Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/23/1975 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL June 23, 1975 -- Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held June 9, 1975 - was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E.Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on June 23, 1975 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. Councilman Gus Keller was absent. I - Presentation of letter from President Ford re: Housing and Community Development Funds Floyd Arms, director of Planning and Community Development for HUD, Portland office, was introduced. He commented on funds previously appropriated through HUD to Eugene for various programs - the downtown mall, parks, water and sewers, etc. - and said those programs were no longer in existence. Under new legislation Congress will now appropriate a similar amount of money, however it wi 11 be under an "enti t1 ement" provision. Agencies will be entitled to receive a specific amount rather than apply- ing for funds. He said this new program would really leave it to the agencies to determine how the money would be used so long as they complied with the eligible uses of facility money. He read a letter addressed to the city from President Ford. Mayor Anderson expressed appreciation for the presentation and said the city of Eugene was quite aware of the responsibilities going with the new Act. He concurred with the President that one of the most important aspects of the new program was citizen participation and noted that this community took pride in its indulgence in that regard. The Mayor expressed hope that the resources provided would make possible the building of a better city, and that a good job in that regard had been done so far in the eyes of the Administration and the HUD office. e II - Proclamation, Canvaasing votes cast in June 17, 1975 city budget election was read showing: 5,492 yes votes cast on $3,564,474 levy outside 6% limitation on city budget 4,566 no " " " " " 16 overvotes, 329 undervotes 5,766 yes votes cast on $134,000 outside 6% limitation on Downtown Development District budget 4,054 no " " " " II 18 overvotes, 565 undervotes Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to accept the proclamation. Motion carried unanimously. III - Public Hearings A. Vacation of utility easement on west side of Sunshine Acres Road from Dapple Way to Sunshine Acres Drive (Eslinger)(EV 75-2) Recommended by the Planning Commission April 7, 1975. Map was previously dis- tributed showing portion of the easement to be vacated, retaining 34 feet for utilities. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 875 - Vacating public utility easement on west side of Sunshine Acres Road from Dapple Way to Sunshine e Acres Drive was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 6/23/75 - I 3"3\ Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17393. -- B. Liquor License Application - New - River Avenue Tavern, 99 River Avenue (RMB) Submitted by John and Richard Langan. OLCC report indicated that of those con- tacted in the neighborhood, seven objected; no one expressed approval, Assistant Manager noted the application had been submitted before. It was in the vicinity of the Riviera Shopping Center. Staff had no objections. Public hearing was opened. John Langan, 2775 Fillmore Street, presented copies of letter to Council members I-A-l asking favorable consideration of the application on the basis that the site was approved by the Council two years ago [denied by the Liquor Commission], the~e were no objections from city departments, and there were no other taverns in the area. Helmut Plant, 2034 Alder Street, supported the application. It was his belief that any citizen should be able to obtain beer at many locations in the community and that there should not be so much interference in granting of liquor licenses. Jeffrey Lynn, manager of McDonald's, 55 River,Avenue, said his concerns were the same as when the application was submitted two years ago - their's was a family type business, appealing to young people; the area was primarily residential; congested traffic conditions; the establishment would not be compatible in that - location between a day school and McDonald's. He asked whether it was intended to hav gambling in the proposed tavern. And he said that although there was a tavern located near a McDonald's restaurant in Springfield, it was a different e situation in that it was a block distant in a shopping center with ample parking. Robert Poppen, 1908 Carmel Avenue, thought the Council should be aware of a similar application that would soon be before them for an establishment in the same area - across the extension of River Avenue on the west. Speaking as a representative of the applicants for that establishment, he said, they would be opposed to this license. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws to recommend approval of the application. Mr. Murray said there were aIr kinds of operations that could be located in this zone that would also create traffic. Also, he said he didn't hear any evidence that would lead him to assume that a tavern would make a bad neighbor, regardless of the types of neighboring businesses. He noted the applicant was a tavern operator of good standing in the community. And he didn't think the Council should recommend unfavorably on one tavern application in anticipation of another's being submitted for the same area. Councilwoman Shirey added that since the Council had recommended approval previously of a tavern in that area, it wouldn't seem right to deny it at this time. Vote was taken on the motion to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. C. Code Amendments . 1. Business License, Sign Contractors Code Amendment, Sign Contractors Licenses - Copies of redraft of the ordinance presented on May'27 (c .E. 843) were previously distribu'ted 'to Council members. Assistant Manager explained the revisions to Section 3whi6h were to make the language more explicit and add appeal provision. He added that staff was unwill- 6/23/75 - 2 '3~ 32 ing to accept the sign contractors' request to change the amendment to prevent owners from installing their own signs, thereby requiring the services of a sign contractor, because it would not be in line with other code provisions governing e plumbers, electrical workers, etc. In re~nse to Councilwoman Beal's question whether the amendment would prevent small businessmen or do-it-yourself type shops from putting up their own signs, Assistant Manager said the sign contractors wanted exclusive rights in that regard but staff disagreed and the code amendment as presented has no effect on who installs a sign so long as it meets code requirements. Councilman Williams questioned the provision under Section 3 (Note 14) requiring journeymen sign electrician's license and employment by a licensed electrical contractor for any person performing electrical work on electrical signs. Nick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, explained that that wording was taken from State law. That type of work must be done by a licensed electrician, not by a sign contractor unless he is also a licensed electrician. However, he said, it would not preclude work by any electrical contractor, still in answer to Councilman Williams. One would not have to be employed by a sign contractor, work could be performed by an electrician working for an owner. COmID Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Ur. Hamel to bring the revised ordinance 6/18/75 back for second reading at the June 23 Council meeting. Motion Pub Hrng carried unanimously. Previously considered by the Council at its May 27, 1975 meeting and held for a report from public works department and revision of language in the ordinance. Assistant Manager explained that a revised version attempts to separate general and limited types of licenses. He noted staff had met with sign contractors (see committee minutes above). e Public hearing was opened. Jim Broughton, 38 Highway 99N, representing Lane County Commercial Sign Association, said they basically were pleading '~o contest." They agreed with the provisions of the ordinance except they felt there was no way of defining a contractor. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Council Bill No. 843 - Amending Sections 3.005 and 3.010 of City Code re: Sign Contractors Licenses, read the first time on May 27, 1975 and held for public works department report, was read the second time as re- vised by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17394. 2. Fire Code, Sprinklering High-rise Buildings ~ . Code Amendment, Sprinklering High-rise Buildings - Copies of the proposed amendment were previously distributed to Council members. It would require approved auto- matic fire extinguishing systems in every structure of five or more stories or higher than 45 feet of Group H occupancy (residential type structures). - Councilman Williams expressed concern about the five-year deadline to meet the re- quirement, especially as it concerned buildings such as Sacred Heart Hospital and the Eugene Medical Center. Wendell Wick, fire marshal, explained that Sacred Heart Hospital was sprinklered throughout, all institutions and nursing home type occu- pancies now had such systems. The difference between Group H occupancy and a 1.'?>3 6/23/75 - 3 building like the Medical Center, he said, was because of the sleeping areas in housing structures. It would be more hazardous trying to awake people in the event of a fire at night, and practically impossible to get them out, whereas office buildings would have "people up and walking around." He said if a building such " as the Medical Center was remodeled to more than 25% of its market value, under the terms of this amendment it would have to be sprinklered throughout. The five-year deadline, he added, was the same limit included in the sprinklering ordinance adopted in 1956, and a two-year extension was granted in that case. Councilman williams was still troubled that the Eugene Medical Center would not come under the provisions. He thought there would be problems getting people out of that building because of patients being anesthetized or in wheelchairs. Mr. Wick agreed but said there would not be the risk involved as in the living type occu- pancies. He added that the fuel load - bedding, furniture - in living occupancies was much greater than that in an office building which would have metal file cabinets, desks, etc. Councilman Bradley noted the amendment called for systems throughout the structures, including basements or cellars. He wondered if attics would be included. Mr. Wick explained that the present ordinance requires sprinkler systems in basements in. Fire Zones 1 and 2. This provision was included in this amendment because of some Group H occupancy buildings in other fire zones. It was understood the ordinance could be changed to avoid the ambiguity with regard to attics. Comm Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to schedule public hearing 6/18/75 at the June 23 Council meeting on the amendment. Motion carried Pub Hrng unanimously. Assistant Manager explained provisions of the code amendment (see committee minutes above). Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. - Council Bill No. 876 - Amending Section 8.200 of City Code re: Sprinklering high-rise buildings was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams 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. Councilman Williams said his impres~ion of policy used in the past was that the only time building code requirements were triggered was when improvements amounting to . something like 50% of the value of a structure were added. He said he was not familiar with the five-year phase-in provision for remodeling to 25% of the value of a building. Assistant Manager explained that a five-year period was given for basement areas when the central business district fire defenses were being brought to a higher level; a two-year extension was added to that beca~se of economic conditions while the renewal project was going on. Wendell Wick, fire marshal, said the 25% was used in this amend- ment because sprinklering is being required in entire buildings; the five-year phase-in covered basement areas because they were located in more hazardous fire zones. I~A..2 Councilman Hamel expressed concern about the tremendous burden these requirements would place on senior citizens on smaller incomes. He wondered if there was any other way to accomplish the protection without jeopardizing those people's ownerships. Assistant e Manager said that in comparing the fire hazard involved in these types of buildings staff felt the resulting protection and adequate fire suppression should have priority. Although there were some subsidized rentals that would be covered, there were a number of other structures where no low-income elderly were involved and the life hazard existed. 6/23/75 - 4 3 '34 Mr. Wick said there was one cost-cutting installation for owner modified systems, allowing fewer sprinkler heads if water flow was maintained. He said a dollar-value - couldn't be put on life and that in most high-rise buildings people were going to have to have help in getting out. The highest ladder in the department can go only to the ninth floor, he said, beyond that it would be impossible to give hlep. Rollcall vote was taken on second reading of the bill. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17395. I-A-3 D. Traffic Diverter Policy Planning Commission recommended adoption of traffic diverter policy statement and procedure as contained in its official report of May 19, 1975. Copies of that report were previously distributed to Council members and shared with neighborhood organizations. Public hearing was opened. Edwin St. Clair, 652 West Broadway, thought the traffic diverter a valid traffic control device, something that was needed to preserve existing residential areas. He noted the controversy over installation of a diverter in the westside area and said procedure for installation should be taken from the political arena if it led to controversy every time one was to be put in. e Helmut Plant, 2034 Alder Street, asked what the policy was. After the policy statement was read, Mr. Plant thought one should be installed on Alder Street because of the number of accidents occurring at 20th and Alder. He asked postponement of action on the issue when Mayor Anderson confined discussion to comments on the policy and procedure only. Thorn Chambliss, 1510 Mill Street, chairman of the West University Neighbors, said that organization was unanimously in favor of the traffic diverter policy. He thought adoption of the policy was of positive value in preserving the livability of residential areas. He said he agreed with one point brought out in Planning Commission hearings and that was if instaJ.lation of diverters did nothing more than move traffic to other arterials, then they might eventually cause more problems than they would solve. Rather than having that effect, he hoped the policy would be a continuing effort to discourage automobile traffic. . Berniece Willoughby, 1140 Adams Street, asked that serious consideration be given installations in terms of where the traffic would be diverted. She said some traffic on the westside was moved to other routes where it constituted a dangerous situation for children. Preston Lance, 1145 West Broadway, suggested four-way stops as a method of slowing traffic. And Mrs. Theodore Adams, 972 Madison Street, was opposed to the present installation on Madison Street, saying there was no reason for a diverter at that location, that it was a short street, and there was no way for traffic to get through. When the Mayor reminded speakers again that the question was whether traffic diverters were an adequate instrument, Mrs. Adams said they were not, they would not help and people in her neighborhood were not pleased with them. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e Assistant Manager said that staff saw the diverters as an effective tool, that with increased neighborhood refinement planning and problems of traffic spilling over from arterials into residential areas, there needed to be an understanding with the Council :~3S 6/23/75 - 5 I on policy .with regard to their use and procedure for installation. Although there would be contro~ersy, he said, it was a good tool and one needed in the community. Resolution No. 2414 - Adopting traffic diverter policy and procedures - was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Councilman Murray recognized heated differences of opinion on the use of traffic di- verters, yet he felt their use was an extension of existing policy adopted in community goals statements - to increase efforts to improve neighborhood quality by directing traffic to commercial and industrial streets, serve the needs of motorists without sub- verting other aspects of city life, limit traffic to as few streets as possible, dis- courage through residential areas, etc. His concern was excessive traffic in residential neighborhoods, especially since it tends to be heaviest in older neighborhoods de- preciating the quality of those areas. He didn't think quality in those areas would be improved unless strong steps were taken, and from consultations with traffic people his information was that traffic diverters were the best known method of accomplishing the desired protection. He saw them as a device to bring to the older neighborhoods with grid street systems the same protection that was being provided newer areas. He felt that if this policy and procedure were adopted it would provide a more standardized way of dealing with the issue, a better job could be done so far as designing and placing diverters than is now the case. Councilman Williams agreed with Mr. Murray's statement that he saw the primary value was to provide protection for residential streets adjacent or very near to major arterials suffering from spillover of traffic, but he said he didn't read this traffic diverter policy in that way. He didn't think it dealt with alternative means of transportation. Assistant Manager said the policy would relate to reducing through - traffic and improving residential neighborhoods. It also would to a degree become a component in neighborhood refinement plans but not in the sense of making broad, sweeping delcarations with regard to alternative modes of transportation. It would put traffic on arterials and perhaps will require an arterial street policy statement in time. Councilman Bradley favored the policy statement, although he expressed disappointment that more neighborhood associatiansdid not respond since that was the source of citizen feedback. Councilman Williams questioned Assistant Manager remarks, wondering if staff felt adoption of this policy would proviqe the basis for an overall workable transportation system. He saw it only as a portion of the community goals statements and said there was a need for a broader overall policy. He wondered if adoption of this policy would be creating a situation of not adopting a broader approach with regard to diverters later on. Assitant Manager didn't think so. He thought it would increase pressure on the Council to address the overall policy issues because the diverters would place traffic seeking alternate routes on arterial streets. This policy, he said, could be modified when those overall decisions were made. Councilwoman Beal agreed there were broader issues to be considered. Property owners on both residential and commercial streets were more or less penalized by increased traffic, those in residential areas not only by having the increased traffic but also for street improvements to accommodate it. She thought this diverter policy should be considered only a part of the overall issue, a temporary thing. Councilman Murray agreed that installation of diverters would not be a panacea. But he felt arterial - uses were having a tremendously dibilitating effect on some residential neighborhoods, and however much traffic the diverters added to the arterials would not significantly change the overall problem. He said he didn't think diverters would solve the problems, but neither would tney make them dramatically worse. 6/23/75 - 6 '33~ Assistant Manager said that the only instance where an entire neighborhood was involved in traffic diverter installation was in the 29th and Willamette area, and that only to move traffic from 30th and Portland, so there had been no thorough analysis of the e effect. This policy statement, he said, would provide the opportunity to consider the total impact for an area, whether an arterial system would be substantially affected could be determined. Staff saw it as a beginning of a more intelligent approach to neighborhood traffic problems, by no means a final solution. Broad policy decisions with regard to transportation alternatives would be before the Council as part of an ESATS update. Vote was taken on motion to adopt the resolution. Motion carried I-B-l unanimously. Eo Bids ~ublic Works Improvement Projects (opened June 17 and 20, 1975) June 17. 1975 Cost to t\:::uo..:nC ~2~P of Biuder anc Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop, Cost to Cit}' B'Jdgetcc ALLEY PAVrr;G: 1. Betlie2n Pearl Street and High Street from ~tr. Ave. to alley between 3rd Ave. & 4th Ave. (971 ) 1. Shur-y!ay Contractors. Inc......................$ 4.260.00,.................:.....$ O.77/ylFF.........................O 2. Con:rete Unlimited. Inc........................$ 4.408.20 + $ 0.C05/\~SF 3, ~:alt's Concrete Company....,...................$ 5.049,00 San, Dlrect...$ 104.00 4. Hi ldish Construction Company...................$ 5.672.00 COMPLETION DATE: September 1. 1975 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.--------. 2. getween 13th Ave. & 14th Ave. from Ferry Street to Patterson Street (943) el. Shur-\-!ay Con tractors. I nc. .. . .. .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. . $1 0.202,65.. .. . . .. .. , . .. . .. . .. . . . . $ 1.115/I~FF......,.... ..Deferred $1.083.00........ .:) 2. Concrete Unlimited. Inc........................$10.778,62 + $ O.OO8/O/SF 3. Hildish Construction Company...................$11.270.25 A.C. Drives...S 1 .06/sq. ft. 4. Halt's Concrete Company....................... .$11.911.25 CO!1PLETlON DATE: September 1.1975 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, 3. 8et~ieen Oak Street and Pearl Street frcm 14th Ave, to the E/W alley; and btn 14th Ave. & 15th Ave. from Oak St. to ti/S alley (1100) 1. Shur-Hay Contractors. Inc......................$ 8.708,90................. .N/S...$ O. 83/WFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 2. Concrete Unllmited. Inc........................$ 8.854,27 + $ 0.008/WSF 3. f!ildish Construction Company...................$ 9,617.70 E/~I...$ 0.83/WFF 4. Walt's Concrete Company.".....................$ 9,636,25 + $ 0.011 /WSF CO~lPLETION DATE: September 1. 1975 -----------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -- .. ._-_.~._--.... - '-_. ..__0.-- . PAVING: . 4, 11th Avenue from Seneca Road to 8ailey Hill Road (374) ALTERNATE BID BASIC illD 1. Wildish Construction Company............$164.455.85,...,..No Bid.,........28' Pav.........$ 16.65.........Pav.......$53.000.00....Pav...$45.00C 2, Eugene Sand & Gravel. Inc...............$165.882,89.......No Bid 44' Pav.....~...$ 36.65 Stonn.....$15.100.00 Stm...$45.60( San. Servo Ext..$325.00/ea. Deferred..$13.800.00 COMPLETION DATE: September 15. 1975 --------------.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. P,WI/;G. Sf.,~ITARY SnJER AND STORM SEWER: 5, Within Woodhaven Subdivision; paving Garfield St. frc~ 25th Place to 27th Ave. & 26th Place fro~ 27th Ave. to Garfield St; Sanitary Sewer within 160' of Garfield St. from 360' N. of 26th Place to 27th Ave; & within 160' of 26th Place from 27th Ave. to Garfield St. (1012) ALTERNATE BID BASIC BID el. ~fldish Construction Company............S 80.229.55,......$ 80.465.20.....28' Pav.........S 20.50/FF.......,....,...,."O 2. Shur-\lay Contrcctors. Inc...............$ 85.317,10.......No Bid 36' Pav.........$ 25,OO/FF 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel. Inc...............$ 90.671.18.......f,o Bid San.Swr,Lat.....$ O.ll/SF 4, K~nneth R. Bostick Construction Co......$ 91.634.40.......No 8id San. Serv.......S222.GO/Each 5, Dan D, Allsup Contractor. Inc...........$ 96.838,60.......No Bid Stm, Swr........$64~.OD/Lot COMPLETION DATE: Octo~er I. 1375 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ '3~1 6/23/75 - 7 ~a~2 of Biclcer .:nll Project Contract Cost Cos t to !'..7.cc,,,c Abutting Prop, Cost t" C:.ty 3L:d~~e t~d ?I,VH:G, SA:; !TAR'( S~~iER AnD STOR~~ SE~IER: 6. Center ',:2)' frcm fl,arti n Street to 550' S. of Martin Street'(8791 AL TERtlATE BID BASIC BID tit l. \mdisn Construction COl"pany....,.....,... ..$ 55,576.20......$ 54,616.10.... ..28' Pav.......$ 19.60/FF.... ..Pav.... ,$ 650.00....,., ,$5,200.00 2. Ker.neth R. Bostick Construction Co........ ..No Bid...........$ 57,817.60 36' Pav.......$ 22.40/FF Stm.Sv!r.32,600.00 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc...."....,.,......No Bid...........$ 61,477.00 San.Swr.Lat.. .$ 0.12/SF 4. Shur-\:ay Contractors, Inc...................$ 59,869.33.... ..No Bid Stm. Sewer....$290.00/Lot 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc...............$ 60,499.68.... ..No Bid COMPLETION DA~E: September 15, 1975 --------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PAV HlG, SAN ITARY SEHER, STORH SEI,IER & SlDE\'IALK: 7. Barger Drive from High',/ay 99 to 200' H. of Ohio Street; Sanitary Sewer on Barger Drive from W. In;in Way west to the N/S section line of Sections 16 & 17 and 20 & 21 (605) l. Wildi sh Construction Company.............. ..No Bi d.. . .... .... $711 ,949. B8.. . . .. 28' Pav....... $ 17. 95/FF.. . .. Extra ~Iidth.. $ 48.600.00) $131,100.00 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc...................No Bid...........$730,650.63 36' Pav.......$ 21.00/FF Depth..$ B2,500.00) 3. Fred Stubbert...............................$734,102.46......No Bid 44' Pav.......$ 24.10/FF Bike Path....$137,500.00 $106,000.00 4" Sidewalk...$ O.72/SF Storm Swr....$ 98,500.00 -0- 5" Sidewalk...$ 0.85/SF San. Swr.....$ 600.00 -0- 7" Sidewalk...$ 1 .40/SF Lane County..$ 32,600.00 5" Drives.....$ l.10/SF San.Swr.Lat...$ 0.031/sq.ft. San. Serv.....$335.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1976 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ......... . - --. ..... _. -~-,-.~,..-.. . PA'IU;G Af;D SID~vIALK: 8. Cha:nbers Stl"eet from McLean Blvd. to Lorane Hi gh\':ay (346) ALTERNATE BIO BASIC BID 1. ~Jildish Construction Company.......... .$111 ,046.28..... .$116,049.81....... .28' Pav........$ 18. 70/FF...... .Pav... .$28,900.00......... .$16,500.00 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc..............$121,5Sl.76......No Bid j2' Pav........$ 22.00/FF 'Stm.Sl'lr$ 6,600.00 ~ 4" Sidewalk....$ 1 .OS/SF 5" Sidewalk....$ l.l5/SF COHPLETION DATE: October 1, 1975 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ SA::lTARY SE',!ER: . ---------- -- 9. Delta High\~ay from Belt Line Road '. to 2400' North (666) l. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company.......$108,347.00..................San.Swr.lat....$ 0.10/SF. . . . . .. . . .. . .. .$85,600.00. . . . . . . .. .. 0 2. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.....................S192.659,92 3, \/ildish Construction Company................. .$212,695.00 COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1975 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------------------------------------- STORI'~ SEI~ER: 10. Barger Drive from Echo Hollow Road to Dove Lane (1141) 1. H & J Construction............................ $ 59.517.00............................ .0. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . ... . .$59.517.00. . .. . . . $71,490.00 2, Shur-\'!ay Contractors, Inc.....................$ 68,612.70 3. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company.......$ 70,763.00 4. 1m di sh Cons tructi on Company.................. $ 70, 76~.1 0 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.................$ 80,018.16 COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1975 -------------------------------------------------------------------~~-------------------~~~-----~~------~---~-----------------------------------------' June 20. 1975. l:aM2 of Bidder and Project Contract Cost Cost to Amount. Abutting Prop. Cost to City Budgeted OVERLAY OF BIKE PATH ADJACENT TO VALLEY RIVER SHOPPING CENTER (1200) l. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc........................$ 2,210.00............................ .0.......................... .$2,210.00..... ..'.. .52,210.00 2. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.......................,$ 2.626.00 3. Benge Pavin9, Inc................................$ 2,686.00 4. \'lildish Construction Company.....................$ 2,970.00 , CO~lPLETION DATE: July 11, 1975 ________________________,~--------------------------------------------------------~---7------------------------------------------------------------------ Don Allen, public works director, reviewed all bids except Item 7 (paving, sanitary e and storm sewers, and sidewalk on Barger Drive). Award of contracts was recommended to the low bidder on each of the projects reviewed, except Item 9 (sanitary sewer on Delta Highway) to be redesigned and rebid later, and with award of Item 5 (paving and sanitary and storm sewers in Woodhaven Subdivision) subject to concurrence of the: subdivider on the award. 6/23/75 - 8 33"e, Assistant Manager said that Item 10 (storm sewer on Barger Drive) was not involved with other improvements on Barger Drive covered by Item 7. - Public hearing was opened. Thorn Chambliss, 1510 Mill Street, speaking for the West University Neighbors, said that group had no objection to the paving of the alley between Oak and Pearl, 14th and 15th, but did have concerns that traffic and speeds would increase. They asked consideration of using speed bumps to slow traffic in alleys in that neighborhood. Assistant Manager answered that speed bumps generally were determined a hazard and the city would be liable for maintaining hazards in a public right-of-way. The problem could be dealt with through enforcement and neighborhood persuasion. l-B-2 Earl Eggers, 2015 West 29th Avenue, spoke with regard to Item 5 (paving and sewers in Woodhaven Subdivision). He asked if both the developer and the property owner would have to sign for Bancrofting assessments for the improvement. Mr. Allen replied that both would have to sign in order to pay the assessment through a Bancroft loan. Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Murry moved second by Mr. Williams that contracts be awarded to the low bidder on each of the projects reviewed (Items I through 6, Items 8 and 10, and bike path overlay adjacent to Valley River), con- tract award on Item 5 to be made subject to concurrence of the sub- divider; and that bids on Item 9 (Delta Highway sewer) be rejected. In response to Councilman Bradley who asked why the Delta Highway sewer project was re- jected, Mr. Allen said the primary reason was because the bid came in so much higher e than the estimate. Also, the low bidder had entered a letter of error, asking to adjust the bid by some $32,OOO,and staff felt it would be better to rebid the item. Councilwoman Beal asked why the estimated cost of alley paving was so high compared to street paving. She wondered why concrete was used when that was given as the primary reason for the higher cost. Mr. Allen said one reason was that better drainage was provided. Also, there was not enough room in alleys to accommodate the type of machinery necessary to apply asphaltic pavement. In further response to Mrs. Beal, he said that before alleys were paved with concrete, sewers were reconstructed to avoid tearing up newly placed paving. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. II-A-l Mr. Allen then reviewed bids on Item 7 (Barger Drive paving, sewers, and sidewalk). Award of contract was recommended to the low bidder. Assistant Manager noted petition previously distributed to Council members representing property owners in the area, 10.62% of which property abuts Barger Drive itself. Also, two letters from Mrs. W. G. Coleman indicating preference for a straight alignment and saying an unreasonable amount of property was being taken on the south side of the street. Another letter was that received from Active Bethel Citizens stating support of provision for on-street parking referred to in the petition presented. Public hearing was opened. e Douglas Melevin, 933 Pearl Street, attorney representing a group of property owners on the south side of Barger Drive, asked that design of the improvement be reconsidered or contract award postponed until further study of the design was made. He said his clients were not opposed to the project itself, only to the design because people 6/23/75 - 9 ~~ living on the south side of the street were losing their front yards because of the proposed curve in the alignment. He showed pictures of Mrs. Coleman's home where the street right-of-way would take the entire front yard. All landscaping would be - taken from other yards. Mr. Melevin said tte reason for the curve given by city engineers was that it would be more expensive to construct the street in a straight line because of the damage to businesses across the street and the amount of com- pensation required. He felt it inappropriate to penalize the home owners on the south side of the street when a straight alignment was possible without removing any build- ings on the north side. It was his understanding that a portion of the petition presented to the Council asked for. construction of the street in a straight line. Construction as designed, he said, would be contrary to stated city policy referred to by Councilman Murray of preserving the character of residential neighborhoods. He didn't feel that tax dollars should be saved at the expense of the small property owners. And he said if the reasoning of the engineers was that the street would cost more because of the expense of commercial properties on the north, that might not be valid because he had learned that one of the property owners on the north might be willing to take less than anticipated by the city. Later in the meeting, Mr.Melevin said that the street was moved another nine feet to the south after the original de- sign, so although the people would be compensated, they would not be compensated enough to make up for entire loss of their yards in most instances. John Munn, 5100 Barger Drive, did not object to the improvement because he felt bike II-A-2 lanes, left turn lanes, etc., were needed on that street. However, he felt the prop- erty owners on the south side were being asked to give more than a fair share for the improvement. If more was taken from their property then from properties on the north, he thought there should be added compensation. He also asked for a different method of assessing arterial improvement because he didn't feel properties abutting arterials received the same benefit of properties abutting residential streets where there was very little traffic and where more use could be made of the public right- e of-way by people living there. They still had the benefit of arterials because of easy access but did not have the noise or heavy traffic. Mr. Munn said that if nothing else the city should consider rezoning property abutting this street so that the property owners could receive something back on their investment in the improvement. Howard Warner, 1510 Olive Street, said he was speaking for his wif~ the owner of store property on the north side of the street,who would be willing to take the minimum offered by the city in compensation for damages rather than have the street moved and thereby penalizing property owners on the south side. Mrs. W. G. Coleman, 4950 Barger Drive, was unhappy with the project as designed. She approved the widening, giving easier access to the main highway, she said, but she was not pleased with the proposed "jog" and hoped the Council would reconsider. Donald Hatfield, 2189 Dewey Street, co-chairman of ABC, said the proposed design had not been discussed too much in that group, that people opposed to the curve had not expressed their opinions to ABC, otherwise the association could have taken a stand at an earlier point on behalf of those who would suffer the hardship. He thought it would probably be better to straighten the alignment, given the new development with regard to compensation for the Barger Drive Market expressed by Mr. Warner. Mr.Hatfield thought on-street parking would be somewhat dangerous if bike lanes were included in the project. And he thought if there was any possibility of widening Barger Drive to accommodate four lanes at any time in the future, parking should be provided for at this time so when the future widening took place the bike lanes would not have to be removed. He hoped the present staff projection that three lanes would be sufficient e to handle the load was correct; he didn't want to see the bike lanes taken for another lane of traffic later on. Public hearing was. closed, there being no further testimony presented. 6/23/75 - 10 '54'0 Assistant Manager said that even with the Warner's interest in accepting original figures discussed in negotiating for right-of-way, the project as now designed would effect a savings of about $60,000 over previous alignment to the north. . And he reminded the Council that the standard setback for homes under zoning regula- tions was 15 feet. In this instance, with sidewalk also, there would be at least 20 feet between the curb face and the houses which was standard in terms of zoning re- quirements even though not as much as these homes had in the past. Mr. Allen said that a 46-foot paving is proposed under the design bid; if four lanes were installed, as called for in the petition, plus bike lanes and parking, a 70-foot paving would be required. That would require additional right-of-way since there is only a 58-foot right-of-way in some sections. He thought there might be a couple of options available for the project as presented, one, a five-foot strip in dispute on the north side of the street. Public works had avoided that dispute, but could give it further consideration which would allow moving the alignment five feet to the north and still remain within the legal right-of-way. That move would place the sidewalk adjacent to one of the stores where it is now five feet away. He said the staff stood by its forecast of traffic load on Barger Drive and is comfortable with the two lanes with center turn lanes proposed. He pointed out that any design would take out land- scaping on abutting properties. And added that the property owners' reluctance to have the minimum setback was understandable, that public works were not completely insensative to that. Assistant Manager said it would not be in the city's interest to take property without just compensation, that all negotiations in acquiring right-of-way attempted to arrive at acceptable figures that would include any private improvements or damages to salability. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Hamel to reconsider the design element of the project, that a straight alignment be considered, taking out the curve under discussion. e Councilman Bradley said that given the choice between adding cost of the improvement to commercial interests on the north and having residential property owners on the south absorb that cost, he thought the business and commercial interests could better afford the expense. Mr. Hamel agreed with that viewpoint. Councilwoman Beal was in complete sympathy with the property owners on the south. She said that even with loss-of-sale value taken into consideration, the loss sometimes could not be measured in dollars when people living in their homes many years lost trees, shrubs, etc., which took so many years to establish. Assistant Manager asked the intent of the motion - whether the street was to be designed on a straight alignment or moved. Simply to reconsider, he said, leaves the staff with- out definite direction. Mr. Btadley was undecided, perhaps an "S" curve would remove the hardship to the property owners on the south. However, he thought a straight align- ment would be best as supported by testimony presented. Councilman Haws asked what would happen if the motion was approved. Assistant Manager said it would delay the project, utilities would have to be redesigned, and the project would probably wind up having to be rebid. Mr. Allen said the problem was that utili- ties and staff were pushed to get the present design which resulted from the last public hearing. The portion of the project west of Belt Line required completion this year. The east section between 99N and Belt Line has a September 1, 1976 completion date be- cause the project was so late going to bid. That section would have to be rebid unless the contractor was willing to take a delay. He added that there probably were not enough construction days left in this season to complete this entire east section if there was e a delay. Councilman Haws wondered if the motion failed whether there was some way to get started on the project with the exception of the portion where the jog was located so that the staff could work out some solution to the curve section and meet the September 1976 6/23/75 - 11 34-' completion date. Mr. Allen suggested that it might be possible to "flip flop" the work, starting on the east end first. He said that work was projected to start first on the west end in attempt to accommodate the majority of the people living in that section. . If the contractor and utilities agreed to that, he said, it ~ould give the fall and winter to get that work done and be ready for paving next summer. He added that rather than an "elaborate" detouring of this area (since entering into this discussion) there probably would not be any construction on Royal Avenue this year eithter, other than utilities, then paving would occur next summer on that street also. Assistant Manager observed that the change in scheduling would be entirely up to the contractor, he would have to concur in any change. Councilman Murray asked whether the suggested change could be accomplished under this motion. Assistant Manager said it could be included in this motion or another one made after outcome was known to determine whether to negotiate with the contractor on constructing the west end first, giving the opportunity to study alignment of the west end. Councilman Bradley did not want to include the negotiation process in his motion. He did not want to put the alignment question in the hands of the contractor, he wanted the Council to decide that. The Mayor explained that the only thing to be included in the motion was whether the east or west end was to be constructed first. But Mr. Bradley felt it was a question of whether the contract was feasible if con- struction of sections was reversed. Assistant Manager suggested postponement of this contract to give an opportunity to talk to the contractor on unit prices bid, then bring it back to a special Council meeting before or after committee meeting either this week or next (June 25 or July 2) with a report on just what the contractor would be willing to do. Mention of that special meeting now, he said, would constitute public notice. Mr. Bradley with consent of the second (Mr. Hamel) withdrew the motion -- to reconsider design element. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that staff consult with the con- tractor submitting the low bid (Wildish Construction) to determine what could be negotiated for unit prices listed in the bid and postpone con- sideration of this contract award until a special meeting to be called as soon as an answer is received from the contractor (June 25 or July 2), and recognizing that notice of special meeting was being give at this time. Mayor Anderson hoped that the project would not have to be rebid, that adjustments could be made so that the whole design process would not to be gone through again. Councilman Haws said he would like to see some solution to the issue so that the west portion of Barger Drive could be completed this year. He felt that was where the major concerns were because of the safety factor. Assistant Manager said that the suggestion to put off the west end until next year was to allow redesign of that portion where the curve was now proposed. The question was whether a redesign would constitute enough of a change that the entire project would have to be rebid. Staff would look at both sections with the engineers, attorney, and contractor, he said, and see whether there were alternatives that could be accommodated within the present bid range. Councilman Murray noted two points of interest - determining a means of eliminating the jog and deciding whether some of the work could proceed as soon as possible. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. -- 6/23/75 - 12 34,2. II - B-1 2. Parks Projects (opened June 19 and 23 J 1975) a.Shasta Rest Room and Maintenance Building . Basic Bid Contractor w/alternates John Moody and Sons $ 43,834.00 Morris P. Kielty 44,078.00 Sunshine Building Co. 52,647.00 Burrows Construction 54,293.00 Office Estimate 52,673.75 Staff recommended award of contract to the low bidder (John Moody and Sons). b.Irrigation and ballfield construction at Fairfield School Contractor Base Bid Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Total Fairway Irrigation $ 9,600.00 $ 8,630.00 $ 4,400.00 $22,630.00 Shur-Way 8,235.70 14,700.00 2,778.00 25,713.70 Turf Irrigation 9,225.00 15,668.00 3,100.00 27,993.00 Valley Fence Bid rejected because of irregularities Office Estimate 11,700.00 8,200.00 1,500.00 21,400.00 Staff recommended contract award on base bid, alternates 1 and 2, to the low bidder (Fairway Irrigation). Bethel School District will pay $7,000.00, leaving the city's share at $15,630.00. c.Playground and drainage at Laurel Hill School e Contractor Base Bid Dan Allsup $12,407.00 Shur-Way 14,113.60 Fairway Irrigation No bid Office Estimate 12,500.00 Staff recommended contract award to the low bidder (Dan Allsup). Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that contracts be awarded to the low bidde4 on each project as recommended. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. IV - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously di:cussed in committee on June 11 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams (arrived later), Bradley (arrived later), Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) and June 18, 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Beal, ~illiams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics. A. Appointment, Housing and Community Development Commission Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the public members of the Commission be appointed as selected by the Council: -Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, and Gary Bond, 919 Laurelhurst Drive, . for three-year terms; Emily Schue, 160 East 37th Avenue, and Bryce E. Thalman, 2725 Jeppeson Acres Road, for two-year terms; and S. Gregory Lipton, 733 East 15th Avenue, and David E. Munz, 3456 West 15th Avenue, for one-year terms. Also, in the event one or more of those appointed 6/23/75 - 13 34-3 I were not willing or unable to accept the assignment, the Council would re- Comm convene to select replacement from three al terna tes: Sarah Mahler, 6/11/75 1588 Patterson Street; Jeffrey A. Reingold, 1167 East 22nd Avenue; and Approve . Barbara Trojan, 971 West Broadway. Motion carried unanimously. B. Liquor Licenses Renewal - Brians, 885 Oak Street (DA) Sidepocket Tavern, 846 West 6th Avenue (RMB) New Outlet - River Avenue Tavern, 99 River Avenue John and Richard Langan (RMB) Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to recommend approval of Comm the license renewals and release prior to the June 23 Council meet- 6/11/75 ing, and to set public hearing at the June 23 Council meeting on the Approve application from River Avenue Tavern. Motion carried unanimously. Change of OWnership - Ed's Taco Tap Tavern, 2750 Roosevelt Boulevard (RMB) Alfred Sodaro and Granvil Brittsan (formerly Edward Johnson) Larry's Prime Rib, 2855 Wi11amette Street (DA) ABA Investments (Fred Beckley et al) (formerly Larry Bliss) Sidepocket Tavern, 846 West 6th Avenue (RNB) Beitels, Inc. (John and Via1ys Beitel) (formerly Ralph Mohler) Change to Corporation - Stadium Club, 375 East 7th Avenue (RMB) Stadium Club, Inc. (same owners, Allen and Doris casady) Renewals - House of Blarney, 1030 Highway 99N (RMB) Corner Cupboard, 4690 Royal Avenue (PS) . Columbus Club, 1144 Charnel ton Street (DBA-less than 500 members) Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Comm Hamel to recommend approval of 6/18/75 the applications and authorize their release prior to the June 23 Approve Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. C. Wreckers' License (truck only) was submitted by Rodney Saner, 1680 Elanco Way, for Council endorsement. Comm Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to recommend approval of 6/11/75 , 'Approve the license. Motion carried unanimously. . D. Proposed Women's Commission - Copies of a proposed ordinance which would create ~~ a nine-member commission separate from the Human Rights Commission to be con- cerned only with equal opportunity for women in education, employment, housing, job training, etc., were distributed to Council members in work session on June 2 and algi3.in wi th, agenda for this meeting. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to approve formation of the women's commission as proposed. Mayor Anderson noted that because the proposed ordinance would in effect amend the city code, a public hearing would be required at a formal Council meeting. Margaret patoine, 2552 Alder Street, speaking for the group of women concerned . about the affirmative actiQn program in the city and representing several women's organizations (AAUW, Women's Political Caucus, BPW, National Secretaries, Inter- national Women's Year committee), introduced speakers supporting creation of a 6/23/75 - 14 3~+ women's commission. They were Margie Hendrikson, 1990 Dogwood; Erica Hovet, 3204 Fillmore Street; Barbara Caulfield, 1176 Lorane Highway; Sara Lichtenstein, - 1650 Kona Street; Theresa Engelmann, 1910 Fairmount Boulevard; Joan Acker, 2345 Patterson Street; Karen Alvarado, 2415 Skyline Boulevard; Anne Stewart, 2790 Charnel ton Street; Judy Cassell, 385 Merrill Court; Laurie McDonald, Women's Skill Center; Catherine Lauris, 1240 East 18th Avenue; Evelyn McConnaughey, 1653 Fairmount Boulevard; and a representative of the Women's Transitional Living Center. Also supporting the proposal were Joe Lashway, chairman of the Democratic Central Committee; John Fair, chairman of the Republican Central Committee; and James Klonoski, representative of the Democratic Party of Oregon. The thrust of their remarks was that a separate commission to focus its efforts only on women's problems was necessary in view of the numbers of women in the work force who were under-represented in seeking positions of authority. Ms. Hendriksen said that the commission should be staffed with representatives of groups actively work- ing in women's rights areas. Ms. Hovet noted precedent had been set in the United Nations and at the Federal level. She said that contact with inspectors reviewing compliance of local governments with Federal law indicated such a commission would aid them and show good faith of the local government in attempting to comply with regulations governing contracts for Federal funds. Also, noncompliance with Federal laws concerning sex discrimination was costly in terms of legal fees. Ms. Caulfield commented that experience in Seattle with a women's commission and an office of women's rights had moved that city forward in getting specified jobs and training programs for promotions for women and had carried out resources programs for training and recruitment programs. She said the complex and widespread problem of job barriers and inequality in pay necessitate a body to be concerned only with women's rights. Ms. Lichtenstein said that male and some female resistance to e affirmative action programs as it concerned women would be better met if a commis- sion was formed since it would be sure to attract large numbers of volunteers de- termined to find solutions to women's problems. Ms. Engelmann described the proposal for creation of a commission. A separate body, she said, would be flexible so as to take advantage of whatever opportunities pre- sented themselves to advance the cause of women. It would take the responsibility for dealing with sex discrimination leaving to the present Human Rights Commission the responsibility for dealing with discrimination in other areas covered by ordinance (minori ties, race, religion, etc.), and would comprise appointees nominated by various women's organizations, the Central Labor Council, the Demo- cratic and Republican Central Committees. . Ms. Acker reviewed the history of efforts to gain recognition of sex discrimination. Since establishment of the Human Rights Commission, she said, it was felt the women's situation had not changed - there were still inadequate earnings, lack of job opportunities, etc. - and that was borne out by a survey of hiring practices in the city itself which indicated the proportion of female city employes less than the national and state averages. Although the city created an administrative posi- tion with the responsibility of dealing with women's problems, she said, that posi- tion was given very little support from the Human Rights Commission. In fact, the Commission had appeared offensive and hostile to women's organizations when they suggested creation of a women's commission, this made it appear evident a separate commission to deal exclusively with women's problems was needed. She added that during the past six years there had been no action by the Human Rights Commission . with regard to sex discrimination unless pushed by women outside the Commission, there had been no women active in problems relating to sex discrimination appointed to the Commission, and that women could not continue to be treated as a minority group. She said a decision to refer this propo~al back to the Human Rights Commis- sion would be consLdered a rejection of the request. 34q, 6/23/75 - 15 Ms. Alvarado cited areas of sex discrimination - education opportunity, counseling careers, wages, advancement, policy making positions, and government appointments - and said t'he request for a women's commission was reasonable and an answer from the Council sHould be given at this time. Ms. Stewart as a staff member at Lane Com- munity College felt a women's commission would be invaluable to the College in keep- - ing it up to date with regard to education and employment needs of women in the community and in assisting women to reach their career goals. Ms. McDonald said the Skill Center would be training women in plumbing, carpentry, electrical work, that women versed in those skills, as well as the entire community, would benefit from a women's commission. Ms. Lauris thought creation of the commission would continue the tradition of leadership characteristic of Eugene. Ms. McConnaughey, chairman of the Mayor's committee for international co-operation, commented on her attendance at a united Nations disarmament conference as part of Women's Year 1975. The conference called for action at all levels of government, she said, to integrate women into the total development effort of nations to es- tablish equality between men and women in all fields, and recognition of the in- creasing role of women in establishing world peace through international co-operation. Mr. Klonoski said the affirmative action committees at all levels of the Democratic party recognized the increasing role of women in the Party and in politics in general. He urged the Council's endorsement of a women's commission. A representa- tive of the Women's Transitional Living Center supported the proposal, asking also that one of the commission's responsibilities should be to look at conditions of women in the Lane County jail and in other prisons. Phyllis Liddell, 1647 Mill Street, emotionally chastised the Council for negligence in its leadership role, perpetuating the two options women had in Eugene - legal (marriage) or illegal prostitution. Mayor Anderson expressed his dismay that some thought he was opposed to a women's e commission when the resolution was first presented at the Council's work session. He said this had given him opportunity to reflect on this very critical situation and the need for an overall change in the human rights program. He noted that women's rights had become a very strong factor, also other groups seeking special assistance made it evident that the Human Rights Commission as now structured did not adapt itself to those concerns. He noted it was difficult to appoint members to a commission to give broad, comprehensive representation to many, many areas. It was also difficult to set up an enforcement and investigative program that would provide impartial adjudication. There were too many fields,he said, for any single group to treat to the satisfaction of everyone. He thought r::le demand for a body concerned only with wome~'s problems was reasonable and that it was time to remove women from their stereotyped roles. So he proposed a new structuring of the human rights program to respond to the major areas of concern - women, age, ethnic minorities, and limited mobility, and possibly addition of others such as mentally retarded, youth, sexual orientation - a restructuring, he said, that would avoid fragmentation of staff assistance, conflicts and competition for funds, yet sufficiently flexible to meet new challenges and, most important, to provide services within available city resources. The Mayor proposed restructuring the Human Rights Commission as a Human Rights Council comprising four divisions - Commission on Women's Rights, Commission on Minority Rights, Committee on Limited Mobility, and Committee on Aging. Copies of his pro- posal were distributed in which the proposed council's membership and duties and powers, as well as membership and duties and powers of the four divisions, were spelled out. He reviewed the proposal calling for a nine-member Human Rights . Council, four of which members were to chair the four commissions and committees -" to be established, members to be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The Mayor noted essential differences between this and the proposal pre- 6/23/75 - 16 3~ --- sented by the women's groups - an auditing process requiring an annual report to the City Council on status of human rights, especially with regard to women's programs, and the manner of membership appointments. He said it was his firm be- e lief that elected officials should have the power to designate membership on official city bodies, that membership should be nonpartisan, and that the body should fit into the city's political structure. He said the women's proposal could exclude representation from nonorganization members, minorities, elderly, and even men who could contribute by serving actively on the commission. It would "lock in" established organizations to the exclusion of organizations which might be formed in the future, and more importantly might exclude the experience needed in employment, education, and housing. The Mayor thought it an important feature also to separate the investigative and enforcement actions from the con- ciliation and adjudication actions to provide the impression of impartiality in decisions on discrimination complaints. He emphasized that his proposed Human Rights Council would not be an "umbrella," but its duties would be limited and have carefully defined specific functions, primarily one of co-ordination. It would serve as an advisory group to the Mayor and make "Council ready" proposals, also review budget requests, if the Council saw fit, and analyze human rights areas on a broad basis to make certain women's rights were adequately represented. He asked for favorable consideration of his proposal which he thought not too far removed from that made by the women's groups except in the area of overall co- ordination and composition of the commission. Councilwoman Beal thought the Mayor's proposal was "gi ving words to one side, and the decision to the other." She said a large number of women's groups behav- ing in a reasonable way had presented a reasonable request, and they should have an answer now, that six years was long enough to see how the "appointment power" and the Human Rights Commission and other governmental bodies had operated for e or against women. Councilman Williams didn't disagree with the need for a women's commission but he felt overall management in the general area of human rights needed to be faced. He visualized creation of a separate women's commission leading to creation of a separate minorities commission, etc., leading to fragmentation of the human rights program not into two parts but into perhaps six, seven, or eight parts. He felt the ~ayor's suggestion worthy of Council consideration. Councilman Murray endorsed the concept of a separate women's commission but not to the extent that it might dilute efforts toward furthering the rights of minority groups within the community. He hoped for an opportunity to review the Mayor's proposal, since it had been presented the first time at this meetingr to weigh it against the women's proposal.for a separate commission before he made his decision. Also, he hoped the women's groups had an opportunity to review it and respond be- fore action was taken. Councilman Keller concurred and said he hoped the women would want a "good" decision. In that respect, he called attention to previous discussions wherein Councilwoman Beal had deplored "quick" decisions. But to avoid letting the issue get away as they sometimes do, he suggested setting a time limit within which to bring the issue back with input and response from the women's groups on the Mayor's proposal. However, Mrs. Beal urged action at this meeting, calling a public hearing on the proposal at the June 23 Council meeting. She said the Mayor's proposal addressed the wide area of human rights problems without sufficient emphasis in anyone area. She said that human rights in the area of minorities had been taken care of. It e was the majority - women - who had suffered. The women were here, she said, to address a specific problem. Councilwoman Shirey wanted to see action taken at this time also. She felt the problem was not the same as for minoritiesr that the organization proposed by the Mayor was essentially the same as the present Human Rights Commission and would not address the women's problems. *1, 6/23/75 - 17 Mayor Anderson said the women's rights area of the outline he presented did need to be better defined. He suggested a group comprising a couple of Council members, several from the women's groups - those most active in preparation of this resolution - repre- sentation from the senior citizens, minorities, and limited mobility might work out -- a structure that could be taken to the Council in public hearing. He emphasized that that would not mean the proposed council would be an "umbrella" or a human rights bureaucracy. The women's commission still would be a separate group and able to advocate programs on its own. However, he thought a group like that should not be able to file complaints, investigate, and then act as judge also. He offered to bring a group together representing different areas, with help of the women's groups, to properly structure a human rights council. A vote now, he said, would only have to be repeated. There would have to be public hearing. Perhaps other women might oppose a separate women's commission, he said, and they should have an opportunity to be heard. Councilwoman Beal said that segmenting the different areas as proposed by the Mayor did give the women some standing. However, she felt to put the majority [women] on a level with a very small minority [elderly, limited mobility, minorities] with a human rights council as a barrier between the women's commission and the City Council would be putting the women one step farther away and they would not be satisfied with that arrangement. She again urged a vote now to create a separate women's commission. Councilman Murray expressed concern with the kind of urgency requested by Mrs.Beal, saying it might not be the most frui tful way to deal wi th the issue and that it could be a tactical error on the women's part. He said he might be in favor of the creation of a separate women's commission but he was not going "to be backed into- a corner" and not look at any other proposal. The issue was a very significant one, he said, and should receive significant attention. It should not be dealt with any differently than any other issue coming to the Council. To force the e issue at this time would deny the opportunity to consider both proposals, he said, after which endorsement might perhaps even be given for the proposal Mrs.Beal was championing. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Haws that decision on the issue be postponed for no longer than one month during which time a commi ttee Comm would be established composed of two Council members appointed by the 6/11/75 Mayor, two members of the Human Rights Commission, three members of Approve the organizing group of women making the proposal for a separate women's commission, and that this group study the two proposals and bring a recommendation back to the Council no later than one month from now; also that the recommendation would allow for a minority report if no consensus was established so that the Council could have full exposure to the differences of opinions within that group. Councilwom~n Shirey felt it was simply one more committee to study something which had already been studied. Mayor Anderson said this proposed committee was a good idea - not only to look at the resolution proposed by the women's groups and the proposal he submitted, but also to consider any other possibility, even perhaps to the extent of includ- ing other areas not mentioned. Councilwoman Beal said the area covered is the problem of women, that anything proposed for the rights of minorities, elderly, limited mobility would receive sympathetic hearing and help from the women. But the proposal was unacceptable, that it was a method of delay, the same as . had occurred with the affirmative action program. She was willing to delay for further discussion by the Council, but she was not willing to form another committee. 6/23/75 ':" 18 . '34,e, Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Councilwomen Beal and Shirey e voting no. Mayor Anderson expressed his displeasure at the behavior of some of those in the audience who during Council discussion of the issue were noisy, interrupting with impudent comments" etc. He noted that the Council operated with certain decorum, giving everyone who wished an opportunity to be heard, and since there would be further discussion and public hearing on this issue, he hoped those present would understand the request to maintain order so that a decision could be reached in a reasoned and logical manner. In response to Ms. Patoine, the Mayor said a public hearing would be scheduled on the issue within 30 days, that the committee would be appointed and start work quickly. E. Hearing Panel Report - June 16, 1975 was distributed to Council members: Present: Council members Tom Williams and D. W. Hamel; City Engineer Bert Teitzel. C.B.873 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area from projected 38th Avenue to 160 feet south of 43rd Avenue from 100 feet east of East Amazon Drive to the east 2800 feet, 2nd Phase (74-01) . There were no written protests on record or requests from persons to.be heard. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. C.B.874 - Levying assessments for paving Fox Hollow Road (relocated) from 50 feet south of 43rd Avenue to East Amazon Drive, and Dillard Road from Fox Glen e to relocated Fox Hollow Road (74-36) Mrs. Bertha King, 4040 Dillard Road, represented by Judith MacInnis of Lane County Legal Aid, objected to assessment against her property on the basis that the street, because it was a "collector street," was not primarily for the benefit of the abut- ting property, rather that it was for the benefit of the public. Also, that the assessment against this property, if based on front footage, would be inequitable and unjust because of the peculiar boundaries of the property; that is, the property is a triangle, the front footage is the arc of a curve, and there is no rear prop- erty line. These objections were set out in a letter written by Ms. MacInnis, copies of which were presented to the panel. She claimed the benefi t of the im- provement to this property was not measurable on a front-foot basis, that assess- ment made on the basis of the footage of the curve would result in unequal assess- ments between parcels on opposite sides of the curve. . Bert 2'eltz~l, city engineer, reviewed the project, initiated by the Council, and noted the average f~ont-foot costs of $15.50 for 28-foot paving, $19.27 for 36-foot paving. He explained that right-of-way was acquired from the Kings for improve- ment of the Fox HOllow/Dillard intersection which substantially increased the frontage of the Kings' property. In negotiations for the right-of-way, the city agreed to defer collection of assessment against the extra length of frontage, collecting at this time only that based on the original length. He added that Mrs. King contacted staff and expressed concern about reduction of the sight dis- tance from her driveway. Staff had investigated that, Mr. Teitzel said, and with her permission would make arrangements for adequate sight clearance from the drive- way. IIr. 2'eitzel pointed out on a map Mrs. King's property and explained the con- figurations resulting from the relocation of Fox Hollow Road and the intersection improvement, including a strip of land obtained but not used which the city. agreed to deed to IIrs. King when and if the abutting undeveloped property was subdivided - or otherwise developed. He explained the current assessment against the property amounted to $1,720.21 on a 28-foot basis for the original frontage (about 110 feet), plus a deferred amount of $418.08 also on the original frontage (difference between 28-foot and 36-foot widths because of single-family use), and a deferred amount of $5,474.27 against the new frontage. 5~ 6/23/75 - 19 Gene Anders, Mrs. King's son-in-loaw and an engineer, was introduced and was also shown the property bought from the Kings for right-of-way, that left over to be deeded to the owner of the abutting property when it was developed, and the e lengths of the two frontages on which assessment was to be collected and deferred.' Mr. 'l'eitzel fur-ther explained the assessment policy of the city with regard to street ffidths'- 2S:"foot basis for existing single-family, 36-foot basis for new subdivisions or other new development to higher than single-family use. ,~ ~ - - --- -.-- Ms. MacInnis thought that "assessment deferral" was an incorrect term, that it should more properly'be "payment deferral." She stated objections set forth in her letter previously presented to the panel and staff. She thought it specula- tive that the improvement would increase the .value of the property and wondered if the city' could assure the.property owner that the value of the property was greater than it would have been with only a 28-foot paving. She explained further her contention of inequitable assessment if front footage of the curve was the basis, comparing that to a corner lot on which she said the code provided the narrower side would be the basis for calculation of assessment. Upon que~tioning from Mr. Williams, Mr. Teitzel explained that assessments against corner lots were based on both frontages, the code provision referred to by Ms. MacInnis applied only to setbacks. Also, that the subject property had frontage only on the r~- located road. Councilman Williams further explained the city assessment policy and use of front footage as basis as opposed to square-foot area in calculating sewer assessments. In response to his questioning, Mr. Teitzel further clarified the policy with re- gard to assessing on the basis of only a 28-foot width against single-family residential zoned property, deferring collection of the difference between that .and the amount based on the 36-foot width until such time as property is sub- . . divided, developed, or zoned to higher use. He said any subdivision or development to higher use would "trigger" collection of the deferred amount. Upon further. questioning, Mr. Teitzel said fairly large parcels, with only a single-family - residence, such as that owned by Mrs. King, could be assessed ona 28-foot basis only if it appeared impractical to subdivide, however that was unlikely. Councilman williams questioned further the concern expressed~by Mrs. King about the assessment when it would not be collected until her property was developed. Ms. MacInnis said the total assessment - $7,000+ - would become a lien on the property and would deter prospective buyers. The street as improved was hazardous - pot~ntial for houses was questionable. She wondered if the city would issue building permits for that portion of the property abutting the curve. Mrs. King, she said, had neither the financial ability nor the experience to develop the property herself, the value lay in what she could offer someone else. Mrs. King added 'that several buyers interested in the property before the street improvement were not now interested. because of the traffic and noise. She said the driveway to her home was,hazardous and still would be even if some of the shrubbery was removed. Councilman Hamel commented that the panel could not be concerned .with value of the property, it was concerned only with the assessment and who was responsible for paying it. Mrs. Ivan Picard, 945 East 43rd Avenue, a neighbor of Mrs. King's, commented on taking of the property to install a street - and a dangerous street - that was, not requested by the property owners. She said very little was given for the property because it was. undeveloped, now the city was saying it was undeveloped and still assessing it. Mr. Williams explained further that although the portion of the assessment de- - ferred would become a lien on the property, the only time that would be meaning- ful would be when that property was developed. And at that time, he said, the street would nO longer solely benefit the community, but would become also a benefit to the individual property owner. 6/23/75 - 20 350 Ms. MacInnis asked for clarification of th~ term "developed" and asked who de- termined when more than a 28-foot street width was required. Mr. Teitzel said e that development under standard city policy meant when the property was divided into lots that would utilize all of the property, or if a higher use developed - church, planned unit development, apartment, anythingof higher density - so that a wider than 28-foot street would be necessary to handle the traffic generated. In further answer to Ms. MacInnis, he said that if the existing single-family house was replaced with another, that would not trigger collection of the assessment, only if a higher use was made of the property would that occur. In response to Mrs. King, Mr. Teitzel again explained that assessment at this time was against only ,the approximately 110 feet of the original frontage, the balance would be deferred at no. interest until that property was developed to a higher use. Councilman Hamel wondered if the assessment against the single-family portion could be based on 28-foot paving (as in a previous assessmenf; hearing) with the balance of the property assessed on a 36-foot width. But Mr. Teitze~ noted that that assessment was against property already..s'ubdivided, that in this intance there would be no way of knowing the size of the lot on which Mrs. King's home. was located until the property was further developed. Ms. MacInnis asked whether the property would have a' corner lot if Mrs. King refused to accept from the city the property not used for right-of-way, saying that would substantially reduce the frontage. Mr. Teitzel explained that they would not have a corner lot, and that the parcel left over to be deeded to the owner of abutting property was necessary for access to the undeveloped portion of that ownership, any normal subdivision would required that frontage for access. Mr. Anders asked whether ~cceptance of assessment based on the 28-foot width On the entire property at this time would be an option. Mr. Teitzel answered that the difference between that and the 36-foot width would still have to be paid e upon subdivision of the property. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed (on approximately lID-foot . frontage on 28-foot basis, difference between 28- and 36-foot widths on the lID-foot frontage as well as the amount assessed on the new frontage to be deferred until subdivision and/or development to higher use occurs). Councilman Williams reviewed the objections as shown in the report and noted unanimous vote of the panel to levy the assessments as proposed. Comm Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to accept the report. 6/18/75 Motion carried unanimopsly. Approve F.Code Amendment, Noise Ordinance - Copies of proposed ordinance were distributed wi th agenda. The amendment would prohibit most construction noise between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Assistant Manager explained that to avoid poten- tial problems that might occur in the area of housing rehabilitation in ancitipated neighborhood redevelopment programs (under community and housing developm~nt activi- ties) the ordinance was drafted to provide that owners of single-family dwellings or duplexes would be allowed to work on their residences until 10:00 p.m. unless complaints were received from their neighbors. He called attention to summary already delivered to Council showing 22 of 28 codes of other cities allow building construction between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., one to 9:00 p.m., one to 8:00 p.m., and four to 10:00 p.m. e Madge Lorwin, 550 East 15th Avenue, thought Eugene could stop construction noise at 6:00 p.m. if other smaller cities were doing it. And she expressed concern about the noise created by those people who would be allowed to do their own work until 10:00 p.m. She noted the proposal didn't cover occupants of dwellings, only ~Sl 6/23/75 - 21 owners, and she seemed willing to accept an extension to 10:00 p.m. if the work was being done by an owner living in his own home. She felt the ordinance as drafted was difficult to interpret. She que?tioned whether the term "loss of rest and peace" would be equated with profit losses of builders, or whether it would mean the health and rest of people in a neighborhood. Who would determine e what "loss" would mean, she asked, and to whom would the "loss" be more important. Ms. Lorwin suggested also that the restriction be changed to 7:00 p.m. as requested when the amendment was first suggested. She said the extra hour of continuous noise - to 8:00 p.m. _ was bad for neighbors but not fatal to the builders. John Boyer, speaking for Associated General Contractors, said that members of that organization did not engage in home construction and very rarely apartments, theirs was mostly industrial or commercial construction. And they normally didn't work after 5:00 p.m. because of added overtime costs. However, after hours work was sometimes necessary - arterial construction to avoid peak traffic hours; comm~rcial buildings at night when the general public is not in the building; during holiday periods, especially mill closures, to avoid laying workers off during a renovation project. In some emergency situations, he said, it was necessary to work around the clock to avoid higher costs and to provide safety precautions. He added that most people understood those problems and as a general rule were patient, recog- nizing that type of work was temporary. The contractors, he said, were looking at the proposed ordinance trying to determine how it would apply to the way they worked. He said they had just received a copy and had not the opportunity to compare its terms with ordinances in other cities, nor had they the opportunity to discuss it and prepare testimony for a June 23 hearing. He asked delay to try to work out suggestions that would lead to a solution for all concerned. Councilwoman Shirey referred to newly annexed areas where open land was being de- veloped with addition of sewers and utilities. In those instances, she said, several temporary construction projects, one after the other, could lead to summer . long noise. She had received complaints, she said, because of the publicity given this proposed amendment, and she thought something should be done. She noted that the ordinance as drafted didn't specify "owner" in allowing construction on single- family dwellings after 8:00 p.m. and she thought that should be specified. Councilwoman Beal saw no reason for that entire section to be included [4.084(4)]. She thought a home owner wanting to do building work after hours would probably ask permission of his neighbors, and most of the do-it-yourself work is done inside buildings anyway. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to consider striking section 4.084, Subsection (4) . Assistant Manager explained that language was in the proposed ordinance to provide some recourse to neighbors disturbed by do-it-yourself noise, at the same time pro- viding the home owner an opportunity to work after 8:00 p.m. if no complaints were received. Staff's concern was that without that language the provisions would be running counter to proposed housing rehabilitation programs where the city con- ceivably would be encouraging owners to do their own work. Mrs. Beal wondered why other cities surveyed didn't have that provision in their codes. She thought the do-it-yourselfers had plenty of daylight hours to accomplish that type of work, plus Saturdays and Sundays. Councilman Bradley thought it would be more prudent that the motion be brought to the Council at the time of public hearing on the ordinance to have the advantage of input from others. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated, Council- . woman Beal voting aye, all other Council members present voting no. With regard~to Councilwoman Shirey's suggestion to include the word "owner" in Section 4.084(4) specifying persons doing their own building work, Assistant Manager 6/23/75 - 22 '352 noted legal aspects of that terminology. Staff intent earlier was, to allow the owner or occupant of a property to work on it. Outside help or outside paid em- ployes of a property owner would depend upon whether they were contractors or - paid maintenance people employed by the owner. Mrs. Shirey moved to add the words "owner or occupant" to Section 4.084(4). There was no second. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to schedule public hearing Comm at the July 14 Council meeting (rather than June 23 as suggested by 6/18/75 staff) to give opportunity for review of the proposed ordinance by Approve the General Contractors. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Mrs. Shirey voting no. Mrs. Beal moved to restrict the hour beyond which general construc- tion could not occur to 7:00 p.m. rather than 8:00 p.m. There was no second. Councilman Bradley commented that the reason most of the Council members did not second the motion was because they thought it would be more appropriate to consider that type of amendment at the public hearing. Councilman Hamel took exception to that statement. At the conclusion of other business, note was taken of distribution to Council members with agenda the letter from Crest Drive Citizens Association in support of restrictions on construction noise to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. G. Personal Liability of Council Members - Copies of memo with regard to personal liability insurance for Council members for actions during their terms of office e were previously distributed to them. The city was quoted a premium cost of $14,500 for a three-year prepaid policy which would provide coverage of $250,000 per person, $1 million per occurrence, with $5,000 deductible. with such high deductible, staff recommended the Council take advantage of State law which allows it as a normal course of business to adopt a resolution agreeing to in- demnify and hold harmless themselves should they be charged with personal liability. Such a resolution would automatically appear on the Council's agenda for adoption should such a suit be filed. Councilman Bradley asked whether insurance could be obtained from a private carrier to cover malfeasance and wanton neglect of duty on the part of Council members while in office. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, knew of no company that would issue such coverage. . Councilman Williams asked whether a resolution adopted by the Council in that event would be a legal resolution in terms of indemnifying the members. Assistant Manager said it woUld, the staff as an automatic process when papers were served in personal litigation would present a resolution for Council adoption under Oregon law. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt as Council policy Comm that any time an action is filed against Council members alleging 6/18/75 personal liability, a resolution would be presented for adoption by Approve the Council that would indemnify its members. Councilman Bradley said it was his understanding then that Councilmen Williams and Hamel would rather have the indemnification than private insurance because of the . costs involved. He wondered how costs of having the city attorney's office defend e Council members - that type of service not being a part of the retainer - would compare with insurance costs when the private carrier's counsel would defend the case. Assistant Manager explained that city attorney hours spent on city business beyond the agreed-upon billable hours were billed at the same rate as the billable 3S3 6/23/75 - 23 hours, they would remain within the contract rate. And experience has been that where there is the chance of personal liability the city attorney has had that portion struck. He added that some 300 billable hours of the attorneys' time last year were spent on cases filed in zoning matters and treated in the normal course e of services. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. H. Housing Assistance Payments Program, Establishment' of Council as Housing Authority - "Copies of report from the planning department were previously distributed to Council members recommending that the Council apply to HUD for 105 units of housing under Section 8 - Existing Housing Program and that the City Council establish itself as a housing authority. Assistant Manager explained that under the present policy, Eugene could not be assured any number of housing units since payments would be made to the entire County. Establishing itself as a housing authority and making application would ensure Eugene's receiving the number of units approved. It was also recommended that contractual arrangement be made with the Lane County Housing Authority to administer the program to take advantage of its existing staff and avoid duplication in that respect. John Porter, planning director, explained that Eugene, working with the Housing Authority, had agreed on a division of the number of units, 105 to be developed in Eugene. However, under another section of the Act there is no way of guaranteeing all of those units would be rented in Eugene. Because rents in Eugene are sometimes $10 to $20 more than in smaller communities in the county, potential problems were foreseen in using the housing assistance programs and providing help for lower- income people here. He said a report would be brought to the Council at its June 23 meeting with regard to the Housing Authority's reaction- to the modified program. Staff recommended establishment of the Council as a housing authority not only to guarantee Eugene the number of units approved but also to enable e petition for higher subsidies to apply only in Eugene rather than throughout the county. Mr. Porter said there was no crisis, the housing assistance program could go forward under the Lane County Housing Authority, but staff felt the Council should be aware of the advantages of assuring the units for Eugene and to obtain a commitment from the Housing Authority to administer the program. Assistant Manager called attention to the June 30 cutoff date if Eugene was to take advantage of the 'modification, if no decision was made by that time then the program would have to be delayed for another year. Councilman Williams asked whether Betty Nivep,member of the Joint Housing Com- mittee, had expressed an opinion on the program. Also, for clarification of the Lane County Housing Authority's reabtion. Mr. Porter answered that Mrs. Niven was in favor of the proposal, and that the Housing Authority, because the invita- tion from HUD was just received June 1st, had not had opportunity to discuss the proposal. A report on their outlook would be brought to the June 23 Council meeting. Mayor Anderson asked what staff recommendation would be if the Housing Authority did not accept administration of the modified program. Mr. Porter answered that; staff would not want to go ahead because his department could not administer that number of units effectively. Councilwoman Beal asked who appointed the Lane 'County Housing Authority and who its members were. The response was that members were appointed by the County Commissioners and were people from various communities throughout the county, names of all were not known. Mr. _Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that staff prepare a - resolution for the June 23 Council meeting authorizing application Comm under Section 8, Title II, for 105 units of housing and estab1ish- 6/18/75 ment of the City Council as a housing authority, but if the Lane County Housing Authority did not agree to administer the program Approve the authorization would be withdrawn. Motion ca~ried unanimOUSly. 6/23/75 - 24 'SS+ Assistant Manager said that the Lane County Housing Authority had been contacted and the members agreed unanimously to Eugene's being established as a housing authority. e 1. Request for nightwatchman trailer at 75 Waite Street (VanSickle) - Copies of the request were distributed to Council with agenda as well as copies of memo from building department setting out conditions under which the request should be granted. Comm Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to call public hearing 6/18/75 on the request. Motion carried unanimously. Approve J. Right-of-way Acquisition, Warren Avenue, authorization was requested: Richard A. and Betsy L. Styskal (18-4-3-1400) - $475 Eric and Dorothy K Schabtach (18-4-3-1200) - $344 Comm Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize acquisiton 6/18/75 as requested. Motion carried unanimously. Approve K. Improvement Petitions 1. Paving and storm sewer in Brickley-Elsey Gardens Subdivision (sou th side of Ca1 Young Road east of Debrick Road) 2. Sanitary sewer on Green Acres Road from Delta Highway to the east to approximately Tabor Street extended Both projects were petitioned by owners of 100% of property to be assessed for the improvements. Comm Mrs. BeaI moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the petitions. 6/18/75 Motion carried unanimously. Approve e L.Alley Improvement between 18th and 19th from Oak to Pearl - Council initiation of the project was requested because of complaints with regard to its condition and one reported injury. Poll of owners of abutting properties showed 34.26% Comm in favor, 31.63% opposed, and no response from 34.11%. e/18/75 Mr. Hame1,moved seconded by Mr. Haws to initiate improvement of the Approve alley as requested. Motion carried unanimously. M. Tree Preservation Ordinance - Councilwoman Shirey asked for staff review and report on functioning of the tree preservation ordinance adopted in 1974. She felt review of any new legislation was necessary to determine its effectiveness, particularly this legislation because of several tree cutting incidents. Also, because "advertisement" of the ordinance through the review and report process would make the community as well as city staff people aware of its existence and its intent. She asked also that a copy of the report-be sent to members of the committee which developed the ordinance (John Breeden, Susan Franklin, George Jette, John Phillips, Edna Shirey, Tom Slocum, and Richard Unruh). Councilman Murray supported the request with the suggestion that it include a review and comment on the current status of the street tree program and ~hat COmIn plans there were for its expansion, if any. 6/11/75 Affirm It was understood the requested report would be brought to the Council in the next week or two, as soon as the Council's agenda would permit. Tree Preservation Ordinance - Councilwoman Beai reported complaints with regard e to people cutting trees too large to fall entirely within ~heir own property. She wondered what protection the city could afford propert~es damaged by trees being felled from neighboring prope~ties, whether the city re~uired performance bonds from loggers or property owners doing that type of cutt~ng. 6/23/75 - 25 "3S$ I Keith Maitin; assistant manager, said that about the ~n~y re~ourse would b~a civil suit. Ed Smith, parks director, added that a .c~nl su~t w~uld be ap ~ plicable, especially if the cutting had been done w~thout a perrrut. . . f .. g performance bond by Comm It was understood the quest~on 0 requ~r~n 6/18/75 those cutting or removing trees could be discuss:d ~hen the.report Affirm on how the tree preservation ordinance was funct~on~ng.prev~ously requested by the co~ncil was brought on for cons~derat~on. N. . . , Commission Proposals - Mayor Anderson announced the appoint-, cornmu~~e:e~~'M:~~:~ ~to chair the committee) and Edna Shirey as Cou~cil repre: ment . . d Theo Allen and whitty Bass representing the Human R~ghts COmfiUS- :~~~~t~;:s~a:nnot yet received names of those r.epresenting theeWom:n~:I:r~~i~~ Comm He said he had received a letter from them say~ng they would s n~ 19t d [/18/75 but that they did not care to comment on any matter other than t ~~ re b~ .e Affirm to their roposal for a separate women's commission. .T~e May~r sa~ pu ~c_ ~ hearing /as scheduled for July 14 ~ouncil meeting, so ~~scus~~~~e~~f:~~e~~~ole mittee's' findings would occur at e~ther the July 2 or corom~ . meeting. o. Waiver of application fees for establishment of H-Historic District was requested by the Historic Review Board. The request would not include waiver of other permit fees in connection with such designation - demolition, relocation, alteration. Councilman Williams was somewhat concerned about waiving fees for one type of zoning application, saying the city would incur costs for processing that type of application as well as any other application for Zone changes. And he felt it could be said apartments, schools, etc., for which rezoning might be necessary, would be of just as much benefi t to the public as would be an his toric landmark -- designation. Absence of any member of the Historic Review Board was noted by staff with request that discussion on the request be postponed until a member could be present. Comm It was understood a member of the Review Board would be asked to 6/18/75 attend the June 25 cOmmQttee-of-the-whole meeting for discussion Affirm of their request. P. Chambers Street Improvement - Councilman Hamel inquired whether design changes were made in the proposed Chambers Street construction. Don Allen, public works director, explained that an adjustment lowering the grade about three feet was Comm all they were able to accomplish; any more would have an adverse effect on prop- 6/11/75 erties on the east side of the street. He added that it was impossible to make File the street a. "12-month road." Q. Distribution 1. Article from Good Government (Summer 1974) entitled "The Seattle Women's Rights Program" distributed by Councilman Haws with the explanation that it was not to be confused with "other things." 2. Memo dated June 11, 1975 from Manager Pro Tem providing information requested by the Council with regard to police department participation in Law Enforce- Corom men Intelligence Unit (LEIU), and a recap of Federal grants received by the 6/11/75 city during the past three to five years. File 3. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Bikeway Master Plan (preliminary draft) pub- e lished by Lane Council of Governments for future Council consideration. R. Housing Referral Program - Councilman Murray reported information'received from County Commissioner Wood that the county indicated a willingness to provide office space and one-half salary for the housing referral program if the city would provide the other half-salary. Mr. Murray asked staff to investigate the possi- bi1iti~s after budget election (June 17). 6/23/75 - 26 5Sb Gary Long, manager pro tem, said staff had received the information and had . '" Corom responded to Commissioner Wood that there were no funds for that pos~t~on ~n , b d 6/11/75 the 1975-76 budget should ~t be approved by the voters. However, that u get . ... would be reconsidered if the funds outside the 6% limitation we~e not approved. F~le ,., He said a copy of the communication would be forwarded to Counc~lman Murray. S. Field Burning Legislation - Mayor Anderson announced that the field burning issue was in conference committee with action likely by both Senate and House Comm later today (June 11) or tomorrow morning. He asked those having close 6/11(75 association with Governor Straub to contact him and urge his veto should the F~le bill passed be anything short of what the Governor had a~ready supported. __ T. Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, proposed by the State Department of Transportation as a part of the planning process in developing a statewide transportation plan, was brought to the Council's attention. Local elected Corom and appointed officials are being asked to participate in the regional com- 6/11/75 mittees. Council members were asked to contact Mayor Anderson later if any- File one was interested in serving. V.Budget Election, June 17,1975 - Mayor Anderson commented on the Successful vote approving budget funds outside the 6% limitation at the June 17 election, the first time since 1968 a city budget was approved by the voters at the first Corom election. He thought perhaps people were beginning to realize government had 6/18/75 to live with inflation and the general economy also, or perhaps there was be- File ginning to be a general recognition of urban problems due to the focus of neigh- borhood groups. He expressed thanks and appreciation for the work of Beth Campbell who, he said, was the "general bell ringer" in the budget effort, and to Alice Rutter, the city's public relations officer. Assistant Manager added e his thanks and appreciation for the efforts of all those who worked on the budget. v. Joint Meeting, Planning Commdssion and Council, scheduled for 11:30 a.m., Monday, June 23, 1975, at the King's Table, Oakway Mall, for discussion and policy decisions with regard to 30th and Hilyard and West Amazon Parkway projects. Copies of environmental impact statement on the 30th and Hilyard improvement ahd a summary of the West Amazon Parkway project to date were previously distributed / C~~ to Counci 1 members. 6 18 File In response to questioning from Rick Satre, 1230 ~erry Street, APt~~~o~s~~~~~~~ _ Mana er explained that both projects - 30th and H11yard, and ~est One of WOU1~ be discussed at the Counci~ committee-of-dthe-Wh?le s~s~~~~ ~~ ~~~: ~~;ther the ointsof discussion, he said, would be to eterm1ne w e testlmony taken in public hearing in view of public hearings already held. W. Request to review decision to improve 29th and Willamette int;ers~ction was rece~ved from Richard P. Gale, 3615 Glen Oak Drive, and copies were d~str~buted to Counc~l members with agenda. Mr. Gale presented his reasons for th~ request: I~ade~ate p~blic involvement, inadequate public notice of how th~ proJect wo~ld f~t w~th h other potential projects such as removal of concrete d~viders on W~llamette sout f bout 33rd and no description of the project published in the newspaper other ~a: the bid ~dvertisement. He said he realized the Council w~s under no l~gal obligation to seek an administrative hearing on the 29th and W~11amett~ p~o]ect, b~t he felt further action should be delayed until there was more publ~c ~nput to detennine the impact on the total South Eugene area. He thought there was a p~o- . . 1 d;n the process of Council authorization only 15 work~ng ~ cedural quest~on ~nvo ve .L . h . ., 'days prior to start of actual work. His real concern, he sa~d, was that c a~g~ng that intersection to permit two lanes of traffic flowing ~hrough w~uld rr:ake ~n- evitable the widening of Willamette farther south to its ~ntersect~onw~th Donald 6/23/75 - 27 :~C;1 Street even though there was no such project planned at this time. Assistant Manager explained that part of the function of improving the intersection to permit two lanes would be the controlled left-turn movements, reducing traffic conflict on all four - legs of the intersection. He added that Mr. Gale was correct in stating there were no projects planned beyond the 29th Avenue intersection at this time. Mr. Bradley moved to reconsider the bid award on the project. Mayor Anderson declared the motion out of order since Mr. Bradley had not voted Corom 6/18/75 with the prevailing side at time of bid award. There was no other motion for File reconsideration. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through W. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. V - Not Previously Heard A. Right~of-way Acquisition - 29th and Willamette 5'x342' strip along Willamette at 29th plus triangular piece at corner from Archie Weinstrin for $17,500. Assistant Manager explained that the price was in accordance with the appraisal. Staff recommended acceptance. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to approve the purchase. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, motion carried. B. Liquor License Renewal and Change of Name Quigley's Tavern, 1466 West 7th Avenue (RMB) (formerly Rancho Tavern). . Staff had no objections. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. VI - Ordinances Council Bill No. 873 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area from projected 38th Avenue to 160 feet south of 43rd Avenue from 100 feet east of East Amazon Drive to the east 2800 feet, 2nd phase (74-01), read the first time on June 9, 1975 and referred to Assessment Panel for June 16, 1975 hearing, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendations to levy as proposed and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17396. Council Bill No. 874 - Levying assessments for paving Fox Hollow Road (relocated) from 50 feet south of 43rd Avenue to East Amazon Drive; and Dillard Road from Fox Glen to relocated Fox Hollow Road (74-36), read the first time on June 9, 1975 and referred to Assessment Panel for June 16, 1975 hearing, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendations and read th~e ~second~:~: time by council bill ~umber and title only, there being no council member present - requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17397,;- 6/23/75 - 28- '3S~ - -- Council Bill No. 877 - Adopting supplemental 1974-75 budget appropriating $51,667 to contractual services in Community Environmental Quality Control, and $750 to contractual services in General Administration and Support . Service, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. In response to Councilwoman Beal, Assistant Manager explained that the ordinance was pre- sented to comply with local budget law and covered revenues 'received in connection with the 10th and Oak parking structure. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number,. only with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17398. Council Bill No. 878 - Adopting 1975-76eity budget in the amount of $38,135,844 and levying tax in the amount of $9,368,518 was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 4It Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17399. Counei I Bill No. 879 - Sanitary sewer on Hawkins Lane from' B~oaciv{e\. St~-~~tto" ,_.. Highland Oaks Drive was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by counci bill nUl1lbc:ronly, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considere at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by coun.cil bill number only. . .. ~ _. _ ~~ ,~~_._ ~_ ~_~ . Mr. ~lurray~~~~ed second by tvl;. \~ilii-~mstl;atthe bill be approved}nd given final passage. I Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye,.the bill/was declared passed and numbered 17400. Council Bill ~o. 880 - Adopting plans and specifications fa: sanitary se\<ie: on Ha\v- kins Lane from Broadview Street to HIghland Oaks DrIve was read by council bill number and titl~ only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. ,Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill.be read the second time by co~ncil I bill number only, with unanimous consent of the CounCIl, and that enactment ~e consldere~ , ~ at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill \vas read the second tIme by counCIl WI' bill number only. ~ Mr. Murray 'moved second by Mr. Williams that th~ bill be appr~ved and given final passage. , Rollcall Yote. All council members present yot1ng aye, the bIll was declared passed and numbered 17401. ~~,__ _ ~_ ~_~ , - '35~ 6/23/75 - 29 Council B'ill No. 881 - Sanitary sewer on Belt Line Road from Coburg Road to approxi- mately 400 feet east was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. -, Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council . bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. ' Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17402. Council Bill No. 882 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer on Belt Line Road from Coburg Road to approximately 400 feet east was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member pre- sent requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time.' Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared pass~d and numbered 17403. Council Bill No. 883 - Sanitary sewer on Green Acres Road from Delta Highway to approximately 1500 feet east was read by number and title only 41' there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. ~ ~1r. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill \vas read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17404. . - --- -,. -. ~ ~ __ _~..o.._.._o Council Bill No. 884 - -~Ad;Pting pl~ns and specifications-for sanitary sewer on Green Acres Road from Delta Highway to approximately 1500 feei east was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present -requesting that.i t be read in full. r ~Ir. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams tha~ the bill be read the second time by co~ncil bill number only, with unanimous consent of'the Council, and that enactment ~e consldere~ at this time. Motion carried 'unanimously and the bill was read the second orne by councll bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17405. Council Bill No. 885 - Storm sewer on Rio Glen Drive from Debrick Road to east - boundary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition; and Alfaretta Drive from Rio Glen Drive to east boundary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition was . \ read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. 6/23/75 -30 '3'bo - .- - ..__ u_ ----- -- - -- -- --- - --- --- Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered .' ,at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. r.lr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. , Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17406. I , Counei I Bill No. 886 - Adopting plans and specifications for storm sewer on Rio Glen Drive from Debrick Road to east boundary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition; and Alfaretta Drive from Rio Glen Drive to east boundary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council ,bill number only. Mr. Murray moved s~cond by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17407. Council Bill No. 887 - Paving Rio Glen Drive from Debrick Road to east boundary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition; and Alfaretta Drive from Rio Glen Drive to east boundary of Brickrey~lsey Gardens Addition was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting - that it be read in full. ; Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage." Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the hill was declared passed and numbered 17408. Council Bill No. 888 - Adoptin-g pl-an~s and spe~ificatio~ns for paving Rio Glen Drive from Debrick Road to east bo-ndary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition; and Alfaretta Drive from Rio Glen Drive to east boundary of Brickley-Elsey Gardens Addition \vas read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by r.lr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by r.1r. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17409. - Couneil Bill No. 889 - Paving alley between 18th Avenue and 19th Avenue from Oak Street to Pearl Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. 3~\. 6/23/75 - 31 Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. . Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. . Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. : ~ Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17410. - Council Bill No. 890 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving alley between 18th Avenue and 19th Avenue from Oak Street to Pearl Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requestin~ that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and . numbered 17411. _.~. - VII - Resolutions Resolution No. 2415 - Authorizing application for 105 units under Section 8, Title II, housing as?istance program, and establishing the City Council as a housing authority, was read by number and title. e, Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution. No. ,2416 - Calling hearing July 14, 1975 re: Nightwatchman Trailer at 75 Waite Street (VanSickle) was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2417 - Authorizing transfer of funds: Materials & Services to Capital Outlay in Community Safety ($5,834) and in Community Develop- ment ($2,157) was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Ro 11 call vote. Motion carried, all councilmembers present voting aye. Resolution No. 2418 - Authorizing payment o~-bills and claims for period June 9 through June 23, 1975 was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned. ~~ ,- A. K. Martin Asst. City Manager 6/23/75 - 32 3 Co 1.:-