HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/1978 Meeting
--
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
Apri 1 26, 1978
Adjourned meeting from April 24, 1978, of the City Council of the City of
Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:30 a.m.,
April 26, 1978, at King's Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Councilors
present: D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen,
and Betty Smith. Councilors Ray Bradley and Brian Obie were absent.
I. Items From Mayor and Council
A. Alternatives for raising City revenues--Mr. Haws requested staff
bring a report to Council on same, i.e., EWEB charges. He under-
stood the Budget Committee's Subcommittee on Revenue, in evaluating such
possible revenues, may have looked at other options, and he wanted a
report on those options and what staff feels would or would not work.
Manager noted the Finance subcommittee had not continued because the
City was successful in getting more general revenue-sharing funds, and
such a request might take considerable staff research. Mr. Haws said
he was referring to the pros and cons of money from other revenue
sources, such as the EWEB users' charge.
-
B. Funding for Joint Social Services Committee--Mr. Delay requested
when this item comes before the Budget Committee, he would like
background on the formula allocation. ,He was concerned about the
disproportionate amount of revenue going into Springfield (21%) as
compared to the amount being contributed (7%), and would like the
rationale behind it. Manager noted that would be discussed at the
May 1 Budget Committee meeting. Ms. Smith said Anita Larsen would
be able to respond. Previously Springfield had chosen to withdraw,
but had chosen to contribute in the last year; the Committee was
pleased to have Springfield contributing, and hoped they would con-
tinue at the present level.
Mayor Keller noted the original subcommittee was a volunteer one,
and was funded accordingly. Eugene had made a strong commitment
to fund social services. However, being voluntary, Springfield
was allowed to withdraw. Springfield's concern was double taxation
and a feeling that Lane County should fund the entire program.
Mr. Delay understood those questions raised, but still wanted
the rationale behind the disproportionate funding and participation.
Ms. Smith said that the needs had been identified and documented
in materials submitted, and Springfield had simply chosen not to
contribute at a higher level. Manager said that was a legitimate
concern for the Budget Committee.
-
4-26-78--1
2.. q 'L
Mr. Haws wondered if there were an alternative under which the
City could contribute to support social services for Eugene IS
citizens without subsidizing Springfield. Ms. Smith felt, from a ~
management point of view, it might be very difficult, but noted ~
sympathy with that suggestion.
C. Wage Agreement Between City and Eugene Police Employees Association--
Manager announced a tentative agreement in wage talks had been
reached Friday, April 21, which provides for an eight-percent salary
adjustment to become effective July 1, 1978. A ratification meeting
will be held by the Association early in May. Negotiations were
for wages only in the second year of a two-year contract.
D. Community Development Committee vqcancies--Manager said as a result
of action taken by Council enlarging the CDC, there are two vacancies
for pUblic membership. There are 13 applications on file, with
only one listing CDC as first choice. It was suggested that City
Manager's office advertise for applications to 5 p.m., Friday, May 19.
Council would then make appointments from those applications.
II. Eugene Bikeways Master Plan Update--Materials distributed
Diane Bishop, Bicycle Coordinator from Public Works, said the Master
Plan had been approved by Planning Commission and sent to Council for
its approval. She reviewed seven changes with use of a map indicating
where those changes were located.
Mr. Williams questioned the necessity of an overpass over Franklin
Boulevard near Onyx or Agate Street (Item No.4). Ms. Bishop said ~
the Bicycle Committee felt it to be important, mainly for University
of Oregon users. She noted the University was considering development
across Franklin, and this would be a fairly large crossing for pedes-
trians and bikes. It was noted the funding possibly would be a com-
bination of State and University funds. Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer,
said traffic on Franklin is expected to increase substantially. The
overpass would allow reduction in the problem of traffic delay by
allowing bicycle and pedestrian crossings.
So3lly Weston, Fairmount Neighbors, said this was a high priority for
that group. She noted the problem of pedestrians competing with traffic
to cross Franklin. Jim Johnston, employee of the University of Oregon,
said that their 1970 report indicated there were 10,000 bike users on
the campus. Also, the University has jogging classes which are currently
crossing Franklin on the green spaces in the mid-block. There is a
concern on the part of the University regarding the number of near acci-
dents. It was felt the University would support the overpass, as it would
take pressure off the Onyx and Franklin intersection and would facilitate
pedestrian and bicycle traffic across Franklin.
-
4-26-78--2
l\
lct3
e
Mr. Williams still wondered if bicyclists would use an overpass if there
were a shorter, more direct route. Ms. Bishop said the same concern was
raised concerning the Washington-Jefferson overpass, but noted its high
use. It was felt, in trying to plan for bicycle routes, there was a
necessity for trying to provide for all kinds of cyclists and that many
would use the safety feature of an overpass.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve the Eugene
Bikeways Master Plan Update. Motion carried unanimously.
III. Liquor License Renewal Application (list attached)
List distributed to Council. Manager noted these were annual routine
renewals, and staff recommended approval.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve the nenewals
as distributed. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. Wrecker License Renewal
Allstate Truck & Industrial Parts, Inc., 2750 Roosevelt Blvd.: owner:
Loyd Greenwade
e
Manager said staff had felt a necessity to screen this wrecking yard
with more fencing. The State had been approached for use of right-of-way,
but without success. Under those circumstances, the Building Department
did recommend approval, as no alternative has been found for successful
screening.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve the nenewal
license.
Mayor Keller hoped staff would continue to work with the State to alleviate
the problem. Mr. Williams wondered if the State would not payor would
not help. Assistant Manager said the State would not allow use of the
right-of-way for fencing, but staff would pursue the matter again.
Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously.
V. Improvement Petitions
Res. No. 2889--Authorizng initiating process for paving, sanitary sewer,
and storm sewer construction to serve Wieger Park Subdivision
(1517) was read by number and title.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
Res. No. 2890--Authorizing initiating process for sanitary sewer con-
struction on Hickory Avenue from Sweetgum Lane to
Garden Way (448) was read by number and title.
-
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the resolution.
4-26-78--3
l'~
'Manager said on Resolution No. 2890, the area involves an unincorporated
area and thus includes deferred assessments. Mayor Keller wondered
if this was similar to the annexation request which was denied at the ~
meeting of April 24. Assistant Manager said this project would serve ~
other lots, but a sewer would go into an area that affects one or two
lots in the area considered for denial of annexation Monday evening.
Mayor Keller wondered if this was going through an unincorporated area,
why the annexation request for April 24 was denied on the same basis.
Jim Saul said this area is being served by the sanitary sewer, has
been in the City for an excess of ten years, and was just recently sub-
divided. He noted the sewer would go though a minimal unincorporated area.
Regarding the annexation denied Monday evening, the area would extend from
Hickory to Sisters View. He said the south half of the lots between
Hickory and Sisters View and all on Sisters View would not be served from
this sewer, but would require sewer extension from about 1200 feet away,
all of which is an unincorporated area.
Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously.
Res. No. 2891--Authorizing initiating process for street paving, sanitary
sewer, and storm sewer construction within 1st Addition
to Leahy Plat on Pearl Street adjacent to 1st Addition
to Leahy Plat (1484) was read by number and title.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
VI. Request of West University Neighbors to Intervene in Construction of
Proposed Parking Structure by Sacred Heart Hospital
Manager noted this request had come from the West University Neighbors
(WUN) requesting that Council intervene. A memo attached to the agenda
was distributed regarding the possible procedure in handling the matter.
Also, a Planning Department memo on the subject and other letters from
the WUN have been distributed. He noted the high interest in the neigh-
borhood in this particular parking structure. Questions were raised
regarding the Council's proceeding on the matter. Staff felt it woulQ be
appropriate to have the matter immediately referred to the Neighborhood
Planning Team, which i,ncludes members of WUN and Sacred Heart Hospital. A
building permit application for the structure has not been filed at this
time. Also, he noted a number of points had been brought up in the memo
dated April 26 from West University Neighbors. Staff would prefer to
respond in writing to Council at next week's meeting. He reiterated it
seemed most appropriate that the matter be discussed with the hospital and
the city neighborhood group among themselves before sending it to the
Planning Commission.
-
Mr. Williams assumed that the only grounds upon which the City Council
could be asked to intervene would be regarding design of the structure.
He questioned legal counsel if that is a question that normally comes
-
4-26-78--4
l'lS
1'1
e
before Council. Manager noted the staff position is that this is a
permitted use and a question of conformance to the Building Code and
issuance of a building permit.
Ms. Smith said concern had been expressed to her from WUN regarding May 1
as the starting date for the structure. She wanted some assurance that
there would be enough time to address some of the issues of concern before
building began.
Stan Long, City Attorney, said if a building permit is applied for and
the building permit in all respects complies with the City Code, the
City is obligated to issue such a permit.
Brad Perkins, representative of WUN, requested some assurance from the
Council that when a building permit is applied for, the group would
be contacted, thus allowing the possibility of their reviewing with
Sacred Heart officials and other people in the surrounding area their
concerns regarding the parking structure. He noted one technical point in
which the proposal might be in violation, that being total enclosure of
the structure.
e
Manager said it was the staff's hope that Sacred Heart and the Neighbor-
hood Planning Team would be able to meet, discuss, and review the plan.
Mr. Delay felt this to be a very significant item. This was one of the
primary concerns of the WUN who are working on their refinement plan. The
neighborhood group thought this parking structure would not be started
this early, thus allowing the neighborhood group the ability to adopt its
refinement plan before any significant major development would occur in
that part of town. He was also concerned in that he felt the problem has
not been adequately addressed and thought there might be other options.
He felt the City should ensure that all groups concerned get together to
review the plan and express concerns to one another.
Ms. Smith said she hoped that in addition to the Neighborhood Planning
Team and the Sacred Heart officials getting together, that perhaps repre-
sentatives of the City's Public Works Department could attend regarding
some specific problems, i.e., traffic. This was a very major concern,
especially regarding the 13th and Hilyard area.
Gordon Rennie, Public Relations Director, Sacred Heart Hospital, first
noted for Council the drawing depicting the parking structure on the
memorandum distributed was an artist's interpretation and not an actual
depiction. He said he would be willing to carry any instructions back to
the administration and he was sure the Sacred Heart officials would
be willing to meet with any of the concerned groups. Regarding timing
of the proposed structure, he said there was no definite time set yet,
although noted it was critical and he hoped the groups could meet very
soon.
e
4-26-78--5
~,
Mr. Lieuallen said this issue pointed out a major concern of groups
allover the city who are trying to adopt refinement plans for their
neighborhoods, but find themselves confronted by building booms and tit
major developments before they have a chance to get their planning com-
pleted. He felt it encumbent upon City Council to slow down the major
development and inform the neighborhood groups that the Council is con-
cerned. He said the runaway change that is occurring is difficult for
neighborhoods to adjust to and it could preclude any positive neighborhood
redevelopment.
It was noted in response to a question from Mr. Haws, that these parking
structures are acceptable in any C-2 zone. Mr. Haws then indicated that
until the Council changed that policy, such structures would continue to
be built. Mr. Long emphasized again the point that if a building permit
is applied for and meets all requirements of the City Code, it has to
be issued. Staff should not delay such issuance, as it might leave the
City open to a lawsuit.
Mayor Keller noted the dilemma in that there is a neighborhood group
attempting to propose a refinement plan for its neighborhood, and yet a
very outstanding hospital that has responded well to community needs but
which needs extra parking space. He felt it very important that the
hospital staff take time to sit down with the neighborhood groups and
discuss their concerns. He noted the good rapport in the community the
hospital has had previously.
Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the hospital had considered another location
for the parking such as the northeast corner of 13th and Hilyard. Mr.
Rennie said the hospital officials have looked very carefully at property
in the area; the northeast corner of 13th and Hilyard is designated for
other uses by the hospital.
e
Mr. Delay was not questioning the hospital as a good orgnization, but
also noted up-to-date zoning was needed for this particular part of town.
However, he felt this was a significant development and needed full
consideration. He noted the issues of the traffic congestion, the poten-
tial preservation of the multiple-small shops on east 13th raised signi-
ficant questions that are not addressed presently because there is not a
forum in which to address them.
Mr. Long said there were some options that exist for Council, although
a building permit must be issued. However, if Council did not wish that
to occur, it would have to take some legislative action soon. It is
conceivable to impose some legislative change in that area so long as
the city does not delay issuance of a permit. Thus, he noted Council
was talking about a moratorium.
In a question from Mr. Haws regarding C-2 zoning and such parking struc-
tures, similar to that proposed by the Hospital, Mr. Saul reviewed
several areas of C-2 zoning around the city where such structures would be
allowed: 29th and Willamette, Highway 99, a band surrounding the central
area, and Oakway Mall. Mr. Haws said he had assumed that that type of
parking structure would only be in the downtown area. He wondered whether
restrictions could be imposed such as certain heights within certain ~
areas. Mr. Saul said Council should be aware of several things in that
4-26-78--6
l<f'
-
VII.
-
-
regard. Council could consider its policy, noting this was only one
portion of consideration that would bear on this. Also in terms of
process, Sacred Heart Hospital is a designated member of the WUN Planning
Team. The Team met last night and a request for a moratorium was sub-
mitted. However, the Planning Team did not endorse that request because
Sacred Heart officials were not present at the meeting. The group will be
meeting again next month. Mr. Delay noted that this request from the
neighborhood group was not to stop the process but only a request to
defer it until it had been looked at more closely. He said the develop-
ment would significantly affect the refinement plan for the West Univer-
sity area. Also, he felt there was not any particular action Council
could take right now, but hoped that after the group meets together to
discuss its various concerns, that Council could continue to consider
appropriate action to ensure full consideration is given to this matter.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that City Manager would
write a letter requesting Sacred Heart officials meet with the
neighborhood planning team; with a status report back to the City
Council. Motion carried unanimously.
Request for Fee Increase: Planning Department--Memo dated April 17, 1978,
from the Planning Department distributed.
Manager noted it had been two years since fees for planning services
had been adjusted. The proposed 20-percent increase is a result of
several factors including inflationary costs and increased staff time to
prepare materials that can withstand scrutiny by the courts. Exceptions
to the 20 percent increase include deleting the fee for final approval of
mobile home parks; increasing the fees for PUD diagrammatic applications
and major and minor land partitions. Two new fees that were suggested
were establishing fee structures for appeals and street name changes.
Staff recommends that all changes become effective July 1, 1978. He said
all of the fees except the two new fees resulted in appreciable funds
and are being calculated into the coming fiscal year budget. Regarding
the new fees (appeals and street name changes), Manager said there had
been some controversy generated. Staff was recommending consideration of
those not be included in the present resolution, but the subject of a
particular hearing, perhaps on a Monday evening.
Jim Saul, Planner, reviewed for Council the background of the fee struc-
ture. He said prior to January 1, 1974, various fees were levied by Code
specification. During the latter part of 1973 and the first part of 1974,
the Planning Commission expressed concern over fee handling. City Council
concurred and appointed a special subcommittee consisting of City Councilors,
Planning Commissioners, and citizens to review the entire .fee structure of
the City Code. The Committee made some ,recommendations regarding fees:
fees should be established and charged for various applications that
come before the City. The Committee recognized there had to be a public
purpose involved for establishing fees. The fee for residential uses
4-26-78--7
~8
was set at approximately 30 percent of the actual processing cost to
mitigate the effect of a fee on the ultimate housing cost. Also, the
Committee suggested a fee for various commercial and industrial uses ~
should be set at 60 percent of the actual processing cost. Mr. Saul said .,
that that was the basis of the fee structure before Council with the
exception of: 1} A waiver of fees for control income and rent housing
projects; and 2} reduction below the 30% fee for social service permits.
In 1974 the first fee was established and it was directed at that time it
be reviewed not less than one year and not more than two-year intervals.
He said the bulk of the fees being recommended are increases by straight
percentage figures because of the cost of inflation and an increased
amount of staff work involved. He noted corrections: The Sign District
Boundary Change fee should be $500 (instead of $504); Sign Code Variance
recommended fee should be from $85 to $100; and the Zoning Variance fee
$35 to $45.
Mr. Haws expressed hope that the Council would not give consideration
to the charge for appeals, but simply forget it. Ms. Smith said regarding
the fees for appeals, it was perceived by many in the community as being
a way to limit citizens and neighborhoods the opportunity to question
decisions that are being made. She felt more time needed to be given
to the study of the fees and requested delay of the entire discussion.
Mr. Williams did not want to discuss the subject of the appeal charge.
However, at a very minimum the issue of costs being inflicted on others
needed to be discussed and favored delaying discussion of the entire
fee schedule.
In answer to a question from Mr. Delay regarding the determination of ~
a 20 percent increase, Mr. Saul said the figure was reached by approxi-
mating the amount of actual increase of processing time. He did not have
actual dollar figures as to how much money had been lost. Those figures
were part of the material presented to the Budget Committee. He noted it
was necessary to have some resolution as budget projections for 1978-79
were based on this fee increase.
Ann Ramp, Crest Drive Neighborhood Association, agreed with Mr. Haws
in that the appeal fees were incredible, unbelievable, and should be
junked.
George Platt, representing the Citizens Involvement Advisory Committee,
said the Committee had met this morning and addressed the subject of fees
for appeals and street name change. Their unanimous suggestion to
Council was that it direct the subject to the Committee for consideration.
The Committee considers appeals fee to be a serious matter. He further
thought that access to the system through appeals is an important part
of citizen participation. The Committee recommended to Council that
it separate the appeal and street name fees, as they have never been
given any citizen approval. It was suggested those be returned to the
Planning Commission for study, which would give the CIAC an opportunity to
examine the impact of accessibility by citizens to decisions made by
Council. He noted he was not speaking for the Planning Commission, but
only for the CIAC.
-
4-26-78--8
1~'t
e
Res. No. 2892--Establishing fees for applications for hearing requests in
connection with the processing of petitions for the vaca-
tion of streets and alleys, partition and subdivision
of land, administration of the Sign Code, and street name
changes; and repealing Res. No. 2641 was read by number and
ti tl e.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution;
to delete fee schedule for appeals and street name changes and
return consideration of those to the Planning Commission.
Manager noted a technical problem in that it was designated in 1974-75
that the Planning Commission would not have to review the fee schedules.
He suggested the two items for consideration be returned for consideration
to the CIAC.
With concurrence of Mr. Hamel and Ms. Smith, the motion was
changed to read lito return cons i derati on of the appeals and street
name change fees to the CIAC. II
Mr. Haws moved to amend the motion to delete the word "appeal."
Motion died for a lack of a second.
-
Mr. Haws went on to explain that he felt that the fees should be raised
to 100 percent of cost as people should pay for the services and felt it
to be more practical. Manager suggested that should be a separate motion,
noting there were many reasons why the percentage figure as presented
had been arrived at. He further suggested that perhaps that matter
should be referred back to staff or a committee and reiterated he felt it
to be a separate motion. Assistant Manager noted for Council when the
fee schedule was discussed previously, the ratio was at issue. The
Mayor had appointed several persons form the community to discuss the
issue, and such a committee had been used each time the percentage ratio
had been evaluated. Mr. Haws said he personally did not want to make up
the difference in fees, and felt many persons in the community would feel
the same way. He felt that the people using the services should pay
the full amount for those services.
Mr. Haws moved to increase the fee to 100 percent.
Manager recommended the motion be rejected at this point. Mayor Keller
felt it to be a new motion and not relevant to the original motion. Mr.
Haws said that he felt a motion to increase fees could not be out of
order. Mayor Keller said the 70 percent increase was dealing with a
larger issue, and felt it to be a separate motion.
Mr. Delay challenged the ruling of the Chair, as he felt it to be a
simple amendment to the main motion. Mayor Keller said he ruled it
to be a separate motion because it is a substantial increase and totally
out of context to what is before the Council at this point. Mr. Delay
said he was questioning procedure, not the merits of the proposal. He
said the Chair was ruling this was a new subject, and that was what he
-
4-26-78--9
300
was challenging. Mr. Hamel pointed out that Mr. Haws had made a motion,
not an amendment. Mr. Haws said he meant it to be an amendment. He
questioned Mayor Keller's ruling, wondering if the Mayor were opposed to ...
raising fees; he felt the Chair should allow an amendment. ,.,
Mayor Keller replied he felt Mr. Haws was talking about a users fee.
He felt it perhaps unfair to pick on one service to attach such a fee.
Mr. Haws said he had asked a year ago that that matter be brought before
Council. However, he continued that the motion was only a difference
in the amount of fees.
Stan Long explained to Council it now has a motion before it to adopt
a resolution and has been offered an amendment. The Chair has made
a ruling which has been challenged. Council needs a vote on that
challenge to know whether or not the amendment is before it. He
clarified the vote on a challenge of the ruling of the Chair was
nondebatable and would pass by a simple majority. Council was voting
on the motion "should the ruling of the Chair be sustained."
Vote was taken on the motion, which passed with Hamel, Williams,
and Smith voting aye; Haws, Delay, and Lieuallen voting no; and
Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie.
Mr. Delay noted he would like to address the question of what the fees
ought to be at in terms of the perentages some time as this is a signifi-
cant expense and he was not sure it should be subsidized.
Vote was taken on the main motion, which carried unanimously.
-
A short recess was taken.
Mr. Haws left the meeting.
VIII. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council
minutes of April 19, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried
unanimously.
IX. Work Session: T-2000 Plan
Manager noted that the staff had just distributed a response to many
of the questions raised at previous sessions. Jim Farah will review
the memorandum, and the Council may pinpoint other matters for further
review.
Jim Farah noted that James Bernhard, President of the Planning Commission,
was also available for discussion. Mr. Farah proceeded to review the
memorandum distributed. He said specifically the memorandum addresses
the topics of financing and the transit goal. In addition, the staff
has attached discussions of the modal split information, modifications
to the plan which have been proposed by the Westside Neighborhood Quality
Project, and Community Meet.
-
4-26-78--10
301
-
Regarding financing of the plan, Mr. Farah said these are essentially
political issues that have to be decided by the voters and/or elected
officials. However, the Ferry Street Bridge area could be
a Federal program that could be Federally funded. He said there were
other kinds of Federal support such as possible transfer of Federal Aid
Interstate monies to use in other locally needed projects or the Federal
Aid Primary Program which could supply funds for use in the 6th/7th
avenues facility.
-
Regarding the State gas tax proposal, which would increase the gas tax by
$.02 per gallon, Mr. Farah said it should be noted that possible revenues
coming to the local area as a result of this increase have not been
projected as part of the financial revenues in the Plan. However, passage
of the proposed gas tax would provide an important source of funds for
maintenance of the existing highway system. He said the gas tax increase
plus a proposed license fee increase could supply an estimated $433,000
per year.
Regarding the transit goal, he said it was the staff1s position that
the three jurisdiction goals for transit all call for a major increase in
the role of transit as a future mode. At some point in time, it will be
necessary to get one area-wide transit system. It is also the staff's
position that in the short run, the kinds of projects being discussed to
create a major role for transit in the area would be the same whether it
be a 15 percent goal or five percent goal. For the first few years,
similar projects would probably be recommended in either case. Other
issues involved in increasing the transit ridership are such things as
land use and other policy incentives (i.e., parking in the downtown area).
Ollie Snowden, L-COG, spoke regarding the select link analysis to respond to
Community Meet proposal. With the use of a graphic map, he pointed out to
Council that the computer technique indicates where traffic is coming from
and going as it traverses on a given link. He spoke directly to the
proposed 6th-7th freeway traffic which comes from two major sources:
From the east on I-105 and Franklin Boulevard; and fans out to several
areas in the west. This was chosen in order to address Community Meet's
Goodpasture Island expressway proposal as serving as an alternative to
6th-7th. He said based on the computer analysis, TPC felt that this would
not be true. It would cut only ten to 15 percent of the 6th-7th avenue
traffic to the Goodpasture Island area. He was not saying it would not
work, but saying the Goodpasture Island route would only provide better
access between River Road-Goodpasture Island areas; but it would not serve
as an alternative to the 6th-7th avenue freeway. He noted that the total
type of analysis available was not ready at this time, but the information
should be forthcoming in four to six weeks.
Mayor Keller wondered if that proposal was assuming improvements were made
on 18th. Mr. Snowden said the assumption was made that there would be
major improvements on 18th Avenue. TPC had looked at traffic assigned
to 18th with and without the 6th-7th Avenue Freeway. It was felt a good
part of the traffic would use the 6th-7th Avenue Freeway; without it, the
traffic would go on 18th.
e
4-26-78--11
~~
Mr. Lieuallen said his understanding regarding the Community Meet proposal
was that they were assuming a connection from the bridge to a westerly
arterial .of some kind. Mr. Snowden said he understood their westerly ~
connection was with the Roosevelt truck route. Two connectors were ..,
proposed: One from River Road over railroad tracks to Chambers; the other
from the Northwest Expressway and River Road to the Roosevelt Freeway. He
said with the Community Meet proposal, much of the traffic would use that
Roosevelt truck route as a defacto freeway and that is not the function
TPC envisioned for this truck route. He said if that were the case, then
it opens up the subject of the old Roosevelt Freeway alternative.
Mr. Lieuallen thought the basis for rejection the old Roosevelt Freeway
was becauSe it ran through the Rose Garden and residential areas. Mr.
Snowden said the TPC had a different alignment in that it would parallel
with the railroad tracks and tie into I-10S. Under the Community Meet
proposal, it would be a limited access facility, a four-lane freeway that
would have an interchange at Valley River and would take out some of the
shops at Valley River. He noted this would be a very expensive project.
Mr. Lieuallen said he was confused as he thought the Roosevelt Freeway
was rejected several years ago. Mr. Snowden said officially it had not
been rejected. TPC did not recommend it as an alternative, but it was one
of the major issues that prompted the study.
Mr. Delay wondered if the connector were put in as suggested by Community
Meet, whether or not it might accommodate more traffic with less conges-
tion and less miles traveled. Mr. Snowden said it would be more efficient
for traffic'using River Road, but that traffic only comprises about 10 to
15 percent of the entire traffic on 6th and 7th avenues. He said there
was a question as to whether or not the Roosevelt route would function _
more as an expressway. TPC did not recommend that, but recommended using .
it more as a truck route to provide access to the industrial areas.
Mr. Delay wondered to what extent, given the framework for an update, and
deferral of capital investment, whether this would be creating the
mechanism for a total commitment to this plan if adopted in its present
state. Mr. Snowden said the program would have to be reviewed and approved
annually, with an update every five years. However, in some sense he felt
there should be some committment made to some of the projects. However,
he felt it might be a mistake to adopt projects wherein-there might. be no
intent of pursuing. Such actions would noticeably affect properties
involved in such projects. He said each specific project would have to
come back before Council for specific hearings and approval.
.Mr. Lieuallen requested Gary Spivak, Community Meet, to respond to the
comments made. Also he asked Mr. Spivak to repond to the general intent
of the Community Meet proposal that many of the smaller projects be
deleted and a more general plan be adopted. Mr. Spivak said it was a
question of interpretation between opinions of what is going to happen to
the Goodpasture Island Freeway. Community Meet proposal felt it would
take a considerable amount of traffic from River Road off of the 6th-7th
Freeway. If an alternative route were provided, then neither would have
to be freeways. For example the Roosevelt route could take more traffic
than projected now, and he felt there would be no problem in expanding it
to a four-lane road to handle that traffic.
-
4-26-78--12
303
e
Regarding the property along the Roosevelt route, he said many houses are
already owned by the State and therefore there would not be the expense of
acquiring those properties. Also, the Goodpasture Island connector could
connect with the Northwest Expressway and people would be more inclined
to use it which would eliminate the necessity to widen River Road into
four lanes. He felt there was a good possiblity the Community Meet
proposal could work.
Mr. Spivak said there were some 30 minor projects which Community Meet
felt had not been looked at and considered in necessary detail in order to
be adopted as policy. If those were adopted, Community Meet feels the
City would be committed to carry them out. More time was needed to make
the necessary decisions on all these minor projects. He said it was felt
not necessary to adopt the minor projects at this time in order to get a
workable transportation plan.
Regarding the process, Mr. Lieuallen requested more work sessions and that
staff present to Council some of the proposals in writing, noting questions
about the Lincoln/Charnelton couplet as it relates to the Washington/Jefferson
intersection area, the right-of-way problems on 8th and how it relates to
other plans, and response to neighborhood request regarding interim
solutions. Dave Reinhard, Planning Engineer, suggested Council call
staff if it finds the material already supplied is not adequate.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to May 3,
1978.
· f!b~nr2~
City Ma na ge r
DT: jmjCM12a14
e
4-26-78--13
30L1-
M E M 0 RAN DUM
-
Apri 1 26, 1978
TO:
FROM:
Mayor & Councilors
Ci ty r~anager
ANNUAL LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
RE:
The following renewal applications have been reviewed by staff and are
being recommended for approval:
Package Store: Albertson's, 1675 West 18th Avenue
Amazon Food Market) 1815 West 11th Avenue
The Bi-Mart Company, 2030 River Road
Billy's Market, 111 Monroe Street
DriveN Save Market) 3061 Hilyard Street
Drive N Save Market) 2370 \-Jest 11th Avenue
Everyone's Market, 1245 Echo Hollow Road
Jones Market, 347 West 13th Avenue
L & L Market) 1591 Willamette
Mayfair Market #418, 57 West 29th Avenue
Mayfair Market #420, 2175 West 7th Avenue
Mayfair Market #203, 15 Coburg Road
Pay1ess Drug Store, #203) 57 West 29th Street
Serv~U-Market) 5045 Barger
Tom's Market, 1490 East 19th
Retail Malt Bevera~:
Black Forest Tavern, 2657 Willamette Street
El Sombrero Mexican Restaurant, 146 East 11th Avenue
Laurelwood Golf Course Pro Shop, 2700 Columbia Street
Locker Room Tavern, 211 Washington Street
The Oregon Sampler, 123 Moriroe Street
Tiny Tavern, 394 Blair Boulevard'
Class C Dispensers: (More than 1,000 members)
Elk's Club, 2727 Centennial Boulevard
Fraternal Order of Eagles-Eugene Aerie #275, 525 Willamette Street
Class A Dispensers: (less than 500 members)
Columbus Club Association of Eugene, 1144 Charne1ton
Class A Dispensers: (regular)
BevIs Steak House, 1905 \-Jest 6th Avenue
Bliss' Steak Ranch, 2891 West 11th Avenue
Branding Iron, 579 East Broadway
-
-
305
I
. ' ) 1..-1