HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/1975 Meeting
M I NUT E S .
. EU.GENE CITY COUNt I.L
August 11, 1975
-------
e Regular meeting of the Comm.on .Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order
by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on August 11, 1975 in the Council
Char.Jber with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal,
Ray Bradley, O.W.Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. Councilman Tom Wi lliams was absent.
I ~ Public Hearings
A. Liquor License.- New Outlet
.Pizza Pantry. 2320 West 11th Avenue (RMB)
Pizz~ Pantry, 2320 West 11th Avenue - New Outlet (RMB) .
OLeC interview of people in the neighborhood indicated two objected tt> the
outlet~ l~ approv~d. Staff had no objections other than normal requirements
for bu~ld~ng perm~ts and certificate of occupancy.
Mr. Murr~y ~ved second by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing on Comm
the ~ppl~cat~on at the August 11 Council meeting. Motion carried 8/6/75
unan~mously. Pub Hrng
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to recommend approval of the
application. Motion carried unanimously.
e B. Rezoning area at Willakenzie and Coburg (State Finance) - Retaining R-2 PO cast of
Willakenzie, RA to R-2 PO west of Willakenzie (Z 70-16)
Planning Commission on July 1, 1975 recommended modification of contract between the
city and State Finance to allow development of the parcel west of Willakenzie Road
north of Cal Young Road in conjunction with the parcel on the east side, retaining
the requirement for common ownership of the two parcels; that R-2 PO zoning of the
parcel east of Willakenzie Road be retained and finalized; and that the parcel west
of Willakenzie Road be rezoned from RA to R-2 PD.
Note was taken of letter received from Richard Danielson, architect, 915 Oak Street,
requesting on behalf of State Finance that development of the parcel west of Willa-
kenzie Road be allowed to proceed under separate ownership.
I-A-l Jim Saul, planner, commented on the long and complex history of zoning of properties
between Willakenzie and Coburg, north of Cal Young, in the ownership of State Finance,
details of which are contained in planning staff notes dated July 1, 1975 previously
distributed to Council members.
Public hearing was opened.
I-A-2 Jack Miller, vice president of State Finance, owner of the properties under discussion,
said that State Finance had pending a sale of the parcel west of Willakenzie Road to
the owner of properties adjoining to the west. For that reason, they were requesting
separation of that parcel from the one on the east side of Willakenzie. They con-
e curred in the recommendation for R-2 PD zoning on the main parcel. He said it was
their understanding the developer of the parcel west of Wi11akenzie would be willing
to limit development to 16 units per acre.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
4-~f> 8/11/75 - 1
No 'ex parte confaC'ts':or other reasons' for confliCt of :interest' were 'declared by I..:A:-3
Council members; r>1.anning Commission staff notes, and minutes o'f Jury :1, 1975 were
made a, part o'f this record by 're~erence thereto. . .' " '., ' .
Council Bill No. 918 '-' Re'zoning to R-2' PO area west of WIllakeD-Zle' Road
north of C~l Young Road west df Coburg Road. retain-
lngR-2PD"zonin'g east o'f Willakenzie Road.n6rth ofCal Young Road, and re-
quiring single ownership and development of the two properties, was read by
council bill number and title only, there being no council member present
reqJlestin,g that it.be read in fulL
Council ~oman Shirey a:sked why .thePhinning Commis'sion 'recommended' aga'1nst separation I -A-4
b'f the.two p'arce.ls.. Mr. Saul answered that primarily it was a matter of judgment.,
The, property west of Wiliakenz:ie is a small, narrow parcel ,of awkward shap~. he saId,
and it w.as the Commission's judgment that while credit for density could be retained
in development of that piece, it would be better if it was joined with the larger
parcel ,east of the Roa:d.,
Councilman Bradley asked whether the city or the applicant would have the burden of
proof under Fasano regulations in this zoning. He wondered if the request for R-2 PD
zoning was in compliance with the General Plan designation for commercial development.
Mr. Saul said burden of proof would probably rest with both the city and the applicant.
The request primarily was for reaffirmation of action taken in 1967 concerning a
larger parcel, and findings supporting the reaffirmation were spelled out in staff
notes previously referred to. He explained that the 1990 Plan indicates community
commercial development at that location [Coburg/Willakenzie/Cal Young] and surrounding
that, medium density residential use. The Commission has indicated that the community
c6mmer~ial function is served by existing deve~opment ~f Coburg Plaza ~nd,tha~ along ...
both sldes of Coburg Road north and south of W1llakenz1e. and the Comml~Slon 1S now ~
encouraging a number of medium density residential developments surrounding that
commercial area.
Mr. Bradley wondered then if it was the Commission's suggestion that the commercial
need was satisfied in that area. Mr. Saul said that was the Commission's judgment
in the past and reaffirmed by its recommendation in this instance. He pointed out
that if the C-2 zoning was retained, multiple-family residential development would be
possible as a conditional use.
Councilman Keller expressed concern about splitting a property by building a street
then setting guidelines on developmen~ of the two properties. He wondered when Willa-
kenzie Road was put in and what the intent of the Commission was in a situation such
as this. He also asked about the recommendation on the parcel west of Willakenzie
Road for park use. Mr. Saul thought that Willakenzie at that location was built about
1966 and said the zoning and proposed development of the property had the "blessing
of the Council" at that time. He said the Commission's judgment at this time was
that the parcels could be better developed as one rather than separated. With
reference to the recommendation for park use. he said the primary question was use of
the long narrow strip on the north portion of the parcel west of Willakenzie for out-
door space to accommodate the heavier development on the southern portion:
Councilwoman Shirey didn't think it was normal practice to have a street running
through a planned unit development. She wondered if people on the smaller parcel
would have access to facilities on the other side and whether the density on the
larger parcel to the east would be increased. Mr. Saul said there would be fewer tit
units on the small parcel, that it was the Commission's intent to increase the density -
on the east side.
8/11/75 - 2 ~.~~
Councilwoman Be'al asked whether' State F:ii1ance requ~s't~d the original developJi1~T1t o'f,
the two pTbperti:c'sas one. Also, whether the Com~lsslonwas~ware of ~1r. .Damelson s
plans to deve,lop the parc'el on the west at a densIty of 16 un.lts ~)er acre, and that
e St.ate Finance had a buyer for that piece. Mr. Saul thought ~he. CIty ha~ m~de the .
or-ig:inal requi'rem'ent for. development as one property. He saId the COmmISSJ.on ~as. not
informed of the possible limitation to 16 units. And.alt.hought they were not Informed
of a specific buyer, they were informed that would be a possible consequence of release
of the smaller parcel.
Councilman Bradley asked staff its thinking on the po'ssibil ~ty ~f need. for corrunerd.al
uses' in that area in the future - 20 years or so ~. whether ~ t'mIght b~ better no~ to
rezone this area. to R-2 PO at this time wi ththe ide'a that If commerClal needs dId
develop it could occur as a cluster development, filling in this property,. rather
than as strip zoning. He asked staff where o~her co~merc~al development mIght o~cur
in that area if this property was filled in wIth resIdentIal use. Ha ~hought thIS
issue tied in with the Livingston & Blayney report [a study of commercIal uses now
under consideration] and his concern was that if residential development occur:ed at
.this location it would be creating another commercial node at some other locatIon.
Mr. Saul answered that if the property was retained under the commonly accepted classi-
fication of community commercial, the parcel could support 40,000 or more population.
There was no "black and white" answer, he said, because it would depend upon the nature
of what went in. If the entire parcel was developed in offices, it would not constitute
what is normally considered community commercial type use. Whether there would be need
in the future for more commercial use, he thought, would be a matter of judgment. He
thought the overall development pattern in the Willakenz:ie area should be taken into
consideration and noted the relative substantial commercial development there new _
Oakway Mall, along both sides of Coburg Road, Goodpasture Island area, etc. He said
e it was the Commission's judgment that the existing undeveloped commercial areas were
adequate to serve much of the existing and potential residential development. He
added that there may be a future need for commercial uses north of the Belt Line, but
that would depend on annexation.
Councilwoman Shirey thought Mr. Bradley's concerns would be asking property owners
to hold their properties until there might be a need for commercial development.
Councilman Murray was not persuaded to the CommiSSIon's recommendation that unification
of the two parcels was essential. He stated he would make a motion adverse to the
Commission's recommendation with the understanding that the issue would be referred to
a joint Commission/Council session - approve rezoning of the parcel east of Willakenzie
Road to R-2 PO, approve zoning. of the parcel west of Willakenzie Road to R-2 SR, and
not to insist on tying those two parcels together for development under one ownership.
If there would not be automatic referral to a joint session, he said, then he would
move for referral. Mayor Anderson said either motion would be appropriate but asked
for rebuttal first.
I-A-S Mr. Miller reminded the Council that State Finance paid a substantial portion of the
cost for improvement and extension of Willakenzie Road to the west which accounted for
the small sliver of land on the west side. The extension of that street, he said, was
to allow a larger piece of land for a major commercial development. However, a number
of factors prevented that from occurring - change in concept of regional center requir-
ing two major department stores, development of Valley River,.etc. They preferred now
staying with the R-2 PO development, and he noted that the Commission and staff were
- in accord with that request. Mr. Miller thought development of the parcel on the west
side under R-2 SR zoning would best utilize the property with that adjoining to the
west rather than with something across the street. He urged the Council to allow
separation of the parcels and developmeht under different ownerships, and reaffirmation
of the R-2 PO zoning on the main parcel.
440 8/11/75 - 3
I
.
Mr',Murra:y,move'd'secon-d-'by Mr. Ketler tha't staff'findings supporting l-A-6
the zon-irg of propert.y _ east of' Wi ll'<ikenzie Road north of Cal .young Road
to R-,2" I'D" and property west' of Wil:lakenzie Roa-d to R--2 SR, as set forth
in Planning Commissionst'aff notes of July 1_, 1975 beadop,ted by 'reference
thereto; tha:t th-e hi 1.1 ,asamen'ded be. read t.he, see-ond time by 'counc i.1 ' bi 11 .
number, only., with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment
be considered at this time.
Councilman Kell'er:asked if-it wa:s Mr~Murray's intent to exc1ude the one ownership
feature.. Mr. Murray said it w'as.
Councilman'Haws said he would vote, for the motion. He couldn't understand the Com-
mission's reasoning in making the recommendation they did and hope that a joint session
would clarify their thinking.
Mayor Atlqerson reminded -the Council ,that any action contrary to, a Commission" recommend-
tioo. would automatically go to a j oint session of the Commission and',Council.
Councilman Bradley thought division of the motion would be appropriate to remove doubt
abo~t vote of individual Council members. He wondered whether a vote in favor of this
motIon would be a vot~ against the Commission's recommendation. Mayor Anderson said it
would b~cause the motIon was contrary to the Commission recommendation for single
ownershIp. Mr. Bradley thought it would be simpler to separate the motion. He said
he would v~te against the motion, not because he did not favor the rezoning but be-
cause he dId not favor separate ownership.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Lacking unanimous consent -
all counci~ members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting
no - the bIll was held for second reading.
It was understood the issue would be referred to a joint session of the ~
Planning Commission and Council.
C. Code Amendmen~s
1. Invalid Coach Operation - Associated Consultants, ,Inc.
Invalid Coach Operation - Associated Consultants, Inc., proposed amendment to the
city code which would delete the requirement for both a driver and attendant in the
operation of an invalid coach. Copies of proposed amendment were distributed to
Council members with agenda. The amendment would make the requirement for both
driver and attendant applicable only to emergency ambulances. Establishment of rates
for the invalid coach operation would be necessary. The Council would also be re-
quired to hold a public hearing on applications for operation of invalid coaches to
determine whether applicants qualify and whether additional licensed operators are
necessary to meet the needs and requirements of the city or if the applicant is un-
qualified and additional services are not needed. It was noted on the agenda that
present Council-approved rates for an in~alid coach oRerated by the Eugene-Springfield
Ambulance Service require a driver and an attendant and are $12.00 for starting fee,
40~ per mile plus other charges for time and additional services.
Councilman williams asked whether there were standards available on whi'ch staff would
make its recommendations about whether an applicant qualified for service. Sherm
Flogstad, finance director, said there were no set standards so far as they concerned
qualifications for an operator. The licensing process, he said, involved referral to
the police pepartmentfor character reference. Assistant Manager added that the
character reference was p~rt of standard broad requirements in the code for all 4It
'business license applications. This application for operation of ?n invalid coach ' -
would come under ambulance regulations containing requirements in addition to having
8/11/75 - 4
441'
an attendant .and an operator in an emergency vehicle, what constitutes. public need,
qua:lificatio1Js of an oper.ator, etc. .Comm
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. wilhams to schedule publi c hearing 7/30/75
- on tbe request .for the. August 11,.1975 Council meeting. Motion Pl)b Hrng
. carried unaniinbus'lY,
I.-A:.. 7 Backgrourid 'of the request.wasreviewed(see committee minutes above).
: . Public.. hearing was opened.
Stephen R. VanHouten, 1200 High Street, #5, described the service proposed by the private
nonprofit organization. He said an Urban Mass Transit grant was available to such
organizations for capital purchases, vehicles to t'ransport elderly and disabled people.
On checking services in this commun.ity, he said, it was discovered there was definite
. need .for that type servic'e, but he found that code. restrictions prevented their firm
. from obtaining a business licerrse and taking advantage of the. Federal funds.
I-A-8 Speaking in favor of the code change were John Craig, 2042 Washington Street, speaking
for the Mayor's Committee on Aging; Martin Weidemann, member of theMayor's Committee on
I - B-1 Handicapped and past president of Oregon Architectural Barriers Council; Greg Long,
1333 Oak Patch Road; David Kleger, representing Oregon State Rehabilitation and Voca-
. tidnal Division; Rob Bunnett, transportation developer for Lane County Social Services;
Jewell Baker, 3206 Gardenia Way, speaking for the Senior Lobby; and Sylvia Pinkerton,
1877 Brewer Street, #J':'5.
They felt the service was needed for the elderly and disabled because volunteer services
hesitated to accommodate people in those categories in view of possible liability;
vehicles were needed for public transportation that would accommodate wheelchairs and
e people on crutches as well as those finding it difficult because of their age to board
public busses; elderly and disabled persons were usually in lower-income brackets
and needed less expensive transportation to recreational and cultural activities as well
as to job training and educational facilities; less public funds would be spent trans-
porting disapled and elderly to and from job training programs; many people needing this
type of transportation did not need medical services provided in the only wheelchair
transportation now available; vocational programs would be justified if it was known
transportation would be available for the disabled to get to work; the service would
give "equal protection under the law" to the handicapped; the service would compliment
services proposed by Lane Transit District; a truly broad-based transportation program
would be available in the community with this service in conjunction with medical trans-
portation provided by ambulance services and other transportation provided by volunteer
services; there could be more participation in activities provided for the disabled with
the more easily accessible transportation proposed.
I-B-2 Fred Dyer, manager of Lane Transit District, said the plan and application for funding
of Associated Consultants, Inc., was in conflict with LTD plans. He said he under-
stood it .was an interim step to provide transpotation immediately, but he felt that
legally, economically, and politically, the plan was not appropriate in this area at
this time.
I-B-3 Bill Leonard, Oregon Emergency Medical Transportation Systems, pointed out the three
types of services - curb-to-curb, which service LTD is planning and has been budgeting
for; door-to-door, a service that provides for pickup of passengers on call; and door-
through-door, the service provided by ambulances which his firm had been providing in
e this community for a number of years. He had no objection to the proposed change if the
service proposed was curb-to-curb or, with certain limitations, door-to-door. But he
had not yet been able to obtain a definite description of the service proposed. He was
concerned about the safety of people when getting up and down stairs or getting into
a vehicle. He also noted the importance of driving a vehicle differently when it was
8/11/75 - 5
442..
I.
carrying a person in a wheelchair, and the care needed when lifting a person from a
wheelchair to a vehicle. Mr. Leonard commented on the possiblity of funds being cut
off after the service was started, leaving those persons depending upon it with no
transportation. He felt the money allocated to Associated Consultants might better be
granted to LTD for their proposed chair lifts and related service to accommodate --
the disabled. He also noted transportation now being provided by his firm to voca-
tional rehabilitation facilities on a contract basis, based on rates of the same type
services in other communities. Further. Mr. Leonard felt the issue of whether invalid
and wheelchair coach licensing requirements met the code should be reviewed. There
appeared to be no requirement in the proposed ordinance for insurance. performance bond,
or list of equipment. Nor had there been shown any certification that the present
ambulance services were not meeting the needs of the community. He added that his firm
had followed a policy of not charging for medical transportation when it was needed by
those who could not afford it. that last year his books showed more than $75,000 spent
in serving indigent and handicapped people who were not able to pay. '.
Councilman Murray asked for clarification of the door-to~doorservice as opposed to
curb-to-curb service proposed by Associated Consultants. Mr. VanHouten answered that
they did kot plan to provide any medical transportation, nor transportation for,the ,
very feeble such as going into a home and putting a person from bed into a wheelchair.
If a person in a wheelchair needed help getting downt steps or out to the vehicle, he
said that help would be provided.
Public hearing was closed. there being no further testimony presented.
Manager explained that before issuance of a license for an invalid or wheelchair coach
service, the applicant would be required to furnish proof of sufficient liability in-
surance and a bond. He said that if the proposed amendment was adopted at t~is time,
it would be necessary to set rates. Associated Consultants proposed charging for the
first six months $1.00 per mile per passenger per actual miles traveled. e
Councilman Bradley wondered if it would be more appropriate to draft a specific licens-
ing section dealing with invalid and wheelchair coach regulation? rather than amending
the ordinance. His concern was with definition of the word "emergency" and differen-
tiating between an emergency vehicle and an ambulance. Neither were defined in the
code, he said. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, read the section of the code setting
out the definition of an ambulance. He explained that the amendment would change the
code only with respect to invalid coaches engaged in transporting invalids but without
first aid equipment, flashing lights. or siren. An emergency ambulance would have the
first aid equipment and use lights and siren in transporting persons because of illness
or injury, and an attendant would be required in addition to the driver. In further
response to Councilman Bradley, Mr. Long said there were only two types of vehicles -
invalid coaches and emergency ambulances; the amendment as proposed would suffice the
legislative intent; use of the word "emergency" in the amendment made it clear that
only emergency vehicles would require an attendant in addition to the driver.
Council Bill No. 919 - Amending Cide Code Section 3.140 re Invalid Coach
Operation was read by council bill number and title only,
there beihg no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by I-B-4
council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact-
ment be considered at this time.
In making the motion for second reading, Mr. Murray commented that the proposed service e
would meet a long-standing need in the community that LTD apparently would not be able
to provide for some time. Mayor Anderson added that in the instances he had met with
the Committee on Limited Mobility, inexpensive and accessible transportation had been
one of the major concerns. He thought it a "feather in the hat" for that committee to
have one of its proposals come before the Council for local assistance.
8/11/75 - 6 ~3
Vote was taken on the motion for second reading. Motion carried
unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
e Mr. Murray moved'second by Mr, Keller that the .bill be approved and
given final passage.
Councilman Bradley wondered if the amendment would have the effect of lessening the
standards for ambulances, whether in effect an injured person could be transported in
an ambulance without an attendant in addition to the driver. Mr. Long answered that
the effect of the amendment would be to require an attendant in addition to the driver
of an emergency vehicle using flashing lights, siren, and first aid equipment. Any
other type of ambulance would not be required to have an attendant.
Vote was taken on the motion to approve and pass. Rollcall vote " All
council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
nwnbered 17437.
I-B-5 2. Overtime Parking Control/Bail Increase
Overtime Parking Control/Bail Increase - Council members were previously furnished
with a breakdown of the number of parking meters according to on-street and off-
street locations, area, and avera~e revenue; breakdown between revenues paid and
voided or otherwise purged; and a comparison with bail amounts for parking viola-
tions in other cities. Distri.buted at this meeting were copies of a breakdown on
ticketing costs showing a deficit of $17,794 at an average cost per ti~ket of $1.32.
Given impetus by Councilman Keller, Councilman Haws repeated his recent compli-
ment and expression of appreciation for the extra effort on the part of A1 Williams,
tit traffic engineer, for writing the article "Free Parking in .DCMntown? You're Kidding!"
appearing in a recent issue of Traffic Engineerin9' Mr. Williams was present at
this meeting to hear the compliment firsthand.
Mr. Wi11~ms reviewed the breakdown of ticketing costs, the present deficit in the
parking enforcement program, and the information and options presented when overtime
parking bail was previously discussed (July 16 committee). Duane Bischoff, parking
administrator, displayed a map and pointed out the free parking area, metered areas,
time limit areas. He explained the present practice of informing people not to ex-
pect enforcement when time restrictions are requested and installed in areas beyond
the normal metered areas (one- and two-hour limits). He pointed out the area where
meters were turned over to University administration. Also, the Sacred Heart HOspital
area. Both areas experience parking demand as heavy as that in the downtown area.
However, those areas are residential, autos are there, whereas autos go into and out
of the downtown area. Mr. Bischoff further pointed out the five patrol beats -
( 1) west end around the mall areas patrolled by one person in a cart checking meters,
free parking areas, marking tires, checking license numbers; (2) campus area;
(3) east side south of city hall along the east edge of the downtown mall; (4) west
side of the mall, a walking patrol, checking meters, downtown free parking lots, time
zones, alleys, truck loading and passenger zones; and (5) walking patrol in the down-
town area, a smaller beat but probably resulting.in more ticketing because it covers
three metered lots, downtown free parking, alleys, special loading zones, etc.
Al Williams explained the process followed in attempts to remove some of the time
1imi t areas. Citizens generally were adamantly opposed to removal of the restrictions,
he said, and highly critical of not having more stringent enforcement of the limits,
, especially in areas close to the central business district and to the University.
Because of the number of citations issued in those time limit areas, he felt that
from the standpoint of enforcement, metered parking would be less costly and there
, would be fewer "games played," i.e., wiping off chalk marks, moving cars, etc.
He said meters were an effective part of the parking program, there are now over
1000 of them in operation. But he didn't see any major ~ncrease at this time unless
there were requests from commercial areas around the University.
~4+ 8(11/75 - 7
Upon councilman Keller's request for identiflcation of the prime prohlem area,
Al Williams answered that it was around the Un_iversi ty. Commercial uses in that
area were most sensi ti ve to need for reduction in time limi ts or turnover in space
because of meter feeding by students. Mayor Anderson commented that the parking en- .
forcement in the University area was initiated by the University .itself. When
Councilman Haws asked whether it was requested by ~he university OT businessmen near
there, Mr. Williams explained that the University had requested control of the meters
on University Street and 15th Avenue. The city agreed and sold the meters to the
University.
Councilman Keller asked. if the subcommi ttee appointed to work w_i th the Uni versi ty
on parking enforcement was still functioning. Also, for comment with regard to
people who were gaining permanent parking space by paying. overtime parking fines
rather than buying monthly parking space. Assistant Manager said an ad hoc committee
had worked with the University on its parking problems. The ci ty had tried to per-
suade the University to control the number of cars students were allowed to have
and although the University was still. working on that angle they felt such a re-
striction would reduce student attendance. He thought there might be the possibility
of working through neighborhood groups to effect some solution in that area. With
regard to abuse of time restrictions, Assistant Manager said that multiple tickets
are issued to autos overs.taying the parking limi ts. However, the financial sting
of $1.00 per ticket no longer appeared to deter prolonged violations. He called
attention to the $1.32 average ticketing cost and the 619 cost fi~lre previously
given in error and the resulting deficit larger than originally estimated.
Councilman Murray wondered whether adoption of the increased bail amounts would re-
sult in moving the all-day parkers farther into residential areas, assuming that
most of those abusing the time restrictions were downtown employes. Al williams
thought not. He said he was aware that Mr. Murray's concerns were with the westside
area adjacent to the downtown and explained that adequate monthly parking with low
fees was available there. In fact, he said, with co-operation of property owners in e
that area there was the possibility of removing some of the time restricted and
metered park.ing there. Also, the employes using those parking areas for the most
part were part-time workers or worked in positions where they were unable to leave
the job to feed. the meters or remove chalk marks. In contrast, ne said, on the
southeast side of the downtown area most of the people using parking space were
office workers, and their employers, too, who were able to leave work and feed
the meters. So the problems occurred in different areas according to adjacent
land uses.
In further response to Councilman Murray, Mr. Williams said the Downtown Develop-
ment Board did anticipate allocating about another 200 spaces for monthly parking.
As a note of interest, he said, eve~ the private lots on the west side were not
always full. And the owners of those agree that the employes parking on that side
will park in unzoned areas because they cannot afford to pay the monthly parking fee.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws to accept the recommendation and
prepare an ordinance which would increase the overtime parking fine
to $2.00 and the penalty for nonpayment within five days to $4.00;
which would allow the "boot" to be affixed to an auto having three
delinquent traffic citations or fines totaling more than $10.00, the
fines being delinquent 30 days or more; and which would increase the
fee fQr immobilizing a vehicle to $10.00.
Councilman Keller said he would vote against the motion. His primary concern was
that it would discourage people from going downtown when every effort was directed
toward development of that area. He thought it might be better to deal with the
University area separately from the downtown area. He was not opposed to increasing .
the fine for delinquent payments but thought that adding another dollar just because
the present-day dollar was not a sufficient amount to deter violations was contrary -{,/-
to the effort being put forth downtown.
8/11/75 - 8
4-4'b
Counc:ilrriim Murray was not greatly concerned about the .abuse of meters as it affected
downtown shopping' because it was .his under.,,-t'andihg there we.ten't too many meters
in the immediate. downtown area and because of the free par'k inq program. However,
he was concerI}ed a'bout the misuse of restricted pa'rkiny spaces surrounding the
e downtown in the residential areas where employes are parking all day rather than
using the. inon.thly parking lots. lie thought the proposed incrE1a'se would be one way
oE discouraging that practice.
Mayor Anderson agreed with that viewpoint.. He commented that a city parking facility
operating at a deficit anyplace else would be cause for citizen concern so it would
seem that the cost of contrOlling parking spa c:eson public streets should also be of
concern. Mr. Hamel agreed that the program shbuld not operate at a de.ficit. He asked
whether the city was still patrolling the areas where meters had been turned over to
the Univer'si.ty. Also, whether collection of all the revenues from delinquent pay-
ments would be enough to break even. Al Williams answered that service was ,reduced
in the University metered areas, but that personnel formerly patrolling ,the meters
were released for more effective control of time limit zones, driveways, yellow
zones, etc., in the residentia.l areas not receiving it befo're. lie said tlwt if all
the delinquent payments were recei ved the program would more than breaJ:. oven.
Councilman Keller thought if the penalty for del inquent payment was .increased to only
$3.00, that would more than cover the deficit. He added that the shoppers in down-
town were using the metered areas just as much as the employes and he didn't feel
they should have their overtime bail increased. And employers were trying to supply
adequate parking, he said, but even though the Downtown Development Board was trying
to add parking for employes that was not necessarily the total answer. He thought
the motion should be amended to provide f(;T a $3.00 .late payment fine, leaving the
present $1.00 fee for overtime parking.
Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Hallie] to amend the motioIl to provide
that alternate language be prepared by staff for amending the ordinance
e which would retain the present $1.00 overti me Jlarkin~! fIne alld increase
the delinquent payment fine to $3.00 rather than $4.0u. Motion carried Comm
unanimously. 8/6/75
Pub Hrng
Vote was taken on the main motion as amended. Moti on ca rr i erl
unanimously.
Manager reviewed the proposed amendment which would change the overtime parking bail
from $1.00 to $2.00, going to $4.00 if not paid within seven days (formerly five days).
The change, he said, was an attempt to curb abuses of parking and provide more space
turnover. He explained further that the amendment would change the booting fee from
$5.00 to $10.00. An alternative to doubling the bail was also proposed - leaving the
initial penalty at $1.00, but changing the fee for late payment, more than seven days,
to $3.00.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 920 - Amending City Code Section 5.660 re: Overtime Parking
was read by council bill number and title only, there
being no council members present requesting that it be read in full.
II -A-l Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by
council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact-
ment be considered at this time.
e Councilman Keller asked the intent of the bill read. Stan Long, assistant city attorney,
answered that the bill presented contained the provision for $2/$4 overtime parking fee.
He added that a bill containing the alternative $1/$3 provision had also been prepared.
Mr. Keller said he would vote against the $2/$4 version for all the reasons previously
stated in committee discussion.
44\0 8/11/75 - 9
Councilman Haws wondered what the revenues would cover under tile two alternatives.
Mr. Keller stated his previous understanding that a $3.00 late penalty would more than' .
cover the deficit now experienced. And knowing the feelings of the' people rece'iving'
overtime parking tickets, he sq.w no reason to double the initial bail figure to $'2.00, e
either for parking on the periphery or in the core area, thereby"dis'cburagin-g people
from shopping downtown.
Councilman Haws asked the amount of revenues that ~could be expected from the two pro-
posals. Al Williams" traffic ~ngineer. answered that keeping the initial bail figure
at $1.00 and increasing the late penalty fee to $3.00 would more than. cover the present
defid t, . assuming.the same rate of late:payments as experienced during the past year.
He cautioned that fixed costs continue to increase each year and there was no way of
knowing what the deficit would amount to this year. In further response to Mr. Haws,
Al Williams said that based on the experience factor, potential revenues from $2/$4
schedule would amount to about $20,000 in addition to covering the deficit.~ He added
that this money goes to the general fund.
Councilman Murray felt the line of discussion although relevant was obscuring the
primary intent - to discourage use of meters for long-term parking. He felt Mr. Keller's
outlook might discourage delinquent payment but would not work toward parking turnover.
If the situation was unchanged, he said, it amounted to public subsidy of parking on
residential streets for commercial purposes. Councilman Bradley agreed. Councilman
Keller thought that might be true. However, he said, the major problem appeared to be '
in the University area and if it was intended to place the "blame" on private business
then perhaps the discussion was not too relevant. He said that basically parking
tickets tend to make people unhappy, regardless of whether they cost $1.00 or $2.00.
His intent, he said, was not to subsidize parking for the benefit of private enterprise,
it was simply to cover the cost of parking.
Vote was taken on the motion for second reading of the bill containing e
the $2/$4 amendment. Motion defeated - Council members Murray, Beal,
and Haws voting aye; Council members Keller, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey
voting no. ..
.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Bradley that the bill containing the $1/$3
amendment for overtime parking be read the second time by council bill
number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be
considered at this time, with the understanding that the balance of the
bill remain as originally proposed. Motain carried unanimously, and the
bill as amended was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill as amended be approved
and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting
aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17438.
D. Bids -Public Works Denartment
1. Informal Bids (opened August 6 and 7, 1975)
. ---- August 6, 1975
'-.-' -" -.-- - .-
Cost to Amount
Name of Bidder and Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop. Cos t to City Budgeted
l. Pressure grout through deck cracks e'
on Ferry Street Bridge"
(925)
1. Hamilton Construction...........................$ 31,000.00............... .......... .0...............,.............$ 31,000.00........ $10 ,OOO.OC
COMPLETION DATE: August 24, 1975
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------_.~-~
8/11/75 - 10 .447
..~'.'_._..... ,'..:". l._'-_.__....: ~r"f
"':A'.';~;. .~.~ I AU9ust 7. 1975
-~;"~;:-'-~:
'..!~ ".' - " Cont to Amount
0'. B1.""~" .:",.Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop. Cost to City Budgeted
12 'Over1ay Projects
. .,
1. E;~en~ Sane & Gravel, tnc......................~ 84,206.80.......................... .0............ ....... .............$ 84,206.80....... .$90,000.01
2. W. d1.t.. Construct1on Company...................~ 95.138.50
- COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1975
.' .
------~I:-......_.-~-~~~---------------------~--------_____________________________________________________________________________________________________.
'. .
2 OVf:;';l.! c":(~:cts
1. f;,,!! ,- ;;o~struction Company $ 8 972 25 0 S 8 972 25 $10 000 (
2 . E....-~...1. ... .- ................................ .. . . .......................................................................................................... ) .. ................ . .0
'. -,'. ,3.~ & Gravel. Inc......................~ 9.964.00
COMPLETION DI\TE:October 1. 1975
.-~-:----:~-----------~------------------~::----------- ._---------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------~
.~-- --'--.
Don Alle~ public works director, reviewed the bids, informal not requiring public
hearing. Award of contracts was recommended to the lo\v bidder on each of the overlay
projects, and rejection and rebid of Ferry Street Bridge work was recommended.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to reject the Ferry Street Bridge
project bid (opened August 6). Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all
council members present voting aye.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to award contract to the low bidder
on each of the overlay projects (opened August 7). Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all council members present voting aye.
e
2. Improvement Projects (opened August 5, 1975)
.. Cas t to :,U\our. to
::3"'~ of Biddp.r an~ Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop, Cost to City Budgete,
ALLEY PA'I Ir~G:
1. Between 13th Avenue & 14th Avenue from
Patterson Street to Hilyard Stre~t
(1117)
1 Walt's Concrete Company $ 995885 .. ...........$ 0.9900/HFF........................0...................0 i
2: ~1i1dish Construction CO~p~~y::::::::::::::::::$ 10:692:10.......... . + $ 0.0076/WSF '
3. Shur-Way Cons.tructi on Company................. $ 10: 976,99 DrlVes $ 1.60/sq. ft.
COMPLETION DATE: October 1.1975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------------------~
2. . Between 6th Ave. & 7th Ave. from
Washington Street to Lawrence Street
(676) i
1 Walt's Concrete Company......................$ 12,341.50.......................$ O. 9250/WFF.............. ... . Storm $750.00............0 I
2: W11dish Construct1on Company.................$ 12,438.47 + $ 0.0062/WSF J
3. Shur-Way Construct1on Company................$ 13.796.78
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1975
.- - .' -'
--------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Between Wi11ame~treet and Oak Street , I
from 26tli-AveiiiJe to South I
(675) . . '. I
1. W11dish Construction Company.................$ 6,473.32.................... .....$ . 1.6720MF'....................... .0.................. 'OJ
~ 2. Shur-Way Construct1on Company................$ 7,440.94 $ 0.0133/WSF
_ 3. Walt's Concrete Company......................$ 7.910.88 .
. COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1975
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----.-------7=~~~=--
8/11/75 - 11
44-:e
-.--.. Au:ount
Cost: to
K3~e of Biuder an1 Project Ccm'tract Cost 'Abutting Prop. C03t to Cit:y Bu:lgeted
-- '.._~-~- - -
. ...-.-.--- -- - .- -- .. .--. .,,~.
PAVING AND SIDEWALK: e
4. A~'et from Cameo Street South
110 et to existing curb .'
T1T62} ALJERNATE BID BASIC BID
1. Wndi sh Cons'truction Company. ; .. ... .. .. ..'..,. ;. $ 27. ,845.25.,.. $ 27,849.55.... ..12' Pa\..... .:.$ 14.80/FF,.:....:.. Pav...; . $ 2,710.00...........0
2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.....................$ 29,504.65...No Bid 14' Pav......$ 16.70/FF..........Storm...$ 2,750.00
3. Shur-I~ay Contractors, Inc.............. ~.. ... . $ 37,696.44... $ 29.524.99 16' Pav...... $ 18. 65/FF
4" Sidewa1k..$ -1.66f5.F
5" Sidewa1 k..$ l.ltl tsF October 1, 1975,
COMPLETION DATE: --------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------------------------------~---------------------
PAVING AND StORM SEWER:
5. Rio Glen Drive trom DebriCkRoad to East
Boundary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens, Addition;
and A1faretta Drive from Rio Glen Drive
to East Boundary of Brickley-Elsey
Gardens Addition (1172) ALTERNATE BID BASIC BID
1. Wildish Construction Company.......... .,...... .$36,308.71.... .$37.106.06...... .28' Pav......$ 16.20/FF................ ~; .0..................0
2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc...,.................$37,OB4.89.....No Bid Stm. Swr.....$738.00/Lot
3. Babb Construction Company, dba .
Delta Construction Company..................No Bid.........$39,499.70 COMPLETION DATE: October 1. 1975
----------------------------------------------------------------------:.~-~~--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANITARY SHIER:
6. To serve the Skyline Loop annexation area
generally bounded by 43rd Ave. on the North
Dillard Rd. on the South & West, and East of
Skyline Loop on the East (Phase I) (822)
1. ~l1ldish Construction Company...........,........~.$ 64,243.00.~...............San. Swr. Lat....$ 0.08/SF................$ 2,450.00..........0
2. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company..........$ 75,583.00.................San. Serv.......$240.00/Each
3. Wick Bros. Excavation............................$ 86,967.89
4. Dan D. Allsup, Contractor Inc....................$ 98,949.00 COMPLETION DATE: October 15, 1975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
SANITARY SE'.-:ER: e
7. Martin Street fro~ Center Way
to 500 feet \lest (822) .
1. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co............$ 6,295.60.......................$ 0.084/SQ.Ft'.....................$ 580.00.....,..,.......0
2. Dan D. Allsup ContraC'tor, Inc.................$ 6,535.28...
3. Wildish Construction Company................,.~ 6,722.00
4. Norm Green &.S9ns.............................~ 13,744.50 COMPLETION DATE: Septer~el" 15,19
5. Shur-Way Coneractors, Inc....................., 8,819.42 ________________________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------- .._--------------~-------
BICYCLE PATH:
8. South bank of Wi11amette River from Briarci iff
Lane to Washington Street (954)
ALTnNATE BID BASIC BID
1. Wildish Construction Company............... .No !lid:......... .$23,291.00............ .0............................ .$23,291.00....... .$30,000.OC
2. Benge Paving, Inc......................... ..No [lid.......... .$24.452.50 ,
3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc...................No Bid...........$26,648.60
4. Fred Stubbert...............................$52.371.65.......No Bid
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1975
------~-----~-----------------------------------------.~--~---~----------~----~--------~----------------~---~-----------------------~---------------~_.
....
Don Allen, public works director, reviewed the bids. He noted correction on Item 4
(Agate Street) changing estimated cost for 4" sidewalk to $1.37 per front foot, 5" sidewalk
to $1.51 per front foot. Letters of protest were noted on Item 3 (alley between Willamette
and Oak ftom 26th to the south). Contract award was recommended to the low bidder on each
project, except no recommendation was made at this time on Item 4.
Public hearing was opened. -
Item 3 - Paving alley between Willamette and Oak from 26th south
Bob Skopil, 370 Walnut Lane, and Carlene Belisle, 2640 Oak Street, objected to the
improvement. They saw no need for the paving saying it would provide an improved
alley parallel to an existing alley. They didn't feel obliged to pay for an improve-
ment to accommodate lease provisions for some other tenant.
~ . . ,..
8 /11/75 - 12 449.'
II -A-3 Ed Weber, taco Bell restauranf,'said the improvement was petitioned to provide ade-
quate ingress and egrees and to obtain proper stOrm drainage. He felt the improve-
ment would benefi.t the neighboring properties. J. S. Whitworth, one of the owners
e of property at 2621 Oak Street, said a lease was signed with the obligation to pro-
vide an alley. The area was blacktopped, he. said. However, improper drainage had
caused deterioration, making the property inaccessible from 26th Avenue and result-
ing in a hazard because of the traffic entering and leaving the Taco Bell parking lot.
..In response to Councilman Keller,.Mr. Allen said there were.sixproperty owners in-
volved - two wanted the improvement, four were opposed. He added that cost of the
improvement would be assessed under the new ordinance, weighting front footage and
square footage according to zoning - one-half was commercial, one-half was R-l.
. According to the new formula, 59% were in favor of the improvement. If the old
method of figuring percentage on a front foot basis only was used, 56% would be
against the improvement.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to award contract to the low
bidder on Item 3 (paving alley between Willamette and Oak from 26th
to the south).
Councilwoman Beal said she would vote against the motion because she didn't think
these improvements should be "pushed through" when the majority of the property
owners who would have to pay for it were opposed.
Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated -
Councilman Bradley voting aye; Council members Murray. Keller. Beal.
Harne 1. Haws. and Shirey voting no.
e Item 4 - Paving and sidewalk on Agate from Cameo south 1100 feet to existing curb
Lou Wagner. 1610 Cameo Street, objected to the improvement as designed. He didn't
feel the project as designed met previous Council action. It provided for 30-
II - B-1 to 32-foot width and would accommodate on-street parking. Mr. Wagner felt that would
create a safety hazard because of the steep grade. Neither did he feel the cost for
fill to permit the extra width should be borne by the property owners. Environmental
considerations were also of concern. The extra width plus sidewalk, he said, would
require removal of one older, large tree. perhaps two. He believed the project as
bid was not as authorized by the Council. that it should be redesigned, taking out
the parking. lowering the cost. and reducing the impact on the environment.
Mr. Allen said the project as bid contemplated 24-foot paving from Cameo south to
the north boundary of EWEB property (south boundary of 10th Addition to Nob Hill).
From there south to the existing paving. he said. curb would be installed on the
east side only. The only difference between the project as bid and what staff was
directed to do was interpretation of matching the curb and section on the east side
to the existing paving. To provide for proper drainage, he said. a crown and overlay
of existing street were added in order to match curbs. grades. etc. Mr.Allen con-
tinued that if any improvement was done to this street. it should be done in a pro-
gressive method to ensure that upon addition of the west curb and completion of
the entire project, the street would meet city specifications. He emphasized that
this particular project in no way committed the city to construction of a 24- or
32-foot width. That decision would be made when the west side was paved.
.....
Mr. Allen explained that the properties on the west side would be assessed for one-
half the sidewalk on the east side as well as a portion of the overlay on the west
e side of the centerline. Mr. Wagner commented that he found out just thiscday that
properties on the west side would be assessed for the overlay west of the centerline.
that previously the city had anticipated paying that cost. Mr. Allen for clarifica-
tion noted that assessments for the project would be handled under a separate hearing
and worked out at that time. He said Mr. Wagner was aware of that.
450 8/11/75 - 13
Public headng-was closed~ there being-no furthertestiriJony;
In response to-Coimcilwoman Beal, Mr. Allen said the_area was-recently annexed, no
assessments have been made for th~t- section of Agate _ Street, previously a county .
road.- Also, that although the city usually pays for overlays, in this instance
the road was not built to city specifications. Therefore, initial assessment would
be against the properties abutting. The original plan for the city's paying for the
overlay, Mr.Allen continued in answer to Mrs. Beal, was "snap judgment, city pays
for overlays." However, in staff discussion it was decided that policy probably
cou1dnot be followed: He acknowledged that the overlay could be paid for from
city funds, they were available, but he recommended strongly against it because the
project would probably be a part of the final -improvement.
In further response to Mr. Beal, Mr. Allen said that the Council~ could determine to
pay for the overlay. However, he felt it would set precedent. He added~that not
too many streets incorporate the old street into the new for initial assessment. He
discussed further the fill required to build up the west side of the street, the
assessment process for overlays, and actual width for which property would be
assessed under this contract.
In answer to questions from Councilwoman Shirey, Mr. Allen said there were sections
of the street that would be 32 feet wide upon completion of the entire street. The
width under this project would be 28 feet. He said letters had been sent to property
owners notifying them they would be assessed the cost for a portion fo the street. He
said the precedent involved the question of whether a part of the overlay would be
made a part of the total permanent project. When the west side is finished there may
be additional engineering problems encountered trying to fit the curb to that side
of the street, he said, and he was sure more overlay would be needed when that
occurred. If the overlay was going to be incorporated into the permanent street
equal to a_brand new street, he felt it would be pretty hard to justify subsidizing ~
its cost. Mrs. Shirey was interested in exploring any possible alternative because--
of the number of people who were opposed to the project. She said she had voted
to go ahead with the design under the assumption that the project was only to address
the safety situation. Mr. Allen responded that developing curb and sidewalk on the
east side only, trying to make the minimum improvement, and trying to fit the new
pavement into the old road, was causing the problem.
Councilman Haws asked what would happen to the assessment when the street was fully
engineered. Mr. Allen said the west side properties then would be assessed for the
curb and improvement on that side of the street. Whether there would be any cost
beyond that, he said, he wouldn't know until that contract was bid. He was sure
the actual thickness of this overIay would need "feathering out" when the west side
was completed.
Councilman Keller disagreed with the staff's viewpont and said this design might not
be the answer. He felt allowing cars to park on the street would create a hazard
because of the hill.
Mayor Anderson felt the project would be impossible if the street was engineered to
"gerrymander" up the hill to avoid placing fill as proposed. He thought the project
was sound and could be engineered to full completion for a standard city street when
it was done.
Counci~man Murray asked why it was that the entire street wasn't constructed at this
time if it was going' to end up a fully constructed street in the end. Mr. Allen said .
that staff thought it should be fully improved, however, the people owning property
abutting the right-of-way were 100% against it. When Mr. Murray asked if they were
100% against half of it being constructed, Mr. Allen said not, the improvement would
be assessed entirely to_one developer and EWEB, plus the people on the west side of
the street who will pay for half the sidewalk and the overlay on their side of the road.
8/11/75 - 14 4=Sf
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to award contract to the low
bidder on Item 4 (Agate Street). Rollcall vote. Motion defeated -
Councilman Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray, Keller. Beal,
tit Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no.
Recognizing that staff needed direction, the Mayor asked for some indication or reasons
for the votes cast. Councilman Hamel said he was strongly in favor of the project as
bid because there had been no previous assessment for the existing road. He thought
the properties abutting the street should bear their share of streets and sidewalks
in the city as did all other properties where improvements were made. He thought if
the overlay could be put in within the 28-foot widthit should be done. Mrs. Beal
said she voted against it because of the assessment procedure and because of her
do~bts about what future construction would involve.
Councilman Keller thought the idea of a 32-foot street in that location (when the
street was completed) was the main reason for the objections. He said it was a unique
area and that there should be some alternative to the standard curb and gutter treat-
ment. He didn't think the property owners were objecting because of the assessment.
Councilman Haws thought the street should be improved as fully as possible because
it was his understanding that the primary reason for initiating the project was the
safety factor. Mrs. Shirey suggested further discussions with the people involved
to bring about a more equitable situation, some alternative to the project presented.
Councilwoman Beal said that when the project was originally discussed it was with the
idea of providing a safe place for people to walk. She didn't recall that it neces-
sarily included curb and gutter construction.
Councilman Bradley thought a policy situation might be involved - whether the city
might pay for the cost of the overlay. Mr. Allen thought perhaps the term "overlay"
e was misleading because actually the street was being rebuilt to city specifications.
The work under this contract would be incorporated into the permanent structure and
precedent would be set if that cost was not assessed to abutting properties. He
said an "asphalt plug" could be installed between the paving and curb, allowing full
use of the street, but he felt that would not be suitable. He noted that proponents
of the improvement, not the engineering department, initiated the project. The
neighborhood association wanted far more than what was included in this design
which was offered as a compromise.
Mr. Bradley thought it still boiled down to who was going to pay for it.
He moved that the city pay the cost of the improvement. There was no
second.
Councilwoman Shirey suggested further discussion in committee, after the staff had an
opportunity to consider some alternative. It was her understanding that staff pro-
posal was for something less than a standard street. Mayor Anderson commented that
the staff had "nothing to go on," that some Council consensus was needed. Counei Iman
Haws added that staff had in this proposal reflected the wishes of the neighborhood
group, assessment problems, difficult construction, etc.
Councilman Murray thought it might be easier to deal with a "more complete" kind of
project in terms of trying to make it compatible with the environment and still pro-
vide a safe street, realizing that no one wanted a great, wide thoroughfare going up
that hill.
e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to ask staff to prepare alterna-
tives for Council consideration embracing two concepts: (1) Working on a
more complete project than now considered; (2) design to recognize the
value of keeping the thoroughfare as narrow as possible and compatible
with the surrounding environment.
4-5l 8/11/75 - 15
In response to Councilman Keller, Mr. Allen said letters advising of this hearing
had been sent to all property owners. Mayor Anderson commented that the motion
would put the situation back to "zero," and Mr. HawS said that assuming that it was
back to "zero" it could be anticipated that no construction could be accomplished
this season. Councilman Bradley thought the motion would be setting precedent, that tit
perhaps it would be better to stick with the original design and allocate costs in
saome,fair manner so that the project would go ahead this year. He didn't want to
see the improvement scrapped only because of the assessment procedure.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - Council
members Murray, Keller, Beal, Hamel, and Haws voting aye; Council
members Bradley and Shirey voting no.
Mr. Hamel moved that the Council instruct staff to proceed with a
28-foot street with curb and sidewalk on the east side of Agate Str~et.
There was no second.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to award contracts to the low
bidder on each of the projects covered by Items 1 and 2, and Items 5
through 8. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present
voting aye.
2. Parks Project - Amazon Parking Lot, Phase 2 (opened August 8, 1975)
Completion of Amazon ballfield parking lot.
Benge Paving $ 24,056.55
Eugene Sand & Gravel 21,089.15
Shur-Way Contractors 23,645.75
Wildish Construction 20,530.85
Office Estimate $ 21,912.75 e
Staff recommended contract award to the low bidder - Wildish Construction.
.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to award contract to the low bidder
as recommended. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye,
motion carried.
3. Sale of Limited General Obligation,Warrants - $2,572,315
Resolution No. 2435 - Authorizing sale of $2,572,315 limited general
obligation warrants to First National Bank of Oregon
at 4.45% effective interest rate was read by number and title.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall
vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye.
II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of indivi9ual items as requested.
Previously discussed in committee on July 30 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members
Murray, Keller, Beal, Wi 11 iams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) and August 6, 1975
(Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws). e
Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics.
A. Park and Open Space Acquisition and Development Program - Copies of the report
from the Joint Parks Committee were distributed by Councilman Murray, chairman
of the Committee. (Other members: Councilwoman Shirey, and Planning Commission
8/11/75 - 16 4Ss-
members James Pearson and John MacKinnon; staff members Jim Saul, planner, and
Ed Smith, parks director.) Mr. Murray said the committee's work initially was
brought on by the South Hills study and implications of land acquisition contained
in that study. In looking at the acquisition needs more closely, the Joint Com-
e mittee felt it best to study needs of the entire community rather than concentrat-
ing on only the south hills in order to develop a more comprehensive parks program.
The report presented, he said, was a record of meetings and a summary of the Joint
Committee's proposal, including outline of bond proposal earmarked for acquisition
and development of specific park lands should the measure be placed on the ballot
and gain approval of the voters. He recommended referral of the report to the
Planning Commission for its recommendation prior to Council consideration.
Comm
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to refer the Joint Parks Com- 7/30/75
mittee report on Park and Open Space Acquisition and Development Approve
to the Planning Commission for comment and recommendation. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Right-Of-way Acquisition, 28th Avenue Sidewalk - Authorization was requested to
purchase right-oE-way from Theresa M. Ripley for $360 (18-04-01-44-6900). Comm
Mr. Hamel moved second by Mr. Murray to authorize the acquisition 7/30/75
as requested. Mot.ion carried unanimously. Approve
\
Housing and Community Development Commission Report - July 8, 1975 - Copies of the re-
port were previously d.istributed to Council members.
C.
Code Amendmen t, Zoning Ordinance and CIR Ordinance was recommended which would
adopt new state legislation making "for-proFit developers" eligible to co-operate
with the city in development of low-income housing. A "for-profit developer" is
defined as a developer t-lho agrees to rent at below-market rent to households with
-- income limits stipulated by city or county. The code now limits this type of sub-
sidy to nonprofit developers.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. r,'illiams to approve the recommendation Comm
and adopt the appropriate ordinances amending the City Code. Not.ion 7/30/75
carried unanimously. Approve
D. Implementation of ll.B.2342 was recommended with development of suitable guide-
Zincs to be D p~uroT?ed hS' the COllncil prior to proce9ding ~ith tho: .~"['Og.'(,2.1i3 ~
;: 4 EJ. .'23 .j. .:' ,;,);.'~)~:...;..le:.J .C;' .~~-~. :~':-1:: ..-...., '.:'_:.J;~ ;~G.~ ,cr.J,j"a _~J/'~);::(~;:' f..:i; t.~:,;.] [.i:L);"l /_,:") ~. :~,',~'. ~'. c:- ~
dS:-7'--~:";~.;~~(l vr:.LL i!e 0/ ql~,:j_i 'i.[-1~cd ,~;'~' ~~:)il.~catj(;,n .il:?1.')[()Vf::[i':7!nt t,") ~1{j.""":{");/~'12.L~ occ:.:;i.,!~l
rental housing at least 25 years old. Tt also provides tlJat agreement be
reached t-li th local jurisdictions levying 51% of the tax rate, in this instance
the school district. The intent of the law is to provide incentive to investor
owners to rehabilitate substandard rental property.
Implementation of H.B.2343 was recommended. It provides a ten-year exemption
from property taxation on 100% of assessed value of qualified rehabilitation to
multiple-unit housing construction on designated land in cities adopting the
provisions of this act. It also provides for the same 51% agreement with local
taxing bodies within the jurisdiction. If adopted by the city, guidelines are
required for determining qualification for this exemption which can include de-
sign elements, rental rates, extension of public benefits beyond the exemption
period.
e Councilman Williams, member of the HCDC, explained that the new laws provide for
rebate of property taxes for value of improvement in central cities. It would
require approval of districts levying 51% of the taxes within the area, in this
case the school district, in order to implement the programs. He said the only
8/11/75 - 17
45.
action necessary at this time would be to authorize staff to work with School
District 4J to'determLnestandai:ds under which it would be willing to give its
. approval. 'When agreement is reached, he said, then the program would come back
to the Council for consideration of adoption. e
John Porter, planning'director.,said these two bills were initiated by the city
of Portland. They were meant ~o encourage the upgrading of 25~yearor older
structures and the rebuilding of multiple~family housing in central city areas.
The HCDC felt both were important tools to have available and proposed staff
preparation ofguideliriesfor Counci.l consideration if concept of the programs
was approved at this time..
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr ~ Williams to approve .in concept pro-
visions of H.B.2342 and 2343 and ask preparation of guidelines to
be brought back to the Council. >.
Councilwoman Beal felt the programs would result in higher rents for occupants of
both the older housing and multiple-family housing units. She noted the exemption
would apply only to the value of improvements, saying that a tax exemption for a
$5000 improvement on a $40,000 structure wouldn't amount to much. But the cost
of the improvement itself would have to be charged back to tenants in the form
of higher rents. Councilman Williams said the intent of the legislation was to
do the opposite, that a requirement of the exemption would be to pass the saving
through to the renter. Mr. Porter added that just one pait of the legislation
probably wouldn't help much, but it was the idea that a series of programs Ivould.
Costs involved in bringing older structures to code requirements usually are quite
high and rsult in increased property taxes because the value of the property may
be increased up to 50%. He recognized that the programs wouldn't solve all the
problems, but it was intended to encourage the rehabilitation of the older type
structures. --
Councilman Murray said the HCDC was really trying a "multidimension attack"
on the problem of deteriorating housing and it needs as many .~ools as there may
be available. He noted the frustration of lacking the ability to increase the
amount of low-~ost housing and at the same time gaining nothing by letting exist-
ing housing deteriorate. He felt the problem should be tackled in whatever ~ay
I"CI:-; possi.ble an:! this J.egislatioT) p::ovidec7 one appr:oacn.
Coun.cilman iJ2W3 a~k,.:Jd if D.gree/Ti"tr. t !vas needed only with SchooL District <lJ, or
also with Bethel District 52. Councilman Williams had the impression that agree-
ment would have to be reached with the school district in whichever area the pro-
gram would be pursued. However, he said, the programs were slanted more toward
housing rehabilitation in central city areas. Manager suggested that the motion
include authorization for talks with both 4J and Bethel districts, and Councilman
Murray with consent of Councilman Williams changed the motion to include that
authorization.
Vote was taken on the motion to approve concept of the programs as Comm
presented and authorize staff to commence talks with School District 7/30/75
4J and Bethel District 52 to gain their approval. Motion carried Approve
unanimously.
E. Official Greeters for City, a proposal submitted by a group formed within the Eugene
Chamber of Commerce and now functioning as "greeters" for commercial interests in
town and the University. .
Don Turner, president of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, introduced Jim Hartman,
spokesman for the greeters group (White Coats Brigade), with the comment that it was
a nonpartisan effort to promote the best interests of the city and Lane County area.
8/11/75 - 18 ~~$
Mr. Hartman described activities of the -[roup, similar to that of greeters groups in
Portland and Salem. He said they met at var.ious places 1 n tuwn to welcome new-
comers to the ci ty - new businessmen, di yni tar.i es, etc.- in order to become ac- -
quaintcd with them and their families, wllat they do, etc. -~1t.J/Ibers lJf the group
.. -pr~sent introduced themselves and stated who they rt3pn>sLnttHl.- commc.'rcial enter-
.. pr~ses, health serv~ces, schools, realtors, s(~rv~ce or'JalilzJ.t.;uns.
Councilmen Haws and Bradley inquired about the c.ritelia on which it was decided
someone should be ~ guest of the group, how it was determined someone should be
welcomed. Mr. Hartman answered that people expressing an interest in establish-
ing a new business in the area, visiting dign.itaries to the c.ity or University,
new people in government, wereinv.ited. He said that the new city manager,
Charles Henry, would be the guest of the group next week. Calls are cleared
through the Chamber oFfice if visitors are expected who should be we.lcorned in
this fa8hion. He said a steering committee is being formed for informational
purposes so that an advance welcome can be planned. He cited the exampJe of the
/lniversity's call with regard to people from ten or twelve states planning to at-
tend the summer sess.! on, aSking that they bl...' given the greeters' welcome _ rolling
out the group's red cal'pet and giving the "welcome to Eugene" handshake on arrival.
Other examples were the opening of the new Lipman's store at Valley River, welcoming
delegates to the recent Stretch-n-Sew convention.
Counci lman Bradley wondered if .i t would be more appropriate for the requests for
the greeters to come through the city manager's office if the group was to be
representing the city. Councilman Hamel didn't think so, he thought it was a
Chamber function. If the city knew of visiting dignitaries, they could inform
the Chamber office. But Mr. Bradley thought there conceivably could be a case of
someone's visiting the city involved in ~ policy issue adverse to the city's posi-
tion and the city would not wallt them welcomed. Mayor Anderson thought anyone
coming to Eugene would be welcome regardless of their political views, that really
should not be an issue. If everyone was aware of the program, merely making a
a phone c~l~ to the Chamber would suffice. He suggested some official sanct.ion of
,., the acU v~ ty would help promote the greeters idea.
Corom
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel that the Council approve and 8/6/75
autho~ize establishment of the Chamber greeters group as the official Approve
greeters for the city of Eugene, and that appreciation be expressed
for the group's willingness to serve in that capacity.
Councilman Bradley wanted some interaction between the Greeters groups and the city
taff, or some criteria or guidelines designating those who would be greeted. He felt
that without some guidance there was the chance for some type of discrimination.
Neither did he favor a broad grant of power to the organization without any control
by the city when the group was officially representing the city.
Councilman Haws wondered how other cities handled such greeters groups. Councilman
Keller didn't understand Mr. Bradley's concern. He thought it was making a complex
situation of a simple matter, that staff had more important things to worry about.
He saw no possible chance of offending anyone and thought the proposed greeting would
be a friendly gesture welcoming people who were visiting Eugene.
Manager said he had no objection to relaying calls for greeting if some dignitary was
expected to visit the city. Councilman Murray felt there was reason to be concerned
that a group might misuse official connections with the city, but he didn't feel it
was necessary to provide for any particular review. Given the assurances that ~ere
given by the Greeters organization, he said, it ap~eared reasonable to.proceed WIth the.
program as presented. Mayor Anderson added that If the program was mIsused, the CouncIl
~ would become aware of it and could withdraw any support given.
"
8/11/75 - 19
45<0
F.Animal Control - Copies of memo addressed to La Je COunty Commissioners, and Spring-
field and Eugene Council members were previousl '1 distributed to l,lunci]. The memo
set out the problems facing administration of the dog contTul IJro:!l'am, goals and
objectives established at the staff level in a neeting of administrative people of
affected agencies, and recommendations and alternatives. Manager noted the sub- -
stantial amount of money involved in the dog control program. Al.s~o , the suggested
date of August 20 for a meeting with Springfield Counc.i1 members and County Commis-
sioners to discuss budgets for the various alttrnatives proposed. Assistant Manager
added that the memo represented a consensus at the staff level on the direction of
the dog control program, and staff was request~ng Council agreement with the stated
goals or modification before the suggested meeting with other agencies. The same
proposals were being presented to those jurisdictions in an identical memo. Direction
.was being requested on the level of subsidy for the program if a totally self-
supporting program was not desired.
Mayor And~rson suggested that staff be directed to proceed along the lines recom-
mended, unless there were real philosophical questions, because of the tendenc,y to
get "bogged down in the little things"in discussions of this type legislation.
Councilman Murray asked what the advantages would be in Item F of the memo which
called for uniform agency practices within the metropolitan area on licensing pro-
cesses (not necessarily fees), dog population control programs, dog quarantine
practices, pound services and disposal, adjudication processes (including penalties
for similar violations), and in enforcement personnel, fees, and ordinance language.
Assistant Manager answered that uniform enforcement practices would be desirable
but need not be mandatory. However, it was felt uniform licensing should be manda-
tory because of the intermingling of addresses and dogs in all three jurisdictions
and problems involved in trying to separate costs of enforcement. The year-round
licensing program proposed was for the purpose of stabilizing the work flow over
the entire year thereby avoiding employment of temporary help during a two- or three-
month heavy workload period. If the agencies were not following the same practices,
an improved program in one jurisdiction would not have much impact because dogs e
would still be running loose in and from other jurisdictions.
Councilman Bradley asked why dog licenses were required and wondered if licensing
32,000 to 40,000 dogs was a realistic goal. Assistant Manager answered that licens-
ing was a metho~of control, it was the most effective way of identifying owners
and hOlding them accountable for property and livestock losses. He said an aggressive
enforcement program could reasonably expect licensing of the greatest number of dogs.
Manager added that the problem was becoming national in scope, particularly in larger
cities because of the substantial increase in dog population. He said that tradi-
tionally in other areas dogs running at large were automatically confined. Captain
Larion, Eugene police department, gave statistics on results of the recent waiver of
late fee payment in licensing dogs which showed a 53% response and resulted in
Ii censing of 112 dog not already licensed for this year. Ernie Drapela, assistant
parks director, noted the increasing number of complaints about dogs in the city's
parks was creating a really serious problem for that department.
Councilman Keller questioned that so many people would not license their dogs just
because of lack of enforcement. He thought rather people were just not aware that
the licens~ was required. Assistant Manager said the laxity was occurring in the
"licensing program, not in the enforcement. The recent attempt was the first time
there was an attempt to follow up on licensin~. Also, he said, the enforcement pro-
cedure had been lenient with the dog owners. Only when the owners were not im-
mediately available were the dogs taken to the pound. Even then, dog owners used
devious ways of avoiding payment of the impoundment fee, he said; and the three
dog control officers were unable to achieve effective control given those types
of actions.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to accept the goals and objectives --
as listed in the August 4, 1975 memo addressed to Lane County, Spring- Comm' ,.-
field, and Eugene officials with the understanding a meeting of the 8/6/75
three groups would be held August 20, 1975 in place of the usual noon Approve
committee-of-the-whole meeting at the Oakway King's Table. Motion
carried unanimously.
8/11/75 - 20 4-57
, .
Mayor Anderson suggested that Council members having any personal reservations
about the proposed dog control program should talk with the Assistant Manager about
them before the scheduled meeting. That would provide the Council with a clear
understanding of the program, speed up the process in the meeting with the other
e agencies, and avoid becoming bogged down with individual pro1>lems.
G. Property Exchange,3rd Avenue Right-of-way (3rd to 4th connector) - Copies of
memo from the public works department were distributed to Council members with
agenda detailing exchange of properties at the northwest corner of 4th and Pearl
to provide right-of-way for the 3rd to 4th connector between Pearl and Lincoln.
The exchange would involved properties of the city, Ya-Po-Ah Terrace, and K.Ray Barnes.
Council members viewed the properties involved on tour.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to authorize the exchange as
pretfented.
In response to Councilman Bradley, Manager said all property owners invo~ved had
agreed to the trade.
Councilman Haws asked if the exchange was being made in order to gain the right-
of-way. He also asked if the street on that right-of-way would then be improved
to accommodate development in the area. Don Gilman, assistant public works di-
rector, answered that the property the city would receive in the trade would widen
the right-of-way for a continuous 60-foot width between Pearl and Lincoln, except
for one small area where additional right-of-way would still have to be acquired.
There is no immediate improvement planned at this time beyond the type of street
now there. He noted the recent dedication from Southern Pacific accepted by the
city for this right-Of-way. Mr. Gilman explained that Mr. Barnes had initiated
the trade because of his plans to develop a part of the property that was needed
for the street right-of-way.
~ Councilman Haws asked if the alternative to accepting the trade would be condemna-
~ tion of the Barnes property and if staff felt acquisition in this manner was better
than condemnation for some other use, perhaps a park area for people living in that
neighborhood. Mr. Gilman answere~ that the city property being traded was now being
used by Ya-Po-Ah and was originally acquired from Ya-Po-Ah in a trade to allow them
better use of their site. He ~aid the proposed exchange was preferable to condemna-
tion, that there was considerable undeveloped area to the west, in fact land in
excess of what would be used for the right-of-way. Assistant Manager added tbat
people in that area had easy access to Skinner Butte park,and the open space area
. that this parcel would afford would be nothing but a small, high maintenance facility.
Comm
Vote was taken on the moti on to approve the exchange as presented. '/6/75
. . d . 1 e
Mot~on carr~e unan~mous y.
Approve
H. Liquor License
Ford's Restaurant, 1769 Franklin Boulevard - Renewal (R-Restaurant)
Staf.f had no objections to renewal recommendation.
Carom
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to recommend approval of the 8/6/75
application for renewal. Motion carried unanimously. Approve
I. Appointment Procedure, Various Boards and Commissions - Councilman Murray dis- .
tributed copies of his proposal for broader citizen participation and more publ~c
awareness of opportunity for citizen involvement in city government through ap-
pointments to various boards and commissions. He felt his proposal would be a
start toward limiting the confusion surrounding the appointment process and pro-
vide for more adequate response to citizens expressing interest in serving on Corom
4It boards and commissions. 8/6/75
. f d' . t Affirm
It was understood the proposal would be an ~tem or ~scuss~on a
the August 13 committee-of-the-whole.
8/11/75 - 21
4-Se>
I
J A ent Panel, Hearing, August 4, 1975 - No ~vritten objectiof1s and no requests
. ssessm d . d Recommendation was to levy assessmt'l,t,,'; as proposed
to be hear were rece~ve .
on C.B.9l6 (project 74-04) and 917 (Project 74-16). Corom
It was understood th~ council bills would be pres~nted f~r 8/6/75
Affirm e
second reading and passage at the August 11 Cou,nc~1 meeLu'1.
K. Invitation Clara Nasholm Retirement tea was received from the Eugene Library
Board - hO~oring Miss Nasho1m upon completion of 40 years of servi~e with.the Comm
Library - July 31, 1975, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., at the Library, w~th ret~rement
ceremony beginning shorly after 4:00 o'clock. The Board ha~ also e~tab~ished a 7/30/75
book fund in her honor, those wishing to participate may ma~l contr~but~ons to File
Mrs. Charles Larson, Board member, or Alice Rutter in the manager's office.
L. Breakdown of Election Results, June 17 Budget Election - A t Councilman Haws" re- Corom
quest, it was understood a breakdown of election results by wards in the June 17 7/30/75
budget election would be provided to Council members. File
M. Article "Free Parking in Downtown? You're kidding!" written by Al Williams, Corom
Eugene's traffic engineer, and appearing in the June 1975 issue of Traffic 7/30/75
Engineering was mentioned by Councilman Haws. He complimented Mr. Williams on File
the fine article, saying it was nice to see the city employing "real professionals. "
He noted that several articles written by the new city manager, Charles Henry,
had appeared in n~tional publications.
N.Goodpasture Island/Eugene Commercial Study - Letter dated July 14, 1975 from Richard
W. Cleveland requested Council action on seven items listed therein.
Item 1 in the letter requested postponement of public hearing scheduled July 28 on the
Livingston & Blayney recommendation with regard to General Plan amendment relating e
to the Goodpasture Island area. The Counci~ at its July 14 meeting did postpone that
public hearing to August 25, 1975. At its July 28 meeting, the Council at the re-
quest of Ellis Jones, one of the Goodpasture Island citizens ,represented by Mr.Cleve-
land, consented to the group's request for action on the other six items to the
extenl:: .'
that it would listen to staff presentation tvith regard to the requests made.
CO~L'1ci.I at t hi [; t.ir-re 2~..~'eer1 to scqre~/a.tD th2 _it(~Ji?8 for d-j.3'-:"l:~'s.J:on ~ ~
Item 2 of the letter requ~sted that intccesterl parties in r.;1-:3 publ.ic h2,-,r.i.:Jg be 1-'9-
1ieved of all requirements not made of parties in similar proceedings. Nanager ex-
plained that there was no set practice for submission of written material by citizens
in issues under consideration by the Council. It is often the practice of the city
to reproduce such material, generally amounting to only a few pages, for distribution
to the Council. However, the Goodpasture Island issue has developed many exhibits,
and there were 129 pages with this July 14 request alone. Because of this voluminous
packet, staff felt the petitioners rather than the general public should bear the cost
of reproduction and, suggested that petitioners file 25 copies if the material exceeded
four pages.
Councilman Haws wondered about the policy with regard to setting the number of pages
of material that would be copied for distribution to the Council. Assistant Manager
answered that there was no written policy, it was a subjective judgment situation.
Sometimes correspondence is merely passed to Council members, other times where an
issue is of particular significance Council members will be advised of its contents.
Major documents, such as this one of 129 pages, have not been reproduced - Council
members are merely told of its presence and invited to look at it if they wish. So --
it was a matter both of judgment as to content, he said, and importance of the issue.
Mr. Haws wanted to be sure the petitioners in this instance were being treated the
same as others bringing material to the Council. He acknowledged that: limit:ation on
8/11/75 - 22 4-59
-----
the number of pages would force people to make concise statements and result in less
reading to gain the necessary information. Assistant Manager said that staff does
try to be consistent with regard to providing materials to the Council. He added
. that Mr. Cleveland and the people he represents had made it a practice to overload
e the Council with a lot of material and that was one of the reasons the petitioners
were requested to submit the 25 copies in this instance.
Councilman Bradley wondered if there was any way of charging for at least the cost
of copying and adding that cost when an appeal was filed. Assistant Manager answered
that the code provides for the manager to set fees for copies made at city hall if some-
one doesn't have access to xerox machines. However, staff hesitates to suggest that
method because it would take staff time for something that should be the responsibility
of the petitioner. The 'exception, he said, would be in those instances of low-income
people having a peti tion which would affec t their economic strength. He noted a
petition recently received containing some 300 signatures where only the cover page
containing the subject of the petition was reproduced and distributed .to the Council
and media and then the Council was advised of the number of signatures affixed.
Item 3 of the letter requested ample time for full public discussion or arrangements
made to take testimony at more than one meeting until full public discussion has taken
place. Manager explained that this request had Council response to some degree. In
committee-of-the-whole action the Council limited testimony to one hour. However,
formal Council action was to quadruple the time normally allotted for public testimony,
giving one hour each to the opponents and proponents. This seemed reasonable, he said,
given the demands on Council members' time and history of public discussion on this
issue set out by Jim Saul, planner, in a memo distributed to Council members at this
meeting. He added that in addition to setting aside two hours for testimony at the
scheduled August 25 hearing the Council had imposed a time limit on individuals'
testimony. And Mayor Anderson had indicated any time left in the one hour allotted
e to either side could be used by the other side. The Mayor strongly encouraged
principal property owners to jo.in in presenting their testimony in a co-ordinated,
nonrepetitive manner. Manager reiterated the Council's action with regard to sub-
mittal of written material for the August 25 hearing, that it \.,as to be in the
manager's office no later than August 15.
Counc:!..ZIi),ln Brad1ey wondered i:- th? Cnunci.z legally eQuId pl~c~ tirn~ restrictions on
"r;(f.~I.' ,:,:7:.::1 ~D ~'''''''::3h.i.1!q 1:0 .:':IJ.b:."?; ':~ r> ':c;t ~:!::'jr, (),~ t.i;,,-,.';~: ~.....~,~;,l~:"(!CJ ::0 t...._, .-; t i ;.: J L].f" t ,:",'~"" ~~ :'~:.~? :. 1~:9
_l.ilnl~;: has e::!:.1..:.r-(:}ci. S/~c..~n Lon), a,:;.:; ::,;t:dltt ci ty at.t()r:n~rJ, ,L:n'C!w 0.' ~I'J ..o~-t s J::..; :.'~)r C'X;-
tending tl1a t the Council couldn't limit testimony; control of its agenda is totally
a legislative function and within the Council's province. If the issue were con-
sidered in some other type of proceeding, he said, the time limit might be considered
too shor t . Mr. Long added that.the question suggested perhaps what would happen in
a situation when someone would not stop talking? The code, he said, provides for
prevention or interruption of the Council's proceeding with its agenda items as
scheduled so that was adequate basis for control. Assistant Manager said there was
no requirement for public hearing before the Council, it was self-imposed and a
matter of tradition and practice more than a legal requirement.
Councilman Bradley then asked if the Mayor had the prerogative of cutting debate after
one hour. Could the Council overrule the Mayor should someone wish to testify after
the time limit ran out? Assistant Manager answered that the Council had set the
groundrules for the August 25 hearing. The Mayor had that prerogative, he said, but
had asked the Council's concurrence which was given by motion carried at the July 28
meeting. Stan Long added that the" Charter provides for the Council to have the final
e authority in such matters.
Councilman Haws recognized the need for time limits and said that giving the public
two hours seemed very fair, that quite a bit of information could be received in two
hours of testimony. He noted there was no limitation on the amount of written
testimony and suggested that type of material be submitted as quickly as possible
to give Council members the opportunity to read and digest it prior to the hearing.
~O 8/11/75 - 23
I
Councilman Bradley asked if the August 25 hearing on the Plan amendment was required
and whether an amendment-would be by way of ordinance or _resolution. Assistant
Manager answered that public hearing was required. The Council in adopting the
General Plan provided that the Plan could be amended after public testimony was taken. e
John Porter added that-state law requires public hearing. The Planning Commission
has always conducted public hearings, he said, although that is not spelled out in
its procedures. Assistant Manager added that that public hearing requirement on this
issue may have been met in Commission hearings. He said that if Plan amendment was
authorized it would be accomplished by resolution. He referred to action at the
July 28 Council meeting amending the General Plan as it related to the Whiteaker area.
He also stressed the August 15 deadline for submittal of written material for the
August 25 hearing.
Items 4, 5, and 6 of the letter requested public hearing on the Livingston & Blayney
recommendation relating to site selection and timing considerations for a third
regional shopping center, completion of that public hearing and public hearing on
each of the other Livingston & Blayney recommendations prior to final adoption of
any of them, and inclusion in that series of public hearings a review of L&B recom-
mendations already adopted by the Council.
Jim Saul, planner, asked for consolidation of these three requests since they dealt
with essentially the same thing. He acknowledged that treatment of any part of the
commercial study was the Council's choice and that he would attempt only to give
staff's evaluation of the items requested in Mr. Cleveland's letter. He said that
the three requests ignore the previous history of public hearings before both the
Planning Commission and the Council on all of the items. They also ignore the essen-
tial nature of recommendations of the commercial study, he said, citing as an example
the recommendation with regard to detailed development plan for the area to the west
of downtown. He said the Commission has indicated that is a process which "lill have -
to occur and that it would occur through the housing and community development
process. He thought it made little sense to consider~nother public hearing when
h9arings had already been held before both the Commission and tbe Council, and
further hearings .would be held before the process was completed. Another hearing
-:...' .: :-.n.LS f:.7 {tit? r;.';.'Jd2 ~:7 '-;J?; 7~' (1 e 1 Cl.y i~h,.l-'; p.>' :...:r::f.::!~:;S 4 l-{:-. a 2.50 nD ::-::-:'(? t.h -1 L ,::he J~S:.~'" ~-';'CC):-::.-:.-:::_-:.-?~-.
.~.iDI1 ~.,;~~. :":}1 reg.;J2.~d to ';1.1:-"J"':) t}_"(]n:; it US'Cl.'f/.f..;! sr'J.:t Is h-irl bcJA:1 ilctc.d u",oon ::.li;,d a ~:/;'~O'::-:!S:::;..
identiFied [inclusion in the ESAT5 update) which tvould in vol ve further public hear-
ings before implementation. So a public hearing as requested at this time would
appear futile.
Mr. Saul continued that Items 4, 5, and 6 also ignore the separability of the com-
mercial study recommendations. He aeknowledged the central overall direction of
the study [to protect the central business district] but that, he said, didn't mean
the recommendations could not be separately considered, and that factor was stressed
in the status report recently given to and accepted by 'the Council. He said also
that these three items would have the effect of substantially delaying the process
on other recommendations. The Commission has not yet finished its consideration of
recommendations concerning criteria for regional shopping centers and alternative
uses for existing commercially zoned land, and to delay consideration of the General
Plan amendment with regard to Goodpasture Island until Commission and Council hearings
are held on the other recommendations appeared to have no merit, especially in view
of the heavily loaded hearing schedule now facing the Commission.
Mr. Saul said that even if the Council decided to conduct public hearings again on
the other L&B recommendations prior to or with the recommendations on annexation e
and zoning of the Goodpasture Island area, one cannot ignore ~the whole thrust of the
commercial study, particularly as it applies to the recommendation on selection of
a site for a third regional shopping center - the thrust of the study was that the
Goodpasture Island area should not be one of those sites.
8/11/75 - 24 4-(0 , ~
Councilman Bradley interpreted staff's viewpoint then as being repetitive if further
public hearings were held. He wondered why the petitioners wanted them, saying he
would he sympathetic to the request had not hearings already been conducted. Mr.Saul's
comment was that it was a very admirable delaying tactic. Assistant Manager agreed
e that it appeared to staff to be a delaying tactic, perhaps consultation with Mr.Cleve-
land would reveal his reasons for wanting to change the Council's groundrules for
consideration of the commercial study. He thought consideration of the study under
the present procedure would take at least two years anyway.
Item 7 of the letter requested establishment of procedures for amendment to the
General Plan and identification of regional concerns or multijurisdictional issues
prior to public hearings on the recommended Plan amendment as it relates to the Good-
pasture Island area. Mr. Saul said the legal authority for amendment to the General
Plan was already set up and that that authority has been re-enforced by legal opinions
and recent court decisions. He described the procedure involving hearings before the
Planning Commission and Council, referral to Springfield and Lane County, and final
referral to the LCOG Board for ratification and incorporation into the General Plan.
He noted that the recent,Council approval of a Plan amendment relating to the White-
aker area was a part of that procedure. He said the procedure clearly provides ample
opportunity for public input, provides adequate protection for rights of the public
in the "due process" concept, and allowed for identification of regional concerns.
Councilman Bradley asked the status of the law suit in which Eugene, Springfield,
and Lane County were involved on this issue. James Spickerman, city prosecutor, Comm
answered that a portion of a petition filed on behalf of the city had been denied, 7/30/75
basically that portion dealing with the question of whether there were established File
public procedures for amendment to the General Plan. He said no date had yet been
set for hearing.
e O. Southeast Firs/Nob Hills/Oak Hills Homeowners Neighborhood Organizations - Copies
of letter from Joanne Higley, secretary and former liaison officer of the South-
east Firs Association, were distributed by Councilman Keller. The letter ex- Comm
pressed concern with charter provisions and the processes involved in setting 8/6/75
boundaries f~r neighborhood organizations in the southeast section of the city. File
P. Resignation from Joint Parks Committee and Community School Advisory Committee Comm
was submitted by Councilman Murray. He said his resignation from these two .
bodies would give the opportunity for some of the other Council members to become 8/6/75
involved in them and at the same time allow him more time to devote to work File
of the Housing and Community Development Commission.
Q. Proposed Changes in Budgeting Process and Charter Revision - Councilman Murray
called attention to a previous Council request for discussion of changes that
would involve Counci~ members in the budgeting process earlier than is the Comm
present practice. He also noted request for Charter revision which has been in 8/6/75
progress for some time, and asked for a report on both as soon as feasible, File
recognizing the relatively short time the present city manager had been on the job.
R. Social Service '75, a citizen's handbook covering program options and public
participation under Title 20 of the Social Security Act, was furr'.1:~;hed to Council Comm
members. Manager noted a meeting scheduled tomorrow (August 7) at the Eugene 8/6/75
Hotel - 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m. - for discussion of proposed programs affecting
social serivces in cities. Members of the State Department of Human Resources File
will be present to answer questions about social service programs and funding,
and it is planned that a staff member from the city of Eugene will attend.
- Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to approve, affirm, and file as noted
Items A thorugh R. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all coun ci 1 members present
voting aye.
8/11/75 - 25
4<O~
III - Ordinances
Council Bill No. 916 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between Gilham Road
and Coburg Road from Belt Line Road to 200 feet north of e
Bonnie View Drive (74-04), read the first time on July 28, 1975 and referred to
hearing panel August 4, 1975, was brought with recommendation to levy assessments
as proposed, and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there
being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17439.
Counci 1 Bi 11 No. 917 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area between
1500 feet north and 1300 feet south of 25th Avenue from
500 feet east of Brittany Street to 160 feet east of Hawkins Lane (74-16), read
the first time on July 28, 1975 and referred to hearing panel August 4, 1975, was
brought back with recommendation to levy assessments as proposed, and read the
second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member
present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17440.
Council Bill No. 922 - Amending Seftions 5.350, 5.365, and 5.370, and repealing
Sections 5.355 and 5.360 of City Code re: Parking Hoods
was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member
present requesting that it be read in full.
Staff explained that the amendment was a "housekeeping" bill, cleaning up clerical errors. -
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be read ~he second time by council
bill number only,.with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only. ~
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17441.
Council Bill No. 923 - Amending Sections 3.750, 3.755, 3.760, and 3.765 re: Downtown
'Property Tax was read by council bill number and title only,
there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by council bill
number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this
time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17442.
Council Bill No. 924 - Levying ad valorem tax for 1975-76 - Downtown Development e
District was read by council bill number and title only,
there being no council member 'present requesting that it be read in full.
8/11/75 - 26 4\o~
Mr. Mur.ray moved second by Mr, Kerler that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous cons~nt of the Council, and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by
- council bill number only..
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council member.s present voting aye, the bi 11 was declared passed
and numbered 17443.
Council Bill No. 925 - Adopting supplemental budget for 1975-76 in the amount of
$151,000 was read by council bill number and title only,
there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by council
bill nunlber only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by
council bill number only.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed
and numbered 17444.
IV - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2463 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments
for period July 28 through August 11, 1975 was read by number
and title.
e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote.
Motion carried, all council members present voting aye.
,.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to
Monday, August 25, 1975. .
~, 7~
C. T. Henry
City Manager
e
.
4<.04 8/11/75 - 27