Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/1975 Meeting "' - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL September 8, 1975 e ---- Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by Council President Neil Murray in the absence of Mayor Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on September 8, 1975 in the Council Chamber with the following other Council members pre- sent: Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D.W.Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. I - Public Hearings A. Liquor License Applications - New I-A-l 1. Brewers Pub, 1601 Chambers Street - RMB Liquor License - Brewers Pub, 1601 Chambers Street - RMB (Retail Malt Beverage) Application for new outlet submitted by Robert Abel and Kurt Falkenstein. Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Beal to schedule public hearing on the application for the September 8 Council meeting. Motion Comm carried unanimously. 8/27/75 Pub Hrng GLCC report indicated several objectors, mostly tenants of the Westmore- land Clinic on the basis of late hours and possible vandalism. Also, seven nonobjectors were noted. Staff had no objections. Public hearing was opened. Mrs. Sam Lunas, 1490 Chambers Street, said that site was not a good location for e a tavern because of senior citi~en's residences and a school in the vicinity. Also, such an establishment would add to already heavy traffic. Dr. Alexander Dederer, representing the Westmoreland Clinic at 1650 Chambers Street, said that group was opposed to a tavern so close to the clinic because of the possibility of vandalism which would increase maintenance and security measures. Also, that a pub in this area would destroy some of the atmosphere that first attracted the clinic to that area. Alan Spence, 1790 West 15th Avenue, considered the proposed tavern a devaluation of the neighborhood in general. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Councilman Haws asked if there was any written communication from the School District concerning the proximity of the pub. Manager replied only that the GLCC report showed the principal of Patterson Elementary School as noncommittal on the application when contacted. Councilman Bradley asked whether a restaurant was now operated at the proposed location. Manager answered that the building was now vacant, there had been a restaurant there at one time. Councilwoman Shirey asked if liquor was ever served in an establishment at that location. No definite information was available, but it was thought not. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to recommend denial of the applica- tion. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, and Haws voting no. 4-89 9/8/:75 ~ 1 I 2. Acme Up & Down, 99 West 10th Avenue - RMB I-A-2 Application was submitted by Richard and Donnalee Meigs. OLCC report indicated of those interviewed eight objected to issuance of the license, 13 had no objections. Staff had no objections other than building de- -- partment need for more information with regard to location of the establishment in the building. Public hearing was opened. Jim Lockard, 1033 Cal Young Road, operator of the Craftsman Corner located in the Atrium Building at 99 West 10th Avenue, said the outlet as planned would be well controlled, in good taste, and a fine asset. He would be definitely against it if it were to be "just another bar." More business was needed in the building, he said. Richard Meigs, applicant, said the proposed outlet would be furnished with antiques, something to be proud of. He thought there was room for another outlet in the downtown area, saying there was only one other tavern (Luckey's) and only one place to dance (Back Door). None in the downtown area had any kind of games. He thought the establishment as planned would be a definite asset to the community. Mark Hoy, 2769 Adams Street, identified himself as a merchant in the Atrium Build- ing and a member of the board of the merchants association. He had a favorable impression of the proposed establishment and thought that, as it was planned, it \\lould fit in quite well with the "spirit" of the building. Donald Husband, attorney, 72 West Broadway, read a letter written to the OLCC from I-A-3 Ben Raykovich, owner of Luckey's at 933 Olive Street, opposing issuance of the license. Mr. Husband noted existing cocktail lounges in the area. He said there were sufficient outlets now in the vicinity, that another outlet was not demanded It by public interest or convenience. He noted too Luckey's long-standing operating record and said the back entrance of the proposed outlet would be next to that existing tavern as well as an existing cocktail lounge. He said adequate parking would definitely have to be provided because there was not enough space for exist- ing traffic. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. \ Council President Murray noted letters received from other tenants in the Atrium Building objecting to issuance of the license: Charlcie R. Kaylor and Heather M. Veldhuisen of the Yarn Shed; John C. and Shelly Prince of Princess Jewel Fair; Ed Thompson, the Shoe Doctor; Bill Nagle, Gallery Merlotte; and Elwood Jewelers. Councilman Haws asked on which floor of the building the outlet would be located and whether dancing and games were contemplated. Also, "what about the point on parking?" Manager answered that the establ~shment would be located on the first floor and that he had the impression there would be dancing and games. With re- gard to the parking, Manager said there was an attempt to attract as much business as possible to the mall area. He recited the number listed on the OLCC report in favor of and against the issuance of the license. Councilwoman Beal asked what the hours of operation would be and whether it was planned to have music, if so, during what hours. Mr. Meigs answered that the place would operate between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. Also, that music primarily would be a stereo system with possibly live bands two nights a week. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no. 9/8/75 - 2 490 B. Appeal from Planning Commission denial of modification of Coburg Plaza Development Plan to allow entertainment center (Ear I W. Green)(PD 73-1) e Applicant requested withdrawal of the appeal. There were no objections. C. Bids 1. Public Works Department (opened September 4,1975) -----...--- COlt to AIloun t ~"~ :.'~.!:~ri~~c-.:____ Contract Coat AbutUnl Prop. COlt to City Budgeted PI,V::;G. SMHTARY SHIER AND STORM SEWER: l. ~lilhfn Ren Plot and sanitary sewer 1n ..-oa 163 feel West of Clevehnd Street f.om 25th Avenue to South. and Lots 1. 2. 3 of Block 3, \~oodhaven Addition ALTERNATE BID BASIC BID :Iorth of 27th Avenue (1036) l. Dan 0 Allsup Contractor. Inc..........$60.642.26........No B1d...........28' Pav........$ 24.50/FF.....................O..................0....... 2. Eugen~ Sand & Gravel. Inc..............$67.621.74........No Bid San. Swr. lat..$ O.094/SF 3. Wl1dlsh Construction Company...........$68.390.55........$70.120.35 San. Service...$ 85.00/Each 4. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co.....$B9.974.76........NO Bid Stm. Sewer.....$128.00/lot COMPLETiON DATE: July 1. 1976 ........ -............ -.... --.. --.............. ....... --......... --.. -: -- --- ----................. -.. ......-- ........--.....---- ...... ----.. --...... ---- -- --.. ....--...... --.. ..............-..- -................ -..........................................- ..-...... SANITARY SEWER: 2. Oelta Iflghway from Belt Une Road to 2400 feet tlorth; and Green Acres Road frOM De' ta ~19hway to approximately 1500 feet Ea>t (666 & 1192) l. KeMelh R. Bostick Construction Co..........$101.415.55...................5an. Swr. lat...$0.0621SF...............$74.300.00...............0....... 2. Wildtsh .onstructlon Co~pony.............. ..$139.526.00 3. Don D. Allsup Controctor. Inc...............$238.788.00 COMPLETION DATE: January 1. 1976 - -- - --...... ---.... -- --.. -- ---.... -.. --------.. ----.... ------ -...-....- ---....---....--........-..----......----..------..-..-..-.. ------- ..--....... -----'"'--- --- ---- -.. -- ....-.....-....--..---...---------.. , Highway 99N fro~ Side Street to 5eO feet South (1166) 1. If & J Co".structlon.......... ...............5 9,517.00....................5en. Swr. lat...$0.166/SF.....................0..................0....... 2. Shur-,:ay Contractors. Inc...................$10.559.05 Sen. Servtc.....531B.OD/EACH 3. nildish Construction Cc~peny............... .$10,736.00 4. Kcn"cth R. eostick Construeiton Co..........$11.D43.50 5. l. O. Van Over Constr~ction, Inc............$14,569.40 6. D'n D. Allsup Conlractor, Inc...............$15.738.00 7. Wick Brothers Excavetion. Inc...............$16.060.97 COMPLE'!':O~ OATE: November 1. 1975 -- -.. -.................................................... -................ --...................................... -- -..- --........ --..................-.. ~.... ","" ---..-........ --.... -- -., ---...... .... ...... -- -- ---...... --............................. .-----........-.... 4. To serve area b~tween 41st Avenue (extended) and 500 feet South of 41st Avenue (extended) and between East kazon Dr; ve and r;orth Shasta Leop (951 ) 1. Dan D. Allsup Contractor. Inc..................$ 8.679.60....................San. Swr. Lat....$0.065/SF...............0.................0.......... 2. Shur-Way Centractors. Inc......................$ 8.852.00 3. Wll di sh Constructl on Company................... $1 0 .408.00 4. L. D. Van Over Construction. Inc...............$12.152.oo S. H & J Construction........................... ..512.349.00 6. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction CO.............514.778.80 COMPLETION OATE: Novelllber 15. 1975 . - - -..... -........ -.................... -................ -oo...... -...................._..................... ......_.... __......... __.... __ _.. 00"_.. __.. __ ___.............. __oo................ __........ __ __............ ___ __............... ___.......... __.... __.. __...... BICYCLE PATIf: 5. Along A~~zon Channel from Quaker Street to Cha:r:bers Street (1046 ) 1. \;i 1 d; sh Cons truc t 1 on Co"'pany................... $ 13.285.80.. . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .., .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . $ 13 ,285.80. .. . . .. $13.285.80. .. .. 2. Eugeoe Sand & Grevel. Inc......................$13.851.00 3. Benge Paving. Inc...................... ...... ..517.9B7.91 COMPLETION DATE: October 15. 1975 .... .................................................. --........ ............................. -- -.... --.. --...... ----........... --...... _oo_.. -.. -- ----.... --.. -____.. _____........ __.................... ___...... __.... __ __.... __............ --00 ......___ __ ___ 6. Bet\'Jeen Marsha'l Avenue and Hawthorne Street from Taney Street to Hughes Street (1210) 1. Wi 1 di sh Cons truc t i on Company................... $ 5.708.00.......................................................... $5.708. DO.. .. . .. . $5. 70B. 00 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel. Inc......................$ 6.603.00 3. 6enge Paving. Inc..............................$ 7.558.06 COMPLETION OATE: October 15. 1975 .... ................ ~.. --........................................ --.......... ---........... --..................... --- ----- -.. ..---------.. -.. -...... --.. -..... -- --.... ..-..... .. -- ---...... -.... .... _oo __......... __.. _........ __..................... ..___ - __ - ___ 7. 5th Iovenue from High Street to 300 feet East (1l53) l. w; 1 d ish Cons truct I on Co~pany................. 5 3.469.50........................................................... $ 3.469.50......... $ 3 .~69. 50 2. Benge Paving. Inc............................$ 4~493.75 . J. Eugone Sand & Grevel. Inc....................$ 5'.146.25 . COMPLETION DATE: November 1. 1 975 -: - - - - -.. - - - - - -....... - - - -----,-':" -- - -- -- --.. - -.. - -- - --.... - --- - ": - - - - ---... -- -- - - - - --- - - - - -- - --- --... -- - -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- - - --- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -...- --- -...-.. -.... -.... -.. ...--..- - -.. - ---... '. ~ Don All en, public works director, reviewed the bids. Recommendation was to award con- . tracts to the low bidder on each of the projects, holding the one on Item 4 (sewer in 41st Avenue area between East Amazon and North Shasta) 4S days, as allowed within the bid proposa~ to permit acquisition of right-of-way from an out-of-state owner. Mr. Allen explained that the project covered by Item 2 (sewer on Delta Highway and Green Acres Road) was redesigned after being rejected on a previous bid call. The redesign incl uded the portion on Green Acres Road. With regard to the bicycle path items 491 9/8/75 - 3 (5, 6, and 7), he said that they were surfacing projects only and were completion of work started with CETA funds. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. -- Councilman Hamel wondered how the project under Item 4 could be finished by the November 15 completion date if the contractor was held up for 45 days. Mr. Allen said the completion date probably would have to be extended. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to award contracts to the low bidder on each of the projects, with award on Item 4 (sewer between 41st Avenue and south of 41st and between East Amazon and North Shasta Loop) made sub- ject to acquisition of right-of-way e~sement. Motion carried on rollcall vote, all council members present voting aye. 2. Parks Department - Skinner Butte Irrigation System I-A-4 JDB Irrigation & Landscaping $ 24,611.00 Paul Brother Landscaping 24,498.25 Del's Lane County Nursery 23,805.00 Aloha Cahoy, Ltd. 22,749.79 Fairway Irrigation 19,468.00 Ramsey-Waite Co. 19,395.00 Willamette-Cascade 17,379.00 Office Estimate $ 25,940.00 Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Staff recommended contract award to the low bidder. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to award contract to the e low bidder, Willamette-Cascade, on their bid price of $17,379.00. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed in committee on August 27 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) and September 3, 1975 (Pre - sent: Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) . Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics. A. Barger Drive Right-of-way Acquisition - Copies of memo from public works director were distributed to Council members recommending purchase of properties for im- provement of Barger Drive: Campbell and Dixon - $838, original appraisal price Charles Grimes - $802, including $150 allowance above appraisal for revision of sprinkling system Joseph Allen - $1,410, including $200 allowance above appraisal felt Comm necessary by property owner to restore landscaping for privacy Emerson and Witten - $542, original appraisal, plus replacement by. city 8/27/75 of l6-foot fir tree estimated at $60 Approve Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to authorize the purchases as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. B.l. Liquor License Application, Eugene Hotel for change of ownership - Class A Dis- pensers, submitted by Jack Bonner for Oregon Capital Group, Ltd. (formerly in . ownership of Michael G. Allen). Manager explained that because transfer was needed as quickly as possible the application was brought to the Council for con- sideration without the usual police department clearance. Comm Mrs.. Beal moved second by Mr. Murray to recommend approval of the 8/27/75 application subject to satisfactory police clearance. Motion car- Approve ried unanimously. 492 9/8/75 - 4 . Acme Up & Down, 99 West 10th Avenue - RMB (Retail Malt Beverage) - New outlet Comm submitted by Richard and Donna1ee Miegs. 9/3/75 2.Monroe Street Market, 1.123 Monroe Street - PS (Package Store) - Change of Pub Hrng e ownership - submitted by Charles and Mary Pilant (formerly Margaret Becker - Becker's Market). Comm Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal to schedule public hearing 9/3/75 for September 8 Council meeting on Acme Up & Down application, and Approve recommend approval of the Monroe Street Market change-of-ownership application. Motion cal-ried unanimously, Mr. Hamel not present. C. Parks Facilities Rental Policy - Copies of the policy were previously distributed to Council members showing how requested USe of parks department facilities and buildings was handled and priorities used. Councilman Murray wondered how certain political groups would fit into the categories listed - discussion groups, committee meetings, seminars of a political party where no particular candidate was making a presentation and where there was no fund raising. Dan George, parks department, explained that because of the diversity of requests coming in for use of the community centers the categories shown were chosen because they seemed to cover the using groups best. Requests coming in from groups not fi tUng readi ly into those categories required a judgment at the t.ime. If it was considered of an educational nature, open to the general public, it was placed in the educational category, paying the least fee or no fee at all. If a group repre- sented only one political point of view or a debate of issues, it might be placed in the next category. Usually, something considered beneficial to the community but not confined to one political viewpoint would be placed in the educational category. In response to Mr. Murray, Mr. George said candidates appearing with no intent to solicit funds would be placed in the commercial/nonfund raising classifi- e cation. In that category, they would have the option to solici t. Councilman Murray asked for an explanation of the rationale for charging extra fees for those types of political groups, why they were put into a commercial classifica- tion. Mr. George answered that it was not easily defined, that the overall impact of all groups using the facilities was a consideration so that the distribution of availability of the facilities would be consistent. If the Democratic and Republican parties were having meetings at which their policies were being explained and it was a generally informative meeting, it was considered educational. However, a presenta- tion by one party only would not be considered as educational as a presentation of both viewpoints. Assistant Manager added that when the present guidelines were developed and reviewed by the manager's office several years back, the question was whether the public should bear the cost of the facilities' being open. While a single political party espousing particular viewoints was of public benefit, still it was an effort of an organization to benefit itself as distinguished from the broader general benefit in the community. Councilman Murray explained that the subject was brought up as the result of a com- plant that use of a facility was denied because of association with a political part y , and the complaint was presented second- or third-hand so he could not vouch for its validity. He was somewhat disturbed, however, that such could be the case because he looked upon political participation as something that should be encouraged. So long as everyone was treated equally, he did not see that it was particularly alarm- ing if only one viewpoint was presented at a time. He thought in a community such as Eugene, for many people political interests might be a major leisure time occupation e and he didn't want to see the city taking the position of saying it would rather it not be done. Manager said there were many political parties, many viewpoints from one extreme to another,. not just the two parties mentioned. For that reason, he said, there was some basis for considering that type of use a general education. 4-93' f'l 10 /-,c c Councilwoman Beal thought any political activity was more educational than groups dis- cussing flower arranging, book reviews, manual training, etc. Also, that partisan political activity in this city was usually considered "dirty and ugly." She felt any city building should be open on the same basis as the county's Harris Hall and e that a separate category should be created for political meetings. Assistant Manager thought it would be a question of the fee charged. It was his understanding that Harris Hall could be rented to anyone for a fee. Mrs. Beal assumed use of city build- ings would be free for certain kinds of meetings. Councilman Haws asked for an estimate of a fee necessary to cover the cost of the building. There were no figures available and some question as to whether it would cover capital costs as well as operating costs. Mrs. Beal didn't see where costs would make any difference so long as it was city policy of extending use of the facilities. She suggested creation of another category to cover political groups with the cost borne by the city. She said that would be better than letting the facilities stand idle. - Councilman Keller wondered just how significant the problem was, how many requests were received from political groups for the community centers. Ernie Drapela, assistant parks director, said there was no problem with having facilities stand idle, they were used very heavily. Part of the problem was that the types of groups wanting to use the buildings, including parks department programs, couldn't be scheduled as often as they would like. He said the policy was not considered sacro- sanct, it could be amended, but there had been virtually no complaints since its adoption by either religious or political groups, and the parks department felt it was workable. Councilman Keller asked about the kind of scheduling problems that might arise after a building had been used a couple of hours for a political meeting then a second or third political party or candidate wanted to use a building. Mr. Drapela answered e that there could be no guarantees they would have the same time period say in the following week, use was on a stricly scheduled basis. However, the second, third, or other groups would not be treated any differently than the first, they would be scheduled as time and space permitted when the request came in. Councilman Murray stated that his concern was simply the implicit assumption that political participa- tion was considered a less appropriate use than other activities. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to refer the policy on use of parks department facilities to the Joint Parks Committee for con- Comm sideration and recommendation with regard to nature of comments 8/27/75 made by himself and Councilwoman Beal in this discussion, and that Approve there be a clarification of the policy with regard to where political groups would fit into the classifications listed. Mayor Anderson questioned whether the Joint Parks Committee was the proper body to consider the policy, that they were primarily concerned with planning and finance rather than parks operations. Assistant Manager noted referral to that committee might get the issue into the political realm. He suggested an ad hoc committee of the Council rather than involving planning commission members on the Joint Parks Committee. Councilman Murray had no preference, although he was not too much in favor of creating new committees. Mr. Drapela suggested a meeting between those Council members concerned about the policy and parks department staff to explore a possible change in wording to clarify the different classifications. Mayor Anderson thought that the best route and sug- e gested that Council members Murray and Beal talk with the parks department and bring a report back to the Council. Councilman Murray thought it better to have someone more objective involved. Also, he would rather know what others thought so that if his and Mrs. Bea]'s thinking wasno~ that of the majority ~the matter would be settled. 9/8/75 - 6 49.4-, If there was some merit in changing the policy, then changes could be recommended. He suggested that Council members Haws and Shirey be selected to discuss. the issue with the parks staff. Councilman Keller suggested a show of hands to determine whe- ther most of the Council really wanted some change in present policy, but it was de- cided a vote on the motion would determine that. e Vote was taken on the motion to refer the parks policy on use of its facilities and buildings to Council members Haws and Shirey (members of the Joints Parks Committee) for discussion with parks department staff. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Beal , Hamel, and Shirey voting aye. Council members Keller and Haws voting no. D. Proposal for Acquisition of Wayne Morse Ranch Property, Nature Conservancy - Copies of memo from city manager were previously distributed to Council members outlining a pro- posal from Nature Conservancy, a Portland based group, for acquisition of the Morse property on Crest Drive. Manager reviewed the proposal wherein Nature Conservancy would acquire the property upon receipt of a letter from the city indicating its interest in co-operating with other private and public groups in the purchase at true cost of acquisition by the Conservancy group. If the city fails to ob- tain the necessary funds, Nature Conservancy would have the right to dispose of the property after a reasonable length of time as it sees fit. The city would have to commit itself to maintenance of the property if acquired. Also, a re- quirement would be the placing of an appropriate plaque indicating the participa- tion of Nature Conservancy in acquisition of the property. Manager explained that the ci ty would have to finance appraisal if the sellers chose not to provide one. He estimated the cost at $1500 to $2000 for an appraisal, and because state funds would be involved in the purchase through the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, two appraisals would be necessary - a commitment from the city e for an estimated $3,000 to $4,000. Councilwoman Shirey asked that it be made clear that the city itself would not be participating in purchase of the property. She said the city would be providing funds only for appraisals and in that way further the efforts of Nature Conservancy and other private interests in looking for grant funds to combine with funds pledged by the Legislature for purchase of the property. In response to Manager, Wal t Hani uk , parks land acquisition agent, said that the state would not participate in the cost of appraisal, that was considered a cost incidental to application for grant funds generally borne by the initiating agency. State funds could be used for acquisition only, he said. And he thought that the money pledged by the Legislature toward the property's purchase could be used as matching funds for any BOR grant. Manager added that Mr. Margolis, of Nature Conservancy, had indicated BOR money in addition to that normally allocated to Oregon grants was available for special type grants such as this. Councilman Keller said his objection to acquisition of this property by city, as be- fore,was because of the anticipated maintenance costs involved. He asked Council- woman Shirey what private funds had been raised for investment to provide an income for maintenance should the property be acquired. Mrs. Shirey said the funds gathered so far were nominal. However, no effort had been put forth to this time for funds for that purpose because there was a group of people in the process of incorporating for tax purposes before solicitation was actually started. Funds from that source would be used for purchase, maintenance, or whatever other expense might be incurred. She added that she thought when the city was handed a park without having to spend any money for its purchase, paying for its maintenance would not be out of line. e Councilman Keller aSked what the estimated maintenance costs were, how the property was intended to be used, and whether the road abutting the property was a city street. Assistant Manager answered that maintenance costs would range from $20,000 for maintenance of the property as it is now used to $100,000, depending upon the in- . 495 9/8/75 - 7 tensity of use. He foresaw a major discussion if the property was acquired because of budgetary implications. There is no agreed -upon concept at this time, he said, of how the property will be used. He added that the road was a city street and that it would have to be improved. Councilwoman Shirey commented that although there have been no discussions in the e city with regard to use of the property, there have been ideas presented from other sources. The University, she said, had done a study including graphics which is on display at the Morse ranch, and Ed Smith, parks director, had mentioned several things that would fit in with the community needs. So she thought there would be the appropriate input when it was time for that. Councilman Haws asked if there was any breakdown of maintenance costs showing how much money was going into various areas of the city. Assistant Manager answered that historically maintenance costs were not allocated on the basis of individual areas of the city. Maintenance costs, he said, depend upon the level of park im- provements and can run to a substantial amount. He cited the downtown mall (in ex- cess of $100,000 per year) and the Hendricks Park rhododendron garden (about $35,000) as examples o~ parks requiring high maintenance costs. Undeveloped areas take pro- portionately less, there were no definite figures. Councilman Haws wondered if attendance and maintenance figures could be made available to give an idea of the comparative costs of operating the different facilities. Manager said the figures requested could be prepared for Council members. Mayor Anderson thought the Council was dealing with the question of having already made a commitment to the State Legislature to maintain the Morse property should it be acquired. If acquisition of open space was deemed valuable to the community, and he considered buying the Morse property was really buying open space, then the city should proceed with spending the $3,000/$4,000 for the appraisals necessary to determine a purchase price. He didn't think that was too much money to put out e for the amount of open space involved and its potential use. The difficult decisions with reyard to its actual use would have to be "hammered out" later and would depend upon whether its continued use as a farm was wanted or a "classy, expensive, recrea- tional center almost regional in nature." He compared the appraisal fees to a pur- chase option - sometimes it is lost but if the potential investment is considered good the money is still put out. Councilman Murray agreed completely with the Mayor. He mentioned the strong indica- tors apparent in a recent public attitude survey pointing to open space and parks preservation as very high priority items so far as citizens were concerned. He also pointed to the successful bond elections in years past for purchase of park lands. So he felt this expenditure was a minor expense in view of the commitment made with regard to maintenance when the Legislature was considering the issue of acquisition. Mrs.. Shirey moved second by Mr. Murray to authorize necessary appraisals of the Morse property, and transmittal of a letter Comm to Nature Conservancy stating the city's intent to co-operate 8/27/75 in furthering acquisition of the property. Approve In response to Manager with regard to including in the letter to Nature Conservancy the city's intent to take no responsibility in actual purchase of the property, Councilwoman Shirey and Mayor Anderson both thought there was no question on that point, that in previous discussions it was understood the city would not participate in the purchase Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - all e Council members present voting aye, excpet Councilman Keller voting no. gj8j75 - 8 49fo - Councilwoman Shirey introduced Mr. and Mrs. Engen from McMinnville. Oregon - who had agreed to donate $100 toward maintenance of the Morse ranch if it was acquired for park purposes. E.Initiation of Sidewalk Construction, 3030 Alder Street - Council was requested to order installation of 55 feet of sidewalk at 3030 Alder Street to complete the side- walks on Alder from 30th Avenue to 32nd Avenue. Manager explained that the property owner had not appeared willing to install the walk. However, it was felt he might participate when the bids came in. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to initiate construction of Corom sidewalk at 3030 Alder Street. Motion carried unanimously. 8/27/75 Approve F.Property Acquisition for Sewer Easement, Tax Lot 1702 (18-03-17-1) located east of East Amazon Drive north of its intersection with Dillard Road. Public works recom- mended acquisition of this lot, foreclosed by the county, at a cost of $310 to provide a sanitary sewer easement. Purchase was believed simpler than going through the normal assessments process. Comm Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to authorize the purchase as 8/27/75 recommended. Motion carried unanimously. Approve G.Petition, sanitary sewer to serve area between Vine Maple Drive and 200 feet southwest of Vine Maple Drive and between 100 feet and 750 feet southeast of North Shasta Loop Petitioned by owners of 44% of property to be assessed. Staff recommended proceed- ing with the installation on the premise that the area would have to have sewer service sooner or later. Corom -- Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to accept the petition. 8/27/75 Motion carried unanimously. See action below Petition opposing installation of the sewer was received. Don Allen, public works director, asked that the petition initiating the installation be received and referred to the public works department with the idea that negotiations would be started to attempt to acquire right-of-way for another route. If resolved, alternate proposal would be brought back for Council consideration. Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mrs. Beal to accept the petition and refer to public works department for possible development of alternate proposal. Councilman Bradley said he supported the petition opposing the installation as pro- posed because many trees would be destroyed. He favored referring the issue back to public works for investigation of alternatives. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. H. Exparis.ion, Eugene Hospi tal & Clinic at 1162 Wi1lamette Street - Councilman Keller asked if the Council intended to voice an opinion with regard to the proposed ex- pansion of the Clinic, subject of a hearing scheduled by LCOG Comprehensive Health Planning Committee for September 4. Councilwoman Bea1 was in favor ot rne expansion because of iLS value to the down- town area. Councilman Williams thought that the Council's making a recommendation with regard to the need for the expansion would be "skating on very thin ice," that that should be a decisi.on of the pr.ivate individuals or group wanting to e market a service. Williams that the Eugene Hospi tal Mrs. Heal moved second by Mr. & Cl inic be noti fled that the Ci ty Council has no objections to Corom expansion of the facility [at 1162 Wil1amette Street]. 9/3/75 Approve 9/8/75 - 9 497 Councilman Bradley didn't think the Council should be voting on something of this nature without knowing first the effect of the expansion upon other hospitals in the community. He thought it might be well to postpone action until after the September 4 public hearing and review that testimony before making a recommenda- - bon. Councilwoman Shirey didn't feel discussion of a business venture such as this was within the city's jurisdiction. Mrs. Beal called attention to the motion - that it would say the Council "had no objections" to the expansion. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Bradley and Haws voting no.~ I. Appointment, Historic Review Board - On behalf of Mayor Anderson, Council President Murray presented the name of Kenneth Helphand, professor of landscape architecture at the Un.iversity of Oregon, to fill the vacancy on the Historic Review Board, created by the resignation of Jack Boettcher, for the balance of the term ending January 1, 1979. Corom Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal to confirm the appointment. 9/3/75 Motj~on carried unanimousl y. Approve J. EWEB Water Bond Issue - Council authorization was requested for election on a $15 million EWEB water bond issue at the November 4 general election. Copies of proposed resolution which would give the authorization were previously distributed to Council members. Keith Parks, EWEB general manager, commented on the meeting between EWEB and City Council on June 2 at which the issue was explained. It would cover a staged pro- gram over a five-year periOd, he said, and EWEB felt the program absolutely neces- sary to the integrity of the water system and to provide for community needs. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel that the resolution authorizing co. the bond issue election on November 4 be adopted. Motion carried 9/3/75 unanimously. Approve K. Procedures for 1990 General Plan Amendment - Copies of memo dated August 8, 1975 setting out procedures suggested by the planning department for amendments to the 1990 General Plan were previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel that the suggested procedures Corom be referred to the Planning Commission for comment and recommendation. 9/3/75 Motion carried unanimously. Approve L. . Speed Zone Changes/Determining Speed Limits - Copies of a special study by the traffic engineering division of public works department were distributed with regard to driver reaction to heavy enforqement in existing 25 mph zones. Also distributed were copies of memo from public,works department setting out State Speed Control Board recommendations on speeds for various streets submitted by city staff, includ- ing public works recommendations: Street Speed Board publ ic Works -- Willamette, 20th to Crest Retain 30 Agree Willamette, Crest to 40th Change to 35 from 30 " Willamette, 40th to Coachman Retain 40 " Oak Patch, 11th to 18th Change to 35 from 25 " Ci ty View, 11th to 18th Change to 35 from 25 " 'Crescent, Gilham to Coburg Retain 35 " Har low Road, Coburg to city limits Retain 35 " Agate, Franklin to 24th Set limit at 25 Franklin to l8th-25 e (now unzoned) 18th to 24th-30 Villard, Franklin to Fairmount ~etain 25 Change to "30 Chambers, 7th to 18th Retain 30 Agree Chambers, 18th to 25th Change to 35 from 30 " 9/8/75 Chambers, 25th to Lorane Highway Change to 35 from 40 " 10 Donald, 32nd to Fox Hollow Retain 25 Change to 30 49'8 The memo reported public works disagreement with Board recommendations on Agate, Villard, and Donald. That disagreement was based on the Board's apparent incon- sistency in following criteria - roadside culture, 85 percent~i lt' speed, accident rate, roadway alignment, etc. - according to the memo. e Al Williams, traffic engineer, reviewed actions taken leading to receipt of the Board's recommendations. Staff presented proposed speeds to the Speed Board on the assumption that it was reasonable and realistic to expect consistent treatment of speed zoning on arterial systems. All neighborhood groups were informed of the recommended speeds with response from only the Fairmount neighborhood group. He explained the makeup of the State Speed Control Board and criteria on which it bases its recommendations. Also, the frustrations in attempting to communicate the total ramifications of problems involved in posting speed zones. He said figures do not support the popular belief that everyone will drive at the posted speed. City View between 11th and 18th was chosen as a test site, he said, to determine effects of heavy enforcement with regard to (1) relationship between actual speeds traveled and those posted (there was none); (2) effect of concentrated enforcement (85 percentile speed reduced during enforcement period, increased to same as before after test period was over). A similar test was run on Agate Street where the 85 percentile speed after the test increased to 36 mph (32 mph before). As an example of frustra- tions, he said, invariably some of those persons complaining about speeding were the first to receive citations when special enforcement was tried. And often they are people residing in the areas tested, or those least expected to violate the limits _ driver education instructors, PTA personnel, etc. Councilman Hamel left the meeting. Al Williams said that speeds would be reduced only when people themselves really decided to drive at reduced speeds; fundamentally, driver behavior was an extension of social attitudes. The majority of drivers respond in a safe and reasonable manner as demonstrated by accident rates, which he didn't feel were too bad. But it is the regulation of unreasonable behavior that is necessary, and that cannot be accomplished without the consent and compliance of the majority of the public. He thought realis- e tic speed zones were highly desirable and explained the 85 percentile measure used on a nationwide basis for determining speeds to be posted (85% of autos traveling at or below the posted speed). Neither the traffic engineering division nor the police department feels that posting higher speeds increases speeds at which cars are actually driven. Neither does posting at an unrealistic or reduced speed change what is happening. Staff feels the Speed Board recommndations on Donald, Villard, and Agate are unrealistic and not in accordance with criteria for posting speeds, and for that reason recommended discussion of those three streets with the Board at its next meeting while acce~ting the recommendations on the balance of the streets listed. Dan Childress, South University Neighborhood Association, noted packet of material distributed to Counci1members including copies of petitions from people in that neighborhood furnished to Council members with committee agenda. The petitions favored posting the 25 mph speed on Agate the entire distance between Franklin and 24th as recommended by the Speed Board. Mr. Childress, Mike Utsey, and Dick Fehnel, all living in that neighborhood, thought Agate Street should not be treated in a general nature, that the neighborhood was unique, and that streets originally con- sidered public ground shOuld be returned to that use rather than for the sole use of autos. Mr. Fehnel thought the traffic engineering division was inconsistent itself in recommending consistency in treatment of speed zoning on the one hand, then recom- mending two different speeds within an 11-block distance on one street. He also questioned the methodology used in the study reported by the traffic engineer - whether characteristics of one neighborhood were adequate bases for policy in another neighborhood, effects of weather at time of the tests, does the 8S percentile cover 10/100/1000 motorists, etc. The question of which major.ity'sinterests were being considered was raised - drivers in total, or those living within thA af- e fected neighborhood. He noted two elementary schools on Aqate and lack of sight clearance near one. Another resident of Agate Street noted two neighborhood associa- 'tions in that area were strongly opposed to increasing the posted speed to 30 mph. 9/8/75 - 11 499 ------- - He thought the traffic speeds would become more and more of an issue, since the existing speed bumps would probably have to be removed because of a change in state law, and new and different alternatives would have to be found. Councilman Bradley noted his opposition to increasing speeds when the question was e originally before the Council. He said he was still opposed to any increase, that the value of human life was more important than consistency in traffic flow. Councilman Keller thought it might be well to post Agate Street at 25 mph to give an opportunity to see what would happen, perhaps a word of caution to residents of that area to slow down. He recognized the uniqueness of the street and the probl ems i t presented. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal to accept the State Speed Control Board recommendations on all of the streets presented. In response to Councilman Williams, Mr. Keller said the intent of his motion was to accept Speed Board action on all of the streets listed, including Donald and Villard on which the city staff had also disagreed. Councilwoman Shirey was in favor of the motion. She could see no reason to condone the speed at which people were actually traveling by making that the posted speed. Councilman Bradley said he was against the motion because initially he did not sup- port increasing the speed on any of the streets. His vote, he said, was against the recommendation of the Speed Board, not because he disagreed with the staff recommendation. Don Allen, public works director, noted that staff assumed when the Council recog- nized installation of diverters, it had also recognized the arterial street program. He explained that the State Speed Control Board set speeds on city streets after initiation by city staff. He wondered if the Council intended by its action on - these recommendations to forego that procedure, whether in the future recommenda- tions for increased speeds would not be approved by the Council. Councilman Keller noted there were some increases in the list presented, but he said this vote was not advocating that all speeds would be reduced. It was just that he thought all increases would not be accepted. . Vote was taken on the motion to accept the Speed Board recommendations Corom as presented. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, 9/3/75 Councilman Bradley voting no, Councilman Hamel not present. See acti on .below Councilman Haws came back to the question of how speeds would be controlled, assum- ing speed bumps would not work and that posted speeds were not necessarily observed. Traffic Engineer Williams said there appeared to be no answer, it was a constant problem prevalent throughout the nation. In the final analysis, the solution had to rest with the individual driver. He said that further studies would be conducted after posting of the 25 mph speed on Agate Street to determine the effectiveness of that posting. He noted that the complaints usually were about the individual violations of speed limits, not the major flow of traffic, and he called attention to state law that provided citations could not be written after the fact. He said there had been some programs where certain persons were authorized to report license numbers, time of day, type of violation, and then the owner of that car was advised of the violation. But he said in this metropolitan area, assuming 10% of total trips per day were violators, violations could amount to about 35,000 every day. So it came down to a matter of changing people's habits. He added the suggestion that help of neighborhood groups might be enlisted in an effort to effectively change the community's commitments. Tom Hochstatter, 745 Sprague Street, principal of Westmoreland School, proposed that - the speed on City View be set at 30 mph rather than 35 mph. He called the Council's attention to the number of children attending Westmoreland and the fact that the I-A-5 street bordered the school grounds. He agreed that signing didn't particularly help 9/8/75 - 12 500 ~- - - and he hoped that if the speed was increased to 35 mph some alternative to signing could be taken - painting the first 50 feet of the school zone, speed bumps, etc. - e to draw attention of the drivers. He noted that 18th Avenue was another street needing attention and that the Westmoreland area had the highest traffic counts of any school in the city. Others objecting to the increased speed on City View were Harold Sanders, 2080 City View Street; Marita Talbott, 2500 West 22nd Avenue, president of Westmoreland PTA; Len Wassom, 1915 Parliament. They thought the heavy traffic permitted to travel at a higher speed would present a danger in common with many of the other streets in that area. Ms. Talbott said she understood the proposed change would more nearly reflect the driving patterns of most drivers and 'probably would not adversely affect the traffic problem, but she felt it would do nothing to improve the situation. She said she knew the school zone speed would not be altered but noted that that speed was not being respected now. She suggested some other means of indicating there was a school zone - red paint, flashing light, etc. She urged appreciation of their concern and no increase in the speed limit on City View. Richard Gale, 3615 Glen Oak Drive, objected to increasing the speed on Willamette be- tween Crest and 40th. He noted one fatal accident already on that street and doubted that the permitted speed over the crest of the hill in that stretch of road would allow slowing to the 20 mph limit near Dunn School. He felt the increased speed plus the 29th and Willamette intersection improvement constituted "subsidization" by people living closer to town, making it easier for others living farther out to get home more quickly. Others objecting to the increased speed on Willamette were Gary House, 325 West 38th Avenue; George Alvergue, 430 East 46th Avenue; Mary Sherriffs, 137 West 37th Avenue; e Ray Gilden, 170 East 37th Avenue; Richard Hinds, 2174 Jeppeson Acres Road, principal of Dunn School; and Arthur Hanhardt, 20 West 36th Avenue. Their objections were based on lack of site clearance, traffic traveling too fast with the present posted speed, the increase would be tantamount to legalizing violations of the present posted limit, residents along that stretch of Willamette are totally opposed to any further increase. Mr. Gilden asked that the Council vote separately on the Willamette Street speed zoning as well as on other areas where the recommended speeds were meeting ob- jections. Mr. Hinds thought there should be a comprehensive plan for handling traffic on both Willamette and Hilyard in view of the density of the population in those areas. He thought there was extreme danger in increasing the speed by even 5 mph. John Porter, planning director, said that the South Hills study did address the traffic situation in the South Willamette area, there is no major road system planned there. He said density was limited to five units per acre west of Monroe and he hoped for increased use of the transit system so provision wouldn't have to be made for the convenience of the auto. Councilwoman Shirey couldn't see a philosophy that condoned limits at the rate of speed traveled by drivers exceeding the posted limit. The hills in the Willamette Street area, she said, added to problems. Also, it was hazardous for autos being backed from driveways along the street. Since Willamette and Hilyard serve the en- tire south end of Eugene, they are loaded havily with traffic. Mrs'. Shirey thought too that the postal service should provide mail boxes on both sides of the street in that area so residents would not have to cross in heavy traffic. Councilwoman Beal wondered why the existing limits were not enforced. She noted that e in other areas speeding was the major offense, licenses were taken from drivers on the second offense, and the amount of fast driving was really cut down. She wondered whether the extra cost of enforcement could be met by fines and convictions. Assistant Manager said there was a special team now dealing with traffic and noise problems. However, one of.the difficulties is upholding convictions for violations other than 501 9/8/75 - 13 those prescribed by the State Speed Control Board. The city has authority to enforce a different set of penalties than those prescribed by the Legislature. Al Williams, traffic engineer, said enforcement was not under his jurisdiction, that it was a ~ "gray area" in the state law. He said it was not clear what would happen if the . State Speed Control Board determined a posted speed should be 35 mph and the local jurisdiction chooses not to post that speed. He speculated that the issue probably would go to court. He was certain citations would not be upheld in court if at- torneys for violators found there were no signs posted for the speeds set by the Board. He added that the Board in the past, he felt, had set speeds about 5 mph too high when there was disagreement with city staff recommendations. However, in the last year or so, the Board seemed to be zoning more conservatively. Traffic Engineer explained the procedure for setting speed zones on a statewide basis by the Speed Control Board, primarily to avoid local speed traps. Also, the way en- forcement was handled by the police department. He thought a middle-of-the-road approach was about the only way to handle posted speeds, since it appeared impossible to satisfy with the same limits those receiving citations and those living on the streets on which speeds were posted. Signs posting limits could be removed, he said, and it would not materially change what was occurring. In reality, he said, signing was only there for enforcement purposes. What the traffic department was really striving for was a reasonable speed based on all factors involved in a given situation. Councilman Keller asked how staff would feel about the legality of posting a speed on staff recommendation higher than that set by the State Board. Traffic Engineer thought that would be a "gray area." If a speed was ordered posted by the Board and was not posted by the local agency, a court decision would probably be required to determine whether a speed zone existed in that particular location. Councilman Hamel thought a 35 mph zone in the Willamette Street area was too fast, ... considering the terrain in that area and the number of people, both adults and ..,. children, crossing the street to mail and paper boxes. The same was true of City View, he said, and increasing the speed would not help the situation. All of . . Tape II CouncIlman Bradley suggested that the CouncIl support the status quo, or follow recommendations for decreasing speeds. He expressed concern about recommendations before the Council that catered to autos and drivers. He thought the issue either should be tabled or action taken not to increase any of the speed zones presented. Traffic Engeiner asked for direction, whether to ignore the State Speed Control Board's recommendations or respond with alternate recommendations. He noted that investigations were made by the traffic department when complaints received were de- termined valid, after which they were forwarded to the Control Board. He also noted the obvious imbalance on a citywide basis. When there were a number of citations in one area, he said, it was mostly because of unreasonable posting. Councilwoman Shirey commented that the message appeared to be that the people of Eugene didn't want to accommodate those higher speeds. Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Hamel to recommend retaining existing posted speeds on the streets in question (see list in committee minutes above 9/3/75). Councilwoman Beal wondered why this issue was coming to the Council when the final authority rested with the State Board. She wondered if the City Manager, as the staff person with the most authority, could present the Council's point of view so ~ that it might have some effect on the Boardls deliberations. Traffic Engineer noted . discussions held with the Council earlier irt the year with regard to the process followed in presenting staff recommendations to the State Board and the list of streets on which speed zone investigations had been made and limits recommended at 9/8/75-14 502- that time. He said the Board was always very interested in comments of local agencies. The difficulty was in presenting individual Council members' views if there e was no consensus. Whatever position the Council took, he said, could be presented to the Board at the time of its deliberation on final action with regard to speed zones. Manager Henry said he would take the responsibility for relaying the Council's view- point to the Board. In response to Councilman Keller, Manager said the State Speed Control Board has the authority for setting speed limits in the state, that the matter now before the Council was the review of the Board's primary recommendations. Reaction of the Council to those recommendations would be taken back to the Board after which it would take final action. He added that if the city refused to post the speeds as finally set by the Board, a legal question would probably be involved requiring adjudication. / Councilman Bradley asked whether the city had the authority to establish speed zones independent of the State Board, whether a complete list of streets on which speeds were to be recommended had to be sent to the Board. Assistant Manager explained that the reason these zones were brought to the Council was because there was an obvious difference between the posted speeds and they way the streets were being driven. The State Board was asked to evaluate those particular locations. Results of that investi- gation are the issue of this discussion wherein the city comment is invited prior to final Board action. If there is disagreement with final action, he said, it could be taken to court. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. III-A-I M. Annexation, Eugene Sand & Gravel Property (Belt Line and Delta) - Brought back at the request of the Council after denial by the Boundary Commission. Copies of Boundary e Commission minutes reflecting the denial were previously distributed to Council members. John Alltucker, owner of most of the property involved, when asked for comment, said reconsideration of the annexation was news to him, he had thought the matter ended when denied by the Boundary Commission. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, in response to Council request for comment, said there was no appeal procedure other than writ of review. If that was successful - and he said he was not indicating that it would be - the Boundary Commission would have to hear the issue again. He said that if the Council wished to pursue the annexation of that area it could cause a new application to be filed for Boundary Commission consideration again, but he noted that the annexation had been rejected on a unanimous vote of the Commission. Review of Commission minutes, he said, indi- cated it was a judgmental matter in which the Commission disagreed with the council decision, and they had the prerogative of making that judgment. Councilman Haws said he was assuming the Commission voted against the annexation be- cause the city record was not good enough, that perhaps by taking it back again the city could make a better case on the facts. Mr. Long said his answer would depend upon the purpose of what the Council wanted the record to show - if for the purpose of pursuing some kind of legal questions, it would be necessary to go through another hearing; if for the purpose of persuading the Boundary Commission to take an affirma- tive position, that was a planning matter. John Porter, planning director, didn't think the Commission disagreed with the city's position that the area was within the urban service boundary, city services were available, etc. Rather, the Co~ssion was convinced by Mr. Alltucker that he did not need city services and annexation e would be of no benefit to him. That, he said, is what is of record. In response to Council questions, Mr. Long said the only viable option, if the issue was to be pursued, was to start the process over again, there was no Boundary Com- mission rehearing procedure that he was aware of. ~3 9/8/75 - 15 Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Haws to initiate again annexation of Eugene Sand & Gravel property north of Belt Line, east of Delta Highway, by referring to the.Planning commission for hearing in all due haste., ~ Councilman Keller said he would not support this motion for the same reasons he d~d not support the original annexation request. He felt from reading the BO~ndary Com- mission minutes that the Commission was adamant in its denial, and he cons~dered the thoughts reflected in the minutes good. Councilman Williams ,didn't disagre~ w~th the Boundary Commission, he didn't support referring the annexat~on to the Comm~s~~on initially, he said. But he thought that irrelevant. His objection at this po~nt was to a situation affecting one owner of a major portion of the property involved who did not want his property annexed to the city. The issue had been heard by the planning Commission, the City Council, and the Boundary Commission, with a final de- cision rendered by unanimous vote. For the city to make the property owner "run through that governmental hoop" again was one of the worst uses of an individual by government that he could imagine. Comm V k h. . . .' 9/3/75 ote was ta en on t e motlon to re~n~tlate annexat~on of Eugene Sand & S t' 1 " d '1 b ee ac ion Grave property. Mot~on carrle - Councl mem ers Murray, Beal, Bradley, b 1 and Haws voting aye; Council members Keller, Williams, and Shirey voting e ow no; Councilman Hamel not present. John Alltucker, owner of the Eugene Sand & Gravel property, reviewed the Boundary Com- mission action, noting the "tone" of Commission discussion on which its decision not to annex was based: (1) The property owner did not initiate the annexation and the policy at this time was not to annex everything within the urban service boundary or everything to which city services were 'permissive rather than compulsory:' and (2) III-A-l there would have to be a certain percentage of property owners in favor of annexing if there was a subdivision or homes on the land, however there were no residences on this property and the one owner, Mr. Alltucker, did not wish the property annexed. ~ He expressed concern about Fasano regulations that prevented his discussing the issues involved with individual council members. As a consequence, he was at a loss with regard to what might be important and what particular questions needed to be addressed. He noted that the decision of the Boundary Commission not to annex was very definite - it was unanimous - and he felt if the whole process was repeated'the final vote would be the same. He expressed the hope that the matter would now be dropped "leaving time in the next few months or years to make Eugene such an attractive place that he would then want to come in." James Redden, architect representing Wildish Construction, owner of property included in the annexation, objected to going through the annexation process again. He said the Wildish property had no need for urban services nor did that property "plug" or cause circulation problems for public vehicles to any other property. He thought the Boundary Commission had made its action quite clear; he felt the only result of annexation would be the city's collection of additional taxes. Councilman Murray asked for a summarization of Ms. Nechak's (Boundary Commission staff person) position in favor of the annexation. He said he understood Mr. Porter's previous comments in committee were that staff would advise a better record needed to be established if the decision of the Boundary Commission was to be changed. Mr. Porter said he thought the record was fairly good, he knew of nothing that could be added that would make the record substantially better. Councilman Murray said he was still in favor of the annexation but could see no value in pursuing the issue. Councilman Haws wondered if there would ever be any basis for annexing this ground ~ unless it was surrounded by the city thereby. permitting an "island annexation." Mr. Porter said the existing zoning is ~ temporary use for the gravel operation and 9/8/75 - 16 504- eventually that will be phased out. He took exception to the statement that urban services were not needed. It was his understanding that a good deal of city water was used and that was considered one of the major city services. He said the e Boundary Commission had the'final authority for annexation of areas, and whether this property was annexed under any circumstance would be the Commission's decision. Assistant Manager added that at this time the only way the property could be annexed was if it were an island or through affirmative vote of the Boundary Commission on petition of the property owner. He thought the Boundary Commission in practice was reluctant to create an enclave unless there was public policy that would justify it. Councilman Haws was concerned about lack of any consistent policy with regard to annexation, particularly as it referred to the subject area, that in the end, the area probably would be annexed anyway. Manager noted that the Planning Commission is now reviewing guidelines and standards for annexation and would be sending a recommendation to the Council shortly. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to rescind action taken in com- mittee on September 3, 1975 reinitiating annexation of Eugene Sand & Gravel property. Councilman Bradley thought annexation of this property was extremely important when considering long-range planning in that area. He suggested that previous annexations had committed the city to such long-range planning needs. He asked the Council not to take the action proposed and instead send the annexation recommendation back to the Boundary Commission rather than to the Planning Commission. He thought it too important an issue for the Council to change direction at this time. He also thought the Boundary Commission's having final authority in annexations was a policy issue that should be addressed. He thought authority for annexing properties resting with the Commission was not in the best interests of the city. He again urged the Council tit to "run the issue throught the Boundary Commission again" to give an opportunity for presentation of issues that may not have been presented by staff the last time around. Councilman Murray concurred in Mr. Bradley's remarks but thought it would be to no effect to take the issue back to the Commission. Vote was taken on the motion to rescind committee action. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, Harne 1 , Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Beal and Bradley voting no. N. Council Minutes - May 12 and 19, 1975 as circulated Approve O. Council Orientatipn Session was tentatively scheduled for Saturday, Corom November 1, 1975, there being no objections from those Council members 8/27/75 present. Affirm P.Council Schedule for Review of ESATS Update - Copies of memo from planning director were previously distributed to Council members with regard to proposed schedule of ESATS update review. Manager reviewed the schedule as proposed and said it would anticipate action by the Council at its December 22 meeting and recommendation to LCOG by January so that printing of the final report could be started by February 1. There were no objections and it was understood Council members would reserve the dates listed for meetings to review the ESATS update. Corom Q. Deer PO.Z1.ut.ion was the subject of a letter from N. B. Giustina who asked for suy- 8/27/75 Affirm yesbons from the Council for solving the problems faced by people living in the e sout:h hills by deer ruining gardens, eating .roses and shrubs, tearing up rhododCll- drons. He called attention to the ineffectiveness of "deer crossing" s~i9ns. Counci ~lwoman Beal suggested a check wi th the State Game Commission w.i th regard to rcgulat.ions governing deer control. Councilwoman Shirey suggested referral of the letter to the neighborhood association in that area to work out some solution. 50S 9/8/75 - 17 It was understood the letter would be referred to the Crest Dri.vt-' Corom Neighborhood Assoc~iation and that staff would notify Mr. Gius1.:ina 9/3/75 of the referral. Affirm ~Jntme~_Procedure, Boards and Commissions - Councilman Murray distributed e R. a rev.ision of his proposal for citizen participation which would standardize appointment procedures as much as possible and heighten publ~ic awareness of opportunities for citizen involvement in city government. Corom It was understood the revised proposal would be an item for 9/3/75 discussion at the September 10 committee-of-the-whole meeting. Affirm S. Joint Session with Planning Commission was scheduled for 12:00 noon on September 15 for discussion of R-2 PD zoning on Country Club Plaza development north of Cal Young Road between Willakenzie and Coburg and west of Willakenzie. Corom 9/3/75 The scheduled date was agreeable with Council members present. Affirm T. ~outh Rights Commission - Copies of proposal for a Youth Rights Commission were previously furnished to Council members. The proposed Commission would serve people between the ages of 13 and 18 years in an advocacy role and give them advice in areas of education, employment, government, justice, etc. In response to questioning from Councilwoman Beal, Sally Meek, speaking for the Youth Planning Committee presenting the proposal, explained the nature of the proposed commission, that it grew out of an LCOG-sponsored Youth Services Systems Design Study to determine problem areas in youth services in Lane County. She said the primary purpose was to provide a way for youth advocacy for youth rather than adult advocacy for youth, and to provide a legitimate role for young people in governmen t . The Commission would hear individual complaints and problems, act in e an advisory capacity, and make ,recommendations for services or changes in exist- ing services felt needed in the community. This proposal would cover a commission for the city only with the idea that there would be involvement with the county in terms of exchange of information with commissions in other cities throughout the county. Councilman Murray concurred in the need for .some kind of formal structure involving young people's needs and services. He was familiar with the LCOG study mentioned and commented that it envisioned some kind of youth services board but on a much broader basis than that presented here. It anticipated a body that would function in a co-ordinating role, synchronizing youth services, at the same time fulfilling an advocacy role leading perhaps to a youth rights commission. He felt this proposal was only a portion of the entire program and that the ideal approach was through the county. Ms. Meek thought the proposal for a youth services council was too broad, that a specific body was needed to deal specifically with local youth having problems and needing information. She didn't think it should be involved with ,those providing the services, it would fulfill a purely advocacy role rather than .an inter-relating function. Joan Kalvaledge, special projects co-ordinator for School District 4J and former teacher, said she was surprised at the numbers of young people looking for youth serviceshand upon finding those services then saw the need for co-operation be- .tween the various ones existing. She said, however, the concerns expressed by youth remain unaddressed. They pArticularly want more of a chance for direct in- put about their needs, she said, and to provide that input themselves in roles where their expe1.-tise was clearly acknol'lleoged. e Councilman Keller asked if the intent of the proposal was for youth to become in- volved on the various agencies' boards as well as having a youth commission. Also, whether the proposed commission was seen as a part of the Human Rights Commission or.as a separate body. Ms. Meek answered that there was obvious need for input to 9/8/75 - 18 50''=, the various agencies, but this proposal was for a youth commission simply to con- sider problems of young people running into discrimination because of their age or having other problems not necessarily dealt with by service agencies. She said e they would like to see a youth rights commission fully recognized with the power to speak directly to the Council. However, she recognized the request for a women's commission now before the Council and said they didn't want to cloud that issue. Councilman Keller thought that since the proposal came out of an LCOG study which had not been distributed to the Council, the youth committee should get that informa- tion to Council members before a decision was made. He also fel t the question of where such a commission would fit in with the Human Rights Commission would be an important consideration to be decided. Ms. Meek said the study was officially termed a "staff report." She said they had one copy but had been unable to obtain more. However, that was on.ly one documentation of the need for the commission, she said, and other needs - discrimination, etc. - should also be considered. Councilman Murray suggested that staff obtain copies of the report from LCOG for distribution to Council members and postponement of further discussion until that information was available. Councilman Bradley supported the idea of a youth commission but favored postponement until it could be discussed in the broader concept of the Human Rights Commission and whether a women's commission would be a part of that structure. Councilman williams agreed. Councilwoman Beal thought there would be legal implications. She noted the human rights ordinance at this time did not involve discrimination on the basis of age. She wondered if this proposed group was to be concerned about general problems of young people without the force of law. Ms. Meek said the fact tha t the ordinance didn't cover age showed the need for an advocacy board. She said she hoped their group would be a' part of the discussion of the "larger issue," that they wanted input with regard to the structure of the Human Rights Commission. Councilman e Murray said there would be that opportunity because of the anticipated public hearings before the Counc.i 1 when the committee work on the proposed women's commission was finalized. He urged the young people not to become discouraged because he felt the Council was wanting to discuss other things relating to the overall issue rather than taking this separately. Also, there was the desire to have the information from LCOG on the study. Councilwomen Beal and Shirey commented that presentation of the proposal now was extremely timely, that it could be considered in the overall Human Rights Commission discussion when recommendation on the women's commission came back to the Council. They assured the young people that the issue would not be "shelved." Councilman Murray suggested that Ms. Meek keep in contact with staff to determine when the issue would come up for discussion. Councilman Bradley suggested contact with Salem with regard to the youth commission in that city. It was understood staff would obtain the Youth Services Systems Design. Corom Study from LCOG for distribution to Council members and that the pro- 9/3/75 ,posal would be back for discussion when that information was available Affirm and when a recommendation on the overall HUmBn Rights Commission structure was ready. u.S~eed Bump Policy - Copies of information with regard to use of speed bumps on .c~t~ streets to reduce traffic speeds were previously furnished to Council members. It ~ncluded an 9bstract and conclusions from a San Jose, California report "A Study of Speed Bumps,!' letter from Smith & Crakes (7/9/75) concerning the city's liability should speed bumps be installed, and opinion from city attorney's office with regard ~ to the city's authority to install speed bumps and probable liability in connection - wi th their use. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the item be placed on file Corom (in recognition of the negative information provided). 9/3/75 File S07 9/8175 - 19 Councilman Haws raised the question of how to reduce traffic speeds, assuming that speed bumps are not recommended and assuming that the objective is to make city streets as safe as possible. Councilman Murray suggested the use of traffic di- ... verters, to accomplish more than just reducing traffic speeds. He recognized they .., were not all inclusive but thought they had more promise than speed bumps on resi- dential streets. Manager commented that there were other traffic installations to control sp~ed and suggested the next two agenda items concerning speed zones might actually address the problem. In response to Councilman Bradley about studies other than that from San Jose, Manager reported the use of traffic diverters in University City, Missouri, numerous because they were originally installed on un- dedicated streets in private subdivisions. Speed bumps added during recent years, 'he said, had been removed because of serious accidents resulting in substantial claims. Speed bumps also made it difficult to serve neighborhoods adequately with emergency vehicles and with street cleaning equipment. Comm . 9/3/75 Vote was taken on motion to file. Motion carried unan~mously. File V. ~eed Bumps/Annexation Eugene 'Sand & Gravel - Councilman Haws noted reports re- Comm ceived by Council members on both items and wondered if they would be scheduled 8/27/75 for discussion in committee. Manager said they would be on the September 3 agenda. File W. Peti tion, ~ -LaVeta Lane Cul-de-sac was passed to other Council members by Councilman Comm ~urray for their info~mation. The petition representing 100% of the residents liv- 8/27/75 ~ng on LaVeta Lane objected to development of a cul-de-sac at the end of that street. File Mr. Murray said the information had already been given to the city manager for his attention. X. Mayor Anderson reported he would be absent from the ci ty beginning Allgust 29 Comm_ for a month (to Japan), during which time Council President Murray would preside 8/27/75 .., at meetings of the Council. File Appeal from Planning Commission denial of modification of Coburg Plaza development plan to allow entertainment center (Earl W. Green)(PD 73-1) Planning Commission recommen~ed denial August 11, 1975. In response to Councilman Haws, Mayor Anderson said a time limit would be set to receive testimony in public hearing. Assistant Manager explained that 20-minute limits were usually set _ 10 minutes for, 10 against - after consultation with the Mayor to get a sense of Comm the magnitude of an issue and the testimony to be taken. He cautioned the Council 8/27/75 with regard to this appeal, that because there was a question whether it would come Pub Hrng under Fasano requirements, the Council should refrain from ex parte contacts until they had definite information from staff with regard to whether it was a quasi- Judicial consideration. Mayor Anderson explained that he along with staff had more or less taken over setting time limits in public hearings. He felt it had eliminated sometimes long, tedious procedure but he wanted any Council members having reserva- tions about the process to let him know. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to schedule public hearing on the appeal at the September 8 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through F, H through K, and N through X as noted, noting separate action on Items G (Vine Maple sewer), L (speed zone changes), and M (annexation Eugene Sand & Gravel ~ property). Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. . 9/8/75 - 20 SO 6 . III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 921 - Amending Section 2.930 of City Code re: Making eligible -- "for-profit developers" in development of low-cost housing was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member pre- sent requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17451. Council Bill No. 932 - Construction of sidewalk at 3030 Alder Street (Lot 1, Block 1, Nob Hill Addition) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17452. e Council Bill No. 933 - Construction of sanitary sewer within 160 feet of Cleveland Street from 25th Avenue to the south, and Lots 1,2,3, of Block 3, Wood haven Addition, amending Ordinance 17385 adopted June 9, 1975, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members 'present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17453. -- Counci 1 Bill No. 934 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary sewer within 160 feet of Cleveland Street from 25th Avenue to the south, and Lots 1,2,3, of Block 3, Woodhave Addition, amending Ordinance 17386 adopted .June 9, 1975, was read by council bill humber and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council hill 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. ~r. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17454. 50<7 9/8/75 - 21 ., IV - Resolutions Resolution No. 2440 - Amending 1990 General Plan - Goodpasture Island - was read - by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Manager read the resolution. Councilman Haws suggested not proceeding with the second step until a complete and thorough study of the area was made to determine just waht the needs would be. Councilman Williams agreed, saying he was really not satisfied that what should be done in that area was known. (He noted his intent to abstain from voting because of absence from the public hearing.) Councilman Bradley wanted to delay action a week or two so he could review the resolution before voting. Councilman Keller thought a decision had been made on the best available information and that the Council five years or so from now, if it was found the action needed correction, could change the designation accordingly. He said any "good" decision could be wrong and that he didn't think there would be any trouble changing it later if necessary. Councilman Murray said he knew of no instance where so much evidence had been accrued to indicate Goodpasture Island was not the appropriate place for further commercial use. He thought the Council should get on with amending the P~an as soon as possible to avoid further confusion. He pointed out that every scenario presented in the commercial study indicated residential use was appropriate. In addition, he cited compact urban growth form, cost of housing, fairly dense location near the city center, and the appropriateness of medium-density as opposed to lower or higher densities. Councilwoman Shirey was comfortable with the decision made and thought that if correction was needed, changes could be made in the future. -- Councilman Haws didn't think the action to be taken was incorrect, but he felt delay would give the Council opportunity to know if better action could be taken later, maybe a better designation than that chosen. He didn't know the type of residential development that would occur and didn't particularly favor the proposed designation. He thought extra time would make for a better decision. Councilman Keller found it difficult to believe, after the amount of time that had been spent on this issue, that an additional two weeks would make a difference. Councilman Murray asked consideration of the amount of time spent in applying the present designa- tion; not nearly so much, he said, as has been spent on reaching the decision on the pro- posed designation. Because of Councilman Williams' stated intent to abstain, with his consent Mr. Keller withdrew the motion to adopt the resolution. Mr. Keller moved second by Mrs. Beal to adopt Resolution 2440. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Haws to table Resolution 2440 until the September 22, 1975 Council meeting. Motion defeated - Council members Bradley and Haws voting aye; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Hamel, and Shirey voting no; Councilman Williams abstaining. Vote was taken on the motion to adopt the resolution. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; . Council members Hamel and Haws voting no; Councilman Williams abstaining. Resolution No. 2441 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payment for the period August 25 through September 8, 1975 was read by number and title. 9/8/75 - 22 5/0 --- . . Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Motion carried on rollcall vote, all council members present voting aye. e Resolution No. 2442 - Concerning housing policy and readopting Resolution 1994 as amended by Resolution 2238 was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Motion carried on rollcall vote, all council members present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, September 22, 1975. GI~ )~ Charles T. Henry City Manager e e 5/1 9/8/75 - 23