Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/1985 Meeting ....... M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council City Council Chamber November 20, 1985 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Richard Hansen, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Freeman Holmer The adjourned meeting of November 13, 1985, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Great American Smokeout Mr. Miller extended best wishes to Mayor Obie and Councilor Wooten on their e quests as part of the Great American Smokeout. B. Letter to Staff on Relocation of LTD Bus Stop Mr. Rutan requested that staff draft a letter to Bob Noble of the Public Works Department, indicating his appreciation for efforts by staff and by Lane Tran- sit District in following up a citizen request to relocate a bus stop in his ward. c. Carroll Fentress Mr. Rutan noted the unexpected death last week of Carroll Fentress, an active participant in Eugene governrnent, adding that Mr. Fentress would be greatly mi ssed. Ms. Schue echoed Mr. Rutanls comments concerning the loss to the community of Carroll Fentress. She noted that she especially would miss his advice and counsel as chair of Crest Drive Neighbors. Mayor Obie said he had sent a sympathy note and added that one would be sent from the entire council. D. Hult Center Concerts Ms. Bascom noted that a series of three free concerts were scheduled at the Hult Center for the Performing Arts on Thursdays at noon. She added that additional series would be held in January and again in the spring. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 1 E. Design Review Committee Meeting e Ms. Bascom reported that the Design Review committee for the Sixth/Seventh Street project, phases two and three, was receiving input from property owners today frorn noon to 6 p.m. at Western Sizzling Steakhouse. She said designs would be displayed, and abutting property owners were invited to submit comments. F. Joint City Council/Airport Commission Meeting Mayor Obie announced that a joint meeting has been tentatively scheduled for the December 12 City Council dinner session. G. Mayor's Nominations to City Boards and Commissions Mayor Obie said he would start the process of determining his nominations to various City boards and commissions, which would be submitted to the council. He intends to complete the process by January 1,1986. He invited the coun- cilors to notify him of those applicants they would like him to consider so that interviews can be scheduled. H. Southern Willamette Research Corridor Event Cathy Briner, acting director of the Development Department, noted that the Southern Willamette Research Corridor was celebrating its third anniversary by hosting an event for state business leaders and legislators. She added that e City Manager Mike Gleason currently serves on the steering committee. 11. ROUTINE ITEM FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 1985 AND OCTOBER 28, 1985 (minutes distributed) Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the City Council minutes of October 23 and October 28, 1985. Roll call vote; the rnotion carried unanirnously, 7:0. III. RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK COMMISSION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (memo, ordinance, intergovernmental agreernent executive summary distributed.) Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the item. Cathy Briner of the Development Department presented the staff report. She said two developments had occurred since the last update--the search for a developer was being extended, and the non-profit corporation was being replaced by an intergovern- mental agreement in commission form to oversee development of the project. Ms. Briner explained that the change in organization had resulted in Uni- versity of Oregon representatives being advised to conduct a more rigorous nationwide search for a developer. She also said the commission being pro- posed was for a public advisory group composed of experts in development or in science and research. The commission would have seven members, with four e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 2 e to be selected by the UO president and then appointed by the mayor, and three to be nominated by the mayor and appointed by the city council. Ms. Briner said the commission would conduct research, hold hearings, study and analyze proposals concerning development of the park, and then make recommendations to the UO and to the City, especially to the Eugene Renewal Agency concerning urban renewal and tax allocation funding. She added that the commission was seen as a way to allow greater public participation, and rnembers would serve two-year terms. Ms. Briner noted two scrivener additions to the ordinance on Page 2. In sec- tion 2.222, line one, the word underlined should be added as follows: "In making its recommendations to the city and to the President of the University . . .11 And in the same section, paragraph two, underlined should be added to read: "At the joint request of the City and the University of Oregon, . . . \I Ms. Briner said the University president, the State Board of Higher Education chancellor, and the Eugene city manager had agreed to the basic provisions outlined in the executive summary of the agreement that had been distributed. She added that the agreement included all three parties, but most of the frarnework pertained to the UO and to the city. She said the agreement called for a rnanagernent committee to provide support to the commission, adding that she expected the committee to include the Development director, the Planning director, and possibly Public Works or other city staff involved in develop- ment of the project, along with University vice presidents of research, admi- nistration, etc. The agreement also called for each party to designate a project representative, who would guide day-to-day direction, and Ms. Briner e said she had been chosen by the city to fill that position. She said actions being requested included passage of the ordinance and authorization for the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the University and with the State Board of Higher Education. Mr. Hansen asked about liability and obligations if the City decided to leave the agreement after two years or so. Stan Long, of the City Attorney's Office, said the agreement was similar to a partnership, with a period of dissolution and allocation of responsibility to follow the action or the dollars. He said if bonds were issued, those would remain the City's respon- sibility, although an accounting would be done for funds. Tort responsibility was allocated according to a formula sharing. Mr. Long said the commitment would be a long-term one, particularly with respect to actions uniquely the council IS. Ms. Ehrman requested additional information about the criteria to be used for choosing the expert commission members. Ms. Briner said she intended to develop a set of criteria for presentation to the university president and to the mayor before commission openings were advertised. Responding to Ms. Bascomls question, Mayor Obie said the non-profit corpora- tion had been appointed by and reported to the university. He said the inter- governmental agreement was an atternpt to respond to concerns that the entity be public and report to both partners, in addition to addressing the liability issue. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 3 Ms. Wooten responded to Ms. Ehrmanls concern, saying she had been involved - with the Riverfront project from the beginning and continued to support the project and the agreement. She added, however, that she saw as difficult the issue of appointments excluding from involvement in the intergovernmental commission employees of the university and of the State Board of Higher Education. Ms. Wooten said she thought a representative of the university scientific community or another expert should be involved. Ms. Briner said the University president had strongly requested that provision, and she added that City employees also did not serve on advisory boards and commissions. Mayor Obie said he found the agreernent satisfactory. Ms. Wooten said it did not appear the problem could be resolved, and she suggested forming an ad hoc group to hear frorn university faculty, students, and citizens. She added that she felt the previous criticism of process needed to be dispelled by a correct mechanism to allow public participation. Ms. Ehrman asked about the search for a developer, saying she had felt com- fortable with the project because a developer already had been chosen. Ms. Briner said the previous search had been mostly regional, rather than national. She also said the university representatives had been advised by legal counsel to undertake a more rigorous national search. Ms. Briner said UO President Paul Olum had talked with the developer, who was willing to continue with the process of submitting the required proposals and qualifica- tions. She said by the time the search process was complete, the commission should have been formed to review the applicants, and the ultimate responsi- bility for the decision would lie with the university president and with the City Council. Stan Long, of the City Attorneyls Office, said one consequence e of the change to a public/public partnership was the absolute requirement of compliance with the public contracting law Chapter 279, which had not been rnet under the previous non-profit arrangement. Ms. Schue said she was satisfied with the language as long as agreement exist- ed as to the meaning. She said she hoped the commission would include someone with a broad public background and a general knowlege of the community, and would not consist only of bankers, realtors, etc. Mayor Obie agreed and said he intended to meet with councilors and with the university president in an attempt to represent a variety of interests. Responding to Ms. Wootenls question, Ms. Briner said existing standards and criteria, such as the Eugene Refinement Plan, campus planning constraints, and President Olum's restriction on research harmful to human life, were being attached to the requests for proposals being sent out nationwide. Ms. Ehrman noted the metarnorphosis that had occurred in the project structure since its inception and the larger role now being played by the City, adding that she hoped the change would help to solve some of the problems. CB 2862--An ordinance creating a Riverfront Research Park Commission; amending Section 2.013 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding Sections 2.220, 2.222, 2.224, and 2.226 to that code; and declaring an emergency. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 4 Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the city manager - be authorized to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the University of Oregon and the State Board of Higher Education to implement the commission and development of the Riverfront Research Park, and 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 tirne. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously 7:0. Council Bill 2862 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance No. 19366. Ms. Briner said a joint lunch with the State Board of Higher Education was scheduled for December or January. Ms. Wooten asked staff to return before the luncheon with a process to involve others in the community and the UO in decision-making. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION/DOWNTOWN COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (merno, background information distributed) Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the agenda item. e Planning Director Susan Brody presented the staff report. She said background information included 11 areas involving the Planning and Downtown Commissions, along with the current codes and the processes used to date. She said issues and problems also were reviewed and future processes were proposed. Ms. Brody said the report had been reviewed and approved by both commissions, adding that the process had been useful in clarifying ways the two commissions might work better together. She also said communication will also be helped by the arrangement in which the Planning director now serves as an ex officio mernber on the Downtown Commission, and the Development director serves in the same capacity on the Planning Commission. She said staff was seeking approval of the report and direction to use the processes proposed in structuring the deliberations and actions of the two commissions. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the possibility of joint hearings had been exarnined as part of the proposed process for the Downtown Plan (background, Page 3). She said her concern was that often the same people testified at rnore than one hearing, and she added that the bodies still would be expected to hold sepa- rate deliberations and to come up with their own proposals. Ms. Brody said that idea had been addressed in the discussion relating to the Urban Plan Renewal Update. She said joint hearings could be done for the Downtown Plan update and arnendments, adding that they rnight be most appropriate when consi- dering simple amendments rather than a major update. On a major update, Ms. Brody said she favored an initial public hearing and a second hearing incorporating public testirnony. Ms. Ehrman encouraged including the possibi- e lity of joint hearings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 5 Ms. Bascom thanked staff for their efforts, and she asked about the process e for resolution of differences, which included a conference and a report to councilors from staff. Ms. Brody said the proposed process included a meeting among all members of both commissions, and if that failed to resolve differ- ences, the commission chairs would work with staff to prepare one report for the council. Ms. Bascom said she still would like to hear directly from the commissioners. Ms. Brody said the commission chairs would be available to make reports at council meetings. Mr. Rutan noted the thorough efforts of staff and also the complicated nature of the information. Ms. Brody said current codes required both commissions to be involved in all 11 areas for good reasons, and the alternative would be to change the codes. Mr. Rutan asked whether it would be plausible for the Down- town Commission to report to the Planning Commission. Ms. Brody said that occurred in sorne areas, but in others staff had not felt that would allow the necessary interaction. Mayor Obie asked for the rationale for the Planning Commission's involvernent in areas other than the Downtown Plan. Ms. Brody said the Planning Commission had responsibility for making recommendations to the council on changes to the land-use code. She said referrals also were rnade regarding zone changes, and the Planning Commission was directed by code to review the Capital Improve- ments Prograrn for conformance to the Metro General Plan and also to help with preparation and review of the Metro Area Transportation Plan. Mayor Obie said he was concerned about creating too many obstacles to development in the down- town. e Ms. Ehrman asked whether the Citizen Involvement Committee had reviewed the number of public hearings and their effect on participation. Ms. Wooten said any change in citizen participation, particularly those pertaining to land use, automatically went to CIC for review and comment. Ms. Ehrman suggested that CIC look at the issue of the number of meetings commonly attended on one issue. Mayor Obie asked whether the Planning Commission would make recommendations on the design of the downtown transit station. Ms. Brody said a report had been requested on the impact to the transit station of opening Willamette Street. She said staff also were working on a long-term location for Lane Transit District, and that this effort would be reviewed by both the Downtown Commis- sion and by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would be involv- ed because of its responsibility in the area of transportation. Mr. Rutan said the location of the transit station would have a large impact on other citywide issues concerning the Planning Commission. Ms. Brody said the Plan- ning Commission would review design in the general sense of downtown location and effects on traffic patterns. Ms. Wooten said she would like the processes to be as clear and simple as possible while trying to eliminate conflicts and still allowing latitude for disagreement. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 6 Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to approve the report - on the Downtown and Planning Commission roles and responsibili- ties and to direct staff to use the processes as outlined in the report to structure the future deliberations and actions of the two commissions. Mr. Rutan asked that staff closely monitor the process to look for ways of simplifying. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. V. OVERPARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE (memo distributed) Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the item. Eric Jungjohann, of the Development Department, presented the staff report. He said the Downtown Commission had reviewed the Overpark improvement proposal for a reduced amount of $303,785, as outlined in the agenda attachrnent. He said the holes in the North and South walls were eliminated from the proposal, along with the exterior stairway and cuts to each of the other areas, includ- ing signs and lighting in the entrance. The lobby also will not be enclosed. He said the $207,985 was a fixed maximum, and the design proposal should be less. He requested approval of the revised proposal. Ms. Wooten asked what involvement the Downtown Commission had had in making e suggestions for reduced costs. Mr. Jungjohann said staff had reviewed the proposal with the architects to reduce costs, and the revised proposal had then been presented to the Downtown Commission, where he said no problems were identified. Responding to Ms. Schue's question, Mr. Jungjohann said the $89,000 required as supplemental budget action would be additional tax increment money. Ms. Schue said she had heard a citizen comment about the lack of visibility between the parking structure and the inside stairwells. Mr. Jungjohann said the possibility of opening up the stairways had been considered, but was rejected because of the split-level nature of the structure. Ms. Bascom said she believed it was irnportant to upgrade the facility for downtown development and did not feel the council should avoid spending necessary funds. She added that she felt somewhat frustrated by the process of interaction with the architects and was sorry to see the exterior stairway eliminated, but hoped to proceed with the wisest possible use of the money. Mr. Hansen asked about tenant irnprovement allowances, saying he assurned the rent structure would be predicated on the funds put in, and he asked whether the council would have to authorize each tenant improvement. Elaine Stewart of the Development Department said neither the council nor the commission was expected to approve leases in the Overpark. She said the $70,000 figure would be the maximum allocated in negotiating leases, and tenant improvements would be made in terms of returned investments from leases. Mr. Jungjohann said he e chose a figure of about $7 per foot, and he did not intend to ask for more than the $70,000. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Miller said he was concerned about the rest rooms being "fraught with e danger and suspense," and he asked about plans for the facilities. Mr. Jungjohann said making the rest rooms handicapped accessible would be very expensive. Mr. Miller suggested that the Downtown Commission enter into a partnership with CBG to replace the rest rooms. Ms. Stewart said the current proposal did not include handicapped accessibility to the rest rooms. How- ever, she said Community Block Grant funds could be used for that purpose, and the Community Development Committee recently had authorized in the three-year plan expenditures for improvements of rest rooms. She also said staff intend- ed, as the project was continued, to return to CDC with a dollar figure for making the rest rooms handicapped accessible. Mr. Hansen urged staff to close the rest roorns to public use because of safety concerns. Ms. Bascom asked staff whether they felt the process of interaction with the architects was sufficient. Mr. Jungjohann said the process had begun six rnonths ago, a large amount of input had been gathered frorn area merchants, and the architects had been very responsive to suggestions and changes. Ms. Stewart also said extensive dialogue was expected as the design process continued. Ms. Wooten rnoved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the report from the Downtown Commission regarding the Overpark Structure be accepted. Ms. Ehrman encouraged that any possible cost savings be made. Mayor Obie said he thought the amount should be larger e in order to rnake the building fully functional. He also said annual funds should be set aside for renovation and mainte- nance. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously 7:0. VI. STATUS REPORT ON SIGN CODE UPDATE (memo distributed) Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to postpone action on automobile dealerships sign variance appeal to March 10, 1986. Mayor Obie asked whether feedback was being received from the dealers. Jim Croteau of the Planning Department said the auto- mobile dealers had testified, and the Planning Commission was considering their testimony. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously 7:0. VII. METROPOLITAN PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW (memo, background distributed) Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Planning Director Susan Brody presented the staff report. She said a joint e hearing was scheduled with the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Commissioners on December 3 at 7 p.m. in Sprin~field. She said about 130 people had attended the joint planning commisslon public hearing, and two MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 8 e types of amendments would be considered at the hearing--those to the text, which would follow a legislative format, and those to the plan diagram, which would follow quasi-judicial procedures. Ms. Brody said declarations of ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest were required for diagram amendments, and forms were available for that purpose. She also said oral declarations would not be required at the hearing. Tim Sercombe, of the City Attorney's Office, said he would provide an explanation of what constituted conflicts of interest, and each amendment would have to examined separately. Ms. Ehrman asked about the status of Awbrey-Meadowview, and Ms. Brody said the applicant might testify in order to state that the request was being withdrawn pending completion of the study referred to in the letter. The meeting was adjourned at 1 :15 p.rn. Respectfully submitted, ~~~-, Mic eal Gleaso City Manager e (Recorded by Leslie Scales) LS: ss/1935C e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1985 Page 9 , i\.... AGE N D A EUGENE CITY COUNCIL , CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER e November 20, 1985 7:30 p.m. Adjourned meeting from November 13, 1985; His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie presiding. Councilors: Cynthia Wooten, President Freeman Holmer Richard Hansen, Vice President Jeff Miller Ruth Bascom Roger Rutan Debra Ehrman Emi ly Schue I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Announcements II. ROUTINE ITEM FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 1985, AND OCTOBER 28, 1985, (minutes under separate cover) III. RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK COMMISSION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (memo, ordinance attached; intergovernmental agreement executive e summary under separate cover) CB 2862--An ordinance creating a Riverfront Research Park Commission; amending Section 2.013 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding Sections 2.220,2.222,2.224, and 2.226 to that code; and declaring an emergency. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION/DOWNTOWN COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (merno attached; background information under separate cover) V. OVERPARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT UPDATE (memo attached) VI. STATUS REPORT ON SIGN CODE UPDATE (memo attached) VII. METROPOLITAN PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW (memo attached; background information under separate cover) Adjourn to November 25, 1985. EA18 e , ) u . November 14, 1985 e TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene Development Department ~(7~ SUBJECT: Riverfront Research Park Commission and Intergovernmental Agreement BACKGROUND As you know, the institutional arrangements for overseeing the development of the Riverfront Research Park are being revised from a nonprofit corporation to an intergovernmental commission. The revised arrangement will allow for in- creased opportunities for exchange between the City and the University of Oregon and for public involvement. COMMISSION The attached ordinance creates a seven-member Riverfront Research Park Commission, with four members selected by the President of the University of Oregon and appointed by the Mayor and three members nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the Council. The Commission is established to make recom- mendations to the City and the University in connection with the development of the Riverfront Research Park. e INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Under separate cover, the Council received an executive summary of the Riverfront Research Park intergovernmental agreement prepared by the City Attorney. The summary outlines the basic provisions of the proposed agree- ment which have been reviewed and agreed to by both the City Manager and the University President. REQUESTED ACTION 1) Passage of ordinance to create Riverfront Research Park Commission and 2) authorization to the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the University of Oregon and the State Board of Higher Education to implement th~ commission and development of the Riverfront Research Park. ebcabrrp e , e ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING A RIVEP.FRONT RESEARCH PARK COr-UUSS ION: At,1.ENDIHG SEC'!'ION 2.013 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971: ADDING SECTIONS 2.220, 2.222, 2.224, AND 2.~26 TO THAT CODE: AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAI~ AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2.013 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding the designation for the Riverfront Research ~ark Commission in alphabetical order therein to read and provide: 2.013 Riverfront Research Park Commission No. of Members: 7 e Appointment process: 4 members selected by the President of the University of Oregon and appointed by the Mayor 3 members nominated by the Mayor, appointed by the Council Term: 2 years Authority: EC 2.220 Section 2. The following sections are added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to read and ~rovide: ~ Ordinance - 1 t . .~ 2.220 Riverfront Research Park Commission - Created. A river- e front research park commission is established to make recommendations to the city and the University of Oregon in con- nection with the development of the Riverfront Research Park property. It is the intent that cooperative efforts between the city and the University of Oregon will be focused in this com- mission, which will provide a forum for public participation and public comment on plans and actions necesary for the development of the Riverfront Research Park property. 2.222 Riverfront Research Park Commission - Duties. (I) In making its recommendations to the city and the President of the University of Oregon, the riverfront research \ park commission shall conduct research, hold hearings, study, - investigate, analyze, and make expert evaluations of proposals, concerning development for the Riverfront Research park property. , (2) At the request of the City and the university of Oregon, the Commission shall make recommendations regarding the application of project revenues from tax increment financing and lease income to meet project needs. 2.224 Riverfront Research Park Commission - Membership, Term of Office. (I) The commission shall consist of seven members. Three members are to be nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the Council. Four members shall be selected by the President of - Ordinance - 2 - , /:-. . e the Univer3ity of Oregon, who shall submit their names and quali- fications to the Mayor for appointment. (2) All members shall be selected on the basis of their knowledge of the community as well as prior training or experience with respect to the planning, development, financing and marketing of public improvements, commercial property, industrial property, or similar developments, or with respect to planning large-scale science and research programs. It is not the intent that there be representatives of the city or University of Oregon on the commission. The intent is to have highly qualified people serve as expert advisors to the University of Oregon president and the City of Eugene. (3) In order to ensure that the commission is composed e of the most qualified members available and willing to serve, the requirement of section 2.013(6) of this code that members be residents of the city is specifically waived, and members need not be residents of the city at the time of their appointment or during their term of office. (4) Each member shall serve for a term of two years from the date of his or her appointment. (5) Vacancies in office shall be filled in the same manner as original appointments. (6) No officer or employee of the city of Eugene, the University of Oregon, or the State Board of Higher Education may serve on the commission. e Ordinance - 3 - .,. ,; 1-" 2.226 Riverfront Research Park Commission - Officers. Meetings, - :;0' Rules and Procedures. (1) ~he officers of the commission shall be a president and a vice-president, elected by the commission from among the Commissioners. The president shall preside over meetings of the commission and shall have the right to vote. The vice-president shall perform the duties of the president in the absence or disa- bility of the president. The officers shall serve for terms of t~/m years unless the commission establishes a different term. (2) The commission shall hold meetings at such times as it deems necessary to properly perform its duties. (3) The commission may adopt a plan of internal organi- zation and rules of procedure for the conduct of its business, consistent with state law, the charter, code, ordinances and e resolutions of the city and policies of the University of Oregon. Meetings and other activities of the commission, its officers and any committees shall conform to the rules, state statutes, charter provisions, code, ordinances and resolutions of the city and policies of the University of Oregon. ' Section 3. That the matters contained herein concern the public welfare and safety, and in order to ensure the orderly and timely implementation of these provisions, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council and approval by - Ordinance - 4 - ,# i e the Mayor. ~assed by ~he City Council this Approved by the Mayor this day of , 1985 _ day of , 1985 - City Recorder Mayor e e Ordinance - :3 - 1 " [ e M E M 0 RAN DUM November 20, 1985 TO: City Counc il FROM: Planning and Development Departments SUBJ: PLANNING COMMISSION/DOWNTOWN COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Following the City Councills deliberations on the Willamette Street opening earlier this year, you requested that staff to conduct an analysis of planning related activities involving action by both the Planning and Downtown Commissions. The purpose of this request was to identify the ro 1 e s and responsibil ities of the two commissions and appropriate processes for their review of planning related issues. The report attached under separate cover identifies the following eleven areas that-involve the two commissions in planning related activities: e l. Dowtown Plan Amendments and Updates 2. Urban Renewal Plan Updates 3. Other Downtown-related Planning Documents 4. Downtown Housing Planning and Implementation 5. Capital Improvements Program 6. Downtown Public/Private Development 7. Downtown Transit Issues 8. Parking Program Redesign 9. Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way 10. Amendments to the Eugene Code 11. Land Use Application Review For each area, the report identifies the existing code provisions relevant to the responsibil ities of the commissions, describes the existing process and roles of the two commissions, identifies any issues or problems that surfaced duri ng recent commission actions, and proposes revised processes. The proposed processes are intended to clarify the roles and relationships of the two commissions and can be implemented by staff without any changes in the Eugene Code. The report was reviewed and approved by the Downtown Commission on October 23 and by the Planning Commission on November 4. Following your review and approval, staff will use the report to struct.ure the future deliberations and actions of the ~wo commissions. e .i t M E M 0 RAN DUM - November 13, 1985 TO: Ci ty Council FROM: Eugene Development Department SUBJECT: UPDATE - OVERPARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ISSUE The Downtown Commission staff is requesting an appropriation of funding for improvements to the 10th and Oak Overpark parking structure. These funds would be budgeted for two main uses: 1 . Repair and improvement of the sixteen year accrual of deferred maintenance accumulated during the time the building was privately managed under a master lease; and, the update and repair of common facility and garage areas. 2. Budgeted funds to be used as necessary for a "tenant allowance" to upgrade the actual lease space interiors. The purpose of the project is to both enhance the Overpark image as perceived e by the public, such as downtown employees using the parking facility, and to lease the vacant commercial space at market rates to stable businesses. BACKGROUND Staff working with the architectural firm of Lutes/Sanetel conducted a study of the design elements contributing to the Overpark's function and irnage. In addition, pUblic input, from the persons who actually use the building such as tenants, police, delivery and maintenance people, was solicited in arriving at the resulting development proposal. This proposal identified eight specific project areas for upgrading the Overpark. Total cost of the project was estirnated at $413,000. The proposal was forwarded with the recommendation of the Downtown Commission to the City Council for approval. City Council during the October 14 dinner session requested staff to review the proposal and reduce the funding amount. UPDATE Attached is the revised proposal reducing the estimated total project cost by approximately $109,000 down to $ 303,785. This reduction was accomplished by eliminating two project areas (hole cuts in the parking levels and the exterior stairway) and changes within each remaining project area. The budget for improvements is set at a fixed rnaximum of construction costs of $207,985. This is the maximum construction cost, and every effort will be made to bring the project in at the best cost possible. e " v t UPDATE - OVERPARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT '"' November 13, 1985 Page 2 e Improvement cost breakdown: Improvements, all project areas: $ 207,985 Architectural services, total: $ 25,800 Tenant Improvement Allowance: $ 70,000 Total maximum project cost: $ 303,785 Approximately $215,000 is available for the project through previously allocated TA funds. The balance of $ 89,000 will require a supplemental budget acti on. s ACTION REQUESTED Approval of the revised Overpark Improvement Proposal for a total project cost not to exceed $303,785. ERJ :je/l 061 S e - .t , 10th & Oak Overpark Improvement Proposal e Scope of \'Jork 1. Alley Improvements Goa 1 : Making the alley and adjacent plaza area more usable by adding parking and new lighting. Work will include addition of new pole lights, wheel stops, paint stripes and bollards and removal of some trees, planters, bollards, and steps. 2. Shop Fronts Goal: Making the shop fronts more colorful and interesting. Work wi 11 include removal or existing lights, sign boards and concrete walls, installation of new lighting and painting of wood storefronts, doors, plaster soffit and concrete overhead structure. 3. Ground Floor Lobbies Goal: Making the ground floor elevator lobbies more inviting. Work will include removal of existing light fixtures and install- e ation of new, installation of new floor and ceiling finish, re- moval of unused elevator entrance, installation of new wall fin- ish and resetting controls at elevator entrance. 4. Signing Goa 1 : Making the parking entrance and exit clearer and more festive. Work will include lighted canvas awnings at entrances and exit openings. 5. Upper Floor Lobbies Goal: Making the elevator and stair entrances more inviting. Work will include new lighting and floor finish, repainting and refinishing the wall at the elevator entrance. 6. Sta i rwe 11 s Goal: Making the stairways less forbidding. Work will include new lighting and graphics and repainting walls, handrails. doors and frames, underside of stair, piping and con- duits. Also included is replacing abrasive stips on stairs. e ":- ! M E M 0 RAN DUM November 20, 1985 -- To: Mayor and City Council From: Planning Department Subj: STATUS REPORT ON SIGN CODE UPDATE Earlier this year, the Planning Department began work on a comprehensive update of the Eugene Sign Code. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed changes to the sign code on October 15, 1985 and is continuing discussion of the issues and testimony submitted. The following is a outline of the issues being considered by the Planning Commission: 1. General update of the language in the purpose and description sections of the various sign districts. 2. Streamlining of the sign code variance process. 3. Greater allowance of identity signs in Integrated Shopping Sign District. 4. Amendments to the Pedestrian Oriented District which generally covers the downtown area. These changes would allow greater use of banners, flags and other portable signs. e 5. Provision of sandwich boaras and reader signs in other sign districts. 6. Allowance of outdoor merchandising. 7. Streamlining of Sign Code Enforcement Process. 8. Greater a 11 owance for identity signing for businesses adjacent to freeways and limited access highways. 9. Allowance of advertis~ment in bus stop waiting areas. 10. Sign issues raised by the Goodpasture Island automobile dealerships. The staff will be available at the council meeting to answer questions about the issues being studied in the sign code update. On November 25, 1984, the City Council considered a sign variance appeal from three automobile dealerships located along Goodpasture Island Road. The City Council postponed a decision on the request for a period of one year to allow the concerns raised in the appeals to be considered during the update of the sign code. The Planning Commission is scheduled to finalize their recommendation on sign code changes in early December with City Council consideration in January. Due to this schedule, the staff recommends that the Ci ty Council further postpone consideration of the sign appeals to a later date. This will allow the sign code update to be finalized before making a e decision on the appeal requests. Action Requested: Postpone decision on automobile dealerships sign variance appeal to March 10, 1986. ri / M E M 0 RAN 0 U M e November 14, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJ: METROPOLITAN PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW On October I, 1985, MPC authorized the publication and public release of MPC's Pl an Revi ew Report, Volumes 1 and 2. Both documents are enclosed. Volume 1 contains detailed staff analysis and findings for each of the individual amenament requests submitted during the winter of 1985. Volume 2 contains Plan amendments recommended by MPC, an analysis of the cumulative impact of these changes, and a set or findings, based on Statewide goals, supporting recommended amendments. Volume 2 also includes an overview or two unresolved MPC issues. The three planning commissions conducted public hearings on MPC's Plan Review Report October 28 and November 5. Approximately 130 citizens attended the hearings. Those test ifyi ng addressed a variety of amendments. The Eugene Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a special meeting on November 19 and to take fi na 1 action on all the Mid-Period Review items on November 25. The Lane County and Springfield Planning Commissions have t.aken action on e these items. A joint elected officials public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. in the Springfield City Council Chamber on December 3. The recommendations from the three planning commissions will be rorwa rded to you pri or to the hearing. Staff will be at your November 20 meeting to briefly review the major issues and answer any questions you may have about the upcoming public hearing. Major Items Recommended by MPC 1. Revisions to the Metro Plan amendment process. The new process clarifies and streamlines the Plan amendment process. Citizens will have increased access to the amendment process by having regular times twice annually and during Plan updates wnen proposals may be submitted. The governing bodies can still initiate Plan amendments at any time. Joint hearings are recommended to aid in streamlining the process. MAPAC retains its existing citizen advisory role in reviewing amendments. MPC ta ke s on a formai rO-1 e as the local appeals body on scheduling issues and an official role as a body to resolve local government differences. The L-COG Board is eliminated as an unnecessary step in the amendment process. Refer to pages II-43 through 11-45 and II-50 of MPC's Report, Volume 2. 2. A proposed process to follow when new Goal 5 resources are e identified in the metropolitan area. These include natural, cultural, and hist.oric resources. Refer to page II-29 of MPC.s Report, Voiume 2, proposed Policy 36. Note: the Eugene Planning Commission is recommending a cnange to proposed Policy 36. . --- . :\ -l,- 3. Preparation of a working paper to address archaeological sites listed in a U of 0 study submitted during the Mid-Period Review. Refer e to page 11-38 of MPC1s Report, Volume 2, proposed Policy 6. Note: the Eugene Planning Commission is recommending a change to Policy 6. 4. Removal of four floating nodes and th e Barger Drive/Belt Line refinement plan symbol from the Metro Plan Diagram and an indication on the Diagram of land use patterns adopted during local refinement planning processes. 5. Changes to designation of about five acres of property located at the intersection of Coburg and Cou nty Farm Roads from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial for an office complex. Refer to MPC Report, Volume 1, page 111-66, Index No. 8-9. 6. Changes to designation of about 133 acres from Light-Medium Industrial to Special Light Industrial. This site is located adjacent to the existing West Terry Special Light Industrial site north of 11th Avenue and east of Green Hill Road. Refer to MPC- Report, Volume 1, page 111-74, Index No. 8-13. 7. Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary to include 40 acres immediately north of Barger Drive adjacent to the Eugene city limits. Change the designation from Agriculture to Low Density Residential. Refer to MPC Report, Volume 1, page I I 1-87, Index Number 8-20. Unresolved Issues - 1. A 78 acre site located north of Belt Line Road, South of Irving Road and east of the Northwest Expressway. The requested amendment was to change the Plan designation from Light-Medium Industrial to SpeCial-Light Industrial. Two positions were prepared by MPC for consideration: one was in support of the requested amendment and the other was to leave the designation as Light-Medium or change it to residential use. Key points on both positions are listed in MPC Report, Volume 2, page V-I. 2. An amendment req uested to create an industrial tract between Awbrey Lane and Meadow View. The request was to bring approximately 727 acres under one ownership into the Urban Growth Boundary and to designate the area as a "large-scale industrial park". MPC prepared two positions on this request; one is to include the area in a study of alternative growth areas to be conducted following the Mid-Period Review, the other is to include the area in the Urban Growth Boundary at this time. During the joint planning commission public hearing the applicant requested to withdraw their application from consideration during the Mid-Period Review. However, they would 1 i ke to maintain their application for consideration fo 11 owi ng the completion of the alternative grow~h study. (See attached letter.) pltbmeml e , :.. . e M E M 0 RAN DUM November 20, 1985 To: Mayor and City Council From: Departments of Planning and Public Works Subject: Recommendation from the Planning Commission on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 6th/7th Extension Project The City Council will be discussing this project at your dinner session on November 25th, and will conduct a public hearing on it that same evening. You wi 11 be asked to take action and forward a recommendation to the State Department of Transportation at your meeting of December 4. Background Materials have been distributed to you earlier, including a three page Fact Sheet, map, and copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). A copy of the Fact Sheet and map is also attached to this memo, summarizing the proposed alternative alignments and their impacts. Briefly, the project would provide a 4-lane, limited access arterial highway, extending westerly from 6th and 7th Avenues at about Garfield Street, for a . distance of 5.5 miles to West 11th Avenue at Oak Hill. It would be a State Highway and would replace West 11th as the major east-west route for through traffic in west Eugene. Public Input We have distributed the Fact Sheet and DEIS to affected property owners and businesses in the project corridor. On October 23 we held a half-day, drop-in session to share information with interested parties and hear their concerns and comments. Approximately 100 people attended the session. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed project on November 5 and continued the hearing to November 12. On November 18 the Planning Commission reviewed all ora 1 and written testimony and reached agreement on a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission Recommendation Following is a summary of the Planning Commission's recommendation on this proposal. The commission voted separately on each recommendation; the motions were supported unanimously with one commissioner abstaining on the second recommendation. 1. The route designated as Alternative One in the DEIS should be recommended to the State. e The commissioners agreed that they preferred the northerly alternative; a preference based on input received at the hearings and the recommendation of the Citizen Advisory Committee. c~ \ ,,- e Two people testified in the public hearings that the State should construct the Roosevelt Freeway or extend 1-105 west as a better way of serving the traffi c i n we s t Eugene than the 6th/7th Extension. The commission discussed this possibility. Jim Gix, the Region Engineer from OOOT stated that an alignment north of the tracks was outside the corridor study area and that the DEIS would have to be redone. This scenario would inhibit Eugene's opportunity next spring to propose that the Oregon Transportation Commission place the project in the State's Six Year Highway Improvement Program. The commission voted not to consider an alignment north of the railroad tracks. 2. The alignment should be shifted north to run adjacent to the south side of the railroad tracks, between Terry Street and Greenhill Road; provided that the State has no objection from an engineering standpoint and that the project cost is not materially affected. Representatives of major landholders in the Terry Street to Greenhill Road vicinity testified that Alternative 1 as proposed would separate several parcels unnecessarily and decrease their util ity and attractiveness. They recommended movi ng the alignment closer to the tracks in order to allow for a more logical development pattern. The commission suggested that the property owners in the western portion work together to propose an alignment that would solve their concerns. The . State indicated that such a shift would be possible within the context of the DEIS process. 3. The State should investigate an elevated roadway at the eastern end of the project. Businesses on the eastern end of the project had i ndi cated probable circulation difficulties in the McKinley, Wilson, Conger area as Alternative 1 would particularly disrupt the north-south flow of traffic. They suggested elevating the roadway to preserve the north- south flow and that an elevated structure would allow businesses which abutted the overpass to still use the area below for on-site storage or circulation. The State indicated that elevating the structure could add significantly to the cost of the project, but agreed that they could take a look at it. 4. . Mitigation of impacts on wetlands should focus on enhancement of the significant wetlands in the area between Bertelsen and Bailey Hill Roads, specifically Bertelsen Slough, Stewart Pond, and the wetlands east of Wallis Street which feed into Bertelsen Slough.. Consideration should be given to use of project funds to purchase all or parts of these wetlands for public ownership and protection, to purchase the area between Alternative One and Bertelsen Slough for use as a buffer strip between the highway and the Slough, and/or other protective measures as may be appropriate. As the 6th/7th Extension proj ect wi 11 impact wetlands, the State is - required to deve lop and implement a plan to mitigate those impacts. 2 , '0 e Traditionally, mitigation measures are accomplished by the creation of new wetlands. The commission's recommendation includes the suggestion that wetland impacts can also be mitigated by preserving existing wetlands which might otherwise be eliminated or damaged by urbanization. Four major wetland zones were discussed that the State could consider preserving. These are the Bertelsen Slough, Stewart Pond, a buffer strip north of Bertelsen Slough and south of Alternative 1, and the forested area east of Wallis which is upstream from Bertelsen Slough. All of these areas are in private ownership and are unprotected, except the Bertelsen Slough which is i dent Hi ed in the Metro Plan as a natural resource area, has Site Review designation, and would require a Goal Five exception process for any proposed development on the site. 5. In designing the facility where it crosses the Amazon Channel the State should provide room for the Amazon-Fern Ridge bikepath. The commission discussed the importance of the Amazon-Fern Ridge bikepath and i dent ifi ed the need to preserve room under the 6th/7th crossing of the Amazon Channel for a bike facility. City Council Action Following your public hearing, staff will prepare a written response to the e testimony to assist with your deliberations on December 4. At that time, you will be asked to recommend an alignment to the State and to prov i de any additional comments or recommendations as you may wish. The State Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing on December 18, after which they will analyze all comments that have been received. They will then prepare a Hearing Study Report containing their recommendations on the preferred alignment and their response to all of the issues that were raised. We anticipate bringing the State's report to the Council by early February, 1986 for your review. This will allow you to place the preferred route on the ballot for a vote on March 25, 1986 under the City's limited access charter amendment. p 1 km6724 e 3 ~ M E M 0 RAN DUM - .f- November 22, 1985 e TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Warren G. Wong, Finance Director Carol A. James, Audit Supervisor SUBJECT: 10TH AND OAK ASSESSMENT DISTRICT--ADJUSTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS On March 12, 1984, council adopted staff recommendations regarding a process for the resolution of long-standing issues related to the 10th and Oak Over- park Special Assessment District. This process included litigation which has been tentatively resolved by negotiated settlement. This tentative settle- ment involves the distribution of $2,642,389.92. This memo discusses the actions necessary to complete the last element in the settlernent process. Background On June 11, 1984, council adopted Ordinance #19253 which, arnong other things, declared the rebate of approximately $1.6 million accumulated excess net operating revenues from the Over park and set the stage for court action to confirm the council's interpretation of the Eugene Code relating to the rebate program. In August 1984, the City filed a petition with the Circuit Court requesting a judgment confirming the legality and correctness of Ordi- e nance #19253 and associated procedures related to its application. The petition as filed by the City involved only those funds related to the rebate of excess net operating revenues as required by the Eugene Code. The City's petition did not include issues related to the distribution of other funds which would remain in the Overpark Fund after the distribution of excess net operating revenues. Ten parties filed responses in objection to the proced- ures for the distribution of the excess net operating revenues as outlined in the Cityls petition. In an effort to expedite the resolution of the court case, in June 1985, staff and legal counsel initiated negotiations with the objectors. As discussed in the progress report to council dated September 12, 1985, these negotiations have led to a tentative settlement of the lawsuit. While not part of the original litigation, distribution of the funds remaining after the rebate of excess net operating revenues became a critical element in the negotiations and the resulting tentative settlement. Resolution #3868 During the negotiation process, staff was guided as to council IS intent with regard to these remaining funds by Resolution #3868, dated July 11, 1984. This resolution directed staff to return any funds remaining in the Overpark Fund, after the distribution of rebates and satisfaction of related adminis- trative and legal costs, to appropriate lOth and Oak assessment payers. It further directed staff to proceed in the distribution of these remaining funds in the manner required for the levying of assessments for off-street e parking facilities. : 10TH AND OAK ASSESSMENT DISTRICT--ADJUSTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS November ZZ, 19Bb e Page 2 Staff followed the council IS intent as expressed in Resolution #3868 in the negotiation process. The tentative settlement involves the distribution of remaining funds as part of an overall adjustment of the original 10th and Oak assessment adjustments as outlined in the Code and have been followed in bringing this matter before the council. Adjustment of Assessments The proposed adjustment of the 10th and Oak Overpark assessment levied against that individual account. In total the proposed assessment is $652,869.38. The proposed reduction in the assessment will, after the previous application of the rebates, place all original assessment accounts in the position of having provided more in principal than is required to satisfy the adjusted assessment. Procedures developed by staff as part of the tentative settle- ment establish that the parties entitled to the return of this overpayment of principal will be the same parties who are entitled to any cash refund related to the application of the rebates. This return of any overpayrnent of princi- pal is in addition to any entitlement to cash related to the rebates as estab- lished by Ordinance #19253 and the procedures filed as part of the litigation. Attached under separate cover is a staff report which details the history of the 10th and Oak Overpark assessments and the determination of the amounts e of the proposed adjustments and the persons entitled to any resultant overpay- rnent of principal. Also attached under separate cover is the report of the hearings officer related to the administrative hearing held on the matter on November 14, 1985, and copies of the written objections to the adjustment as received by the City with staff's response. Staff recommends that, in order to meet the terms of the tentative settlernent, council approve the adjustment of the 10th and Oak original assessrnents as proposed. CAJ:pm/1043BD Attachments e .~ M E M 0 RAN 0 U M ) e November 25, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: ASD/Finance SUBJECT; FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH AT&T Request Currently, the City does not have a franchise agreement with AT&T, and so we are in the process of negotiating such an agreement. We are asking you to act on the proposed AT&T Franchi se Agreement. AT&T has revi ewed the proposed agreement and has indicated they will accept the terms of the agreement. Background With the divestiture of PNB and AT&T, the City continued to have a franchise agreement with PNB, but not with AT&T. Recently, AT&T has sought approval to use the public-way to place fiber-optic cable from 10th Avenue and Oak Street to to Blanton Heights. This use of the public-way gives the City the opportunity to negotiate a franchise agreement with AT&T. The authority to create franchise agreements is in the City Charter in Section . 43. The charter allows us to exact a pencentage of the gross income from the franchisee. Because it is difficult to determine the gross income generated by AT&T withi n the Cfty limits, we are proposing that the amount of the franchise agreement be $1.00 a linear foot for use of the public-way. This amount was arrived at by comparing the revenue recieved from current franchise holders to the mil es of line or pipe those franchise holders have in the public-way. The City of Eugene will be the first City in Oregon and one of the first cities in the country to negotiate a franchise agreement with AT&T. We feel that our proposed agreement is "moderate" both in terms of the franichse holder requirements and the annual fee charged for the use of the public-way. The agreement is written so that the City has the opportunity to renegotiate the agreement within three years if we so desire. Estimated Revenue We assume that AT&T will be have about five (5) miles of fiber-optic cable withi n the ci ty. At a cost of $1.00 per linear foot, that would generate $26,400 in revenue for the City on an annual basis. Recommended Action We propose that the following actions be taken so that the City of Eugene can enter into a franchise agreement with AT&T. - 1. November 13 - 21:-- City presents proposed franchise agreement to AT&T for their comment and negotiate any differences. 2. November 2_5. - -City Council directs the staff to place a public notfce'"fn the Regi ster Guard once a week for three consecutive week.s i beginning on November 26. Public notice is required by the City , Charter. City Council has first reading of the proposed AT&T Franchise Agreement. The City Charter requires that the ordinance e be read at two consecutive regular meetings of the council before it is passed. 3. December 16: .City Council takes final action on the proposed AT&T Franchise Agreement. fnslsOO9 11/85 e e -2- " cof' e MEMORANDUM November 19, 1985 TO: Dave Whitlow, Assistant City ~ FROM: Bert S. Teitzel, City Engineer SUBJECT: Contract award and assessment for public improvement project The property owners for the following project were notified of a hearing before the Hearings Official to consider objections to the contract award and the proposed assessment. There were no unresolved problems or requests to be heard, and the meeting was cancelled. Contract No. 85-30 - Contract award and levying assessment of costs for sanitary sewer on Ferry Street from 18th Avenue to 150 feet north of 18th e Avenue This project was initiated in February, 1985 by a petition representing 100 percent of property owners. The City Council approved the project by Resolution No. 3940 on August 12, 1985, directing the Public Works Department to prepare plans and specifications and authorizing the costs of the improvement to be assess to properties within the improvement district in accordance with applicable sections of the Eugene Code, 1971- RECOMMENDED ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL: The first action should be to adopt the findings attached. The second action should be tq approve the ordinance. e . '-' ! e PROPOSED FINDINGS: 85-30 Sanitary sewer on Ferry Street from 18th Avenue to 150 feet north of 18th Avenue (Job #2191) 1. The project was initiated, advertised and bid in compliance with Section 7.165 through 7.185 of the Eugene Code, 1971. 2. Property owners proposed to be assessed had notice of the public hearing and reasonable opportunity to be heard as provided in the applicable sections of the Eugene code, 1971. 3. The proposed assessments were calculated in conformance with the Eugene Code, Section 7.175 and 7.180. 4. There were no requests for hearing before the Hearings Official, and it is recommended that the City Council approve the ordiance to proceed with the project and to levy assessments as_ proposed. RECOMMENDED ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL: e The first action should be to adopt the findings attached. The second action should be to approve the ordinances. LB1453GLB: e