HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/1975 Meeting
MINUTES'
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
April 14,1975
4IIt Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order
by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on April 14, 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) I - Public Hearings
A. Sign District Change, Coburg Road between Cal Young and Wil1akenzie - From Inte-
grated Neighborhood Shopping to Outlying Commercial (SDBC 75-1)
Sign District Change, Coburg Plaza west of Coburg Road between Cal
Young and Willakenzie - From Neighborhood Shopping to Outlying Com-
mercial (SDBC 75-1)
Recommended by the Planning Commission March 4, 1975. Copies of the
Commission's off,icial rCflort, map of the area, and minutes of the
March 4 meeting wtJrL~ previously distributed to Council members.
Comm
4/2/75
Pub Hrng
Mrs. BEal moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public
hearing on the request for the April 14 Council meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
e
Planning staff notes and minutes of March 4, 1975 were made a part of this record
by reference thereto. Assistant Manager explained the issue involved a shopping
center designation, also small identity signs for stores within the center con-
trary to integrated neighborhood shopping designation. Staff recommended outlying
commercial designation with suhstantial restrictions as the best way to resolve the
conflict. That would allow a single overall shopping center sign including indi-
vidual listing of businesses in the center, and all other signs would have to be
wall mounted. It was understood this proposal was acceptable to the property owner.
No ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared by
Council members other than Councilman Williams' declaration of abstaining from
discussion or vote on any sign issues. Council members had view the area on tour.
Public hearing was opened.
(0065)
Earl Green, 365 West 27th Place, one of the property owners, said the intent of the
sign district change was to make clear there was more than one ownership and one
management in that area - 'the radio station, Coburg Plaza, and Safeway.
Gary Chenkin, assistant planning director, noted that neither designation was com-
pletely appropriate. He called attention to and read a list of seven items to be
considered as they appeared in February 25, 1975 planning staff notes, and said the
Commission felt findings for changing the district were satisfactory providing
those restrictions applied.
Council Bill No. 776 - Changing sign district west of Coburg Road between
Cal Young Road and Willakenzie Road to Outlying Com-
mercial District was read by council bill number and title only, there being
no Council member pre~ent requesting that it be read in full.
-
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the sign
district change including restrictions as set out in Planning Commission
staff notes and minutes of March 4, 1975 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.
"~,3
4/14/75 - 1
Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only.
Mr. Murray moved sec'ondby Mr. Keller that 'the bill be approved and given _
final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, ...,
except Councilman Williams abstaining, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17288.
B. Staff 'appeal from Sign Code Board of Appeals approval of variance for continuance (0150)
of billboard south of I~105east of Coburg Road
Rescheduled from Council meeting of March 10, 1975.
Staffinotes and minutes of Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting of February 17, 1975
were previously distributed to Council members and were made a part of this record
by reference thereto. No ex parte contacts or other reasons for abstaining from
voting were declared by Council members other than Councilman Williams, abstaining
from actions involving sign issues, and Councilman Haws, abstaining because of
having been a member of the Sign Code Board of Appeals at the time this issue was
initially brought before the Board.
Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, explained that the billboard
was nonconforming because of its location within the setback area of I-lOs without
technical highway/street frontage. He read the staff appeal and noted applicable
sections of the code. Also, attention was called to the record wherein precedence
was set in denial of a sign for the Holiday Inn across I-lOs from the subject bill-
board. Assistant Manager noted that the Sign Code Board of Appeals was withhold-
ing decision on a number of other billboards awaiting the Council's interpretation
of the code as it affects this particular sign.
Public hearing was opened.
.
Ray Wqlfe, 1926 Potter Street, supported the staff's appeal. He said that the
original draft of the sign ordinance did not permit placement of billboards in
the city at all, basically because it was felt they served the public interest
very little and frequently advertised on a national level and were of little use
to the local community. Also, billboards were considered distractions, creating
a traffic hazard, particularly adjacent to high-speed roads. And they frequently
carried outdated advertising. He thought it important to recognize that pressures
for variances would result in a weakened code, eroding it little by little. He
said that Obie had not accepted the code in good grace, that there were still many
billboard skeletons standing in, violation. Also, that Obie now has a number of re-
quests for variances before the Board which would be influenced by the Council's
decision on this appeal. Because of these pressures on the Board and the number
of appeals, Mr. Wolfe felt there might be a tendency on the part of the Board to
grant variances or waivers to avoid spending the time and effort in'holding to the
code. He cited the danger of precedence if this waiver was granted - the code
calling for fair and equal treatment - and said the interpretation of what con-
stituted "frontage" should not divert from the primary purpose of the code, to
protect health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Eric Larsen, attorney for Obie, noted that staff notes, appeal, and minutes had
been made a part of this record, and that Mr. Torrey of Obie would be presenting
a sign district map also to be made a part of the record along with written remarks
summarizing it. Mr. Larsen said the billboard in question was constructed prior
to adoption of the sign code and that the original notice of nonconformity dealt .~
only with setback. The sign, he said, was actually more than 40 feet from the edge
of the paved surface of the highway, and 30 feet from the gravel area. He pointed
out that the staff originally took a neutral position and suggested that the Board
4/14/75 - 2
lS~
e
might grant temporary relief until development of the surrounding area. He also
noted that the property owner had indicated the present use was about all t~at
could be made of that property. Mr. Larsen called ilttention to the distinction
in the Board minutes between on-premise signs and billboards as that distinction
referred to access. The Board's interpretation was consistent with previous staff
positions in issuing permits as late as 1970 for new signs in this type area -
controlled access highway. He said the denial of the sign for the Holiday Inn
had not dealt with a billboard, rather it was a matter of the number of on-premise
signs and not inconsistent with code interpretation with regard to access.
e
Mr. Larsen reviewed some background of the sign code and its separate sections,
calling attention to specific divisions regarding on-premise signs and billboards
and noting that "access" was not defined in the code, although "street" was. He
said that access was not considered applicable to billboard in the drafting of the
ordinance because as indicated by the Board "no one wants to drive to the structure."
Mr. Larsen thought it important to note that the billboard was located properly in
a "highway oriented district," that it was a question of whether a complicated
analysis of "street" relating to "access" should override the definition of "highway
oriented district." He noted that there were very limited areas within which
billboards were allowed, most of them adjacent to controlled access highways. He
didn't think the code should define where billboards could be located, and then
because of lack of access, prevent that location. At least, the definition of
"highway oriented district" should have as much standing as definition of "street."
He said the Sign Board saw no major problems in its interpretation of "access."
The Board thought access was not important to location of billboards as compared
to on-premise signs which are designed to lead the public to the premises. With
regard to setback of the billboard in question, ~1r. Larsen noted that if it was
moved back the 14 feet to meet setback requirements, it would still be within the
highway oriented district, there would be no intcrfcrence with any identity signs
because there were no buildings on the property, and there would be no improvement
of safety for either vehicles or pedestrians. He called attention to alternatives
presented to the Sign Board and said there were four or five possible actions that
could be taken.
James Torrey, representing Obie communications, said the question was simply one
of whether it was the intent of the sign code to allow outdoor advertising in
highway oriented areas. He said that nowhere in the records of meetings at which
the sign code was drafted and adopted was there mention of the issue of access
concerning outdoor advertising signs. He noted that since adoption of the sign
ordinance Obie had been given permits for five signs that did not have access. He
pointed out on a map highway oriented areas in the city differentiating between
those to which there was no access and those which did have access, including
specific areas without access where they were allowed to place billboards. He said
there was no reason for access because there was no reason for anyone to get to the
signs, and added that the intent of the Council in adopting the sign code in 1968
was to allow outdoor advertising in all highway oriented areas subject to setback
and size restrictions.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
e
Mr. Nolte summarized the staff position that billboards according to code were
allowed only within highway oriented areas and some streets (which he named). The
location of this particular billboard, south of 1-105 east of Coburg Road, had
not access to 1-105 and was on property designated as outlying commercial sign
district fronting on and having access from Centennial Loop. Even if the property
was designated as highway-oriented sign district, he said, the sign would still be
prohibited because of code restrictions on sign area per square foot in ratio to
lineal feet of street frontage. He said the term "frontage" was not defined in
the code, but that "street" was, and he read that definition (a main thoroughfare
having access to property). Therefore, 1-105 was not considered a street in this
4/14/75 - 3
1~5.
(0527)
instance. Aside' from the issue of access, Mr. Nolte continued, the billboard was
located on property on which only identity signs were al lowed, outlying commerci,al.
Councilman Murray asked for clarification of the relatiOJlship between this issue ~,
and the variance requested by Holiday Inn and the possibility of other variances ..,
in the future should this one be approved. He also wondered whether there was
any general relationship between this issue and previous requests from the Red
Carpet Motel and Pape' for variances to permit signs that otherwise would not be
allowed because they would have been considered a more highway Qriented type
sign. . Mr. Nolte answered that the Holiday Inn varianc'e request was a question of
computing allowable size of identity signs based only on highway oriented street
frontage (Coburg Road). No additional sign area was allowed because of the
property's being adjacent also to I-lOs. With regard to the other requests, the
Red Carpet sign was in the wrong sign district, and the Pape' sign was a question
of height. Councilman Murray said the Red Carpet and Pape' appeared similar, that
the thrust of those requests was that the property owner wanted to more directly
addres~ highway signing.
Assistant Manager clarified the matter of future decisions hinging on the one made
on this sign. He said it did not necessarily follow that the Council would be con-
sidering other decisions of the Sign Board. However, the interpretation the Council
at this meeting set on "frontage" and other technical terms would to some extent
control the Sign Board's actions on other variance requests now before it.
Councilman Keller asked if the property was in fact a commercial property and the
difference from a highway oriented area. Mr. Nolte answered that the property was
zonedC-2 with highway oriented sign district adjacent to the I-ISO route. The
question is the fact that there is no access to 1-105, therefore the property
has not technical frontage.
-
Councilman Bradley asked if the staff appeal was on the basis of nonconformity
with the setback requirements or because the sign was inappropriate in this
particular district and what options were available to the Council in making its
decision. Assistant Manager answered that staff thought the sign was nonconform-
ing on both counts. The appeal was based on that part of the Sign Board's deci-
sion allowing the billboard to remain. The Board determined that the setback
variance would not be granted and that the sign would have to be moved. The options
to the Council, he said, were to allow it to remain but requiring that it be moved,
or requiring that it be removed altogether.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to uphold the appeal and instruct
staff to prepare findings supporting the upholding of the appeal (deny-
ing the variance).
In making the motion Mr. Murray said he felt precedent had been set.in other cases
of a general nature that really dictated not to allow the variance. And he shared
the general concern that granting the variance would open the door to what could
be widespread misuse of the sign ordinance. He thought careful attention should
be given to consistency in maintaining a vigilant, watchdog role over the sign
code. Mayor Anderson agreed and noted that the success of the sign code over the
years had been due to the Sign Board's upholding the "letter of the law." Rigid
interpretation was necessary in this type code, he said, because every variance,
every relaxation would lead to more and more and eventually return the city to the
same problems existing prior to adoption of the ordinance.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council
members present voting aye, except Councilmen Williams and Haws abstaining.
.
4/14/75 - 4
ISle
C. Removal of parking from 6th and 7th Avenues between Blair Boulevard and
Garfield Street
-
Parking Removal, 6th and 7th Avenues [rom Blair to Garfield - Copies of find-
ings prepared by the traffic engineering division together with recommenda-
tion for removal of park i/lg .from 6th and 7th Avenues from Blair Boulevard
to Garfield Street were previously distributed to Council members. Some
Council members had viewed the si te on tour. Staff recommended public
hearing in view of high public interest. A tim€' limit on testimony was
also recommended.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to schedule 'public
hearing on the issue at the April 14 Council meeting, the Chair
to set time l,imi t on testimony to be presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
Comm
4/2/75
Pub Hrng
Recommended by staff by memo of March 14, 1975, copies previously distributed to
Council members (see minutes above).
e
Councilman Murray reported a phone call and written request from Richard Freeman,
a principal opponent to the parking removal, for two-week postponement of the hear-
ing because he was not able to be present at this time. Assistant Manager said
that Mr. Freeman had also asked staff for postponement and was told of the problems
involved - all of the property owners involved had already been notified of hearing
at this meeting. Also, the hearing had been advertised for this date. He added
that there were a number of major public hearings already scheduled for the April 28
meeting. Mr. Murray said that he was not advocating one way or the other on the
issue but noted that in the past when anyone requested a delay they had been ac-
commodated when there was no urgent need for immediate action.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to delay the public hearing until
the April 28 Council meeting.
There was no response to Mayor Anderson's request for a show of hands of those
people attending for this particular meeting. Al Williams, traffic engineer, noted
some of the people had indicated they would not he able to attend until about 8:30
so might not be at the meeting yet.
Vote was taken on the motion to postpone. Motion carried, all Council
members present voting aye, except Council members Beal and Hamel vot-
ing no.
[). ..:!.!..ITrovcIncnt of Agate Strc~t fro~~O_th i\venu~_~thc south 2000 feet
Planning Commission in consider;ttion of 10th Addition to 0:oh Hi lls subdivision recom-
mended improvement of Agate Street. Remonstrance was filed by so~e of the owners of
properties involveu. Staff in trying to find an alternative initially recommendeu im-
proving the easterly portion of Agate Street from Cameo to the south with sidewalks
and curbs. However, since that recommendation was made, some physical problems became
evident which would have an effect on the cost of the full project as opposed to some
modifications in the project.
e
Don Allen, public works director, noted the initial recommendation was to construct
a 32-foot street on the north section, a 24-foot width on the south section. Survey
of the street preliminary to start of construction revealed the existing pavement
in some sections is entirely in the east 30 feet of the 60-foot right-of-way. Nr.Allen
called attention to the topography of the area and said the embankment on the \vest side
of the proposed street would prevent using either of the cross-sections originally
proposed unless a very large amount of fill was placed to allow construction to follow
1~-:7
4/14/75 - 5
the centerline of the right-of-way. Staff recommended completing only the east side
adjacent to t~e new subdivision, EWEB property, and connecting to the projec~ to the
south with both curb and six-foot sidc\\ialk plus paving to match the old porBon of the ~,
road _ That wOuld allO\II some improvement, although it would not allo\1I enough room for .,
parking on the east llalf. In the future, he said, some consideration could then be
given to finishing the west side. He hastened to add that he thought if a poll of
property owners was conducted, there would be a 100% negative response.
Assistant Manager noted that objections had been received from the Southeast Firs
neighborhood group, hO\lIever it had not re,:;ponded formally to the notice of this public
hearing. Oak Hills HomeOlmers Association, he said, did not have knowledge of the
right-of -way limitations mentioned by r.lr. Allen.
P~blic hearing was opened.
Cordelia Ruddy, 3614 Agate Street, representing the Oak Hills HomeOh11ers Association,
reminded the Council that in 1.974 the Association ho.d tried to el iminate Agate Street
as a collector street, contemplating an overpass connecting Spring Boulevard and
eliminating the 30th and Agate intersection _ Ilmvever, that was not successful. The
Association, she said, also asked about covering ditches and installation of a side-
walk, and that there be no development requiring improvements until after the street
was improved and sidewalk installed. They contend that adding more population and
traffic with the street in its present condition is unsafe. She cited present popula-
tion and traffic conditions (auto, bike, and pedestrian) in the area and said the
Association feels addition of the new Noh llill development would add more traffic
with no convenient mass transit service. She said the improvement was petitioned by
residents whose only access is Agate Street and to accommodate the development south
of the reservoir (EWEB property). I f the improvement \lIas not approved, she said, ~
serious consideration should be given to disapproval of further deyelopment in the ~
area because to do so would be contrary to established policies for the safety and
\'iell-being of people in the community. She thought the ditches should be covered
and bike paths or some type of pedestrian \\'ay provided in there was not to' be total
,improvement' of the street.
Helen Hodges, 4040 North Shasta Loop, prcscnted two letters and read thenl. They
were from ~lartha Simpson, 1714 Stoney Ridge Drive, and Dr. and :-'Irs. Paul \'iilson,
3977 North Shasta Loop, both urging completion of the project now on the basis
of rising costs and safety features. Also, development in the area resulting in
incresed traffic with Agate Street the only access would require its improvement,
and they felt it inconsistent to requ.ire sidewalk installation by some residents
and not of those on Agate.
Trygve Vik, 1675 Firland Boulevard, and two others living in the area were in favor
of the improvement, saying that in its present condition the street was e~tremely
hazardous.
Lloyd Staples, 3210 Agate Street, speaking for residents living on Agate Street and
in Nob Hills subdivision, noted objections to the planned improvement which he said
was decided upon without any input from that group. He said Agate Street in its
present condition was safe for traffic traveling at posted speeds as accident records
would prove; ther~ was nothing any engineering department could do to make the street
an all-weather road because of the 20% grade; the existing pavement is in good con-
dition, no heavy vehicles travel the street, so it would be a waste of money to ...
overlay or otherwise provide new paving; a concrete sidewalk south of Cameo would be ~
hazardous because of the steep grade; no on-street parking should be permitted on
such a steep hill; some thought should be given to aesthetic considerations, most
of the pe6ple living in that area did so because of the rural atmosphere, street
4/14/75 - 6
lS6
e
e
e
\\'idening and additional paving l\'Quld take away from the Ilonurb;!n parklike character.
lIe said hOI\'ever that some things did Ileed attention - the curb on Agate at 31st J.;as
too narrow, there \vas no place to \Valk, making it extreme 1y dangerous; the street
should not continue to be the only access to the hilltop; emergency equipment access
was difficult in bad weather. He noted that long-range plans call for an extension
of Spring Boulevard to connect at 30th but there'was no definite time set when that
would occur. In the meantime, he said, increasing traffic and the danger involved
made development of an alternate route necessary and that alternate route should not
be considered the improvement of Agate Street. He said culverts should be installed
and covered in the ditch on the east side of Agate south of Cameo. And he felt as-
phalt would be better than concrete, that a curb would be unnecessary and hazardous.
Jean Tattersall, 3450 Harris Street, said she had a written report from the fire de-
partment saying that department had no trouble with response time because of the con-
dition of Agate Street. The one time there was trouble, she said, was because of ice,
not because of the narrow street. She said too there was misconception in the plan-
ning department with regard to desire for curbs and gutters on the street. Most of
the people, she said, preferred a good pedestrian path or walkway. She felt curb
and gutter would be unnecessary in that area.
~Ielva Ellingsen, 3192 Agate Street; Don Campbell, 1675 Cameo, Fred Divita, 1655 Cameo;
and James Giustina, 6\ming property on Agate Street; also objected to the improvement
as designed, calling rather for a bike or pedestrian path and some alternate type of
improvement because of the steep grade. Also cited was lack of use of the street for
school bus transportation and rcslllting need for a walkway.
Public hearing was cloased, there being no further testimony.
Assistant ~Ianager noted receipt of letter fro:n Dorothy Campbell, 1595 East 31st Avenue,
obj ecting to the proposed improvement ~. r!c u 1 so noted staff's feel ing that improvements
all the east side of the street south of Cameo ,,'ollld be consistent I,'i th the ci ty' s
community goals and policies. He said that careful considendon should be given to
uses over tile entire year and the separation of auto and pedestrian traffic, rather
than building improvements to accommodate unusually bad \vcather such as that ex-
perienced during the past winter.
Councilman ~urray asked for staff respollse regarding alternates to installation of
curb and gutter. Don Allen, public works director, answered that curbs and gutters
were considered standard for permanently improved streets in the city for a number
of reasons. Gravel walks were not considered safe for either pedestrians or bikes,
sidewalks are concrete primarily to avoid maintenance problems, street sweepers and
maintenance equipment are better operated on curb-and-gutter streets, etc. He
hesitated to change specifications because of the hazards involved for both bike
riders and pedestrians, and he noted several other streets improved in this/manner
with steeper grades than Agate. He recognized the hazard at certairi times of the year
[if ice accumulated] but thought overall it would be better than asphalt without curb
and gutter. He added that another problem could be delineation bet\Veen sidewalk and
roadway areas causing a problem with parking, especially adjacent to residential areas.
Assistant Manager thought trying to minimize costs of the improvement would only lead
to other problems, create hazards, and invite maintenance problems.
Councilwoman Shirey was concerned about access to the area and the hazard of gravel
paths for pedestrians and bikes. She wondered whether a sloped curb could be in-
stalled. She asked too about access from Agate to the west. Mr. Allen noted the
disadvantages of rolled curbs - autos will be parked on sidewalks, water runoff is
not as efficient, etc. - and said that changing from the accepted standard verticle
sidewalk would not be recommended, especially on hillsides. Assistant ~~nager added
l59
4/14/75 - 7
that debris from the city flushers woul'd \vind up in yards 'rather than in ,the drain.
He said the ciity would work with the county in an attempt to gain more adequate
pedestrian and bike routes to the west. Mr. Allen said state law now mandates curb
cuts to acco~modate bikes.
.
Councilman Bradley thought it basically unfair to accommodate development in this
area at the expense of property owners farther down the street. He wondered if there
was some method by which the developer could absorb part of the cost. Assistant
Manager explai~ed charter provisions for assessment of costs for improvements against
abutting properties. He said that even though it appeared unfair in some instances,
there was the benefit to the entire community in that o"TIers of property on this
street made use of streets in other areas for which they had not paid. He noted that
a substantial portion of the cost of this Particular proposal - improving the east
side of Agate from Cameo south - would be borne by abutting city and EWEB property.
Hr. Allen said that of the 1000 feet to be improved south of Cameo 265 feet abutted
property in EWEB ownership.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the Counci 1 authorize initiation
of improvement of the east side of Agate Street with curb, gutter, and
sidewalk from Cameo south 1100 feet to th0 existing curb and with on-street
parking provided adjacent to residential lots.
In making the motion, ~lr. rilurray said this improvement would seem in keeping \.;i th
community goals statements and recognize long-standing public policy. Also, increased
deve lopment in that area and corresponding increase in use of Agate \vould seem to
call for the improvementwllich would at least improve the safety without sacrificing
aesthetic concerns of those living in the area.
Assistant ~.l<mager \,'as concerned about inclusion of on-street parking abutting rcsi- _
dential properties. He doubted that safe tr3vel lanes could be provided given the ~
terrain and the restriction on width.
Mr. r-lUl:r:lY with consent of ~lr. Keller withc.lrclv that portion of the
motion relating to on-steeet parking.
Councilman lIa\\'s asked \\'h)' the i,!!1prOvernent. l\'Ould go only from Cameo south rat.her than
from 30th. Mr. Allen explained that improvement for the entire length l'ioulJ require
a great deal of fill on the west side of the street and cause undue hazard to properties
on that sid6. Also, the cost of that type of project he was sure would be prohibitive.
He thought the recommendation to improve south of Cameo only at tllis time would give
the desired improvement without undu~ economic burden to the property owners.
Councilman Bradley said he could not support the motion because he thought it was the
traditional approach and that the' city should get away from curbs, gutters, and
sidewalk. Also, it was not fair to ol'mers of abutting properties, the cost should be
borne DY the developer creating the need for the improvement. Mr. Keller also thought
a different approach should perhaps be sought. Although he had no strong feelings one
\vay or the other, he said, he couldn't justify this method of construction as the best
way to apprpach problems in this specific area.
Councilman Haws asked again why the project was being limited to Cameo rather than
going to 30th. Assistant Manager answered that the terrain, existing driveways, current
asphalt street, disruptions in the area would result in a higher cost. Also, the re-
sistance from property owners.
Councilwoman Shirey asked about the area north of Cameo, where bike riders would go if
not in the street where the sidewalk ended. She also asked about the drainage ditch,
whether it would be covered by a bike or pedestrian path. Assistant Manager answered
-
4/14/75 - 8
1<"0
.
that there was more shoulder north of Cameo which would provide space for bikes. Also,
that because there were a number of homes at that end the cost of improvement would
be minimized if that section was omitted. Mr. Allen said a storm sewer would be ~on-
structed to connect to the existing storm sewer near Cameo. He added that another
reason for recommending curb and sidewalk construction was because it was more costly
to build a curb alone without sidewalk construction at the same time.
Councilman Ilamel asked if assessment for sidewalk constructed on only one side of the
street would be made to properties on both sides of the street. Hr. Allen ans\~ered that
if the Council determined there was to be sidewalk on only one side, the charter pro-
vides for assessment against properties on both sides.
Vote was taken on the motion to improve the east side of Agate from
Cameo south 1100 feet with curb. gutter, and side\~alk. Motion carried,
Council members Murray, Williams, Hamel, Shirey, and Mayor Anderson
voting aye; Council members Keller, Beal, Bradley, and Haws voting no.
Mayor Anderson in breaking the tie vote said he felt it necessary to adhere to standard
street construction in the city. He said all citizens should have the privilege of
di-ving on streets that arc improved and drained, and walk on sidewalks, all paid for
by abutting properties, as well as 118ving sewcrs and other improvements which enhance
the cntire community. He expressed appreciation to those participating. He said he
realizcd the decision was not popular blJt he thought a good working relationship had
been demonstrated behlcen neighborhood groups.
II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
Previously discussed in committee on March 26 (Present: Council President Murray (pre-
siding, and other Council members Keller, Beal, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey),
April 2 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council memhers Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel,
~ Haws, and Shirey), and April 9, 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray,
.. Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws). Minutes of those meetings appear
below printed in italics.
A. DEQ Funding - Councilman Keller moved seconded by Councilwoman Beal that
the Council write to Senator Ed Fadele~, chairman of the subcommittee hold-
ing hearings on DEQ funding, strongly supporting the funding of the De-
partment of Environmental Quality at the level being requested by the Lane
Regional Air Pollution Authority. Motion carried unanimously.
Corom
3/26/75
Approve
It was understood Councilman Keller would make contact with staff with re-
gard to drafting the letter.
B. Legislative Subcommittee Recommendations - March 24, 1975 lvere presented by
Councilwoman Bea1:
The subcommittee recommends that the Council support the following legislation:
H.B. 2765 & H.B. ]225 - Willamette Greenway - These bills are similar in nature.
Both seek to ~trengthen the present greenway legislation by permitting
limited condelllnation for acquis,ition of lands lying along the river
which are not used primarily as farm lands.
-
H.B. 2771 & H.B. 2766, - At the request of the Mayor's Bicycle Committee, the sub-
committee recommends support of these two measures, one of which makes
it obligatory to place street drains in such a way as not to endanger
bicycle traffic, the other mak.ing it possible for bicycle projects to
share in federal grant money.
4/14/75 - 9
1 Co,
The subcommittee recommends that the Council go on record opposing the following
bills:
H.B. 2631
This b,ill would aboLish councils of government;
.
H.B. 2475 - This bill exempts agriculture from restrictive laws relating to air
pollution and noise. It could also be interpreted as forbidding
legislation regulating any burning on farms.
The subcommittee supports in principal:
H.B. 2779 - This is a bill requir.ing environmentalirripact statements on almost
every function of government. The subcommittee supports this bill in
principle; however, we question the broadness of Section 5, sub. 11,
which because of its all inclusiveness would prove to be cumbersome and
possibly unworkable. The term "any action" is not sufficiently defined
and the city government would have to file an analysis giving reasons
why no enviromnental impact statementswere required. These analyses
would prove almost as troublesome as filing the impact statement itself.
The subcommittee can take no position on:
S.B. 248 - This is the big bill sponsored by the committee on Judiciary which
among other things abolishes municipal courts. The subcommittee can
take no position on this bill because we requested further information
from staff which has not as yet been provided. We requested the
following information:
1. The financial impact of this provision on the city.
2. The eff.iciency of city courts vs. the state district COUL"t operation.
J. The benefit or loss to the general public which is now dealing .
with the municipal court.
Councilman Haws directed attention to S.B.248 (which would abolish municipal
courts) on which no position was taken because of lack of information. Assistant
Manager advised that report was in draft form and would be ready for the March 31
subcommittee meeting. Comm
3/26/75
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller to accept the recommendations Approve
as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
C . Planning Commissior! Recommcnc1,j tions.'u!~i vinyst()r~_~llcU...J}j~I(:'L~~~Hnarci<!l Study
(February 24, 1975) were presented on Recommendations 1, 2, and 5 of the
study. Copies of Planning Commission recommendations wera previously dis-
tributed to Council members.
1. L&B Recommendation 1 - To identify several potential regional shopping
center sites during the annual General Plan review and protect from
piecemeal development.
The Planning Commission recommended that the co-ordinating
committee - comprising representatives of Eugene, Springfield,
and Lane County planning commissions - convene for discussion
of the possibility of a third regional center and recommend
appropriate action to the respective commissions.
In making the recommendation, the Commission felt the co-ordinating com-
mittee should be made aware that the city was committed to the long-term
health of Eugene's downtown and Valley River as active and cpmpetitive
retail markets which could be affected by the possible creation of a third
.'"
\
\.
4/14/75 - 10
I(oZ
e
regional center. Therefore, the basis of market demand would not neces-
sarily guarantee approval of a proposal for a third center.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to accept the Planning
Commi~sion recommendation on Recommendation I of the L&B report.
In making the motion, Mr. Keller expressed the opinion that the recommenda-
tion was critiCill, that it was an "absolute must" for pursuing with all
levels of government included in discussions of previous reports.
Councilwoman Beal was dubious,about accepting the recommendation because it
was based on prognostications of future inflation and future prosperity
without taking into account the possibility of a depression. She felt
this recommendation was for reservation of space at some time in the future
rather than at this time. Assistant Manager said the report assumed that
growth and low/high economic escalations would exert pressures about 1990
for the need of another regional shopping center. It was not so much "if"
or "where" as it was to have some common idea among the metropol i tan agen'cies
of which areas might be protected to preserve the economic welfare of
existing centers. He said proposals were being discussed now in Spring-
field on two or three sites, one of them immediately adjacent to Eugene
city limits which could have a substantial effect on Eugene if Springfield
allowed it to go in. For that reason, joint discussion should'be held to
have a common understanding of how to deal with that type of pressure.
Councilman Murray reviewed the process on which the economic consultants
based their proj~ctions for needed retail space - the use of median figures
for economic forecasts on employment, income, spendable income, etc. He
felt higher or lower actual experience in any of those areas over a ten-
year period could alter the projection of need for a third regional center.
He cited statements of the consultants themselves that the time limit for
preparing the report precluded in-depth research on some of the economic
factors, that Oregon's having no sales tax resulted in meager information
with regard to growth sales, that they were not certain LeOG employment
figures reflected recent statistics, and that the present economic situa-
tion was more serious than most thought. Because of these factors, Mr.
Murray said, he was not convinced a third regional shopping center should
be discussed with anyone - that discussion of this recommendation would
preclude other recommendations in the study. He noted the Planning Com-
mission itself raised some of the same concerns but on a "let's go ahead
anyway and discuss it with the co-ordinating committee" basis. Mr.Murray
felt there should be further discussion of the issue here before going to
the planning commissions' po-ordinating committee.
.
1-
Councilwoman Beal commented that it didn't seem fair to tit' up attractive,
merchantable parcels of land on something as vague as this, to say a property
owner couldn't develop his land because it had to be saved for a ~ossible
regional center at some time in the distant future, especially with the city's
not being in the market to buy the land. Assistant Manager answered that
there was reasonable risk using the controls the city has that property value
would not be adversely affected by keeping large parcels from development. He
noted present consideration of use of the airport property in Springfield
for a regional shopping center which would have substantial adverse pressure
to some of the goals relating to Eugene's downtown area. He said that is
happening now, and the proposed discussion in the co-ordinating committee
would provide a place for dealing with that as well as with what is happneing
in downtown Springfield. Both are of regional concern and should be a matter
of discussion by all agencies in the metropolitan community. Councilman Murray
recognized those as pertinent to the issue, but he felt there should be further
discussion on Eugene's posture first, it had to be better defined before going
into discussion with other agencies.
\b"3
4/14/75 - 11
Councilman Keller felt the economic situation was something that developers
and occ~pants of land holdings more than any other sector were aware of,
and theirs would be the criteria that would decide whether there would be a
third regional center. He fel t picking "the spot" for a third center would be
a grave error, but he agreed with the idea of isolating several as possible
sites in order to be prepared if a third center did materialize. He was not
opposed to the recommendsation if it had its proper place in terms of other
recommenations relating to downtown and Goodpasture Island area.
Councilwoman Shirey said she was not convinced there was going to be a need
for a third regional shopping center. She recognized that Springfield needed
consideration and that there was a need to talk with other jurisdictions,
but she felt Eugene should define its own position about sites before talking
to other agencies. She thought there should be discussion between the Council
and the Planning Commission first.
Gary Chenkin, assistant planning director, said the Planning Commission in
making its recommendation did not mean to imply that a site would be identi-
fied, rather the co-ordinating committee representing all three planning com-
missions would discuss the recommendation and suggest appropriate action to
the respective agencies. Although identification of a third site might be the
outcome, he said, it should not be implied as an accepted fact that there
would be a third center at any particular time. The recommendation merely
indicated that in the event a third center was proposed by the private sector,
there should be some type of metropolitan policy ready to enable a response.
In response to questions from the Council, he noted that the co-ordinating
committee was already in existence, that it was made up of two representatives
from each of the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County planning commissions.
Councilman Murray thought members of that committee would like their charge
more clearly defined. He reiterated his opinion that further discussion should
occur "among ourselves," saying the Council had never discussed the commercial
study itself other than with the consultants when they presented it.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to refer the recommenda-
tion back to the Planning Commission for discussion between the
Commission and Council in joint session to be scheduled within a
week or two.
.
.
In making the motion Mr. Bradley said he thought there was not enough informa-
tion available to make a well studied, reasoned decision on either Recommenda-
tions 1 or 2, and he would like to have an opportunity for input from the Com-
mission and staff. Councilman Haws agreed, saying that members new to the
Council had not had enough time and information on the commercial study.
He thought there was further information covering Commission meetings with
the consultants which had not been distributed. Mr. Haws wondered if the
Council could be studying the' commercial study to determine Eugene's posi-
tion and at the same time start co-ordinating committee meetings to determine
other agencies' positions. Councilman Murray thought that would put Eugene
representatives in an untenable position - representing Eugene ,in discussions
with other jurisdictions without a consensus as to what Eugene's position was.
Councilman Hamel suggested waiting unti 1 a firm posi tion was taken on all
three recommendations so discussions in the co-ordinating committee would
revolve around the same answer. Mrs. Beal preferred making a decision on
Recommenation 1 only since the motion applied only to that recommendation.
Discussion turned to material which Council members might not have. Assistant
Manager noted distribution of Commission minutes and said it appeared Council
was lacking only the benefit of the consultants presentation when the study
was completed last summer. He suggested that if that was the type of his-
~~
,/
4/14/75 - 12
1~.4
-
e
-
torica1 background needed, it might be supplied by staff in a special meet-
ing with those Council members desiring it. Mr. Chenkin noted two series
of meetings with the consultants, both study sessions and public meetings,
all covered by written minutes. Mrs. Shirey recognized the background could
be covered by reading that material, but she felt it was a matter of what
was to be discussed with Springfield and putting that in terms of Eugene's
position. She felt that position could come as a result of discussions with
the Eugene planning commission. Councilwoman Bea1 added that the Commission's
statements were ambiguous and she favored discussion to determine what was
meant.
Bill Sugaya, planner, referred,to the suggestion that Council and co-ordinating
committee deliberations on the commercial study could occur concurrently and
said the co-ordinating committee could be considering this issue fairly soon
because of a request from Springfield concerning the airport property there
and possible use of that land for a regional center. At this point, he said, ,
staff recommendation was that the co-ordina ting commi ttee should discuss
that particular issue, and that was also the recommendation of LCOG and Lane
County planning staffs. He felt the possibility of that shopping c~nter would
be discussed in context with the commercja.l study, so there was the possibility
of getting into the issue of the study anyway. He expected the co-ordinating
committee to be convening within two or three weeks. Councilman Murray hoped
that if the motion to refer back to joint discussion of Council and Planning
Commission passed, and the co-ordinating comm.ittee d.id meet before Eug~ne's
position was [ina1.izcd, the committee would be made aware that Eugene was
a ttemptiny to determi nei ts posi hon on the issue. Councilman flaws saw the
co-ordinating committee's work as gathering information as much as anything.
He tel t he could favor both [>os,i tions - referring to the co-ordinating com-
mittee and at the same time referring to joint discuss.ion of the Council and
Commission.
In response to Councilman Keller's inquiry about recommenations on the balance
of the L&B study, Mr. Chenkin said there were seven recommendations made by
the consul tants. The Planning Commissions's suggest.ions on each of those
recommendations would constitute the Commission's recommendation on the total
report. Mr. Sugaya added that those other than 1, 2, and 5 (presented here)
would be more specific in terms of taking action at this point rather than
going back to the commissions. Assistant Manager said the Planning Commission
was asking specific disposition of these three recommendations at this time,
they were the most critical and would have some impact on the other four. He
suggested that if the Council desired further discussion with the Commission
before final action, tentative approval might be given on these three with
the idea of bringing all seven recommendations back in a single, final
comprehensive presentation.
Vote was taken on referring Recommendation 1 back to the
Planning Commission for joint discussion with the Council.
Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye,
except Councilman Keller voting no.
Comm
3/26/75
Approve
In response to Mr. Bradley's request that the discussion be scheduled as soon
as possible, Mr. Chenkin said that because of regular commission meeting and
public hearings already scheduled, a joint session could not be held during
the next week.
Mr. Bradley moved that the Council request the Springfield City Council to
defer, postpone, or continue at their option any action on request presented
to it for rezoning the Springfield airport property until Eugene had its
public hearing with regard to regional shopping centers. There was no second.
4/14/75 - 13
\loS
Mr. Bradl~y felt the proposed rezoning in Springfield could result ina third regional
center. He thought action on that rezoning should wait until decisions were made
with regard to the commercial study, that it was extremely important and an issue __
similar to the regional sewer proposal.
Councilman Murray asked whether Springfield had received copies of the commercial
study and" recommendations. Assistant Manager answered that they had but he was not
sure they had been studied officially by Springfield.
Councilmap Hamel thought it ridiculous for Eugene to make a decision on whether Spring-
field was. going to have the shopping center. He thought a third regional center could
be located in Springfield just as well as it could be located on Goodpasture Island.
He favoreii action on the recommendation at this time. Councilman Murray was somewhat
sympathetic with the motion but said he favored instead discussiori with the Planning
Commission first.
2. L&B Recommendation 2 - Prepare a detailed development plan for the area sur-
rounding the downtown urban renewal area and designate boundaries of a second
urban renewal project west of Charnel ton Street, land acquisition and project
financing to occur only when a firm development proposal is submitted; bulk of
the area so designated used for apartments with reservation of a site at the
west end of the downtown mall for an enlcosed mall shopping center to add to
the downtown retail strength.
The Planning Commission recommended inclusion of development planning
fqr the area sutrounding the downtown urban renewal area in the plan-
ning process developed for use of community development funds. The
Commission expressed concern that such planning not exclude considera-
tion of an open mall. Also, that any expansion of the downtown mall
should be to the west, between Lincoln and Charnel ton, and protection
and development of housing near the central business district should
b~ kept in mind.
--
Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to accept the Planning
Commission recommendation on Recommendation 2 of the L&B report.
Councilman Murray said he did not question the concept presented, but he wondered
about consultant's statement that the area immediately west of downtown was
pretty much filled with obsolete housing which would inevitably have to be re-
moved because of the "downtown" trend. He said he had found in that area con-
siderable housing in need of major repair, but none warranting abatement or
demolition. The thrust of community development, he said, was housing rehabilita-
tion, and he couldn't see where the Planning Commission's recommendation spoke
to that. Mr. Murray also expressed concern about traffic in that area. He was
reluctant to make a commitment to desirability of westward expansion.from the
mall until statements in the commercial study with regard to traffic were ad-
dressed - need for a strong mass transit system to minimize traffic impact on
surrounding residential streets, need for pursuit of construction of Roosevelt
and Amazon expressways to provide access to downtown, precautionary notes with
regard to character of residential streets in the area. Assistant Manager
answered that refinement of the General Plan with regard to the area surround~
ing the central business district would determine the housing concerns in that
area. And development of housing densities in that process would be the basis
for transportation policy. He said retail space could not be expanded without
addressing transportation systems, those issues were interrelated and the types ~
of issues which would have to be dealt with in the study the Commission was ..,
suggesting now. Mr. Chenkin added that these issues in addition to some others
the Commission mayor may not be willing to accept would be resolved only through
the plan refinement within the community deveLopment proces~.
4/14/75 - 14
l CoCo
e
Councilwoman Beal thouyht the Planning Commission TL'commt'/ldiltion was S.:lY'-
ing detailed planning for development of the w('stslde area could not take
place until the refinement study was completed, recognizing the L&B report
was focused on retail floor space and the idea of anot,her large department
store as anchor for expansion of the mall to the west. '
Councilman Hamel thought the Livingston & Blayney report was exactly what
the Council had requested. Options were presented for Council and Com-
mission consideration and now it was up to them to decide what to do.
He pointed out that the report was not; "a law." He thought the Commission
recommendations should be turned over to the people who would suggest
answers as to what should be done.
Councilman Haws was not sure he fully understood the need to expand to the
west from the downtown mall. He asked who would acquire the land, who
would develop it. He wondered if this would be in conflict with plans of
the Westside Neighborhood Association. Assistant Manager answered-that
the refinement plan under discussion would deal with the central business
district, the question of who buys, how developed, would be discussed in
that refinement. And that site immed,iately west of the downtown mall was
chosen because public control was already there. It was not so much the
idea of new retail outlets, he said, as retaining existing outlets to keep
the market area there functioning. He added that the whole question of
the westside commercial district would be before the Council soon because
of jurisdictional disputes between neighborhood organizations which would
have to be res0lved. There was basic conflict as to whether the area would
develop in residential uses, preserved in its present format, or ex-
clusively commercial - perhaps even another civic center. In response to
Mr. Haws statement that his understanding of this recommendation was that
expansion of the mall westward was the accepted concept, Assistant Manager
said it wasn't. However, it appeared to be going in that direction and
that issue had to be determined.
e
-
Councilman Bradley sa,id he was assuming that acceptance of this recommenda-
tion would make a priority item of the L&B recommendation and would in fact
lead to rehabilitation of the downtown area. Mr. Chenkin said he hoped
Council members were not under the impression that the Livingston & Blayney
recommendations in the Commission's official report were to be acted upon.
He explained that the Council was to be concerned only with recommendations
presented by the Commission and pointed out the difference between the two
as they appeared in the official report.
Councilman Murray noted the intensive land speculation occurring in the
area immediately ~est of downtown in the last few years and its debilitating
effect on that neighborhood. He wondered if there could be any assurance
that same effect wouldn't be moved a little farther westward if this recom-
mendation was accepted.' Assistant Manager noted that issue - the question
of compatibili ty w,i th an adjoining area - could be raised in debate on the
refinement plan for the area.
Mr. Murray said he would like to see some conditions placed on approval of
the Commission recommendation on Recommendation 2 for the protection of
development of housing near the central business district. He suggested
that any development plan would pay careful attention to the preservation
of rehabitable housing, problems of excessive traffic on residential streets,
and possible speculative zoning pressures on adjacent areas.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. flamel to amend the mot,ion on
acceptance of the Plann.ing Commission recommendation on No.2
to include the condition that any development plan near the
central business district pay careful attention to the preserva-
tion of rehabitable housing, problems of excessive traffic on
residential streets, and possible speculative zoning pressures
on adjacent areas.
\ \0-'1
4/14/75 - 15
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Keller to refer the recommenda~
tion on No. 2 to the Planning Commission for discussion in joint
session with the Councl1 when the recommendation on No. I is
considered.
Comm
3/26/75
Approve
--
Mr. Bradley said the two were interrelated and one could not be discussed with~
out discussion of the other. Also, he felt adequate information was lacking
on which to make a decision. Mr. Keller said his second was based on the
implication that this had a high priority. He felt its priority should be
a matter of discussion with the Planning Commission.-
Vote was taken on motion to refer. Motion carried, all Council
members present voting aye, except Councilwoman Beal voting no.
3. L&B Recommenation 5 - lInnexation of Goodpasture Island and preparation of
development plan for that area, limiting commercial use to area south of
gravel ponds and to the existing community shopping center (K-Mart), the
remaining portion to be used for residen~ial neighborhood.
The Planning Commission recommended that the Council immediately
proceed with initiation of annexation proceedings; preparation,
of a development plan with regard to land uses and services' essen-
tial to those uses, this plan to be reveiwed by the Planning Com-
mission in April 1975; completion of review of the development plan
by the Commission and Council by June 1975 so it can be included in
the annual update of the General Plan; and proceed with rezoning
following adoption of the development plan and its inclusion in the
General Plan.
Mr. Chenkin noted that if the Council agreed with the Planning Commission's e
recommendation for initiation of annexation, it should proceed through normal
annexation procedures - public hearing before the Commission, referral of recom-
mendation after that hearing to the Council, and subsequent referral to the
Boundary Commission if ~ccepted.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to refer the Commission's
recommendation on Recommendation No. 5 to the Planning Commission
for discussion in joint session with Council on Nos. I and 2.
Discussion followed on how soon a joint session could be scheduled, intent of
acceptance of the recommendation (makes no commitment on annexation, merely
starts procedure at Planning Commission level), staff work to begin on refine-
ment study, etc.
Vote was taken on the motion to refer, and the Chair declared tpe
motion defeated.
Mi. Hamel moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to accept the Commission's
recommendation on No.5.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Haws to defer action on
the recommendation until next committee meeting to give the
opportunity for more information from staff.
In making the motion Mr. Bradley said formal action on the annexation
issue wouldn't be taken until the April 14 Council meeting anyway.
.
Vote was taken on motion to defer. Motion defeated, Council
members Keller,' Bradley, and Haws voting aye; Council members
Murray, Hamel, Beal voting no.
4/14/75 - 16
'(O~
e
.
-
Vote was taken'on the motion to accopt the recommendation to'
start annexation procedures. Motion carriedl all Counci~
members present voting aye, except Councilman Keller votIng no.
Comm
3/26/75
Approve
Ellis Jones, 1030 Coburg Road, read a prepared statement, copies of whicll were
presented to the Council. Mr. Jones objected to annexation of the property without
participation of property owners in the area. ~Ie asked that the matter be returned
to the Planning Commission for further study and proper hearings, saying that con-
sideration should be based on land use criteria rather than on control by restrictive
zoning. Assistant Manager explained that action at this meeting would not be on
annexation itself. It would merely refer the matter to the Planning Commission for
public hearings before that body, recommendation would then be returned to the Council
where testimony in public hearing would also be taken, and finally public hearing
before the Boundary Commission where final action on the annexation would be taken.
He said ample notice of each hearing would be given.
Bill Hewitt, 1205 Goodpasture Island Road, also objected to the annexation.
He said he had granted sewer easement across his property with the understanding it
would not affect annexation or use of the balance of his land. He said there was no
demand for the land at this time. It is now in agricultural use, the General Plan
proposes commercial use, and now low-densith housing is proposed. Ae felt the prop-
erty owners should have something to say about the use; especially since tllere is no
demand at this time for any specific purpo~e. Mayor Anderson noted that the action
taken at this meeting was initiating action only, and that there would be opportunity
in future hearings to voice opinions.
D. LCOG ReSOlution, Block Grant Funds - Copies of reSolution were distributed
by Councilman Bradley with the request that the Council support the LCOG
stand. The resolution, copies of which were to be forwarded to the President
of the United Statesl the Governor of Oregon, the Oregon Congressional dele-
gation, and the BUD Secretary, called attention to the withdrawal by BUD of
funds previously allocated to the Lane County area.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Keller to support the resolution.
Assistant Manager informed Council that the city also was experiencing prob-
lems related to it~ community development block grants. BUD has recalculated
the amount allocated to Eugene, he said, which appears to be $912,000, or
about $200,000 less than originally anticipated. BUD has been asked for
figures used as the basis fo~ arriving at the new amount, and that informa-
tion will be brought to the Council when it is received.
Vote was taken on the motion to Support the resolution. Motion
carried unanimously.
E. Legislative Subcommittee Recommendations - March 31, 1975 were submitted by
Councilwoman Beal:
~he Legislative Subcommittee recommends that the Council support the following
legislation:
H.B.2876 - An attempt to clarify meanings of the Fasano decision on zoning. This bill
was drafted by Orval f:tter with the assistance of a number of city attorneys,
Mr. SiJul from Llll! planninCf (h'partment, and atller planners.
\Cc~
4/14/75 - 17
It is an attempt to clarify existing law which dates from 1919 plus an addi-
tion in 1973 by doing three things: (1) It makes zoning decisions optional
by permitting them to be made either by hea,rings officials or by city counciis;
(2) ,i t provides optional procedures for appeals. Depending on the choice of ..
local governments, appeals can' be made to the planning commission, to the
citlj council, or directly to the courts; (3) it simplifies the requirement for
transcripts by providing thilt a record showing the identity of speakers and
r~flecting the substance or. their statements call be substituted for a ver-
bat.im transcript.
The subcommittc>c rc'commends that the Council agree in concept since the bill
is still being amended and worked on.
fl.B.2940 - Would establish reqiona1 airports in districts crossing county boundaries.
The subcommi ttee agrees in concept on .this bill which would make it possible
to finance operations of airports by revenue bonds on a regional basis.
H.B.2693 - This bill would make it possible for local government purchasing agents to
purchase suppl.ies from the state if they so desire. It is permissive only.
The subcommittee recommends support of th.is bill.
The subcommittee recommends that the Council go on record opposing the following bills:
H:i3.2651 - TV translators. This bill would allow financing of TV translators by setting
up special service districts. It is enabling legislation only. Although
the bill does not concern this city directly, the subcommittee opposes the
proliferation of special districts. Moreover, the l.Jill appears to be poorly
drafted.
H.B.2981 - This bill precludes cities from extending the,ir services outside the city .
limits. We strong,ly oppose this l.Ji11 in concept since it transfers the
right of local government to act in an emergency.
5.B.248 - The subcommittee approv.es a statement prepared by Mr. Martin for testimony
on this bill. The subcommittee was' split on whether the basic principle of
this law should be supported. The bill is the omnibus bill on reform of
the state court system. The section dealt with in Nr. Nartin's memorandum
refers on1t) to the Tecommendiltion which would prohilJit municiiJa1ities from
incorporating traffic regulations into municipil1 courts by ordinance. The.
hill would transfer jur.isclict:ion for these offensos from municipal court to
the district court. Mr. Martin's testimony deals only with the effect of
this law on the muniqipa1 court of the city of.Eugene. It is factual in
nature and does not discuss the principles involved.
Mr.. /laws has no objection to the factual testimony as outlined in Mr.Martin' s
memorandum. i/owevcr, flU disagrees wi th the objections exprossed., by Mr. Hamel
and Mrs. Bea1 to tfw trilnsfer of all traffic cases from municipal to state'
cour t:s .
Attention was called to the difference of opinion in the subcommittee on
the principle of transferring municipal court traffic functions to district
court (S.B.248). Mr. Haws did not object to comments to be presented by
Assistant Manager in testimony before the Legislature's judiciary committee
in opposition to the bill. However, he said he would like to see the Council
adopb the concept of transferring state traffic violations from municipal
co~rt to the district court. He wanted it made clear that the bill would 4IIJ
not abolish municipal courts. It would merely transfer jurisdiction for
state violations, which he thought in the long run would save the taxpayers
4/14/75 - 18
'7,0
money. He distributed copies of an excerpt from COIDiI1/>ntary Oll recommenda-
tions made by the (;Overnor's Commission on Judicial Rt.!fol'ifl stating both
sides of the;issue.
.
Councilwoman Beal thought the testimony presented to the Council subcom-
mittee for approval was well taken, that it spoke to problems encountered
in the city's experience and stated factual experience. She saw no need
to discuss the principle of the transfer at this time thereby delaying
presentation of testimony on the bill. Mr. Haws said he would like to see
the concept of transfer adopted as a matter of record so there would be no
delay in getting that started. He suggested approval of the concept with
reservations about concerns expressed by staff. Assistant Manager said
there was no question of delay in transferring state violations to district
court if the district court docket could be cleared to take Care of them,
that court servicC':; at the district level could be contracted. So it was
not a matter of rer{uiring legislation to accomplish that, it was a case of
the district court's being able to handle the services.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Haws to adopt the concept of
transferring state jurisdiction to district court and authorize
the Assistant Manager to appear before the Legislature's judiciary
committee to express reservations as provisions of the bill would
apply to the ci ty.
Comm
4/2/75
Approve
In response to Coullcilman Keller as to staff's objections at this point,
Assistant Manager';aid there was no objection to a policy statement on the
transfer, rather tile objection was to the implementation. He felt there had
to be better servi,:e level in the district court or the judicial services to
the citizens would be degraded.
e
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Williams was reluctant to take a position opposing H.B.265l as
recommended (allolving special service districts for financing TV translators)
until it was known whether that legislation would be necessary in Eugene.
He explained that the committee appointed to consider translator service
versus cable service had asked the county to explore the legal framework
for erecting a translator system to serve the urban area and there was the
possibility that issue would be taken to the voters. It was fairly possible,
he said, that a special taxing district might be part of that issue. Mrs. Beal
said the subcommittee had recommended opposition at the request of Ms.Swenson,
staff person working with the translator committee, primarily because of the
proliferation of taxing districts. Assistant Manager thought there probably
was adequate authority f~r the county as a general purpose government to
establish a special service district if that was the direction decided upon.
However, it was agreed the position on H.B.265l would be withheld to give
the opportunity to determine whether provisions of the bill would affect
the Eugene situation.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller to accept the recommenda-
tions as presented, except that the position on H.B.265l would
be held pending further investigation. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm
4/2/75
Approve
.
F. Wreckers Licenses
1. Machinery Exchange, 2750 Roosevelt Boulevard - License renewal was pre-
sented by this establishment for endorsement. The State Highway Division
has raised a question with regard to inadequate screening of the operation.
Staff had no objections to renewal of the license other than the screening
.problems. Assistant Manager explained that the existing land use predated
4/14/75 - 19
\'\
requirements of the present zoning ordinance. However, the staff would sup-
port the position that something needed to be done to more adequately screen
the premises.
Lloyd ~reenwade, representing Machinery Exchange, said they would accept
any suggestions for whatever could be done to comply with requirements
for screening but because of the location of the site at a lower elevation
than the overpass (Highway 99N near Roosevelt Boulevard) he didn't know
what could be done. Councilman Haws thought this issue was part of a larger
prob1elT!, the general appearance of the entire area east of the highway at
Roosevelt Boulevard which could not be screened by fencing regardless of the
height. He said other properties in that location were just as much an "eye-
sore" and wondered if this establishment was the only one considered to be
in violation. Assistant Manager answered that there probe1y were solutions
to the screening problem if the property owner could obtain permission from
the Highway Department for some type of screening other than a high fence
to hide that area from passing mo,tor ists. He said staff would not object
to recommending approval of the license renewal with the condition that
the screening issue be addressed by the appropriate state agency. With re-
gard to appearance of other properties, he said, the Council did not have
applica.tions from them to consider at this time.
In response to Councilwoman Shirey'. s inquiry, Assistant Manager said the
state evidently was aware of the problem because correspondence from the
Motor Vehicle Division called attention to the "comp1ete violation" of
the property to screening requirements.
-
Councilman Hamel wondered why the question of screening the Machinery Exchange
operation was raised at this time when it had been established at its present
location for a number of years. Assistant Manager answered that recent ~
change in state law wherein the state requires screening accounted for the '
license renewa1is being returned for new endorsement. He said staff would
recommend renewal of the license on the condition of support of the state's
requirement for screening. _
Councilman Bradley wondered if a report could be returned to the Council by
manager and city attorney with regard to solution of appearance problems
through the common law on nuisances. The Mayor pointed out that the issue
under discussion was a wreckers license renewal. Mr. Bradley said it was
the policy issue invol ved that he was interested in having a report on for
discussion at some later time if the Council wanted to discuss the broader
issue. John Porter, planning director, explained that the state has to com-
ply wi th Federal law in order to be eligible for Federal funds. Federal law
in this instance requires sc~eening of auto or machinery wrecking facilities
along primary state highways. All such facilities along Highway 99N, he said,
would receive equal treatment, the problem would be addressed in the Bethel
refinement study that would be coming to the Council at a later date.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend approval
of the license, with subsequent resolution of the screening
problem as required by the State Highway Division. Motion car-
ried unanimously.
2. John Davis Auto Company, 3808 West 11th Avenue - Change of OWneI ship -
William E. and Bonnie J. Lewis dba The Bug Clinic, Inc.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend
approval of the application. Motion carri~d unanimously.
4/14/75 - 20
\ ., 2..
Comm
4/2/75
Approve
colf
4/2/75
Approve
e
G. Interim Lane County Sewer and Water Service Policy - Copies of resolution
being considered by Lane County for adoption of policy with regard to ex-
tension of water and sewer services were previously distributed to Council
members together with memo from city planninq department noting some
hazards that might be encountered in terms of consistency with the General
Plan because of 'the broad language of the policy statement.
Mayor Anderson felt the exception to prohib,iting in certain instances ex-
tension of water lines (Item 3)d) of the resolution) would be the "first
foot in the door" for extension of water lines outside existing urban serv-
ice areas. Councilwoman Beal thought "cities" as used in defining where
responsibility would lie for provision of sewer services in urban areas
containing incorporated cities should be more specific.
Councilman Keller mtmtioned a subdivision already approved in the River
Road area (Breeden Bros.) which appeared contrary to the policy stated in
the resolution. Assistant Manager said that the County Commissioners
interpreted the use of a sewer lagoon to serve that subdivision as "use of
a public sewer service" when giving approval for the development. The issue
is now before the Boundary Commission, he said, with strong recommendation
for denial. And that development is one reason for bringing the policy
resolution for consideration at this time.
Councilwoman Beal repeated her concern about wording, that the cities to be
responsible for providing services were not specified. Assistant Manage~
felt language of the resolution could be worked out in that regard.
e
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to generally support the
policy as set out in the resolution with the understanding that the
language should be modified to meet the concerns expressed. Motion
carried unanimously.
Comm
4/2/75
Approve
H. Traffic Diverter Policy - Copies of proposed policy on installation of traf-
fic diverters were previously distributed to Council members together with
illustrations of various types of diverters and background material from
various neighborhoods. The policy would recognize the positive value of
diverters in improving living environment, especially in older neighborhoods.
It also would re~ognize that the city has the final authority regarding
location and timing on installation, but would require that the process in-
clude working with chartered neighborhood groups so far as possible in
those areas where installatiqn of diverters was anticipated. Staff recom-
mended that procedure for installation of diverters, once the pOlicy is
adopted, include Council approval for staff research when diverters are re-
quested, close liaison and meetings with neighborhood groups during testing
periods, and public hearings prior to actual construction. Staf~ recommended
referral to the Planning Commission and neighborhood groups for review and
comment before Council action.
e
Councilman Williams was not sure what the policy would be. He didn't see
where it clearly stated when adiverter would or would not be installed.
Assistant Manager answered that there were no established "warrants" for
installation of diverters. For that reason the policy simply stated that
diverters would be used as a technique of solving through traffic problems
in residential areas after the Council had given permission to begin re-
search to determine whether a diverter would solve a problem. Neighborhood
groups would participate in the study, but the Council would reserve to it-
self the fjnal decision on whether it would be installed.
\13,
4/14/75 - 21
Councilman Keller wondered if adoption of this policy would result in shift-
ing traffic problems to other streets when diverters were installed. Assistant
,Manager answered that the need to look at the use of diverters was the result
of the effort to limit arterial streets to the existing system. Diverters
will force through traffic from residential streets onto arterial streets.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to refer the policy
staLement to the Planning Commission for review and comment.
Motion carried unanimously.
~,....,;.".;,. 'f;"'~~__
I. AmusemeQt Device License Fees - Letter was ~eceived from Charles and Cheryl
McCown, owners of Charlie's Pool, 2645 Willamette Street, and Charlie's, Too,
525 East 13th Avenue, stating an unfair burden was placed upon them because
of the license fees requ.ired by city code. Copies of the letter were pre-
viously distributed to Council members. Staff recognized merit of the ~~m~
plaint and the finance department had been requested to review the matter
and prepare a report for Council consideration. Councilwoman Bea1 said
she was impressed by the letter and expressed pleasure that staff was
starting action without Council direction.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. williams to refer the letter to
staff for report and recommendation. Motion carried unanimously.
J. Code Amendment re: Special parking permits for physically disabled persons -
Copies of proposed changes were previously distributed to Council members.
The amendment was explained as a "housekeeping" measure to clarify code
provisions with regard to parking permits for physically disabled persons.
Councilman Williams wondered whether the limitations set by definition of
a "disab1ed person" in the proposed amendment should be left as a "functional"
decision in granting speci a1 permi ts. He said he knew of severa'l people
who wou1-d fi t the defini tion of "disabled person" in the ordinance who
were very capable of getting around, but under the terms of the amendment
they would be authorized to park free in the downtown area. Traffic
Engineer explained that issuance of permits in these instances were fairly
delicate matters and staff felt the terminology used would give the
opportunity to make a determination which would be fair to all con-
cerned. Assistant Manager added that disabled persons able to get
around were not asking for the special permits. He said the amend-
ment as written wouLd deal with ,problems which had been encountered
under the existing ordinance. If there were further problems with
the amendment as written and staff was not able to deal fairly with
all concerned, they could come back to the Council for further changes.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to approve the
amendment as p~esented. Motion carried unanimously.
K. Acquisition, Barger Drive Right-of-way ~ Authorization was requested
to purchase right-oE-way for widening Barger Drive from Ralph O. and
Mildred Collins (Tax Lot 17-4-21-2-2700) for $550, and from Mildred
Cox (Tax Lot 17-4-21-2-2900) for $450.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller to authorize the
purchases as requested. Motion carried unanimously.
4/14/75 - 22
\'4.
e
Carom
4/2/75
Approve
Corom
4/2/75
Approve
--
Carom
4/2/75
Approve
Carom
4/2/75
Approve
.
e
L. Improvement peti tions
1. Paving ,sewers, <lnd periestrian/bike way wi thi n Dapple Way Subdi vi"""
sion between,Roan Drive and Sunshine Acres Road
Petitioned by owners 'of 100% of property to be assessed.
Mr. Keller moved seconried by Mr. williams to accept the
petition. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Underground storm sewer in proposed Briarwood Mob,i Ie Home Estates
(south of Barger Drive, west of Danebo Avenue, north of Candlelight)
peti tioned by oWl~ers of 100% of property to be assessed. Ci ty cost
estimated at $30,480.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. williams to accept the
petition.
Councilman Bradley raised the question of litigation with which
Briarwood Estates is now involved. He wo~dered if acceptance of
the petition would result in the city's incurring costs that might
be rendered moot by the outcome of the lawsuit. Assistant Manager
said the engineering work would not be lost, that the project was
to provide underground drainage now carried in an open ditch at that
location.
It
Councilman Haws wondered if that storm drain would be constructed if
the Briarwood property was not developed, if there was possibility
of its remaining open land and used for park purposes. Don Gilman,
assistant public works director, said probably not, thut the open
ditch could probably remain if the land was not developed. He added
that under city policy the developer would pay for the equivalent of
a 24-inch pipe if the ditch was enclosed, the city paying for any-
thing over 24 inches on the theory that the additional size would
take care of area-wide drainage.
Further discussi~n resulted in consensus that the petition could be
accepted with the stipulation that no engineering work would start
until the Briarwood litigation was out of the way.
Councilmen Bradley and Haws stated their intent to abstain from voting
because of involvement in earlier stages of the Briarwood program. '
Vote was taken on the motion to accept the petition with
the stipulation. that no engineering work would commence
until outcome of litigation with which the Briarwood Estates
was involved was known. Motion carried, all Council members
present voting aye, except Councilmen Bradley and Haws ab-
staining.
Corom
4/2/75
Approve
Corom
4/2/75
Approve
3. Petition, Paving Spring Boulevard from North Shasta Loop to 500 feet
southeast of North Shasta Loop (Kandeda Subdivision)
Petitioned by owners of 47.3% of property to be assessed with estimated
deferred assessment for land not in the subdivision of $1,860. The amount
deferred represents the difference between assessment for 36-foot and that
for 28-foot width ror one-half of the improvement, and will be the responsi-
bility of the owner of the property on the north side of the street when
that land is developed.
-
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the petition.
\15
4/14/75 - 23
In response to Councilman Haws, Assistant Manager explained that 3% interest
would be charged on the deferred amount under present city policy. He fur-
ther explained the difference between this type of deferment and that when
easements were required for sewer lines crossing private properties. He
said the subject property was in one ownership.
e
Councilwoman Beal thought the policy should be reviewed sometime because an
owner of a large parcel of property could defer payment on a sewer assessment,
with no interest charge. Don Gilman, assistant public works director, ex-
plained that that applied only when a sewer line ran through private prop~
erty on which an easement had been granted. If the sewer line ran in a
street on which private property fronted, then the assessment would be
levied., He further clarified policy with regard to deferred assessments
for paving.
Vote was taken on the motion to accept the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
Corom
4/2/75
Approve
M. Charter, Friendly Area Neighbors (FAN) was presented. Copies of the Ch~rter
together with letter from the group and minutes of their organizational meet-
ing were previously distributed to Council members. Assistant Manager said
that staff had no objections to approval of the charter. However, attention
was called to the provision for membership to be established by "entering
one's name and address on the membership list." He said other charters had
been more explicit. It was also noted that the executive committee of this
group was attempting to operate on a rotating basis for sharing leadership.
And the language dealinq with the way the executive committee would relate
to the entire group was rather loosely worded.
Fran Barka~, speaking for the FAN organization, said no one in the group
had been involved in the organization of a similar group, and they felt
that rather than setting up a complicated procedure a simple charter would
more adequately serve their 'needs. She said that although the chairmen
would change for each meeting, there was a representative appointed to
speak for the group on a permanent basis. Also, the executive committee
was in the 'process of defining its relationship to the group and that would
be added to the charter and bylaws when it was determined.
e
Councilman Haws asked for staff comment on the absence of any provision
for notification of meeting time and place. Also, on the provision for
acceptance of absentee ballots. ~oberta Deering, planning, explained that
some of the existing neighborhood groups accepted absentee ballots, others
didn't. It was something staff felt should be left to the individual groups.
Ms. Barkan said that notices of meetings were now included in the group's
newsletters but were not included in the charter.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the charter
at the April 14 Council meeting if provision for notices of meet-
ings to the membership was included before that time. Motion
carried unanimously.
Corom
4/2/75
Approve
Assistant Manager said that amendments to the Charter had been developed as suggested
by the Council but the group would not have the opportunity to act on them until its
next meeting and asked that Counc~l actio~ b~ held until FAN action was taken. Council ~
indicated its intent to hold the 1tem unt1l the amended Charter was brought back (see .
motion below on adoption of consent calendar).
4/14/75 - 24
r1\o
N. Segregation of Assessment, Gilbert Shopping.ce~ter - Req~ested by Kenneth
and Dorothy Gilbert for property between Fa~rf~eld and H~ghway 99N
(Tax Lots 17-04-23-30-1900 and 1902). The assessment of $1,320.02 against
property to be segregated was paid. Staff recommended approval.
.
I.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. williams to approve the
segregation as requested. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm
4/2/75
Approve
O. Room Tax Allocation Recommendations - March 27, 1975 - Copies of report from chair-
'man of the Room Tax Allocation Committee together with minutes of the March 27
meeting were previously distributed to Council members.
1. Lane County Auditorium Association requested $50,000. Room Tax Committee tabled
the request for further study.
2. Summer Festival of Music requested $6,000. Room Tax Committee recommended alloca-
tion of $4,000. Royce Saltzman, represl'nting the Festival, expressed apprecia-
tion for support in past years and was grateful for the $4,000 allocation
at this time. However, he requested the Council to allocate at least to
the level allocated last year - $5,000. He cited increased budgetary
costs and expansion of the Festival itself as bases for the request. He
felt the level of funding requested at this time was crucial to avoid
discouraging voluntary support just now being received from the community,
other organizations, and from the Oregon Arts Commission. He noted that
this Festival provided the only cultural summer programs and concerts with
the potential for attracting people who actually would be contributing to
the hotel/motel room tax funds.
-
Councilman Haws asked for staff comment on the statement in the minutes
that the funds the Room Tax Committee had to allocate this year were less
than last year. Sherm Flogstad, finance director, explained that the Com-
mittee met quarterly to recommend allocations unless the number of applica-
tions received warranted meeting more often. lie said there was no way of
knowing how many applications would be received during the year, if they
could all be received at one time then the funds could be budgeted accord-
ingly. Recurring applications were not of sufficient number to allow de-
tailed budgeting. In response to Councilwoman Beal, he said total revenues
during the year amounted to about $110,000.
Councilman Keller asked if the Festival program would be adversely affected
in view of availability of outside income if the appropriation from the
city was less. Mr. Saltzman'said it would. Help from the private sector
of the community had been enlisted to the fullest, he said, so that there
was no anticipation of further funding there. He said the 1974 budget
was a little more than $20,000; 1975, $27,700.
Councilman Murray was'mpressed with the significant fund raising accomplished
by this group, the city wasn't carrying the load alone.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to increase the alloca-
tion to $5,000. Motion carried unanimously, except that
Mr. Bradley abstained.
Corom
4/9/75
Approve
e
It was understood staff would prepare as a matter of informa-
tion for the April 14 Council meeting a breakdown of room tax
funds available for allocation.
3. International Arboretum Association requested $1,000. The Room Tax Com-
mittee recommended allocation of $700. Barbara Newton, speaking for the
Association, explained their program planned for the downtown mall in con-
r1 ..,
4/14/75 -25
nectiori with the downtown promotion of National Arbor Day. The~ewas no
information available with regard to denial of the $300 allocat~on for
that. It was understood that information would be available for the
Council at the April 14 meeting.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the allocati~n
as recommended. Motion carried unanimously, except that Counc~l-
m~n Bradl~y abstained. .
Comm
4/9/75
Approve
.
Barbara Newton asked if the $300 allocation mentioned in committee was being denied.
The Mayor answered that a report would be brought back to committee. Ms.Newton
noted the program was planned for April 21 through 25 and the money was requested
for printed materials that needed to be distributed prior to that time. Assistant
Manager said the item would be inserted on the agenda for the April 16 committee
meeting.
4. Women's Choral Society requested $700. Room Tax Committee recommended
allocation of $700. President of the Society expressed appreciation
for t"he support and explained programs carried ol.!t by the group. She
said it was the only women's group in Eugene singing variety music and
that its activities fell within the guidelines for allocation of room
tax funds.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the allocation
as recommended. Mobon carried unan.imouslll, except, that Council-
man /lr;Hi/ell al).<;taiT)('IJ.
Comm
4/9/75
Approve
5. African Students Association requested $2,150. Room Tax Committee recom-
mended allocation of $500 on the basis that amount was allocat~d last
,year and the Committee could not accept the increase requested.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Bea] to approve the allocation
as, recommended. Motion carried unanimously, except that Council-
man Bradley abstained.
Comm
4/9/75
Approve
.
6. Western Rivers Girl Scou~ Council requested $19,500. Room Tax Committee
referred the request to city attorney for opinion on whether use of
toom tax funds was appropriate for rebuilding the Girl Scout Camp at
Lake Cleawox.
7. Northwest Revie.w i.equested $1,500. Room Tax Commi ttee recommended denial
on the basis that the publication is educational in nature, has limited
appeal, and reaches a small number of people (600 subscribers). Managing
Editor of the publication described the publication and said it was
one of the oldest literary magazines, originally issued with University
funds. Since cutbacks at the Universit~it had been funded through
patrons and donors. He explained that although it reached few people,
it did reach those who would read it. He said it did receive some
Federal funding. Also that if small magazines of this type disappear
because of lack of funds he believed this publication would be salvaged
through the National Endowment for the Arts.
Councilman Murray was disturbed by the notion that funding was not recom-
mended because of the publication's relatively small subscriber list.
That.was one of the most dangerous bases for denyiny cultural support,
he said, and would seem to promote further addiction to mass media.
He thought it mig'lt be well to fund to some degree those activi ties
for which it was difficult to raise funds elsewhere. He suggested the
applicant should have opportunity to discuss the request with the com-
mittee since no one had been present; when it was considered at t:hat level.
.
4/14/75 - 26
lif>
e
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to refer the Northwest
Revielv back to the Room Tax Allocation Committee for further
consideration with the hope the Committee would take note of
Council comment.
Councilwoman Bea1 commented also that it seemed unfair when allocations
were made to musical, artistic, and other types of cultural events and
then deny funds to the "written word." She thought it appeared to be
discriminating against authors and poets, artists whose accomplishments
could not be touched or heard.
Councilman Williams thought some consideration should be glven to where
the publication would be enjoyed. He felt the question was properly
raised if the proportionate number of people in Eugene subscribing was
smaller than elsewhere and the bulk of the benefit went beyond the
geographical area appropriate for expenditure of room tax funds.
Councilman Haws noted that there was nothing in the guidelines for
allocation of room tax funds with regard to "numbers." It is simply
provided that the activity must be available for the benefit of Eugene
citizens. If numbers were to be considered, he said, that should be
written into the guidelines.
In response to Councilman Keller, the Editor said that annual subscrip-
tion rates were $6.00 for three issues, and that issues were available
in bookstores, in libraries, and in other locations where it might be
read.
e
Mayor Anderson said the fact that there was no one to explain the
activity to the Room Tax Committee probably had a bearing on the deci-
sion to deny the request. He preferred a motion that would refer the
request back to the Commi ttee for discussion wi th representati ves of
the publication and allow the Committee to make a recommendation based
on that discussion.
Councilman Murray changed his motion with Councilwoman Beal's
concurrence to refer the request to the Room Tax Committee
for recommendation after discussion with representatives of
the Northwest Review. Motion carried unanimously, except that
Councilman Bradley abstained.
Comm
4/9/75
Approve
8. Mill Street Publishing cd. requested $1,800. Room Tax Committee recom-
mended referral of the request to the city attorney at the request of
the applicant for an opinion with regard to whether this publication
was an entirely educational activity.
9. Oz Publications requested $800. Room Tax Committee declared the applicant
ineligible because there was no indication whether it was a nonprofit
organization and the publication had limited appeal.
.
10. Oregon Bicentennial Mural Commission requested $8,000. Matching funds
to allow construction of a building for a bicentennial mural w~re not
available, and the pa.",ks Department requested use of this $8,000 to
construct a building for the mural. The Room Tax Committee had re-
ferred the question to the Council for decision. However, the Parks
Department in the meantime withdrew the request.
4/14/75 - 27
\19
P. Appeal from planning commission approval of Phase II-A, Oakway PUD -
pre1imiT!ary approval given by the planning Commission on March 4, 1975
Mr. .Murray moved seconded by Mr. williams to schedule public
hearing on the appeal at the April 28 Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
Comm
4/9/75
Approve
--
Q. Metropolitan Sewer Advisory Commission Report - April 4, 1975 - Copies of
the report were prev"ous1y distributed to Council members. The Commission
recommended that Eugene and Springfield Councils and Lane County Commis-
sioners adopt Plan B of the CHzM-Hi11 study - abandon the Springfield
sewage treatment plant and use an expanded Eugene treatment plant for a
regional sewer system. They also asked evaluation of the study by each
agency and recommendation back to the Commission. springfield resolution
was read endorsing concept of Plan A - retaining use of the two existing
plants in Eugene and Springfield - and urging Eugene and Lane County to
join with Springfield in seeking a long-range, comprehensive sewerage plan
for the metropolitan area. Springfield further endorsed the formulation
of a permanent regional sewer commission to achieve regional planning goals
through establishment of common public policies.
Assistant Manager, recognizing the necessity for involvement of Springfield
in any regional sewer planning, suggested that the Advisory Commission be
advised that Eugene might be willing to go along with the two-plant concept
if springfield in turn would agree to formulation of a strong commission
with powers that would allow it to deal with sewerage issues on a regional
basis and with regional authority that would bind both agencies in some de-
cisions yet to be made.
Mark Westling, member of the Advisory Commission, explained that the main
reason for the CH2M-Hi11 two-plant recommendation was not an engineering
matter. The costs involved in operating both plants or a single expanded
plant would be about the same. Rather it was in recognition of the com-
plexities in achieving a joint program, especially where a vote of the
people would be l'equired. Delays in that respect would be costly and
create technical prob1ems in,meeting time standards for obtaining Federal
funds. Anything dealing with creation of a metropolitan entity having
some responsibility, he said, would likely run into the same problem. So
within that framework the city would have to determine whether to go along
with the two-plant concept entirely, which the consultants felt possible,
to expedite the process or take some other position. He noted that it was
necessary to have ~ regional program in order to qualify for Federal grant
funds.
-
Councilman Keller reported that the majority of the Advisory Commission felt
the one-plant system was the best plan. If that was not followed, the a1~
ternatives became rather limited. He felt strongly that thinking in terms
of Eugene itself and Springfield itself would have to be overcome, that
any metropolitan sewer system could not be handled by an advisory body.
He said he would not be opposed to the idea of advising the Commission that
Eugene would go along with maintaining both plants under a permanent commis-
sion charged with operating a regional sewer system. He thought there was
no chance for solution of the regional problems unless there was creation
of a permanent commission to get a metropolitan system underway.
Counci'lman Bradley favored the one-plant system -' Plan B - under the authori ty .
of a regional commission. He thought going to a two-plant system might re-
sult in another plant for another part of the Lane County, maybe three
separate, individual plants operated by local jurisdictions. He moved
4/14/75 - 28
\2>0
--
e
e
that Eugene support Plan B with the formulation of a strong regional com-
mission as the financing authority. There was no second.
Councilman Keller agreed there would have to be one jurisdiction to be re-
sponsible for regional operation. He thought the idea of One plant versus
two plants became secondary when one considered the problems that would have
to be resolved in achievjlg regional operation. He emphasized that it was
a regional problem.
Mayor Anderson could see no reason to belabor the point of whether there
should be one or two plants He suggested that Eugene prepare its own
resolution si'miiar to Springfield's and direct it to them indicating that
although Eugene favors the one-plant idea, in view of Springfield's objections
Eugene at this point would support the plan recommended by CH2M-Hill - retain-
ing plants in both Eugene and Springfield.' Also, that Eugene would endorse
the formulation of a Sewer Advisory Commission to achieve planning goals
leading to the establishment of a permanent regional commission. He thought
that would convey to SpringField the idea that unless there was created some
kind of regional authority, Eugene would not be interested. Mr. Anderson
thought there was cl certain amount of sentiment in Springfield for a permanent
commission and if that was accomplished, other problems could then be resolved.
Councilwoman Beal thought preparation of such a resolution that both cities'
could sign was an excellent idea. She recognized the futility of trying to
resolve the one-plant/two-plant idea. Councilman Keller suggested inclusion
of Lane County in the resolution.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that a resolution in line
with the Mayor's suggestion be prepared for presentation to the
Council at its April 14 meeting.
Councilman Bradley thought such a step would be compromising Eugene's position
too far, although he agreed that Eugene should go on record supporting a
regional commission. He thought there w"'s too much at stake to have Spring-
field uni1at'era1ly dictate what should be Eugene's judgment. Also, that
it was premature at this step to anticipate what would happen and concede
to the two-plant idea. Perhaps Springfield in Advisory Commission meet-
ings would reconsider and support the one-plant idea. Assistant Manager
said that in conversations he had with both elected and appointed officials
in Springfield, it appeared unlikely that city would accept the idea of
abandoning its treatment plant. Councilman Keller noted that formation
of 'a regional system had bean in process for about two years with th~
idea it would work itself out, but that has not been the case. He thought
it should be realized the one-plant system "just was not going to happen."
The suggested resolution', he said, was giving Springfield an alternative,
recognizing the time element in gaining Federal funds, to determine whether
they would like to do something about a regional system. He said some common
ground had to be found.
Councilman Hamel said the fact should be recognized that Springfield was
going to have its own treatment plant. He agreed with the motion on the
floor and called for the question.
Mayor Anderson thought the language of the resolution might be developed
in a manner to mare strongly emphasize the one-plant idea. Assistant
Manager pointed out that a hard line negotiating stance could be "slipped
into," but that would not be characteristic of past relationships between
the metropolitan agencies. Past negotiations have been very open and the
agencies have operated on the assumption that trading of opinions would
\8'
4/14/75 - 29
develop solutions. He agreed that the language of the pl'oposed resolufion
might be worked on to more nearly reflect Mr. Bradley's opinion.
Councilwoman Beal didn't look upon it as a confrontation because the im:'"
portant thing was to'achieve a regional system, not the mechanics of
achieving it. She was sure Springfield officials were sensitive to that
probleq. Councilman Keller added that it should be remembered that CH2M-
Hill did recommend the two-plant plan.
--
Vote was taken on the motion to prepare a resolution indicating
Eugene would go along with the two-plant system and achievement
of planning goals leading to creation of a permanent regional
sewer commission. Motion carried unanimously.
Comm
4/9/75
Approve
Assistant Manager called attention to copy of proposed resolution attached to the
Council's agenda. It was prepared to indicate the Council's preference for a
one-plant regional system but going along with the two-plant system and asking
Springfield and Lane County to join in formulation of a permanent regional sewer
commission. The resolution was read (see Res.2388 under Resolutions).
R. Council Minutes - December 23, 1974 and January 13, 1975
Approve
S. Appointment to Legislative Subcommittee was announced by Mayor Anderson _
~ Councilman Hamel to replace Councilman Williams, wh; because of assuming
duties as president of the League of Oregon Cities will be unable to con-
tinue in the subcommittee assignment.
Comm
4/2/75
Affirm
T.
Wayne M~rse Property - Councilwoman Shirey asked for Council discussion at
the Apr~l 16 c~mmittee meeting of possible park use of the Wayne Morse prop-
erty (Crest Dr~ve). She asked staff for preparation of cost estimates on
maint~nance i~ems - grounds without the house, both, etc. - in order to have
a bas~s for d~scussion.
--
There were no objections and it was understood the item would be
scheduled for the April l6 committee meeting.
Comm
"4/2/74
Affirm
u.
Proposed Growth Study
ing at the request of
this meeting.
- Discussion was postponed to April 9 committee meet-
Councilman Murray who was not able to be present at
Comm
4/2/75
Affirm
v. Hearing Panel Recommendations - April 7, 1975
l. C.B.7JJ - Levying assess~entsfor paving and storm sewer on l8th Avenue from
lOO feet northeast of Harvard Dri ve to 1056 feet west of J}ailey
Hill Road (74-22)
Held over from February l7 and March J panel hearings.. Melissa Martinson,
c/o Wilbur Henderson, 2321 s. W. Montgomery Drive, Portland, said she had not'
received notice of panel hearing on February l7 and that subsequent notice
of hcar,inq for March 3 had not: been received in time for her to prepare her
prescnta tion objecLin9 to the assessment. Nei ther had shc nor lJ. S. Na tional
Bank received notice that the project 'was to be constructed, ilnd in this
respect, she said, the city had failed to follow Oreqon ,law. She said she
Ivould havc objected ill: the t,imo of bid award had she knOhm of the project at
UI<lt t,imo. as she waS Uw only person involved ~vith tJwt sccUon of street .
clnd ~vas lJL'iIlCj dsscsscd t:Jw full, amount. She went on tlwt development of the
propertt} was five to ten years in the future and she didn't feel she should
J1ilVU to pay for the .improvement when she hadn't asked LCor .it. She recognized
,it IvOYl.cJ })(! of bcnct.i,(: at some future time_ but there was no need now especially
.
4/14/75 - JO
lee.
.
i /I vi ew of the vaCilllCl1 rilte ,in Churchill Villaye and tile i.'collomi C si tuat,ion
~vllich lvoulrl preclude development of other adjacent: pro/iort-ies. She added
t:lwt Ilt.:'r attorney llild dc/vised her "she had a case" l>C!CdllSC of failure of the
ci ty to give her proper notice of construction of the ,roject.
In response to Councilman Bradley, Ms. Martinsen said she finally received
notice through the U. S. National Bank in Portland tilat it h1as orig.inally
sent to the Ma,in Branc I in Eugene and subsequently forwarded to several other
Jiranches before arr.i v ing in t:he trust department in Por tlilnd. The second
notice, she said, was received on the Friday before the date of panel hearing,
d~ad1ine for giving notice of intent to appear at the hearing was Thursday.
Bert Teizel, city engineer, explained that the street improvement was a re-
quirement for approval VI} the Planning Commission of the c"hurchill Village PUD.
The developer of that PlJf) had prov,ided the ci ty wi tll deed for the riyllt-of-way
tllrouclh tlle Martinson property at the time of petitionilHI the street paving.
'I'his portion of the street Ivc1S cons tcucted to dCCOll/lllOdate a sec:ond phase of
the PUD which did not ll/iltericJl.izc. Mr. 'l'citzel said there ~viJS on file an
earnest money ayrc7em,!nt hetween C. L. and D. V. Ogle and Ms. Martinson with
regard to possibl(! plJf) on the Martinson property cJS we.ll as the request from
Churchill Village for the second phase. Since the city had the deeded right-
of-way, it ~vcnt alwad with the improvement on that basis with the understand-
inCf that everllone concerned tvas aware of it. Mr. 7'eitzel ,Hlded that legal -
requirement for notice Iv,]S cOlllplc'd with bl] advertisinq in loccJ1 /Jclper, ZJnd
that courtesy not.icl.'s tvU{'(' ~~ent 1';0 property mvners involved. The notice to
Ms. Martinson, acconlinCJ to rccorcls, WilS :;cnt to the IJ. S. National Dallk CJnd
cl cOPt! S,?llt to Mr. Oe;)". Notices ~v('T'e also sent to School /)istr_ict 4,] and
Churchill VilIayc> since t!H'.'Y own property abutting tJ)(.' street improvement.
.
MS. Martinson saie/ t,llcre ~vas no va.licl aqrecment w,ith Mr. 0</10, ,it was not
completed. NciUlcr Wd.'; tlll.'re il contract with Churchill Villac7c. She said
tlJC.:re was no litiyation involved, in response to COuTJc.i.llllan Hamel.
Nr. 'J'cit7.cl /JOinr:<.'rj (Jut 1:11.11: tIlL' streel right-of-wall was deu(/crl bl] NS.Ncirtinson
ufJ(} t:lJ('> II. ,c;. Ndtiolldl /1,1/11\ ill oreIer I{) cOIII/Jlete tilL' DClc:el: cunfl,.'ction betlveefl
RJilcl} lI.i II UO.:Jcl dlUl li<!r/elsL'1l l<Odrl. ".ls. Nart,/nson sdid sIlt.' WLlS dwcJrc of that,
in res/Jo/Jse 1:0 rJucst iOllilll1 from Counc.; lman IIcJlflc1, 1m I: ShL' hul /Jnt been c1WcJrc
of dl)l./ })/'()!Josc'rl ./ /I/fJro V L'lIIen t.
Councilman Ii:/Ine,l \vonclen.cJ jf the assessment could VL' deFerred. Mr. 'l'eit:zel
an:ilvcrc(1 thelt t:hc eli ((erence IJetween the 36-foot and J8-foot \vl(llhs could be
.
deferred. Ie didn1 t appCiJr there could be anythiny other than that s,ince
all legal n..'C{uireJllcnts IveH~ met and the improvement h1as accomplished in
accordance w.ith chi.1rtcr provisions.
Ms. Martinson re.itcrated her contention that Oregon latv had not been follOlved
in tlJilt slle hcJrl not receiveclnotice of intent to make th;JimUl'ovclllent.
Mr. 7'c'itzel didn't see anI) legal problem since it was a quc::;tion of \vhather
Mr. Ogle had any legal right in the property.
e
Councilmiln Bradley asker] \vhet/Jer there would havc been any change in the situa-
tion had Ms. NcJrtinson received notice as she wished ami filed a remonstrance
at the first hearing. Mr. TeitzL'.l said there woul'd have heen none, that her
property constituted 27'J{, of'the total properties ahutting the'improvement
lie said there were no others objecting to the assessment. Ms. Martinson
questioned the perccmta'fe figure stated, maintaining that she WcJS being
c1ssesscd lOO~~ of the cost for tIle .improvemcnt alJutting her JJro[>crtl} lvhich
she had not requested.
\~3
4/14/75 - 31
Counci lmari BradLey asked wha t remedy Ms. ,~arfinson wou ld have if the recom-
memlation was to levy the assessment as proposed, Mr, Tei tze,l saicJ if the
assessment was levied it would become a lien on the propert11, thC'il lega,l
acti on as;ainst the e,j ty for clamiJges would be ahou t t)w onll) . recourse,
Ms, MiJrtinson said she thought she could ask for a writ of rcvic1\'.
.
Recommendation: 'Inanimo"s, to levy the assessment as proposeQ
on the lJiJsis that the Martinson property amounted
tn only 27% of the total properties fronting on
the street and there were no o1>jections from
other owners of abutting pr:operties. Also, the
street right-of-way had been ded,icated in l.ine with
Planning Commission requirement for the P/JD, and even
though it would not be developed 1vi thi n the foresee-
able futu,re there lvas, reason. to beLieve that w'as the
appropriate action to maintaIn liiiJble pjanning for
the area.
In making the recommendation, Mr. Bradley thought the full Council
might give serious thought to deferring the difference in the assess-
ment for the 36-foot and 28-foot widths on the portion abutting un-
developed profiert~J until the property was developed,
'2. C, B. 769 - Paving 1!0.Ik S~reet from Railroad ~ouZcviJrd to nort(l of Polk Court (73-2l)
Those obj.ecting to 'the assessmen t were Mrs. Jessie Ivalclst:ein, 1270 East 22nd
Avenue i Edlvard Kaiscrshot, s[.>cakinq for Lydia Trulson, 35 North Polk i /?ichard
, Price, 25 Neptune, Springfi eld i Elmer Hanson, l68 North Cleveland i Wayne
Whitehead, 93 North Polk.
Mrs. Waldstein 'asked the panel to consider assessing for only the 28-foot
width on portions abutting residcntial properties (l?-2). She recognized the
'. city was paying for extra strcngth to accommodate heavy truck traffic, but
she fel t the R-2 zoned property stil] in sin(;lc-famill} use should [lal} for
on,Zl} the 28-foot width. Sh(~ refern-,d torecc'nt clwnqc in alley ilssessment
procedure ~vllC[ejn dsscs,<:mcnt.: WdS hL<;,'d on lillld use and asked thai, the panel
consider the occupants of single-fam,i.l'y dwellings remaining on R-2 zoned land.
Mr. 'l'eitzel expla,ined that the Counci.l at time of bid a~vard on this project
decided on paving to 36-,foot width becallse of the R-2 zoning in the area. He
said the policy on method of assessing for street paving did not provide for
deferment because of property uses, it is based strictly on zoning. lie said
the alley assessment procedure re~erred to by Mrs. Waldstein did allow defer-
ment for a portion of the improvement cost of owner-occupied single-family
use 'on land zoned to d higher. densi ty. Similar deferment was not provided
for in street impro.vements, he said, because of the insignificant difference
between the 36- and 28-foot widths and the feeling that zoning rather tha.n
use should be the biJsis.
.
Mrs. Waldstein called attention to city n.eed for the street because of its
trucks. Also, that at the time of neighborhood po.Zl on. whether thQ improve-
ment'shouliJ he constcl1cted there wa.s no option with rcgard to width. lIer main
concern remained that the ]?-l uses be assessed on a different lJasis than the
mul tiple'-famil y uses because of ,considerable difference in traffic genera ted
by the multiple-family uses. In response to Councilman Brad.Iey, it was brought
out that Mrs. rvaldstein's property was zoned R-2 near RA zon.ing, and that the
majority of the property in that area was zoned for multiple-family use though
much of it lias st,i1l in s,ingle-family use. Mr. Tei.tzel siJid there were six
RA zoned properties against which assessment would be deferred (36-foot versus
28-footlvidth) . However, in accordance wi th assessment policy Mrs. Waldstein' s
property would be assessed the 36-foot width since it was zoned R-2.
e
4/14/75 - 32
\84-' "
e
Councilman 13radleythouqht there should be some modification of the assessment
policy because it seemed to him unfair that there was '1{) rL'course l:n Nrs. Wald-.
stein's situation. Mr. Teitzel answered that the Council committee appointed
to study assessment policy discussed at length the mattl'T' of eCJuity in improve-
ment assessments and the provision in alley assessment procedure for deferring
did help some of the o~ nc',s of older homes in primarily commercial areas.
He noted that the provis,ion applied only to otvner-occupied dtve1lings. Mrs.
Ivaldstein said she didn't live on this property but she L'xpr8ssed concern for
several property olvners who did live there.
e
Discussion turned to bi lls fo.r damages noted by Mr. Ka,isershot speaking on
behalf of Lydia Trulson. Mr.Teitzel explained that the private water con-
nection to the Trulson property was damaged during the street construction
Grading severed the line which according to city ordinance was required to
be installed at least 30 inches under the street. Repair [or any service
not buried to that depth becomes the respons,ibility of the property olYner.
In adcli.tion, Mr. 7'citzel sa,id, several siclealks existing in tlw area whcn
the project tvas started hdd hcen installed wi thout establishing grade to
ci ty specifications resul tinq in the sidewalk in front of the Trulson prop-
erty being Clbout four to six inches higher than the curb. On information
from the public works dCpilrtment that the most eco1lomical IvaI) to cocrect
the situation tvdS to h1ve thu contrC:lCtor do the work w}JLle there, the fJrOperty
owncr had UlL' COcl'uct:,ion accomplishcr.! IJut without Ilotify,in(/ the plJl),lic works
dejJClTI:ment. Sllrvul) iJy c,i tlj [Jc!rsonnel since complcti on of the project will
reslilL in ildjllstment o[ (fTiule on, scverilf wdlks in the arua similar to the
Trulson walk already repluced by the property owner. Mr. Tc.i tzel recom-
mended city recognition of that by payment o[ one-half of Trulson's $225
bill for replacement, or $ll2.50. lIowever, he sa.id he tvoulrl not recommend
pilyment of allY hi.lls for clamaqe t"O the pdvate water service lille tvhich was
in tIlL' r i U h t -0 [ - Iv.1I).
C()Il~;i dl.'l'a/J/ (! d j .';CU,';!; i Oil lu]] ()IVI'(/ l)utw,', '11 fl,In(! I IlIcm!J(!rs I Nr. KiI i scr!;hot, and
.'it<Jff with n.'(/dId to. I()('"d I..i 0/1 of t://(, SI'lTic/.' line, Nr. l\aiser.';/lot showinc;.'
pictures and rnaintaininq. ,i t was beneath tho sidewalk and that there W.JS no
ncC'd for the gr.Jdcr lJlacl(' 1:0 disturlJit.' location of i':Wl~'// IIll.'teI'S; T'eli1tively
recent insl:CJllation of the line, Mr. Tcitze1. explainin!) tilat 110 city permits
were reCJuired for ,insta,l1ation, hence no reconls of time of installation;
ceJde provis ions requir.ing any pi pc or condu,i t undernea I'll a street to be
30 ,inches helOt... the curb or sidewalk elevation; street excavation was to
l8 inches belOlv top of sidewalk (Mr. Kaiscrshot IIIaintaining it ~vas over two
feet. Nr. nradlcl) suqqcsLed possible remedy would he to require those ,in-
st.1lZin!) the water pipes to lw.Jr.' t/w cost o( replaccl/le/lt, th;'JI'C'}Jl/ creating
prcs.';llf'eS For ,';OI1lC' tlJpC o( c.i I:I} nHj1l1ation that would dSsurc} U1acC'I/I(}llt ~Jt
tlle [J['oper depl:h and avoid ~;i/ll;/dr .';;I:l/ill:ions ,ill I:ile futufe.
Uecol/IHlend,l tion:
Mr. /lill/lcl sa,id he Ivould recommend paYl/lent of
one-half of the sidewalk replacement cost ($112.50).
/I()\Vl!ver I he [01 t t}w cost for danl.'1<}CS to the wa ter
service should ])e the responsibijj ty of the {lz'opcrty
owner since it had not beeIl installed at the proper depth.
e
Mr. 13rad,ley recommended reimbursell/ent of one-hal f the cost
of s;d.,'lvdlk rr~r1ac('mcnt ji<lid by olvr/r"rs of other pror(~rtics
wlwTI.' tin.' (;j1:l/ would 1)(.' l/lal:j{lI) odjuSI:I/I('IIt.s in <frd(k' as well
d.'; o/Jl'-hilC I:he cost illcull'I'd (or tI/(. 'l'1l/lson :,irJclvalk l'r.-
plac('I/1r}/ll'. /10 t/lo/J()hl: I:IJo citlf slwuld rujllll'IlFse tile' property
otvner for the damaged water line.
\~S
4/14/75 - 33
Richard Price, owning propeTty at 180 North Grand, said he had been given no
options regarding paving w.idth at the time poll on constru :tio~ of the project
was taken. He noted his property was zoned R-2 and he said he had heen told
it couldn't be developed to multiple-family use because of lack of access.
He wondered why it had not been rezoned RA. He thought property owners should
be made "!ware of avai1.able options when street improvements were proposed be-
cause if he had been <;ware at that time that he could not build mu.ltiple-
family housing he would not have been in favor of the paving. Considera'ble
disucssion followed wi th regard to zoning i nthe area, restr icti.ons appl ying
to various zones., length of t,ime present R-2 zoning has eX,isted in. the area,
etc. f.1r. ,Price suggested deFerment of ilssessment for tho d.ifferC'nce betlvoen
the 28- and 36-foot widtilsunt:i1 Ire could proceed wi th developlllcnt of hi s
property to multiple~family use. Mr. 'l'eitzel noted that that type of dcfer~
ment would require rewri ting or amendment of the assessment policy.
.
Wayne Whi tehead.sa id he Li ved at 93 North Polk and mmed property at 97 North.
Polk. 1/0 "echoed tile sentiments" of those urging the panel to assess on the
basis ofa 28-foot ~vidth rather than 36-foot w.idth on the basis of mixed RA
and R-2 uses, apartment usJs in the area, and heavy traffic generated by those
uses. He questioned the equity in assessing on a frontage basis in instances
lvhen the property hei ng assessed ran to a considerao.le dl!pth ilnd 11.:1(1 the same
aIiJa a:; a property tvi th cnnsiderahle feontage and lessee depth. Mr. ivhitchead
thought chilrging res/Jons ihi l.i ty ilCjainst the property owner for dillflo.ge to
water lines installed prior to code requirements governing installation would
raise a legal quesLion. lie silid construction of apartmc'mt complexes J:n the
area appeared to have stoPlJcd. Recognizing it was a low-income area, and
that there were only two cJ/Jilrtment developments in the area, he thought assess-
mcnt on a 28-foot basis wou,ld he appropriilte.
In response to Counc.i lman l/radley, discussion agel.in turned to difference be-
tlyCen deferral of a":;SC'!:iSllIl'nt..; on street pavinq and on alll'l} imlJrovemcnt and
the esLcJhlis}wcl policlj cove'rin(} L'ach. Mr. /Jri1dlc1} read from t:he ['('solution
'(No.2272) .';c.ttin,} out ClS,<;C',<;.';//lc'nt I)()]iclJ and Dcl.id })Q .interpreted its ,intent
t.lIdL 1:1,1.' ci tl} would dlJ.';nrl, Ill,' c().';I: ill L'XCl'S:; o[ ?8 (I.'ot all dll'l 1'I:.'sidc:ntial
street abuttinq sin<),le-famill} dwellin'js.
e
Recommendat,ion: Unanimous, that those properties on l'olk Street in
R-2 zones beinCj used as sin<jle-family residences be
assessed for the imfJrovement on the basis of 28-foot
paving. However, both Mr. Bradlelj and Mr. Hamel
felt an opinipn from the city attorney before con-
sideration by the [ull Council would be in .order.
Levying assessments for
3. C.R.770 - paviny and storm sower on Golden Gardens Street from narger Drive
to Jcssen Drive (74-14)
Dwight Tyson, .2085 Golden Garden Street, objected to assessment on the 3G-foot
bilsis agilinst the property on which his residence wasZocated: lie said he
had the proj)crtlj sllhd,i vi ded upon advice from the ci ty al though he had no
plans for going ahead with development. I/e now understands that if he had
not subdiv,ided he lyould have been assessed for only the 28-foot width.
Nr. 'l'yson lIIent,ionecl aLso a SOlver connection on which there evidently had
bcen an error which WilS beinq checked out by staff. '
Mr. 'l'eitzel explained that when this project. was started, because of the large
parcel of land in Mr. Tyson's ownership and its potential for subdi v,ision,
he was told that if he antic,ipated parti tioning the entire ass,essment would
have to be paid in accordance with state law before that could occur. Mr. Tyson
did go ahead with subdivision so the property was assessed for a 36-fooc
widch. Had the suhdi vision not occurred, the port,i:on in. excess of 28 feet
e
4/14/75 - 34
'~Q
-e
tvould have beC'n defeL.,.(~d until development of th(~ 1110:,,'1. tlj. ,ilL. Tei tzcl
added that there h1d been em error in the churye fir, Ik' Lu11 selvCI connection
rather than Just: an extcllsio/l, and that would be crlc'dilc-,..l "qainst Mr. TljSOn'S
assessment. Go,inq back to the J6-foot assessment:, ,"l'. '/',::it:zeJ said the total
assessment against thu lJroperty would have been the salllC rL!qardless of the!
subdivision, it was a I/UCStiOJJ only of when it had to h; ]Jaid. lie added that
the residence Ivas inclu 'ed in the subdivision, therefore' h'dS assessed on the
J6-foot basis.
Counci,lman Bradley asked about zon.ing in the Golden (;ardL'ns area, how many
.lots Ivere involved, h'l),}t.llC'r tile ]nopert9 rJufllanded d .<';tn:'f'twidcl' t:hi.Jn 28 feet.
Nr. '1'oi tze,I iillSWerl.'d tikI t there k'cre [i vc lots, one 90-iuot Frontayc, tile!
rest 72 to 73 f.ect. Also, that the subdivision ordjlld/lC(~' rcqll.ircd any strce
lon<]er than 2'100 feet to be paved to 36-foot Ividth, short:er than 2400 feet,
28-[00t width. ilL! added that the policy when draft:ed referred to underde-
veloped land as land t1wt had not been subdivided.
Recommcnda bon: Mr. Bradl ey recommended tha t the assessment
helc:vicd uS proposed, except that the lot on
wllich Nr. '1'I/son's resJdQnCL' is loci1I:L'd should
1)L' a::;scsscd on 211-fooL lJi./sis.
Mr. Hamel thought the enti re proper/'y should be
assessed o~ ]6-[001: basis })(:!CdUSC tilL' lot" on Ivhich
the house was located was a parL of the overall
development.
e
4. C.B.77l - Levying assessments for paving streets within Somerset Hills II .
Subdivision; sanitary and storm sewer within Somerset Hills II and
k,i thin l(iU fce~.?~J}Ou!}!:.ICJri!!,~~hercof (71-2~ dnd /4-31)
No wri tten PfOt;]st:;;;-;;-l' l"('quost:s to 00 J,e.:lrrl I>,cre recL'.ived.
I<ecollllllcnrlat:,ion: Levy i./ssc:s,c;ment as pruposed.
.
5. C.B.772 - Levying assessments for sanitdllJ ::ewcr on Central Uoulcvarcl from'
29th AVL'Illle to "';OU/'11 1200 feet ,1Ild Z,etlv<'('1l C'ent,.,.J1 Houlevo1rrl and
Sprinl} 130ul('vaul to serve o1,l1 Jots in Hunl:er's lJaven Suhdivision
(74-]8)
Rosa Dutell, owning property on the corner of 28th Avenuc' and Central lloule-
vard, ohjected to the assessment on the basis that the property was already
served by connection to sewer line on 28th Avenue. She understood that city
property was not being asses'sed hecause the sewer was of no vr1.lue to' tha t
property and she wondered Ivhy tllCl t would not app.ly to her property. Bert
Te,j tze,l, ci ty engineer, exp,lained tila t the propcrty on the corner of 28th
and Central was assessed for the 28th Avenue sewer, thr]re was a selJiJrate
lot adajcent to the corner 101: which had not hecn assesscd. Since thal- time
thil t lot was di vdr:d, pdrt of it ildried to the corner lot, and the assessment
at this time is against that portion of the property Ivhicll had not been
charged for the 28th Avenue line. With regard to the city property, Mr.
Teitzel said that the policy has been to assess property benefited by a
'gravity connection. The' city property is be],ol>' the elevation of the road
and additional selvers would be required to serve that property. In further
explanation to Counc,i1mall Hamel, Mr.. Te,itzel said that that assessment for
the line on 28th was made agai,nst only a portion of the property on the
corner, not to the total il.'; .it is nOlv situdted. The extens,ion of the present
lint;! is nmv serving the ba.lance of the property. even thou..,/) there is not
a sepa~ate service connection, there is benefit to the balance of the prop-
erty for which an assessment has not yet been levied.
\~1..
4/14/75 - 35
A map of the area shottling location of the two Lines was'displaycn. Don Gilman,
assistant public works director, explained ~ombination of t')e two lots into
one and that there was a duplex on the property.
Councilman Bradley asked ,i.fit would be consistent wi th city policy to
assess all four sides of a lot if sewer lines were constructed on each side.
Mr. 'l'eitzel explaine-l that assessments for sewers are based on square foot
area wi thin' 160 feet of the sewer to which the property has access. Once
an area has, been assessed, it is not assessed again. In this ,instance,
when the 28th Avenue line was installed the property assessed wa,c; w.ith"in
160 feet of, the sewer to [v/I.ich,; t had di rect access. lio'Llanc(~ of t:/kl t: arC'iJ
of the propertlJ was not iissessed, since .it WilS a separat'c Jot: ,"jt~ t/lat ti/llf'
and it was 'ilssumed i I~ would be picked up when aUne was installed 1;0 which
it would have d,irect accos.s. lie added tha ti f . the propcrt.ies had been com-
bined at the timc ,.of .installation of the 28th Avenue s(>w(~r, the assessment
at that Uem'would have ])cen greater. Mr. Gilman pointed out that if this
property didn't share ,in the cost of the Central Bou}evard line, other prop-
ert.i.es wou,ld have to assume that share. Also, ,that there was no other method
.of assessihg [or I:he 2Bi~h Avenue line given the configllrat,ion of the proper.
ties at that time. lie added that if the Dutells had i.nqu,i..r:ed about poss.ible
outstand,ing assessments aqa,inst this property at the l:Jme of purchase, they
tvollld have been informed that the total scwcc asscs51110llt had not hecn levied
and they would hilvc lie en illv'are there would be an assessment when the Central
Boulevard sewer WilS extended.
e~
George Mayer, 2850 Spring Boulevard, read a letter objecting to the assess-
ment against his property. lie stated he knew his property was connected to
the Spring Boulevard smv'er and that he was told at that time that payment
could be postponed. lIo'v'ever, he sa.id he wa.s not: told that it would be post-
oned for 11 years resulti nq in a much higher cos't, nor tha t he would be paying
[or a sewer that was not go,ing to be used. lie said he was also told that if
he objected to any future se\ver to the west of his property he would not be
granted abuilding perm{t. lie said llad he been told the enUre truth at the
time he would have understood the intent of the city's representatives and
would have been able to do something alJout .it at that t.ime, Mr. Mil~Jer said
his property remains the only one served by gravity flow to the Spring
Boulevard sewer, and he requested that his assessment be based on the rate
of that 1964 sewer assessment.
e
Mr. Teitzel explained that when Mr. Mayer's property was annexed and he re-
quested a building permit for his'property on the west side of Spring Boule-
vard, the city did require an agreement for connection to the Spring Boule-
vard line with the understandi.ng that at some future time there would lx.'
assessment against the property [or a line on the Jower side of the street.
Cost of Uw s[!rinq Uuuleviln7 line 'v'as ilssc.ssed (.'ntircly to property on the
other side of the street at that time, none aga,i,nst MI. Milyer's property.
Hr. Te,itzel further explained that the Council after hearing objections from
NI. Mayer and others owning property on that street at time of bid award did
decide to construct the project as shOtYn on the map.
In response to Counc,ilman Bradley's inquiry as to why Mr. Mayer's property
WClS being i1ssessed at this tiIne \v'hen it was already 'served by the Spring
lloulevard l.ine, Mr. 'l'c,itzel cxpJained that rather than attempting to refigure
a:;.';C.'sS/IIL'rJt:s .)cjain,';I: J)T'()[)(.'rt:jes for the Spdng noulcvilrd ,Zine, already in-
stilllL'd und Zlsscssed Zlt: the Lime Mr. MClyer's property was ill1nexed, ilgreelllent
was reached with NI. Mayer that at some future time his pr:operty would be
assessed in 'the present manner. lIis is the only gravity fJow service, Mr.
Teitzel s.aid, other properties are being served by a pumping station to
the Spring Boulevard line.
.
4/14/75 - 36
\8i>'
"~-
"e
e
In further response to Councilmiln Bradley, Mr. (;ilmcln explained the slop::
of the land precluded gravi tlj ElO\v to the Spring LJoulcv.:ncl ,linc 1'1'0/1/ proper-
ties on the 10\ver sirie of tl1t:: street so it was quest,ioll<JiJle LllOSC' properties
wou1d have been assess rl Mr. naycr :';(1.'; dbI..: to IHlild .';0 uS Co t:iJ;e advdntage
of the yrav,ity floh'. Mr. Gilman added that if those [Jropertics hld bL'Cll
assessed, there Ivas the probah,i.ljt~1 of jeopc1rdizjnq tile con:';trllclion of a
proper system, preventing ~;clpS, and p1ac,ing a burden on other properties.
Mr. Mayer sai d the ci ty engintyers thoU(;ilt tile system as '1J/J.i 1 t WilS t:l1e most
economical mel:hod or pTovidinq selver:; 1:0 that ;)tl~'l. Ik said he Ikld pr0:;ultcd
a rcdcsiCfll IviJicil '!V()(Jldhave cost IlIuchless although he \"JS unahle to gai.n
aC]t'C!cment from ull the properLy OIVJJers involved in order t:o have it constructed
tha t Ivay, clnd tIle puhl ic \vorks di rocCoI' had accepted the engineers' desiYll as
a more reasonil]Jle solution. Mr. 'l'cil,::.cl responded that the proposal presented
by Mr. Mayp.r would have resuI terI ,in a Ilcav,icr SClver cost on SOI/lC 101:5 and
the system as built Lvii.'> hcljeved by t:hL' pulJIic works departmcnt to bc more
crjuitahle. lie "~;C1irI the city at:tornClj'S advice al: that t:imo Iv,),'; tlJi1t if all
aLU~rniJtes hul 1)('1.'11 C'Xfl/Ol..:d c1nd the- fdliJ1;,c wOl-k.'; dC'jhlrLIlII.'Il/' fe,lt: I:his syst:cm
df}Di<j1l would IJC'.';t St.'TVL' dll till' rnOjWrtLI'.';' iJl 0((1<'/" /u {'I',I/I<JI.' Ulat rJo,c;.i'jn
there IvOll.!ll iJdvr: Co I)L' tot,11 dljrecl/leJlL IJl} owncrs of L.lll [Jl'o[JL'J'ties wldch
would be assessed.
Counc.i1man TJr.:Jclley expressed confusion sti 11 at the reason for assessing
Mr. Mayer's property Ivhen it was served by the Spring IJoulevard line, and
Mr. Teitzel further explained the recently completed Centeral Boulevard line
along the southerly l.ine ot' fIIr. Mc1lJer's lot, point.ing out the specifics on
iJ mc1jJ, iJnd not.ing that Uw property }w(i not bec'n iJsscssecl for service to
SpriJlr; Boulevard. Mr. MdIJeT said it was c1 question of cost. lie Ivas never
I:old if hI} postponed a.';SL'sslIIC'nt it Ivol1Jd amount to tllrCL' times as much,
facts \vOl'C' not: '.;fJ<,'/ll."} Ollt C()/l/jJ]cto.ll/ ,,'i th r<."jard to tree ['(,'II/oval (lle 1'e-
lu.';(.'rJl'o havI' trl.....'; (:111', I/e :;,Iid), and })(.' WcJS not: convinced tilo system IvcJS
1.1". /110.';/. I:C{)/HJ//I;t:,rl 11/.11. c()I}ld 1)1.' IJr.'vi';'I]. Nr. '['ei/.zl.'l dl'(c'w/,,'d tllI~ slJstem's
lJeill<j the /l/O!;t r.'COllo/l/ir:./.!, S,lIJiIlIJ l:iJr,' .111('1/1:11:0 .';1/.';(,1'111 fJ,'nfJ():;,'(1 (Ii() Jlot I:ako
into account: JdditioJl']} co.';!.:" 14hich WOll.lrl lId VI.' ])(.'('/1 i/lCUTT'l.'d 1)// ;/I(fivirlll.dr,
hdvin~l to run r1o\vn ca.';cl/lcnts, eLc.
Recommendation: Unan.imous, t!J~t in v.iClv of the evidence presented -
agrcementmade with the city in 1964 foregoing
charges at time of connection to the Spring Boule-
vard line - the levy should be assessed as proposed.
Mr. Nayer continued his ArC]uments that he had no wril:tnn statements Ivith re-
gard to what the sewer lVOI,.dd cost at time of installation, that 110 fc,lt ,it was
a "make work" project for the c,i tl}, tha tit was for the benefit of llunter I s
subc;1ivision, etc. lle submi, tted copy of the 1etter hart rcad earlier.
In response to Councilman Bradley, Mr. 'I'eitzel explained that propert,ies
within Hi() feet of a S(~I\'cr line ~rc roquired to make connectio/l within l8
monl:}Js of its insta.Z.1ation, that Mr. Mayer's jJropnrtlj Iva,,, the only OJl(~ with
qravity flOW to SJn-illlJ f!ou.lC'velrd, tlJrC.'e .JdrliUonal hOllse.'> are served to
Sprint] lJoulevanl with {Jumping stat.ions, iJnd that IvhC'/l Uw (Jumping stations
tvere put ,in ,i,t was poillted out to those property owners there would })c future
assessment for serving their properties bl/ qravi ty f]ow.
Discussion returned to the objections of Ms. Dutcl] rCYJrding
property at 29tlJ and Central. She said she had 110 objection
1:0 \vai ling for a dec:.ision wi th regard to her assessmen t by the
en ti re Counci ,1 .
\&Cl,
4/14/75 - 37
6. C.B.77] - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on lst A.'(dlUe from approxi-
mately 1400 feet west of Seneca Road to L200 feet east (74-49)
Jack Mattison, ilttorney representing Georgia Pacific, presented a map showing e':
sewer line along th.; north side of their property to which connection, was made
to serve offices for a distribution center. Balance of the property, he said,
was blacktopped and used as' storage area and would have no use for nor benefit
from the set"er extended to serve Southern Pacific and Gisborne properties
north and south of Seneca Road. lle noted that objections were registered in
public hear,ing at time of contract award, that the line was pct"itioncd for
venefLt of properties "down ,Zine" from Gccorqi<1 Pilcific and wou)d LxJ or no
berwfit to theiralJuttiTH} property. lie saId he assumed authoril;y for assess-
ing to a depth of L60 feet came from city ordinance, but that autho:r:ity he
'maintained came from sta'te law providing for assessment ,in te:rms of "henefi t."
lie interpreted that: statut(~ to mean that the Council perhaps should .not work
from a strict formula For. applyiiJg imprbvemcnt asseSsments, rather the benefit
to those properties should he determined and the costs applied accordingly.
lie said (7corqia Pacific property WilS not in any WilY improved by this sewer,
the property r"il5 aZrea(llj fu,IlIJ served and assessmcnt had hcen pa,id fOl' an
cxisting line. IlL: sU'Jgested propcrtrj owners reqrwstill<j the cxtf'IJs,ion and/or
not ohjcct,ing to I:ho assessment should hear the cost. lie tlJOI1'lht: cOllsicJera'-
t,ion on11} of Uw area to un assess(:'d - l60-foot depth - as a flat formula
rathel' than con:,; i der,Jti on of lJenef,i t might constitute a "due process" issue,
comparing this ,issue wi th tha t on North Polk Street previousl y discussed.
He serious}!} quest:ioncd whether there was valid.ity in the assessment against
Georgia Pacific's propcl'ty - fully developed, fully utilized, fUlly served.
Mr. Teitzel explained again the policy for assessing property to l60 feet
from the propertlf 1 ine when ,i t had access to a sewer. I/e said the assessment e
for the! sewer illon<} }st: lIvonu<? was against property that: would he benefited
bythut sewer, pro/Jort:l} t:hat: had not been previous,llJ assessc'rj for the sewer
a.long the other s ide of L!w proprnt:y. Any flltlln~ ,deve.lopment, on the property
abutting 1st lIvenuc would .!lave to connect to the server on lst lIvenuc. Develop-
ment of the p:r:operty at t111 s in a manner desired by tile owner would not mean
that at some future time it could not be developed differently and that line
used. Mr. Mattison said he was challenging that policy, that it assumed
benefit merely by the placement of tfte sewer. He suggested deferment of
the assessment until such time as the property was developed differently.
'Mr. Gilman thought Mr. Nattison's position unrealistic in that it would
appear to preclude development of other property becaus(~ the cost of the
l.inepast one property al reilcil} .served wi th anotl1er Line would accrue to the
other property. 'I'he propc~rty already served would also have access to the
cxtcns,ion and would be able to develop without sharing in the cost. lie
further expla,ined the ci ty''s pOli!::yw.ithregard to assessment for the area
within l60 feet of a sewer line and how it applied to property abutting
1st 'Avenue line. Nr. Mattison reiterated that state 'statutes specified
benefit as the criterion on which to base assessments.
Councilman Bradley wondered if benefit to Georgia Pacific could be considered
in terms of ~ncrease in tax base by development of properties "down line,"
creation of jobs, more demand for hous.ing, etc. - intanqih,le henef.its.
Mr. Mattison thought that would be of no more benefit to Georgia Pacific
than to any other employer in the city. He thought the benefit would
have to be peculiar to that particular property. lIe suggested perhaps a" '
the basis for assessmen't should consider total square footage because of .
length of Georgia Pacific frontage on 1st Avenue. However, Mr. Teitze1
said the property has the sewer available along any portion of that front-
age to a depth of 160 feet.' Mr. Bradley thought Georgia Pacific could afford
tlJe assessment, 'but Mr. Mattison compared that to So(::'hern Pacific whose
properties the sewer was petitioned to serve.
4/14/75 --38
l~O ~
^e
In re!f'ponse to Council(an Bradley, Nr. Teitze1 said present policy provided
'for qei~~ral only (oJ/len r....operty was more than 160 feet fror:! i/ rOi/d and ('/hen
the tJt:::Jerment IvclSin the F;,::!S t inte['(:~sts of the ci ty, h'h.i c); US:;(U 11 y r.;'~:1i1 t
an easerr:ent from the pr'op\:!rty o;m,:!'r. Hr. Brc1(ll'.:!y tho~lght the polic'} issue
should be reviewed. He didn't feel eJ.ther Georgia Pacific or the Gisborne
property was benefited by the sewer on 1st Avenue.
Recommendcltion: Nr. Bradley recommended that the Georgia IJacific
and Gisborne properties not be aSsessed for the
1st Avenue sel>,er, that the issue should be re~
sol vcd by the! full CO!.lnci 1 as to !v'lz~ t I'/as con-
sidered "benefit" to a property.
Nr. lIi/me1 "acJl'ecd but disagC'eed" nvcause he fel t
Council policy should be adhered to even though
the sewer didn't seem to be of benefit to the
properties.
Conclusion was that the question would have to be
further discussed by tile enti re Counc:il.
e
M~. Mattison then brought up 'the assessments levied fOr sewer connections and
si/id he objected also to tIle method of distributing those c1wrgc:s.
Mr. Teitzel noted that if the Council decided to fol101~ the pa~el's recommenda-
tio/l, thc.' enUre as~'_'ssll/enl: l'Iould have to be repeatv(] necaus(.' each as.sessment
; WOII.ld hiJvo to h0 n,,'c:alculatec1,' new not:.ic:cs of hQ..lring sent, etc. "here I>'as
! SOniC d isclIssion WllCU/(.'r the i!;sue ,,'ouid IJe further discussed il/ commi ttee, or
at the IIfJd J 1-1 COIIIlC,i.1 IIIC:'OUtl(! l'lith C!):p.lanation that tl'lO-thirds vote o[ tI'e
' .... . - ~ '. . .. . .
Council wo'uld be'"requi.;ed to re~p~n the hearing at tIle Council level. Nr.
Mattison said he would not be able to attend the Wednesday committee meeting,
but he' had no objection to Council discussion at that time since he felt he
had stated his objecti~ns.
7. C.B.774 - Lev
There were no
lev in 2nd Addition to Shasta Gardens (74-1002)
protests or requests to be heard.
Recommenda tion:'
Levy assessments as proposed.
8. Levyin special sewer lev - Fred Meyer PUD (75-l000)
There were no written prote~ts or requests. to be heard.
Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed.
Copies of the report were distributed to Council members. Assistant Manager sug-
,gested delaying consideration of this report, in view of its length and haVing
just been received by Council members, until the April 23 committee meeting,
This would require also setting over consideration of final passage of the
assessment ordinances to the April 28 Council meeting.
-e
Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Murray to postpone discussion of the
hearing panel report until April 23 committee meeting, and to set
over consideration of final passage of the assessment ordinances
covered by that report to the April 28 Counci.1 meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
Comm
4/9/75
Affirm
It was understood staff would prepare a memorandum with regard to issues
raised by the hearing panel. .
. \~,\
4/14/75 - 39
W. Legislarion, Special Disrricrs for TV Translators - Councilman Williams re-
ported that research indicated the proposed legislation (H. B.2651) which ",oul.d -
provide special taxing districts to finance installation of TV translator
systems would have no impact on rhe cd. ty' s current investigation regarding .
possible translator service in this urban area. He said that adequate authority
apparently exists under present legislation ro ~ccomplish thar if ir is de-
sired, and there was no reason to further delay expressing the city's position
in opposition to rhe legisl~tion.
A.--
.,'.
Comm
4/9/75
Affirm
x. Use of Room Tax Funds - Councilwoman Beal raIsed the question of propriety
of continuing to earmark rhe room tax revenues for special purposes. AL-
though the types of things for which the funds were being allocated were
very worthwhile, she said, it seemed inappropriate to spend money for
"candy" ~hen the general city budget situarion was so. tight. She asked
for co~en~ from others relative to whether this source of funds would
'betrer be used for general government purposes.
Mayor Anderson suggested scheduling the question for a later meeting in,
view of the lengthy discussion it was bound ro generate. Assistant, Manager
cautioned that these funds as prescribed by charter were to be used for
recreational, cultural, and tourist oriented ac,tivities all of which the
city now has legal authority to engage in. 'He expressed concern that Council
members were viewing these allocations as grants when in reality the city .
entered into contractual arrangements for services provided for the'funds
expended. It musr be kept in mind, he said, that rhe city is conrracting
with the applicants to provide services that the city itself has the power
to provide. The Council has the prerogative to set priorities if it feels
other services should come first.
-~
Councilwoman, Beal said she understood that, but she suggested the issue be
taken to the people in order to change the charter provision earmarking
these funds specifically for. the auditorium. She said the auditorium
was the main purpose for the room tax charter.amendment, but now it was
. apparent it would not be buil~. She felt the voters should decide
whether the, formula for distributing the funds should be changed and put
into the general fund for the "meat and bones" of government. '
Councilman Williams wasn't disagreeing wi th asking the voters what they
wanted .to do, but he felt it was within 'the-power of the Council under
the present charter provisions t~ authorize recreational, cultural, or
tourist type activities through the parks department~ It would be better
to use that power rather tha~ going through a charter revision.
Mayor Anderson reminded that when the room tax proposal was taken to the
voters and in trying to gain hotel/motel operators co-operation, it was
understood that the funds derived would be used generally to improve' the
occupancy of hotels and motels. That, he said, was pretty much the ob-
jective of most of the programs for which the funds had been allocated.
He suggested scheduling the issue at another meeting and development of
background material for discussion. .
It was understood that the use of room tax funds would be
scheduled at a future committee meeting.
Comm
4/9/75
Affirm e:
4/14/75 - 40
'~.2
tit
Y. Growth Study - Because of anticipated discussion of this subject and lack
of time at this meeting, rescheduling on the next committee agenda was
suggested. Councilman Murray expressed impatience because 'of not being
able to get to discussion of the growth study resolution and asked that
it be the first' item on the next agenda.
It was understood the growth study resolution would have
top priority on the next committee agenda.
z. Invitation to Neighborhood Associations to attend committee-of-the-whole
meetings was suggested by Councilman Haws. He thought sihce the Council
was now meeting in the Wi11akenzie area it might be appropriate to in-
vite the newly formed Willakenzie Neighborhood Association to the meetings.
He thought notices to other neighborhood organizations through their newS-
letters would be a good way of getting the news out that the Council was
now meeting at the King's Table in the Oakway'Mal1.
AA. Court of Appeals Ruling, Fasano Regulations (Culver case) - Councilman
Bradley asked for an opinion from the city attorney's office in the near
future with regard to this ruling, its implications, how it would affect
Council hearings in Eugene, and whether it would have any effect on the
proposed transfer of zoning duties to the hearings official.
e
Councilman Haws asked for updating of the city attorney's memo with regard
to the Fasano regulations, especially for the benefit of newer members of
the Council. He had the understanding that an update would be forthcoming.
However, he didn't know whether work had been started on it and he felt it
was of sufficient importance to make the request. He was concerned that
Council members would have to request that type of information and sug-
gested establishment of a procedure for receiving that type of updating
automatically.
Assistant Manager noted that some Council members probably had access to
advance information with regard to court rulings, that it would appear
impossible for staff to respond "automatical1y" on court decisions as they
were handed down. He added that in some cases the city might be involved
in litigation where a change in Council procedures was not desirable. How-
ever, staff would attempt to distribute information found to be relevant.
To distribute every decision handed down with regard to the Fasano ruling,
he said, would be time consuming especially when it might not affect Council
procedures. He noted the ruling mentioned wa~ now only a news report, not
a written legal opinion in 'hand.
BB. Panel Hearing - April 7,. 1975 - In response to request for replacement for
Councilman Murray on the hearing panel for April 7, 1975 hearin~, Councilman
Hamel said he would be available.
Comm
4/9/75
Affirm
Comm
3/26/75
File
Comm
3/26/75
File
Comm
3/26/75
File
CC. Areas of Responsibility, Assistant Manager and Manager Pro Tern were set out Comm
in memo from Gary Long, manager pro tern, copies of which were distributed 3/26(75
F~le
to Council members.
e
DD. Financial Disclosure Reports - Council members were notified that John Arnold
was available in the city attorney's office for help in filing required ,Comm
financial disclosure statements with the State Ethics Commission. 3/26/75
File
'~3
4/14/75 - 41
EE. Appointment, City Manager - MayoiAnderson reported a call from the con-
sulting firm, Callaghan & Co. of Chicago, and informed the Council that a
number of, applications were beginning to come in for the city manager posi-
tion. Also, that Council members soon would be receiving copies of criteria
for the position prepared by the consulting firm.
FF. Transitional Living Center open house was announced - this afternoon (Apri1~
from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. - with special invitation to Council members to
attend.
GG., Lane Area Economic Development Association - Invitation was received from
Lime County Commissioners to an economic development workshop scheduled
for April 10, 1975 - 7:30 p.m. - in the basement of Harris Hall. The work-
shop is designed to bdng together representatives from communi t,ies in
the county, chambers of commerce, citizen _ groups, and ot-llCr interested,
organi tations to 'discilss the severEd issues and concepts of, the proposed
. Lane Area Economic Development Associa tion .
HH. Smoking Ban in public Meetings - Association for Nonsmokers Rights asked
that the Council extend its arguments against field burning by banning
smoking in any public meeting held by the city and in any public .meeting
held in a city-owned facility. Trish Weisman, speaking for the Associa-
tion, asked de1et,ion of the city's recreational facilities from the
request. She said that like all other individual liberties the right
to smoke could be exercised until it infringed upon the 'rights of others.
Smoking was detrimental to the nonsmoker's health as well as to the
smoker, she said, when one was forced to breathe the air in closed un-
ventilated rooms at meetings where public participation was invited.
She couldn't see how the Council could take the stand it had on the
health hazard resulting from field burning without carrying it further.
In response to questions from the ,Council with regard to the type of
meetings the request covered, wording was clarified to mean the smoking
ban if adopted would apply to any public meeting held by the city (re-
gardless of location) or any public meeting held in any city-owned
facility (except recreational facilities).
Councilman Haws was in favor of the request and asked adoption. Mayor
Anderson was sympathetic to the proposal, but he felt the city's boards
and commission should be allowed to set the rules of ~onduct of their
own meetings. He thought mandating such a ban would be difficult to
enforce and suggested further cl~ification before any action .was taken.
Councilman Wi11iam.c; thought the issue went beyond the question of smoking
in city-owned buildings. He didn't see how the city cou1(i restrict be-
havior in restaurant facilities where committee meetings were held.
Councilman Hamel was against the proposal, saying he would resent spend-
ing time in city meetings away from city hall and being told he couldn't
smoke if he wanted to. Councilwoman Shirey acknowledge the problem
created by smoking in public meetin.gs but had reservations about "too
many,regu1ations for everyone to live by."
Councilman Haws suggested the request be sent to staff with the request
to prepare some workable solutions or alternatives. Mayor Anderson thought
perhaps the Nonsmokers Association could work with staff to work out an
alternate proposal for Council consideration. Ms. Weisman said that
legally the Council had every right to regulate' behavior of its meetings
even in a privately-owned facility. With regard to enforcement, she said
that basically, voluntary comp1ia!lce worked. She felt elected officials
I~+ ,
Comm
4/2-/75
File
tit
Comm
4/2/75
File
Comm
4/2/75
File
e
.
-
e
--
should
rules.
of the
be able to discipline their own meetings according to their own
She noted that many people could not attend public meeting because
immediate and serious danger to their health from smoke filled rooms.-
Mayor Anderson acknowledged the persuasiveness of Ms. Weisman's arguments
but felt a more general proposal should be worked out with staff for
'Council consideration. Councilwoman Beal felt that the Council should
not make rules for the conduct of official meetings other than its own.
Cheryl Ruby, 2650 Spring Boulevard, took offense to what she called the
Council's making light of other people's concerns. Councilwoman Shirey
agreed and said it was not fair to the people attending the meeting.
Councilwoman Beal asked Ms. Ruby to repeat her statement to be sure she
had not misunderstood. Then Mrs. Beal and Councilman Williams stated they
took exception to those statements. Neither could see where the Council
had made light of anyone's testimony or had acted in a disrespectful manner
to anyone. Other Council members and the Mayor entered into the discussion
with apologies for any statements which may have been ~isunderstood by the
audience. No action was taken.
Comm
4/2/75
File
II. Appointment, City Manager - Mayor Anderson reported communi~ation from
Paul Reaume, Callaghan & Co., welcoming comments or suggestions on pro-
file for ci ty manager posi tion forwarded to each Council member..
Councilman Keller referred to the statement under "Background" that a
number of Council members felt increased direct communication between
Council and manager's professional staff would enhance Council members
understanding of local issues and projects, etc. He read that as
allowing the Council more freedom to go to department heads, bypassing
the manager, and he wondered if that would contribute to effective
management. Mr. Hamel compared Council/manager/staff relationship to
corporation organization where top management goes through a chain of
command. He felt that type of operation should be maintained in city
government. Mayor And~rson read the statement as perhaps giving the
opportunity for more direct contact between staff and Council. He
thought it was something to be worked out by the new manager after he
took the position rather than dictating anything in that regard at
this time.
Councilman Bradley said he would like deletion of the statement with
regard to desired capabilities under "Role with the Council/Community/
Staff" reading "...all in a J.ow key, noncontroversial manner...." He
felt.it was not relevant and might exclude competent applicants from
seeking the pos~tion. Mayor Andersonchought it a good suggestion and
said he would pss it along to Mr. Reaume.
Comm
4/9/75
File
JJ. Legislative Conference, April 6-7, 1975 - Councilman Williams reported
a number of positions on pending legislation taken by the League of
Oregon Cities Legislative Committee, available in writing to those
Council members wanting it for review. He also reported on joint meet-
ing between the League, Association of Oregon Counties, and people
from the Governor's office and the Legislature. He said most of those
participating felt the appropriate role of the present Legislature was
to improve on past legislative action, to make it function more ef-
fectively, rather than attempt to indulge in new directions in govern-
ment or in public services.
Of primary concern to the Governor's office, Mr. Williams said, was
transportation financing (H.B.3l74 through 3179), providing fo~ gas
tax increase, weight mile tax increase for trucks, and vehicle cubic
lC)S
4/14/75 - 43
inch displacement tax. The highway fund is in "bad s~ape," ,he sai~,
becaJse of increasing highway construction costs comb~ned w~th no ~n-
crease in gas ,tax revenues. In order to simply m~intain the exis~ing
road system - maintain, without any new construct~on - and to avo~d
deterioration of. highways there will have to be increased gas tax funds.
He said the Governor's office felt personal contact with legislators
in this regard would be worthwhile.
.'
Another matter of concern was funding of the LCDC so that requirements
under state land use legislation could be carried out. Also, in recog-
nition of cities' concerns there was possibility of an interim com-
mi ttee dealing with municipal f,inances leading to recommendations for
the 1977 session of the Legislature.
Comm
4/9/75
File
KK. Status, Lincoln ElementarySch'ool - Councilman Murray corrected a news item ap-
pearing in the Eugene Register-Guard with regard to Lincoln School wherein it
was stated 'the School Board had "givenup to five years" before final determina-
tion as to future use of the school. He said the Board had "given at least five
years" in which to work out its future. He thanked the Council on behalf of the
Community Development Task Force for its support in attempting to. get the School
Board to work with the city through the community development proce~s to keep
the School as a viable institution.
Comm
4/9/75
File
~Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A
through Land N through KK (with the understanding Item M - FAN charter would be set
over until the group had an opportunity to include provision for notice of meetings
to membership). Motion carried on rollcall vote, Councilman Bradley abstaining on
Items L-2 and 0, and Councilman Haws abstaining on Item L-2. .
III - Ordinances
;"
Council Bill No. 762 - Establishing Downtown Parking District property tax for 1973-74
and 1974-75, read the first time on March 24, 1975 and held
lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was brought back for consideration and
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 second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given
final passage.
Councilman Bradley explained his vote against second reading was because he believed
it best still to levy the lien against the property rather than making it a personal
lien, even though a personal lien would make easier collecting.
In response to Councilman Williams' request for clarification, Assistant Manager
said he couldn't respond specifically on whether a corporation would protect an in-
dividual from liability. He said however that the Downtown Development District did
not have the ability to place a lien against real property and collect it, that
authority rested with the county. A personal obligation making the tax a personal
liability could be collected by the city. He said the city attorney would be re-
quest,ed to look at it if the Council wished. Councilman Williams was not particularly
concerned, he said, but he did wonder why the normal state law provisions covering
liabil.itywoUld not apply. Assistant Manager answer.ed that it was because the tax wastt
being collected under the city charter provisions which do not enable the county
assesso~ to place it on the tax rolls. It was thought that the type of tax proposed -
would also avoid other administrative problems tied in with dealing through the
county.
Rol'lcall vote was taken on approval and passage of the bill. All
Council members p;resent voting aye, exceRt Councilman Bradley yoting no,
the bill was declared passed and numbeFea 17289.
t~Co
Councilman Bradley suggested a five-minute recess but it was decided to
continue wlth the agenda since it was so near the end.
e
Council Bill No. 733 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on 18th Avenue
from 100dfeeLnortheast of Harvard Drive to 1056 feet west of
Bailey Hill Road (74-22), read the first time on February 10,1975 and held over from
the ineeting:.of February 24, 1975 after'second reading, was brought back for considera-
tion of April 7, 1975 panel hearing recommendation.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be held for consideration of final
passage at the April 28, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously on rollcall vote.
Council Bill No. 769 - Levying assessments for paving Polk Street from Railroad Boule-
vard to north of Polk Court (73-21), read the first t~me on
March 24, 1975' and referred to April 7~ 1975 hearing. panel, was brought back for
consideration.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be held for second reading and considera-
tion of panel recommendation at the April 28, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously on rollcall vote.
Council Bill No. 770 - Levying assessments for paving and sterm sewer on Golden Garden
Street from Barger Drive to Jessen Drive (74-14), read the
first. time on March 24, 1975 and referred to April 7, 1975 hearing panel, was brought
back for consideration.
e
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be held for second reading and con-
sideration of panel recommendation at the April 28, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously on rollcall vote.
Council Bill No. 771 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers with-
in Somerset Hills II Subdivision and within 160 feet of bound-
.aries thereof (74-29 and 74-34), read the first time on March 24, 1975 and referred
to April 7, 1975 hearing panel, was brought back for consideration.
Mr. Murray moved. second by Mr. Keller that the bill be held for second reading and con-
sideration of panel recommendation at the April 28, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously on rollcall vote.
Council Bill No. 772 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Central Boulevard
, from 28th Avenue to south 1200 feet and between Central Boule-
vard and Spring Boulevard to serve all lots in Hunter's Haven Subdivision (74-38),
read the first time on March 24, 1975 and referred to April 7, 1975 hearing panel,
was brought back for consideration. ,
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be held for second reading and con-
sideration of panel recommendation at the April 28,1975 Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously on rollcall vote.
-
Council Bill No. 773 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on 1st Avenue from
approximately 1400 feet west of Seneca Road to 1200 feet
east (74-49), read the first time on March 24, 1975 and referred to April 7, 1975
hearing panel, was brought back for consideration.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be held for 'second readinf and con-
sideration of panel recommendation at the April 28, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimously on rollcall vote.
19~ .
4/14/75 - 45
Council ,Bill No. 774 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in 2nd Add-ition
to Shasta Gardens (74-1002), read the first time on
March 24, 1975 and referred to April 7, 1975 hearing panel, was brought back for
consideration.
-
Mr. Murray mo;ved 'second by Mr. Keller that the bill be held for second reading and con-
sideration of panel recommendation at the April 28, 1975 Council meeting. Motion_'carried
unanimously on rollcall vote.
Council Bill No'. 775 - Levying assessments for special sewer~levy - Fred Meyer PUD
(74-1000) " read the first time on March 24, 1975 and referred
to April 7, 1975 hearing panel, was brought back for consideration.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be held for second reading and con-
sideration of panel recommendation'at the April 28, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried
unanimousJy on rollcall vote.
Council Bill No. 777 - Amending Section 5.280 of City Code re: Special permits for
physically disabled persons was read the first time by council
bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it
be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved~second'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 unanaimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only.
Mr; Murray moved second 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 17290.
Council Bill No. 778 - Paving streets within Dapple Way Subdivision 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 second 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 17291.
Council Bill No. 779 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within
Dapple Way Subdivision 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 second by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by cOHncil 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 ~nly.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 17292.
Council ,Bill No. 780 - Paving Spring Boulevard from North Shasta Loop to 500 feet
southeast of North Shasta Loop was read by council bill number
and title only, . there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
4/14/75 - 46 ,~~
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17293.
Council Bill No. 781 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Spring Boulevard
from North Shasta Loop to 500 feet southeast of North Shasta
Loop was read the first time by council bill number only, there being no council member
present requesting that it be read .in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17294.
Council Bill No. 782 - Paving Chambers Street from McLean Boulevard to Lorane 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 second 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 second 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 17295.
Council Bill No. 783 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Chambers Street
from McLean Boulevard to Lorane Highway 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 second 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 coucil
bill number only.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 17296.
Council Bill No. 784 - Paving Royal Avenue from Louis Lane to 1000 feet west of
Candlelight Drive 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 second 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 second 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 17297. \ ~ 4(14/75 - 47
Council Bill No. 785 - Adopting plans and
Louis Lane to 1000
council bill number and title only, there
that it be read in full.
specifications for paving Royal Avenue from
feet west of Candlelight Drive was read by
being no council member present requesting
be read the second time by council bil~
and that enactment be considered at
was read the second time by council
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill
number only, with unanimous consent of the Council,
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill
bill number only.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 17298.
Council Bill No. 786 - Paving Barger Drive from Highway 99 to 200 feet west of Ohio
Street was read the first time by council bill number only, there
being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17299.
Council Bill No. 787 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Barger Drive from
Highway 99 to 200 feet west of Ohio Street was read the first
time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting
that it be read in full.
e
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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
numb ered 173.00.
Council Bill No. 788 - Paving Hawkins Lane from 18th Avenue to Highland Oaks Drive
was read the first time by council bill number only, there
being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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'1730l.
Council Bill No. 789 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Hawkins Lane from~
18th Avenue to Highland Oaks Drive was read the first time by ,..,
council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it . ~
be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by council bill
4/14/75 - 48
'2.00
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.
e
Mr. Murray moved second 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 17302.
Council Bill No. 790 - Sanitary sewer on Barger Drive from West Irwin west to the
north/south section line of Sections 16/17 and 20/21 was
read the first time by council bill number only, there being no council member
present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17303.
Council Bill No. 791 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer on Barger
Drive from West Irwin west to the north/south section line of
Sections 16/17 and 20/21 was read the first time by council bill number only, there
being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17304.
'Council Bill No. 792 - Sanitary sewer to serve the Skyline Loop annexation area
generally bounded by 43rd Avenue on the north, Dillard Road
on the south and west, and east of Skyline Loop on the east was read the first time
by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that
it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17305.
Council Bill No. 793 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer to serve
the Skyline Loop annexation area generally bounded by 43rd
Avenue on the north, Dillard Road on the south and west, and east of Skyline Loop on
the east was read the first time by council bill number only, there being no council member
present requesting that it be read in full.
~
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that
number only, with unanimous consent of the
this time. Motion carried unanimously and
bill number only.
the bill be read the second time by council bill
Council, and that enactment be considered at
the bill was read the second time by council
4/14/75 - 49
'2. cO \
Mr. Murray moved second 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 17306.
Council Bill No. 794 - Storm sewer with Dapple Way Subdivision was read the first :~
time by council bill number only, there being no council
member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by council bill
number only, with mianimous 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 second 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 17307.
Council Bill No. 795 - Adopting plans and specifications for storm sewer with Dapple
Way Subdivision was read the first time by council bill number
only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17308.
.
Council Bill No. 796 - Storm sewer on Chambers Street from McLean Boulevard to
Lorane Highway was read the first time by council bill number
only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17309.
Council Bill No. 797 - Adopting plans and specifications for storm sewer on Chambers
Street from McLean Boulevard to Lorane Highway was read the
first time by council number only, there being no council member present requesting
that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second 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 17310. _
Council Bill No. 798 - Storm sewer within 1st Addition to Mahalo Hills was read the
first time by council number only, there being no council mem-
ber present requesting that it be read in full.
4/14/75 - 50
'20 z..
Mr. Murray moved second 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. ~1otion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second tim~ by council
bill number only.
.
Mr. ~1urray moved second 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 17311.
Council Bill No. 799 - Adopting plans and specifications for storm sewer within 1st
Addition to Mahalo Hills was read the first time by council
bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read
in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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 second by ~1r. 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 17312.
Council Bill No. 800 - Pedestrian ways within Dapple Way Subdivision was read the
first time by council bill number only, there being no council
member present requesting that it be read in full.
e
Mr. Murray moved second 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. ~1urray moved second 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 17313.
Council Bill No. 801 - Sidewalk on Chambers Street from McLean Boulevard to Lorane
Highway was read the first time by council bill number only.
there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second 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. ~1urray moved second 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 17314.
Council Bill No. 802 - Sidewalk on Royal Avenue from Louis Lane to 1000 feet west of
Candlelight Drive was read the first time by council bill
number only. there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
-
.~,
Mr. Murray moved second 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.
~1r. ~1urray moved second 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 17315.
~o3
4/14/75 - 51,
there bei~g no council
Sidewalk on Barger Drive from Highway 99 to 200 feet west of
Ohio Street was read the first time by council bill number only,
member present requesting that it be read in full.
Council Bill No. 803 -
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that
number only, with unanimous consent of the
this time. Motion carried unanimously and
bill number only."
the bill
Council,
the bill
be read the second time by councilbill~
and that enactment be considered at
was read the second time by council
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final pass~ge.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17316.
IV - Resolutions
Res.No,2387 - Authorizing Gary Long to sign as manager pro tern for community
development funds was read by number and title.
Mr.. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution.
,Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, motion carried.
Res.No.2388 - Indicating preference for one-plant regional sewerage system but
supporting two-plant system if strong regional sewer commission
created was read by number and title.
(
Mr. Murray ~oved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution.
Councilman Bradley thought the'resolution a IIpaper :tiger.1I He was not opposed to _
co-operation between the iu:dsdictions ascalled__for in theresoluticm, but he was
opposed! to Springfield's "dic;tating" Eugene's response. He preferred a stronger
statement, one indicating that if Springfield felt two systems were appropriate,
there should be a separate jurisdiction contributed to jointly to establish bonding,
financing, and responsibility for operation. Councilman Keller thought the resolu-
tion indicate that type of operation in its statement that a strong metropolitan
sewer commission would be created and empowered with certain duties. ButMr.Bradley
said the duties still pointed toward two separate sewer facilities, two separate
entities responsible. There still would not be a commissi~n to exercise'independent
judgment.
Councilwoman Beal couldn't see how any resolution could be adopted that would bind
future councils of either city to commitments for either money or policy. She noted
the proposed resolution did set up an agency, determines staff, allows for a budget,
'etc., and she thought that was about as far as the city could go.
Council'man Bradley was disturbed somewhat by the statement of CHZM (Cornell, Howland,
Hayes & Merryfield) with regard to the political atmosphere in the metropolitan area.
He thought it inappropriate for an engineering firm to make any political judgments.
And he said that was basically their reason for suggesting the two-plant system. He I
said he trusted their engineering judgment, but to go ahead with regard to co-operation
between political entities was a decision for the councils, not 'the engineering firm.
Mayor Anderson agreed with that point.
Councilwoman Shirey expressed concern with the entire process, she felt it not a
healthy situation. She felt the proposed resolution would not promote a working
relationship.
,
r
4/14/75 - 52
204-
- .
. . , .' '. -
.-.------ --_...-._-_.._--~_..:__..._.._----:-..-""~--..:........._:.._'.'...._---,-_.__.".- ~.~~~--...._,:.-..:...::.-:._-",-,_,;..:,_~~'~~. -._,___....-:...~ _..-.}.~~~.~~_.:....:~~_~-.a.:.-..:.....:..-_;._,._~
,
Mayor Anderson noted the amount, of time spent and reports submitted with regard to
metropolitan sewers and thought this resolution the last step. He said if Springfield
was unwilling to adopt a similar resolution he saw no alternative but.to tackle the
problem alone, He thought the one- or two-plant issue was not the central issue,
important as it was, and that this resolution would give one more chance for some
specific endorsement of ~ regional system. Councilman Keller thought Springfield
should have a chance to respond to this resolution. He noted the two years of nego-
tiation to progress to this point and said he hoped for a little more flexibility
between "neighbors" than had been past practice. This resolution might finally get
the idea "started down the road."
Councilwoman Beal thought the recent death of Springfield's mayor coupled with a
recent change in the chief administrative officer of that city made it all the more
difficult. She hoped to avoip action which would lead to any more frustration.
yote was taken on the motion for adoption of the resolution. Motion
carried unanimously, 'with Mr. Bradley stating he thought there should
be unanimity even though the record would show his concerns. :'
Res.No.2389 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims. and progress payments
for period March 24 through April 14. 1975 was read by number
and title.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, motion carried.
.~
Assistant Manager called attention to time restraints imposed on public
hearing at this meeting for the first time and thought it might be well
to consider an overall policy of imposing similar restrictions on all
public hearings before the Council. Council generally agreed it provided
for better organized and more responsive public participation.
~Ir. Bradley moved second by ~.lr. Haws that the Council observe a fast
on \~ednesday. April 16, at its committee meeting in observance of
Food Day (April 17).
Amid groans, grumbling, "that ma)' be \'iell for you" comments. and the
Chair's ruling that the motion was out of order. the motion was with-
dra\~ with the idea that any fast would be observed on a strictly
voluntary basis.
Upon motion duly made. seconded, and carried. the meeting was adjourned .to
Monday, April 28. ,1975.
A/~
.
I
A. K. Martin
Asst. City Manager
2,,0 S