HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/1975 Meeting
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
July 16, 1975
e Adjourned meeting - from regular meeting on July 14, 1975 - to consider balance of the
agenda was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on July 16,.
1975 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Gus Keller,
Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Harne 1 , Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey.
Councilman Murray was absent.
I-A-l I - Public Hearings
A. Request for annexation of area between Belt,~ine Road and existing city limits,
and between Southern Pacific tracks and Highway 99N (Maxwell) (A 75-2)
Annexation of area behleen Belt Line Road and existing citlj limits, and between
Southern Pacific tracks and High~'laY 99N (Lloljd Max~vell) (II 75-2) '.
Plann.ing Commission on July 10, 1975 recommended denial of the annexation. Assistant
Manager explained that the area covered by the orig.i nal annexatio!l request was ex-
panded by the Planning Commission, and recommendation for denial covered that expanded
area. He noted that Mr. Maxv/e1l was contemplating development of his property and
wanted annexation to enable connection to the trunk sewer in the Belt Line right-of-
way north of his property.
Comm
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing on 7/2/75
the annexation request at the Jul') 14 Council meeting. Pub Hrng
Councilman Haws wondered if staff notes had been distributed on these items and was
told they would be distributed before the July 14 Council meeting.
Councilman Will.iams questioned whether the Council {vas obligated to hold a public
e hearing in this instance. Assistant Manager explained that providing for public
hear ing was the normal practice. John Porter, planning director, added that the
Commission recommendation was advisory only, Council action was required in trans-
m.itting whatever recommendation was mac?e to the Boundary Commission.
Vote WilS taken on the motion to schedule public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Assistant Manager said that request for annexation was initiated for a single
property to provide city sewer service. Planning Commission in its consideration
enlarged the area and recommended denial (June 10, 1975). He said the Commission's
reommendation for denial was based on the thinking that the Boundary Commission
would be confronted with remonstrances so that it would be a futile waste of govern-
mental time to pursue the annexation. Gary Chenkin, assistant planning director,
explained that the single property petitioned for annexation by Lloyd Maxwell was
not contiguous to the city limits, thus the expansion to include intervening prop-
erties of which a great majority is owned by Southern Pacific Company. Southern
Pacific Company has indicated there is no advantage for their property to be within
the city at this time. Mr. Chenkin said there was a pressure line on Belt Line
Road that could serve the Maxwell property with sewers. However, city policy is to
extend sewer services to properties only through annexation. Without the SP prop-
erty, he said, annexation of the Maxwell property does not appear to "make much
sense."
Ray Fechtel, 72 West Broadway, representing Mr. Maxwell, called attention to
Mr. Maxwell's request for contract with the city for sewer services, filed at the
tit time the annexation petition was filed. It was his understanding that request was
not acted upon, pending outcome of the annexation issue. He noted the contract
developed many years ago whereby the city furnished sewer service to the Southern
Pacific property and said it was obvious SP would not be interested in annexation.
"3~4-.. 7/16/75 - 1
Mr. Maxwell, however, would be unable to develop his property without city
services, he said, and since it appeared the property eventually would become a
part of the city because of its location and nature, now seemed an appropriate
time to annex. .-
Fechtel continued that the area was within the urban service area,
Mr. sewer
service would provide the opportunity for development thereby adding an industrial
area to the city's tax base, proposed development would conform to the General
Plan diagram, other city services are available, and the area would create no
burden on park and school systems. In fact, he said, there was no adverse state-
ment by the planning staff with regard to this annexation. He said that the Lane
County Health Division has indicated future growth in that area would depend on
sewers because of marginal conditions and high water tables. Existing homes there
could be expected to experience sewage problems during high water seasons.
Mr. Fechtel thought the reasons for annexing this property were overwh~lming
and the only stated reason for denying the petition was the fact that remonstrances
were anticipated. He noted that SP land had as recently as last year received addi-
tional service even though it lies outside the city. He urged favorable action on
the petition for annexation, saying it was proper and should occur at this time.
Those opposing the annexation were Paul Hoffman, 2177 Elysium Street, representing
"voters who oppose the annexation;" John Rodda, 975 Oak Street, attorney repre- I-A-2
senting Cabax Mills; Dan Deschamps, 2235 Azure, representing Boise Cascade; and
Ken Herber, tax agent for Southern Pacific. For the most part their objections
were because they felt sewers would be of no benefit to their properties. They
were already adequately served with septic tank systems and other services that
would be provided through annexation; annexation would increase taxes at a time
when the lumber industry was experiencing a "slump." Mr. Herber said that SP
was satisfied with the present level of municipal services in view of the more e
than $1 million tax bill paid each year to Lane County, much of which goes to
the city.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented
. Assistant Manager commented that not many of SP's tax dollars come to the city
of Eugene. He said that the basic question was whether to recommend annexation
of the entire area, and from staff's standpoint there were not strong reasons
to indicate this area should not come in to the city. However, residents in
the area are opposed and staff felt they could petition an election on the issue,
incurring public expense, and dispose of the issue by vote. With regard to the
Maxwell property, he said, staff is averse to recommending a policy change that
would permit extension of sewers-to that property through contractual arrangement.
In response to Councilman Haws with regard to criteria on which judgment in this
matter was made, Assistant Manager said the criteria used in considering ~ny
annexation request was used. The city has no authority to mandate an annexation,
he said, when it was neither an enclave nor a health hazard annexation.
Mr. Chenkin explained that property petitioned for annexation is checked to make
usre it is within the urban service area close to city limits, city services
are available, resulting taxes will cover cost of urban service extension, etc.
The General Plan is also checked, he said, to determine whether conflicts would
develop with regard to land use or problems with extending services to the result-
ing city boundary line. Assistant Manager added, in further response to Council-
man Haws, that the Maxwell property would fit very well within the urban boundary
considering, Belt Line Road as the dominant boundary. Also, that the enlarged --
area included about 14 residences. Don Allen, public works director, also in
response to Councilman Haws, said that the only city service Southern Pacific
has other than water service is access to the sewer system at the south end of
Polk Street. Also, SP has been assessed and has paid for sewer installed on
Bethel Drive.
7/16/75 - 2 3SS
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to forward to the
Boundary Commission a recommendation of denial on the Maxwe 11
annexation request. Motion carried - Council members Ke ller ,
- Williams, Shirey, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members
Bea 1 , Bradley, and Haws voting no; Councilman Hamel abstaining.
B. Bids - Public. Works Department (opened July 8, 1975)
~;J~~ of Biddrr anI! rrojcct Contract Cost Cos t to Amot::1t
----- Abutting Prop. Cost to City Budgeted
P^VU:G, SANm.RY SEllER AND SiOR~: SEl<ER
1. H3zcl Park Su~division (1159)
ALTERNATE BID BASIC BID
1. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co........$21,057.B5........No Bid............28' Pav........$ 23.20/FF........Stm. S':Ir.....$ 1.500.00.......0
2. H & J Construction.. ......................$21,434.36........No Bid San. Lat.......S 0.12/SF
3. Eugene Sand & Gravel.................... ..521.868.45....... .No Bid San. Serv......$456.00/Each
4. Hi ldish Construction Con:pany.............. $22,022.00....... .$22,359.B5 Stm. Swr......$1664.00/lot
5. Shur-\'JY Contractors. Inc.................$22,670.95........No Bid
6. Oan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc............ .$23,813.60
COMPLETION DATE: October 1. 1975
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 10th Addition to Ilob Hill (1139)
ALTERNATE BID BASIC RID
1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc............... ..$61,416.30...... ..No Bid........... .28' Pav.......$ 13.30/FF.......... .......0
2. fli ldish Construction CO;;1pany.............. $62. 762.50. ....... $62 ,832.65 San. Swr....$1,223.00/Lot
3. Our. D. Allsup Contractor, Inc........... ..574,431.00...... ..No Bid Stm. S~lr....$ 276.00/Lot
4. K~r.~eth R. Bostick Construction Co........$87.583.40........No Bid
COt-IPLETlD:: DATE: Octotler 1. 1975
----------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------
3. K (. R S:JJ~ivision and sanitary se~ler within 15' 0< DO'le Lane
fro~ 700' ~. of Taney Street to 1000' W of Tan~y Stre!t
(1043) i,t E,,~TC: BID BASIC BID
_~ur-\!uy Contractors, Inc. ..... ... ....... '-S:5J13.20~.... .No Bid..... :..... .28' Pav....$ 17. 35/FF. . . . . . . . Stm. S"'r.... S C. ~CJ. C0. . . . $1 .000.00
2. Eugene 5und (. Gravel......................S25)S~;.94........NO Bid San. Lat...S 0.07/SF
3. H~, J Constl.uction........................S2fj)~::1.04........t;o Bid San. Serv..$ 146.00/Each
1\. Kccn'"th R. 30stick Construction Co........528.516.25........1:0 Bid Stm. Swr...$ 387.00/Lot
5. \.!ildisr. Ccr.struction Co~pany............. .532 ,"n .SO....... .532,390.20
6. Qan O. i\1 is~p Contractor, Inc........ ~,J~9.:.:~....... ,;;0 Bid COr.;~LETIO;~ DATE: Octo~ar 1, ~ 975
... .-
----
-
4. English Oaks Subdivision including streets
adjacent to said plat (1013) ,..... .
Deferred
1. Eugene Sand & G~avel........:.................. ~55 .795.60................ .PavinC..........$ 21.15/FF..... .San...... .$12.935.00.... .$10.948.00
2. Kern2th R. Bostlck Constructlon Co........... ..~52.251.20 San. at........$ O.lO/SF
3. Hi ldish Construction Company................... $90;.953.10 San. Serv.......$357.00/Each
4. Dan O. Allsup Contractor. Inc..................S96.598.35
CO:1PLETION DATE: October 1. 1975
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..------------------------------------------------------------
5. Hawkins Lane from 18th Avenue to Highland Oaks uri,e
(1156 ) ,~L iERilATE BID BASIC BID
'"
J. Eugene Sand & GraveL................... ..$112,140.80..... ..No Bid...... .28' Pav.........$ 15.40/FF...... .Pav...... .S14,60::J.00!
2. ~Indish Construction Company..............Sl19,329.50.......$122.065.55 36' Pav.........$ 19.30/FF Def. Pav.. ....$21,7CO.OO
A.C.Drives......$ 0.51/SF 28-36....$ 6.200.00)
Conc. Drives....$ 1 .22/SF Storm.....$ 7.300.00.....$10.000.00
San. Lat........S 0.045/SF
San. Serv.......$236.00/Each
~ .-.~'.~:.~',. '..
COMPLETION DATE: October 1. 1975
-----------------------------~------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SM1ITM\Y Sn:ER:
5. 2nd Avenue from 85' ~!. of Monroe Street
to 2S0"W. of Adams Street (1185)
~rm Green & Sons............................ $2 .989. 90................... .San. Lat......$ D.071/SF .............. .0..........................0
2. hur-Way Contractors, Inc....................S3,196.80 San. Serv.....$18.DO/Each
3. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co........... ~},27'}.80
4. Ilildish Construction Con:pany................ .$3,539.00
5. Dan O. Allsup Contractor, Inc...............$10,431.00 COMPLETION DATE: August 15. 1975
-_.
'38~ 7/16/75 - 3
I
Don Allen, director of public works, reviewed the bids. Award of contract was
recommended to the low bidder on each project, the contract on Item 4 (English
Oaks Subdivision) to be held until agreement is signed by Northwest Natural Gas
with regard to their paying a portion of the improvement costs for properties e
outside the city limits.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to award contracts to the I-A-4
low bidder on each of the projects, the contract on Item 4 to be
held subject to written agreemen~ with Northwest Natural Gas as
recommended.
Councilman Williams asked for more information with regard to the project in .
English Oaks Subdivision and staff's recommendation for written agreement with
Northwest Natural Gas. Mr. Allen answered that the Gas Company assured staff
they would sign an agreement covering costs of the project assessed ag~inst prop-
erties outside the city. He said a similar situation existed last year; an
agreement was not signed, so the project was not accomplished. He said the in-
crease in the bid on the project this year showed up in the difference between
the project cost and the amount budgeted, adding to the city cost as well as to
that of the property owners. He said there was no assurance an agreement would
be signed, but he emphasized that the work would not be started without it.
He added that there was the possibility, if an agreement wasn't reached, to build
one-half of the street because the design called for two 18-foot lanes separated
by a five- or six-foot lane to accommodate a large gas line down the center.
Councilwoman Beal asked whether any mechanism had been set up to accommodate the
affirmative action program and whether contractors were in compliance. Assistant
Manager answered that there was a provision in the standard city contract form
calling for compliance with city rules and regulations. He said he would pur- e
sue the matter of whether affirmative action was being taken care of.
Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried,
all Council members present voting aye.
II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
Previuosly discussed in committee on June 25 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council
members Murray, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey), July 2 (Present:
Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel,
Haws, and Shirey), and July 9, 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray,
Keller, Beal, Bradley, Hamel. Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear
below in italics.
A. Waiver of fees for H-Historic District applications was requested by the
Historic Review Board. Jan Muller, Board member, explained that the Board
felt it would be unfair to a property owner to stand the expense of
applying for Historic District designation should his property be chosen
by the Board without his knowledge. The Board also questioned whether
there would be economic advantage accrue to properties in Historic Dis-
tricts. In response to Mayor Anderson, Mr. Muller said the Board felt
the fee should also be waived for property owners seeking the Historic
designation voluntarily, that any applications would be carefully screened
by the Board so that by the time it came to Planning Commission considera-
tion the question of whether there was historical significance would have
been determined. He added that most rezoning applications are submitted
for the purpose of increasing the value of property, whereas historical .
designation'would be sought more for preservation purposes.
The Mayor asked under what conditions an historic designation would be
sought without the knowledge of a property owner. Mr. Muller answered
7/16/75 - 4 ~f)7
--
that a particular building might be brought to the Board's attention as
being of historical significance. At that time the owner would be noti-
fied his property was under consideration for historical designation.
e Councilman Murray supported the request, saying the city would actually
be gaining through this minor contribution. Mr. Muller said that one
consideration should be the restrictions prohibiting an owner from
making outside architectural changes in his building under the historic
districtr and there would be cases when an owner would not want his pro-
perty so restricted.
Comm
Murray-Hamel to approve the request and instruct staff to 6/25/75
prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption. Moti on Approve
carried unanimously.
-
B. Friendly Area Neighbors Charter (FAN) was submitted as revised to ,
provide for adequate meeting notices, definition of who may vote, and
conditions to be met before one could vote. Copies of the revised
charter were previously distributed to Council members. Staff recom-
mended recognition of the group.
Comm
Murray-Beal to accept the FAN revised charte0extend 6/25/75
recognition to the group/ and to express appreciation Approve
for its willingness to make the modifications. Motion
carried unanimously.
C. Aircraft parking Fees, Land Rental Rates, Hangar Specifications-Mahlon
Sweet Field - Copies of memo from Airport Manager Bob Shelby summarizing
airport financing together with copies of comparison between present and
e proposed tie-down fees and land rental rates were distributed to Council
members with agenda. Also distributed were copies of memo from Janet
Amundson., Airport Commission chairperson / recommending approval of the
proposed fees and rental rates as well as amendment to airport rules and
regulations which would permit hangars of pole-type interior construc-
tion sheathed in metal rather than the all metal construction now
required. Council members on tour viewed the different types of build-
ings under consideration at the airport. Staff recommended the changes
proposed.
Richard Miller, attorney representing Allen Bradford, owner of two sets
of hangars at the airport, objected to the specifications amendment. Mr.
Miller said his client believed all metal construction was of better
quality and would be safer. More important, he said, was the economic
factor. Mr. Bradford's hangars were constructed under previous specifi-
cations - all metal - at a higher cost than others would be paying for
hangars under the proposed specifications. As a consequence newer hangars
could be rented for less than Mr. Bradford's. The higher initial cost
also would make a difference in assessments and taxes. Mr. Miller
suggested if the Council believed the wooden interior construction should
be allowed that the resolution be amended to require concrete or asphalt
floors. Also to require 3/4" minus gravel to a depth of three inches
between the hangar and the taxiway.
Assistant Manager said that the building code will require the concrete
or asphalt hangar floors. Mr. Shelby explained that turf requires mowing
once or twice a year/ whereas the graveled portions require sweeping
e monthly, sometimes twice a month. Although there was some value in having
a five-foot strip of gravel around the hangars to keep down vegetation,
putting it between the taxiways would mean more maintenance and possible
damage to aircraft. Councilman williams added that in his experience
"airplanes and gravel do not mix," the propel.lers have a tendency to pick
up and throw the gravel.
3ee 7/16/75 - 5
J
Councilman Bradley asked why the change from all metal construction was
being re9ommended, was there a need demonstrated for covered hangars, what
tradeoff was being made. Assistant Manager answered that the cost of con- .
struction would be about 25% less, staff didn't see wllere there was any
"tradeoff", the public safety was being maintained, and the pole type
construction met building code requirements. The change was an attempt
to meet the needs of those people with heavy investments in aircraft who
wanted covered storage facilities. Mr. Shelby added that there was a need
for hangar space, that attempts to get new hangar construction were not
successful because those wanting to build hangars did not want to meet the
prefab metal requirement. He said neither the fire marshal nor the build-
ing department had any reservations about the proposed type of construction.
Arnold Dunagan, Master Construction, said they had a group of ten people
now wanting to construct a wood frame, metal clad building and needed
only the change in specifications to go ahead. M. P. Hays, Summit Elec-
tric, said covered parking for aircraft was appreciated when one considered
an aircraft worth $15,000 to $25,000 sitting year-round in weather that
would be detrimental to radio and instruments.
Councilman Williams thought the only justification for requiring all metal
buildings would be to prevent collapse in the event of fire. When talking of a
single-level structure, he said, if the roof collapsed the airplane would
already be gone.. The matter of a fire's spreading would be a question of
fire department response. He thought the requirement for all metal con-
struction was beyond reason and should be rescinded.
Councilman Haws said it appeared in a sense Mr. Bradford was asking for
preservation of a monopoly. He said he understood the cost problems but he
didn't think the current situation was of benefit to most of those at the e
airport.
Councilman Bradley couldn't see justification for the change o~ the basis
of economics only. He felt it would be lowering standards of construction.
Assistant Manager noted a change in circumstances, one being that the city
no longer controls building codes and minimum safety hazards. That now comes
under state law. There has also been a change in experience with types of'
construction, he said, noting that metal sustains high damage from exces-
sive heat. The State building code, he said, says both types are accept-
able and staff has no reason to say the standards in this instance should
be different.
Murray-Williams to approve the requested change in hangar speci- Comm
fications, endorse the proposed fees and land rental rates, and 6/25/75
instruct .staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions for adop- Approve
tion. Motion carried unanimously.
D. 30th-Hilyard-Amazon Widening - Copies of final environmental impact state-
ment and staff comments were previously distributed to Council members.
The proposed project would widen approaches to the 30th-Hilyard-Amazon
intersection to provide four through lanes in each direction and left-turn
lanes at a cost of about $500,000 (78% Federal funding, 11% State, and
11% city). Five options were presented: (1) Authorize submittal of
final environmental impact statement to Federal and State agencies;
(2) hold additional public hearings; (3) postpone, pending results of ESATS
update (probably six months); (4) postpone indefinitely; or (5) take -
other action. Presentation of the impact statement was made at the June 23,
1975 joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission. Assistant
Manager explained that all studies in connection with ESATS as well as
other information indicated that projections for traffic through this
intersection would not change given the development occurring in south
7/16/75 - 6 3&9
Eugene and existing conditions. He noted proj~ctions m~de in c~njunction
with Lane Transit District showed an expected ~ncrease ~n translt usage.
However, he said, that increase would not significantly change the demand
for improvement of the 30th and Hilyard intersection. The ESATS up~ate,
. he said, would not have a direct bearing on this project nor would It
change materially the environmental impact statement prepared. He said
that if the Council agreed with the statement it should be fonvarded to
the proper agencies. If it is not forwarded, there are two cho.ices _
wait for the ESATS update or decide not to make the improvement.
Councilwoman Shirey recognized the intersection t"as a problem. Hm.'ever,
she felt there was not enough information available with regard to Lane
Transit District plans. Also, she had calls from people who said they were
willing to be held up in traffic at the intersection rather than have
Ira big change," and for that reason alone she felt the project should
wait. She expressed concern too about the ability of pedestrian and 'bike
traffic to cross five lanes. She thought there should be alternatives
presented that would have lesser impact. She asked whether the funds
would be lost if the project wasn't constructed.
David Reinhard, public works planning division, said the project would have
to be under contract and underway by June 30, 1978 or the funds would be
lost. He referred to design alternatives in Section IV of the statement
which he said had been discussed but would not accomplish anything in
terms of providing additional capacity. He also referred to the section
concerning improvement of mass transit (Section IV-B-2) and said the
Lane Transit District staff agreed with the public works staff that current
projections and information available indicate increased transit use will
not substitute for the proposed improvement. He cited other statistics
in the impact statement with regard to mass transit ridership and its
4It effect on traffic demands.
Assistant Manager noted that the statement was received by LCOG yesterday
(June 24) in a transportation meeting where it was indicated Lane Transit
was not looking at the 30th and Hilyard intersection as a site for a trans-
fer point 'although it was considering a couple of places in that general
area. He didn't think there should be particular concern about some
specific design being built into this intersection to provide for a
transfer point, there would be more study and expansion of the transit
system before that would have to be considered. Al Williams, traffic
engineer, added that the intersection in the five-year transit plan was
not identified as a major transfer point. Even the two street stop
points at this intersection should it be widened were "further away."
He assured the Council that tfie traffic engineering and Lane Transit
staffs "were not operating in a vacuum." Also, the Transit staff was very
much involved in the ESATS update.
Councilman Murray thought sometimes there was not enough boldness in
trying to promote genuine alternatives. He wondered whether it wouldn't
be better to create in the 30th and Hilyard area a "park-and-ride"
facility and provide shuttle service to origin and destination points - if
enough finances were ever accrued.
Assistant Manager said copies of a Lane Transit District report on its
development program through 1980 would be distributed at the next LCOG
meeting and would also be given to the Council. The report, he said, indi-
cated project expenditures through 1980 almost twice the amount of revenues.
~ Councilwoman Beal expressed a feeling that some statements made in the
report were contrary to each other. Councilman Bradley said he could
not agree with the statement in the EIS (page 8) that general growth was
beyond local or even state control. He thought growth could be controlled.
Also he thought LCOG 1973 projections should not be the basis for deter-
3<).0 7/16/75 - 7
mining the need for the improvement. He thought the ESATS update should be
completed before a decision on the 30th and Hilyard intersection tvas made.
Murray-Shirey to schedule public hearing on the 30th-Hilyard- .
Amazon widening project to have the benefit of public input.
In making the motion, Mr. Murray expressed the hope that the Planning
Commiss~on would participate in the public hearing and take an advisory
vote pr~or to the Council's decision. It was a critical issue he said and
. , ,
one ~n which the Commission should be involved. Assistant Manager noted
that the Commission had not taken a stand at the joint meeting but that
he understood Commission members now Ivanted to take part in the decision.
He s~ggested the public hearing not be scheduled before the July 28
meet~ng because of public hearings already scheduled 'for the 14th.
Comm
Vote was taken on the motion to schedule public hearing. " 6/25/75
Motion carried unanimously.
. See
Assistant Manager invited Council members having individual inquiries from action
th~ public to con:act staff for assessment and help in preparing information below
p~~or to the.publ~c hearing. He felt information gathered should be shared
w~t~ t~e.ent~re Council and that there was need for more dialogue with staff
on ~nd~v~dual questions as they arise.
Assistant Manager said it had come to light that additional work would be needed
with regard to environmental impact statement as it related to the park land in
the 30th and Hilyard area. Some of the issues involved will not be answered until
after the ESATS update. Also, it has been learned that accomplishment of the
project clearly would not occur until the 1977 construction season. In view of
these developments, he said, there seemed to be no great urgency in conducting
a public hearing at this time. The Council could take testimony on the project -
at the July 28 meeting and get that part out of the way if it wished, or it could
postpone the hearing until after the ESATS update.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to postpone public hearing
on the 30th-Hilyard-Amazon project until after the ESATS review
and update. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Metropolitan Area Cable TV/Translator Report - Copies of the study commit-
tee's report, a proposed agreement between the cities of Springfield and
Eugene and Lane County, and a draft of a resolution implementing the report
were distributed to Council with the agenda. The committee recommended
adoption of resolution by Eugene and Springfield councils requesting
Teleprompter to renegotiate its franchises with the respective bodies,
requiring an answer within 90 days of adoption of the resolution. The
committee further recommended establishment of a metropolitan area commission
(Eugene, Springfield, Lane County) to develop identical franchises to be
granted by the three agencies and to negotiate provisions of those fran-
chises with Teleprompter. The metropolitan area commission, the committee
suggested, should be authorized to contract for an engineering study to
determine the feasibility of erecting translators which will meet Federal
liscensing requirements if Teleprompter does not agree to renegotiate within
90 days, if agreement cannot be reached on terms of a new franchise, or
if the area commission finds translators could be used to supplement cable
service rather than damage it. Councilman williams chairman of the study
committee offered to answer any questions other Council members might have
with regard to the report. Comm .
Williams-Murray that the resolution be placed on the July 14, 1975 6/25/75
Council agenda for adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Approve
7/16/75 - 8 3'31
F.Social Services Contract essentially the same as the contract covering
administration of services by Lane County for the current year was submitted
for approval. Councilman Murray asked about delivery of services to Spring-
field in view of the fact that Springfield was not a party to the contract.
~ Assistant Manager answered that the contract did not speak to that, the
language was broader. However, he said, there was substantial activity Corom
trying to persuade Springfield officials to reconsider their position. 6/25/75
o 0 d . 1 Approve
Murray-Hamel to approve the contract. MotJon carrJe unan~mous y.
G. Wreckers L.icense (tru.ck on1lj) Ivas submitted by Larry George, 3090 University
Street. Staff recommended approval on the condi tion that no wrecking opera- Corom
tions would take place at the Universi ty Street address. 7/2/75
Approve
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to recommend approval on
the condition stated. Motion carried unanimoUSly.
H. Sout~.i1~Neighborl)l2.od Association Ch<!.!ter_ - Copies ("Jf rhe propos'_'r] chdrtcr to-
gether with lE-,tters from off.icers of the group were rlisl:riouted to Council :ner;.bers
l'/i th agGnda. Staff had no ohject ions to recoyn i tion of tlJ.: yroufJ.
In response to Counc ilman flaws, Rand i Rei n hard, p.liJnni fie; rlefJil r tment, described the
Dunn area. She said that arc-a WdS mentioned hy the South liills ({TOUP because of
problems experienced rec,--'ntly by two other neighborhood groups with overlapping
boundaries. The South Hills group was express.inq good faith and its willingness,
she said, to talk with the propo::ied Dunn group should they organize and desire to
encompass the area estabLished by this organization. Corom
7/2/75
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the charter as Approve
presented and recognize the organization. Motion carried unanimously.
7
~ Louis Farnsworth, president of the South Hills Association, expressed appreciation
_ for the recognition and assured the Counci.l that the group would work closely with
it on mutual concerns.
I. Contract with Coopers & Lybrand for 1974-75 Audit - Copies of the contract to-
gether with attached schedules setting out work to be performed by city staff were
distributed to Council members with the agenda.
Councilman Haws wondered why this firm was chosen for the audit work rather than a
local firm. Assistant Nanagcr explained that th.is was a local Firm, recently merged
with the national firm of Coopers & Lybrand, and that it had performed the city's
audit work for a good many years. He added that only certain auditors in the state
were authorized to perform municipal audits.
In response to Councilwoman Beal, Assistant Manager said the contract cost was Corom
$20,300 plus whatever extra h'ork hOdS required at the rate of $19.75 per hour. 7/2/75
Approve
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the contract. Motion
carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Counc.ilman llamel
abstaining.
Councilman Hamel stated his intent to abstain from voting on this issue.
Liquor License, Mah's Far East, 92 Centennial Loop (DA) - ~enewa1 - ~taff had ~o
J. objections to the rene.fal. Council affirmation was requested of actlon taken ln
telephone poll of Council members on June 27, 1975 recommendlng .approval of the
renewal (six of the eight Council members were contacted). Ass13tant.Man~ger ex-
plained for newer Council members that on rare occasions renewal appllcatlons
a were not submi tted in time for scheduled Council meetings, ilnd tht'reby d('lal/f~d .
_ in getting to the Liquor Commission. In this instance, hOldi~g the renewal appllca-
tion for committee meeting would have delayed the license untll after the July 1 Comm
d~a(l1ine .vi th the possibi Ii ty of the establish<1ent' s not being able to operate for 7/2/75
a couple of weeks. Approve
Mrs Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to affirm the action rccom-
. .., . 7/16/75 - 9
mending approval. Mot20n carr2ed unan~mously. ~~~
I
K. R.ight-of-way Acquisition, 29th and fvillamette, authorization vIas requested on
property owned by Richard H. and Mary A. Oehler (l8-03-07-.Il-6900) - $445.
The proposed purchase price included cost of relocating five trees.
Corom
Mr. Hurray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the property 7/2/75 _
acquisition as requested. Motion carried unanimously. Approve
L. Improvement Petitions
1. Paving, sanitary and storm sewers in Somerset H.ills III PlID - SB?;
2. Paving in Oakway PUD - 93.4%
3. Sanitary selver in area between 160 feet west of vli1lamette and ?earl Streets
and bet~veen 4th (3rd Avenue) and 225 feet north of 4th ilvenue - 86.1'i~
4. S'anitary sewer on High~,-ay 99N from Side Street to 500 feet south - 44.:n
5. sanitary sewer on Lots 4, 5, 6, Block 5, Agate Plat (north of 27ti" south
of 26th, [vest of Agate, east of E'm,!cald) - 1009,;
6. Paving and sanitary sewer on Robin Street from Taney Street :.0 400~ teet.
east of Taney
Counci ll,'oman Beal inquired about the 44. 2~~ peti tion on the Highway 99N sewer.
Assistant Manager anslvered that the State was one of the major property o.mers
which would be assessed for this .improvement although that ownership was not
represented on the petition. Its inclusion would make the percentage con-
'd b h' h . Corom
s~ era ly ~g er.
7/2/75
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the petitions. Approve
Motion carried unanimously.
M. Zone change on area south of Kingsley Road between Goodpasture Island Road and
Willamette River - From County AGT to C-2 PD (Smith, Brown, !!m.,ell) (Z 72 51)
A renewal of the request to have this zone change application taken from the table
was submitted by Laurence Thorp, attorney for the applicants. Staff suggested
suspension of the rules to allow discussion before any action was considered ~
Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. vlilliams to suspend the rules.
Councilman Bradley wondered if discussion was appropriate in view of current litiga-
tion on the subject property. He noted the attorney, Mr. Thorp, was not present,
and he (Bradley) was concerned objections would be raised if discussion took place
in the attorney's absence. Mr. B.radley also wondered if discussion at this time
would prejudice the Council's position. Assistant Manager said the discussion
was suggested partly because of the current li tigation, tha tit was an attempt
to get the issue "off dead center." Mayor Anderson added that the request l'las to
provide staff an opportunity to outline alternative actions, there would be no
public testimony nor was action to be taken. Stan Long, assistdnt cittJ attorney,
had no comment on whether discussion would be prejudicial to the Council's position.
He said Mr. Thorp filed for reconsideration and it was assumed he "vuld be present.
He noted that action today would be tentative, there would be opportunity for
Mr. Thorp to enter the discussion a t the next formal Counc.i1 meeting. Councill.,oman
Shirey sat., it as "filling the Council in" on the facts and that questions would
be directed to that end.
vote was taken on the motion to suspend the rules. Motion carried,
all. Council members present vot.ing aye, except Councilman Bradley
voting no.
Assistant Manager said the best solution now even with litigation in process ap-
peared to be referral to the Planning.Commission. That would require submission
of additional information by the petitioners to meet Fasano rules, but would bring
the issue back to the Council in a timely fashion. Referral would make the pro-
cedure less subject to challenge and provide for a substa,ntively better decision ~
based on better information rather than a decision on the present record. ,.,
Councilman Murray asked for a brief review of the request in relation to the broader
issue (Goodpasture Island overall general planning). He thought the prevailing
Coullc.il opinion so far was that hearing this one request outside considerat.ion
7/16/75 - 10 393
of the total concern was inappropriate. lie thought that was even mor~ true at
this time. Assistant Manager answered that a substantial port.ion of c.';':: (;ooci-
pasture Island issues probably would be before the Counc.il {.:i thin th:~ Tl9Xt two
weeks and decided prior to return of the Commission's r.ecommencJation 0.'1 this
- particular question. Procqdurally, he said; referral to t j;~ Comr:lJ~ ::::5 i on ~'O!.1;' -:: .~ak::-
for a sounder judgm(!nt because it would be difficult for the Council [0 rer,d,,:: a
dec.ision under Fasano requin~ments on the pres en t record.
Stan Long emphasized tiJa t this application wOl1ld have to !)~~, de tJ.'~rl!ii ner; (")~-l ~:3 O;V.!1
merits, not necessarily on what might happen in the future, i . e. , 50.710 concerns,
issues, information developed as collateral matter may not be rele~;ant or permiss-
ible. He said if present requirements had been in existence when the application
was initially filed, it cou.Zd not have been tabled. He said this application was
"sandwiched" between the current requirements and those existing in the code
prior to Fasano. The policy reflected in the code, he said, might not be a proper
and sound pOlicy, and that was II1hy the applicant keeps asking for a dec.ision one
way or the other. He emphasized that after looking at the record he thought there
was no other way to proceed than to conduct a hearing under rules now existing.
Councilman Murray expressed concern about the impact of the "Baker" decision -
whether the Commission would be caught in the situation of making a decision on
an existing plan which it was in the process of changing. He wondered if the policy
decisions would be made in time to preclude a decision on this application. Stan
Long answered that that point of view was "result" oriented whereas he looked at
it from a procedural perspective. He said the applicant in II1antinc; to reach a
particular result could make that argument, but, he (Long) didn't think it was sound.
Councilman Hamel felt delay in making a decision on the property t.'as a miscarriage
of justice. Even with concerns about growth and changes in that area, he sai d ,
a decision should have been made when the application was filed.
Councilman Bradley asked why the city attorney's opinion given at this ti me was
- not given the las t time the petitioners asked that the request be taken from the
ta ble. Assistant Manager said that staff at this point was trying to faci l.i ta te
the request and be responsive, the point was now reached where consideration of
the request II10uld fit in II1ith consideration of the overall area as II1ell. Stan
Long revi ewed the opt.ions gi ven the Counci 1 when the request to remove from the
table was presented some three months ago, the action taken by the Counc.il reversing
comm.ittee action, and various court actions culminating at this time in argument
schedu.led for July 7 on a demurrer filed by the city attorney's office. That
particular litigation, he said, involves only the question of wheth9r the court
will order a particular zone designation and has nothing to do with whether a
hearing would be held. He said it was one thing to hold a hearing, another to
say a certain action was to be taken during that hearing. The applicant, Mr. Long
continued, was asking the Council to decide on way or the other, and he (Long) in
response to that request tl1as saying if the application I-lere being filed initially
today the decision would have to be made.
Councilman Keller thought the procedure outlined was logical - that the matter
should be referred to the Planning Commission. Councilman Murray was reluctant
to decide on this one question although he said he would like to see the matter
settled. He asked if hearing this request now would strengthen the city's legal
position in court. Stan Long said he was not giving any advice with regard to the
court case - the question was how to respond to this peti tion to take the applica-
tion from the table. If the Council decides for the issue to remain tabled, he
said, then that position would he defended. He pointed out the ano":Ja 1 'J of ;:his
situation - the same thing couldn't happen if the application tyere to be filed
no;,.;. And of a.ll the Ulla t tracti ve chai ces the Counci 1 had, he said, he [h:>~;h=
referral to the Commission was the best among the bad alternatives.
e Councilmqn Nurray asked ;I1hat would be lost besides a II1eek or two if co:;sic.e!:a tion
of this isolated case were to wait until the Counci I had taken a policy position
with regard to the Goodpasture Island area. Assistant Manager said tr.at because
~9+ 7/16/75 -11
of the titpe required to refer to the Commission, submission of .information re-
quired of the petitioners, etc., the policy decisions ,vi11 prob:'1bly have been
made before the Commission recomn<endation on this request ,vdS n'tl1rw~d. He
estimated the earliest time for Commission consideration ,>'ould hc} at its
September meeting. Referrinq it now ~>'ould minimize the c].:elali U Iiio,.
councilm~n ,Keller felt that under the "current ground rules" there was no ,yay a -
good decLsLon could be reached unless it was referred. That would give the
opportunity for a good decision based on new hearings.
MI. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to postpone action until Comm
the July 9 committee-of-the-whole meeting to give time for staff
to distribute and Council members to review minutes of Council dis- 7/2/75
cussion when the petitioner last requested removing the application Affirm
from the table (March 10, 1975). Motion carried, Council members
Murray, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller
, . ,
WLllLams, and Hamel voting no; Councilwoman Beal ~bstaining.
Zone Change on area south of Kingsley Road between Goodpasture Island Road and
Willamette River - From County ACT to C-2 PD (Smith,Brown,Howell) (Z 72-51)
Discussion was continued from the July 2 committee-of-the-whole meeting under
suspended rules.
Assistant Manager reviewed possible alternative actions: Continue tabling, take
from the table and reach a decision based on the present record, of take from the
table and refer to the Planning Commission under current procedures. Staff recom-
mended referral to the Planning Commission.
Cou?1:::ilman f.!ur:rdY as;~c'd rd'.ether it ,,'ou1"1 be appropriate if th~ mattt-"Jr !:as r~fecred
to the Planning Commission to ask that its deliberations consider recommendations
and directions resulting from the Livingston & Blayney report. Stan Long, assistant
ci ty attorney, said the Council could express its intent and concern about any sub- -
ject at any time, there was no reason why it couldn't on this question, although
it might be well to set some parameters.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to refer the rezoning application
to the Planning Commission with the additional comment that it is the Comm
sense of the Council that the item be considered in the light of recom- 7/9/75
mendations of the Livingston & Blayney study and previous Commission Approve
and Council actions regarding that study.
Councilman Keller suggested the Commission also be asked to prioritize the item be-
cause of the Commission's workload. Councilman Murray hoped the referral would be
handled as quickly as possible but it was not his idea that it should "bump" any
other item already on the Commission agenda. Assistant Manager noted that addi-
tional information would have to be submitted by the applicant in view of current
requirements. Even though it was appropriate to request speedy action in view of
the already long delay, there would as a matter of course be some time taken up
in getting .the required information, preparation of staff notes, etc. John Porter,
Dlanning director, added that the September Commission meeting would be the earliest
possible date the item could be considered.
Councilman Keller asked if the ci ty attorney was still of the opinion that referral
was the right thing to do, was it a just action. Stan Long answered that it was
the appropriate thing for the Council to do.
Laurence Thorp, attorney representing the applicants, said referral to the Commis- e
sion would result in another 90-day delay and he could see where it would perform
no useful purpose. He said facts surrounding this application had not substan-
tially changed since it was filed or since hearings were held. The only thing
that might have changed, he said, would be the attitudes of Commission and Council
members with regard to growth forms relating to this particular area. He ci ted
7/16/75 - 12 ~~S
staff reports and all Commission and Council minutes of hearings held since the
application was filed containing all facts within reason, and said that the only
additional factual'information gained would probably not be relevant. He asked
the Council to take time to make a decision now, to set the item on the regular
- agenda for its next meeting to hear additional arguments. Mr. Thorp said that it
appeared the current litigation on this question would have to be pursued if no
decision was forthcoming. He felt there was nothing to be gained in additional
hearings at this time.
Councilman Murray disagreed that referral to the Planning Commission was of no use.
He said this zoning application had been the prime instigation of the commercial
study which involved a major investment. The outcome of that study, he said, would
bring significant policy decisions the Commission did not bave during its earlier
consideration of this application. To base a Council decision on a Commission
recommendation made before it had an opportunity to consider the Livingston &
Blayney recommendations would be a disservice.
Mr. Thorp understood the concerns but emphasized that the Council decision could
not be predicated on change that may occur in the General Plan or on something
that might happen in the future. It must be made on "things as they exist." An
amendment may be made to the Plan, he said, but it was equally true that there may
be no amendment. The decision must be made on the merits of the application, he
said. Ne noted the city attorney had so advised the Council for the obvious
reason that no one knows at this time whether amendments will be made. The facts
remain the same, he said, they have not changed.
Stan Long said there needs to be c1 distinction betlveen evidance dnd informiltior:
and the possibility for potential change in the Plan. A great deal of information
e bearing on such issues as timing, etc., has accumulated in consideration of the
Livingston & Blayney report, he said, and there is also the issue of whether the
Council has all the evidence, a good deal of factual information has accumulated.
He said referral to the Commission for evaluation seemed appropriate.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council
members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no.
Assistant Manager raised a procedural question. He noted the committee motion was to
refer the issue to the Planning Commission after rules were suspended to discuss
whether to remove the item from the table. He said the motion should be modified
so as to remove the item from the table and then refer it to the Commission. It was
so ordered.
.
Mr. Thorpe, attorney for the petitioners, requested a time limit on the period in which
the Planning Commission would be requested to return a recommendation. He suggested
60 days. Assistant Manager said that certain things are required to be done by the
applicant before Commission consideration. Also, that the Council had considered a
time limitation in its committee session but chose not to set one. However, applicant
was assured that the matter would be dealt with as soon as the Commission's agenda would
permit. Councilman Keller commented that there were sometimes difficulties in setting
time limits on consideration of issues. However, in this instance a definite need was
indicated for a decision as quickly as possible and he said that without being specific
the Commission would be encouraged to rush the matter through. Councilman Hamel agreed
with Mr. Keller's comments.
e Clarence B;rown, one of the petitioners for the zone change, was dissatisfied with the pro-
posed referral to the Planning Commission. He said it had been kicked back and forth
several times and he considered it "boondoggling." He felt the Council was avoiding a
decision, either for or against the requested change, and he urged that some definite
action be taken now. He noted the various actions requested of the petitioners since
the initial request was filed and said everything required had been submitted. Now the
Council had a moral obligation to decide~hether the zone change would be made.
~qto 7/1 h/7S - B
Ellis Jones, 1030 Coburg Road, felt the petitioners were not getting fair treatment. I-B-k
He read portions of the Livingston & Blayney commercial study and said it should be
considered an interim report, that the petitioners should not be made to await the -
Council's action on that report, especially since a decision on their request had been
delayed first by a moratorium.
Councilman Williams commented (speaking as one who had supported the moratorium) that
things had gone beyond all reason or rationale. He felt the request to make a decision
was legitimate and proper and that specific treatment should be accorded.
N.Bailey Lane Right-of-way Acquisition - Sidewalk from Coburg Road east 355.3~ feet
Ethel Gustafson, 30 Bailey Lane - Originally authorized by the Council on
August 28, 1974 but filed because bids on construction of the walk were con-
sidered too high.
Comm
There were no objections to placing a resolution for negotiation and 7/9/75
condemnation for acquisition of the right-of-way on the consent Approve
calendar for approval.
o. Status Report, Eugene Commercial Study - Copies of memo from planning Department
giving status report on the Livingston & Blayney commercial study were distributed
to Council members with the agenda. The memo listed study recommendations together
with planning commission recommendations and they were reviewed by Jim Saul, planner:
L&B Recommendation No. 1 - During the annual General Plan review, several
potential regional shopping center sites should be identified and pro-
tected from piecemeal development.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Request review of the recommendation. e
by the Co-ordinating Committee (representatives from Eugene, Springfield,
and Lane County planning commissions), identify potential sites, and
recommend appropriate action to the respective commissions.
Mr. Saul said the Commission in discussing this recommendation made clear its con-
cerns about identifying potential regional sites but at the same time felt the L&B
report provided enough information to indicate the possibility of the private
sector's developing a regional center. Recognizing the "metropolitan nature" of
this recommendation the Commission thought the co-ordinating committee was the
appropriate place for discussion, and that if the committee agreed actual identifi-
cation of sites should occur, only then would it take place. The Commission also
emphasized Eugene's concern about maintaining the vitality of its downtown area
and the existing regional center.at Valley River, and in considering the possibility
of a third such center thought the overall public good and community goals should be
taken into account. He referred to February 24, 1975 Commission minutes for clari-
fication of this particular recommendation which had already been referred to the
Council. Although the Council had previously considered the recommendation and
met jointly with the Planning Commission at which both consultants (LeBlanc and
Livingston & Blayney) were present, no fo~mal action has yet been taken.
Councilman Keller wondered about the political issue between the three governing
bodies, whether it would be possible to control regional sites in view of changes
now occurring [private development north of Springfield]. Mr. Saul said in recog-
nition of that concern planning staff and the Commission felt there should be an
attempt at the co-ordinating level to achieve agreement between the three juris- e
dictions. He said one of the problems may have been relative limited co-ordination.
Assistant Manager added that questions of location of facilities within corporate
limits of one jurisdiction and its impact upon the other jurisdiction would be
worthy of discussion between the agencies. The first question in this instance
is whether the Counci~ accepts the concept of designating potential sites. If it
7/16/75 - 14 3?~,,7
does, the co-ordinating com~ittee may determine some to be chosen, that determina-
tion to be referred back to the governing bodies for discuss.ion before a final de-
cision. That process would preclude nei ther one nor the other from decis.ions on
major centers, it would merely involve discussion of common problems. Regardless of
e location, he said, any major center would have impact on the ent.ire metropolitan area
and would be a matter of common concern.
Councilman Murray did not think it a good idea to identify regional sites, nor
did he feel the commercial study provided adequate justification for that need.
He thought it a very dangerous posture for a community should such sites be identi-
fied over a long period of time, consequences would far outweigh the adv~ntages of
pinpointing sites. He didn't think potential sites should even be d.i.scu5sed.
Tn addi Uon , there ;-Ias thp. pol i tical issue of a neighbor j.n~r CO:'1!7H;,j i t!j a; :,<~rl:-.' ~ ~ ~;.-
inq J-:?I~'l1t,i.~~.ic-.'d a S1 t~;..\_ )"I~s.i.statlt t^':Z1niJ.~7er sa..ld tha.t irlentif.icati.ot) ~y'~~.L::; ~'/~~d~ staz".:
was recommending for discussion. He added that staff felt the recommendation of
the consultants should be explored jointly by the agencies. Their conclusion may
be the same as Councilman Murray's, he said. If so, that recommendation would
come back to the governing bodies. Or if they decided some sites shQuld be desig-
nated, and staff encouraged that to occur, then that recommendation would come
back for Council action.
Councilman Beal wondered whether any review by the co-ordinating committee would
take ~nto consideration changes in the economic situation that have occurred since
preparation of the study. Assistant Manager said whatever figures were available
would be taken into accOUnt. However, he noted that the consultant in his meeting
with the Council and Commission had said he felt the pressures for a third regional
center would still exist, that the community should look at them to determine their
magnitude.
Mrs. Beal remarked that "big business couldn't be told l"here to go, they could only
be told where they couldn't go." Councilman Keller added that the most important
thing to remember was that whoever controlled the land decided what would develop
e and there was no input from those people in this consideration. He thought that
discussion with other jurisdictions would be futile, that identification of sites
would make the owners of those sites "automatically wealthy." If in fact a govern-
ing body decided where a shopping center was going to be built, he said, it would
be developed anyway because it was their decision. He said the report could very
well do without Recommendation No.1.
Assistant Manager pointed out that historically jurisdictions in the central Lane
County area have worked together at the policy making level to develope common
ground on which to base decisions affecting the metropolitan area. Splitting
apart, making separate decisions now, he said, would only tend to increase and
magnify common problems. He said creation of a shopping center on Springfield's
eastern boundary would be one thing, but if one was created on its western boundary,
Eugene would face a major issue of providing facilities in and out - he pointed to
traffic congestion at Valley River as a good example. Even though the jurisdictions
may disagree, at least it will have been discussed rather than "throwing down the
gauntlet. "
Councilman Murray agreed completely with Councilman Keller's viewpoint. But most
of all, he said, he would like to see action taken on the recommendation to get it
settled. He was opposed to referring the item to the co-ordinating committee and
would vote against it, not so much because he considered it a dangerous course but
because he felt it a waste of time. If it was dangerous at all, he said, it would
be the degree to which it would dilute other recommendations in the study trying to
concentrate on the downtown area.
Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Murray not to accept the Commission's Corom
recommendation on L&B Recommendation No. 1. 7/';/75
e Approve
Councilman Bradley suggested consideration of the recommendation by a committee
made up of representatives from both Eugene and Springfield councils and the County
commissioners. He thought discussions would be more fruitful in co-ordination at
the policy making level rather than at the planning level. Assistant Manager said
that could be done but would create somewhat of a vacuum because planners would
7/16/75 - 15
3~e
not have the opportunity to react to whatever proposal might result. It would have
to then be referred to the Commission. Staff recommendation would involve the
planners first.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council e
members present 'v'oting a'J9, except Councilman Bradley vOl:.-;.nq no.
L&B Recommendation No. 2 - Detailed development plan for area immed-
iately surrounding the downtown urban renewal area with provision
for an ecnlosed amll at the west end of the existing mall and high-
density residential USe farther to the west.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Continued commercial development
and higher density residential development in the area west of down-
town should be carried on through the community development process.
Mr. Saul said the Commission recognized this as a long-term process aimed 'primarily
at enhancing the economic functions of the downtown area, encouraging further com-
mercial use and providing for high-density housing. He noted that since this recom-
mentdation was made the Council had created the Housing and Community Development
Commission and its work was directed primarily at the central city area. The Plan-
ning Commission was saying that the L&B recommendation was a long-term process
that should occur appropriately through that community development work.
Councilman Keller supported the recommendation although he was not sure it should
be so specific about the enclosed mall because there might be some alternative
develop. Mr. Saul answered that the Commission raised that question also. He said
the specific motion of the Commission was that consideration of an open mall should
not be excluded, that it called for planning for that area to begin in July of this
year, concentrating on expansion of the downtown mall to the west [not to exclude .
consideration of an open mall] between Charnel ton and Lincoln and keeping in mind
community goals and policies with regard to development of housing near the business
district.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to accept the Commission's Comm
recommendation on L&B Recommendation No. 2, adding that the develop- 7/9/75
ment plan must provide a means of (1) preserving standard housing Approve
within the area, (2) protecting nearby residential streets from ex-
cessive traffic, (3) guarding against speculative zoning pressures
on adjacent neighborhoods. Motion carried unanimously.
L&B Recommendation No. 3 - High use of transit facilities should be
encouraged, including consideration of an all-day parking tax for
improvement of transit service. .
Planning Commission Recommendation - Refer to the Lane Transit Dis- Comm
trict and incorporate the recommendation into the ESATS update. 7/9/75
Mr. Saul noted that this recommendation was adopted by the Council on April 28, 1975.
He said the Commission felt this should be addressed through the current ESATS up-
date which would COver consideration of all modes of transportation.
Councilman Keller asked for an explanation of the all-day parking tax: He wondered
if that would be in conflict with the Downtown Development District free parking
program. He thought there should be consultation with the District's Board if there
was any conflict. Mr. Saul explained that the recommendation would apply to spaces
used by employees parking their autos all day, the idea being to discourage use of .
private autos and encourage higher reliance on transit facilities. Those still using
autos would still pay the tax and provide further revenues for the District itself.
He said the program would not be limited to just the Downtown District and because
it:. was aimed at:. all-day parkers would not:. conflict with t:.he free parking progra.m.
7/16/75 - 16
3~'
L&B Recommendation No. 4 - Continual review of the downto;m free parking
program to maintain equity betvleen office 'nd commercial use. Comm
- Planning Commission Recommendation - Continuation of the existing annual 7/9/75
review by the Downtown Development Board and in the annual budget process.
L'-[r _ Saul noted t:lis rt:!c:o.:i.-;;er!ctat.ion ~'liL~ ild,')!>ted by the Co:..:nC:.1..L OIl i1pril ?? ~ r. -, ~.
.:... ~ , L~': J.
']'h? Cu.'r;,7!Ls,<::jOr. dlso 5ug')ested ell=! p.Z<'Jnning depd.ctment be .i.nvo_~vcd in the "L-;nu;::._~
review process.
L&B Recommendation No. 5 - Modify the General Plan treatment of the
Goodpasture Island area to provide for potential medium-density resi-
dential development, annex the unincorporated portion of Goodpasture
Island, and prepare a refinement study for the residential portion of
Goodpasture Island.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Modify the General Plan to provide
for medium-density residential development instead of the present
opportunity area designation; annex the unincorporated area of Good-
pasture Island and develop a program of graduated tax incidence in meet-
ings with owners of properties in the area; develop a refinement study
on the residential portion of the Island.
Mr. Saul explained the Commission's official report with regard to residential de-
velopment had been referred to the Council and was scheduled for discussion at this
cOmnUttee meeting. With regard to the annexation recommendation, he said that staff
was now arranging meetings with owners of properties in the area with regard to the
graduated tax and tentative recommendation to annex was awaiting completin of that
work. He said two Commission hearings had been held on the Goodpasture refinement
e study and action would be taken on that and referred to the Council in the near
future.
Comm
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to accept the status report as 7/9/75
presented on L&B Recommendation No. 5. Motion carried unanimously. Approve
L&B Recommendation No. 6 - No zoning for regional shopping center
should be granted until there is assurance of at least 500,000 square
feet including two department stores and until there is an analysis
of the economic impact upon existing retail complexes.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Not yet made.
Mr. Saul explained that the L&B recommendation was to specify the minimum standards
to be applied in determining whether a commercial facility would be considered of
regional scope. The Commission, he said, will in future deliberations determine
whether this criteria should be recommended for inclusion in the second annual re-
view of the 1990 Plan.
Councilman Keller was concerned about the wording. He felt it was too explicit,
that it could eliminate some prospective commercial developments that might put
together say 450,000 square feet. He didn't think it a good zoning practice and
noted that the minimum standard then for a regional center would have to be one-half
the size of the Valley River complex. Assistant Manager said the idea was to set a
certain size that will trigger discussion between the jurisdictions, not to specify
that a commercial development would have to meet that standard. He said guidelines
would have to be agreed upon as to when the agencies would talk to one another
e about possible impact. He cited the cuz-rent Springfield proposal on the old air-
port site which might be considered by some as regional in size whereas it really
is not larger than the K-Mart development near the Delta Highway. So there needs
to be some common definition of a regional center. Mr. Saul added that the Plan-
ning Commission had not yet thoroughly discussed this recommendation. lie thought
4-00 7/16(75 - 17
there would be some concern about explicit square footage if a proposal were pre-
sented that was short 5,000 square feet or so. The more significant parts of the
recommendation, he said, might be the provision for two major stores, as opposed to
square footage, and the requirement for an economic impact anlaysis. .
Councilwoman Bea.I thought thi s?:2co[wnend,1 t icn ~'las tied in (-lith R9co!r:[['enct"tio., ,,0. 2
and should also be deleted. i1ss.istant l~Janager said there m.i.ght be some connect.i.on
between the two, but the Commission should r' ~ be pre-empted from making a recom-
mendation by deletion at this point.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to accept the status report Comm
as presented on L&B Recommendation No. 6. Motion carried, all Council 7/9/75
members present voting aye, except Councilwoman Beal voting no. Approve
L&B Recommendation No. 7 - Study alternative uses for present com-
mercially zoned land having little potential for development in the
near future and continue present policy of granting commercial zoning
only after assurance given that development would occur.
Planning Commission Recommendation - Not yet made.
Mr. Saul explained that although the Commission had not yet taken formal action,
neighborhood refinement studies had commenced in anticipation of solving the question
of unused commercial zoning.
Councilman Murray asked where the concentrations of unused commercial uses were and
wondered when refinement study of the Whiteaker neighborhood would take place.
John Porter, planning director, answered that the predominant unused commercial area
was west of the central business district to Washington and Jefferson Streets. There
were some areas on Highway 99N and there was some industrially zoned land in the e
West 11th area still being used for commercial purposes. He said the Whiteaker
neighborhood also had potential conflict with industrially zoned property which
would be addressed in the refinement study. He said that study would commence about
the end of this year right after completion of the Bethel study, completion could be
expected in about a year.
In response to Councilwoman Beal, Mr. Porter said there probably would be considera-
tion of rezoning unused commercial and industrial lands back to residential uses.
comm
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to accept the status report 7/9/75
as presented on L&B Recommendation No. 7. Motion carried unanimously. ApprOve
P. 1990 General Plan Amendment, Goodpasture Island - Planning Commission on June 17 1975
rec~mmen~ed deletion from the text of the 1990 General Plan the opportunity area'
d~s~gnat~on on the,GOOdpastu~e ~sland area west of the Delta Highway and modifica-
t~on ,of the,Plan,d~agram to ~ndLcate instead that area as suitable for medium-
dens~ty ~es~dent~al ~se. Copies of the Commission's official report were distributed
to CouncLl members w~th agenda. Attachments comprising planning staff notes of
June ,3, 1975 and Commission minutes of June 3 and 17, 1975 were distributed at this
meet~ng .
Sta~f reco~ended setting public hearing with a time limitation of one hour for the
ent~re he~r~ng ~nd a deadline for receipt of written material to give ample time
f~r ~ouncLl rev~ew before the hearing. Assistant Manager also suggested that anyone
w~s~Lng to,present written testimony should be requested to submit 25 copies to
~VOLt copy~ng expense fo~ the city. Councilman Keller thought it unfair in this --
Lnstance,to ask copies to be submitted if the normal practice was to make copies
of ma~erLal for dist~ibution to the Co~ncil in other instances. Assistant Manager
explaLned that the CLty generally prov~des Council with copies of written material
How~v~r, in this case he had seen some of the material to be presented - vOluminou;
pet~tLons, etc. - which he thought should not be printed at public expense.
7/16/75 - 18 / 40/.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing Comm
- on the recommendation at the July 28, 1975 Council meeting. 7/9/75
Motion carried unanimously. ~~e action below
Rick Cleveland, attorney representing a number of property owners in the Goodpasture
I-B-2 Island area, noted material submitted in support of particulars requested: (1) Post-
ponement of consideration of the Plan amendment relating to the Goodpasture Island
area for at least one month to provide opportunity for attorneys to prepare for public
hearing; (2) questioning the need for 25 copies of material submitted; (3) ample time
allowed for full public discussion even if it took more than one meeting; (4) adopt
or reject at the public hearing the L&B recommendation relating to selection of a site
for a third commercial center; (5) complete public hearing on all of the L&B recom-
mendations prior to adoption of any; (6) review the two recommendations already
adopted; (7) establish procedures for Plan amendment prior to public hearing on any
Plan amendment relating to the Island; (8) time should be allowed for review of
minutes of the MAPAC meeting where this issue was initially considered and for the
Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce to take positions.
Assistant Manager noted that the documentation referred to by Mr. Cleveland had been
received and the letter of transmittal reviewed. He said that many of the exhibits
therein were public documentation already made available to the Council - General Plan,
L&B report, etc. - and had been considered and deliberated prior to this time.
Laurence Thorpe joined Mr. Cleveland in his concern about procedure utilized in con-
sidering the Plan amendment. He thought that even if the issue did not come under the
Fasano ruling, the petitioners should at least be offered the same safeguards. He
said the city had delayed the matter for almost two years so it didn't seem inappro-
- priate to delay the issue another month to permit the applicants time to prepare for
the public hearing. He asked that the hearing be postponed to the latter part of
August and that written material not be required until the middle of August.
Mike Farthing, 975 Oak Street, attorney representing owner of about 80 acres at the
north end of the Island, joined with Attorneys Cleveland and Thorpe in requesting
the delay. He also thought the applicants should be allowed time to review the L&B
study and the portions adopted and used by the Commission in making its recommendations.
He could see no reason for singling out the Island area, using procedures detrimental
to property owners' interests there and somewhat in violation, he said, of their
due rights.
Assistant Manager noted that these items came to the Council in the normal routine of
business, that there had been much public discussion and public hearing before the
Planning Commission. He said he had discussed this item with Mr. Cleveland at some
length and recognized that preparation for a hearing does take time. However, he said,
this issue had not come up just overnight and staff has a difficult time recommending
delay for any considerable length of time, there was ample knowledge of the issue to
allow good testimony to be given on July 28. Assistant Manager added however that he
thought written material should not be required until a date later than originally
specified. He suggested submi-tal by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, to provide for
distribution to the Council at its July 23 committee meeting so they would have ample
opportunity to review it by the July 28 meeting. He said the entire problem of zone
changes in the Goodpasture Island area had to be addressed and staff thought the
July 28 meeting was a reasonable time for the public hearing.
Councilman Hamel asked if all property owners in the Goodpasture Island area had re-
e ceived notice at Planning Commission meetings on this issue. Jim Saul, planner,
answered that they were all invited to and attended a series of meetings with staff
prior to the Commission hearings. All were notified of the Commission hearings and
would also be notified in writing of the Council's scheduled hearing.
7/16/75 - 19
~~
Councilman Bradley asked whether the property owners had been notified of the ...
July 28 Council hearing, whether there would be administrative problems should the ..,
hearing be rescheduled. Mr. Saul answered that notices had not yet been sent be-
cause the hearing had not yet been officially set. There would be no problems,
he said, if it was rescheduled.
Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Hamel to amend committee action and
schedule public hearing on the Goodpasture Island General Plan
amendment for the August 25, 1975 Council meeting, with written
material to be submitted no later than August 15. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Anderson suggested that two hours be allowed for receiving testimony at the
hearing - one hour for each side, with the provision that any time unused in the
hour of one side would be added to the time for the other side.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to set time limits on receiving
testimony as suggested by the Mayor.
Councilman Williams said he was not aware of any Council rules that precluded the
Mayor's privilege of setting rules for such things, but Mayor Anderson said he pre-
ferred the Council's making the decision in this intance.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Haws expressed a desire to review the material submitted by Mr.Cleveland
before consideration of the issue. It was understood the Council would review the
submittal and raise any items they wished discussed as an item on a committee agenda. ~
Q. Vacation of public utility easement on southwest corner of Mahalo Drive and
r'les t--.!!i l1;fj/le--!}Li T7~__ (R!}!?~:!'t f_:~C;!>rc1}sen U E:/_? 5::J.L-_ ____ _____________ __
Pla:miny COi('lIIis,c;ion l.-ccor:JT:Jendcd the vaco.Uon June 17, 1()75. CY[Jies of ma;;
were distributed to Co~ncil members with agenda. Comm
7/9/75
M~. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to call public hearing Approve
on the requested vacation (August 25, 1975). Motion carried
unanimously.
R. Cross Case, Skinner Butte - Copies of memo from Assistant Manager were distributed
to Council with agenda concerning the question of appealing the Circuit Court order
to remove the Cross from Skinner Butte. The memo explained basis for an appeal
would be protection of the public vote declaring the Cross a war memorial and
authorizing its presence on the Butte - 17,185 "Yes;" 6,009 "No." Estimated cost
was $25_0 if the Council pursued an appeal independently, joining with other
litigants would probably reduce that cost. Three alternatives were offered:
(1) Independently and actively appeal the decision; (2) joint with other litigants
and appeal; or (3) accept the decision and remove the Cross - unle~s the order was
held because of appeal by others. Assistant Manager said there was some indication
the "traditional" litigants were interested in appealing the decision although he
was not aware of the availability of any private financing.
Councilman Keller said the cost of $2500 did net appeal exorbitant in relation to
the number of people voting in favor of the Charter amendment designating the Cross
a war memorial. He thought the Council was obligated to those voters. . . 4It
Councilwoman Shirey asked how much money had already been spent by the c~ty 2n
litigation on this case and what was to keep it continuing ad infinitum. Assistant
Manager answered that no really definitive costs were avilable other than the
estimated $3,000 spent in the last appeal. The only alternatives were to accept
the decision to remove the Cross or appeal.
7/16(75 - 20 .~c),~
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the third option -
e accept the decision and remove the Cross.
In making the motion, Councilwoman Beal said she was opposed to spend.ing any more
public funds in this manner. She felt if the 17,000 voters had substantial interest
in the case they should appeal the decisiOn. 'Assistant Manager said the motion would
preclude financing of an appeal by other parties. He said if the Council didn't wish
to spend any more money, it might want to allow the city's name to be used in an
appeal if private funds were available.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to substitute for the motion
that the Council m.ight consider appealing the court order if other
parties petition use of the city's name and if no city funds are
involved.
Councilman Keller was opposed to the motion. He noted the $19+ million "budget
recently approved by city voters and said he had a difficult time rationalizing re-
jection of a request for $2500 to support the opinion of 17,000 of those voters.
He said it was obvious the Cross meant something, was of some value, to those
17,000 voters and to ignore them seemed unfair.
Mayor Anderson expressed the same opinion. He felt there was an obligation to
the voters who supported the Charter amendment and that some form of litigation
should be continued even to the point of the city's financing it.
Councilman Murray recalled nothing in the Charter amendment about the expenditure of
city funds. Just because 17,000 people voted in favor of the Charter amendment
didn't necessarily mean they wanted expenditure of public funds to carryon litiga-
- tion for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Keller noted the expenditure of city
funds to help citizens of the community, deferment of assessment pa~ments, for
instance, which was not authorized by a vote, so he didn't think that was pertinent.
Actually a lot more money was spent without asking the taxpayers than when it was
voted upon. In fact, he said, if a vote was taken every ti me an expendi ture was
made there probably would be no money spent. He felt an obligation to those people
who were interested enough to vote on the Charter amendment.
Councilwoman Shirey said she would concur with the vote of the people although she
disliked the entire issue and disliked spending the money. She hoped if the issue
was continued, if an appeal was filed, the people would be presented with another
ballot measure that would include the question of whether the citizens intended
to spend public funds for this purpose.
Councilman Haws said he would like to see the city drop the issue and get on with
more important things. He felt that .if 17,000 people were interested they could
raise the funds for an appeal and come to the Council with a request to use the
city's name. Councilwoman Beal commented that she didn't think the 17,000 voters
would vote favorably on spending the money for further court costs.
Councilman Bradley asked whether the city could give away the property on which
the Cross was located with the idea the issue could be rendered moot. Assistant
Manager answered that past legal opinions have stated the Butte by Charter amend-
ment was dedicated for public park purposes so that the city has no authority to
divest itself of ownership.
Jack Gardner, attorney representing the city in past court actions on the Cross
e case, noted the urgent need for a decision at this time because of the lO-day
period from June 23 (date of the court order) in which to file court action or the
Cross would have to be taken down.
4-0+ 7/16/75 - 21
Councilman Keller said he didn't agree at all with the idea that expenditure of
funds for appealing this decision had to be justified with a vote. He felt to tell
those people who voted favorably on the Charter amendment to "go raise your own e
funds" was practically unconstitutional. Mayor Anderson added that he thought if
city funds were used to build some sort of beautiful landmark, something aesthet-
ically pleasing, and the court ordered it removed, the city would go to any ends
to preserve that particular effort if it had been authorized by the voters. He
said that while he didn't share the'opinions of the Cross "preservationists" he
did think the city was obligated to carry the "brunt of the battle" even to the
extent of financing an appeal.
Councilman Bradley said the issue was not so much whether the Cross should be taken
down, it was probably whether a higher legal opinion should be sought.
Vote was taken on the motion to consider appealing the court deci-
sion if other parties seek use of the city's name and no city funds
are involved. Motion defeated, Council members Murray, Beal, and
Haws voting aye; Council members Keller, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey
voting no.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to independently and actively
appeal the decision, or to join with other litigants and appeal, Corom
whichever is "in the best interests of city funds." Motion carried, 7/9/75
Council members Keller, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council Approved
members Murray, Beal, and Haws voting no. Council
7/14/75
Councilman Keller said he would like to pursue this issue to try to find an
alternative in light of action at today's committee meeting (7/l6/75-not to re-
consider action taken July 14). He had the impression, he said, that the Council e
did not wish the matter dropped if Eugene Sand & Gravel failed to follow through.
Assistant Manager said the Council procedurally still had the option of modifying
the action taken in committee today.**But unless there was a motion by someone who
had voted on the prevailing side, that action would be considered official.
Councilwoman Beal said she thought it would have been clear that she was completely,
without reservations, against any motion to reconsider. Councilman Bradley also
considered the action previously taken final unless there was a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to reconsider action previously II-A-l
taken with regard to the Cross on Skinner Butte.
Councilman Williams saw the question as one of whether the Eugene City Council was
going to carry out the will of the voters or the Eugene Sand & Gravel Company was
going to do it in view of the majority vote on the Charter amendment indicating the
voters wanted the Cross to remain on the Butte. He felt it was the Council's re-
sponsibility to participate. Councilman Keller agreed.
Vote was taken on the motion to reconsider. Motion defeated - Council
members Keller, Wi-Iiams, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Beal,
Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no.
** See committe minutes July 16, 1975 in Council minutes of
July 28, 1975.
S Status Report, Tree Ordinance- Copies of the report prepared by the parks de- .
. partment were previously distributed to Council members. Ed Smith, parks di-
rector, reviewed functioning of the ordinance to date as covered by the report,
noting intent of the ordinance was to prevent clear cutting. He cited the number
of applications for permits, the number denied, and the general interest and co-
operation generally in tree management practices. The major problem arising
appeared to be that of disputes between adjoining property owners. Only one at
this time has not been settled, he said, and could lead to prosecution. It in-
_ L _ . h _ _ 4--0.5
volved removal of more trees and all larger than permitted. Overall, he said, the
ordinance has provided the opportunity to prevent wholesale clearing of property
when construction was anticipated thereby saving landscaping and sometimes specimen
e trees. He said one problem remaining to be worked out is a process whereby the
parks depact:!lc'nt ~'(J'.11d be ,H.J.lrc ot'" ~v'!l0ther t:rc....cs ~\Tere i rJ:'~) 1 ~/.;_l;! ~''/..:'>=:'~-: :":;:; :'l:i.i.ng ~;:!:"'_
m.l. ts we;:'e iSSU2d_
In response to Councilwoman Shirey's suggestion for a building department requirement
to show trees on a property when building plans were submitted, Mr. Smith said that
possibility would be investigated. He said a public information program was being
initiated - brochures were being mailed to all builders, contractors, etc. - to make
people aware of the ordinance and in that process in time building plans could in-
clude a requirement with regard to trees. Assistant Manager noted that such a re-
quirement would call for modification of the ordinance.
Councilwoman Shirey asked if there was any estimate of how many peopl~ had cut up
to four or five trees, noting five trees or more required the permit. She wondered
whether that limit should be lowered to three or four. Mr. Smith said he felt the
five-tree limit was very effective. He noted quite a few places were visited
where the number of trees removed was within the legal limit and permitted proper
development of the property. He said the master street tree ordinance now being
prepared could take care of isolated instances. The workload in the parks depart-
ment, he said could be increased as much as 60% if the limit was lowered.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray that a Council committee be
appointed to look into the question of street trees as suggested
in the parks department memo.
e Mr. Murray suggested this item might better be referred to the Joint Parks Committee,
that it could be given a high priority in that committee. Mr. Smith said the street
tree ordinance would be ready for that type of review soon.
Mrs. Beal moved instead second by Mr. Murray to refer the street Comm
tree ordinance and possible modification of tree cutting ordinance 7/9/75
permit limits to the Joint Parks Committee. Motion carried unanimously Approve
T. Community School Program, Advisory Committee - Copies of a revision in makeup of the
committee proposed by School District 4J were distributed to Council members with the
agenda. The proposal would call for at least 12 and as many as 15 members on the
committee - five continuous members (City Council, School Board, City Manager or
designee, School Superintendent or designee, city staff member representing com-
munity centers); two at-large pQsitions on three-year alternating terms; com-
munity school representatives on two-year alternating terms (five filled by princi-
pals or neighbors involved in designated community school; three additional princi-
pals or neighbors involved in designated community school; at least 50% to be lay
people other ~han school district or community school staff). Comm
7/9/75
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the proposed Approve
membership revision as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
U. Right-of-way Acquisi tion
1. 28th Avenue sidewalk - John w. and Myrtle M. Easley, 1130 West 28th - $150
Ethel M. Baker, 1000 West 28th Avenue - $880
e ,1. Barger Drive - James and Evelyn Burke (17-04-17-1400) - $1,625 Corom
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to authorize property acquisi- 7/9/75
tion as requested. Motion carried unanimously. ;'.pprove
4-ofD. . 7/16/75 - 23
v. Council minutes, February 24 and March 10, 1975 as circulated Approve
W. West Amazon Parkway Study - Copies of summary of the West Amazon study were .
previously distributed to Council members and presentation of the project
was made at a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission of June
23, 1975. The summary stated the problem - heavy traffic threatens the
residential uses along 11th, 13th, and 18th west of Jefferson and traffic
projections far exceed existing street capacity. Alternatives proposed
were to (1) build a limited access arterial paralleling the Amazon Channel
from Jefferson to 11th near Bertelsen; (2) build a new arterial west of
Garfield and widen streets to the east; (3) widen existing streets only;
or (4) neither build a new arterial nor widen existing streets which would
imply 1.and use changes, very high transi t usage, or other reductions in
traffic demand. Requirements of the proposed study were listed to deter~ine
impact of the various alternatives, Council and Planning Commission were
requested to give consensus on overall direction of the study and under- "
lying assumptions and appoint a citizens advisory committee for the project.
Assistant Manager stressed that presentation of this project was not with
the intent of going ahead with the West Amazon Parkway prior to Eugene-
Springfield Area Transportation Study (ESATS) update. It was not a final
commitment to the pr~ject itself. Rather the proposed study would run
parallel with the ESATS update, it would be a project where broad policy
decisions yet to be made in the Area Transportation study would be
applied. staff is now at a point where Council direction is needed.
The Council could appoint the proposed citizens committee to begin the
process of acquiring information on which to base a decision, or there
could be further discussion with staff and/or Planning Co~mission before
that decision was made if the Council so desireri. He stressed, however, .
that creation of a committee would not be a commitment to the project.
The transportation problem is there, he said, and this study would bring
alternatives for decisions about how to find a solution.
Councilman Murray said his interpretation was that the Council should
not be too concerned at this point with the proposed arterial's impact,
its route,. etc., yet it would appear disastrous to review the project
when no one could give information about why it was a good idea. He
felt the need to ask further questions, recognizing that the answers
might be incomplete or speculative. He said he needed that kind of infor-
mation before he could vote on commitment to even look into the question.
Councilwoman Shirey agreed. She was concerned about "what kind of.
initiation" was being discussed.!. that initiation of anything would almost
be a commitment. Also, she thought general 90nditions were not favor-
able - gas situation, economics, life styles - and she would rather wait.
Councilman Williams pointed out another side he felt important. Deci -
si'ons in the communi ty for a number of years, he said,. had been made
with respect to planning, zoning, and to some ex~ent land acquisition
on the assumption that the West Amazon parkway would be built. To deter-
mine at this point whether those previous decisions were correct would
seem to require the best information that could be gathered, information
with regard to the impact if it was built or the impact if it was not
buil t. He said that initiation of the project was not requested, only
a determination on whether that project should be pursued.
Councilma~ Murray did not agree that the community had been making deci- e
sions based on the assumption the Parkway would be constructed. Segments
of the community,':,possibly, or some members of the Councilor Planning
Commission, or the city administration may have had that assumption, he
said, but to say the entire policy making body was accepting it was mis-
.., J 1 r J..,,... 'lA +O'~7' "
leading. He said he didn't recall once making a decision on land use
or any other factor where the assumption that the West Amazon Parkway
at the proposed location or anywhere else was part of the deli:1}eration.
- Mr. Murray added that a second problem clouding the issue was the ques-
tion of the arterial route. He questioned whether the route proposed
at this time - along the Amazon channel - would improve the existing
traffic situation. He wanted the opportunity to ex~lore with the Planning
Commission in greater detail various options for the route before making
any decision on whether to go ahead with the study.
Councilwoman Beal wanted to wait until the ESATS update was completed
to have the benefit of that work as a basis on which to decide this arter-
ial issue. Councilman Bradley sUPPorted that viewpoint on not only
the east/west arterial but also the proposed 30th and Hilyard intersec-
tion improvement.
Assistant Manager said that could be done if the Council wished but the
difficulty was that land use decisions, the 1990 Plan, existing zoning
had defined as acceptable those residential areas. Property o"'mers having
a right to use their properties as currently zoned created a transporta-
tion demand through this spec.ific corridor that required a solution.
This study was not choosing any particular route, it addressed only the
options for solving the transportation demands that were there. Each of
the options would have an impact, he said, and if nothing was done there
would have to be changes in the land uses creating the demand. He said
again that more discussion with the Planning Commission could be scheduled
if the Council was not ready to make judgment to proceed-l.,ith the study
o.f alternatives, but staff would like some sense of where the concerns
were so they could be addressed.
e Councilman Murray wanted it clear that his concern was not the one expressed
at the joint meeting on the 23rd - that the first concern should be preser-
vation of the green belt along the Amazon, then worry later about an
east/west transportation facility. He said he l.,as concerned about the need
for the facility and he was ready to look at some alternates, but he was
not interested in widening existing streets. He wanted to discuss fur-
ther in more detail some of the specific ways an expressway might be
provided so as to have more information on which to base a decision about
whether it was worth the study.
Murray-Williams to schedule a joing meeting with the Planning Comm
Comndssion at which questions could be more fully explored, in- 6/25/75
eluding in this motion the intent to provide the opportunity Affirm
at some point for public input if there is interest in explor-
ing the project further~ Motion carried unanimously.
Assistant Manager inquired whether Council would want to have study sessions
for the hour prior to committee-of-the-who1e meetings where single specific
items could be handled without hampering the normal flow of Council
business. There were no objections. Assistant Manager asked that Council
members express specific concerns, especially on the West Amazon study,
so staff would have the opportunity to gather the necessary information
and share it with others ahead of time.
30th/Hilyard Intersection Improvement - West Amazon Corridor Study - Assistant Comm
Manager advised that public hearing on the 30th and Hilyard intersection im-
provement would be set for the July 28th Council meeting because of the heavy 7/9/75
e hearing schedule on the 14th. In response to Councilman Murray, he said the See
Amazon route would probably be discussed with the planning Commission at an Action
11:00 a.m. committee-of-the-whole session in view of the present heavy Commission p.B
agendas. Mrs. Beal wondered if the Planning Commission would have to consider
the Amazon Parkway issue before discussing it wi th the Council. Assistant
Manager answered that staff understood the Council wanted to go over the issue
jointly with the Commission before public hearing was set.
4-o~ 7/16/75 .,. 25
Assistant Manager asked the Council to submit any issues they wished to discuss so
that staff could prepare for the joint meeting with the Planning Commission on this .
issue.
X. Housing Referral Program - Councilman Murray asked consideration at a future
committee meeting of appropriating an estimated $5,000 to share one-half salary
with Lane County for administration of a housing referral program. Assistant
Manager noted the question was before the Lane County Commissioners today for
determination whether the County would fund the service.
It was understood that if the question was not moot as the result Comm
of Commissioners' action, it would be scheduled for future committee- 7/2/75
of-the-whole discussion. Af fi rm
Y. Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting, June 23, 1975 - Councilwoman
Shirey expressed dismay that because of the lengthy agenda at the June
23 meeting the Council did not have enough time to thoroughly discuss
with the Commission the 30th and Hilyard intersection improvement and
the West Amazon transportation facility. She wondered if staff could Comm
"cut the agendas" to leave mOre time for discussion, saying the Council 6/25/75
should meet again with the COrunUssion to discuss these two projects. File
Assistant Manager said the staff faced the same dilemma. He noted that
shorter agendas would mean more meetings but that future agendas would
be watched in that respect.
Z. possible Conflict, City Attorney's Office - Councilman Haws referred to a
Register-Guard article (June 24, 1975) concerning proposed development north
of Springfield and the fact that a member of the Eugene city attorney's office
represented one of the property owners. He wondered if there would be conflict
of interest as expressed by some Springfield citizens quoted in the article in -
view of some concerns expressed in Eugene about development of a regional
shopping center not in Line wi th the 1990 Plan.
Councilman Bradley said that he was going to ask staff to review the record to
determine whether there were grounds .for legal action against Springfield in Comm
its rezoning action to accommodate a regional shopping center in view of the 7/2/75
1990 Plan and recommendations .in the Livingston & Blayney report. Assistant File
Manager said that administrative contact with Springfield indicated they were
alarmed that Eugene would consider a legal suit with regard to the General Plan,
that the conflict issue would be looked into.
AA. "Speed Bump" Policy - Councilman flaws asked for a staff report on the use of
"speed bumps" on city streets for slowing traffic speeds. Assistant Manager
noted the broad legal responsibility placed on public agencies not to allow
hazards to exist in the public right-of-way. The city would be subject to sub-
stantial liability, and liability insurance would be costly. He said quotes
on premium cost could be sought for insurance to cover this potential liability.
Mr. Haws said that as a policy matter the increase in insurance cost might be
the alternative desired if there were no options to slowing traffic on some
streets. He thought a report from staff as requested should include any opt.ions
to use of the "bumps," some other way of reducing speeds. Assistant Manager
suggested traffic enforcement, if courts could be persuaded and if additional
. officers were desired. He thought the new traffic team now in operation l./ould Comm
have an impact. 7/2/75
File
It was understood that quotes on liability. insurance with regard
to city installed traffic hazards would be sought although staff .
did not anticipate a definitive answer would be forthcoming.
BB. Parking on 7th Avenue' between Garfield and Grant - Councilman Hamel presented
a letter he received from several businesses calling attention to parking
nuisance created by location of the Sta te ~velfare Department in the area of
7/1f../7r::. - ?f.. 4-09 r
West 7th Avenue between Garfield and Grant. Recipients of welfare services
are taking up available space in the area and creating congested and dangerous
e conditions. Comrn
7/2/75
It was understood staff would investigate the concerns expressed. File
CC. Alley Maintenance Polic~ - Councilman Murray reported several cOf.'7plaints ".t.'.ith
regard to dust from unimprovc~ alleys. He questioned the reason fo:: .,0: ap;:ly-
ing oil which he understood was the practice some time in the ...[last. Don :~'::.1.e~'1,
public l.,orks di rector, reviewed current alley maintenance policy Cfuaran:eeir:q
grading once a year. However, data gathered in previous instances the q~estion
had been raised with the Council indicated some alleys were graded as ro:.:l!l:j as
24 times a year. Staff felt t Iii! t tIIP" of ma.intend:JCC vIas ~llHv'.:t!' l'dn '-cd I a 1 I.,.'"
- - _.~.:>
needing that type of maintenanc,,' should be paved_ /{e contillllcd t lw t c.he ci t~.
hadn't oiled alleys since the early , :")05, t hi! t it '.-/as done now Ill! pri'/ate
cnterprisc, and thc city preferred not to IJ'..' the yo-b,.,twc<':"J. In fa:_~t: , he.' ,8:1 j d,
tha t type of mainten.Jnce is discour<1~7Cd hecause it is so costll}. /i Iso, po] icy Comm
has beE!1l that ultimately all stI:ec:ts wnd allclJ,;;n l he c i t II \..' I 1 .1 bf:": pc.:.'.'c:J. 7/2/75
Assistant Manager added that the chanryes in alley assessments might have SO,~ie File
impact. Also, tenants of properties hav.ing out-of-to~vn owners could briny
problem alleys to the Council's attention - and the Council could then determine
action to be taken.
DO. Millrace/Amazon Channe.l Connection - Councilman BradlE!Y reported a request from Camm
Attorney Charles Porter asking exploration of the idea of opening the Millrace 7/2/75
into the Amazon Channel to provide one unbroken stream from the Willamette River File
to Fern Ridge Reservoir.
- EE. Arrival of New City Manager, Charles T. Henry - Councilman Bradley wondered if
any plans were afoot to welcome Mr. Henry and provide an opportunity for the
Council to meet with him prior to the start of official meetings. Assistant
Manager said that if Council wanted that type of session staff needed to know Comrn
because Mr. Henry's calendar was be.ing prepared and the meetings scheduled 7/2/75
for his orientation would keep him pretty well tied up for about a month. File
Mayor Anderson thought the anti:::ipated Coullcil self-study session would be
the bes t time to "bring the manager in. "
FF. Distribution
1. Status Report, Tree Ordinance, for discuss.ion at July 9 commi ttee-of-the-
whole it the agenda permits, pending report from the committee considering
the proposal for a women's commission.
2. NLC Congress at Cities, November 29-December 4, Miami Beach, Florida -
League of Oregon Cities lett!:'.!" concerning group tral/el ar.rangements and hotel
reservations was noted. Advance registration for those Council members plan- Camrn
ning to attend were to be made through the manager's office. 7/2/75
File
3. Transit Development Program - Copies ot summary report from the Lane Transit
Distr.ict for the period 1975-1980 were distributed. Information therein
will be taken into consideration in conjunction with the forthcoming ESATS
update.
4. Housing Rehabilitation Program - Copies of letter notifying owners of su~-
standard housing that tunds are available under Section 312 of the Housing
Act of 1964 were distributed to Council members with the agenda. Thi.s
program provides for housing rehabi Ii tation loans at 3% interest fro;.l :unds
e totaling about $300,000. The letter was mailed to owners of substandard
housi~g in areas identified by the Community Deve.Iopment Task Force as need-
ing community development treatment.
4-10' 7/16/75 - 27
5. 701 Planning Grant for 1975-76 - Copies of memo from the: plaml1:ng dcpartr.ent
concerning planning grant frn this fiscal year were distr ibutud to Council
members wi th agenda. The memo indicated funds to be recei vcd this year Comm
would be at a reduced .leve.l of $36,000, matching funds raiSe' the total ~or 7/2/75_
the 1975-76 proqram to $54,000. Attached to the memo [,'ere program outlUJ25 .
, h' . .. 1 1 . t f th ' t ..J 7 t' hI e
plac1ng cmp aS1S on cont1nu Lng t 1e qua .1 y 0 c communI Y (,ev(~ 40pmen [vOrr:,
effort gi ven to the housing assistance plan, and continuing thEt current commi t-
ment to neighborhood refinement plans. An additional area of .importance this
year, the memo continued, would be ini tiat.ion of work for the major 1990 Plan
update. scheduled for 1977.
GG. LCOG ~etropo1i tan Bikeway Master ~lan - C~pi~s were previously distributed to 7 /;~~
Councl1 members. It was not~d th.ls plan 1S 1n conforn~nce with the previously F'l
adopted Eugene Master BikeI-lal) Plan. 1 e
There were no comments or objections to the Metropo1.i tan Plan
as submitted.
HH. Proposed Code Revision re: Ambulance Services - Councilman Murray referred to a
report of the Lane County Developmental Disabilities Committee regarding the
need for revision of regulations governing ambulance services, particularly as Cornrn
they apply to the transportation of the disabled and elderly. Dave Jordan, 7/9(75
public relations officer, said the question had been referred to the city Flle
attorney's office and a recommendation would be brought to the Council probably
at the end of July.
II. Status Report, Westside Downtown Neighborhoods - Councilman Keller reported that Cornrn
he and Councilwoman Shirey had met several times with the two downtown groups 7/9/75
as the result of petition to revoke the Westside Downtown Association charter. File
They fel t progress was being made in settling the conflict, a final meeting It
with the groups was scheduled, and it was expected a report would be brought to ~
the Council by the end of July.
JJ. Smoke Signals - Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to waive the no-smOking
'rule because of the anticipated lengthy meeting.
Mrs. Beal moved for amendment to include a five-minute recess after luncheon C
break. There was no second. 7/9~~
Deliberations were informal until the Chair rules a short recess would be taken File
to accommodate the smokers.
KK. Status Report, Women's Commission - Councilman Murray reported that although
progress was being made in his ~nd Councilwoman Shirey's meetings with the Cornrn
women's groups the July 14 deadline on consideration of creation of a Women's 7/9/75
Commission could not be met. He expected July 23 would be the earliest possible File
time for discussion in committee session, early August for public hearing.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that Items A through KK be approved,
affirmed, and filed as noted except Item D (30th-Hilyard-Amazon widening -
postponed until interim report received), and Item P (Goodpasture Island Gen~ral
Plan amendment - hearing scheduled for August 25). Rollcall vote. All CounClI
members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel abstaining on Item I (1974-75
audit report), the motion carried.
III - Items Not Previously Heard .~
A. Summer Youth Employment Program"",_ _
Dog Licensing (Summer Youth Employment Program) - Council authorization was re-
quested for 14-day waiver of the late fee for licensing dogs. Copies of the ,
proposed program for an aggressive campaign to license all dogs in the communlty
were previously distributed to Council members. Assistant Manager explained
that because the number of dog licenses had dropped considerably from the previous
7/16/75 - 28 411~,
-.
year, it was thought the 14-day waiver would be an incentive to license dogs and
overcome the poss.ibility that some had not licensed their dogs because of the 'rabies
shots now required. The waiver would become effective from the time written noti~es
- were sent out to owners of unlicensed dogs.
In response to Councilwoman Beal, Assistant Manager said contact would be made
through computer lists of people who had licensed dogs in the past. Also, a
publicity campaign would be launched. Mr. Haws suggested putting notices in
neighborhood newsletters.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Beal to authorize the l4-day waiver Comm
as requested. 7/16/75
Councilwoman Shirey thought a 3D-day waiver would be better because people on a Approve
monthly pay schedule would be more apt to have money. Councilman Ke~ler noted
a~.agenda item suggesting that ~he overtime parking fine be doubled and wondered
what would be accomplished by waiving the fee in this instance. Assistant ~anager
answered that anyone licensing a dog now would have to pay the $5.00 fee plus a
$5.00 late fee plus the cost of a rabies shot, and staff felt waiving the late fee
might be an incentive to license the dogs. In further response 'to ~. Keller
about the estimated cost of the program, Assistant ~anag0r said it would entail
salaries of six young people in the summer c,mployment program, plus whatever
costs were incurred in contacting own~rs l: unlicensed dogs, researching records,
mailing, etc. But it was thought the potential revenues would exceed the costs,
plus the fact that the work would be a h.igher priori ty use of the yaung, people's
time than weeding bike paths, spraying paint, etc.
Councilman Bradley wondered whether waiving the fee could be ~fcomplished without
amending the ordinance. Assistant Manager answered that stafE ~as r~luctant to
make that amendment in view of the short-ter~ ~rogram, if Council agreed to
tit suspend the provisions for the "one shot" effort there seemed no need to change
the language in .the code.
Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mrs. Beal to amend the motion to provide
for a 3D-day waiver rather than 14 days.
CO'Jncilmen Williams and Murray were concerned that extending the time to 30 days
would be a greater risk and easier for dog owners to postpone payment than if
the shorter period applied. Councilwoman Beal asked if rabies shots wc~ld still
be required. Assistant Manager answered they would and one of the benefits of
the program would be an attempt to determine the impact of the legislation re-
quiring rabies shots, perhaps that cost was the reason people were not licensing
their dogs.
.1
Vote was taken on the amendment to waive the late fee for 30 days.
Motion defeated, Council members Beal, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey , .
voting aye; Council members. Murray, Keller, Williams, Hamel, and
Mayor Anderson voting no.
Vote was taken on the ma.in motion to waive the fee for 14 days.
Motion carried, alf Council member present voting aye, except
Councilman Keller'17ot.ing no.
;
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to approve committee action.
Formal Council action was requested on this item at this meeting because of time
element. Mrs. Seal asked for report on personnel~~partment activities .wLth regard
to applic~tions in the program, whether they ~e~ equally div'ided' ,between the sexes.
- Assistant Manager said that the majority of pe~pie hired dur:i~g the summer were girls.
He said he would check further on lt and,. a.dv ise 'Mrs. Beal:' ,
. '~").' .
Vote was taken on motion to waiv~:'~ late payment fee '~or 14 days.
Motion carried unanimously.
4-/2- 7/16/75 - 29
-
-----~.~-----_.- ----
B. Waiver of Bid Procedure was requested for award of contract for paving streets
within Willona Park Subdivision and sewers within Willon Park and within .
160 feet of Willona Drive from Benson Lane to 212 feet west of Benson Lane
to Shur-Way Contractors for $65,360.93.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr, Hamel to authorize the waiver of
bid procedure and award the contract, Rollcall vote. All council
members present voting aye, motion carried.
IV - Ordinances
Ceuncil Bill No. 893 - Calling hearing August 25, 1975 re: Vacation of easement at
southwest corner of Mahalo Drive and West Hillside Drive
(Sorensen) 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members: present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17413.
Council Bill No. 894 .. Paving Timberline Drive from Wilshire Lane to 2450 feet south
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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote'. . All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered l741~r ~.
Council Bill No., 895 - Adopting plans"and specifications for paving Timberline Drive
from Wilshir~".Lane to 2450 feet south was read by council
bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it
be read in full.
Mr. Keller moyed second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the'secoridtime by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment'be considered
at this time. MotiQn.,~,carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17415.
Council Bill No. 896 - Paving Robin Street from Taney Street to 400 feet east of e
Taney Street was read by council bill number and title only,
there belng no council member present~~~fr~sting that it be read in full. v
'-
'~~
.
7/16/75 - 30 4--/3
-
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17416.
Council Bill No. 897 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Robin Street from
Taney Street to 400 feet east of Taney 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17417.
Council Bill No. 898 -Paving streets within Oakway PUD 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17418.
Council Bill No. 899 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within
Oakway PUD was read by council bill number and title only,
there being no. council members present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17419.
Council Bill No. 900 - Construction of sidewalk on Timberline Drive from Wilshire
Lane to 2450 feet south was read by council bill number and
title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council
- bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactmen~ 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17420. ~I.+ 7/16/75 - 31
I
Council Bi 11 No. 901 ~ Sanitary and storm sewers within Somerset Hills III;
within area bounded by Somerset Hills Addition, Somerset
Hills II, and somerset Hills III, and within 160 feet of boundaries of Somerset -
Hills III 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17421.
Council Bill No. 902 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary and storm
sewers within Somerset Hills III; within area bounded by
Somerset Hills Addition, Somerset Hills II, and Somerset HillS "III, and within
160 feet of boundaries of Somerset Hills III 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 Mr. Williams 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. ~,
-...j
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17422. -
Council Bill No. 903 - Sanitary sewer in area between 160 feet west of Willamette
Street and Pearl Street and between 4th Avenue and 225
feet north of 4th Avenue 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. -All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17423.
Council Bill No. 904 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer in area
between 160 feet west ofWillamette Street and Pearl Street and
between 4th Avenue and 225 feet north of 4th Avenue 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final pas:;age. -
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17424.
7/16/75 -32
4-tS
Council Bill No. 905 - Sanitary sewer on Highway 99N from Side Street to 500 feet
south 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17425.
Council Bill No. 906 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer on
Highway 99N from Side Street to 500 feet south 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17426.
Council Bill No. 907 - Sanitary sewer to serve area from 27th Avenue to 200 feet
e north of 27th Avenue between Agate Street and Emerald 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17427.
Council Bill No. 908 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer to serve
area from 27th Avenue to 200 feet north of 27th Avenue between
Agate Street and Emerald 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 Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17428.
e Council Bill No. 909 - Sanitary sewer on Robin Street from Taney Street to 400 feet
east of Taney Street was read by council bill number and title
only, there being no council member present requesting that it-be read in full.
~h 7/16/75 - 33
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given fiRal passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17429.
Council Bill No. 910 - Adopting plans ,and specifications for sanitary sewer on Robin
Street from Taney Street to 400 feet east of Taney 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be re~ 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17430.
Council Bill No. 911 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Oakway PUD 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be read'the seconu,time:'.by..council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered e
at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only.
\
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17431.-
-
Council Bill No. 912 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within Oakway PUD 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be -read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that en~ctment 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 Mr. Williams that the bill be approved a~d given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17432.
V - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2422 - Authorizing waiver of fees for application for H~Historic
District designation was read by number and title.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr, Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All .'
council members present voting aye, motion carried.
Resolution No. 2423 - Authorizing change in aircraft parking fees and land rental
rates was read by number and title.
7/16/75 - 34 4-11.
>
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
council members present voting aye, motion carried.
tit Resolution No. 2424 - Authorizing change in hangar specifications (pole construction
rather than all metal) was read by number and title.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
council members present voting aye, motion carried.
Resolution No. 2425 - Renegotiate TelePrompter TV cable franchise, establish
Metropolitan Area TV Commission, and authorize engineering
study regarding feasibility of translator service if renegotiation unsuccessful
was read by number and title.
It was noted that Lane County today adopted the same resolution.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
council members present voting aye, motion carried.
Resolution No. 2426 - Authorizing negotiation and condemnation for right-of-way
acquisition - Bailey Lane sidewalk from Coburg Road east
355.3:t feet (Gustafson, 30 Bailey Lane) was read by number and title.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
council members present voting aye, motion carried.
Resolution No. 2427 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments
for period June 23 through July 14, 1975 was read by number
e and title.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All
council members present voting aye, motion carried.
Assistant Manager Martin on behalf of the staff expressed appreciation to the
Council for their co-operation during his and pro tern manager's service in the
interim period before arrival of the new city manager.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to
Monday, July 28, 1975.
~~
Charles T. Henry
City Manager
-
4-le 7/16/75 - 35