06/26/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,- P.Noise Ordinance Enforcrnent - Mrs>Campbell said she was disturbed by testimony at the DEQ hearing on noise pollution that the city is not enforcing the 'noise ordinance. ' She cited several instances involving noise complaints - speedway, 29th Avenue traffic, barking dogs - and said that although arrests ,are being made the public is not satisfied. Manager said the ordinance is . being enforced. There are many violations and it is not possible to cover " all areas all the time. It is a question of priorities for police attention. Mrs. Beal said the State is now working on legislation with regard to decibel measurement of noise and that the City is waiting the outcome of that to en- sure no contradiction in legislation the City may adopt. Assistant Manager said that the State will be concerned with industrial and other noise rather ,than traffic noises. He said after staff review a report prepared by Terry ,Yamada, intern in the Manager's office, will be brought to the Council. 'Mrs. Beal commented on the importance of location of noise measurement, say- '; ing that the ordinance should provide for measurement; not always at the ,source but at the location where the citizen is suffering. Assistant Manager Comm isaid that Eugene will be the State's base for testing in setting its standards 6/14/72 : for noise pollution. File Q. (South Kincaid Ball Field - Mrs. Campbell said she had another complaint from Comm Mr. Weiss on use of the South Kincaid field and reminded staff a report was 6/14/72 to be J>'J:9ught back ()12 ~hat is planned to take care of the probl:m. ~'H ___~ File R. Regional Sewer Financing Report, Bartle Wells - Copies of rough,' / draft of a report were distributed to Council members with regard to an equitable :_ fin~cing plan for sewers in the Eugene/sr:ring~ield and unincorporated metro-, ~ pol~tanarea of Lane County. The report ~s be~ng prepared by Bartle Wells Associates at the direction of Eugene and Lane County. Ed Wells will be I. Comm present at the June 28, 1972 committee meeting to go through the report and' ,;' 6/14/72 answer any questions before it_is finalize~~ ,_,_,___ ' File ;,' :,', S.Policy for Acceptance of Improvement Petitions - Councilman Mohr suggested it . might be well to examine a change in formula for acceptance of improvement peti- - tions, either by increasing the required percentage of lineal footage or adding another standard, say lineal footage pl us number of prop8J:.y owners. ; Counclman Williams suggested that paved streets are somening expected in a City. If that is not to be expected but dependent upon the desires of a percentage of people with property abutting the street, he said, it would seem more logical I I :to pay for street paving out of general revenues. I I Councilman Hershner asked about the policy of assessing both sides of a corner : : property for street paving when there is only one occupant. Manager said that ' it is fel t a corner property benefi ts from both streets - dri veway access to the ,back, storm drainage, and dust control, etc., The policy of allowing duplexes . ,on corne! lots resulted from the assessment for improvement of both sides, giving , ,additional benefit commensurate with additional cost. With regard to each prop- erty owner's responsibility to pay his share for street improvements, Manager referred to other cities having Charter provisions for remonstrance which auto- I matically kill improvement projects. Eugene does not have this provision, con- sequently, the Council has the authority to order street improvements although it does leave them the decision as to where the need is greatest. Councilman Bradshaw asked if projects ever are divided into sectias when terrain makes a part of it more expensive than another part. Public Works Director re- : plied that if a project is spli t the chance is taken that a contractor will "load" all expense on one part and subinit an unbalanced bid. This would result in an un- balanced assessment. He said prior Councils have established the policy of a 50% petition for a project to proceed. Mayor Ailderson suggested it might be possible to start the public hearing process earlier to determine certain facts thereby saving the City,cost of so much engineering work before actually going to bid. Manager said the practice of , holding public hearing at time of bid award i~ to have as much information avail- ! able as possible for the property owners before the actual bid is awarded. The petition process does not assure that all people know a p~oject is being proposed, .- ~ so a public hearing would still have to be held at the time of bid award. It may be possible to segregate those projects which staff knows will be controversial, but it would not be possible to screen all. ----.....----~- -----.~ - -- -~--~ ~--~"-1 I' cj 6/26/72 - 15