Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/1976 Meeting . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 23~ 1976 Adjourned meeting - from February 9, 1976 - 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 Febru- ary 23, 1976 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Gus Keller, Eric Haws, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D.W.Hamel, and Edna Shirey. I - Public Hearings A. Withdrawing from Oakway Water District recently annexed area at northeast corner of Gilham Road and Crescent Avenue (BC FO 300) Routine action for withdrawing from the special district of an area recently annexed to the city. Public hearinf was held with no testimony presented. I-A-] Council Bill No. 1012 - Withdrawing from Oakway Water District area at northeast corner of Gilham Road and Crescent Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and nunbcred 17524. B. Appeals from Planning Commission denial of zone changes - January 6, 1976 1. Southwest corner of 19th and Jefferson - From R-I to C-l (LICO Corpora- tion)(Z 75-18) - fPpedlS from Planning Commdssion Denials of Zone Changes . Lico Corporation and Bonson Designers, appellants; Tax Lot 7200, 19th near Jefferson, Map 18-03-06-21, from Rl to C1. 2. Donald L. Frosland and Bonson Designers, appellants; Tax Lot 300, Chase Street North of Cross Street, from RA to M-2. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to schedule a February 23 public hearing on the above zone change appeals. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/11/76 Pub Hrng Manager noted that the zone change request had been denied in Planning Commis- sion action on January 6, 1976 as the result of a tie vote. - Jim Saul, planner, explained that some years back a portion of the one tax lot on which zone change was requested had been rezoned to C-I, allowing develop- ment of a gas station. At the time of that rezoning, the zoning code allowed for transitional uses so the portion of the lot zoned R-l was developed as a parking lot for the gas station. Subsequent to that time, the gas station burned. Mr. Saul said that the C-I portion of the property could be used for residential purposes only as a conditional use in conjunction with commercial uses; C-1 uses are practically impossible because of setback requirements and ~3 2/23/76 - 1 -- --~._-- the relatively small size of the parcel. The subject application was filed, he said, in an attempt to meet all requirements that would allow development of the property. No ex parte contacts or reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members other than Councilman Bradle~who noted his attendance at a meeting of the Friendly Area neighborhood association, where this issue was dis- cussed. He said he did not know that it was scheduled for discussion at that time and although a tentative vote was taken, he did not participate, and he did not feel his participation in the deliberations at this time was jeopardized. There was no challenge from either the Councilor public in attendance, and it was understood ~is participation in the discussion and voting was accepted. - Councilman Williams, stating it was not his intent to challenge Mr. Bradley's taking part, thought there should be some general ground rules for Council members in like. situations. He felt there should be some agreed-upon procedure in advance of these discussions to determine what information could be received by Council members without jeopardizing their right to vote. The Chair agreed and asked the Manager to prepare some type of ground rules for discussion at a future committee-of-the-whole meeting. Copies of Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 6, 1976 were received and made a part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Ed O'Reilly, 1358 Oak Street, spoke in favor of the zone change. He pointed out the difficulty of showing the need for the change, one of the concerns expressed by the Commission in its consideration of the request, since the C-l zone on the tit east half of the property and accompanying transitional use on the west half have been in existence for some twenty or more years. He noted that the planning staff was of the opinion that the showing of need had been met. He felt a need could more easily be shown if a complete change of zone was requested rather than the split as exists on this property. With regard to whether the requested change was in compliance with the General Plan, Mr. O'Reilly noted the need for specific provisions for neighborhood commercial areas in the Plan. Generally, the Plan calls for neighborhood commercial uses to be designed around a supermarket in an area of four to twelve acres, he said. Yet in comparison to some existing neigh- borhood centers, that is not the case. He felt this area could be developed as a neighborhood center in the sense of serving as a source for staple goods and daily services to a local area. Mr. O'Reilly continued that he thought the Commission's concerns revolved around a misconception of the scope of provisions of the 1990 Plan - what constituted neighborhood commercial areas and whether this property would develop to fit those provisions. He felt this resulted in an appeal which left it to the Council to determine that the ruling made by the Commission was based on a misconception of what was intended at the time the 1990 Plan was adopted. Also, the Council would have to determine what was encompassed in "neighborhood commercial" as set out in the Plan and whether the applicant has established the necessary proof under existing Fasano requirements. He said the Council also should consider the change is for rezoning a property, half of which is already C-l; it is not a complete change from residential to commercial uses. He said if the Council determined that neighborhood commercial applies only to substantial acreages with ~ many businesses involved, then the existence of truly neighborhood centers would .., be terminated. The Commission's decision, he said, was in error, based on fact and on law, and should be reversed. 2/23/76 - 2 I~~' ,.'1t' ., e Frank Bonson, 390 West 23rd Avenue, asked for Council consideration of the plan- ning staff report. He found it difficult to believe that with the very thorough, complete analysis presented by staff the issue could be denied by the vote of only three people - and on a tie vote. He said the applicant had followed all guidelines of the Fasano rules, the General Plan, and had established need for neighborhood commercial use on the site. He noted the unusual layout of the lots resulting in one-half of each being zoned for a different use and asked con- firmation of staff recommendation to rezone the R-l to C-l, or at least to send the issue back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. John Skillern, 1960 University Street, identified himself as the realtor who had sold this property to LICO Corporation. He said the zoning change was re- quested to effect an orderly development of the property without damage to the community. e Jon Silvermoon, 47~ West 25th Avenue, representing the Friendly Area Neighbors, said the neighborhood association had the general feeling that the proposed zoning would not conform with the 1990 Plan and was not something the neighbor- hood wanted. He noted the commercial centers available in the south Eugene area, many of which were relatively close to the 19th and Jefferson area. The basic objection to this rezoning, he said, was that uses permitted, in ,~ C-I zone ~nder the zoning ordinance were too broad - it would give blanket approval to some 30 uses on this property. He noted similar commercial uses in other areas of the city were in some cases located on arterial streets. That would not be so at 19th and Jefferson; to allow further commercial use there would be to generate more traffic for the basically residential area. He noted the neighborhood organiza- tion was fairly new and had not yet prepared a neighborhood plan. However, he said, the group recognized that a decision against expanding commercial uses in the area would set the precedent for evolving a neighborhood plan. Kathy Tri, 1979 Jefferson Street, noted that the people in the neighborhood felt there was no need for further commercial development. They were not in favor of any development that would increase traffic more than that now generated by the use of 18th as an arterial and by the Jefferson Street bridge. ,Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. I-A-2 e Councilman Bradley asked how the "mom and pop" type grocery store would fit the 1990 Plan definition of neighborhood commercial centers. If there was no tangible criteria in the Plan for that type of service, he said, perhaps a decision on this issue should await either amendment of the Plan or development of some specific definition of neighborhood commercial centers. Mr. Saul noted the material sub- mitted in connection with another zoning issue in the past several weeks with re- gard to neighborhood commercial centers that could be used as a basis for reaching a determination in this instance. He recognized the general nature of the Plan in its reference to neighborhood commercial areas, at the same time pointing out the rather generalized description of what could be located in those centers and citing location of several such centers in the city. He added that staff did not feel its recommendation was inconsistent with provisions of the 1990 Plan since the degree of the requested change was very small in terms of qualitative assess- ment. He said staff would not recommend withholding action because development of definitions on neighborhood centers would have to be studied. Mr. O'Reilly referred to the neighborhood's objection to uses that could be de- veloped at 19th and Jefferson under C-l zoning and said that Council action had already determined what uses are permitted in C-l zones; and C-l zoning was al- ready on the property. The fact that some uses under C-l zoning would be ob- qS 2/23/76 - 3 jedionable was really nof--the applicant's concern. With regard to. additional traffic, Mr. O'Reilly said it already exists, generated by other sources. The reason for neighborhood centers, he said, was to provide shopping areas to which people could walk rather than drive. He added that there were no services other e than groceries available within a half mile of 19th and .Jefferson, and that what was proposed was a "large mom and pop store," not a supermarket. He felt the proposed use did fall within the general guidelines of the 1990 Plan, and as long as that was true, it would comply with the Plan. He added that the Commission's de- termination that the proposal did not comply with the Plan was contrary not only to the staff recommendation but also to what the Plan itself says. Councilman Murray asked for an outline of available commercial services within a ten- or twelve-block area of 19th and Jefferson. Also, for some comparison of services available to that neighborhood with services available to other neighbor- hoods throughout the city. Mr. Saul cited commercial uses available at the Little Big Y at 19th and Jefferson, to the west at 18th and Chambers, to the east on Willamette along 18th, 28th and Friendly, 29th and Willamette. With the exception of some central "area neighborhoods, he said, this particular area was probably as well served as any residential area, better served than some such as the Bethel area and portions of the Willakenzie area. Mr. Hamel moved second by Mr. Keller to refer the issue back to the Planning Commission for further review in joint session with the Council. Councilman Bradley wondered if the action would be appropriate, whether it could be sent back to the Planning Commission without a reversal of the Commission's posi- tion. He thought perhaps it might be referred to the Planning Commission for another vote in view of the tie vote resulting in denial of the zone change. e Mr. Bradley moved for referral to the Planning Commission for another vote. There was no second, and in further discussion on procedure, the motion was withdrawn. Councilman Williams saw two options - uphold the Commission position and deny the rezoning request, or indicate intent to rezone the property which would take the issue to a joint meeting of the Council and Commission. Councilman Murray said he was opposed to the rezoning primarily because the applicant had the burden of proving public need and he didn't feel that the applicant had done that. Neither, in Mr. Murray's opinion, had need been shown in planning staff notes or Commission minutes. He said that existing commercial use does not automatically provide proof of need. The strongest argument he had seen in staff notes with regard to public need, he said, was that the existing business was a successful one, and that didn't prove there was public need for further business. He was also con- cerned about extension of commercial uses along 19th. Since the neighborhood was already well provided with commercial services when compared to other neighborhoods, he said, granting the rezoning would be inappropriate. Councilman Keller was in favor of the zone change. He recognized the difficulty of defining "need" in terms of normal application, but he felt the problem primarily was with the piece of property itself and conflicting zones on the one parcel. He said he liked the idea of small neighborhood commercial areas convenient for pedestrians, and this type of use would not generate the "supermarket" type traffic. _, He thought the proposed use would fit the interpretation of a neighborhood shopping ,., center. Also, that the Commission basically felt the property should be rezoned. 2/23/76 - 4 96" , e Councilwoman Shirey was not sure how the property was divided, how much C-I was there now, and what could be done with it if the residential portion was not re- zoned. Mr. Saul explained that the east portion, 7S'xI20', was C-I and could be developed to any use permitted in that zone; the west 75'xI20' was R-l. He said that sctbncks requircd on both 19th and .Jefferson as well <1S the sidcyard setbacks because of abutting residcntial zoning would reduce the usable portion of the prop- erty. In addition, meeting parking requirements, etc., would make commercial de- velopment of the C-l portion difficult. Neither portion, he said, would lend itself to any kind of development as now zoned. One alternative, he added, might be to rezone the C-l portion to residential use. Councilman Bradley said he would oppose the rezoning because of the lack of a specific definition in the General Plan for neighborhood commercial areas. Also, there was some question that expanding the present use could be considered spot zoning and would set precedent. He said the proximity of other commercial areas precluded the need for further commercial zoning in this area. Mr. Bradley con- tinued that every small commercial use in the city, if this property was rezoned, could be expanded on the premise that it would fit into the '~eighborhood com- mercial" definition. He thought decisions of this nature would really be estab- lishing a definition for neighborhood commercial centers. This request, he said, did not fit the guidelines now contained in the 1990 Plan and did not meet the public need. e Vote was taken on the motion to refer the issue to the Planning Commission for review in joint meeting with the Council. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Williams, Hamel, Shirey, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Haws, Beal, Murray, and Bradley voting no. In breaking the tie, Mayor Anderson explained his "aye" vote was because of the apparent conflicting philosophy resulting in the tie vote in the Planning Commis- sion. He felt conference with the Commission would be beneficial with regard to definition of neighborhood commercial centers and the questions raised at this meeting. Referral, he said, did not necessarily mean that the rezoning request was being upheld at this time. Later in the meeting, in the absence of objections, the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council to review the issue was scheduled for Monday, March 29, 1976, at noon at the Thunderbird Motel. - 2. Chase Street, north of Cross Street - From RA to M-2 (Frosland)(Z 75-19) Jim Saul, planner, explained that a similar request was denied in 1973 primarily because it was felt there was no need for the change to light industrial. The re- quest, resubmitted and considered by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1976, was recommended for denial again because in the Commission's judgment the applicant had failed to demonstrate public need for the change. Mr. Saul explained that the request covered vacant property, about 31,000 square feet, in an area of very low level of services - primarily residential use on M-2 property to the south and RA property to the north, and sma_l warehouse on the northeast corner of Chase and Cross. Residences exist to the rear of the subject property. In response to Councilman Haws, Mr. Saul said the request was before the Planning Commission the second time, but it was his belief that in the previous denial the decision had not been appealed to the Council. However, later in the discussion, he corrected his statement, saying the denial was upheld by the Council at that time on an appeal. He didn't think any zone change reuqest had been considered before the 1973 applica- tion. 1J 2/23/76 - 5 No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared, other than Council- man Haws declaring the first request was before the Planning Commission at the time he was president of the Active Bethel Citizens neighborhood group, and ABC opposed the request at that time. He said he would not participate in the issue now to give the applicant an opportunity to present his case and to make the hear- ing,as fair as possible. However, assuming the request was denied and comes back to the Council at some future time, he said, he would then participate. e Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 6, 1976 were recieved and made a part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Don Frosland, 86389 Sanford Road, owner of the property, said that basically the I-B-l reason for the 1973 denial was that the request was considered premature because of plans for extension of Highway 126 in that area. However, those plans have not materialized and did not appear likely to materialize, hence the resubmittal of the request for light industrial zoning. He said financial backing could not be ob- tained for residential construction in that area and that no new homes had been built there for the past 25 years. Every property owner in the area he had talked with, he said, was not opposed to the M-2 zoning which would be in compliance with the General Plan. He noted the M-2 zone on property to the south and said the owner of the only house on residentially zoned property had not objected to his plans. In fact, he said, that owner had been parking logging trucks adjacent to the subject property. He said he had owned the property for five years, paying taxes and sewer assessments, but found there was no way to make use of the property as now zoned. Also, that many people were looking for M-2 rather than heavy industrial property. He thought the three lots involved would be an ideal location for electrical or ~ plumbing shops, storing materials, etc. .., Frank Bonson, 390 West 23rd Avenue, designer, noted that the proposed extension of Highway l26,had it been constructed, was indicated in the 1990 Plan as the divid- ing line between industrial and residential uses. That route would have been 300 feet north of this property, and anything south of it, according to the Plan, would have been M-2. He said it was not true that there was a large amount of M-2 land available for development in that area, citing the zones applicable to various vacant properties in the immediate vicinity. He noted too that owners of abutting properties were in favor of the light industrial zoning proposed. Existing non- conforming uses in the area, he said, substantiated the need for some zone other than residential. He listed a number of uses he felt would be appropriate for the area. Mr. Bonson continued that the staff in its recommendation in 1973 for approval of M-2 zoning listed findings in support of the change - it conformed to the General Plan, there would be no adverse effect on existing residential uses, no further residential development was expected in the area, it was contiguous to M-2 zoning, etc. He quoted from the 1990 Plan with regard to industrial land use in relation to the economy, stating that economy was one of the criteria for need for the zone change. He added that the Plan also stated that undeveloped lots having services available yet lying dormant place a heavy and unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. Development of this property, he said, would increase tax revenues for $1200. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul called attention to the fact that when the zone change was requested previously (1973) the Fasano regulations were not in effect so the staff analysis ~ at that time made no reference to public need, etc. Evaluation at this time, he ~ said, was based on standards required by the Fasano decision, hence the recommenda- tion for denial because of lack of public need and the existence of extensive in- dustrial properties that are vacant. 2/23/76 - 6 AHt :rl ' 'e Mr. Bonson reiterated the applicant's position that the zone change would fill a need in terms of the economy, giving hundreds of dollars in taxes to the city and community. It would provide location for certain types of businesses - warehouses, plumbing and electrical supply houses, etc. He added that additional M-2 zoning was needed. Councilman Bradley asked if the percentages as set out in the General Plan of com- mercial land (something like 20%) actually being used for commercial purposes was still accurate. Mr. Saul answered that those figures had not been updated in "intensive" fashion, however it was felt the ratio generally was :the same. He noted there had been some industrial development and some rezoning to industrial use. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to uphold the Planning Commission decision denying the zone change and to adopt findings as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 6, 1976 support- ing the denial. Counclman Bradley said he would support the motion because of the existing per- centage of vacant land zoned for industrial uses plus the industrially zoned land in residential use. He felt to approve the change would only increase the supply of industrial land unnecessarily at this time. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Haws abstaining. . C. Rezoning area on east side of Oak Patch Road at 15th Avenue - From RA to R-2 PD (Senger)(Z 75-20) Recommended by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1976. Jim Saul, planner, ex- plained that the subject parcel was about the only parcel remaining along Oak Patch Road that was not rezoned to R-2. He said a number of developments in that area have received approval from the Planning Commission but have not yet been constructed. This particular proposal would be consistent with the others. I-B-2 No ex parte contacts or reasons for conflict were declared by Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 6, 1976 were received as part of this record. Public hearing was held with no testimony given other than Clayton Walker, 1234 High Street, offering to answer questions with regard to the zone change request. Council Bill No. 1013 - Rezoning to R-2 PD area on east side of Oak Patch Road at 15th Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 6, 1976 by reference thereto; that the council bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be con- sidered 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17525. Q,9. 2/23/76 - 7 D. LCDC Plan Compliance Evaluation; State Greenway Goal Manager read the Planning Commission recommendation as set out in its official report of February 9, 1976 finding Eugene's comprehensive plan in compliance with ~ State goals and guidelines and requesting the Council to request LCDC acknowledg- ~ ment of such compliance. Also, recommending that the Council advise LCDC that Eugene's work program for compliance with the State's Greenway goal shall be com- pleted by December 1976. Sill Sugaya, planning department. said the staff had been working on this ptogra~ since the latter part of 1975, it was submitted to neighborhood groups and other interested organizations, and recommended for submittal to LCDC by the end of February as required. He explained that the Council would be advised if any problems were encountered in LCDC consideration. Public hearing was opened. Ellis Jones, 1030 Coburg Road, speaking for himself and other property owners in the Goodpasture Island 'area, said he felt the city was not in compliance with LCDC goals and guidelines with regard to citizen involvement and land use planning. He said the city had acted unilaterally in amending its General Plan with regard to the Goodpasture Island area, changing that area from an opportunity area to medium-residential, which would have far-reaching regional significance affecting Lane County and Springfield. He said that citizen involvement was frustrated be- cause Planning Commission meetings were held at noon, that citizens did not have the opportunity to review and make recommendations on proposed changes, as they should have under LCDC Guideline 1, prior to the public hearing process. He claimed viOlation of the public meeting law, saying there were no minutes or other record of those meetings. Mr. Jones continued that their group requested establihsment of procedures for amendment of the Plan prior to public hearing, yet e no action was taken on that request. Procedures were set on the spur of the moment, he said, and only for the hearing in question; he felt that to be unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory treatment. He quoted from minutes of various meetings _ LCOG, MAPAC, etc. - with regard to the change on Goodpasture Island, and reitereated his position that the procedure for amending the General Plan did not comply with LCDC Goals 1 and 2. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr.. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to request acknowledgment from LCDC that Eugene's comprehensive plan is in compliance with State goals and guidelines, and advise LCDC that Eugene's work program for compliance with the Greenway Goal will be completed by December 1976. Motion carried unanimously. II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as requested. Previously discussed in committee on February II (Present: Council members Keller (presiding), Haws, Beal Williams, and ~~rray) and 18, 1976 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Bradley, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. A. Appointments ReCommended by Mayor to Sign Code Board of Appeals (terms ending January 1,1979). II-A-l Mayor Anderson has recommended the following appointments to the Sign Code Board: Mildred Detling, 1428 East 21st Avenue; and D. G. Meyer, Wood Design, 865 Conger Street - ex officio, representing sign industry. Comm 2/11/76 Approve e Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the appointments as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. 2/23/76 - 8 ',.{oo e e e Note: Replacing Mike Feig and Rod Gillilan, respectively, resigned. B. Consideration of Consensus Proposal on ESATS of Mayors of Eugene and Springfield and Chairman of Lane County Board Proposed: Eugene - 15% mass transit, 5% pedestrian, 5% bike, 5% paratransit Springfield - 10% mass transit Lane County - 10% - 15% mass transit, 10% reduction in interzonal auto trips. Mr. Bill Guenzler, LCOG, requests official council action which will permit them to proceed with the transportation plan. He mentioned the County goal of 10% trip reduction, saying no mention was made of how that would be achieved though there was general agreement at the county level that it would be compatible with Eugene's goals. Mr. Murray wondered how it would be possible to plan with an indefinite Lane County goal of 10-15%. Mr. Guenzler said their position does not conflict with Eugene or Springfield and using the positions of the two cities is using the Lane County position. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the proposed planning elements as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Corrun 2/11/76 Approve Mr. Haws understands Lane Community College is considering imposing, as a fundraising measure, a $10 per year parking fee. He thought it was one good incentive for auto trip reduction, and the Manager thought Lane Transit District might appropriately deal with that information. c.Approval of Consultant Contract for Airport Wastew~ter Fdcility Plannin~- February 3 memo from Director of Public Works, plus copy of proposed contract, have been distributed to Council members. The'Jroposed contract provides that CH2M Hill, Inc., a professional engineering cor.ooration, would furnish professional services to the city of Eugene, Oregon, for a wastewater facilities planning study of wastewater facilities serving Mahlon Sweet Field. The study would cost approximately $10,000, a federal grant covering 3/4 of the cost. The remainder of the funding would come from the City sewer fund. Mrs. Beal wondered about cost of any improvements, Public Works Director answering they would run about $200,000. He added the proposed contract will be subject to amendment by the City Attorney's office. In answer to a question from Mr. Murray, Manager said the consultant was selected by a committee comprised of two Public Works staff members and the Airport Hanager. Corrun 2/11/76 Approve Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to authorize the City Manager to sign the contract. Motion carried unanimously. D.Consi~eration of Jaywalking Report - January 8 memo from Public Works and Police was distributed to Council with the January 14 agenda. That memo advises it is not an offense to jaywalk if done more than 150 feet from a marked crosswalk. As of July 1, however, State law will say that a pedestrian commits an offense if failing to yield the right-of-way to a vehicle on a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. ,/01 2/23/76 - 9 In answer to Councilman Williams, Public Works Director felt it would be advisable to conform to state law as of July 1. Staff discussions had, produced no sound argument for not complying. - Councilman Williams received staff concurrence that, since the Municipal Code is pre-empted by state law, after July I there would be no statute on jaywalking other than assignment of responsibility as to fault. Al Williams, Traffic Engineer, noted the question now is whether council wants to rescind the city ordinance at this time or as a matter of course in July. The present ordinance could stay in effect after July I and not be . in conformance with state law, he added, but his position is that it should be rescinded by July 1. Councilman Williams feels it is*appropriate*to have a law on the books that is not enforced or observed by the city officials that passed it. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to repeal Section 4.465 of the Municipal Code. Comm 2/11/76 Approve Manager wondere~ if it would be appropriate to amend the code in anticipation of the July 1 state law. Councilman Williams questioned whether the state law would be the vehicle used to establish legal liability; Manager affirmed it would. Wi th consent of the second, Mr. Williams rrodified his rrotion to state that Section 4.465 of the Municipal Code be amended to provide conformance now with the state law which will be in effect on July 1. e Traffic Engineer wondered if the ordinance even neede1 to be retained in the code since, by matter of wording, applicable stat,c' laws are incorporated in the Municipal Code. City Attorney said that, if that section of the code is repealed, there will be no law between lOW and July 1. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. . * Corrected in committee 2/18/76 to read "inappropriate." E.Code Amendments (proposed ordinances distributed, with February 4 agenda) i. Amending Section 8.005 re: definitions with respect to posting and abatement of dangerous buildings. 2. Anending Section 8.030, Ie: provisions for abatement of dangerous buildings. 3. Amending Section 8.200 re: Uniform Fire Code. MI. Williams IilOved seconded by Mr. Hamel to place the code amendments on the February 23 Council agenda. Comm 2/11/76 Approve In answer to Mr. Haws, Mick Nol te, Public Works Department, said the ordinances would apply to any building - residential or commercial - rrostly single-family residences. Staff follows certain criteria - if the building is vacant, deteriorated, etc. At the same time, the owner is advised and requested to make necessary corrections. It has not been city policy to post an occupied building. e Mr. Haws' concern lies with the tenants forced to rrove. Mr. Nolte responded that, if the condition is hazardous to the health of occupants, the building is posted and an attempt is made to find other accoI1l1lPdations for the tenant. Too, there' are other remedies in the Code to accomplish compliance; for instance, 2/23/76 - 10 ( 0 ',. with an electrical code violation, the city has the authority to have electric servi ce shut off. . Mr. Nolte said every effort is made to avoid creating a hardship. Staff attempts other remedies before taking the most ~evere action and they have been quite successful in relocating tenants. Other social service agencies are of great assistance in relocations, he added. Mr. Haws wondered if the tenant is notified well in advance; Mr. Nolte responded normally it is the tenant that brings unsatisfactory conditions to the attention of the city. The main intent of the proposed amendment is to establish city authority to avoid legal liability on posting. Mrs. Beal wondered if, in strictly enforcing the! code, any house over ten years old might be found to be faulty; Councilman Wil!.iams noted Mrs. Beal is confusing the housing and building codes, with l'lhich she concurred. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. F. Assessment Panel Hearing Report - February 16 - Copies of the report were distributed to Council. Present: Council members wickes Beal and Tom Williams; City Er.gineee B=rt Teitzel. e 1. C.B.992 - Levying assessments foe paving alley between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenu~ from Washington Street to Lawrence Street (75-13) Held over from January 26, 1976 Council meeting because of request to be heard by William J. and Helen Temme, 480 Lawrence Street. The Temmes did not appear. Be(t, Teitzel, city engineer, explained that an error had been found in the assessment figures, and that the Temmes had been told staff recommendation would be to with- draw the present assessment ordinance and present a new one foe first reading based on corrected figures. Recommendation: Withdraw assessment ordinance, corrected one to be brought back for first reading. 2. C.B.994 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 13th Avenue and 14th /.ver.ue from Feery Street to Patterson Street (75-21) Held over from January 26, 1976 Council meeting because of rcquest to be heard by Paula K. Burns, 559 East 14th Avenue. Bert Teitzel, city engineer, explained that this project, initiated by Council action, was bid in September 1973 but not ac- cepted because the cost was too high. It was rebid in June 1975 with no testimony presented at the public hearing at that time. He said all properties in the block are zoned R-3. Mrs. Burns owns and lives in the only single-family residence, and her property would be eligible for deferment of an amount equivalent to the dif- ference between assessment based on R-l zoning and that based on existing R-] zoning $451.04, leaving a balance of $112.76 to be paid at this time. Staff recommendation was to allow the deferment. e Beverly Nock, daughter of Mrs. Burns and speaking for her, asked for a more equitable way of dividing the assessment. She said their lot was only 54'x160' and, because of building restrictions and parking requirements, could not be used for apartments as were other properties around them, hence they could not derive the income tte other properties could. She noted the deferment would only mean that when the prop- erty came to her through inheritance, she would have to pay the balance of the assessment under the same circumstances. She added that there was little likelihood of its being sold as R-] property because of the restrictions on R-J Uses. Councilwoman Beal thought perhaps rezoning should be investigated if the land was sui table only for single-family use. Hat.ever, /1'e. Tei tzcl said that would consti- tute spot zoning becau$c all of the surrounding properties were R-3. 103 2/23/76 - 11 Councilman williams asked when the balance of the assessment would be due if it was deferred. Mr. Teitzel read from the deferment ordinance: Deferred amount will be- come due when the land's use becomes other than owner-occupied single-family, a building permit is issued for a new structure, the property is rezoned to a more ~ intensive use, the property is conveyed to another person, or at the end of 20 years. ~ He added that the amount due now ($112.76) could be Bancrofted and possibly might be eligible for hardship deferment, considering Mrs. Burns is 80 years old and on 1 imi ted income. Ms. Nock commented that they still would be paying the same amount of assessment as the adjacent property on which apartments were bringing in considerably more income, unless the property was sold. Mr. Teitzel noted the ordinance provided for deferment until the property was "conveyed" to another person, so that it was unclear "d1ether the deferred amount would be due when title passed to Ms. Nock as a beneficiary. Mr. Williams explained to Ms. Nock that the deferred amount, n6t being due until the property was sold, would be paid by the buyer. If the deferment was terminated on ' simple change of ownership, without being sold, and if it was felt that should not apply, then he thought perhaps the ordinance should be changed. Mrs. Seal noted the effort, especially,-in-the f'lestUniversity neighborhood, to preserve the character of the area by keeping as many single-family residences as possible. For that reason, she thought it appropriate to investigate a change in the ordinance to provide for deferment to continue on inherited property if the use did not change from single family. It was understood Mr. Tetizel would explore such a change and have a report brought back for consideration of the Council. In answer to Ms. Nock, Mr. Teitzel said that semiannual payment of interest would avoid a larger payment at the end of the deferral period. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed, except that on the Burns property, 559 East 14th Avenue, the amount of assessment over and above the amount that would be assessed for R-l zoning would be deferred. e 3. C.B.l007 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Souza Park Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of a line extended south 660 feet from the southeast corner of Souza Park, thence west '640 feet to Danebo Street (75-18) No written protests and no requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 4. C.B.100B - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on 2nd Avenue from 85 feet west of Monroe Street to 250 feet west of Adams Street (75-35) Request to be heard was received from Robert Suess, owner of property being assessed. His protest was to the effect that a tee was not requested at Station 1+00, cost of the assessment was too high, and the property was served by an existing sewer line which was condemned by the city. Staff report noted that Mr. Suess was noti- fied of the estimated cost of the sewer prior to award of contract, and that he had petitioned for the improvement. Mr. Suess did not appear. Bert Teitzel, city engineer, explained that the existing sewer line was not adequate to serve the construction planned by Mr. Suess, hence the petition for a new line. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 5. C.B.l009 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Robin Street from Taney Street to 400 feet east of Taney Street (75-38) No kTitten protests and no requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. e 2/23/76 - 12 to... -- 6. C.B.lOlO - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Martin Street from Center Way to 500 feet west (75-42) no written protests and no requests to,be heard were received. Recomm~ndation: Levy assessments as proposed. 7. C.R.lOll - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Rio Glen'Drive from Debrick Road to east boundury of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition; and Alfaretta Drive from Rio Glen Drive to east bJundiJry of Brickle!J-Elsey Gardens Addition (75-46) ;;0 lo'r i tten protests and no re=:quests to be heard were received. j..'L.cc.71.71cndation: Levy assessments as proposed. , Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the report as presented. MOtion carried unanimously. Corron 2/18/76 Approve G.Improvement Petitions 1. Paving, Sanitary sewer and storm sewers in 2nd Addition to Meadowbrook _ Assessment totally within subdivision - City Cost: $1200 2. Paving, Sanitary Sewers and Storm Sewers in Coraly Park Subdivision - totally within subdivision except 12% of assessable sanitary sewer area outside subdivision - City Cost: Storm Sewer $15,000. 3. Paving, Sanitary Sewers and Storm Sewers in lath Addition to Echo Hollow Park (south of Avalon Avenue and west of Echo Hollow Road) - totally within subdivision. -- 4. Pa ving, Sani tary Sewer, and Storm Sewer wi thin 2nd addi tion to Panorama View - totally within subdivision except that on City View Street 7.5% have not signed the petition. Mr. Keller rroved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the petitions. Corron 2/18/76 Approve Mrs. Beal wondered what was meant by "12% of assessable. . . area outside subdivision". Mr. Gilman, Assistant Public Works Director, said it is an area where properties outside the boundary of the subdivision will come within 160' of the sewers to be buil t so they are eligible for assessment. In answer to a question on the $15,000 city cost, he explained the subdivison will pay for up to a 24" storm sewer line through the area of the natural drainage channel. Additional construction is necessary to make the channel large enough to serve areas in addition to the subdivision, so the city will participate in the additional cost of pipe over 24". Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. If. January 12 - Rec:ommsnding Denial of Annexation ~quest for area located east of Kimberly a~d Dogwood Drives, south of 30th Avenue, Ter.ry Ti1.lman (A 75-11), Tax Lot 600 (Council has recei ved miJ.p of area) , Manager noted that negotiations are still underway and that the applicant might change 'the application. Staff therefore recommends scheduling a hearing for March 8, then cance1-ing if appropriate. - Mr. Keller m::wed seconded by Mr. Haws to tentatively schedule a Marci,. 8 public hearing pending negotiations. Motion Carried unanirrously., Corron 2/18/76 Approve /05 2/23/76 - 13 I. January 12 - Recommending street vacation of the "3D-foot wide public right-of-way located across Cal Young Road from Norkenzie Road, B. Maxine Bierly (SV 75-2), assessor's map 17-03-19-1-4. Manager not"ed petit:ione:r has requested a six" weeks' de"lay 'of" the public hearing. - Mr. Keller nrJved seconded by Mrs. Beal to call a public hearing for April 12. Motion carried unaniIrOusly. Carom 2/18/76 Approve J.Southeast Firs Association Application for Recognition as a Neighborhood Organization Memo and proposed charter have been distributed to Council. Manager showed map indicating location of that neighborhood organization, which is bordered by four other organizations. It is located around the Amazon Drive area south of 30th. Carom 2/18/76 Mr. Keller IrOved and it was seconded to approve the charter of the Southeast Approve Firs Neighborhood Group. Motion carried unanirrvusly. K.Request to Place Water Fluoridation Issue on November Ballot - Letter and report from Citizens Committee have been distributed to Council. The endorsing agencies include Lane County Dental .Society, Lane County Medical Society and the County Health Officer. Debra Gordan, 750 E. 15th, #7, chairman of the Citizens Commdttee, expressed the feeling of the commdttee that the issue should be placed on the November ballot to allow the citizens to decide whether they want fluoridated water. Beverly Juilffs, R.N., employed by the school district and Chairman of the Comprehensive Health Planning Committee for Lane County, referred to the 1974 comprehensive, plan objectives which seek to establish a consolidated plan fOr optimum dental health. The first r~comme~dation, she said, hiS to esta~lis~ a flfuolrlidatubilo~ program for ~ll ,~ water suppl~es in Lane County. Furt er, fl uor~dat~on 0 a p ~c water suppl~es ~ ,is mentioned under the plan priorities. stanley Clawson, Dentist, 1775 River Road, member of the Lane County Dental Society, feels fluoridation is the single largest step in preventing dent;al decay in children. Lucille Trine, Rt. 2, Box 383 A-I, member of the National Health Federation of Los Angeles, voiced opposition to fluoridation of the water. She said that research by that federation - conducted by doctors and biocheRdsts - dealt with fl uor idation' s relationship to cancer. She fel t that, before vat ing on the issue, Council should have sorre information regarding that research and its , subsequent findings. She noted too the correlation between crime and the. Rdnd. A chemical that has adverse effects on the mind could increase th e crime rate. Dean Kennedy, 2963 Alder, read a letter from Senator Hatfield dealing with water fluoridation and a bill which would provide federal funding for those local juriSdictions voluntarily requesting programs of this kind. He further 11IE!ntioned a public law called the Safe Water Drinking Act, saying there can be no regulation requiring the addition of any substance for preventive health purposes unrelated to contaRdnation of water. Another provision of that Act provides state regulations shall be no less stringent than federal regulations. It is therefore Mr. Kennedy's view that Council has no authori ty to even place such a measure on the ballot. He also added that calcium fluoride, a natural substance, is not the substance being dealt with but, rather, sodium fluoride, a man-made by-product of the aluminum industry. e Mary Hickey, merrlber of the National Health Federation, reported on fluoride research by a biocheRdst. She noted that areas having fluoridation have the highest rates of tooth decay. Regarding possible birch defeccs, research has lOb 2/23/76 - 14 - shown that lTDngoloid birth defects in fluoridated areas are more than twice that of non-fluoridated areas. Also discovered through research was that, in ten of the largest cities that have fluoride, the increase in cancer has been 27-34%; increase in other diseases has been reported as well. She added that health officers should educate the people on the greatest cause of tooth decay _ white sugar products. She believes teeth become so hard after extensive fluoride treatments that they crumble when drilled. Mrs. Hickey concluded that no one has a right to impose fluoridation on those not wanting it. Another unidentified lady called fluoridation the strongest systenUc poison known. She noted the issue was defeated by the voters before and wondered how many times the voters have to say no. She also referred to graphs showing higher incidences of cancer in some large cities having fluoridated water. Dr. David White, Lane County Health Officer, member of the dental COmmittee, said it is not the committee's intention to present facts in regard to fluoridation. The intent is to ask Council to let the people decide - the issue has not been considered in the last five years or so. The last two legislatures have considered bills on this matter, and the key portion was to allow local referendums. Dr. Laing, dentist, said much effort is underway to educate the people but the ones suffering are the kids not going to the dentist until a serious problem arises. The education process is being handled in the schools - and he concluded that fluoride is of greatest benefit in building up resistance to decay. Mr. Murray commented that "this meeting" is not the appropriate setting for a public hearing, that perhaps a hearing should be scheduled restricting testimony to only the question of whether there should be a ballot measure. - Mayor Anderson concurred, adding it was opened up at "this meeting" because mention had been made of discussion to be held~ HeonotedCouncil' has received a memo from EWEB detailing past efforts regarding fluoridation _ so the m:ltter is not new by any means. Mr. Williams. concurred that the question is whether to have a ballot measure _ how citizens vote is a separate subject. Mr. Bradley asked staff to respond on whether the city would have legal authority to require EWEB to fluoridate without voter approval. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to call a public hearing for March 8 for consideration of whether to put the fluoridation matter on the November ballot,limdting testimony accordingly. MOtion carried unanimously. Comm 2/18/76 Approve Councilman Bradley raised the question of whether the City Council has legal authority to order fluoridation by ordinance. However, it was decided the question would better be discussed at the public hearing on March 8. L. Appointments of Planning COmnUssion Members on Geographic Basis Memo has been :distributed to Council, outlining a proposal by Mr. Murray and Mr. Hamel for geographic distribution of Planning Commission members. Mr. Murray explained it stel1l5 from a concern they have relating to the historic geographic distribution. e Historically, he said, the Planning Commission has tended to be dominated by persons from a relatively few sections of the city. There are major areas which have never been represented. He feels, as he said Mr. Hamel does, that that pattern is problematic, allowing decisions to be made without taking advantage of direct experience of someone who has lived in an area under consideration. 101 2/23/76 - IS Mr. Murray displayed a map detailing location of residences of past Pldj':jiing cOmnUssion members, centered mostly in the southern portion of town. It seems, said Mr. Murray, that it is advantageous to have citywide representation on a de~ision-ma.king board, as it is with the Council and Budget Committee. He e added it would seem to have even greater application on the Planning COmnUssion - since those members deaZ with land use issues. The idea is not to adopt a system of political representation - but rather geographic distribution. It is not the intent, he went on to say, to have an immediate radical overhaul but rather to achieve the desired distribution through attrition. It would, however, necessitate the appointment of one additional Planning Commdssion member, coming- from a wa~-d not now represented - .there are currently three wards with no representation, he added. He and Mr. Hamel are asking Council to give conceptual cOmnUtment to the idea~ and they would like staff to draft a Council bylaw amendment or other appropriate document. Mr. williams noted there has been a strong historical tendency to have certain professional representation on the Planning COmnUssion and wonders how that Rright affect distribution by wards. Also, he said, in a bOdy that is solely advisory to the council, he is not sure the concept of ward representation necessarily is all tbat applicable. Mr. Murray does not feel that appointing people of certain professions would be a hindrance or barrier to geographic distribution. Too, he feels there is an advantage in having a Planning COmnUssion that has had some experience in the total community. First-hand experience is equivalent to knowledge, he said, and the ward system is only a vehicle. He also added that, when a vacancy arises, Council should follow the existing procedure and seek as many applicants as care to apply. Mr. Keller said hjs dilemrne is that he assumes a Planning Commissioner's job is to plan to the best of his/her ability. He does not see the relationship between planning and living in a geographic area. Too, Commission members continually receive input so persons with knowledge of a certain area can have that expertise implemented into the planning process. e Mr. Murray would take issue with the idea there is no connection between planning and where a person resides. His opinion is that experience is a strong asset in planning - those people have something of value of contribute. As an example, he noted that recently the city was faced with developing interim action in the West University area. The Council appointed Mrs. Beal to the comndttee because it was her area, and the Planning Co~ssion also appointed someone from that area. Mr. Murray therefore believes that the Council really feels first-hand experience is important. Mrs. Shirey would like to further explore the proposal and wonders if staff could provide more feedback before continuing the discussion. Mr. Murray would prefer asking staff to do terms of presenting it as an actual pla:l. in philosophical comment from staff. some preliRrinaT.'i legal. work in He is not particularly interested Mr. Williams suggested asking the Plcl:ming COmnUssion to respond to the proposal. Mr. Murray would Q';> .:-:le that referral of the matter to other groups would be worthwhile but woul <i still like some specific drafting to take place first. Mrs. Beal explained that, when she was first on the Council, they thought of themselves more in termS of being representative of the whole city and she would like to think the Planning Commission feels the same way. e IQ8 2/23/76 - 16 Commdssion and Council members tend to be llOre concerned wi th small areas, Mrs. Beal said, perhaps partially due to neighborhood group pressure~ e Mr. Murray noted that the last time Mrs. Beal's ward had Planning Commission representation was during the 1950s - he believes there is a correlation there. Mrs. Beal wonders, hawever, if certain groups or certain areas of the city should be represented - the elderly and very young, for instance, are pretty much ignored. Mr. Murray said his interest is in lOC)re equal geographic representation but that certain interest groups could be considered within that framework. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to ask staff to prepare the appropriate legal documents allowing Council to consider the geographic distribution proposal and that that document be shared with Planning Co~ssion members as well as neighborhood groups and other interested parties, then reconsidered by Council. Mr. Keller thinks it might be beneficial to sit down at a joint work session with the Planning Commdssion before proceeding with legal drafting. Mr. Murray feels the idea is still too sketchy to proceed with any further discussion. Mr. Williams commented that to evaluate the concept is to refer the question to staff for some input from the planning officials and perhaps other communities. Having the Planning Commission respond on a conceptual level before drafting a s~cific provision would contribute much llOre to the decision whether to draft at all and what might be included in that drafting, he said. - Mrs. Beal is troubled that, should there be several well qualified persons from one area, only one could be selected, with perhaps a less qualified individual chosen from another ward. Mr. Murray fee'ls that there should be no problem finding well qualified, intelligent individuals from any area. Too, not everyone shares the same opinion regarding appropriate qualifications. Mayor Anderson can see advantages and disadvantages to Mr. Murray's proposal. He commented that, in his experience, it seems there is an advantage to eliminating as many restrictions on appointments as possible and Council is in a good position now to enlarge upon the areas in which good people can be found. There are many factors and qualifications to be considered, he said - prOfessional expertise, interests, activities in community, age, etc. He feels the desired goal is to get as broad a representation as possible _ not necessarily geographical broadness. The question is whether geographic representation should be the overriding factor and he would like to hear lOC)re conceptual discussion before proceeding with legal drafting. Mr. Murray feels informal considerations are not adequate enough and would favor a lOC)re definitive outline before proceeding with further discussion. Mr. Bradley would favor considering other selection factors as well. He is afraid of getting back a document locking Council into a way of achieving geographic distribution and, at the same time, precluding any other selection avenues. e Vote' was taken on the motion which failed, Mr. Hurray, Mr. Haws and Mrs. Shirey voting aye and Mr. Bradley, Hr. Williams, Mr. Keller and Mrs. Beal voting no. to, 2/23/76 - 17 Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mr. Williams to refer to staff and Planning Commission the question of how future Planning Commission members should be selected, including advantages or disadvantages of selecting on a geographical basis, as well as profession, age, social group, etc. Motion carried, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Williams, Mr. Keller and Mrs. Beal voting aye and Mrs. Shirey, Mr. Haws and Mr. Murray voting no. Comm 2/18/76 Approve e Councilman Murray noted no reference in committee action of referral of the issue after review by staff. For clarification, the Mayor stated it was understood that after staff comment wa- received, which would include factors other than geographic rep~esentation such as profession, age, social group, etc.) that comment would then go to the Planning Commission and disseminated to neighborhood groups and other interested civic organizations before further action was taken by the Council. M. Council Minutes - November 10, 12, 24(special), 24(adjourned), December 4 (special) - as circulated N. APPointment of Council and Staff Committee to Review Request for Ambulance Rate Increase January 30 letter from W. H. Leonard, president of Oregon Emergency Medical Transportation Services, Inc. has been distributed to Council members. In that letter, Mr. Leonard requests appointment of .:.l review committee from the City's Finance Department to meet with his company accountant for the purpose of preparing a rate recommendation to the City Council. He said he is experiencing a 40% increase in costs since the last increase in March, 1974. Ma,":ager advised that normally a Council member is appoi ri:.ed by the Mayor who then works with staff and with the City of Springfield in reviewing requests for rate changes and making recommendations to the City Council. Approve Mr. Williams wondered if, in view of the ever-increasing need for rate review, it might be warranted to establish a board for that purpose only; perhaps the Garbage Board, whose sole function is rate review, could be renamed and charged with reviewing all rates. e Mrs. Beal suggested that any committee reviewing rates should consider intermediate-need charges for those people requiring the straight ambulance service but not extras such as oxygen, etc. Manager noted that the ambulance service does have rate arrangements for that type of service, but it would be in order to review those costs as well. Mr. Haws wondered if the'revenue sub-committee of the Budget Committee could serve as a rate review board. Mr. Murray agreed with the idea of having the revenue sub-commdttee review, feeling it unnecessary to create a new committee if not necessary. Manager suggested that the idea of t!stablishing a separate rate review committee be addressed later, in order to expedite this specific request. Assistant Manager noted that the ambulance enterprise is a separate business with no exclusive right to function. Competition could seek to establish the need for another service. Reviewing the books of the private sector is a delicate issue, he said, and the goal is for the rates to bt. reasonable without company books thrown entirely open. Mr. Murray was concerned with the principle, howev,,?r;it troubles him to have to accept information on good faith while being clurged with making decisions based on that information. Mr. Keller disagreed with having the revenue Subcommittee review, feeling the rate review issue has nothing to do with city revenue. . 2/23/76 - 18 H:O, e e II-A-2 e Mr. Williams maintained that sorre mechanic for rate review ought to be considered, adding he had mentioned the garbage board ~ince they operate specifically in that area. Mr. Hamel volunteered to serve as council representative to a rate review Comm comnUttee, and it was further understood that the question of future 2/11/76 appointments from Council for rate review,as it affects allocation of council Affirm members' time , would be discussed at a subsequent Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. o. Christmas Tree Lots - Mr. Murray requested a status report on staff investigation into whether Christmas tree lots around the city violate the zoning ordinance. Manager replied staff is pursuing legal questions involved - can commercial use be allowed on a resi~ential lot, for instance. It was understood a report would be brought back at a subsequent COmmUttee meeting and that action was being taken on the matter. Comm 2/11/76 File P. HCDC Funds - Mr. Murray noted BCDC has receive,l spending suggestions from the public at large ahd, during the next three weeks, that commission will be drafting the second-year app1ica.tion. Counc il is invited to submit independent proposals. Eliminating urban blight and provid ing housing opportuni ti tes for low and moderate incorre persons provide for rather broad use of the funds" he Carom said. 2/11/76 File Q. Correction to FebrudrlJ 11 Committee Minutes - ].Jr. Williams noted an error in the 2/11/76 CoiTUTli.ttee minutes, Item VI - "Consideration of Jaywalking Report". He referred to the statement, "ColL'1cilman Williams feels it is appro[-riate to have a law on the books that is not enforced. " The word "appropriate" should be "inappropriate". Comm 2/18/76 File R. Appointrrents to Four New Human Rights Commdssions - Rosters of those persons selected for all four comrndssions were distributed to Council with the agenda. Mr. Keller noted Women's Commdssion alternates Glenda Utsey and Janice Brandstrom were not listed on that commdssion's roster. Both Mayor Anderson and Mr. Keller expressed appreciation for the diligent work of the Council in the selection process. Comm 2/18/76 File S. Revenue Subcommi ttee Meetin~ - Mayor Anderson announced a meeting of the revenue Comm subcommi ttee of the Budget Committee to be held February 18 at 7: 30 p.m. at 2/18/76 City Hal] to consider testimony received on the proposed business tax. File T. Liquor License - Jots Market, 1976 Roosevelt Boulevard Manager explained that this item was added to the consent calendar to meet scheduled OLCC meeting. Staff had no objections to the change of ownership. Approve Councilman Williams noted his intent to abstain from voting on this item. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through T. Rollcall vote. Motion carried _ all Council members voting aye, except Councilman Williams abstain- ing on Item T (Liquor license for Jo' s Market). /1/ 2/23/76 - 19 Planning comndssion Recommendations February 9 - Recommending the City Council find Eugene's comprehensive plan to be in compliance with the LCDC Guidelines and State Greenway Goa~. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to call a public hearing for February 23. 'Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/18/76 Pub Hrng . January 6 - Recommending zone change located on the east side of Oak Patch Road at 15th Avenue, from RA to R-2 PD with PUD procedures, Edward Senger (2 75-20), Tax Lots 200 and 300. (Council has received map of area) Comm 2/18/76 Pub Hrng Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to call a public hearing for February 23. Motion carried unanimouSly. Appea:s from Pla~ing Commdssion Denials of Zone Changes L~co Corporat~on and Bonson Designers, appellants; Tax Lot 7200, 19th near,Jefferson, Map 18-03-06-21, from Rl to Cl. Donald L. Frosland and Bonson Designers, appellants; Tax Lot 300, Chase Street North of Cross Street, from RA to M-2. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to schedule a February 23 public hearing on the above zone change appeals. Motion carried unanimoUSly. Cornm 2/11/76 Pub Hrnc Mr. Williams. wondered if, since Council is not at liberty to discuss upcoming zone change hear~ngs but merely Officially sets a date as directed by staff there mi ht be a.process for scheduling hearings on the Council agenda without fir~t coming tg ... COlMU ttee. 0 _ Comm It d 2/18/76 was un erstood that the City Attorney would research the matter and report back to Council. Affirm III - Rental Policy, Parks Buildings (tabled February 9, 1976 to this meeting) Copies of report from staff were distributed to Council members with the Febru- ary 18 committee agenda. Manager explained that there were no Federal regulations restricting use of revenue sharing funds for buildings in which political meetings are held. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to approve the rental policy for parks buildings as presented by staff. Councilman Williams said he felt strongly that it would be an error to subsidize political activities in community centers. It would be banned on the basis of Community Development regulations, he said, and having a dual policy would not be coherent. Further, he said, the city is a nonpartisan structure, and subsidiza- tion of partisan political activities by a nonpartisan entity would be unwise and something he wished the Council would not do. . Council members Beal and Murray were in favor of the motion. accept Mr. Williams' definition of subsidization, saying that tion, then allowing any activity in any public facility would Mr. Murray did not if it was subsidiza- be subsidization. . 2/23/76 - 20 Vote was taken on the motion to approve the rental policy as stated. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Murray, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Williams and Hamel voting no. 119- e IV - Ordinances ** Council Bill No. 992 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue from Washington Street to Lawrence Street (75-13) read the first time on January 12, 1976 and held over from January 26, 1976 Council meeting, was read the second-time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. II-A-3 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17526. **Adopted in error. Recommendation to withdraw 50 corrected assessment could be presented. Repealed by Ordinance 17567 on March 8, 1976.** Council Bill No. 994 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 13th Avenue and 14th Avenue from Ferry Street to Patterson Street (75-21) read the first time on January 12, 1976 and held over from January 26, 1976 Council meeting, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17527. e Council Bill No. 1007 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Souza Park Subdivi50n; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of a line extended south 600 feet from the southeast corner of Souza Park, thence west 640 feet to Danebo Street (75-18), read the first time on February 9, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976,was brought back and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17528. Council Bill No. 1008 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on 2nd Avenue from 85 feet west of Monroe Street to 250 feet west of Adams Street (75-35), read the first time on February 9, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17529. Council Bill No. 1009 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Robin Street from Taney Street to 400 feet east of Taney Street (75-38), read the first time on February 9, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17530. 113 2/23/76 - 21 Council Bill No. 1010 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Martin Street from Center Way to 500 feet west (75-42), read the first time on February 9, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976. ~ was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, .., there being no council member present requesting tha~ it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17531. Council Bill No. 1011 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Rio Glen Drive from Debrick Road to east boundary of Brickley-Esley Gardens Addition; and Alfaretta Drive from Rio Glen Drive to east boundary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition (75-46), read the first time on February 9, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 16, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye. the bill was declared passed and numbered 17532. Council Bill No. 1005 - Adding sections to City Code re: City purchases and public contracts, read the first time on February 9, 1976 and held at that time for further information, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and,giverr final passage. It Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17533. Council Bill No. 1014 - Amending City Code re: Permitting ambulance stations in residential zones as a conditional use 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye. the bill was declared passed and numbered 17534. Council Bill No. 1015 - Amending City Code re: Jaywalking, to comply now with state law that will become effective July I, 1976, 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. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of theCouncil, 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council ~embers present ~Dting aye, the bill was declared passed and numberd 17535.' I Ii 2/23/76 - 22 e Council Bill No. 1016 ~ Amending City Codel Section 8.005 re: Definitions on posting and abatement of dangerous buildings, 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17536. Council Bill No. 1017 - Amending City Code, Section 8.030 re: Abatement procedures, dangerous buildings, 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17537. e Council Bill No. 1018 - Amending City Code, Section 8.200 re: Uniform Fire Code, dangerous buildings, 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17538. Council Bill No. 1019 - Calling hearing on Aprill2, 1976 re: Vacation of public right-of-way south from Cal Young Road across from Norkenzie Road (Bierly)(SV 75-2) 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17539. - Council Bill No. 1020 - Storm sewer between Delta Highway and Norkenzie Road from Green Acres Road to Holly Street (1258) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. IJ~ 2/23/76 - 23 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill ber 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 ~ t bill number only. .., Mr. Keller moved second by,Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17540. Council Bill No. 1021 - Adopting plans and specifications for storm sewer between Delta Highway and Norkenzie Road from Green Acres Road_to Holly Street (1258) 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17541. Council Bill No. 1022 - Sanitary sewer on Garnet Street from Dillard Road to 130 feet south (1266) 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. Haws 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 unanimoHsly and the bill was read the second time by council . bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17542. Council Bill No. 1023 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer on Garnet Street from Dillard Road to 130 feet wouth was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consentiof 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17543. Council Bill No. 1024 - Sanitary sewer between Best Lane and Adkins Street from 100 feet north of lone Avenue to 200 feet north of lone Avenue (1263) 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. Haws 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. NfP--, 2/23/76 - 24 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17544. e , Council Bill No. 1025 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer between Best Lane and Adkins Street from 100 feet north of lone Avenue to 200 feet north of Ione Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in fulL Mr. Keller moved second by ~1r. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill nunlber only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only..., Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17545. Council Bill No. 1026 - Paving streets within Royal View Subdivision (1231) 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17546. Council Bill No. 1027 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Royal View Subdivision was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17547. Council Bill No. 1028 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Royal View Subdivision (1231) 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17548. Council Bill No. 1029 - Adopting plans and storm sewer within only, there being ,no 117 specifications for sanitary sewer and Royal View Subdivision was read by council council member present requesting that:,it 2/23/76 - 25 bill number and title be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members' present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17549. Council Bill No. 1030 - Paving streets within 2nd Addition to Meadowbrook (1232)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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17550. Council Bill No. 1031 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within 2nd Addition to Meadowbrook 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17551. Council Bill No. 1032 - Sanitary ,and:storm'sewers to serve 2nd Addition to Meadow- brook and property within 160 feet of the south boundary of 2nd Addition to Meadowbrook (1232) 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 secoRd by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill Rumber 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye the bill was declared passed and numbered 17552. Council Bill No. 1033 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary and storm sewers to serve 2nd Addition to Meadowbrook and property within 160 feet of the south boundary of 2nd Addition to Meadowbrook 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. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enaetment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by councilbill number only. "g 2/23/76 - 26 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17553. - Council Bill No. 1034 - Paving streets and pedestrian ways within Coraly Park Subdivi- sion (1238) 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmembers present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17554. Council Bill No. 1035 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets and pedestrian ways within Coraly Park Subdivision was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill ~umber 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17555. Council Bill No. 1036 - Sanitary and storm sewers to serve Coraly Park Subdivision and property within 160 feet of east boundary of Coraly Park Subdivision (1238) was read by council bill number and title only, there belng no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17556. Council Bill No. 1037 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary and storm sewers to serve Coraly Park Subdivision and property within 160 feet of east boundary of Coraly Park Subdivision (1238) 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. Haws 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. e Mr. Keller move~ second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17557. {Irq 2/23/76 - 27 Council Bill No. 1038 - Paving streets within 10th Addition to Echo Hollow ,Park (1251) 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17558. Council Bill No. 1039 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within 10th Addition to Echo Hollow Park was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous ,consent of the Council, and that enactment be consilidered 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17559. Council Bill No. 1040 - Sanitary and storm sewer to serve 10th Addition to Echo Hollow Park (1251) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council me~ber present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill Rumber 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17560. Council Bill No. 1041 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary and storm sewers to serve 10th Addition to Echo Hollow Park was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and. given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17561 . Council Bill No. 1042 - Paving streets within 2nd Addition to PanoramaView (1247) ~ was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. 2/23/76 - 28 110 - e e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17562. Council Bill No. 1043 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within 2nd Addition to Panorama View (1247) 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17563. Council Bill No. 1044 - Sanitary and storm sewers to serve 2nd Addition to Panorama View and property within 160 feet of south boundary of 2nd Addition to Panorama View (1247) 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17564. Council Bill No. 1045 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary and storm sewers to serve 2nd Addition to Panorama View and property within 160 feet of south boundary of 2nd Addition to Panorama View 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. Haws 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. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17565. V - Resolutions Resolution No. 2480 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period February 9 through 23, 1976 was read by number and title. I a, 2/23/76 - 29 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to ~dopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried,' all Council members presenLvoting'aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned. ~<-)A Charles T. Henry' ~ City Manager 2/23/76 -30 I~~ e ',:> - e