Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/22/1975 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL December 22, 1975 -- Adjourned meeting - from the December 8, 1975, regular meeting - of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on December 22, 1975, in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws and Edna Shirey. Gus Keller and Wickes Beal were absent. I - Public Hearings A. Rezoning property at the intersection of Cheshire and North Lawrence - From R-2 to R-3 SR (Majors) (Z 75- 3) Recommended by the Planning Commission October 27, 1975. Jim Saul, planner, noted this high-density use request first came before the Planning Commission in April. At that time the Planning Commission recommended a plan amendment, involving a larger area west of Skinner's Butte Park. On July 14, 1975, Council adopted the recommended amendment. The amendment was referred to Lane County and Springfield, who did not object, and September 25 it was incorporated into the 1990 Plan by LCOG. The Planning Commission then approved the zone change on October 27, stipulating site review procedures for the following areas of concern : Compatability with surroundings; efficient, workable and safe interrelationships among building, parking, circulation and open space and landscaped areas; structures designed, sized and shaped in scale and harmony with intended uses and resulting in a pleasant environment for living; safe and efficient ingress, egress and on-site traffic circulation. e No ex parte contacts or other conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Public hearing was opened. I-A-l Bruce H. Anderson, 101 E. Broadway, asked that the April 1 and October 27 Planning Commission minutes be incorporated into the record. The Majors' intent, he said, is to design multifamily housing with units for the elderly and handicapped. The Majors will be applying to HUD for funding and other funding will be sought if that is not available. The location is important in that the ground is flat which is convenient for elderly and handicapped. Parks, public facilities and mass transit are convenient to the proposed site. Public hearing was closed. Council Bill No. 969 - Rezoning to R-3 SR property at intersection of Cheshire and North Lawrence 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 seconded by Mr. Hamel that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 27, 1975, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion e carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 12/22/7 5 - 1 054 . Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17489. -- B. Annexation of area between Delta Highway and Willagillespie Road, North of Delta-Willagillespie Interchange (Lane County) (A 75-8) Petitioner is Lane County, present owner of the property, and Planning I-A-2 Commission had first considered the annexation on September 22. At that time, the Planning Commission requested an analysis from the County on need for future interchange improvements at the Delta-Willagillespie intersection and also requested the commissioners to reconsider the proposed sale of Tax Lot 2000 and to retain that parcel in public ownership. However, the commissioners subsequently determined they were in a position to dispose of the property. The Planning Commission ultimately approved the annexation on October 27. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2466 - Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of area between Delta Highway and Willagillespie Road, North of Delta-Willagillespie Interchange was read by number and tit Ie. . Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. C. Code Amendment 1. Yard Exceptions and Permitted Intrusions into Required Yards (concerning telephone booths and public bus shelters, amending section e 9.544). (Recommended by Planning Commission November 10, 1975). In conjunction with this code amendment, it was noted that LTD is in the process of installing bus shelters. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 970 - Amending City Code Section 9.544 re: Yard Exceptions and Permitted Intrusions into Required Yards 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 seconded 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. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17490. D. Bids - Fire Department - Bids were opened 12/17/75 for Fire Station #9. It was noted that the bids I-A-3 have come in under the estimates with the low pre-qualifying bid by Powell of $122~499.00. 055 12/22/75 - 2 Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to award the contract to the low pre-qualifying bidder. Mr. Williams raised a question about the fact that there was a lower bidder and wondered if the policy of awarding to a pre-qualifier should be reconsidered. Assistant Manager noted the City has no authority to accept a bid from a contractor who has not prequalified. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. II, - ESATS Alternatives Selection I-A-4 December 15 official report from the Planning Commission has been distributed to Council. Mr. Williams inquired about the language in the Planning Commission report referring to an additional 10% reduction in auto trips. He wondered if it meant an additional 10% to that recommended in some ESATS alternative studies or did it mean a reduction of 10% in total number of trips. Mr. Maxwell, Planning Commission member, responded it is his interpretation that it meant 'a net reduction of 10% in per capita auto trips. Mayor Anderson explained that Council should arrive at an educated and reasonable estimation of transportation modal split as it will develop. That will be found e somewhere between idealism and reality, he said. There must be a goal offering a reasonable chance of success and the first goals should be mobility, minimizing the effects of the auto on the community, and providing alternatives sufficiently attractive to be supportable. There is no mode that will have significant impact unless it is faster, more economical, more comfortable and convenient than existing modes. He feels it is necessary to face the fact that the auto is not only transportation but also a symbol to many of freedom of mobility, independence and access to areas outside daily living patterns. Failure to provide adequately for auto traffic will not necessarily encourage a switch to other modes. Mayor Anderson does not envision a satisfactory alternative to the bus as a mass transit mode in the near future. Providing additional incentives will be the biggest challenge in developing significant use of bike and pedestrian modes. It is necessary to realize, too, he said, that decreased auto use will be made difficult by flexibility and adaptability of the auto industry and capability to adjust more quickly than other modes. Finally, without an areawide comprehensive plan, chances of success in implementing alternate modes are less than with a cooperative effort. He personally feels that the Planning Commission recommendations are reasonable and a good calculated set of alternatives. He noted the statement in the official report that the City should "continue to endorse the goals set out in the Community Goals and Policies and the 1990 General Plan, which recommend increasing the percentage of bike, pedestrian, and mass transit trips." He feels there is no need to develop a document more elaborate than recommended and that now it is a matter of competent planning and implementation. Mayor Anderson referred to the Planning Commission recommendation which favors a goal of 15% mass transit usage for the urban area's internal person trips, plus an equitable method of funding transit sufficient to provide resources for a 15% modal split, e with specific recommendations for changing transit financing. Mayor Anderson feels perhaps a slightly lesser figure would be a reasonable estimate. To achieve 15% will require an 8% increase compounded annually from now to the year 2000; 30% would require an 11.2% increase compounded annually. He added that for LTD to reach 6.2% by 1980 would require more than a 50% increase in ridership compounded ~~ 12/22/75 - 3 I . - annually. 'He personally feels an analysis of incentives will not support more than 10 or 12% usage. As fat- as auto trip generation, he feels a goal of 10% reduction is one that, is reasonable and it should be pursued. He feels there is no need for e elaboration on the land use section of the Planning Commission recommendation. Mayor Anderson encourages an early decision - there is a need for a plan because the citizens are entitled to one, he said, and modifications can be made at any Hme. Mr. Murray expressed appreciation for Mayor Anderson's comments, especially his concern that "we move ahead". I-A-5 Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Bradley to adopt the proposed ESATS response drafted by Council members Murray and Shirey, as well as paragraphs 1, sub 1 and 2, D and F from the Official Report of the Planning 'Commission dated December 15, 1975. Mr. Murray felt the response drafted by him and Ms. Shirey was not far off from the Planning Commission recommendations. Some parts of that revision, he said, include dealing with issues that seem critical to them. Mr. Murray said he and Mrs. Shirey felt it would be wiser to establish goals that include an element of challenge, even if adjustments have to be made later. Also, Council should not have to make projections requiring a great deal of technical information and expertise. If reducing auto reliance is desirable, he said, the amount of reduction should be stipulated by Council and staff can then set about establishing the best methods. Mr. Williams, in commenting on Mr. Murray's emphasis on bike and pedestrian travel, felt that both of those forms of movement on an interzonal basis will be a small part of the overall transportation system. Also, goals should be optimistic but e include an element of realism. On the basis of experience or facts or knowledge, he feels no one would argue that a community laid out as this metropolitan area is, with the kind of movements that it has within it, would ever reach 30% movement by modes other than the auto. He does not support excessive dominance by the auto though, in conversations with researchers, the prediction is more small cars and car pools but continued dependence on the auto. Mr. Murray, in responding to Mr. Williams, perceives the future as being tied up to auto domination. "70% auto still seems to us to be auto domination", he said. Mrs. Shirey feels that setting a policy now is really necessary. Goals must be established to have something to work for - otherwise "we may be going backwards", she said. Vote was taken on the motion which carried, all council members present voting aye except Mr. Hamel and Mr. Williams voting no. Mayor Anderson and Mr. Williams both felt "tonight's" action would not facilitate the efforts of LCOG, the County and Springfield in developing a rational plan. III - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed in committee on December 10, 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Williams, Bradley, Haws and Shirey) and on December 17, 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Williams, Keller, Bradley, Hamel, Haws and Shirey). Minutes of those meeting appear below printed in italics. A'-parkS Bond and Serial 'Levy - Cont'inuation of discussion from November 26 e , Commi ttee meeting. Mr. Haws wondered if the matter will be referred to I - B- 1 the Budget Committee, and Manager responded it has not been scheduled. 12/22/75 - 4 6~7 Mayor Anderson reiterated his earlier feeling that consideration of the measure should be deferred until it is known what the budget situation will be for the coming year. There are too many uncertainties at present. Another factor existing too is the upcoming sizable bond measure for the e jail. Murray concurred in part with Mayor Anderson but feels the proposal Mr. should be presented to the Budget Committee for review. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Haws to refer the proposal to the Budget Corrmilttee for review and recommendations of appropriate financial considerations. Mr. Williams expressed concern with referring to the Budget COmnUttee any matter involving revenue expenditures, based on the work load of the Committee and the number of times they meet. The Parks Bond measure has been through extensive debate, he said, and he feels it should be a Council decision though he agrees now may not be the appropriate time for such a decision. Mr. Murray feels the matter is appropriately related to the Budget COmnUttee's charge. Mr. Haws presented two additional proposals for consideration in the total package. First, he requested that the $400,000 allotted to the Willakenzie district be raised to $900,000 as was originally proposed and $150,000 allotted to Bethel Danebo be raised to $450,000 as originally proposed. Secondly, Mr. Haws would like information on possible division of acquisition and development. He would like to see what it would mean taxwise to separate the south hills part from the rest. Mayor Anderson said staff would furnish information to Council on the tax consequences. e Mr. MurrilY disagreed with any intent to divide the package. He feels it is suitable to reduce the total arrr:Junt but would hope there is opportunity to fully debate any intent to divide the issues. Mr. Bradley noted he was abstaining fro/n voting until he reviews the City Attorney's opinion on whether he can participate at all. Mr. Williams thinks it is necessary to be farther along in the budget process before knowing whether the parks proposals should be presented to the voters and he feels the City Council is in as good a position as anyone to make that decision when the time comes. Mayor Anderson feels the only question to ask of the Budget COmnUttee is if the parks measure would be appropriate to submit to the voters with the budget measure. He wondered if it would be agreeable to Council to flag the matter for a later Committee meeting and refrain from being locked into a certain procedure now. The Budgpt Committee should first have an opportunity to develOp an operational budget, and Council could then reconsider the parks issue about the 1st or 15th of MArch. Mr. Murray withdrew his mot.ion, with consent of the second. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Haws to postpone further discussion Comm on the parks issue until March. 12/10/75 It was understood staff would provide information as requested by Mr. Haws. Approve e Vote was taken on the 11r>tion which carried, all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Bradley abstaining. 658 12/22/75 - 5 --, B. Neighborhood Organization Policy Review - Copy of Community Goals Policy #6 on refinement of neighborhood o~ganization policy has been distributed to Council. Mr. Murray feels it is appropriate to assess the Neighborhood Organization Policy and how it is working and explore the community goals policy #6 which outlines some extensive refinement of the relationship between the neighborhood organizations .and the city. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey that the Council authorize fornJation of a committee for the purposes he noted, the committee to Comm consist of two City Council members appointed by the Mayor, three 12/10/75 neighborhood leaders appointed by the collective neighborhood leaders, the committee to work with staff and to gauge the attitude of staff Approve people, decision nJakers and other active civic groups having an interest in neighborhood groups. Mayor Anderson wondered if Mr. Murray intended it to include assessment of the activities of each group. Mr. Murray answered he intended it to include merely review of the policy and how it is working. It has occurred to Mayor Anderson that an evaluation might be something the committee could look at as regards activities and participation of each separate neighborhood group. Mr. Murray felt the policy itself provides that decisions regarding the effectiveness of each group should be nJade by the Ci ty Council. Mayor Anderson thought that, if the neighborhood policy is going to be refined with more authority possibly delegated to the groups, there should be some idea as to how the groups represent their neighborhoods. That information should be obtained, even though Council perhaps would be the appropriate body to nJake the evaluation. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. C. Approval of Revised Proposal for CityjCountyPedestrian Bridge - Letter of e November 28 from County Administrator has been distributed to Council members. It indicates new plans have been drawn for a pedestrian bridge connecting the county and city offices. The span would have a clearance of about 15' 2" at the center. The original proposal provided for a 14' clearance. The County Commissioners have approved the project conditioned on the approval by the City of Eugene, with the understanding that the cost would be equally shared between the two jurisdictions. Cost estinJate is $30,048.00. The design provides for a ramp with no steps included. Increase in price for the new design is about $5,000 to $6,000. Mrs, Shirey indicated not being in favor of the project but, at the same time, felt it would be difficult to cancel it at this point since it appears the Public Service Building construction is nJaking provision for the bridge. Manager said the bridge would save much mid-block crossing and would be convenient for the handicapped as well. He explained too that original conve~sations between the county and the city had talked about a span with a clearance of l5~ to 16 feet, due to possibili ty of ,large trucks coming up Pearl and needing more clearance. The County felt that would be too costly, but 15'2" seems more advisable than original plans of 14'. Mr. Haws wondered about number of pedestrian crossings a day and man hours that would be saved by construction of a bridge. Assistant Manager responded the,re are probably in the neighborhood of several hundred people a day crossing From ci ty to county or visa versa. Staff would number at least 50-70% of that total. There is so much ml.-:'J.-block crossing that County Judge Ed Allen e has even sought repeal of the jaywalking ordinance. ~s9 12/22/75 - 6 Mr. Murray agreed with Mrs. Shirey's opposition to the project, feeling it is too much rroney. e Mrs. Sh.i rey stated she does regret voting for the bridge in the first place but, on the other hand, she is concerned that the Public Service Building structure would not look complete if the bridge were not built. Cliff Culp, realtor, said that, when looking at the life expectancy of the buildings the bridge would serve, the expenditure for a bridge seems low per year. It would be a great time saver for city and county officials. Assistant Manager noted that, when Leoe officials and others rrove into the Public Service Building, the pedestrian traffic will increase substantially as w,i11 public parking underneath City Hall. Manager feels the project is a very desirable separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Mid-block crossing interrupts traffic. Mayor Anderson commented he was not particularly enthusiastic about the bridge but would support it primarily for safety reasons. The courthouse and Ci ty Hall have become twice the traffic generators they were five years ago. With tire engines coming out of City Hall, bike paths, etc., a pedestrian bridge seems crucial for safety reasons. Mr. Murray feels it is a question of values. He sees many unmet needs other places in the city which are similar in nature - school crossings, etc. - and thinks some ot those needs should be addressed first. Mr. Hendershott, Attorney, commented that the cost of the bridge over the period of time it will be used is minimal. It bothers him, too, to see so e milch jaywalking (breaking of the law). Frankly, he said, why not abolish the law against jaywalking. Speaking to Mr. Murray's comments, he noted the City has all kinds of needs but the pedestrian structure will be used for 50-100 ye~rs and it seems cheaper to do it now than later. Mr. Williams expressed agreement with the advisability of separating pedestrians and t raft ic. Mr. Williams rroved seconded by Mr. flaws to approve the necessary addi tional funds for the new design for a pedestrian bridge between Comm the City and County. Vote was taken on the rrotion which carried, all 12/10/75 Council members present voting aye except Mr. Murray voting no. Approve Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Haws to place on a future Committee agenda discussion of the options and ramifications of repealing the jaywa.lking statute. Motion carried unanirrousl!j. D.Initiation of Improvement of 15th Street, Jefferson to Fairgrounds - Council has viewed the site on tour. It is a shabby looking section of street which is an important entrance to the fairgrounds. Mr. Murray wondered if there would be any possiblity of getting the County to share ~n the cost, Manager responding staff "could ask". Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to authorize staff to proceed. Comm Motion carried unanirrously. 12/10/75 . Approve 12/22/75 - 7 ~~() E. Abatement- 1412 Pearl - Council has viewed the property on tour. January 26 is recommended by staff as a public hearing to give ample time for notices Comm to be sent out due to Christmas mail foul-up. 12/10/75 It was moved and seconded a hearing be called for January 26. Motion Approve carried unanimously. . Mrs. Shi Tey registered sentiment that this particular abatement should have occurred sooner. She would hope that in the future problems of this nature would be looked at closer and quicker. F. Annexation - Area located between Delta Highway and Willagillespie Road, north of the Delta - Willagi11espie in,terchange. (Lane County) (A 75-8) Plann,ing Commission October 27, 1975, recommended approval to the Boundary Commission of the above parcel, Tax Lot 2000 - Assessors Map 17-03-19-3. Maps have been distributed to Council. The matter had been referred back to the Planning Commission because they had initially ~ecommended against annexation. Development has been proposed at the site and it is at an intersection which may almost inevitably have to be improved, plus the County is selling the property, the intended buyer wishing to change the zoning. The Planning Commission and others have given notice that chances for changing the zoning to commercial are rather limited. However, the city wou,Zd not be opposed to annexing the property. . Comm Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to call a hearing for 12/10/75 December 22. Motion carried unanimously. Approve G.Petitions - Sanitary Sewers A. 100 feet south of 38th Avenue and 39th Avenue from 100 feet east of Onyx Comm Street to North Shasta Loop - 60% 12/10/75 Approve B. Lot 5, Block 3, Parkside Terrace Addition - 63.4% e ,Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the peti tions. Motion c~rried unanimously. H. Teleprompter Franchise Negotiations - Mr. Williams stated that Teleprompter has agreed to renegotiate its franchise with the City and that the agreement came 30 days later than a resolution called for it to occur. Mr. Williams feels that the delay is unfortunate but can see no point in objecting since "we got what we want". Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Murray to accept the Teleprompter Comm franchise agreement. Motion carried unanimously. 12/17/75 Approve I. Downtown Development Board Appointment - In response to a question raised by Mr. Bradley at the December 10 Commdttee meeting, staff said there would not appear to be any conflict in appointing Mr. Neal K. Sande to the Downtown Development Board even though he has some partnership interests with Mr. Loomis, also a member on that board. City Attorney added there is no legal reason why the appointment should not be made. It was moved and seconded to approve the appointment of Mr. Neal Comm K. Sande as above, term expiring 1/1/78. Motion carried, all 12/17/75 Council members present voting aye except Mr. Bradley abstaining. Approve ~ -o_ J: Sunday Opening at the Library - Memo of December 4 from the Library Board has been distributed to the Council, in which it is recommended to open the library on Sunday afternoon, 1 p.m. - 5 p.m., from January 4 through May 30, 1976, with full staffing. The Board further requests an appropriation of $9500 for that . purpose and states they will request funds in the new fiscal year for Sunday opening September, 1976, through May, 1977. Manager noted that, since the city is in a financial crunch, one question that has been raised is whether a 12/22/75 - 8 , 00( cOmnUtment of this nature should be undertaken at this point when other services stand a chance of being reduced. In talking to Librarian Jim Meeks, Manager said that there has been wide interest generated in having Sunday opening. If it is a successful venture, it would hopefully be continued on an annual basis and the cost would be perhaps 60% above the figure cited. There is the possibility, too, that the Library Board and staff might consider closing e certain nights to compensate for the Sunday opening. Mrs. Lacy of the Library Board said that the "books are there" and "the building is there" and there have been many requests to use the facility on Sundays. They would hope that any trial period would prove the venture to be a success. Mr. Meeks noted it would be difficult to close any other time except possibly Friday nights, that night being the least busy. Many children come to the library on Saturdays, and businesses and housewives use it heavily during the week, as well as students. He also commented that a full staff would be needed, at least at first, until they have a pretty good indication of the crowd. Mayor Anderson fel tit would be helpful to look at the proposal in terms of a minimum and a maximum program. It is conceivable that the matter could end up in the Budget Committee so a fairly complete picture would be desirable. Mr. Meeks said that $9500 would be a minimum proposal. The people using the library on Sunday would expect trained personnel and the same level of service as at other times. All public areas would need to be opened up. In answer to Mr. Haws,Mr. Meeks not~d that library usage in Eugene is up 35% over the last two years, a rather phenomenal increase, he thinks. He added that very few cities in the same population bracket as Eugene have library attendance that warrants Sunday ope~ing. Mr. Murray feels it would be more appropriate to refer the entire matter to the e Budget COmnUttee. He favors the cor:.cept but is concerned about taking it out of context of the budget process since other departments have budgetary concerns. Mr. Keller agreed, feeling it necessary to consider all appeals from various departments wi thin the same framework. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to refer the Library Sunday Comm opening proposal to the Budget Committee. 12/17/75 Approve Since the Library Board is proposing Sunday opening starting January 4, if the proposal goes to the Budget Committee it would mean that the proposed time schedule could not be followed for this fiscal year, since it would have to wai t for voter approval of the budgE,t. Mr. Bradley was troubled with the fact that the request from the library is for this fiscal year and wonders what provisions there are for funding special requests without taking the time to go through the budget process. Mr. Murray appreciates the intent of the Library Board wanting to effect Sunday opening right away but still feels their proposal should be considered in conjunction with programs of other departments. Mr. Williams ' impression is that, if an emergency need arises, the City Manager has authority to move funds from one category to another operating category, that the problem here is that the Library does not fall under City Manager control so it becomes a council action. Assistant Manager agreed, adding that with ot~ler departments there is latitude .- providing that there are funds in that department's budget that can be reallocated for another purpose. If so, it then requires a motion from council authorizing the use. (,CoZ 12/22/75 - 9 I If not, other means of finding funds rndght be considered or the proposal must wait until the next budget year. Mr. Haws wondered if the Library could seek room tax funds. Mr. Bradley fel t the notion should read "to approve or deny" the Library Board's request, rather than e "to refer" it. He believes they are'entitled to a clear yes or no answer from Council. Mayor Anderson feels that the notion on the floor does not deny the request ~ut merely says that the date of inception of the program would not commence unt~l the Budget Comrndttee has reviewed it. Mrs. Shirey also wondered about use of room tax funds, Manager replying that question would have to be explored along with researching other possible resources the library might have. Vote was taken on the notion which carried, all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Bradley and Mr. Haws voting no. K.-' Proposed Amendments to City Code - November 4 Planning Commission official report recommends the following changes to the zoning code: Section 9.254, Definition of Corner Lot; Section 9.015, Definition of Corner Lot in Land Division Ordinance; section 9.310 and 9.324, Duplexes Perrndtted; Section 9.254, Vision Clearance Definition; Section 9.538(6), Vision Clearance Regulations; Section 7.630, FOliage- Obstruct Vision at Intersection; Section 9.756, Appeal to Council from Zoning Board of Appeals; Section 9.254, Definitions of Private and Public Parking Areas; Section 9.584(2), Exemptions from Parking Area Improvements. Staff recommends L. public hearing be set for January 26. November 10 Planning Commission official report recommends change to Section 9.544, Yard Exceptions and Permitted Intrusions into Required Yards. As this relates to bus shelter installation, staff recommends M. public hearing be set for December 22. October 27 Planning Commission official e report recommends zone change for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cheshire and North Lawrence Streets, Tax Lots 3600, 3800 and 4000, Assessor's Map 17-03-30-3-1, Norman L. and Patricia A. Majors (Z 75-3), from R-2 to R-3 with site review procedures. Staff recommends December 22, 1975, public hearinq be set. Mr. Murrall nvved seconded bll Mr. Keller to schedule public hearings Comm on the above matters as recommended. Motion carried unaninvusly. 12/17/75 Approve N. Consideration of Alley Vacation - Duvall Investments (Hirons) (AV 75-1) - Assessor's Map 17-03-33-3-2, located south of Franklin between Villard and Orchard Planning Commission on November 10 recommended approval. Map of area has been distributed to Council. Mr. Murray moved and it was seconded to authorize preparation of Comm an ordinance for the December 22 Council meeting, calling a hearing 12/17/75 on the above matter for January 26. Motion carried unanimously. Approve O. Request for Extension of One-Year Variance - Six-foot High Wooden Fence at 2605 Friendly Street - V. W. Blowers Copy of excerpt of November 12, 1974, Council rndnutes showing original granting of variance has been distributed to Council, along with memo of December 4, 1975, from Zoning Adrndnistrator pointing out that the original variance has been granted pending examination of the fence set back requirements by the Planning Commission. Since that determination has not as yet been made, it seems appropriate that the Council should be given an opportunity to review its position, and the Zoning Administrator memo indicates a one-year additional variance would be a reasonable approach. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to extend the variance for Comm one year. 12/17/75 ApprOve t,~3 12/22/75 - 10 Mrs. Shirey wondered if this variance was similar to the one denied in October for a fence at 2080 Churchill Street. Public Works Director said it was a somewhat similar violation. Mrs. Shirey then wondered why one was granted a variance and the other was not. Assistant Manager explained that the variance - at 2605 Friendly was granted pending examination of requirements on fences in front yards and side yards. That examination has not been completed as yet due to the priority of other matters. Mrs. Shirey felt that the pending study should have been mentioned at the time of the 2080 Churchill appeal so that perhaps different consideration could have been given in that particular case. Public Works Director noted that, in that case, the appellant had gone through the appeal process twice before over a long period of time. To this date, there has still not been compliance with the order to remove the fence. Mr. Keller noted a technical point, that the city is not saying they approve of the fences. As Public Works Director pointed out, the variance granted at 2605 Friendly was not a true variance but rather a temporary one pending outcome of the study. Mr. Bradley would think it appropriate to contact the appellant who has not yet complied and advise him that his fence could be included in the variances granted pending outcome of the study. Mrs. Shirey agreed with that also. City Attorney said consideration should be given the fact that, on the fence at 2080 Churchill, notice was given by the city during construction that the fence would be in violation. That advice was ignored, the fence was built in defiance of the code and in full knowledge of same, and an attempt was made to keep it up through the variance process. By granting a variance, the ci ty could be getting into a credibility issue. Mr. Haws agreed with Mr. Long, saying he would be opposed to hearing the issue over again. e Mr. Williams feels that before any wholesale variances are granted, fences in question should be looked at to check location, site provisions, traffic, etc. Mr. Murray would agree, that "we should know what we are do.ing", being aware of all existing conditions with each fence. Mr. Bradley reiterated his feeling that the Churchill Street fence owner be contacted and advised he could hold off on compliance pending review of the whole matter by Council. Mr. Bradley moved to table the matter to the December 23 Committee meeting. Motion died for lack of a second. Vote was taken on the motion which carried, all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Hamel and Mr. Haws voting no. P. Water and Sewer Extension Ordinance Modification Requiring Application to Boundary commission Copy of proposed ordinance adding Section 2.212 and amending Section 7.050 has been distributed to Council. It provides for submission to the Boundary Commission of requests made for extraterritorial water service, provided the extension is consistent in all respects with adopted resolutions, policies, plans and ordinances. Boundary Commission legal staff interprets the law to mean that requests for water must be made by the governmental agency providing water, not by a private party desiring service. If requests do not conform to the policy set by the Council, city staff will not consider submission to the Boundary Commission. In the instance of Shade Oaks subdivision, though the city did not approve, the request could still be e submitted to the Boundary commission by the Willamette Water Company. The key is that the request has to be from an agency directly or indirectly responsible 12/22/75 - 11 tcto4- for providing water. The proposed ordinance is simply a means of formalizing the procedures and recognizing the law. Staff would refer to the Boundary COnmUssion an~ requests that compl~ with Council policy, submitting to Council only requests wh~ch seem unclear, as ~n the Shade Oaks case. Of course applicants are free to appeal decisions to Council too. Mr. Harrel 11r:Jved seconded by Mr. Murray to place the proposed ordinance e on the December 22, agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 12/17/75 Q. Council minutes, 9/8/75 and 9/22/75, Approve as circulated Approve R. Creation of Youth Study Corrunittee - Materials have been distributed to Council - ' on the Salem Youth Commission and on efforts to date for creation of such a commission in Eugene. The responsibility of any corrunittee appointed would be to consider whether a youth corrunission or sorre other form of youth advisory comndttee should be created. Mayor Anderson has requested that names be submitted of people who might serve on such a study corrunittee. It appears to him that there are a number of directions any kind of youth groups could go. It would be difficult to broaden the base enough to include all things to be studied. Mrs. Shirey thinks the committee should look into the direction the matter should take, as opposed to Council determining which direction the corrunittee should go. Mr. Murray raised two issues. First, there is possibility for establishing a youth rights comndssion, placing emphasis on legal problems of youth, etc. That direction seerred to be the major intent that brought the matter to the City officials ,in the first place and is a point of view which should be incl uded in committee deliberations. Secondly, he said he has always had reservations about whether much worth would be derived from that type of organization. It e would be of some benefit but the law right now has limited application for young people in different areas. He is not sure there will be sweeping revisions of the law and maybe youth might better look at serving themselves in terms of recreationa.i. facilities, job opportunities, etc. It was understood that three to four months would be an appropriate time Comm period for an appointed corrunittee to address the issues and that the 12/10/75 Mayor would proceed with appointment. Approve S. Removal of Leaves -Mr. Bradley aSked-staff to contact Mr. E. R. Nelson, Comm : 190 West 35th, concerning Mr. Nelson's problem with removal of leaves 12/10/75 on his street. There are no curbs and gutters there, and evidently the City has told him that there will be no leaf pickup. File T. Proposed Bi-Mart Store at 40th and Donald - Mr. Bradley noted a concern from Mr. R. C. Brandt, 225 East 41st Avenue, regarding the proposed Comm Bi-Mart at 40th and Donald. Mr. Brandt has said that he has received 12/10/75 no response to his inquiries to the Planning Department about the proposed File ,construction and requests a reply. U. National League of Cities Convention Report - Mr. Bradley noted he would Comm like to be scheduled on a future Committee agenda to give a report on his 12/10/75 attendance at the NLC convention. File V. Palace Hotel - Mr. Bradley would like staff to investigate and refer to Council whether there was an executive session held earlier by the Joint Comm /lousing Committee on ,the matter of the acquisition of t;he Palace Hotel. l2/l0/75 It is Mr. Bradley's understanding that such a session was held to discuss File e price negotiation and he feels Council should have been notified of such 12/22/75 - 12 ~to~ a meeting. His concern on the issue regards whether Council is delegating purchase negotiations to an advisory committee. Also, though Council was to make the decision on acquisition, he was told Council could not receive informution on other possible uses of the property or other interested e purchasers. Manager pointed out that the Palace Hotel was not to be purchased by the City but rather the purchase subsidized. He added staff would check on whether all executive session was held. Mr. Bradley went on to voice his concerns about a possible precedent being set, since the Joint Housing Committee will be involved in land acquisition in the future with community development funds. Mr. Anderson felt there was no need for concern, since the Palace Hotel project was more of a grant than a full purchase with negotiations by the City. Mr. Murray agreed that no procedure was violated but felt Mr. Bradley raised an important question and would also like some clarification as to procedures for future negotiations. Mr, Williams, as a member of the Joint Housing Committee, explained it was Ilis understanding that committee was given authority to disburse the a.Z1otted housing grant funds. He feels that not granting any agency of the ci ty the power to negotiate on the city's behalf would .involve substantial ramifications in terms of ability to function. W. State Regulations on Rabies Immunization - Mrs,' Shirey has learned the State has regulated that a rabies vaccination for dogs must be current for the Comm entire term of a dog license. It would mean that a dog license would be 12/10/75 File e issued only if a rab,ies vaccination was obtained at the same time. It would also interfere with the timetable set for gi ving puppy slJOts. Mrs. Shirey thought the wording would best read that a rabies vaccination certificate be current at the time a license is obtained. Manager stated the question could be explored with the appropriate constituency. X. Citizen Participation Program Report - Mr. Murray requested a status report on the citizen participation program currently underway. Manager said quite a few applications to fill upconJing vacancies on various boards and Comm commissions have come in to the Manager's office to date and are being held 12/10/75 in a central file until the filing deadline December 31. Randi Reinhard, File Planning, noted she has distributed some application lJlanks to neighborhood groups indicating an interest to her. Y. Assessment Deferral Program - Mr. Haws referred to Section 7.190 of the City Code which puts a $7,000 ceiling on income to qualify for extension of Comm assessment payments. He thinks that limit may be too low since it does not 12/10/75 provide for inflation; it also does not take into consideration deductions File for large medical expenditures, etci and perhaps, too, the limit should be based on the net income rather thap the gross figure. He has discussed the matter with staff and would like a report back on the possibility of making some changes in the ordinance. Z. Eugene-Springfield "Mutual" Meeting - Mr. Bradley wondered if a meeting was still to be scheduled between the Councils of Eugene and Springfield to discuss working relatiollships and items of mutual interest. Manager responded a meeting has been held at the staff level and Mayor Anderson has met with Mayor Freeman Comm . of Springfield as well. They decided at that time that perhaps any 12/10/75 further meetings at this point would not be too fruitful. Additionally, File a report covering touchy issues discussed at the staff level has previously been distributed to Council. 12/22/75 - 13 ~~fo 1 M. Downtown Development Board Vacancy - A replacement is needed to fill a vacancy I created by the transfer to Portland of Mr. Ed Wilson. The Board has recommended that Neil K. Sande be appointed to fill the term expiring 1/1/78. Mr. Murray IToved seconded by Mr. Williams to confirm the appointment e of Mr. Sande as above. Mr. Bradley requested clarification on whether it is proper for members of Camm the DDB to be partners in various business ventures, as he understands Mr. 12/10/75 Sande has partnership interests with Bob Loomis, a Board member. File Mr. Murray withdrew his motion, with consent of the second, pending an opinion from the City Attorney on Mr. Bradley's question. BB. Growth Study .- Growth Study discussion has been postponed to the December Comm 17 Committee meeting since Planning Director is out of town. 12/10/75 File CC.Liquor License - Change of Ownership - Pizza Aurelio - Applicant has Comm requested postponement of consideration of the,ir request to a later date. 12/10/75 Staff has no objections. File DD.Hearings Panel Substitute - January 5 - A substitute is needed for the January 5 hearings panel to replace Mrs. Beal who is out of the country. It was understood staff would bring back to the next Committee Comm meeting names of Council members slated to serve on the hearing panel, 12/10/75 from which a substitute will be chosen. File EE.Continuation of Discussion of Water Extension Approval - Suit has been filed, as per Council instructions, in connection with the Boundary Commission's approval of extension of water to the Shade Oaks Subdivision. The discussion now concerns further communication with EWEB and possibly the County on e the general policy of water extension. Mr. Chenkin, Assistant Planning Director, has done further research into the Planning Department's view on some of the specific effects of the Shade Oaks Subdivision action and Comm how it would affect other potential water users. 12/10/75 File Mr. Chenkin noted that, in regard to the Shade Oaks extension, Planning Department had looked to the policy of the City Council adopted in 1972 concerning requests for water service outside the city linlits. Since the Shade Oaks subdivision is clearly outside the urban service boundary, the Planning Department researched and found that service can be extended if there is a public health hazard to existing occupants of existing structures. Since there was no case being made regarding public health hazard to the Shade Oaks area (health hazard being defined as contanlinant in water rather than no water, as in this instance) Planning responded to the Boundary Commission that the policy did not seem to allow recommending extension. The City's policy emanated from the 1990 Plan and one of its major themes is containment of the urban service boundary - services beyond that boundary given prematurely can hasten development not within the control of the city. Planning also pointed out that the 1990 Plan indicates there are satellite communities around the area, Goshen being one of them; however, the Shade Oaks subdivision is not ,in the Goshen area according to the 1990 Plan. If a satellite area includes some plan for that area, it could be recognized there is a possibility some services could come from Eugene. Therefore, until precise planning is done for the Shade Oaks area, extension of water service would be premature because the extent of the ultimate plan WOuld not be known. Specific criteria in the 1990 Plan state that public service extensions to outlying areas have encouraged urban development at distant sites which can cause a demand for . other services, and that public utilities must be provided in an orderly and {g(P7 12/22/75 - 14 efficient arrangement. (That could be interpreted to mean a single facility is not extended beyond the urban service boundary to the exclusion of other facilities without considering the resultant effects). Also, the plan states water and sewer service should beorovided simultaneously. Finally, the plan allows for extension if there is a threat to public health and public e safety. Mr. Chenk.!~l!..<?!:.f!d that ORS 448 gi V::s as a defini tion of heal th hazard water that includes certain foreign substances that can cause disease or physical suffering. The definition does not include the absence or scarcity of water. That interpretation of the definition was included in the resolution proposed to Council by Planning and adopted in October. Planning also suggests that, if shortage of water is used as a definition of health hazard, there would be serious problems defining limits to providing water service in other cases. There are a number of requests waiting now on the outcome of this matter, and persons would be coming forth to ask if shortage of water in and of itself is adequate rationale for extension. Mr. Williams thanked Mr. Chenkin for his presentation and added that, as he understands it, the laws of a particular area are the laws that should be applied to that area. In this regard, it would mean that the question of extension of water to the Shade Oaks subdivision should be interpreted under the laws of the county. If that logic is correct, the Lane County code would be the law that would be used to interpret the 1990 Plan, and that code includes shortage of water as a definition of health hazard. Mr. Williams does not disagree with potential implications of extending services beyond the urban service boundary, but it seems that the law as it now exists pretty clearly says the 1990 Plan does not conflict with extension of water to the Shade Oaks area. Mr. Murray feels it is essential to protect city policies; it is all that stands between orderly growth and uncontrolled urban sprawl. It seems critical to him that those policies are accepted and believed in and that the utmost is done to e defend them. Mr. Henry noted communication should be made to the County and to EWEB. He suggested that the City Attorney perhaps first investigate the county's legal situation and perhaps recommend changes - certainly in the area of building permit administration recommendations might well be made to tighten IIp permits where there is no potable water. It was understood the discussion would be continued to the 10/17 COmnUttee meeting. FF. Assessment Hearing Panel - January Substitute for Mrs. Beal (1976 Roster: Bradley/Murray: April-June Comm Hamel/Shirey: July-September 12/17/75 Keller/Haws: October-December File Mr. Bradley consented to serve with Mr. Williams on the January 6 assessment panel, as Mrs. Beal will not be in the country on that date. GG. ESATS Alternatives Selection - Planning cOmnUsslon December 15, 1975, report distributed to Council recommending the City continue to endorse the goals set out in the Community Goals and Policies and the 1990 General Plan. It further recommends that a comprehensive transportation plan be adopted based on 15 percent mass transit usage; 10 percent auto trip reduction; promotion of a growth pattern to minimize total travel demand; maintenance and improvement of streets and Comm highways to provide mobility for automobiles, trucks, transit vehicles, and 12/17/75 biCYCles; implementation of the Metro Area Bikeway Plan and Master Bike Plan; File e development of pedestrian wal"kways; and review of the transportation planning process at no less than five-year intervals. Fi~ally, it recommends that the Council adopt the y~ as the time EranJe Eor achieving the long-range goals set Eorth above. . - 12/22/75 - 15 '='(08 Manager explained it is hoped to meet the schedule for alternatives selection by making a decision at the December 22 Council meeting, at which time there will be a full Council discussion but no public hearing. Mr. Porter, Planning Director, noted Planning Commission chairman Alan Maxwell will be present at the December 22 meeting to answer questions and provide input. Mr. Williams e requested copies be provided Council of the December 15 Planning Commdssion meeting. A question was raised on time.frame, and ,Planning Director responded commitments have been made by the city to other agencies to do the master planning in this budget year with final plans made next August. A decision from governmental bodies is desired as soon as possible bvt there is no deadline at this juncture. Mrs. Shirey wondered what happens if the different jurisdictions do not concur on a plan. Planning Director responded there should be an attempt at the pol i ti.cal level to resol ve differences, in order to prov.i..de for a "metropoli tan" transportation plan~ As Mayor Anderson pointed out, it is actually an LeOG proposal so it will be their task to submit the final alternatives. Manager noted that, if the political leadership is at great odds, he did not see how LeOG could proceed with a decision and how funds could be invested for a transportation system not favored by all. He further commented that, until recently, December 31 was the deadline for completion of the final plan but, for various reasons, the Federal Government is willing to recertify without a final plan, if some real progress is shown in rroving toward the final goal. Mr. Murray wondered if it is necessary that all elements of the transportation plan be uniform between the two cities. Mr. Gunsler, project director, stated regulations say there must be an areawide comprehensive plan adopted. It does not necessarily mean complete uniformity. For instance, Springfield could have a somewhat different scheme; but Mr. Gunsler does not see how it would be e possible for it to vary too greatly because of the interaction between the transportation systems of the two cities. It would not seem feasible to have 30% transit in Eugene and 10% or less in Springfield, he added. Mrs. Shirey expressed concern in that she cannot see sacrificing the goals, if another city wants less ridership, to which Mr. Gunsler replied that it would be extremely difficult for the two cities to act independently of one another. Also, Federal regulations require that there must be an area-wide plan adopted. Mayor Anderson commented that it would be an unusual coincidence if all jurisdictions in a master transportation plan came up with the same ideas on ridership, etc. It is important to remember, he continued, that somewhere along the line a comprehensive plan must be developed to meet the obligations. Blind opposition to other schemes will not result in any progress. Each jurisdiction must try to accommodate the feelings of the other and work them into the overall scheme. An attempt to take a hard and fast position when working toward a comprehensive plan would be extremely unfortunate, he concluded. Mr. Bradley wondered if LCDC had any jurisdiction should LeOG not arrive at a uniform plan. Mr. Porter responded that they ultimately would. It is an element of the general plan. HH. Review of Growth qtudy Proposals - Council has received memo from Planning Director Conun dated November 24, 1975, suggesting ideas for developing a plan of study. It 12/17/75 would concentrate more on growth management techniques and systems rather than File the effects of growth. It is suggested that the recommendations in that memo be submitted to the individual members of the Community Goals Committee for their review, comment, additions and corrections. A final staff proposal would then be e drafted to go to the City Council regarding the way in which the city might proceed with ,limited growth studies. 12/22/75 - 16 0fa<f Mr. Murray commented that the proposed method seems to be a very useful and reasonable way to approach the matter. He also said he' did not totally agree with the statement in the memo that the city cannot directly control e the rate of population growth for this area and that techniques which would achieve that kind of control are being challenged in the courts at present. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams that Items A through HH be approvedt affirmed and filed as noted. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 971 - Calling hearing January 26, 1976, re: vacating alley south of Franklin between Villard and Orchard was read I-B-2 the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded 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 con~idered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. 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 17491. Council Bill No. 972 - Adding Section 2.212 and Amending Section 7.050 of the Eugene Code re: water service extensions was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no cOl.D1cil e members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded 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 cOl.D1cil bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded 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 17492. Council Bill No. 973 - Paving 15th Avenue from Jefferson Street to 150 feet west was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded 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. Murray moved seconded 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 17493. Council Bill No. 974 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving 15th Avenue . from Jefferson Street to 150 feet west was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. 12/22/75 - 17 (070 Mr. Murray moved seconded 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 e bili was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded 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 17494. Council Bill No. 975 - Paving Concord Street from Jacobs Drive to Hughes Street was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full~ Mr. Murray moved seconded 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. Murray moved seconded 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 17495. Council Bill No. 976 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Concord Street from Jacobs Drive to Hughes Street was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time e by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr.. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcal1 vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17496. Counci 1 Bi 11 No. 977 - Construction of sanitary sewer between 38th Avenue and 39th Avenue (if extended east) from Onyx Street to North Shasta Loop was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded 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. ,Murray moved seconded 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 17497. Council Bill No. 978 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary sewer between 38th Avenue and 39th Avenue (if extended east) from Onyx Street to North Shasta Loop was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present . requesting that it be read in full. 12/22/75 - 18 b7/ - Mr. Murray moved seconded 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 e the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded 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 17498. Council Bill No. 979 - Construction of sanitary sewer between Fairmount Boulevard and Parkside Drive from Summit Avenue to 300 feet north was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded 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. Murray moved seconded 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 17499. Council Bill No. 980 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary sewer between Fairmount Boulevard and Parkside Drive from Summit Avenue to 300 feet north was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Counci1,and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. 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 17500. ,Council Bill No. 981 - Levying assessments for sanitary and storm sewer within Mahalo Hills 1st Addition (75-06) was read by Council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr, Murray moved seconded by Mr, Hamel that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, and recommendation brought back for Council consideration on January 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 982 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Sleepy Hollow Addition; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet north and south of Sleepy Hollow Addition; and storm sewer within Dapple Way Subdivision (75-08) was read by Council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, and recommendation brought back for Council consideration on January 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. 12/22/75 - 19 ~72 I Council Bill No. 983 - Levying assessments for paving and pedestrian way within Dapple Way Subdivision (75-16) was read by Council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. ... Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, and recommendation brought back for Council consideration on January 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 984 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Spring Blvd. from N. Shasta Loop to 500 feet southeast of North Shasta Loop, sanitary sewer to serve area between North Shasta Loop and 500 feet South of N. Shasta Loop and between Spring Blvd. and 160 feet East of Spring Blvd (75-17) was read by Council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, and recommendation brought back for Council consideration on January 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 985 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer along the south boundary of Senger Park between Norwood Street and Gilham Road (75-19) was read by C0uncil bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr., Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, and recommendation brought back for Council consideration on January 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 986 - Levying assessments for alley paving between Pearl e Street and High Street from 4th Avenue to alley - between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue (75-20) was read by Council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, and recommendation brought back for Council consideration on January 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 987 - Levying assessments for alley paving between Oak Street and Pearl Street from 14th Avenue to the E/W alley; and between 14th Avenue and 15th Avenue from Oak Street to N/S alley (75-22) was read by Council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, and recommendation brought back for Council consideration on January 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 988 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer - Willona Park Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160' of Willona Drive from Benson Lane to 212' W. of Benson Lane (75-36) was read by Council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. .' Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, and recommendation brought back for Council consideration on January 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. 073 12/22/75 - 20 I I v - Resolutions ~- Resolution No. 2467 - Calling hearing January 26, 1976, re: Abatement - 1412 Pearl was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. 1- B- 3 Resolution No. 2468 - Authorizing adoption of Bethel-Danebo Neighborhood Refinement Plan, Phase I, as amended was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2469 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period December 8, 1975, through December 22, 1975.was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2470 - Amending Resolution No. 2425 and authorizing the Metropolitan Cable TV Translator Commission to continue franchise negotiations with Teleprompter of Oregon and to continue its study of translator service to the Metropolitan area was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel 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. ".- I c~)~ City Manager - 12/22/75 - 21 to 74- - -' ~ -~ -