Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1982 Meeting - ( - - M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Council Chamber, City Hall October 20, 1982 11: 45 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, D.W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Communication with Applicant to Community Development Committee Councilor Lindberg referred to a letter received by councilors from an applicant for a position on the Community Development Committee (CDC), recounting communica- tion problems she had encountered with the staff of the Department of Housing and Community Conservation (HCC). ,Mr. Lindberg said it appeared there had been some oversights on the part of HCC staff. He asked the City Manager to direct the HCC staff to get in touch with this individual and address her concerns. e Councilor Schue agreed that there appeared to have been a communication problem and said she had discussed the matter with John Porter, the Interim Director of the HCC Department. Councilor Miller said she believed that staff had made a correct interpretation that a person who was not a resident of the City could not serve on the CDC, but she felt there was a need for better communication. B. Assessment Hearing Panel Meetings Councilor Obie said that the Assessment Hearing Panel had met on October 18, 1982, and would meet to continue that hearing on October 25 at 7 p.m. He noted that this meeting would follow the Financial Planning Committee meeting at 5 p.m. and precede the regular council meeting at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Obie said that he would be unable to attend the November 18, 1982, Assessment Hearing Panel meeting, and asked, since there were a number of carryover items from the earlier hearing, whether that meeting could be rescheduled so that he could participate. Mr. Obie said that at the October 18 hearing the issue of benefits related to developed streets, especially with respect to double-frontage lots, was frequently raised. He said that the council needed to consider this matter at a future meeting. Councilor Smith said that the council had previously requested information from staff on alternative methods of handling the Hearing Panel process. She asked when this information might be available. Assistant Public Works Director Don Gilman responded that the City Attorney's Office was working to determine how much authority for assessments the council could delegate. Mr. Gilman felt that the information would be ready for presentation to the council by December. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 1 - ( - ~ C. Presentation of Resolution by Councilor Miller e Councilor Miller distributed copies of a resolution in response to a presentation of a cheese platter made to her by the Springfield Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Miller read the resolution. Res. No. 3731--A resolution reaffirming the City of Eugene's close friendship with the City of Springfield. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. D. Dedication of Hawthorne Apartments Ms. Wooten said that the Hawthorne Apartments, located at 29th Avenue and Willamette Street, would be dedicated on Sunday, October 24, 1982. S he sa i d that this was the first residential complex for people recovering from mental illness to be built in the City and that she was pleased that Eugene would now have such a facility. E. Report on the Sister City Visit to Japan Mayor Keller asked that a report on the recent trip of the Sister City delegation be scheduled in the near future for a Monday night council meeting. He said that the trip had been very successful and had presented future opportunities for the City. He said that the visit to Kakegawa and participation in that e city's Fall Festival had been most enjoyable. F. Appointment Mayor Keller recommended the appointment of Councilors Wooten and Lindberg to serve on the Community Goals and Policies Committee. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the appointment of Councilors Wooten and Lindberg to the Community Goals and Policies Committee. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. G. October 3 Open House at the Hult Center for the Performing Arts Mayor Keller said he understood that the open house had been a great success. He commended Ms. Wooten for her work in organizing the event. Ms. Wooten said that staff members, particularly Public Information Director Barb Bellamy, had worked very hard to make the event a success. H. October 27 Tour of Industrial Sites Mayor Keller announced that the council meeting of Wednesday, October 27, would be replaced with a tour for councilors of seven industrial sites. Ms. Bellamy said that the tour would depart from City Hall at 11:30 a.m., that box lunches would be provided, and that media representatives wishing to attend should contact her to have space reserved on the tour bus. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 P ag e 2 e Councilor Obie suggested that staff contact John Anderson and John Alltucker of the Lane Economic Foundation to join the tour. Councilors concurred with this suggestion. I. Taping of Councilor Comments on Ballot Measure 3 Councilor Schue reminded councilors to call KUGN and schedule a time to make a tape indicating their opposition to passage of Ballot Measure 3. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Consideration of City Council Work Session Minutes of September 15, 1982 (minutes distributed) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the City Council work session minutes of September 15, 1982. Roll call vote; mot ion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Street Vacations 1. City of Eugene: Clayton Hills Plat (SV 81-4) (map, background information distributed) e Mr. Gleason said that the proposal was to vacate the street right-of-way but retain a portion of the right-of-way for a bicycle/pedestrian path. He said that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the vacation. Public hearing was opened. There being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2545--An ordinance authorizing vacation of a portion of a 30-foot-wide right-of-way located on the north side of Dellwood Drive and south of 37th Avenue. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2545 was read the second time be council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19032. . e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 3 2. City of Eugene: Portion of Dove Lane (SV 82-2) (map, background e information distributed) Approved by Planning Commission August 9, 1982 Vote--5:0 Mr. Gleason said that this vacation stemmed from creation of two culs-de-sac out of a former through street in an effort to reduce travel by speeding cars in an area near schools. Public hearing was opened. There being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2546--An ordinance authorizing vacation of a portion of Dove Lane 18 feet in width and running a distance of approxi- mately 110 feet along the south margin of Dove Lane east of Echo Hollow Road. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2546 was read by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present e voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19033. B. Annual Review of the T-2000 Transportation Plan (memo, entire report distributed) Approved by Planning Commission October 4, 1982 Vote--6:0 Mr. Gleason introduced Kirk McKinley; Planning. Mr. McKinley said that the annual review was a way in which the council could modify the T-2000 Plan. He said that annual endorsement of the plan was also required to ensure eligibility for Federal transportation funding. Mr. McKinley said that the document proposed two amendments to the T-2000 Plan: deletion of the contra-flow concept for the Eugene Central Transit Station and additions and deletions to the Springfield Bikeway Plan. Mr. McKinley said that at the time of next year's review, a request would probably be made, based on the Willow Creek Special Area Study, for extension of Beltline Road to the south. Mr. McKinley said that staff recommended the council approve the amendments and that Councilor Miller would then present the City's recommendation to the Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee (MATC). Ms. Miller said that MATC had reviewed the amendments. Councilor Wooten asked how the annual review of the T-2000 Plan related to the State Highway Administration's six-year plan. She asked what Eugene-area projects the council should be lobbying the State for action on. Mr. G 1 e aso n and Mr. McKinley said that the 6th/7th Corridor and the Chambers Connector were projects that needed State act ion. Ms. Wooten requested that a council discussion of the 6th/7th project be scheduled for a future meeting. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 4 Mayor Keller asked staff to schedule a council dinner session on the subject of e the 6th/7th Corridor project. Mr. Gleason said staff would do this. Public hearing was opened. There being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the amendments to the T-2000 Transportation Plan and recommend endorsement of the T-2000, as amended, to the Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. IV. 1982 ACCESS GUIDEBOOK FOR THE DISABLED--DISTRIBUTION (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Collin Gray, President of the Eugene Commission on the Rights of the Handicapped/Disabled. Mr. Gray said that the commission had been working for a long time on making such a guidebook available. He hoped people would make good use of the book. Mr. Gray said that the commission had worked with the Independent Living Program (ILP) on the guidebook. He introduced Darrell Ackerman of ILP, who had spearheaded the effort to publish the book. Mr. Ackerman said that, under current Oregon law, no construction could be done that would make a building less accessible, and new construction must provide accessibility. He said that, to prevent the book from becoming rapidly outdated, accessibility evaluations were done by building rather than by use, so that if e the use of a building changed, the information would still apply to the new use. Mr. Ackerman noted that while no facilities had met the stringent accessibility requirements of the State struCtural codes, numerous facilities received good ratings because they are considered functionally accessible. He said that Eugene City Hall had reasonably good accessibility for those who could park near the downstairs elevator entrance, but that those who had to park elsewhere would have difficulty entering the building. Mr. Ackerman said that the text of the guidebook was stored in a way that would make it relatively easy to bring the book up to date. He asked those agencies or firms which wished to be included in the next edition to contact the Handicapped Commission. Responding to questions and suggestions from councilors, Mr. Ackerman described the process planned for distribution of the guidebook. Councilors congratulated Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Gray on the excellent job and thanked them for their work. Mr. Lindberg noted that the Hilton Hotel had received some of the best accessibility ratings in the book. Responding to comments from Mr. Lindberg, Mr. Ackerman agreed that Eugene was an outstanding City in making provisions for the handicapped. Ms. Smith suggested that copies of the book be sent to all those included in the book, so that they could be alerted as to their accessibility rating and needs for improvement. Ms. Schue urged that copies of the book be made available to the public at City Hall. Mayor Keller thanked Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Gray, and all those who had worked on the guidebook for their efforts. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 5 , e V. ORDINANCE re: CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY TO GRANT PERMITS AND EASEMENTS ACROSS CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY (memo, ordinance distributed) Mr. Gleason said that the proposed ordinance was an attempt to relieve the council of the time involved in consideration of routine items involving easements across City-owned property. Mr. Gleason introduced Assistant Public Works Director Don Gilman. Mr. Gilman said that the authority to grant such easements would be used primarily for requests from utilities and other governmental bodies. He said, for instance, that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, the Eugene Water and Electric Board, Group W Cable, and Pacific Northwest Bell would all soon be requesting easements for the Owosso Bicycle Bridge, and that, under the proposed ordinance, these routine easements could be granted administratively by the City Manager. CB 2547--An ordinance concerning management of City-owned property; adding a new Section 2.019 to the Eugene Code, 1971, and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2547 was read by council bill number only. e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19034. VI. DESIGN MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARK WILLAMETTE PENTHOUSE (memo, background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Mike Tharp, Department of Housing and Community Conservation. Mr. Tharp said that the design modification recommendation was made to the council, in its capacity as the City's renewal agency, by the Downtown Commission. He outlined the contract dispute that existed between City staff and the developers of the Park Willamette Building and said the primary -question was whether City staff had received adequate notice of the proposed design changes and substitution of materials. Mr. Tharp gave a brief outline of the history of the Park Willamette development. Re said that the development agreement had been entered into by the Eugene Renewal Agency (ERA). He said that HCC staff was advised of the design changes as the building was under construction and advised the developers to proceed with construction at their own risk, pending referral to the ERA. He said that at its last meeting the ERA had directed staff to investigate the design changes with the developer. He said that staff had done so and had brought its findings to the Downtown Commission. Mr. Tharp said that the commission had explored various options for addressing the design changes and had finally arrived at the tit recommendation before the council: installation of wing walls on the east side of the penthouse building and installation of wing walls and awnings on the west MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 6 . side, to achieve a silhouette similar to that originally proposed. He said that e the penthouse was originally to have been sheathed in copper and that the design modification would retain the baked enamel surface that had already been installed. Mr. Tharp said that basically the options considered by the Downtown Commission were 1) to require specific performance of the contract; 2) to accept the structure as built; or 3) to require modifications to the structure as built. He said that the commission had chosen the third option based on the feeling that it was best to proceed quickly in getting construction finished so that the building could be occupied as soon as possible and on uncertainty as to the probable outcome of a legal battle if the first option were chosen. Mr. Tharp said that there had been two appeals of the Downtown Commission's action: One was a questioning of process, suggesting that the matter should be decided by the City Council, in its capacity as the renewal agency. This appeal had been granted. The other appeal was based on the merits of the design. This appeal was denied. Responding to a question from Councilor Smith, Mr. Tharp said that the three options that had been considered by the Downtown Commission were all still options for council action. He said that the council could explore the legal options available by requesting an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr. Tharp clarified the Downtown Commission's decision not to require specific performance of the contract through litigation by stating that the commission had felt there was a good probability that it could win such a lawsuit but that the delay to the development that would be caused by litigation would serve no public good. e Councilor Lindberg felt that the proposed design modifications would present a silhouette close to the original drawings for the building but was concerned with the proposed green and blue color scheme. Mr. Tharp said that the existing baked enamel finish on the building could not easily be painted. Councilor Ball questioned the wisdom of basing a decision for action on a desire to get the building leased and occupied quickly, since he had heard that a number of lessees had canceled leases or sued to break leases due to the design changes made by the developer. Mr. Tharp said he could not speak for the developer and noted that no representative of the developer was present. Mr. Ball was concerned that the developer absorb the additional costs of admini- stration incurred by the City as a result of the unauthorized design changes in the construction. Mr. Tharp said that the developer had not agreed to pay these costs. He added that the developer had agreed that the design modifications approved by the Downtown Commission were good but that there was no formal agreement with the developer to have those changes made. Mr. Gleason noted that the council could make its action on the matter conditional on the developer's paying the additional administrative costs. He said that the action of the council would not be an affirmation of the architectural design of the building. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 7 . I . Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Tharp said that the developer e believes that the change order it submitted to City staff regarding a change in materials to be used on the penthouse was sufficient notification to staff of the proposed construction changes. Mr. Tharp said the question was whether this was legally adequate notice. Responding further, Mr. Tharp said that the developer has indicated that the City would need to sue to have the original design executed. Mr. Hamel said that if the cost of the copper dome indicated in the original design of the building was less than the baked enamel structure, then the costs to the City should be lowered to correspond to the lower costs to the developer. Councilor Miller discussed the relation between performance such as this by a developer and the public contracts law. She felt that the past performance of a bidder should be taken into consideration when contracts are awarded. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, responded that State Law does allow pre-qualification of a bidder on the-basis of prior performance but that the City Code differed slightly in requiring bids to be awarded to the "lowest and best" bidder. Mr. Sercombe said that the word "best" did allow the City the latitude to consider past performance. Mr. Ball asked who would make the determination for the City that past performance of a contractor was unsatisfactory. Mr. Sercombe responded that under State Law, the City Council is the City's contract review board, with council decisions implemented by the City's purchasing officer. Responding to a question from Mr. Gleason, Mr. Sercombe said that past performance decisions must be made on a project-by-project basis. Ms. Miller suggested that the council discuss the larger public contracts issue at a future meeting e and that some mechanism be developed to store information about past contract performance in the City's "institutional memory". Councilor Obie said that he and Mr. Lindberg had dealt with this issue from the outset due to their positions on the ERA. He ,said that the root of the problem is that the developer failed to understand the public-private partnership. Mr. Obie said he had made a motion in the ERA consideration of this issue that payment by the developer of the increased administrative fee be negotiated separately with the developer. He noted that this motion had failed. Mr. Obie felt that in consideration of this issue by the ERA, the Design Review Committee, and the Downtown Commission, the best recommendation had been sifted out. He agreed with Ms. Miller that this was the second time that the City had had a problem in dealing with this firm and that the City should not get involved with the firm again. He felt that the City should retain the experience learned from this matter and "put the matter behind us." Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve, as recommended by the Downtown Commission, the design modifications to the penthouse of the Park Willamette Building, and to direct the City Manager to take appropriate action. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 8 . ( . Mr. Ball said that good faith from both parties was needed in a public-private e partnership. He agreed that the City should retain the lesson learned from its dealings with this developer in its "institutional memory". He fe lt th at the City needed to make it clear that the tactic of building something and then waiting to see if the City would challenge it was not acceptable. He suggested that the council delay a decision on the matter pending a report from staff on the legal options available. He noted that the City had a reputation with area builders as being rigorous in enforcement of construction codes. He felt it was important for the staff to make clear to the public that this was a matter of design enforcement not of construction code enforcement. Mr. Lindberg discussed the possiblity of separating the question of remuneration for administrative costs from consideration of the design issue. Mr. Gleason said that the City's leverage in discussing remuneration would be gone if the council approved the design modifications. Mr. Tharp suggested that the council could make its approval contingent on remuneration. Mr. Gleason said it would be possible for the council to instruct the City Attorney to examine the options for litigation with the anticipation that the council would proceed with this step unless a negotiated settlement is reached in the inte~im. Councilor Wooten said this matter was of great concern to her. She felt the builders had taken liberties with the opportunity given them to build in downtown Eugene. Councilor Hamel said he was not interested in delaying the decision on this matter. He felt the council should pass Mr. Obie's motion,with an amendment e indicating that the developer should compensate the' City for the difference between cost of the copper sheathing and the lower cost of the baked enamel and for added administrative costs. Councilor Schue also felt that, while it was probably not to the advantage of the downtown area to delay occupancy of this building further, the City should be compensated for added administrative costs. Councilor Miller suggested the council postpone a decision on this item for two weeks to clarify the matter and to allow room for negotiations to take place. Councilor Obie asked staff what the ramifications of a three-week delay would be. Mr. Tharp said that the developer was not present. He said he did not believe that the developer had ordered the material to make the changes. Mr. Obie did not want to create a situation which could result in an unfinished building remaining at length in the downtown area. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to delay the matter to a time certain. Councilor Lindberg said he would support the motion, since it would provide a time frame for negotiations to take place. Councilor Wooten said she would also support the motion, since it would allow negotiations to take place without eliminating the option of going to court and since it would include direction to staff to prepare a report to the council on the legal options available and possible outcomes of legal action. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 9 . .. . Mr. Gleason suggested that the item be scheduled for the November 10 council e meeting. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mayor Keller said that LaVerne Edwards had requested an opportunity to speak on th i s item. He noted that there was no public hearing scheduled on the matter. He suggested that the council would be willing to hear public testimony when the matter is considered again on November 10, 1982. Respectfully submitted, ~~- City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette.) MDG:DCM:dcm/CM27b10 e - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 10