site Review Requirements in South Hills above 70l-foot level
PUD or Site Review Requirements, South Hills - Recommended by the Planning
commission on December 3, 1974 adding a section providng a basis for requir-
ing roD or site review procedures on development above the 70l-foot level in
the South Hills.
Comm
1/15/75
Pub Hrng
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Hr. Keller to set public hearing on the
amendment for January 27, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
e
Jim Saul, planner.; explained that this amendment would implement the direction
given in the resolution adopting the South Hills study - that the planning
director review all proposed developments above the 701-foot level in the
South Hills to determine proper procedures for development.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 722 - Adding Section 9.259 to City Code re: PUD or
Site Review requirements in South Hills above
70l-foot level was read by council bill number and title only, there
being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the ~econd
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. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting
,aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17236.
3. Alley Assessments
e
Alley Assessment Ordinance - Copies were distributed to Council members with the
agenda.
Mr. Murray moved seconqed by Mr. Keller to set public hearing on
the ordinance for the January 27,1975 Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
Comm
1/15/75
Pub Hrng
~'5
1/27/75 - 9
Manager explained the proposed amendment recommended by the Council.subcom-
mittee appointed to study asses'sments. The amendment would tend 1;9 reduce the
effect of, the configuration of property as related to the alley and. amount of .
assessment; would make more equitable the 'proportionate cost assessed as re- ..,
lated to zoning, increasing in relation to more intensive use; and would allow
deferral bf part of assessment to the existing owner occupying a dwelling located
in a zone higher than R-l. He read the memo of recommendation submitted by the
subcommittee.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 723 - Adding to City Code Sections 7.270 and 7.275 re:
.. Alley assessments was read by council bill number
and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it
be read in full.
.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller 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.
Councilman Williams wondered about the logic behind the weighting factors used in
determining the assessments against various zones. Councilwoman Beal replied
that the subcommittee felt assessments should be judged according to benefit to
properties abutting the improvement. Too many times, she said, single-family
residences having no benefit from an alley improvement had to bear the same cost
as an apartment house across the alley using it to meet its parking requirements.
Mr. Williams shared Mrs. Beal's concerns but said he didn't understand the reason-
ing behind assessing, say, a corner grocery store five times the amount assessed
against an apartment building. He asked why the cost wasn't assessed against
those petitioning an improvement if benefit was the concern. Mrs. Beal thought
the costs were weighted as they were because of the type of traffic a grocery
store would generate - delivery trucks, etc. Don Alle~public works director,
said'it was his understanding the weighting factors were predicated on the
intensity of land use - that is, starting from the highest and best use of R-l
with a factor of one, progressing through commercial and industrial uses which
far exceeded the use of residential zones. The subcommittee accepted that reason-
ing and unanimously recommended. that basis.
Councilman Murray commented that most schedules could be debated or argued trying
to equate the specifics. He thought it was logical to assume that commercial
uses involving to-and-from traffic plus expanded hours would have a grater benefit
from the improvement. He said he had long supported the intent of the amendment
and would continue to favor it. Manager added that because of the wide variation
of uses in the different zoning categories it would seem logical to generalize
in trying to "arrive at a happy medium." .
Vote was taken on the motion for second reading. Lacking unanimous
consent - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Bradley, Haws, and
Shirey voting aye; Council members Williams and Hamel voting no -
the bill was held over for second reading.
D. Appeal - Denial of Used Merchandise Dealer's License - George's Garage, .341 VanBuren.
Manager explained the appeal was submitted by George Stathkis because of denial of
his business license. Most Council members previously viewed the site on tour.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
1/27/75 - 10
2.fo
(1216)
(1280)
It
(1334 )
(1360)
e
(1372)
--
(1398)
(1415)
(1436)
e
(1505 )
-
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to deny the appeal.
Councilman Bradley wondered if it was inappropriate for him to participate in
the decision since he had not attended the tour. Mayor Anderson responded that
since the issue did not come under Fasano regulations it would be a matter for
Mr. Bradley's own determination.
Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, explained the issue - that the
ordinance was changed to permit the second hand dealers use in an industrial
district, then when Mr. Stathakis applied for a dealers license it was denied
because of signs he had erected in violation of the sign code. The main identity
sign for the operation would be permitted. but other miscellaneous signs would
not be permitted under code provisions. Mr. Nolte said that in contact today,
Mr. Stathakis had applied for a permit for the main identity sign and had agreed
to remove the others.
Councilwoman Beal thought if no action was taken by the Council, Mr. Stathakis
still would not have his license but might be able to return and apply for it
again. Mr. Murray had no objection to postponing action but was not aware that
the applicant had requested postponement. He said the license had been denied
once already and the issue had gone on for some time prior to coming to the
Council. Manager thought taking no action would leave the issue in limbo.
Denial by the Council would in effect continue denial of the license and also
would be an instruction for disposition of the issue at the staff level.
Councilman Murray commented on the remarkable operation Mr. Stathakis had es-
tablished and its interesting contribution to that neighborhood. However, he
felt with the sign ordinance "under fire" from some quarters it would seem in-
appropriate to make an exception in this jnstance.
Councilman Bradley thought perhaps postponement would be best. Perhaps more
information was needed, or there might be some reason for the appellant's absence.
Councilman Haws asked if the appellant could apply again for alicense after two
or three weeks if the license was denied. Manager answered that the appellant
had been contacted and was well aware of the hearing at this time. He added
that regardless of whether the Council denied the license, the administration
had the responsibility of pursuing the issue to get conformance with the sign
code. Unless the Council proposed to amend the sign code to allow the various
outdoor displays at Mr. Stathakis' operation there was no choice but to enforce
the code, and using the license denial was perhaps a more humane and less costly
way of trying to get.compliance than court procedure. He said that Mr. Stathakis
could seek a license at any time if it was denied at this meeting, and it would
be issued if there was no reason not to.
There was general concurrence that the issue should be disposed of, that inaction
on the part of the appellant was perhaps not the best way to handle the situation.
Mr. Bradley asked if there was a code provision for suspension of business licenses
for violation of the sign code. Mr. Nolte replied that there were two sections
having to do with licensing that required compliance to the code prior to issuance
of a business license.
Vote was taken on the motion to deny the appeal. Motion carried
unanimously.
1/27/75 - 11
2,..,
E. Bids - Public Works Department
WillagillE~spie Sewer - Bid opening January 14, 1975
.Narn~ of Bldde~ and Project
Contract 'Cost
Cost to
Abutting Prop,
-
SANITARY SEWER:
1. To serve the 'Will ag1 U esp~ e-Russet anrrexation
area between GOodji'lsture";sra~Road-on'N7,
Norkenzie Road on E., Country Club Road on
S.. and Delta Highway on W. (11 09)'
" " ',",
1. Wildi.sh CO!1struction Company. .,.............. .$183,243.50......................$ .D.1D/sq. ft. Lat..........
2. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction.Company......$199,791.25 $ 0.005/sq.ft. Trunk Levy
3. Wick ,Bros..... .. . ... .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .... . $246;497 :82' $417. OO/ea-. Servi ce Line'
4. Shur-Way Contracto,"s, I nc. . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. $254,197.50
5. H & J Construct1on...........................$266.181.00
6. Oregon Construction Co., Inc......:....:.....$277.018.4D. Amount
7. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc........;.......$324,.985.70 Cost to CitY' Budgeted
COMPLETION DATE: October 31,1975
.. ....... .0..... ......... ....0
Don Allen, public works director, reviewed the bids. Award of contract was
recommended to Wildish, Construction on their low bid price of $183,243.50.
Mr. Allen also noted about 150 notices sent to individual property owners with
regard to public hearing at this time.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to award contract to,
Wildish Construction Company as recommended. Rollcall vote.
All council members present voting aye, motion carried.
II - Items acted upon, with on motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
Previously discussed in committee on January 15 and 22, 1975.
A. IJppointments
1. Sign Code Board of Appeals recommended by Mayor Anderson:
Robert Anderson, 870 ~ariat Drive, term ending January 1, 1978.
Mary Glass (Mrs. Robert), 2186 university Street, term ending January 1, 1978,'
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to confirm the reappoint-
ments as recommended. Motion carried unanimously.
e
(1519)
2. Budget. Committep - Councilman Bradley announced withdrawal of his recommenda-
tion of Sally Smith, Ward 1, rather than pursuing amendment of bylaws or
waiver of requirement that would permit her to serve. Mrs. Smith now lives
in Ward 2.
Councilman Haws recommended appointment of Ray Bradshaw, 3577 Hawthorne
Street, from Ward 6'for th~ term ending December 31, 1977.
Councilman Keller recommended appointment' of Dr. Boyd Engelcke, 2164 University
Street, from Ward 2 for the balance of the term ending December 31, 1976, re-
p1acin~ Myron Bagley, resigned.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the recommended
appointments. Motion c~rried ,unanimously.
Comm
1/15/75
Approve
.
Councilwoman Shirey recommended reappointment of Mary Hudzikievicz,
1915 West 28th Avenue, from Ward 8 for the term ending December 31, 1977.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the reappoint-
ment as recommended. Motion carried unanimously.
e
,r. Planning Commission - Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to reappoi~t
Howard Bonnett, 1919 Woodlawn Avenue, as a member of the Planning commission
Eor the term ending January 1, 1979. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Joint parks Committee - Mayor Anderson named Councilman Ray Bradley replac-
ing former Councilwoman Beth Campbell.
1/27/75 - 12
2f>
e
B. Speed Zone Evaluations - Copies of report previously distributed to Council members
showed existing speeds on various streets in the city as well as speeds at' which
85% and 50% o'f autos were actually driven.' Manager explained arrangement wit,h t1!e~
State Speed Control Board whereby the city would.do preliminary investigation, the
results of which would then be transmitted to the State for review and determination'
of speeds to be designated.
Councilman Murray asked why the 85 percentile was assumed to be a safe speed. .He
wondered why, if the 85 percentile was the test of safety, the posted speed~"were
not lowered when the 85 percentile indicated a lower speed on Highway 99N froin
Fairfield to Empire - posted at 50 mph, driven at 45 (85%) and 40 mph (50%).
Don Allen, public works director, explained that tests had shown on a national
basis that 85% of t~e peaRle qrive in a safe manner according to road 'conditions.
The 50 percentile was listed for purpose of comparison. With regard, to HighwaV 99N,
he said, the 50 mph was more or less the standard posting for that type of facility;
it could be brought to the State's attention, but he felt the State would answer
that it was a majorhJghway which normally would not be posted less than 50 mph.
Councilman Haws 'ilskcd if transmittill to the' State of "the s/,ceds listed would mean
the State woula'change tbJ-~ ,signs ilnd speed!; according]'!.' 'Mr. Allcn explained the'
lengthy process whereby the .C;tiJte investigated those stIL'ct.'; transmi tted for 'con-
sideration after which it 5c't I'ile spec'ds. The city r(,c('iVf;~ formal notice of any"
changes in the posted speeds and is given cl chalice to respond before the changes
are made. However, the State Speed Control Board has, the ,final authority on all
posted speed changes.
e
. .
Councilm.Jn Bradley wondered if conscrvct:ion of fuel should be taken into account in
consideration of increasin<[ allOlo/able speeds, whether the national energy conserva-
tion policy should be considered. Mr. Allen responded that the puhlic's awareness
of the conservation policy and the tendency to reduce speeds accordingly would
more or less compensate for that factor. Councilman Williams commented that in the
30/40 mph ranqe con::idcrcd for most of the slreets ,I isted tlJere would pr"obably not,
be significant difference in fuel consumption. Manager added that it is generally
felt that people will drive at what thi!Y consider a safe speed regardless oE
speeds posted.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to forward,for State Speed
Control Board evaludtion thOse streets listed with 85 percentile
of 10 mph fa..'ter than 'posted speeds, and include lIigJ-lIo/ay 99N [rom
Fairfield to E::rnpil'<-' flOW po:<;ted 50 mph with 85 JX~l'centile drivi~g at
45 mph. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Sale, Mahala Drive Right -of-wa,;L - Cop'ies of map showing 'strip of Mahala Drive
right-oE-way at West Hillside Drive were previously distributed to Council members.
The owner of abutting property, Robert F. Sorenson, 4930 West Hillside Drive,
offered $1200 for the 30'x2l2' strip on which $1970.82 assessT(lent for improveme~t
of Mahala Drive was deferred because private property did not abut the street.
It was noted that if Mr'. Sorenson acquired the :5trip of laJ?d he could combine it
with two lots abutting the strip a~? a third in his ownership for subdivision.
StaEf recommended sale as presented."
Councilman Wi lliams wondered if subdivision wou']d be required as a condition of
collecting the deferred assessment. Manager said it was not but if the property
was subdivided Mr. Sorenson would have to initiate it. Public Works Director
added that Mr. Sorenson did want assurance that a minor subdivisio~ would be per-
mitted if he purchased the strip of land.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to authorize the sale Ear
$1200. Motion carried unanimously.
e
1/27/75,- 13
2.9
Comm
1,'15/75
Approve
Conun
1/15/75
Approve
D. Annexation, property north of Holly and west.of Gilham (Tax Lots 202,205,207,300,
500:- Map 17-03-17-2 3) (Bar-Bre Smith) (A 74-5)
Maps of the area were distributed with ag~nda. Planning Commission on November 12,
1974 recommended denial of the annexation on the. basis that it would create an
"is1and" outside 'the city and people in that area are not in favor of annexing.
Man/:tger explained that if Council upheld the Commission in denial of the annexa-
tion, the matter would die at this point; if. the Council reversed the Commission,
then the petition WOuld be transmitted to ~he Bound~ry Commission for resolution.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to uphold the Planning Commission
and deny the annexation. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm .
1/15/75
Approve
Doug Larkins, West Coast Realty, representing the applicant for the annexation,
noted the petition had been before the Planning Commission and Council previa-~-
ly and denied. He said that denial at this time would create hardship for
more than just his client. He noted and commented on staff reasons on
which the recommendation for denial was based, one being the need for ex-
tension of city services to the area. He recognized that there would be
costs involved in extending sewers to serve the area. However, he said
there were already curbs and gutters so there was no reason for that type
of improvement. With regard to staff's statement that the annexation would
create an island, he said it already was an island, but that it was within
the urban service area anG included in the General Plan. They were not pro-
posing a density higher than R-l, he said, and all services were available
except sewers. He reEinded the Council that, even though a smaller island
would be created, extension of sewers at this time would be less costly
to those people than it would be later in view of the rapidly increasing im-
provement costs. Crossing county property with construction of a trunk
sewer ~o serve this area, he said, would not set pr~cedent since that was
true of service to Gilham School. He felt it logical to annex this area
since it already had residential development; commercial and high density
areas were not proposed.
Evelyn McKenzie, 4682 Scenic Drive, asked whether the subject property was
the only 'land that was being considered for annexation at this time. Manager
explained that the annexation requested was concerned with four different
Tax lots at the west end of Gilham Road extending to existing city limi~s
north of Balboa Street. Hs . McKenzie was in favor of the annexation since
it would afford the opportunity to use existing sewer services for property
in her ownership.
Steve Kenney, 1150 Balboa Street, urged denial of the annexation. He felt
the planning staff notes had presented a good analysis of the situation in
that neighborhood. Larrie Prociw, 123 Holly, and Walter Sands, 1121 Balbo~"
were opposed to the annexation because of the opposition of the residents
of the area represented by petition previously presented.
Mr. Larkins said there was a lack of understanding of city procedure in the
area where residents were opposing the annexation. He said they would have
to carry the burden of the 1/2~ per square foot charge for the trunk sewer
traversing county property and in effect could be utilizing the services of
that trunk line now. Don Allen, director of public works, made it clear
that the charge would not be assessed until the property was annexed 'to the
city. Mr. Larkins continued that other services were available and denial of
annexation would postpone what people in that area were looking forward to.
Ms. McKenzie noted that her property was between Holly Street and the prop-
erty now being considered for annexation. She thought it should be included
in the,; annexation because she would be unable to have it developed until it
1/27/75 - 14
'30
e
(1540)
e
e
(1712)
e
(1742 )
e
e
was in the city. Also, annexation to the city would provide orderly develop-
ment of the entire area.
Mr. Prociw said that contrary to the impression given by Mr. Larkins, people
in the area were fully aware of the services that were available. They were
also aware that if this annexation was completed the city could annex the
island area without their having a voice. They would annex when they were
ready, he said, but did not want to be forced into it.
In response to Councilman Bradley, Manager said that other than fire protection
now being provided through contract with the fire district there were no city
services provided to the island area.
E.
Wrecker or Salvage Pool License submitted by David Edward Jesse1 for hauling
junked cars from 1075 West 7th to Eugene Salvage.
Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Keller to recommend approval of
the ,license. Motion carrie~ unanimously.
F. Appointments
1. Metropolitan Sewer Commission - Councilman Keller appointed by Mayor Anderson
to replace former Councilman Hershner.
2. Joint Housing Committee - Councilman Bradley appointed by Mayor Anderson
to replace former Councilwoman Campbell.
3. Budget Committee - Councilman Bradley recommended appointment or former
Councilwoman Beth Campbell, Ward 1, as a member of the Budget Committee for
the term ending December 31, 1977.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the appoint-
ment as recommended. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority - Confirmation of reappointment of
Eugene's representatives or replacement was requested. Manager noted
Mr. Keller's appointment as the city's representative on the Metropolitan
Sewer Commission. Also, that he and Councilwoman Beal, the other city's
representative on LRAPA, would be about the only members of that agency with
experience since a shift in membership and new appointments.
Councilwoman Beal verified new makeup of the Authority. She said that she
had served for two years as chairman and would appreciate Mr. Keller's taking
over that position, noting that activities of the group did not take as much
time now as it had in the past.
Hr. H~rray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to reappoint Council
Members Bea2 and Keller as the city's representatives on LRAPA.
Motion carried unanimously.
G. Report, Legislative Committee - Councilwoman Beal read rc,~rts setting out
procedures established for conduct of 'the Council legislative' slllJcommittee
and recommendations on legislation to date, copies of which were dist~ibuted
to Council members. The subcommittee recommended endorsement of (1) manda-
tory fiscal impact statements on legislative measures, (2) state payments in
lieu of taxes, (3) decriminalization of state building code, and (4) removal
of jury panel limitations. The subcommdttee also suggested that staff be
requested to work with the city attorney's office ~n co~pi1ing suggestions
for legislation which would clarify procedures required by the Fasano deci-
sion in making land use decisions and bring recommendations back to the
Council for consideration:
Hrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the recommended
endorsements.
1/27/75 - 15
31
Carom
1/15/75
Approve
Carom
1/22/75
Approve
Comm.
1/22/75
Approve
Councilman Bradley asked with regard to subcommittee proc~dures whether .
recommendations of the subcommittee forwarded to the comm~ttee-of-the-whol~
would be acted upon at that time or placed on the consent calendar for act~on
at the following formal Council meeting. Mrs. Beal answered,that because of
time pressures in some instances the Council, in fairly rout~ne .matter~ hav-
ing unanimous decision of the subcommittee, should back up test~mony g~~en.
However, discussion could take place at the committee-of-the-whole meet~ng,
then the item would be on the consent calendar where there would be oppor-
tunity also for discussion if desired.
Manager explained that there could be a two-and-a-half-~eek ~ag between
'committee considerat:ion and an official meeting, so actH:~n ,m~ght h~ve to be
'taken in Salem before an item could be handled at an off~c~al meet~ng of the
Council. He suggest that Council members should express serious concerns at
committee-of-the-whole meetings and a judgment made at that time whether the
city's representatives in Salem could state a position.
Counciiman Williams called attention of new Council members to recent revision
of the city's policy on presenting testimony at the Legislatu~e which,pro-
vided that testimony presented would be approved by the Counc~l, bU~ ~n t~e
event time element prevented Council action, the city manager, or h~s des~gnee,
was specifically authorized to speak for the city.
Vote was taken on the motion to approve the recommended endorse-
ments. Motion carried unanimously.
H. Code Amendment, Curb'cuts - Recommended by the Planning Commission on December 16,
1974. The amendment would revise the code rdth regard to driveway and curb cut
dimensions, locations, and maximum number per ownership; processing of driveway
and curb cut applications in conjunction with commercial and industrial uses and
on specially designated streets and thoroughfares; revocation procedures; and re-
lated amendments, inCluding approval of the map entitled "City of Eugene - Major
Streets Requiring Special Driveway Approach Control." Copies of the December 16,
1974 Planning Commission minutes and the street map were previously distributed to
Council members. '
.'
Gary Chenkin, assistant planning director, reviewed specifics of the changes pro-
posed as set out in the Planning Commission minutes.
Councilman Murray expressed concern about the possibility of property owners on
primarily residential streets being required to widen driveways. He Wondered'if
the new requirements would be applied oniy tp permits for new curb cuts. Mr.Ch~nkin
answered that they would. There could be exceptions, he said, where existing con-
ditions proved hazardous; 'that would depend upon individual streets. However, in
such instances the,situation would have careful review of the traffic engineer and
that review would be based on criteria spelled out in the regulations.
Councilman Williams wondered why the question was raised. He didn't read the pro-
posal as making obiigatory a wider curb cut. Mr. Chenkin said that was true un-
less there was a reason for overcoming a specific hazard such as the need to get
traffic from a high-speed lane into a driveway. But in that type situation the
traffic engineer would review. He added that there was provision for. appeal of the
traffic engineer's decision to the ci ty manager, and again there was specific cri-
teria on which to base decisions.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to schedule public hearing
on the proposed amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
I. City Position on Legislation re: Mobile Homes - Recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion December 23, 1974. Copies of Planning Commission minutes setting out positions
on mobile home legislation as suggested by Betty Niven, member of the Joint Housing
Commi ttee, were previou[Jly distributed to Council members. The recommendations
were that (1) new language should be added to t,he landlord-tenant law to define
the rights of mobile home owners in rented spaces, (2) state law should be amended
1/27/75 - 16
32
.
e
Comm
1/22/75
Approve
e
e
to include "any city council" in prov~s~ons for contracts with the State Health
Division to carry out inspection of sanitary installations in mobile 'home parks,
~3) there ~hould be state,requirement to permanently affix in a consPfcuous place
1n all mob~le homes sold 1n Oregon the instructions for critical mobile home
maintenance items, and (4) if,legislation which appears reasonable is introduced
to protect mobile home consumers through "expressed" warranties, rather than
"implied" warranties, the city should lend its support to that legislation.
The Commission in making the recommendations stated they were not for proposals
t~ be' forwarded to the legislature but rather as they related to the city's posi-
t~on when these matters were introduced in the Legislature. Also, the Commission
felt that a distinction between mobile home tenants and other tenants may yet be
necessary in view of the sizable expense involved in removing mobile homes from
rented spaces.
Staff suggested referral of the recommendations to the Council legiSlative subcom-
mittee. Councilwoman Beal asked for planning staff to be present at the subcom-
mi ttee meeting, if referral was made, when the matter was considered.
Councilman Williams commented that it might be worthwhile to check the subject
with Representative David Frohnmayer's staff prior to proceeding since there had
been some mention of legislation now being drafted which would remove all control
with regard to mobile homes from local jurisdictions.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray to refer the Commission recom-
mendations to the Council legislative subcommUttee and ask that planning
staff be available to meet with the subcommittee in its deliberations.
Motion carried unanimously.
Comm
1/22/75
Approve
e
Councilwoman Beal asked Council authorization for Betty Niven, member of Joint
Housing Committee, to testify on legislation Tuesday, January 28, on behalf of the
city with regard to mobile home legislation. Mrs. Niven was interested in testi-
fying and asked city support of two mobile home bills, both of which would give
rights to mobile home tenants.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize representatives
of the Planning Commission and staff to testify in favor of mobile home
landlord/tenant bills and other immediately pressing bills in legislative
hearings this week.
e
Councilman Williams thought the Council had made a more or less tentative commit-
ment that when the legislative subcommittee decided unanimously upon testimony
to be given, that testimony was authorized without bringing it to the Council for
formal action. He thought if that policy was not followed there would be times
when hearings occurred. before there was opportunity for the Council as a whole
to take action and the city's position would not be stated. He said the subcom-
mittee's action could always be reversed by the Council if there was controversial
legislation under consideration, but to delay the city's testimony on noncon-
troversial items could result in the city's position not being stated at all.
Councilwoman Beal stated her agreement with that position. Councilman Bradley
said he could not support that position because it had the effect of centralizing
power in the legislative subcommittee which did not constitute a quorum of the
Council. He said it would not reflect the thinking of the Council as a body and
more harm could be done in the long run. In this instance, he said, Mrs. Niven
would 'be representing the Council without the Council's being aware of what the
position would be. Mrs. Beal read a portion of the proposed legislation having
to do with rights of tenants and landlord responsibilities as they relate to
mobile home occupancy - sales, unreasonable increases in rent, unreasonable con-
tracts. etc.
Vote was taken on the motion as state. Motion carried unanimously.
1/27/75 - 17
3'3
J. Vacation of public utility easement west from Golden Gardens Street north of
Burnett Street (VanDevender)(EV 74-10)
Rec.ommended by the planning Commission on December 23, 1974. Maps were previously
distributed to Council members.
Hr. Hurray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to call public hearing on
the vaqation (March 10, 1975)~ Motion oarried unanimously.
K. united Nations Flag - Request to fly the UN Flag at Ci,ty Hall every day was re-
cei.ved from Thomas D. Halferty, 309 East 50th Avenue. He felt there would be no
ex~ense involved since it was his understanding the city had a UN Flag in storage.
In answer to Councilman Williams inquiry as to whether a pole was available, Manager
said the flag could be flown on one of the two now in place below either the U.S.
or Oregon flag. Mayor Anderson suggested referral to the International Co-operation
Committee.
Hrs. Seal moved seconded by Hr. Williams to refer the request as sug-
gested. Notion carried unanimousiy:
L. Condemnation, 29th and Wil'lamette 'intersection 'Improvement - Council was asked to
adopt a resolution at its January 27 meeting which would authorize initiation of
condemnation proceedings for properties necessary to the widening and improvement
of the 29th and Wi1lamette intersection. Manager explained that the resolution
was necessary as a part of new procedures required by changes in state law before
negotiat!ons for'property can proceed and would not actually initiate condemnation.
Don Allen, director of public works, explained that informal negotiations have
been carried on to acquire right-of-way for the project for which funds have already
been budgeted. Changes in state law require a "lead time" of 73 days to acquire
property and in order for the project to be constructed this summer "meaningful
negotiations" authorized by resolution would have to be started now. Some of the
property has been acquired from willing sellers, he said, and there is no inten-
tion of going straight to condemnation on others. However, because of the time
element, adoption of the resolution is necessary should negotiations on any not
prove successful.
Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained that under past regulations possession
could be delayed until a month or two before properfy was needed. Then if nego-
tiations broke down a suit could be filed allowing possession for'the project to
proceed. Now a resolution authorizing negotiation is required before condemnation
to give possession.
At~.Mayor Anderson's suggestion, Mr. Allen described the project - changing the
present two-lane facility to four-lane 'to permit protected left turns, and a
complete 'change, of the signal system. He said that many planning studies to the
south were predictated on improvement of the intersection and the project had
been approved by both the Planning Commission and the Council. Funds were budgeted
from a street program bond issue and county highway funds; no direct assessments
to abutting properties would be made for the work.
In response to Councilman Haws'request for explanation of the left-turn status at
the intersection, Mr. Allen said he would review it with the aid of maps or take
Mr. Haws to look at it on site'~
Councilman Bradley noted recent editorial in the Register-Guard expressing concern
about the 29th and Willamette intersection and wo~dered if tbe paper should be
made aware of the city's plans. Don Floyd, Register-Guard reporter, was expected
to carry the message, although he commented that the editors ,had not talked to him
before writing the article.
It was understoOd the resolution would be presented for adoption at
the January 17 Council meeting.
1/27/75 ,_ ]8
'34
--
Comrn
1/22/75
Approve
Comm
1/22/75
Approve
e
Comrn
1/22/75
Approve
-
L. Council Legislative Subcommittee appointed by Mayor - Councilwoman Beal, chairman,
and Councilmen Williams and Haws.
e
M. Procedure for Filling Council Vacancies - Mayor Anderson suggested a Charter
change to provide for filling Council vacancies by special election rather than
by vote of the remaining council members. Lacking objections, he said, he would
'ask staff to prepare a document as a basis for Charter revision to be brought to
the Council for consideration. He thought that since the city wards now number
eight instead of four, the cost of campaigning would not be prohibitive.
Councilman Haws wondered if other aspects of the election process could be con-
sidered at the same time. He was interested in a limitation on campaign spend-
ing. Mr. AnderSOn answered that the process for filling Council vacancies,
would entail a Charter revision whereas other election processes could be handled
by ordinance. He liked the idea of limitation on spending and added that it
might also be advisable to consider primary elections for Council members.
He said the number interested in serving as evidenced by those applying for
the recent vacancy in Ward 8 seemed to be increasing and could resul t in a per-
son's being elected by a very small plurality. He suggested turning concerns
of that nature over to a Council subconunlttee for development of an ordinance.
e
In response to question from Counilman Haws whether EWEB elections would be
affected, Manager said it would depend upon the wording of the measure. Hayor
Anderson said it could be checked out in staff research which was being requested
now, before subcommittee consideration. CQuncilwoman Beal thought EWEB might
want to join in. And she thought it would be better to have subcommittee con-
sideration before staff work was done. Councilman Murray strongly supported
filling Council vacancies by election, but he expressed reservations about con-
ducting a primary election. Councilman Hamel thought referral of the matter to
staff for preparation of a document on which to base discussion was the proper
action.
There were no objections and it was understood staff would be asked'
to draft a Charter amendment to provide for filling Council vacancies
by election, after which a Council subcommittee would be appointed to
consider the measure as well as look at other election procedures.
O. Orientation Session, Council - Set for Thursday, February 6, 1975, at 7:30 p.m.
in the McNutt Room (since changed to Council Office 1/2 because of conflict).
P. 'Edna Shirey, new Council member representing Ward 8, was welcomed by Mayor Andersol.
She was chosen by the Council to replace Robert Wood, resigned, for the balance
of the term ending January J, 1977.
Council President Murray commented on the high caliber of candidates and the
number (12) applying for the position. He also called attention to the previous
Council service of H. C. McDonald who applied for the posi~ion in Ward 8, saying
that the selection of someone else was in no way intended to ignore the service
of Mr. McDonald or fail to give him the recognition and appreciation he deserued.
Q. Metropolitan Sewer Commission vacancy was noted and appointment requested
to replace former Councilman James Hershner.
~
R. Community Development Task Force questionnaire published in local newspapers was
noted by Councilman Murray with the announcement that over 300 had been returned.
Questionnaires also were distributed through community centers and neighborhood
groups, he said, and were to be returned by January 24. Mr. Murray called atten-
tion to hearing this evening (January 15) in the Council Chamber where work of
the Task Force would be explained and suggestions received from citizens with
regard to allocation of community development funds.
~s
1/27/75 - 19
Conun
1/15/75
Affirm
Comm
1/22/75
Affirm
Conun
1/15/75
File
Comm
1/15/75
File
Conun
1/15/75
File
COnull
1/15/75
File
S.Growtn StoUd!l - Councilwoman Beal inquired about the status of the growth study
referred to LCOG for report on dimensions al1d cost of such a study. Councilman
Williams, member of the LCOG subcommittee considering the request for a growth
study" reported makeup eX the subcommi ttee and said it was a good representation
of people concerned with growth of the metropolitan area. He said the majority
of the' subcommittee was of the opinion that for Eugene to conduct a study of this
nature on its own would be a grave error, that any such study should involve the
entire metropolitan area, and that attitudes of the County and Springfield as
well a~ other nearby governmental agencies should be known first. He was doubt-
ful tnat the work of the subcommittee would be completed hI} the original target
date of January 24. John Porter, planning director, added that a preliminary
budget for the work was scheduled for consideration of the I~OG Board at its
January 16 meeting after which a report would be returned to the member agencies.
T. Affirmative Action re: Females - Councilwoman Beal asked when the report she
previcusly requested on the city's affirmative action program with regard to
women would be submi tted. On being informed that a report was being prepared
in the personnel department based on a questionnaire distributed to women work-
ing for the city, Mrs. Beal wondered why that report was being prepared by per-
sonnel rather than Ms. Merck, the city's human rights officer for women. She
said she would like to have a report from Ms: Merck similar to one previously
submitted by Lew Peters, minority relations officer, speaking abOut accomplish-
ments of his office, a report giving Ms. Merck's overview of the city's position
at this time.
Manager explained that responsibility for the affirmative action program for the
ci ty lies wi th the personnel department, that Merck and Peters were responsible,
for working with personnel in implementation and direction of the affirmative
action program. However, their responsibility is primarily with the community,
developing programs with all employers of the city rather than just the city
organization itself. He said the questionnaire on which the personnel report
would ,be based was developed by Ms. Merck and that she was doing the followup
on actual work, but co-ordination of the total program was under persollnel be-
cause it was a personnel function. He added that Ms. Merck reported directly
to the manager's office, not personnel, so in order to keep the total affirmative
action program moving as a unit the administrative decision was to make it a
functipn of personnel. In response to Mrs. Beal's statement that Ms. Merck then
was doing the clerical work, Manager resonded that was not the case. Ms.Merck
designed the questionnaire in co-operation with personnel, but that was only one
portion of the city's affirmative action program. Ms. Merck was also working
with personnel, he said, in the areas of career development for women, salary
rates, etc., but personnel was responsible for making affirmative action reports,
gene~al supervision of the program, and recommending measures as necessary, to
keep the program moving - much more than just Merck's or Peters' portion of it.
Mrs. Beal wondered if Ms. Merck was prepared to make any report on her work with
regard to status of, employment of women in the city or in the private sector.
Gary Long, personnel director, explained that Ms. Merck's research work was being
done to collect data on which to base efforts in working with other employers.
He said that portion should be completed and a report ready possibly by March 1.
Assistant Manager added that in addition to the time spent on the questionnaire,
Ms. Merck had been working on complaints involving sex discrimination, bringing
them to the Human Rights Commission, and working with private employers in the
city as well as with the city. The key to developing a program with regard to
problems involving women within the city, he said, was the questionnaire which
was being tabulated at this time.
Mrs. Beal suggested that the report to be submitted should have the same format
as that which was originally submitted based on the Human Rights Commission re-
search project to give the opportunity for comparison. It was felt comparable
formats could be made available.
U. "Return of the Plague" an article appearing in Janu~ry 13,1975 issue of Time
was noted by Councilman Haws wherein Eugene, Oregon was mentioned as one of the
examples of smaller cities having rising incidence of addiction and heroin-related
crime. He wondered if the Council should be concerned. Mayor Anderson 'suggested
a rePDr:t from the police department might be of interest.
1/27/75 - 20
'3(0
.
Comm
1/15/75
File
Comm
1/15/75
File
e
Cornm
1/15/75
File
'./
.
v. Purchase, Eugene P~dicab - Council was advised of proposal from William R. Davenport
for city purchase and operation of Eugene Pedicab service operated during the summer
ofl974. The sale would include eight pedicabs plus parts for $7000. Staff evalua-
tion indicated that although the pedicabs were a valuable and colorful transporta-
tion service, the 1974 operation was too limited in time to test the potential for
the service. Also, it was doubtful the service would be self-supporting. Re-
ferral to the budget committee was recommended if Council was interested in assum-
ing the service. Staff felt the city was not in position financially to assume the
operation as a service subsidized by the public and recommended against pursuing
the matter further or spending staff time on it.
Councilman Murray expressed interest in proposing to Mr. Davenport the purchase of
less than the eight vehicles or perhaps a lease/option arrangement for acquiring
the service without extensive staff involvement in the process. Mayor Anderson
questioned whether the city should become involved in transportation saying it
, might be a desirable proposition for the Eugene Downtown Association or even the
Transit District. Consideration of the purchase, he said, would be inconsistent
with the current budget climate and go!ng into the budgeting process with the idea
of starting no new programs.
Councilman Williams agreed and said the operating cost would probably be the major
item to consider in view of Manager's statement that a review of the Pedicab brief
operation showed earnings somewhat less than half of operating costs not taking
into account amortization of equipment.
Councilwoman Beal thought that if EDA were interested in lOOking at the proposal the
city might suggest that they 'consider using it for package delivery as well as trans-
portation. Manager suggested that if the Council felt the city should not become
involved Mr. Davenport would be the one to contact EDA or the Transit District
rather than the city.
Camm
1/15/75
File
e
Consensus was that the city should not become involved; no action
",as taken.
w.
FLSA Lawsuit, NLC - Manager distributed to Council copies of National Public Em-
ployer Labor Relations Association bulletin concerning stay ofenforc~ment of
1974 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The bUlletin related current
status of challenge filed by the National League of Cities - preliminary injunction
.refused by a district court on basis of a Supreme Court decision which appeared to
be to the contrary; subsequent motion to Chief Justice Burger. Justice Burger's
statement granting the stay was read in which he said the brevity of time available
to the district court and to him as circuit justice made it inappropriate to take
final action in view of the pervasive impact of the judgment upon every c;ity and
county in the nation and novelty of legal questions raised. Manager said it was
his understanding that the NLC intended now to pursue the suit to conclusion with
the Supreme Court. He said staff concern was not with the question of mlnimumwage
but with the constitutional question of personnel practices mandated b~ the Federal
government. Staff felt everything possible should be done to retain the city's
authority to manage its own affairs without interference from the Federal govern-
ment, inclUding bargaining with the city's employe groups. He suggested'some
financial support to the,NLC in its pursuit of the issue.
.
Frank Jackson, president of Fire Fighters Local 851, and Carol Houston, president
of AFSCME local, spoke in opposition to the city's involvement in the lawsuit.
Mr. Jackson said such involvement would put the union in the position of consider-
ing the Council an adversary employer. He said any employe benefits resulting from
the FLSA would ultimately come back to the bargaining table. Also, that the city
had the opportunity for representation at the time of consideration of the law in
, the Con~ress and that the law should be allowed to stand as wri tten. Hs.Houston
said the AFSCHE local would go on record in opposition to the city's position,
that the law was sponsored and supported by organized labor, and that although
local employes had not been affected, public employes in other areas would be.
Bill Nidever, chairman of the Eugene Police Patrolmen's bargaining committee,
expressed support of the city's position. He commented on the negative aspects
of the Act so far as the police were concerned, especially in the areas of train-
ing, overtime pay in place of compensatory time off, hours required to work and
resulting expense to the community.
31
1/27/75 -. 21
Councilman Williams wondered why AFSCME members felt they were not affected by
the Act, and why they felt it was in their interest to involve themselves in sup-
port of,;employes in other jurisdictions. Bill Fritz, state representative of
AFSCME,.. replied that the local was a part of an international union and although
there had been no negative effects on local city employes, any challenge by NLC
supported by the city could have negative effects in other parts of the country,
and it was that aoncern local employes were supporting as the primary position of
the union.
It
..
Mayor Anderson felt there was not a great difference of opinion between the Council,
administration, and employes. He saw the NLC suit as trying to clarify judicially
a law passed, by Congress and he felt that would be of benefit; to all. He thought
too that strong opposition should be presented to any mandated legislation affecting
operations and financing of.local governments, saying this Act appeared to be a
"foot in the door." He respected employe concern with conditions in other parts
of the country but thought that if those concerns were critical Congress would
respond. The Mayor said the Council as a representative of its constituency had
somewhat,of a manage~nt.role in attempting to protect the rights of the people
from whom the resources would develop to pay any bills'resulting from the legiSlation.
Councilman Bradley saw the, only issue as being a question of ~hether the city
should contribute to the NLc suit. The question of whether the FLSA should apply
to the city, he s~id, was not the issue', He didn't think the city s~ould contribute
to the suit, that there were ways of supporting it other than financial - a letter
of support or filing of an amicus curiae brief. Councilman Haws agreed with
Mr. Bradley that the question was two-part. He thought if the law was not liked,
Congress should be lobbied for change rather than having the courts decide the ex-
tent of the Act. .
Councilman Murray favored no action saying that he felt ,the proper position would
be to "sit back and do nothing." He said the employe input confirmed his worries
about their position'at the time he asked to hear from the,ir groups. He did not
agree that the Council's position was clearly on the side of management any more
than he would agree it was clearly on the side of labor. However, he did see some
element of labor/management disagreement, he said, and his reading of past Counctl
action was that the Council should stay out. He added that to become involved in
the lawsuit which seemed to have the intent of more than clarification would clearly
place the Council on one side or the other of the issue.
e
,M k~ndagefr commented that he felt the Counc~ was "wearing two hats" in this .
~n 0 ,concern - one, as representatives of the people d part~cular
all workin 1 dl an , as such, representing -
g peop e regar ess of where employed, as well as emplo ers
secondly, as an emp~o~er of the city organization and staff. Fed~ral ~nd.u~e~~lOyed;
wo~ld affec~ the ab~l~ty of the Council to oPerate responsibly as an emei~sea on
sa~d, when ~ t mandated requirements that limi ted the C ' I ' ., p y r, he
problems at the local level through the 0 1 ounc~ s ab~l~ty to work out
Of t' 1 n rma process of collective bargaining
par ~cu ar concern was an apparent trend established b 't d' , .
the publi t hi h' Y ex en ~ng th~s Act to
~~epari~ ~o~e~n~~o~u:~~o~p:;a~~: ~~x~s:::~~~s~;n~o~;~:;: ~:dl:~~~~a~~~dn~:n::~:g
e,co ect~ve barga~n~ng process in the public sector. He noted existin cit
~~~~n~~~~s;'o~h~:e; ~rov~sions, and state law cove~ing collective bargain~ng a~d
e era government to impose additional regulations would a' ar
~desirable and unneeded interference with local authority. ppe
Manager asked',Council members to further review memOs distributed previousl from
: =:::h~;~~~~~l t::P:~~::~ rai~ing these issues, keepi~g in mind they did hav; local
. ,emp oyer and as representat~ves of the people. Some
. r*:sponse could then be: g-tven at the January 27 Council meetin with re ar
k~nds of operating problems reSUlting from the Act if alloweagto stand9asd,to tze
noted there had been some problems already which had curtailed employe cho~~~S. e
Cou~~~lman ~:ller inquire~ of the employe representatives the method by which their
pos~ ~ons been author~zed, whether a 'poll of the memberships had been tak
Mr. Jackson reviewed the history of the FLSA and said the Fire Fighters locale~~re
~adbapproved bot~ the vetoed original legislation and that subsequently adopted
o ecome effect~ve the first of this ~!?ear. He, 'said there were some restrictions
,
1/27/75 - 22
'3f:>
e
on tr~dlng time at the local level but that had been worked out in agreement with
ma~agement. However, benefits would accrue to fire fighters in two years, one of
wh~ch would be a.s~rter work week, if the law was allowed to stand as written.
On further quest~on~ng from Councilman Keller as to whether the membership had
voted on the stated position with regard to the NLC lawsuit, Mr. Jackson st~ted
the membership had voted on it.
Ms. Houston stated no formal vote was ~aken in the membership of the AFSCNE local
because of the short notice for a position on t~e city's supporting the NLC.
Recomm~nd~tion pr:sented.was that of the executive board. Mr. Nidever added that
the.ma~n ~ssue~ w~th pol~ce were having to take pay for overtime rather than the
cho~ce of com~~satory time off. Also, the Act would hamper training of police
off~cers, l~ml~~ng the amount of time which could be spent in training, and he
felt the Counc~l should be concerned with that. There was no vote by the full
me~~ship, h~.said, but as many as could be contacted were questioned and a
maJor~ty were ~n favor of trying to "get rid of it."
Mayor Anderson again stated his belief that this legislation extended to the public
sector was a "foot in the door" and that he believed the city would be sacrificing
a good program at the local level if it was not kept viable and operative without
interference from Federal requirements. He thought if changes were needed in the
local prog~am, 'they could be bargained by employes and the city rather than having
Congress d~ctate what should be done in "Eugene as well as in Wilkes Barre
Pl. " . ,
ennsy van~a. He urged further Council review of memos from personnel with the
idea that further discussion could take place.
No action was taken.
e
X. Announcement of Importance by Mayor Anderson was that he and his wife, Terry,
had become grandparents. A granddaughter - Vaness~ Elizabeth - 7 lbs 11 oz -
was welcomed into the family during the night.
Y.
Congressional/City Conference, NLC in Washington, D.C., March 2-4,1975, was
announced. Council members indicating a desire to attend were Beal, Murray,
Bradley, and Haws.
Comm
l/lS/7S
File
Comm
1/22/75
File
Comm
1/22/75
File
Z. Committee List was requested by Councilwoman Beal. Mayor Anderson said new appoint- Comm
ments would be announced at the next commdttee-o[-the-whole meeting after which an 1/22/75
updated list to include standing Council committees would be prepared for distribution. File
M.
Intersection, 30th and Hilyard - Councilman Bradley inquired about the public hear-
ing scheduled for this evening (January 22) on the 30th and Hilyard intersection.
Don Allen, public works director, explained that between 4:00 and 1:00 p.m. staff
would respond to questions from the public with regard to the environmental im~
pact statemell't required for the project. Beginning at 7:30 p.m. testimony would
be taken in public nearing which would be the basis for any revisions to the pro-
ject before it was sent to the State and Federal highway people for action. After
action at that level on the impact statement, the project would then CQIDe back to
the local level for final judgment as to whether the project wouid proceed. '
e
In response to questioning from Councilwoman Shirey, Hr. Allen further explained
the procedure requiring approval of an impact statement by the Federal government
prior to final approval by ,the Council, use of ESATS as a basis, change in fund-
ing of the project, etc. He said that regardless of the basis for deciding traffic
plans, there was no evidence that the traffic situation at 30th and Hilyard would
improve. Manager commented that the project 'could not be said to change any traffic
patterns by shifting to other collectors, it would only relieve the existing problem
there. IIr. Allen added that it should decrease the traffic on neighboring streets
which had been bypassing that intersection. The same type of left-turn protection
would be installed as planned for the 29th and Willamette situation. He commented
that one interesting proposal was to close 29th through the Park which would no doubt
be controversial and would probably only shift the load to sOllIe other place. He said
there were only two corridors, crossing, and there was no way geographically to put
them in any other place.
5~
1/27/75 - 23
Comm
1/22/75
File
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that Items A through AA be
approved, affirmed, and filed as noted. Rollcall vote. Motion carried,-
all Council members present voting aye~
e
III - Ordinances
Council Bill No. 176 - Zoning to\,C-2_~PD newly annexed area south of
Centennial Boulevard at east end of Centennial Loop
with Sign District designation of Outlying Commercial, read the first time
on February 12, 1973 and held pending approval of planned unit development,
was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being
no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
(1845)
Mr. 'Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given
fin~l passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, except,
Mr. Haws abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17237.
Council Bill No. 704 - Vacating Berkeley Park pedestrian easements north of
18th Avenue between City View Stre~t and Oak Patch Road,
read the first time on January 13, 1975 and held lacking unanimous consent for second
reading, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being
no councilmembers present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved $econded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and
given final passage.
Councilman Bradley explained his vote against second reading, holding the bill
from passage at the last meeting, was on the basis of a public policy issue. He ...
wondered whether the vacation would set precedent that would hold the Council in ~
the future when developers were encouraged to dedicate pedestrian access; bike
paths, etc., in subdivisions. He was balancing the issue of access for children
to schools and playgrounds without having to use thoroughfares against the incon
venience and nuisance to owners of abutting properties. He said he had toured
the walkways and felt the effort should be made by, the city for better maintenance.
He suggested that educational programs could be carried on in the schools en-
couraging students to show due respect for abutting properties. He thought too
that through natural migration the elementary school children who were responsible
for the vandalism might not be there in a couple of years. But the permanent
decision to vacate the property based only on the nuisance and inconvenience factor
was not justified.
Rollcall vote was taKen on the motion to approve and pass. All council
members present voting aye, except Mr.' Bradley voting no, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17238.
Council Bill No. 705 - Vacating alley west of Jefferson Street north of
Cheshire Street, read the first time on January 13,
1975 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second
time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present
requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and,given final
passage.
--
Mr. Bradley explained his vote ,against second reading of thiS bill was because
it was read in conjunction with. C.S. 704., He said he would have approved it at
that time had it been segregated. ,
1/27/75 - 24
40
-
Rollcall vote was taken on the motion to approve and pass. All council
members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
17239.
Council Bill No. 724 - Calling hearing March 10, 1975 re: Vacation of
easement west from Golden Gardens Street north of
Burnett Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no
council members present requesting that it be read in full.
Manager explained the hearing on this and C.B.725 were being called as the result of
planning commission recommendation and that information would be furnished Council
members prior to the public hearing. Councilman Haws asked that this item be re-
ferred to the Active Bethel Citizens group before the public hearing. Manager said
he doubted that most of the neighborhood groups would want to be bothered with de-
tails of thi~ type, saying there was a limit to how far the administration could
keep track of things of this nature to make sure they were referred to the appro-
priate groups. He said it could be done in this case, but guidelines should be
set if these kinds of small details were to be "run by" the neighborhood organizations.
It was understood this would be referred to the ABC group.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller 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. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given
final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17240.
e
Council Bill No. 725 - Calling hearing March 10, 1975 re: Vacation of slope-ea,se-
ments adjacent to Chula Vista Boulevard and Union Avenue,
and in Lots 7,8,9, Prescott's Estates, was read by council bill number and title
only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full.
In response to Mr. Bradley, Manager explained that the procedure followed for calling
public hearing on street, easement, alley vacations was required by State law.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller 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. Murray moved secondea by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given fianl
passage. Rollcall vot~. All council members present voting aye, the bill was de-
clared passed and numbered 17241.
IV - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2362 - Authorizing negotiations on condemnation for right-of-way
29th and Willamette intersection improvement was read
by number and title.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution.
e
Councilman Bradley thought a public hearing should be provided on this improvement
project, even though Federal funds were not involved. Don Allen, public works director,
explained the procedure for public hearing on any public improvement project in the
city, especially on improvements on which costs were assessed. He said this project
1/27/75 - 25
4\
would not be assessed, however a public hearing would 'be held at the time of bid award.
He added that adjacent property owners would be aware of the project since contact
would be made with every property owner involved in the process of acquiring right- ...
of-way. Mr; Allen reviewed the process for initiating improvement projects and the ..,
manner in which the present policy evolved for conducting public hearing at time of
bid award. This process had been very successful, he said, however, the Council had
the prerogative of making a change at time of public hearing. He said this project
was viewed by Council on tour before the decision was made to authorize the public
works department to proceed with both design and land acquisition.
Vote was taken on the motion to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote.
All council members present voting aye, except Mrs. Shirey abstaining,
the resolution was adopted.
Resolution No. 2364 - Authorizing city manager and city recorder to sign
'vouchers for expenditures in connection with Community
Development Advance Planning grant (amending Resoluiont 2359) was read by
number and title.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall
vote. All council members present voting aye, motion carried.
Resolution No. 2365 - Establishing fees for engineering, inspection, and administra-
tive costs incidental to public improvement was read by
number and title.
Mr. ~mrray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall
vote. ,Motion carried, all council members present voting aye.
Resolution No. 2366 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for peripd
\. January 13 through January 27, 1975 was read by
\ Dv. number- and title.
e.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. ,Rollcall
vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye.
Upon motion duly made 'seconded,. and carried, the meeting was adjourned.
(1975)
/1Icnw~
. .
A. I}. Martin
Asst. City Manager
-
.
1/27/75 - 26
4-2