Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/1975 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 28,1975 - Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon, adjourned from April 14,1975, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. OP April 28, 1975, in the Council Chamber. Council members present were: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws. and Edna S~iref. (0001) I - Public Hearings A. Removal of parking from 6th and 7th Avenues, Blair Boulevard to Ga~field ~tre~t Council members on tour previously viewed the area where removal of parking was recommended by staff. Al Williams, traffic engineer, explained the parking removal was petitionee as .~e result of a presentation before a service club, and owners of abutting p~operty o far as possible using existing records had been polled for an indicatlc: of aI proval or disapproval. He said there was no attempt to contact other than those directly affected by the proposal. Also. the Traffic Safety Commission 5uppor~' ~ the proposal. Public hearing was opened. e Ed Anderson. owner of Eugene Linen Supply, 1850 West 6th Avenue, ofiered comments with regard to traffic congestion on 6th Avenue. He called attention to available parking space on side streets where cars could be parked with little inconvenience to drivers. He noted the difficulty in crossing 6th from side streets where there were no traffic lights, and suggested a third lane to allow a continuous turn mov~- ment from Garfield. It was his opinion that the parking removal would permit a lot of traffic movement without the cost to the city of extensive road work or requir- ing an expressway vote. Richard Freeman, 1140 West 6th Avenue. presented a petition opposing the parking removal bearing 60 signatures, many of which he said represented people responding favorably to the traffic engineer's poll. but had changed their mind~. He thought two lanes on 6th and 7th were sufficient to handle the traffic if obstructions created by the State in building the Washington/Jefferson interchange were eliminated. He also thought the railroad tracks presented a problem. that there ~as no access at that point to the overpass (without going through the interchange). Helen Dougherty. 1055 West 6th Avenue (Boon's Red Carpet Motel), thought the pa~king ban in itself would be enough. but to add three lanes of traffi., would have a really negative effect on small businesses abutting 6th and 7th. And she felt that her parking lot. provided in accordance with code requirements, would have increased use from the general public shopping in adjacent retail stores., She commented that the motel parking was used even now by the public using a nearby phone booth. Ms. Dougherty felt the issue of par~ing on 6th and 7th was a matter of "life and death" for the small businesses on those streets. Public hearing was closed. there being no further testimony. - Traffic Engineer Williams explained that the petition presented by Mr. Freeman contained signatures of people owning property or who were tenants on side streets and not directly affected by the proposed parking removal. Only one of those polled by the traffic division and directly affected had changed positions. With regard to the Red Carpet Mote, he said, prohibition of parking on other streets in the city appeared to have no adverse effect on establishments similar to the Red Carpet Mote. He didn't .think the parking removal would present the problem antici- pated by Ms. Dougherty. Assistant Manager added that experience had shown three lanes of traffic permitted easier access to businesses than two lanes on which heavier traffic had a tendency :0 impede movement. ~C)~ 4/28/75 - 1 Councilman Murray asked for staff comment on status of businesses on the two streets' if. parking was removed. Also, with regard to corresponding decrease of traffic on side streets as a result of increasing traffic on 6th and 7th. He also aske~ if there was any precise idea of the number of businesses that would exist without off-street parking. Traffic Engineer Williams said there were occa- ". sions when public. need outweighed the liabilities, that there had been cases where because of accident incidence it was necessary to remove parking knowing that an establishment would go out of business. However, he said. in this case those loca- tions with inadequate off-street parking were mainly older houses coverted to some type of.business use. There was no "good" answer to this type problem. He added that he didn't understand use of the motel parking by customers of other businesses because 'there was adequate on-street parking nearby. Traffic Engineer further answered there were no statistics with regard to impact on side streets, any observations would be from a purely professional standpoint. He felt that use of side streets (5th and 8th) probably occurred during peak hours in order to avoid the congestion of 6th and 7th. However, with three lanes and in- creased capacities on 6th and 7th, there might be a tendency for those drivers to return. He said there were no new houses, new businesses. new shopping areas which would cause increased traffic, that it was a "mayor may not" situation. With regard to .the number of businesses with no off-street parking, the traffic engineer said ther~ was no actual count although there was a sense of where major problems would occ~r, mostly the older houses converted to business use and probably more on 7th than on 6th. Councilmari Bradley wondered if there had been consideration of removing parking dur- (0387) ing peak.hours only. Assistant Manager answered that part-time prohibition would be too co~tly, would require expense of towing trucks. police services, etc. Traffic Erigeiner added that in this particular case it wasn't feasible because the streets would have to be restriped in order to install the three lanes. 4It- ( . Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Shlrey to postpone further considera- . tion.until more precise information was available about the impact of aprk~ng removal on businesses having no off-street parking. Councilmaq Keller thought that those businesses having no off-street parking would be present objecting if they felt the removal would have an adverse effect. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated - Council members Murr~y, Williams, and Bradley voting aye;. Council members Keller, Beal, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey voting no. . Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to authorize removal of parking fromi6th and 7th Avenues between Blair Boulevard and Garfield Street as pI;oposed. Motion carried, all Council members present voting. aye, except Councilman Williams voting no. I' B. Downtown Westside Association Charter - Request for revocation DowntoWn Westslae Associatio~: petition requesting revocation of charter be~ring 81 signatures was received. . Text of the petition and brief history ~f the association were distributed to Council members with agenda. Comm 4/16/75 Pub Hrng Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hea}ing on the petition for the April 28 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. I.. . . . ~- Assistant'Managernotedreceipt of addition petition requesting dissolution of the Westside charter and said Mr. Pietka, chairman of the Association, had received that information as well as informatiQn with regard to some persons wishing the 4/28/75 - 2 2.07 e charter retained. He reviewed the history of the Association and said the basic concern was that careful consideration be given to size of area and interests therein to assure a representative organization working with the entire area. He said a refinement plan was being prepared for the area and an organization is needed to provide a legitimate spokesman and views for discussion and resolution as that plan is being developed. (0557) Public hearing was ope;l\ed. Bob Guldin and Jim Coates, 860 Lawrence Street, said residents of the area had made a real and sincere ef~ort to become involved in the Downtown Westside Associaton but found it \(i.rtually impossible. Mr. Guldin said there had been only one general membe~ship meeting in the ten months since recognition of the group by the Council, ~lld that he felt the Association had not been fulfilling the function of opening itself to citizen participation. Rather it appeared to be involved with only one group of people in that neighborhood, and tenants or resi- dents have not had the opportunity to become involved. He thought that if the Charter were revoked then a general meeting of the entire neighborhood could be called, starting from that point in deciding whether the group should join another existing group or form a new one. Mr. Coates reviewed specific meetings of the Association and desdribed actions taken that appeared to preclude some people from participation, in particular the requirement for attendance of new members at a previous meeting before being eligible to vote. With only one general meeting, he said, many were denied the opportunity to vote. He said also that many volun- teered for work on committees or in publishing the newsletter but none were con- tacted, nor did they receive information about city activities in the neighborhood. He said the Association had been petitioned and every effort made to become active in that organization to no avail. -- Margaret Ellis, 2486 Grovedale Street, Springfield, said she owned C-2 property sur- rounded by other commercial uses. She said any reorganization of this group into a residential oriented organization would constitute discrimination against business interests in the area. (0726) Chester Pietka, 372 West 12th Avenue, thought the Council should have asked the Association for an answer in response to the petition filed for revocation of its charter. He pointed out that notices and publications of the newsletter had noti- fied people in the neighborhood of the Association's meetings. And that an attempt had been made to include all facets of the neighborhood in development of planning for the area - predominantly commercial with many long-term owner residents - in order to provide an area complimentary to the downtown mall. He questioned the credibility of the group requesting revocation of the Association's charter since there was no opposition presented at the time the charter was before the Council for recognition. He noted the spokesman for the group, Mr. Guldin, had lived in the neighborhood only two months, and that others who had attended the organizational meetings did not live there now. He said the Association had made every effort to work with the people involved in seeking the charter revocation and he thought the city should consider whether the organization had followed the terms of its charter in its meeting and notice requirements. e Minnie Schmidt, 2605 Lawrence Street, noted that some of the people signing the petition for charter revocation lived outside the neighborhood area, and that some were living in commercial buildings without adequate living facilities. She thought proof of residence in the area should be required and that the Council should de- clare the petition illegal. John S. Smeed, 3655 Glen Oak Drive, owner of property in the Downtown Westwide area, said the group initiating revocation of the Association's charter for the most part had lived in the neighborhood less than a year, and that the long-term residents 20e 4/28/75 - 3 and property owners should be given some consideration. He noted a recent study conducted by University students showing different groups of people living withi~L the area - older people, people having business interests, and the young, extremely mobile group - making it difficult to feel the needs of the neighborhood. It ... bothered him. he said, when a group of people could move in and take over the ~ neighborhood, especially when they become disenchanted and move one while the prop- erty o~ers have to stay. .. Public hearing was closed. there being no further testimony. Assistant Manager said his personal observation was that these types of disputes would develop on major issues within neighborhood groups and he wasn't sure the public hearing process would do more than air the issues. He thought taht some charter modification might be necessary. fie suggested that the Council consider having two of its members meet with representatives of the two groups concerned with the Westside Downtown Association in an attempt to resolve the issue before any decis!ion was made on the petition. wi th regard to the charter. Councilwoman Shirey concurred with that suggestion with the condition that if no solution was forthcoming something other than revocation of; the Association's charter be worked out. She said she had worked with Mr. Pietka in forming this group and felt one of the problems could be the nature of the neighborhood, that usually tenants' problems were those of never having sense of community, and this could be a chance to develop that. She thought revision of the charter would be necessar~ perhaps to bring the business and residential interests together. Councilman Murray noted he had received a letter from Mr. Pietka suggesting that (0937) he (Murray) disqualify himself from voting on this issue because of his involvement with the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project. He declined. because he said that had occurred some time ago. Also, the ward from which he was elected was very near ~ the Westside neighborhood with a great deal of interaction, and he felt an obligation - to represent his ward. He said he was interested in the outcome of this dispute because of his representation of the area with regard to community development. And finally, he said, since he was the prime author and sponsor of the neighborhood organization policy, it would be irresponsible action on his part not to take part in the decision. Councilman Bradley expressed concern about the voting requirements, that one had to attend a previous meeting to be eligible to vote. And. he wondered if that par- ticular requirement could be deleted from the charter at this meeting, saying he would not like to see it remain in the charter while attempting to resolve the differences between the two groups. . Councilman Hamel commented that there was some talk of buying C-2 property with the possibility of having it rezoned to residential. If this was th~. case, he said, he thought the issue should be resolved now. . 4/28/75 - 4 Mr. Murray moved;.second by Mr. Keller that the Council postpone con- sideration of the petition for a period not to exceed two months, and that during that time representatives of the Council meet with repre- sentatives of both groups having an interest in the Downtown Westside Association - current leadership and spokesmen for the dissident group - to see if a workable accommodation could be reached. that accommodation to direct itself specifically to provisions in the policy that organiza- tions should be open to the total area and diversity of interests in the neighborhood and should be open to any tenant or property owner in the neighborhood, and that the bo-ndary appropriate for the organization should be that geographical area suitable for effective planning, and that an or- ganization as long as it remains organized and active in solving current problems and planning and keeping the neighborhood informed will continue to be recognized. - .' 2.09 e Councilman Haws said he understood the purpose of the motion but questioned whether two members of the Council should do that. He thought some persons other tQ~n Council members should try to resolve the issues with the two groups, because of de- mands on Council members' time for one thing, he said, and because the Council shouldn't become involved in solving neighborhood problems. He suggested appointment by the Mayor of two or three presidents of other neighborhood groups instead of Council members. Councilman Murray noted staff had worked on the issue without suc- cess, and he felt the Council should devote some time to it. In response to Mayor Anderson, he said he thought it appropriate for the Mayor to select the Council representatives. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Keller, Bea1, Williams, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Hamel and Haws voting no. A short recess was taken. e C. Appeal from Planning Commission approval of Phase II-A, Oakway pun Preliminary approval given March 4, 1975 by the Planning Commission. Staff notes and minutes for that meeting were previously distributed to Council members and are made a part of this record by reference thereto. The development covers over 12 acres abutting Cal Young Road west of Oakway Road. Jim Saul, planner, reviewed the series of public hearings before the Planning Commission concerning the development of the area in conjunction with the reconstituted Oak way golf course. Because of concerns expressed with regard to open space in the development in relation to the surrounding neighborhood the design was changed in an attempt to meet those concerns. The redesign brought back to the Commission was given preliminary approval and is that which is the subject of this appeal. Assistant Manager noted that some of the Council viewed the development on tOUT. No ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members. (1020) Public hearing was opened. Elizabeth Heath, 2087 Law Lane, thought people in the neighborhood were concerned about the departure of the development from the character of the area. They thought that the provision for buffering the development from the existing neighborhood did not adequately compensate for the difference in its character, and that the pro- posed density for the development was too high, that the open space used in calculat- ing the density was to be used as a golf course. She acknowledged that the build- ings immediately adjacent to the end of Law Lane were single-story, but said that the immediate rise to two- and three-story buildings negated the buffering effect. She thought the low-line development should be carried further through the development to provide more visual lines. The open space provision, she said, was the most im- portant feature. There.was no criteria now in pun regulations for open space and she thought there should be a standard of so much open space pe~. unit per acre and a definition of that open space. Precedent in that respect was being set in this development, she said. e Ms. Heath continued that there was no contractual agreement giving assurance of the specific density for the overall development, that the golf course was claimed as usable open space open to the general public as well as qualifying as open space on which to determine the density of the development. The golf course would pro- vide no diversity of use, also there would be a fee charged to use it. So she felt there was inadequate open space available to the development itself. She suggested as alternatives that the greater density be concentrated on the golf course side, and the lower density on the outer edges of this phase, and that the lower density structures be compatible with the existing neighborhood of one-story homes. Charles Sparks, 2093 Law Lane, said his home was purchased overlooking the golf course in a single-family occupancy area. This proposal would convert the character 2'0 4/28/75 - 5 . . of that type of development to high-density development. He urged the Council's rejection of the development as proposed and asked its return to the Commission with the idea of reappraisal and reduction of density in this phase. James Redden, 1310.Coburg Road, co-ordinator for the design team, said this par- ticular project .fell well within the range and description of programs proposed in the General Plan. It responded very well, he said, to the joint housing study and mixture of housing types desired. Also, the impact of the project was some- what reduced by reduction in the number of units- (18) which represented a fairly large i~vestment. The development's depa~ture from established character of the neighborhood was recognized and buffering provided through redesign of structures and addition of detail planting along the property lines and through realignment of access roadway. He noted there were no deed restrictions on this property but the buildings were held to one story because of the one-story buildings on other properties in the area. Mr. Redden continued that the go)f course would qualify as open space since open space was defined as any break in a pattern. The. number of units constituting higlr or low~density along the course was a matter of conjecture, he said. The planning commission had said the program presented should resond to the uses of the people who would occupy it. He referred to staff notes for detailed information with regard to the number and size of open spaces provided within this phase. He thought if the city was going to implement the joint housing study and the General Plan, this project would be a good start. Jim Manley, 1500 Norkenzie Road, said the design team had spent many months analyzing neighborhood needs, housing elements in the General Plan, density aspects, open space, and generally had tried to make a presentable and viable living environment for this property. He hoped the Council would address the issue from the standpoint of the entire community as it reflected on..housing needs. . Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. 1 Jim Saul, planner, showed slides of the proposed project, pointing out the~ede- sign features to take care of concerns with regard to departure in character from the surrounding neighborhood and the amount of usable outdoor recreation area that would particularly accommodate those who would not benefit directly from the golf course. He also noted the redesign of structures and changes in the. overall develop- ment plan to meet concerns expressed by the planning commission. He said PUD pro- visions clearly recognize that planned unit developments may be different in character from surrounding neighborhoods. In this instance, that departure is increased because zoning in the area would permit structures of two and a half stories. Both the Commission and plan~ing staff. felt this departure was adequately met inth~ change in design submitted. Mr. Saul noted open space areas provided for in the development other than the golf course which the Commission felt adequate on which to base 4ensity r~quirements. Whether it was appropriate to incorporate the golf course into calculations for density, he said, should be considered in light of preserving that golf course as open area for the community. And it should be noted that that area was used in calculating the density for the entire Oakway PUD,not just this one phase. He listed the conditions attached to approval of this phase (1) sidewalk on the south side of Cal Young Road adjacent to the site, setback one foot from the property line, at the same time development is accomplished, (2) noise abatement addressed in the submittal: for final approval (the type of shielding to be provided within the units themselves), (3) schematic layout of bus' turnouts and passenger waiting shelters to be furnished the public works department .before final approval. Councilman Hamel asked about the number of entrances to the development. Mr. Saul answered that there would be four - three on Cal Young Road and one off the golf COUTse dT~ve itself. 4/28/75 - 6 211 e (1213) tit It. (1430) . Councilwoman Shirey didn't think a golf course where fees were charged for its use and limited to a certain number of people could necessarily constitute a good defini- tion of open space for a PUD. She recognized the merit of preserving that golf course as open space but was concerned about use of this type open space in determin- ing development density. Assistant Manager acknowledged that the course was con- sidered initially as a part of the development's open space, but he knew of no other development where a similar situation was intended. Mr. Saul added that in terms of open space definition there were many places that were not readily available to public use that were preserved as an essential component of a development. He men- tioned the problem slopes covered with poison oak and blackberries in the south hills as one example. (1468) Councilman Haws liked the proposed development but said he was "hung up" on the open space definition. He couldn't see where space could be called open when it was re- strictied to those who played golf or paid the fees. Mr. Saul said that open space was not defined in the zoning ordinance. However, it was defined in the General Plan as a break in the urban development pattern - a broad river, a tree-flanked stream, a field, anything of that nature that would add a measure of quality to the environment. He called attention to the definition of open space in Oregon laws - a classification of property which would allow reduced tax assessment - and listed a number of uses of such property named therein, one of which was a golf course. Ms. Heath said all the people living along Law Lane felt the density of that area should be maintained in the Oakway Phase II development. Also, that the break in urban development would not be visible if the project was constructed as planned at this time. They did not question that the amount of space within the development itself was adequate, she said, only that it would not be noticeable from outside. e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to deny the appeal and that findings set ou in planning commission staff notes and minutes of March 4, 1975 be adopted by reference thereto. Mr. Murray said he appreciated fully the difference in the character of the neighbor- hood and the development, but he thought this project was compatible with and com- plimentary to the concept of the adopted community goal of compact urban growth and was a plan that would accommodate the surrounding area. He thought the open space provided satisfied the existing criteria and he was impressed with the changes made in the plan to accommodate concerns expressed. Councilman Haws agreed in part but felt the citizens in the area were being cheated because what was defined as open space was really not open space, and there was no criteria for defining open 'space. He said the golf course waS'TIot open space and that he would vote against the motion. Councilman Murray thought it shortsighted to try to determine in the overall com- munity what was and what was not open space. He noted the number of areas where open space definition was really a physical description, not the use to which it was put, and cited the south hills areas as a dramatic example. Councilwoman Beal had no trouble looking upon the golf course as open space. She thought open space could be defined as any undeveloped space which could be enjoyed by looking at it even thought access to it was not available. -e Mayor Anderson noted that one feature considered in approving purchase of the Laurel- wood Golf Course property was that it would provide more open space for the community still one has to pay fees there also. He said Oakway was not a private club, anyone could pay golf there. Counci lman Haws density for the thought inclusion of the golf course as open space in calculating development was really subverting the density by calling the land 4/28/75 - 7 2\2 open space then using it as a golf course. Assistant Manager for clarification noted that the property had been presented at 17.3 units per acre excluding the golf course. To do that leaves 51% of the property in open space since it would not be occupied by buildingsor parking facilities. . Councilman Murray said he would not like to lose that planning technique, it was best to preserve what little open space the community does have. The only al- ternative, he said, was blanket development. Vote, was taken on. the motion to deny the appeal. as stated. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, and ~r,adley voting aye; Council members Hamel, Haws, and Shirey voting no. D. Annexations 1. Northwest of Delta Highway, approximately 1200 feet north of intersection of Delta Highway and Greenacres Road (Lane County) (A 74-7) Northwest of Delta Highway, approximately 1200 feet north of intersection of Delta Highway and Greenacres Road (Lane County) fA 74-7) Recommended by the Planning Commission March 24, 1975. Approximately 22.2 acres. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to schedule public hearing on the annexation at the April 28 Council meeting. Motion car- ~ied unanimously. Comm 4/23/75 Pub Hrng Councilman Keller left the 'mee~ing. Mr. Murray ~ved seconded by Mr. Bradley to request the Planning Commission to discuss again the issue of whether the p~perty recommended for annexsation (Delta and Greenacres) specifically excluded the property contiguous to the existing city limit line west of Delta north of Greenacres. e In making the motion, Mr. ,Murray said the annexation as proposed would appear to mak.e a peninsula of the Eugene Sand & Gravel propertl}. He felt there should be discussion whether that property too should be annexed since there seemed no justification for excluding it at this time. . Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Assistant Manager explained that consideration of requesting the Planning Commission to comment on the peninsula area owned by Eugene Sand & Gravel contiguous to the area proposed for annexation would be handled with items on the consent'calendar. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2390 - Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of area northwest of Delta Highway, approximately 1200 feet of Delta Highway and Greenacres Road was read by number north of intersection and title only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. 2. East ~f Warren Street (if extended), south of present Somerset PUD to the ridge line (Breeden Bros.) (A 74-6) . Recoimriended by the Planning cOmmission Narch 24, 1975.. Approximately '167.84 acres. Hr. Murrell} moved secondedbrj."jirs~ .Beale;;) scheduled p;"'bli~ hearing on the annexation at the April 28 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 4/28/15 - 8 .. 2\ 3 ._~ Comm 4/23/75 PubHrng e (1615) e (1637) e Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2391 - Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of area east of Warren Street (if extended) south of present Somerset PUD to the ridge line was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. E. Rezoning area on west side of Hawkins Lane betwen Broadview and Highland Oaks Drive - From RA to RA-SR (Warren A. Lund)(Z 75-2) Recommended by the Planning Commission on April 1, 1975. Hr. Murray moved seconded bl} Hr. Hamel to schedule public hearing at the April 28 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/23/75 Pub Hrng Copies of Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of April 1, 1975 were made a part of this record by reference thereto. No ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 804 - Rezoning to RA-SR area on west side of Hawkins Lane between Broadview and Highland Oak Drive 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 findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of April I, 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. 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 de- clared passed.and numbered 17317. F. Bids - Parks Department 1. Irrigation System for e~pansion of Skinner Butte Park to the west (opened 4/10/75) Turf Irrigation Fairway Irrigation Willamette Cascade Willamette Lawn Irrigation Ramsey-Waite Company $ 3,045.00 3,366.00 3,535.00 3,750.00 3,786.00 Office Estimate: $3,220.00 2. Pedestrian/Bike Path along Amazon Channel running north from 24th Avenue toward South Eugene High School, and first phase of paved parking at Amazon softball fields (opened 4/24/75) Wildish Construction $ 22,766.00 Eugene Sand & Gravel 24,673.00 Fred Stubbert Construction 25,023.00 Benge Paving 27,305.00 Interstate Construction 29,543.93 Office Estimate: $ 29.639.00. Staff recommended contract award to Turf Irrigation on the low bid price of $3,045.00 for the irrigation system in Skinner Butte Park, and to Wildish Construction Company .2\4 4/28/75 - 9 on the pedestrian/bike path and paved parking area including expansion of contract to include additional paved area at the Amazon Park softball field for a total contract price of $24,206.90 for that project. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. - Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to award contracts as recommended. Rollcall. vote. All council-.members present voting aye, motion carried. II - Assessments Ordinances Hearing panel Report - April 7, 1975 - Copies of the report were. previously dis- tributed to Council members as well as copies of a summary of the issues raised by the Panel, staff's position, and copy of Resolution 2272 covering assessment procedure as it relates to standard street widths. Letter .from Jack. Mattison, attorney for Georgia.pacific, was distributed to Council members setting out code provisions on Which he based his opinion that Georgia Pacific proper1;y on "est 1st Avenue was not benefitted by the sewer construction there. Letter from Gary Spi vak, president of the "hi teaker Conmuni ty Council, was noted supporting the stand for a change in policy which would assess street as well as alley improve- .ments on the basis of use of abutting property regardless of zoning. Assistant Manager suggested. proceeding with the assessments under consideration, then crea- tion of a Council subcommittee to consider change in policl} if that was desired. Councilman Hamel explained that because he and Councilman Bradley disagreed on a number of recommendations they decided the issues should be heard by the entire Council. (1660) At Councilman Williams' request it was understood a single document would be pre- pared listing staff comments on each issue with those issues as they appeared in the panel report. Councilma~ Murray. recognized zoning was a separate issue, but he thought one way of handling the Polk Street assessment would be to consider reducing the assess- ment on those properties which would seek rezoning from R-2 to R-l. Councilwoman Beal thought it more appropriate for the Planning Commission to make recommenda- tions on that entire area, r~cognizing the mixed/spot zoning there, before any- thing was done about the assessments. Assistant Manager encouraged proceeding with the assessments but with the understanding that if rezoning was accomplished within a year, credit would be given to anyone who paid more than what the policy required. The money to pick up the difference in that case would come from capital projects funds rather than the cost being spread to other property owners. Councilman Haws wondered what would stop a property owner from rezoning to R-l, pay the lesser assessment, then rezone for more density. It was agreed there was nothing cOuld be done to prevent that. However, Mr. Williams thought the cost of applying for rezoning would at least equal the differential in the assessment. Councilman Murray thought the required "proof of need" for rezoning would make future Councils aware of any previous rezoning. . - Councilman Haws thought if rezoning was to be requested to gain the lower assess- ment it would have to be done within a certain period of time or the higher amount paid. Assistant. Manager cautioned about the "bookkeeping nightmare" and thought the simpler solution would be to separate the zoning issue from assessment. If R-l zone was considered proper for that area, the commitment could be made that if it was changed to R-l within a year then there would be an adjustmnet in the assessment. Councilman Bradley said he based his panel recommendation on the language in Resolution 2272. He thought there was inconsistency between different sections of the resolution. There followed discussion on various interpretations of the language and staff's explanation of its understanding of intent of the resolution as it applied to assessment for residential streets. - Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr~ Hamel to proceed with the reguiar proc,ess in levying the assessments as proposed, ~taff .to prepare a packet combining staff comments and panel recommenations as re- quested. Motion carried unanimously. COM 4/23/75 Pub Hrng 4/28/75 - 10 ..,IS e e (1764) e Mayor Anderson wondered if Council wanted to create a subcommittee to study assess- ment policy, but Councilman Williams suggested that in working ~rough the process and in making the final decisions on levying the assessments at the April 28 Council meeting the Council would be better able to decide whether to form an assessment study committee. Council Bill No. 733 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on 18th Avenue from 100 feet northeast of Harvard Drive to 1056 feet west of Bailey Hill Road (74-22)- read the first time on February 10, 1975 and referred to February 17 hearing panel; read the second time on Febru- ary 24, 1975 and referred to March 3 hearing panel; re-referred to April 7 hearing panel at request of property owner who claimed late receipt of notice of hearing; held over from the April 14, 1975 Council meeting for consideration at this meeting - was brought on for consideration. Staff proposed deferral of the difference between assessment for 28-foot width and that of 36-foot width for street improvement adjacent to vacant property. Assistant Manager said property in the ownership of Melissa Martinson would qualify for that deferment. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to defer the difference in assess- ment between the 28- and 36-foot width on paving adjacent to vacant prop- erty until that property is developed, and that the bill be approved and given final passage. Ms. Melissa Martinson repeated that she had not received adequate notice of the pro- posed improvement. Assistant Manager explained the notice procedure (see committee minutes April 9, 1975) and noted the reason this assessment had been carried over twice was to ensure adequate notice of the assessment had been received by MS.Martinson. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17318. Council Bill No. 769 - Levying assessments for paving Polk Street from Railroad Boulevard to north of Polk Court (73-21) - read the first time on March 24 and referred to April 7 panel hearing, and held over from the April 14 Council meeting for consideration at this meeting - was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. . Assistant Manager explained city policy with regard to payment for damages when utilities are installed at a depth less than 30" from the road surface (see committee minutes April 9, 1975). Staff recommended that damages to the service lines in this instance be the owners' responsibility rather than the public's. Assistant Manager suggested separate action in view of the lack of ~nanimity between hearing panel members. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to deny the request for payment of damages to service lines. Councilman Bradley felt enforcement action was lacking on the city's part, that there may not even be a mechanism for determining whether the line actually was less than 30" from the road surface. For that reason, he thought the property owner should not be penalized. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no. 4/28/75 - 11 , 2'Cc Assistant Manager explained that the major issue of assessment in relationship to zoning of properties involved a departure from staff understanding of the meaning and intent of Council Resolution 2272. He reviewed the provisions of that resolu- tion - assessment on 28-foot width abutting parcels zoned R-I, RA, or AG single- family dwellings. Assessment for improvements abutting properties otherwise zoned __ would be based on a 36-foot width. Hearing panel recommended that all properties on Polk Street - R-2 zoned properties - be assessed on the basis of 28-foot width. Staff recommendation was to assess R-2 properties on the 36-foot width, but allow reduction of that assessment to a 28-foot width basis if R-2 property was rezoned to R-I, RA, or AG during the remainder of this calendar year. Assistant Manager said that owners of R-2 properties could then take advantage of that reduction in assessment by filing application for rezoning on merits of the property involved rather than confuse the question of assessment procedure. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Mrs. Jessie Waldstein, 1270 East 22ndAvenue, said she understood the Whiteaker Neighborhood Association had made a recommendation with regard to this assessment but it had not yet been presented even though public testimony was to be taken at this time if new material was to be presented. Councilman Bradley said he thought provisions in Resolution 2272 were ambiguous (see committee minutes of April 9, 1975). He thought the provision should be written into the bill and not left to individual staff discretion. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion to approve and pass the bilL All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17319. e. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the properties so assessed be invited to seek rezoning within the current calendar year, and if appropriate downward rezoning occurs within .the current calendar year then appropriate adjustment to the assessment would be made. Councilman Bradley suggested reconsideration of assessment after the property was re- zoned. He felt the proposed method of encouraging rezoning built in some coercion. Councilman Murray thought it would be inappropriate to reconsider assessment after re- zoning which would require public hearings' and demonstration. of public need. Council- man Haws wondered what would stop people from having property "down zoned" until ad- justment in the assessment was made then getting rezoning back to the higher density again. Assistant Manager reviewed~ the concept entailed in the assessment policy which took into account abutting land uses. He thought Council action in granting down- zoning would assume that it wo~ld be a long-term use and that it would take into account the overall best interests of the community. With that decision made, he said, unless circumstances changed dramatically, it should withstand further change at a later date. Vote was taken on the motion a.s stated; .lMotion"carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilma~ Bradley voting no. Coun~il Bill No. 770 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Golden (1916) Garden Street from Barger Drive to Jessen Drive (74-14) - read the first time on March 24 and referred to April hearing panel, and held over from the April 14 Council meeting for consideration at this meeting - was ~ read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council .., member present requesting that it be read in full. Assistant M~nager explained that the hearing panel was divided on the question or whe- ther properties of single-family use should be assessed on a 28- or 36-foot width. Staff 4/28/75 - 12 2.. 'I tit (1935) (1940) e.. (1980) Ie recommended that the property upon which the existing home was located be assessed on the basis of 28-foot width, that the balance of the properties be assessed _the full share - 36-foot width. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passaage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17320. Council Bill No. 771 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers on streets within Somerset Hills II Subdivision; and sanitary and storm sewers within 160 feet of boundaries thereof (74-29 and 74-34) - read the fist time on March 24 and referred to April 7 hearing panel, and held over from the April 14 Council meeting for consideration at this meeting - was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved 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 17321. Council Bill No. 772 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Central Boulevard from 28th Avenue to south 1200 feet, and between Central Boulevard and Spring Boulevard to serve all lots in Hunter's Haven Subdivision (74-38) - read the first time on March 24 and referred to April 7 hear1ng panel, and held over from the April 14 Council meeting for consideration at this meeting was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Assistant Manager reviewed testimony received at the panel hearing indicating objections of George Mayer, owner of property on Spring Boulevard, and said that since the prop- erty had never been assessed, staff felt it should be included in accordance with prior agreement. Don Allen, public works director, said that action to levy assess- ment against Mr. Mayer'S property as proposed would be proper. With regard to the Dutell property, he repeated staff's position stated at the panel hearing - that a portion of the property had not been previously assessed for sewer service because it had been added to the corner property since assessment for the 28th Avenue sewer. The mere fact that the property had been pslit, he said, should not relieve the owner of the assessment. Staff recommended levy of assessments in accordance with present policy as proposed. Mr. Murray moved second 'by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Councilman Bradley restated his position that this corresponded to the assessment against the Georgia-Pacific property, ,the sewer line was of no benefit to the property being assessed and for that reason should not be assessed. Rollcall vote was taken on final approval and passage. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17322. 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 and referred to April 7 hearing panel, and held over from the April 14 Council meeting for consideration. at this meeting - was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. 4/28/75 - 13 . '2..,6 Correspondence ftom Jack Mattison, attorney representing Georgia-Pacific, was distribut~d to Council. Assistant Manager reviewed testimony brought out in panel~ hearing and said that staff recommended assessments be levied as proposed against abutting properties because they lie within 160 feet of the sewer line, had not 4It previously been assessed, and it was felt they should share their portion of . sewer costs as do other properties in the community. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17323. Council Bill No. 774 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in 2nd Addi- (2000) tion to Shasta Gardens (74-1002) - read the first time on March 24 and referred to April 7 hearing panel, and held over from the April 14 Council meeting for consideration at this meeting - was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member pre- sent requesting that it be read in full. 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 17324. Council Bill No. 775 -Levying assessments for special sewer levy - Fred Meyer PUD (75-1000) - read the first time on March 24 and referred to April 7 hearing panel, and helf over from the April 14 Council meeting for consideration at this meeting - was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council membeF present requesting that it be read in full. .-tt 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 p~ssed and numbered 17325. III - Items acted upon with on motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed in committee on April 16 (Present: Council President Murray [presiding], and Council members Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) and on April "23. 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council member Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics. A. Legislative Subcommittee Recommendations - April 14., 1975 The Legislative Subcommittee recommends that the Council oppose the .follo~ing proposed legislation: . H.B.3021 - A bill reserving lands on or near any waterways for special protection. Whiltf1 the subcommittee endorses the purpose of this bill, which is to ex- tend environmental protection to tide~iinds, rivers, lakes, and waterways in general, we feel that the definitions are too broad since they would inciude the wil1amette River. The subcommittee feels that the bill might adversely affect the Governor's Wi11amette Greenway proposals and that. tne.areas listed might better be covered under theLCDC bill either under the so-called "critical areas" or under "shore line goals." H.B.3026 - A very far~reaching land use compensation bill providing for compensation to l~nd owners whose property loses value after a governmental land use decision. Conversely, the bill requires payment by land owners. to local . 4/28/75 - 14 \2..1 ~ e governments when land appreciates through governmental decision. The sub- committee liked the concept of this leg1s1ation but felt that studies should be made to asce~tain the possibly far-reaching fiscal aspects of the pro- posal. H.B.2880 - Requires special parking and other privileges for disabled veterans. The subcommittee opposes the measure because (1) it would require unequal treatment of disabled persons, and (2) it would create enforcement prob- lems as pointed out to the subcomrndttee in a memo by Duane Bischoff, parking administrator. S.B.654 - Requires public reporting by all agencies of expenditures of Federal grants every six months. We oppose this on the grounds of fiscal impact and workload. S.B.75l - Would grant some powers to the Public Utility Commissioner to regulate service connection charges by public utilities, political subdivisions, and municipal corporations. Section 3 states. "No service connection charge...sha11 (3) be more than the actual cost of commencement of service to the person." As envisaged by the Bartle-Wells report the city would charge enough to recover the cost of the connection and also to defray a part of the cost of making sanitary service available to the property. The subcommittee would recommend the wording for Section 3(3) as suggested by Don Allen, public works director, "...be more than a reasonable share of the total cost of making service available to the person." The subcommittee recommends strong support for the following: S.B.672 - Enabling legislation to make it possible for cities and school districts to require developers to provide land or a fee where the proposed develop- e ment would create an impact on the schools or the parks system. Traffic Safety Bills The subcommittee received a memo from Wes Smartt, traffic engineering division, aSking for endorsement of stands on nine bills taken by the Eugene Traffic Safety Commission at its March 27 meeting. - H.B.2874 - Authorizes the Department of Transportation to prohibit the operation of a bicycle from sections of state highways if a hazard is considered to exist. Safety Commission voted in favor 'of this bill. H.B.2904 - Requires display.of slow moving vehicle emblem on I adult tricycles. Safety Comrndssion voted yes. H.B.243l - Permit drivers refusal to take chemical test to be admitt~d into evidence as fa~tor to be considered in determining innocence or guilt in criminal proceed- ings. Safety Commission voted in favor of this bill. S.B.316 - Permits Motor Vehicle Division to waive drive tests for applicants with valid licenses from another state. Safety Commission votedno on this bill. - S.B.244 - Permits operation of motorcycle by minors 16 years of age while under immediate supervision of parents or legal guardian to be liable for damage caused by negligence of/or intentional misconduct of minor under 16 years of age while operating motorcycle. Safety Commission unanimously opposed. 220 4/28/75 - 15 S~B.249 - Deletes requirement that motorcycle lights be dis- played at all times. Safety Commission unanaimously voted no. .. S.B.324 - Permits issuance of occupational license.to licensed driver when license has been suspended for refusal to submit to chemical breath test. Remove chauffeur requirements and requirement to show proof of future responsibility for such drivers. Safety Commission voted .. in favor. e S.B.340 - Prohibits use of studded tires April 30, 1977 with exceptions. Prohibits sale of studded tires. Safety Commission voted in favor of this bill. .. S.B.282 - Permits motor vehicle stop lights to be activated by sudden release of accelerator while vehicle is in motion. Required Motor Vehicle Division- to set speci- fication and rules for stop lights so activated and to approve such system. Safety Commission voted against this bill. The subcommittee agrees with the position taken by the Commission on all bills listed except three: S.B.244, S.B.324, and S.B.282. We have requested Mr.Smartt to explain these three measures to the Council. Copie~ of the report were distributed to Council members. Council- woman. Beal called attention to traffic legislation on which the Traffic Commission recommended positions. She said the subcomnUttee took no position on three of the bills because the inten~ was not clear and staff was asked for explanation. Assistant Manager sug- gested that staff explain the proposed legislation at next Monday's legislative subcommittee meeting in view of the lengthy agenda for this meeting. Mrs. Beal moved seqonded by Mr. Keller to approve the recommendations, noting that staff explanation of traffic legislation recommended by the Traffic Safety Commission would be scheduled for the April 21 subcommittee meeting. . Cozmn 4/16/75 Approve Councilman Bradley asked for explanation of If.B.302l. Mrs. Beal re- sponded that it would place tremendous restrictions on use of any waterfront land. The subcommittee felt inclusion of the proposed regulations in the LCDC respqnsibilities was a better approach to the issue. Councilman Williams added that the legislation was dis- cussed at length in the League of Oregon Cities legislative committee and was opposed on the basis that it would be writing another set of guidelines into the statutes. The LCDC now has authorization, ana this legislation ...,ould xesul t in having to determine which guidelines to use in making appropriate decisions. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Murray said Dan Herbert, chairman of the Lane Transit Dis- .trict board, asked for some sign of support from the city with regard to legislation to authorize use of general fund revenues to support mass transit. It was understood the issue would be referred to Ed Johnson, legislative liaison, for presentation to the Council subcom- , mi ttee so that a posi tion could be taken. - ~ 4/28/75 - 16 2:2.' e e e B. Legislative su~ttee Report - April 21, 1975 Traffic Safety Bills You will recall that lJst week we reported on a number of traffic safety l.ills .in re- sponse to a memorandu/!, from the Eugene Traffic Safety Commission, but made no lccom- mendation on three bills upon which we requested further information. Thi.; we,.k wc discussed the three bll1S with Mr. Smartt, traffic engineering division, and n'M mdke the fOllowing recommendations: ~.B.244 - Oppos,.. This bill would permit young people of any age to operate a motorcycle under the supervision of a licensed adult. Present law provides that in order to operate a motorcycle one must already have a dr' v,.>r' s pel mi t. The subcommi ttee agrees wi th the Traffic Safety Com- mission III opposing this bill. s.R.282 - Oppose. This bill would make it legal. to have brake stop lights activated also by taking the foot off the accelerator. The subcommittee agrees with the Traffic ;;Jr"L'ty Commission that this is unnecessary and possibly contusing. S. B. 324 - Present law permi ts holders of chauffeurs lic€'nses to regain their operatin,; permits I'ri(..'[ to a court case after refusing to take a breath test. This law would extend that privllegc to salesmen and other occupations tllut de- pend upon ..11 ivlng, subj('ct to a review of the driver.'s record by the Di,.isJon of 'fat or Vehicles. No review by the Division of Motor Vehicles is no\<.' required. The State 7'raffic Safety Commission OppoSE1S this bill. The /-;u"ene C"mmission supports it. The legislative subcommittee recommends support of the part of the bill broadening the Motor Vehicle Division's powers to rev i ('10' dr i v 1 ng records before a 1 icense can be returned to the driver. Tht' sulJComml ttee recomml'nds taking no position on expanding this privilc.'ge to holders of other occupational licenses. Air Pollution S.B.687 - Strongly oppose. This bill provides that State regulation of indirect sources of aIr pollution may not be more stringent than standards adopted by the Fedcr,d EPA. "Indirect sources" means traffic and parking facilities. Federal standards for this are not completed. 'DEQ has established strict regulations For the Portland area and now regulates parking facilities statewide. 'rhis bill limiting local power to combat pollution is dangerous and shou 1 d b(? opposed. H.B.3252 - Support. Tilis bill by Representative Kulongoski loOuld prohibit all motor vehicle traffic except for emergency and mass transit in the Eugene/ Springfield metropol.i tan area during an air pollution alert, and would stop all industry that is a pollution source. It would also stop all field, slash, and other open burning in Lane and Linn counties during the alert. The subcommittee recommends support of this bill with the amend- ment that during an alert .in this metropolitan area all burning and all pollution sources be prohibited not only in Lane and Linn Counties but throughout the Wi1lamette Valley to the north including Portland, because that is where a great part of our pollution originates. Other Legislation H.B.5046 - Strongly support:. Governor's mass transit budget. This bill wdf.Ild provide funding for local mass transit systems. The subcommittee requests Mr. Hartin, assis~nt city' manager, to draft a letter to the Legislature expressing the city's support, and if possible to arrange for someone to testify at the hearings. 8.B.3078 - Support. This 'bill i>IOuld tax ,the S~ate on the ~sls of the numb8r"of its employes in any particular locality as a contribution to 1II1UIl!l transit. Tbe bill was written especially for Salem. H.B.2978 - Strongly support. This bill ~uld eKpand the bardshJp assessment de- ferral to include (at State expense) deferral of prOperty ..sess_ht when improvements are lllade necessary because of . health hazard. H. B. 2824 - Support. This 1s a bill dealing wi th local government invest/llent procedures, a housekeeping measure supported bI} our staff. I [Councilwoman Beal read that part of the report recommending ~mendment to 'H.B.3252 which would prohibit all open burning and other pollution sources not only in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area but also throughout the Willamette Valley to the north including Portland. Councilman Williams sup- ported the idea but doubted the wisdom of stopping all. vehicles that would extend the ban even to food deliveries and stopping all industry that would result in unemployment to a great number of people. He felt certain kinds of driving should be stoppe.~. in the eVent. ~f..an-air alert -'pl'!HItSoQre driving, 2.22 . A/28/75 - 17 F~: cars dontaining o~ly One or two persons, e~,:;:. And he thought an emergency license fee might be introduced which would"'.discourage use of vehicles. Mayor Anderson shared those concerns. He thought the definition of the word "alert" was the key - that it did not mean 'an emergency existed, rather that it was.. a warning to be prepared and ready to take action should dangerous air pollution .levels be reached. The language of the proposed legislation, he said, was too broad and indefinite, and lacked adequate definitions with regard to the seriousness of an air pollution situation before certain actions should take place. Councilwoman Beal said her own feeling was that the bill "didn't have a prayer of passing" because it was statewide regulation. It was her thought that the amend~nt proposed would show Eugene's sympathy with the intent but at the . same time would call attention to the source of the. pollution. She added that air alerts should be taken more seriously with some kind of local enforcement and curtailment of activities when they occurred. In response to Councilwoman Shirey, Mrs. Beal explained that air pOllution terms were defined in Federal EPA regulations and that measurements to determine when alerts were necessary . were made by the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. Inresponse to Councilman Williams, Mrs. Seal explained that there were two bases on which measurements determined alert or emergency situations - CO levels and suspended particulants. The CO level was not as dangerous, she said, as.a combination of other types of auto emissions and other .sources of pollution, inClUding open burning. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve recommendations of the LegiSlative Subcommittee except the recommendation on H.B.3252. Motion carried unanimously. ; Assistant Manager noted that Fred Dyer, director of Lane Transit District, was testifying today (April 23) at a Legislature committee hearing regarding mass transit funds and would be stating the city's support of the Governor's proposal for use of general fund revenues. Letter from the city would follow. C. Growth Study - Assistant Manager explained that the newly-drafted resolu- tion, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members, was the result of concerns expressed by Mayor Anderson about the scope of the growth study as originally proppsed and his request for alternatives. This proposal would take a more restrictive approach to the study. Also, it wo~ld provide for increasing the MAPAC staff to look at tools developed on growth studies that had worked in other communities co see which ones would further the goals of the 1990 Plan and have applicability to this metropolitan area. The proposal then would be put into form for considera- tion by the several agencies in the m9tropolitan area. He said experience has been in a study such as tha't originally proposed that a great deal of data usually is gathered resulting in only one or two leg~sl.tive acts. In this particular metroPolitan area, a number of actions have already taken place that have made substantial headway.toward.grcMth contro.J:.., and it is a question of what additional legislation needs to be enacted to further the community goals and the 1990 Plan. Assistant '",;mager continued that LCOG estimated $39,500 would cover -the type of study proposed by this new resolut~n. However, he thought that GOuld be reduced to $35,000, ~ugene's share being about $15,000 to $20,000 and the balance borne by other participating agencies. Councilman,Murray sa~d the resolution dtstrtb~tedw~ the ~esult of joint effort oE .the Hayor,o Council.woman Beai., iandohlmself , aiJd t:f1e three were in agre~!uent on its content. He said 't~ Cou;r:2ciJoshould be aware that . this resolution maintained the focus of :the study on tbe ~tropolitan area and. 'that it, strongly timphasized. id@tification ofleg$.slative tech- . niques so that there would 1?e.. somet1)ing }upon whichto..~ct when the ..... '.', ,....-.~ ~...~.--:.._.~.~; .~:"~~~.,. "~ ..,. 4/28/75 - &8 2'2.'3 -- ',)'"'r Comm 4/23/75 Approve - e e - e study was completed in order to do a better job of controlling and limit- ing growth. Also, the language in this resolution is less pointed than in previous drafts, placing emphasis on limiting costs of growth. It identifies MAPAC as the proper group to do the study, alleviating specula- tion about the creation of a new body, and asks that MAPAC be provided with additional staff support. Mr. Murray called attention to the com- munity goals statements which he said were very precise in stating the in- tent to slow the rate of growth without sacrificing economic well-being of the community. Councilman Bradley asked postponement of action on the resolution until the city attorney had opportunity to present an analysis of a very recent court decision that might change the Council's course of action. He thought the Council might want to change the priorities to updating the 1990 Plan in terms of a growth study rather than looking at a separate study at this time. Assistant Manager explained that the court decision placed far greater weight on the effect of the Master Plan than has ever before been the legislative intent. He said the attorneys were now study- ing the opinion and would be bringing a report on it. However, to this point, he said, MAPAC's functions and the course of action it was pursu- ing were consistent with the 1990 Plan and also was a part of the budget. So he didn't think it needed separate consideration. Mr. Bradley thought! it might be a case of Eugene's updating the 1990 Plan separately from - the other jurisdictions, maybe the city ~uld be using the money that would go into this growth study to update the Plan. He favored delay- ing action for a week to give the opportunity for "some reading" on the case. Councilman Murray noted that action on this resolution would refer the matter to Lane County and to Springfield for comment. In addition, the study would have to be funded through the budgeting process. So he didn't see where action today would necessarily preclude any other action later. Assistant Manager thought it important to note that if . there was to be an attempt to have the study included in the Lane County. and Springfield budgets, referral should be made promptly. Councilwoman Beal was against any further delay in starting the study. She said the resolution in many regards did not follow the agreement reached between the Mayor, Councilman Murray, and her in their drafting session - the part about limiting costs of growth ignored the fact that the costs of growth are not known. However, as weak and watered down as she thought the resolution was from the original proposal and what was reflected in community goals statements.. she did not want to see further delay. Corom 4/16/75 Approve Mrs. Beal moved secC?nded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. In response to Councilman Keller about the language used in the 60mmunity goals statements with regard to growth, Assistant Manager read that portion of the statement and said it called for controlling the rate of growth and at the same maintaining economic viability. .James Bain, member of MAPAC and of the Growth Study Feasibility Task Force, thought $39,000 would not be enough to accomplish what was being called for. He said a two-year study was proposed in order to fit into the time frame for the major updating of the 1990 Plan. To try for legislative tools first, he said, would be "putting the cart before the horse." The local economy would have to be considered first to determine whether the tools would be applicable. He said he would be in favor of referring the question to Lane County and Springfield, then after having their response and perhaps LCDC's, he felt it would be appropriate to deter~ne how much money was available for the study. '2.2.4 4/28/75 - 19 Councilman Williams said he did not oppose the resolution but he seriously questioned whether the outcome would be a completed document that would be satisfactory from both a legal and philosophical or practical stand- point. He ~hought this a good starting point - to determine the variouS things that were already being done - if the intent of the resolution as it said was to assess economic costs of limiting growth and limiting the processes of growth. Councilwoman shirey also wanted to get the study started. . She hoped that part of the data collected would support the need for plans and statistics from other communities. She didn't think the cost of growth or the rate of growth could be determined if those statistics were not available. e Assistant.. Manager cautioned the Council about economic studies based on population figures, saying population projections coming from this pro- posal would not be any more valid than what was now availa.ble. In addi- tion, uncertain economic conditions would further cloud the issue. He said it was an extremely nebulous affair and he thought the city would be ahead by looking at what had succeeded in,other communities. Councilman Keller found the resolution as presented acceptable from a cost standpoint. He could see where it would fit into budgetary limita- tions, and the information being sought still had to do with economic costs. He agreed that MAPAC was best suited to give the answers because to do the work there would have to be co-operation from other juriSdic- tions. Councilman Bradley supported the idea of the growth study and to a certain extent was in favor of this resolution. His reservations were tied to the recent court case he brought up, and he said if there was as- surance the Council would have the opportunity to take another action later on, he would vote for adoption of the resolution. Councilman Murray took exception to the fact that the Council had not been informed that the LCOG Board at its January 1975 meeting took the stand that any growth study should be limited to the metropolitan area. He found it abhorent that the Council would be allowed to debate that issue when "some people party to the [LeOG] action had not taken the trouble to notify the Eugene Council of that." He said that was not something that was conducive to confidence and good faith. II Vote was taken on the motion to adopt the resolution as presented. Motion carried unanimously. A prepared statement endorsing the proposed growth study was entered into the record by .the League of Women Voters. D. Wayne Morse Property - Council members on tour viewed the Morse ranoh prop- erty, and copies of preliminary report from the parks department were dis- tributed. Assistant Manager explained that a proposal for acquisition of the property was before the State Legislature and that Councilwoman Shirey had requested Council discussion. He reviewed parks department cost estimate fo~ low-level maintenance and program approach until a master plan was de- veloped for the property, and the eventual operational budget impact. A cost of $3,750 was estimated just for beginning services, assuming city opera- tion.for three months of the 1975-76 year. Costs for the first full year of operation, 1976-77, were estimated at $19,725, and for the next year, $34,125. Assistant Manager cautioned that those figures would no doubt be higher when taking inflationary factors into consideration. Costs from then on would depend on the purposes for which the property was used. . 4/28/75 - 20 ZZ$ e e e Councilwoman Shirey made it clear that she had not been asked by anyone at the state level to determine the city's position with regard to this property. She said she had started this on her own initiative because of her strong interest in the property. Also, she felt the city's position should be de- termined in the event the property was acquired. She reviewed the history of the property and past contacts with Wayne Morse concerning its acquisi- tion for park purposes. However, because of Senator Morse's death, she said, the property had taken on a regional, state, or even national signifi- cance as a historical site, and she hoped the Council would look at it in that light. Mrs. Shirey said the property comprised about 27 acres and should be con- sidered in the light of future development and need for retaining open space. The reputation of Hendricks Park as a regional park, she said, could be used for comparative purposes. She added that Congressman Weaver was investi- gating availability of Federal funds to match an appropriation now being considered by the State Legislature. In addition, both Congressman Weaver and Senator Hatfield were attempting to have the Morse Ranch designated as a historical landmark which would entitle some Federal funds for its preservation. With these things in mind, Mrs. Shirey asked the Council to consider its position with regard to the property, not in terms of purchase but in terms of what would happen to it if it was purchased. In response to Councilman Murray, Councilwoman Shirey said generally the question was that assuming the property was purchased by some other agency, would the city be interested in having an on-going role in its operation as a park. Ed Smith, parks director, said the property had unlimited possibilities and for that reason a "well thought out" master plan should be devised. In the meantime, he said, because of the good condition of existing buildings and the great potential of the open wooded grounds, typical community uses could be made of the property immediately without great expenditure of funds. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey that the city go on record saying that should the park become city property, the city could and would maintain it and could and would find multiple uses for it. Camm 4/16/75 Approve Councilman Bradley asked whether use of the property could include some type of pUblic housing to further the city's housing dispersal policy. Assistant Manager replied that it would depend upon the conditions under which the city might acquire the property. If it was purchased by another agency and deeded to the.city, there might be restrictions limiting its use to open space or strictly park type uses. Most of those peo~le work- ing toward acquisition of the property by the public, he said, were think- ing in terms of preserving it for open space in its present condition. Councilman Bradley wondered if the city had ever developed public housing. He was thinking in terms of assuming the city did acquire the land but was unable because of budgetary limitations to operate it as a park, whether the city could guide its development in low-density housing so as to leave portions of it in open space. Assistant Manager said the city had never been involved in developing public housing. Councilman Williams said it Was his understanding that the Council had the prerogative of de- ,claring itself the housing authority for the city if it chose, and in that role would be able to construct and lease housing under the Community De- veloment Act. However, he said there were no funds available at this time 4/28/75 - 21 2.Zto and he didn't know the potential for funding under that Act. He thought the amount of land involved and potential for housing on it would. far ex- ceed any amount of Federal money coming into Eugene even though the statutory ability existed for accomplishing it. -- Councilman Keller referred to the proposed ridge line park in the South Hills and wondered whether staff had any opportunity to project costs in- volved in operation and maintenance of that area. Also, what impact operation of the Morse property as a park would have on the proposed ridge lin~ park - whether both would be economically feasible. Assistant Manager pointed out that the city now had acres of undeveloped park lands where maintenance costs were substantially less than for developed areas. He said the type of facility contemplated for the Morse property initially wo~ld be a working farm rather than as a significant community center, thereby minimizing operational costs for now. He said there was nothing in the way of development projected for the ridge line park area at the present time. Mr. Smith added that costs depended, upon the degree of development. The parks department now is trying to determine various uses for different areas of the ridge line park, but at this time no very ex- pensive maintenance costs were anticipated except for the five areas identified for developed park sites. He assumed those developed areas would cost considerable to maintain, probably $2,000 per acre, and by the time they were developed, he said, it could amount to $3,000 per acre. . He was talking of developed areas - irrigated, drained, with playgrounds, wading pools, etc. - but he didn't see that type of development occurring in the South Hills for some time. Costs for maintaining the undeveloped areas of the South Hills would vary according to the use, he said, and certainly would not be as expensive as for highly developed park areas. Councilman Haws liked the idea of developing the Morse property as park land, yet he didn't want to sacrifice other areas in town which did not have adequate parks. He was speaking specifically of wards he and Councilman Hamel represented (Bethel and Willakenzie). He asked what would happen to acquisi tion and development of park land in other parts of town if the Morse property was acquired. Assistant Manager answered that the Council should be aware of the maintenance costs which are in- curred with acquisition of any land. He noted availability of $60,000 allocated to the Crest Drive area from park bond authorization. The Joint Parks Committee, he said, was now deliberating about whether to present a bond measure for acquisition of park lands throughout the entire community. But he cautioned about recent experience in passing bond measures, the significant imEact on property tax rates, and the sub- sequent debates at budget time when maintenance funds have to be provided. On this particular pax'cel J Assistant Manager continued, acquisi tion cos.ts and maintenance costs could be separated (because of the proposal in the Legislature for state acquisition). He said planning resources were avail- able, and development of a plan would dictate the expenditure level on that park. He said the $100,000 estimate 'for potential impact was an "outside figure" and would not be reached in the next few years. If use of the property was continued in its present form, it could probably be operated for about $35,000. More definite costs could not be given until uses were determined. Councilman Haws said he understood acquisition .was not the question here, but he thought if there were limited funds for maintenance and several areas to be taken care of, some parts of the city would suffer. -- - Councilman Murray said that consideration of Joint Parks Committee liberations was premature; but that that Committee was inclined to a "city-wide" approach rather than just.a "South Hills" approach. de- take However, 4/28/75 - 22 '2:. 2;.7 e the areas mentioned by Councilman Haws would certainly be considered in any bond measure. There was no assurance of such a measure or that it would be passed, but he thought it the most practical approach to park land acquisition. Councilwoman Shirey recognized the untimeliness of the issue, but said there was no choice - this was the last chance to acquire that property and preserve it as open space. She was not interested in doing something here that would detract from the rest of the city, but she felt there was no danger of that. She hoped the figures would not be considered definite, because she thought the property could be used as it now exists for quite a while without expenditure of any funds. She hoped the Council would look at the long-range picture. Councilman Williams asked if the motion would obligate the city to more than open space uses or a farm operation - how far would "multiple" use obligate the city. Mrs. Beal answered that the intent of the motion was not to bind the city to spending money but to recognize the many uses to which the property could be put - hay barn in which children could play, tack room, existing walks and trails needing no development, etc. e Councilman Keller thought if more definite figures were available, looking ahead ten years, he might be able to get a better grasp on the impact. He was taking into consideration inflation and the annual increase in cost to operate the area as a city park. He agreed that it was a "gorgeous" piece of property and that sympathy was running high to main- tain it as a park, but he didn't place the same priority on it as others. He said he would rather know how much it was going to cost for operating it. Assistant Manager didn't think a firm figure could be stated be- cause the operational costs would depend upon uses the community decided upon Eor the area. Mr. Smith added that the costs given were purely estimates, that nothing concrete could be given ten years ahead. He said the main thing was to acquire the land, that should have top priority. Development sometimes didn't happen for eight to ten years, so there would be ample time to come to grips with costs of maintenance of a highly de- veloped park. The attractive thing about this parcel, he said, was that it could be used as a park in its present condition. Councilman Murray commented on Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, the incredible number of uses to which that park was put, and the farsighted people who developed that area. If any comparable action could be taken here, he thought it would be ~ighly desirable. Keith Schroeder, caretaker at the Morse ranch, reported that the Legisla- ture had received pledges.for maintenance of the property if it was pur- chased by the state. And it was hoped that the Wayne Morse Historical Park committee would continue to function and establish some kind of a trust fund for maintenance of the property. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. .e Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Bradley that the Legislature Ways and Means Committee be advised that the Eugene City Council regards the Morse ranch as highly desirable park land having ad- vantages of outstanding scenic beauty and easy access for the general public and the possibility of a wide number oE educa- tional and recreational uses. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/16/75 Approve 4/28/75 - 23 .2,..Ze w. E. Sweetland, 42 Ridgewood Drive, objected to use of the Morse property for a (2022) city park.because of the cost involved and because he felt there was adequate poten- tial park land or partially developed parks in that general area. now (the proposed .. ridgeline area and Amazon rark). He said the buildings on the site were not proper ~, for park purposes and would have to be remodeled at considerable expense to the city. Also, he said, playground areas of three schools in that vicinity were available. In addition, there was nothing about the Morse property of particular scenic value such as streams, waterfalls, etc., that would attract people. He felt the majority of people would rather go to a state park where swimming facilities were available, fishing streams, vast open spaces, etc. He felt the city would be receiving a "white elephant" if it accepted the park, and he urged the Council to withdraw any support it had given to acquisition of the property for park purposes. George Boehnke, 3120 Agate Street, agreed with Mr. Sweetland. In addition, he.said, the maintenance costs should be considered. He thought the estimated annual mainte- nance cost could pay for about a third of the priority tiems listed in this year's city budget. And in view of the dedicated park land already available, he felt this was one place where the city's expenses could be cut. Councilman Keller supported the positions taken by Mr. Boehnke and Mr. Sweetland. In addition, he looked at that property as a beautiful piece of land and said he doubted it would be maintained as a "low use" park. He was sure the road leading to it would have to be improved, that parking problems would be created, and he found it difficult to support a measure that he anticipated would cost the people a tre- mendous amount of money in the future. Councilwoman Shirey emphasized that money for the park should the Legislature approve its acquisition would come from the parks and recreation division of the State High- way Department. She wanted to clarify that the uses of highway department money, made ~ up of gas tax and vehicle license revenues, park use fees, etc., were for a variety of things besides acquiring and building roads. She said the Morse property would fit into the state parks and recreation program and would be a unique addition for the state and nation, as wel~ as Eugene. She felt the impact of its cost would not be too great. Also, that the $100,000 estimate for maintenance cost for the city was a top figure, that a more definite estimate was not possible until a more specific type of use for the property was determined. .She said that the significance of the Wayne Morse name would no doubt bring help from other agencies in the maintenance of the property. She mentioned monies were available for the purchase from the Federal government through the National Historic Register, and Lane County might also share as well as the state in sue of the buildings by the University. In addition, funds have already been donated from pr~vate sources, so she .felt the potential was there for maintenance as park property. Mrs. Shirey continued with regard to the proximity of school playgrounds that the Morse property would enhance them, not replace them, and because of its historic value it would be a park not duplicated anyplace else. She wondered if those objecting to its acquisition had ever closely examined the trails on the property. And the buildings, she said, were in excellent condition. Also, there would be great educational value in Mr. Morse's work and papers gathered over his many years in public office. She felt the potential was there and invited people to actually view the property with the realization that the proposal for its acquisition had been examined closely and not jumped into on the spur of the moment. Councilwoman Beal was not concerned about upkeep on the park because she felt the maintenance cost would be in direct proportion to how it was developed and used. Councilman Haws said he had the same concerns expressed by Mr. Keller, and asked staff if the city would be morally or legally obligated should the committee action be approved to spend money for upkeep of the property should it be acquired. Also, he asked ~f there was a breakdown of maintenance costs according to park areas that would give an idea of park monies that were now going into that section of the city. .- 4/28/75 - 24.. 2'2..Cf -- Assistant Manager hesitated to draw a distinction between any moral or legal obligation involved. He said if the Council wished to have any credibility and if the committee action was approved, that commitment should be honored. He reminded the Council that the amount of money that would be spent each year on maintenance would necessarily have to be subject to budget review and judgments by the Council with regard to the property's intended uses. The choices were many and it would be the Council's de- termination, maintenance costs could range from $20,000 to $100,000 depending upon what was done with the property. Mayor Anderson left the meeting and Council President Murray assumed the Chair. Councilwoman Shirey asked if those people speaking against the assumption of maintenance of the Morse property by the city had ever walked thourhg the entire property. Mr. Sweetland answered that he had been on the property, in the main home, and in the other buildings in addition to having observed it from passing by for the past 16 years, and was aware of what it was like even though he had not walked its entire length. He said the state highway fund was already in trouble because of the reduction in revenues derived from gasoline taxes. With regard to donated funds, he said this should be looked at as a solid business venture, not on an emotional basis. And so far as volun- teers for maintaining the property even if it was donated, he referred to the lack of volunteers in helping to maintain other areas in the city [referring to pioneer ceme- teries]. He said that the Morse collections and papers could be set aside in some appropriate public building rather than purchasing this property to be "hung around the neck of. the city" in what was considered a poor park location which would not re- ceive very heavy use. -- Walt Coleman, 1055 Pinewood Terrace, thought the issue was being considered on an emotional basis and that three years at least should be given before a decision was made. He recognized the work of Wayne Morse and the respect it deserved, but he thought the city's priorities should be closely examined to see whether it could really afford the cost this property would involve and whether it was necessary. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to disapprove committee action. Mr.. Keller said he was in favor of action advising the Ways & Means Committee that the Morse property was desirable for park purposes but that the city was not in a position to finance its upkeep and maintenance. Councilman Bradley asked if he could reverse the motion. Then if there was a negative vote the motion as stated could be presented. Council President Murray rules that a substitute motion could be voted on if it was completely the reverse of the motion presented. Vote was taken on a motion to approve the committee action (that the city would maintain the Morse property as a park area should it be acquired, and advise the Ways & Means Committee that the property was considered highly desirable. park land). Motion carried - Council members Murray, Bea1, Williams, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Hamel and Keller voting no. E. Improvement petitions . 1. Paving, sani tary and storm sewers wi thin Wes"tern Industrial Park Subdivision (west side of Bertelsen Road, south of West 5th Avenue) Petitioned by owners of 100% of the land to be assessed. It 2. paving alley between 13th Avenue and 14th Avenue Street to Hilyard Street petitioned by owners qf 56.36% of the land to be from Patterson assessed. '2.. ""3> 0 4/28/75 - 25 3. Paving alley between Oak Street and Pearl Street from 14th Avenue to east/west alley; and alley between 14th Avenue and 15th Avenue from Oak Street to north/south alley Petitioned by owners of 61.68% of tbe land to be assessed. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to accept the petitions. Motion carried unani~ously. Comm 4/16/75 Approve -- 4. First Addition to Snelling Plat: paving. and sanitary sewer - 100% 5. Paving Balfour street from Montreal Avenue to 150 feet north - 100% 6. Sanitary sewer along south boundary of Senger Park between Norwood and Gilham Road - 37% 7. Souza Park Subdivision: Paving, sanitary and storm sewers - 100% l74{J 1in.ft. (64%) of the sanitary sewer outside the subdivision. City cost on storm sewer $11,556. ..;.} Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to approve the peti- tions. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/23/75 Approve F. Affirmative Action, Human Rights Commission Recommendations - Councilwoman Beal suggested a work session for those Council members interested to review a report given to the Human Rights Commission with regard to employment practices within the city. She noted that Commission recommendations would be forwarded to the Council and she thought a work session would give the opportunity for thorough understanding of the issues before Council consideration. Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to set up a Council work session for review of the affirmative action report presented to the Human Rights Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/23/75 Approve -- It was understood that Mrs. Bea1 would work with staff to set up, a time and place for the meeting. G. Right-of-way Bailey Hill Road - Council a~thorization was requested to pay the owner(~vange1ica1 Covenant Church) of property at southeast corner of 18th Avenue and Bailey Hill Road $2,842 for Bailey Hill Road right~of-way. Assistant Manager explained that permission was given by the property owner to construct the improvement in anticipation of development of the property within 18 months which would require deeding of right-of-way without reimbursement. However, that development did not occur within the 18 months and staff recommended payment for the right-of-way acquired. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to authorize the payment Comm as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. 4/23/75 Approve H. Restriction on Construction Noise - West University Neighbors requested restric- tion on construction to the hours of 7:00 a,m. to 7:00 p.m. The code now per- mits construction between the hours of 7:(JO a.m. and 10:00 p.m., with special permi t provisions for emergency si tuations. Copies of report from public works department were distributed to Council with agenda stating objections to further restriction - do-it-yourself builders ofttm work at odd hours, construction on some projects would be hampered, adverse effect on housing costs, enforcement action after normal work hours would be required. Councilwauan Beal felt the 7:00 a.m./7:00 p.m. restriction was reasonable. She didn't see any problems with "do-it-yourselfers" because their work was usually parried on inside buildings. Her main objection was to heavy construc- tion equipment operated at late night hours. .. ., .~ Councilman Murray noted the special permi t provisions of the code and wondered if the gr~ting of such a permit .would take into consideration the accompanying vehicle traffic to and from a construction site. Don Allen, public works director, 4/28/75 - 26 Z3\- e said it would be difficult to restrict that tgpe of traffic on local streets be- cause they were public rights-of-way and the heavy vehicles did have the right to use them. Assistant Manager added that usually the issuance of a special permit was for construction work in the downtown areas where there was no siginficant disturbance to residential properties. He noted the necessity in some construction projects for continuous "pouring" which required cement mixers to and from a site for an extended period of time. Mr. Hurray moved seconded by Hrs. Beal that staff prepare an appropriate code change for Council consideration changing the permitted hours for constructianto 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; providing for issuance of construc- tion permits during later hours if the public safety, health, comfort, and welfare would not be disturbed by noise at either the construction site or from vehicles traveling to and from the construction site; and providing for a fee for such special construction permit. Comm 4/23/75 Approve (See action below) Councilman Williams wondered if the restriction would preclude construction re- quiring continuous pouring, but Hr. Hurray thought the special permi t feature would cover that type of construction. Councilman Keller was against further restriction. He.felt there was a multitude of sources other than construction that MOuld produce discomforting noises at one time or another, and he questioned whether staff should spend time on it. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Hotion defeated, Council members Hurray, Beal, Haws, and Shirey voting ay~; Council members Keller, WillialllS, Bradley, Hamel, and Hagor Anderson voting no. . Mayor Anderson iiJ-voting no said he fel t the present restrictions were satisfactory, that there were so many different sources of noise that any attempted modification of the existing ordinance might lead to even more restrictions later. It - tr Madge Lorwin, 550 East 15th Avenue, speaking for the West University Neighbors, asked for reconSideration of committee action. She wanted the hours restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In making the request, Ms. Lorwin recognized the provision for do-it- yourself type work to continue until 10:00 p.m. under certain conditions. However, she said the neighborhood organization was requesting the restriction primarily to stop heavy construction in the later hours. An unidentified person said he was a studen teacher working at home during most of the day and in the evenings. He noted that building contractors' claims regarding re- strictions on construction hours in most cases were vague and contrary. He didn't think limiting work to a l2-hour day would hamper anyone, especially since overtime pay was necessary for longer priod of time. Also, citizens had no recourse when disturbed by heavy construction noise after normal city working hours, there was no one on duty to receive complaints. He said the neighborhood group would not be against. extension of the hours if (1) evidence could be shown that the location of such construction would not impair the comfort of nearby residents; (2) there was evidence that residents within 250 feet of a project did not object to the later working hours; (3) the permit was checked again after the project was started. The main objections were to the large construction projects which created considerable noise and were a nuisance factor, especially to teachers who had classes, graded papers, .etc., during the evening hours. e Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Haws to approve committee action (permitting construction between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and provide for construction permits during later hours under certain conditions). Mr. Bradley moved to table the issue and refer it to all.recognized neigh- borhood associations for input. There was no second. In making the motion to table Mr. Bradley said he felt the problem being addressed was uniqu~ to the University area and did not represent problems in many other areas of the C1ty which would be affected by the change. 2~2 4/28/75 - 27 Vote was taken on the motion to restrict hours to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mot~on carried - Council members Murray, Beal, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey vot1ng aye; Council members Keller, Williams, and Bradley voting no. A~sistant Manager for clarification stated his understanding that the staff was d1re~ted t9.prepare an ordinan7e under the assumption that there would be a public hea:1~g conducted when t~e ord1na~ce was brought back for consideration. Mr. Murray ver1f1ed that understand1ng, and lt was understood that the Homebuilders Association Contractors Association, and others interested would be notified when; the hearing wa~ schedul ed. . I. Housing and Community Development Commission - Copies of memo from the Community Development Task Force, created to develop a budget and program for first year of the Community Development Block Grant program, were previously distributed to Council members. The Task Force recommended establishment of a permanent Housing and Community Develoment Commission comprising two City Council members, two Planning Commission members, two Eugene Renewal Agency members, and six members from the general public. There were also recommended two subcommittees - a reconstituted Joint Housing Committee and a new Joint Community Development Com- mittee. Councilman Murray, chairman of the Task Force, explained the proposal and said there was no dramatic departure from the present function other than to more directly incorporate the housing function into the overall community develop- ment process. Mr~ Murray mbved seconded by Mr. williams to adopt the recommenda- tion. Motion carried unanimously. J. Smoking in PUblic Meetings - In response to request from the Association of Nonsmokers Rights for a ban on smOking in public meetings held by the city or in city buildings, copies of a list of alternatives were previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Keller to reaffirm the first alternative (the present policy, no smoking permitted in formal city council meetings held in the Council Chamber). Councilman Bradley questioned the exclusion of consideration of other alternatives by voting on only one. As a result, the motion was withdrawn by Mr. Hamel. How- ever, Councilman Keller refused to withdraw his second, saying the issue was there and should be voted upon. Vote was taken on the motion to reaffirm the ban on smoking in the Council Chamber during formal Council meetings. Motion carried ,unanimously. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve Alternative 2 (prohibiting smoking at.either Councilor committee-of-the-whole meetings). Councilman Haws took the affirmative, saying the city should be consistent in its policies. It wasn't logical to take a stand against pollution caused by field burning and at the same time permit unlimited use of the automobile and permit 'individuals to pollute rooms with tobacco smoke. Councilman Keller took the negative. He felt there would be infringement on his rights in telling him he couldn't smoke if he wanted to. Councilman Murray added that no rights appeared to be takena~g, it was a matter of placing a limit on where people could smoke. Nonsmoking, he said, in no way added to polllution nor did it involve potential harm to others. Councilwoman Seal recognized the difficulty encountered by smokers having to re- frain, but she said she would. favor the motion. 4/28/75 - 28 2.3"3 ., , . . Comm 4/23/75 Approve It . Vote was taken on motion to prohibit smoking in both formal Council meetingsandcommittee-of-the-whole meetings. Motion carried, Council members Keller, williams, and Hamel voting no. It Mr. Murray moved seconded by Nr. Haws to adopt Alternative 3 (ef-courage all commissions, boards, and committees of the city to prohibit smoking at any of their meetings). Motion carried, Council members Williams and Keller voting no. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Haws to adopt Alternative 4 (prohibit- ing smoking in any public meeting held at City Hall). Discussion of ~d~ption of this alternative in relation to adoption of Alternative 5 resulted in withdrawal.of the motion with the consent of the second. No action was taken on Alternative 4. Mr. Bradley mOved seconded by.Mr. Haws to adopt Aiiernative 5, langu.age.-i6read "sponsored by city.council" rather than "city'; (prohibitirig smoking in. any public meeting sponsored by the ci ty or ~n any public meeting held in any city building, except as parks department regulations govern recreation facilitie~). Comm 4/23/75 Approve Confusion over intent of the motion r~sulted in withdrawal of the second. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Bradley to adopt Al ternati ve 5, amending the language to exempt commissions, boards, and com- mittees of the city. Motion defeated, only Council members .Haws and Bradley voting aye. ' e. Councilman Keller asked for reconsideration of committee action. He thought the ban on smoking in committee meetings was unfair to him. He suggested that a nonsmoking area might be arranged for in committee meetings instead of a complete ban for those who did smoke. Councilman Williams wasn't too sure a separate area for nonsmokers would lessen the impact because most venti~ating systems in available meeting rooms were not too ef- fective. Also, he said, there was the question of propriety in telling a guest at an informal session of the Council whether he could or could not smoke. He was intrigued that a ban on smoking had not been recommended for parks and recreation facilities. He thought the real question was whether the most effective way of dealing with the problem had been chosen. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to disapprove committee action which would have proQibited smoking in committee meetings. Motion defeated - Council members Keller, Williams, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, Bradley, Haws, and ~h.irey voting no. e K. Charter, Southeast Firs Association - Copies of the charter and a ma~.showing boundaries. of .two possible neighborhood associations in the Southeast Hills were distributed to Council with agenda. Assistant Manager explained that the Southeast Firs Association could have been a part of the Oak Hills Homeowners Association, but the proposed improvement of Agate Street gave impetus to forma- tion of the separate group. He said that there were distinctive characteristics that would allow separation and recognition of both groups. However, there is the potential within any neighborhood organization for "splintering" and if crea- tion of new assocations becomes the accepted solution to honest differences, the number of groups could eventually surpass the city'S ~~ility to provide staff support. He suggested public hearing to give the Council opportunity to re- solve the issue. Also noted was a Jurisdictional issue, some of the people in the area thinking Agate Street should be the dividing line, others thinking both sides of the northern portion of Agate Street should be included in the Southeast Firs group. '2.34' 4/28/75 - 29 Mr. Murra'l moved on the Southeast Council meeting. seconded by Hr. Keller to schedule public hearing Firs request for recognition at the Hay 12, 1975 Motion carried unanimously. At Hrs. Beal' s suggestion, it was understood a larger map Clearly showing dis- tinct boundary lines would be available before the public hearing. L. Annexation, .Delta and Greenacres - Refer peninSUla area to Planning Commission for review and comment as to reasons for exclusion. (See committee minutes page 8 these minutes.) M. Livingston & Blayney Eugene Commercial Study - Recommendations 3 and ~ were previously distributed to Council members together with Planning Commission recommendation on each (March 24, 1975): 1. L&B Recommendation 3 ~ Pursuit of high transit usage goals, including consideration of an all-day parking tax to improve and encourage the use of transit service. The Planning Commission recommended referral of this recommenda- tion to the Lane Transit District and incorporation into the ESATS update process. The Commission thought the city should continue to support the mass transit effort of the LTD and explore with LTD various methods of encouraging transit use. Also, the city should examine the current update of ESATS in light of this recommendation and recommend an alternative to best meet the goals. 2. L&B Recommendation 4 - Continual review of financing the downtown free parking program to maintain equi ty between office and retailing. The Planning Commission reported that evaluation of financing the free parking program now takes this recommendation into ~ccount. It will be an integral part of future reviews, includ- ing the annual review of the Downtown Development Board. Also, the Commission feit the city planning staff should become involved in . the Develoment Boar~'s annual review process. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Haws to adopt the Planning COmnUssion recommendations. vince Farina, member of the Downtown Development Board, suggested deferral of action until the Downtown Development Board had the opportunity for review be- cause of the far-reaching and perhaps detrimental effect of the recommendations on efforts of the DDB to provide a free parking program. He further suggested very careful consideration of the'potential involved in the recommendations, that it appeared another way of asking businesses to contribute to LTD funding. He was not opposed to furthering use of mass transit but he thought the 97% of the population not using transit facilities (according to LTDfigures) should . have some consideration in programs proposed. Councilmd;n Haws as~ed for clarification of the portion of the recommendation on UB No. 4 that called for planning staff involvement in DDB annual {eviews of the parkipg program. John Porter, planning. director, explained that some con- cerns wer,e expressed in the Commission about ensuring equity between office and retail pa,rking and.inclusion of reference to staff involvement was requested. However, he said, there is co-ordil1ation between the public works and planning. departments now which takes care of that factor. Vote was taken on the motion to adopt the Planning commission recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. 4/28/75 - 30 Z~s;' Comm 4/23/75 Approve -- Corom 4/23/75 Approve ~. Corom 4/23/75 Approve -- e N. Appeal from Planning Commission denial of zone change on property on west side at north end of Grand Street - From RA to R-2 (Blinkhorn Co.)(Z 75-1) Denied at the Planning Commission meeting of April 1, 1975. Appealed by applicant. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to schedule public hearing at the May 12 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. O. Appeal from Zoning Code Board of Appeals denial of request to keep six Submitted by Robert Cornelison, 2475 Crescent Avenue. Zoning Board on 1975 approved two horses as allowed under city code. oorses March 27, Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to refer the appeal to the Hearing Panel for hearing on May 5, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. P. Skinners Butte Riverfront Park Improvements - Council authorization was re- quested to contract with the State for Bureau of Outdoor Recreation grant of $36,000 to extend improved bike paths from I-lOS to Briarcliff,and to con- 'struct restrooms in Owens Park. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to authorize the grant application. Motion carried unanimously. Q. Tax Exemption, Edgewood Homes Association - Copies of staff memo wer~ previously distributed to Council members recommending denial of request from Edgewood Homes Association for tax exemption on property in Edgewood Estates 3rd Addition (be- tween High and Mill north of 35th). The property on which exemption was requested is developed with a swimming pool, bath and maintenance house, and surrounding .cyclone fence. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to schedule publicohearing on the request at the May 12 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimousl y. R. Council Minutes - January 27, 1975 as circulated s. Motel/Apartment Uses - Councilman Murray reported he had received a number of calls regarding use of motel units as apartments. He noted the dis- advantage in terms of more stringent regulations governing parking space requirements for apartments and thought if the reports were true there should be better enforcement or a change in the ordinance to "tighten up." It was understood staff would investigate and report back to Council. T. Request o~ West University. Neighbors to restrict construction noise Councilwoman Bea1 noted members of the West University Neighbors in the audience and asked if the Council could remain past adjournment time to consider their request. However, most Council members had to leave and it was understood the subject would be a top item on the April 23 committee agenda. U.West Amazon Expressway, Environmental Impact Statement - Councilman Murray re- ferred to a letter received from the League of Women Voters listing factors they thought should be considered in preparation of the environmental impact statement on the proposed West Amazon arterial. He said there were some perti- nent issues raised on which he would be interested in having staff comment. e It was understood the letter would be reviewed and staff comment brought to the Council. V.Construction of Fire Pumper - Copies of memo from fire department were distributed to Council members with agenda outlining process for construction of a fire engine with city crews within. the. $70,000 budgeted. There were no objections and it was understood the equipment would be assembled as proposed in the fire department shops.. 2'3<0 4/28/75 - 31 CoRUll 4/23/75 Approve CORUll 4/23/75 Approve CORUll 4/23/75 Approve CORUll 4/23/75 Approve Approve CORUll 4/16/75 Affirm CORUll 4/16/75 Affirm CORUll 4/23/75 Affirm Cornrn 4/23/75 Affirm W. Vacancy, County Health Advisory Committee - Copies of letter from ~ne County were distributed to Council members advising of vacancy on this commi ttee and invi ting recommendations for filling it. Councilwoman Bea1 asked what qua1ificiations were required. Assistant Manager read from the letter that the posi tion was earmarked for .a.,. . "representative associated with higher education." counCi1membtf.5,~~~' could check individually with.Lane County if they wished, since the Commissioners make the appointment. He added that staff would forward to the County for consideration any names subm1tted by next Wednesday, April 23. x. ./lppointment of Gary Long as a member of the NPELRA, a national board pealing in labor relations, was announced. Y.. ~nternational Arboretum Association request for $300 from room tax funds for Arbor Day program. Sherm Flogstad, finance director, ex- plained that the Room Tax Allocation Committee had denied the request because of lim1ted amount of funds available - $84,000 for allocation purposes for contractual services and more than $100,000 in applications "tor contractual services. Also, of the two proposals presented by the ./lrboretum Association, the irrigation project for which $700 was f'lllocated appeared to be of more long-range benefit to the community. That project was one that would continue wi thout further ci ty par- f;icipation. In response to Councilman Keller, Mr. F10gstad said the $300 was requested to rent tables for display purposes for the Arbor /)ay program, and the Allocation Committee felt things of that nature could be provided through more participation of the Arboretum Associa- tion memberShip. Z. . yalleyRiver Trespass Case, Municipal. Court - Councilman Haws questioned the city's becoming involved in labor disputes as seemed the situation from an ~rticle in theWillamette Observer concerning an employe/employer dispute at Valley River Center. Mr. Haws quoted the article as it related to conlfict pf interest - Valley River attorney assisting city prosecutor. Assuming the quotations in the article were correct, he said, even the judge had reserva- tions about what happened. Issistant Manager explained that the action involved a trespass charge filed in ~nicipal. court. The city attorney determined prosecution was proper because Qf code violation an4 that the complainant should and could assist in prepara- rion of the case. That type of assistance is 9ommon practice, he said, in frosecuting.tres~ss actions. Councilman .l{ellerentered the;met:;ting. ~tan Long, .assistant city attorney, said the case had been appealed to .circuit ~urt after jury conviction 50, discussion at this point was not appropriate. lfe suggested that inference which may have been drawn from the Observer .article was not consistent wi th evidence presented by the ci ty. One of the. issues ~ ;f.nvolved was whether there was a labor dispute. He added that the complainant Was a corporation acting through its attorney, and after the decision was made ~o prosecute, an offer of assistance from the complainant was accepted. In /fr. Long's judgment, that did not constitute a conflict of interest.. With re- iard to the judge's comments quoted in the article, Assistant. Manager said fesponse was not appri:Jpriate because the case was appealed and still in process. AA. ~ne County Community Health Advisory Committee - Assistant Manager noted that no nominatiOns for filling the vacancy on this commi ttep. had been re- c;eived from Council members, that any received would be forward to the County. . Comm 4/16/75 File Comm 4/16/75 . File Comm 4/16/75 File . Comm 4/23/75 File Comm 4/23/75 File . Mr. ~eller moved second by Mr. Hamel to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A, throvgh Gand I through AA, noting separate action on Item H-Construction Noise. Rollfall vote. All Council members present voting aye, motion carried. Short recess was taken. 4/28/75 .. 32 2~1 Side II (0001) __ IV e e Councilman Bradley was not present when meeting reconvened. Appeal from Sign Code Board denial of variance for Obie sign south of I-IDS east of Cbburg Road - Adoption of findings Findings as prepared by staff were read (see Council minutes 4/14/75). Copies were also distributed to Council members. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the findings upholding staff appeal and denying the variance requested be adopted. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Williams and Haws abstaining; Councilman Bradley not present. V - Ordinances Council Bill No. 805 - Paving streets within Western Industrial Park was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council-members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17326, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 806 - Adopting plans and specifications for.paving streets within Western Industrial Park was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote., All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17327, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 807 - Paving streets within 1st Addition to Snelling Plat was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and giv.en final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17328. Counci lman Bradley not present, Council Bill No. 808 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within 1st Addition to Snelling Plat was read by council bill humber and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. 4/28/75 - 33 :23E; Mr. Keller mo~ed second byMrs~ Beal 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.seGond time by counoil bill number only. __ Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approvedand.given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17329. Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 809- Paving Balfour Street from Montreal Avenue to 150 feet north and 100 feet south was.read by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the hill be r.ead the second--time~_by~.counciLbill nuinber only, with unanimous consenLo f 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered l7330~ Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 810 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Balfour Street from Montreal Avenue to 150 feet north and 100 feet south :: was read b.y~-council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number.only, with unanimous consent of the COHncil, and.that enactment be considered at ~ this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council ,., bill number o~ly. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that.the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed arid numbered 17331, .Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 811 - Paving streets within Souza Park Subdivision was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesti~g that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second'.time by counCil bill number only, with unanimous consent of the COHncil, 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that .the bill be approved and given:.final passage. Rollcall vote.. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17332, .C~uncilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 812 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Souz~ Park Subdivision was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read ,in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with~unanimous consent .of the Council,. and that enactment be considered ate this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill .was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. .All council"members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and number 17333, Councilman Bradley not present. 4/28/75 - 34 ' ~~~ Council Bill.No. 813 - Paving alley between 13th and 14th Avenues from Patterson to Hilyard Street was read by council bill number. and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. -- Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17334, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 814 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving alley between 13th and 14th. Avenues from Patterson to Hilyard Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council me!llber present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17335, Councilman Bradley not present. e Council Bill No. 815 - Paving alley between Oak and Pearl Streets from 14th Avenue to east/west alley; and alley between 14th and 15th Avenues from Oak Street to north/south alley was. read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17336, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 816 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving alley between Oak and Pearl. Streets from 14th Avenue to east/west alley; and alley between 14th and 15th Avenues from Oak Street to north/south alley was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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 se~ond time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17337, Councilman. Bradley not present. - Council Bill. No. 817 - Paving Agate Street from Cameo Street south 1100 feet to exist- ing curb was. read by council bill number and ~itle only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. 240 4/28/75 - 35 Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Be~l 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. M~tion carried unanimously and the bill was read the. second time by council bill number only.. e Mr.. Keller moyed second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye ,the bill was declared passed and numbered 17338, Councilman Bradley not present. COHncil Bill No. 818 -.Adopting plans and specifications for paving Agate Street from Cameo Street south 1100 feet to existing curb was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it reread in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs.. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. .Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17339, Councilman Bradley not present. Council.Bill No. 819 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Western Industrial Park; sanitary sewer within 160 feet of south boundary of Western Industrial Park was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in. full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17340, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 820 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Western Industrial Park; sanitary sewer within 160 feet of south boundary of Western Industrial Park was read by council bill number and ti tie only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17341, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 821 - Sanitary sewer to serve area between North Shasta Loop and . 500 feet south of North Shasta Loop, and between Spring Boulevard and 160 feet east of Spring Boulevard was read by council bill number and ~.~ title only, there being no council member present requesti~g that it be read in full. ~ Mr. Keller mo~ed second by Mrs.. Beal 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 t<ime by council bill number .only. 4/28/75 - 36 24l Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17342, Councilman Bradley not present. . .Council Bill No. 822 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer to serve area between North Shasta Loop and-SOO feet south of North Shasta Loop, and between Spring Boulevard and 160 feet east of Spring Boulevard was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilmember present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consentof 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17343, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 823 - Sanitary sewer to serve the area within 300 feet of north boundary of 1st Addition to Mahalo .Hills, and area within 200 feet of west boundary of 1st Addition to Mahalo Hills, amending Ordinance 17096 (May 20, 1974) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the ;~secondtime: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. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17344, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 824 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer to serve the area within 300 feet of north boundary of 1st Addition to Mahalo Hills, and area within 200 feet of west boundary of 1st Addition to Mahalo Hills, amending Ordinance 17097 was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present reque~ting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17345., Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 825 - Sanitary sewer within 1st Addition to Snelling Plat was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. An 'council members present voting aye~ .the bill was declared passed and numbered 17346, Councilman Bradley not present. ~~~ 4/28/75 - 37 Council Bill No. 826 ~ Adopting pla~s and specifications for sanitary sewer within 1st Addition to Snelling Plat was read by council bill number and title only",there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. . Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs; Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, an~ that enactment be considered at this time.. Motion .carried unaI1imously and the bin was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved:and given final passage. Rollcall vo~e~ All council members pres~ntvoting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17347, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 827 ~ Sanitary sewer along south boundary of Senger Park between . Norwood Street and Gilham Road was. read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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 ~nd the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17348, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 828 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer south boundary of Senger Park between Norwood Street Road was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council present r~questing that it be read in full. along and Gilham member . Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs! Be?l that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members. present yoting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17349, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 82.9 - Sanitary and. storm sewer within Souza Park; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of line extended south 660 feet from southeast corner of Souza Park thence west 640 feet to Danebo Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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 un~nimously and t~~bill-was-read the second time by council bill number o~ly. -- Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approvedand.given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17350, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 830 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary and storm sewer within Souza Park; and sanitary sewer within -160 feet of line extended ~outh 660 feet from southea?t corner of Souza Park thence west 640 feet to Danebo S~reet was read by council bill number anq title only, there being no council - member present re<p.esting that it be read in full. 4/28/75 - 38 2.4:3 . Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17351, Councilman Bradley not present. - Council Bill No. 831 - Sidewalk on east side of Agate Street from Cameo Street to south approximately 1100 feet was read. by council bill number and title only, there being no councilmember present requesting that it be read in full, Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. .Beal 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. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye,. the bill was declared passed and numbered 17352, Councilman Bradley not present. Council Bill No. 832 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Willamette Street and Oak Street from 13th Avenue to 14th Avenue (74-47) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal that the bill be referred to panel for hearing on May 5, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendation on May 12, 1975. Motion carried unanimously, Councilman Bradley not present. VI - Resolutions Resolution No. 2392 Endorsing growth study and recommending it for consideration to Lane County and Springfield was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Bealto adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, motion carried, Councilman Bradley not present. Resolution No. 2393 - Authorizing contract with State for BOR grant - Skinners Butte Riverfront Park improvements was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, motion carried, Councilman Bradley not present. Resolution No. 2394 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period April 14 through April 28, 1975 was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, motion carried, Councilman Bradley not present. . VII - Enforcement Action - BALSM, 5500 Donald Street Resolution No. 2395 - Authorizing abatement action against BALSM, 5500 Donald Street, was read by number and title. Assistant of proper for cement when ci ty Manager noted that adoption of the resolution was necessary to provide a record actions should court action be necessary later on in connection with the en- action. He noted that developers of this project had a history of not complying inspections revealed work was not progressing properly. In this instance a 244 4/28/75 - 39 municipal .court action hhad been filed a:t:ter which a 10-day grace period was allowed to comply at defendant's request. That ha~ not happened an~ this abatement action was in- stituted. Assistant Manager said that Stan Long, assistant city attorney, and Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, had met several times with people financing the~ project and h~d agreed that this action would gain compliance in the most expeditious manner. Councilman Bradley returned to the meeting. Mr. Nolt~ reviewed progress of the development to date, legal actions delaying the con- st~uction, stop work o~ders issued. He said i~ no instance were final inspections asked for or certificates of occupancy granted prior to actual occupancy of the buildings. Meeting had been held with the attorney representing the people now having control of the project and who will take responsibility for its completion. Some of the immediate safety problems have ~een taken care of, he sai4, in addition to agreement to submit a compre- hensive schedule for correction of deficiencies in theproject. All safety features are to be corrected in five days, those of a less critical nature will have:up to 60 days to correct. Stan Long noted the list of deficiencies to be attached to abatement notices and explained code regulations governing abatement actions of this type. Adoption of the resolution, he said, sets a time period in which to accomplish correction of those deficiencies, or would allow the city itself to make the corrections or seek other legal actions to gain compliance. He said this seemed a reasonabl~ solution to a very difficult situation and represents the best chance of safety to those people affected by the project. In response_to Council- man Keller, Mr. Long said the list of deficiencies was in the Council's hands, attached to the copi.es of the resolution and notice of abatement distributed to them. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution, including the list of deficiencies and time tables as set out therein. -- Councilwoman Beal asked if people would be living in the project in the meantime. Assistant Manager said they would. However, all have been given notice of the abatement. Councilman Hamel was in favor of the action recommended. However, he was concerned about city regulations that permitted a situation such as this to develop over a three-year period. He wondered if the inspection system or inspectors were at fault where an acci- dent has to happen before something is done (referring to recent fire. and death in the project). Assistant Manager explained that the project had been stopped by inspectors and reluctantly started again when the developer said the work would be brought into com- pliance. The project had proceeded in this fashion until finally court action was taken, further failure to comply and finally this abatement action. This was extraordinary en- forcement action, he said, and he hoped it would bespeak the extraordinary lack of response to the inspectors requirements. Vote was taken on the motion to adopt the resolution. Motion.:carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. on~Tuesday, April 29, 1975. 4/~ -tt A. K. Martin Asst. City Manager 4/28/75 - 40 2..45-