HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/1977 Meeting
.A.
'. M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
July 11, 1977
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene. Oregon, was
called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on July 11, 1977,
in the Council Chambers with the following Council members present: Eric
Haws, D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie,
and Betty Smith. Tom Williams was absent.
I. Public Hearings
A. Downtown Development Proposal: Study of Retail Expansion
Assistant Manager introduced Barry Elbasani of The ELS Design
Group. Elbasani introduced Tom Mitchell of Barton-Aschman whose
firm had prepared a traffic and parking analysis. and Keith Funk
of Keyser Maraton, who had handled the economic analysis of the
Downtown Retail Development Project.
Mr. Elbasani explained several diagrams on the chamber wall.
He said the shopping centerdiagrarnrnedwould reinforce investments
already made downtown. He said the task of the design team had
e been to develop a plan which would prove to a developer that a
shopping center could be developed in downtown Eugene. He said
the plan must also be of benefit to the City. He said the
shopping center proposed would cover 550,000 square feet, and
would include three department stores, new shops. entertainment
facilities, and a new gallery all of which would be tied strongly
into three of the six legs of the existing mall. He said the
project would spur revitalization of the Bon Marche and other
existing stores. In addition, the project would include a new
hotel as part of a multi-use center. He said these public and
privately financed facilities would tie in legs four and five of
the mall, meaning there would be focuses on five of the six legs
of the mall. He said the labor force east of downtown would have
to go through the mall tying in the sixth leg.
Mr. Mitchell explained the traffic and parking plan. He said the
traffic plan included existing traffic and superimposed traffic
which would be created by the new development. Streets could be
, widened either by physical widening or by removal of on-street
parking, with the latter being the cheapest method. The plan
included widening of Sixth and Seventh Streets to four lanes
from Coburg Road to Washington Street through physical widening;
Eleventh and Thirteenth Avenues to three lanes by removal of on-
street parking; and Oak between Eleventh and Thirteenth by
removal of parking. He said street improvements were minimal
because of a street system with good di stribution of traffic at
. present. Parking garages were planned below Tenth between Olive
7/11/77--1
S'+~
and Charnel ton, and between Eighth, Broadway, Lincoln, and .
Charnel ton. He said these garages, plus existing parking,
would provide sufficient parking for all facilities including
the multi-use center.
Ms. Funk said the economic analysis included a study of both
market and economic feasibility for a shopping center in Eugene.
She said a study prepared by Kayser Marston a year ago showed
a market for 200,000 square feet of new department
stores by 1980 which could either be one large store or two
smaller stores. The study recommended downtown as a location
for the center to be competitive with Valley River Center.
In terms of financial feasibility, the project had to be viewed
both from the point of view of the developer and the City. Ms.
Funk said the public cost would include assembly of land, parking
garage~ and street improvements. She said if the developer had
to pay for these items, it would be cheaper for the developer to
develop in the suburbs. Therefore, the public paid for these
items in order to make the project feasible to the developer.
She said the firm had totalled the City's costs on the high side.
Its revenue would be derived from sale of land, tax increment
from the new development, plus tax increment from a previous
City project not being used, and other federal funds already
committed to such a project. She said the project thus calculated
was financially feasible.
Mr. Elbasani pointed out that the downtown development planners -
were not seeking City Council authorization of its plan, but
endorsement of the principle of the project, and permission to
seek out a developer. Assistant Manager said the City had received
letters from Will Carlstrom and Wallace Swanson as public testimony
on a downtown development project.
Public hearing was opened.
Clark Winston Cox, 1085 Patterson Street, was skeptical about the
proj ect. He referred to a downtown plan designed ten years ago
and indicated it had not helped the downtown area much. As an
example, he cited the fact that Montgomery Ward left the downtown
area and moved to Valley River Center. However, he said he was
willing to give the new plan a try. He said if parking were
created for 2100 cars. it would necessitate the removal of some
bus stops. He said the plan had not included any mention of a
bus terminal site. He said LTD could the site proposed for a -
multi-use center because it would give the terminal a whole
block. He and others would be more comfortable with the plan
if it included provision for a bus terminal. He said the
location of the bus terminal was more important than the
creation of more parking.
Bob Trimble, 1470 Oak Street, objected to the downtown redevelop-
ment plan for three reasons: 1) there was no reason to be down- .
town after business hours; 2) the mall was all path and no place;
SLf3 7/11/77--2
.' and 3) public tax money was being used to reduce the public-
ness of downtown space. He said no one lived downtown probably
because of zoning and prohibitive land costs. He sa i d there
were therefore no community services open after business hours
so that the only businesses open were bars and nightclubs.
Secondly, he said if building space was compared to open space,
it was clear that the mall was designed to be a path and not
a place. He said the new plan would be similar. He suggested
the open space should be used as a place to be and not just a
means of moving foot traffic. He said the fountain at the center
of the mall was the only place to meet downtown. and that the
fountain was too large to make this a good meeting place.
Finally, he said since public money would be used in the project,
the public should get a more public mall and more for their money.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
ERA Executive Director Charles Kupper responded to Mr. Cox's
comments on LTD. He sa i d both Fred Dyen and Dave Rynerson
of LTD shared Mr. Cox's concern over the location for a bus
terminal. He said both men had attended several Downtown Plan-
ning Review Group meetings. ERA had met with LTD and was dis-
cussing the possibility of moving the bus transfer station
from Tenth to a site north of the Parcade. He sa i d the site
was acceptable to LTD as a temporary station, and that ERA was
e willing to provide money for a station at that site.
Mr. Delay asked if there were plans to cover the new mall. Mr.
Kupper said the plan did not include the suggestion that the mall be
covered, but that covering had been discussed. Mr. Elbasani
said the plan had purposely not indicated whether the mall should
be covered. He said it was definitely the tendency of developers
to cover shopping malls. but that since Eugene had a moderate climate
the developer might not find it necessary to cover a mall here.
He said a more critical issue was the introversion or extroversion
of the mall--how well integrated the different facilities were
with each other through visual tie-ins from the mall.
Ms. Smith asked if parking plans were alterable. Mr. Elbasani
said that parking garage placements were based on a consensus of
the Downtown Planning Review Group and were logical. He sa i d
the plan should hold, but that there were no definite architectural
plans. Ms. Smith then asked the status of developer interest in
the plan. Mr. Elbasani said he had talked to several developers
in a preliminary way and had a found a positive response to the
plan. However, he said he had waited to talk further with developers
upon receiving Council's approval of the plan. He said the path
of least resistance for most developers today was to build in
downtown areas, and that Eugene was healthy downtown. He pointed
out that the plan would require no money from the General Fund.
e
7/11/77--3
5 Lf J.f
Mr. Obie asked if the financial analysis suggested that the City .
could use $570,000 to finance an $8,330,000 project. Ms. Funk
pointed to charted figures which showed that the total cost of
the two projects (downtown retail development and a multi-use
center) would be $11,665,000 subtracting land cost and ERA funds.
She said the total tax increment would be $895,000 plus $255,000
in the sinking fund by 1978. These two sources would total
$1,150,000. She said this would mean $11,720,000 in bond proceeds
to finance the $8,330,000 project.
Mr. Obie asked how the multi-use center alone could generate
$325,000 a year. Ms. Funk said this tax increment figure was
based on the value of new construction and the tax rate. Mr.
Obie asked if the multi-use center would be a public structure.
Ms. Funk said the $4 1/2 million public structure which would be part
of a multi-use center had not been included in public revenues,
since it would be paid for by the public. Mr. Obie asked why the
civic center had been proposed for the site it was shown on. Mr.
Elbasani said though the site proposed was tight, it made the most
sense in terms of reinforcement of the existing downtown area.
Mr. Obie asked if another site could be chosen if it were preferred.
Mr. Elbasani said the choice of site was flexible except that it
should benefit downtown.
Mr. Delay asked if the overpark inequity was being treated separately
by ERA or was being considered in terms of the new tax increment
which could be generated by downtown development. Mr. Kupper said e
the overpark assessment was not considered in the downtown project.
He pointed out that the downtown project would not create a new
assessment district. In the long run, the matter would have to be
considered and if enough revenues were being generated by tax
increment, the overpark assessment might be considered. However,
he said the figures presented showed that the new tax increment would
be needed initially just to finance the redevelopment project.
Mr. Delay asked if it was feared that the City would receive more
heat from businesses in the overpark assessment district since the
new project might seem to continue an inequity for these people.
Assistant Manager said the City was aware that the problem would
not go away by itself, that thedilemma was in deciding where the
higher public and good lay. He said it was a question of downtown
investments already made, and how best to carry out already es-
tablished policies.
Mr. Lieuallen asked if the City Council would continue to review
the downtown project as it progressed. He said the City had
several ongoing concerns such as energy, existing businesses.
tearing down buildings, and placement of new businesses. He said
as the tax increment (a public source of money) was being used
to finance the project, the public should be allowed to review
the proj ect. Mayor Keller agreed with Mr. Lieuallen, saying he
saw the need for the public to be involved in improving the
project but not in drastically changing its numbers. Mr. Kupper e
7/11/77--4
5lf5
tit said it would be necessary for ERA to come to City Council
several more times. He said the urban renewal area plan change
had to be presented to the Council, as did any condemnation
approvals. In addition, he said the project was major and that
ERA would want to keep the City Council well informed of its
progress.
Mr. Haws asked if the civic and convention centemmentioned
would be two separate facilities. Mr. Kupper said they would
be: one would be a convention center and the other would be
an exhibit center. Mr. Haws asked what would happen to plans
for the multi-use center if the convention and exhibit centers
were not buil t. Mr. Kupper said the City would not build these
public facilities without first getting a hotel developer to
commit himself to the project. He said the City's study of a
new auditorium was the source of some confusion in discussing
these facilities. He said the auditorium could conceivably
become part of the downtown development project.
Mr. Haws asked if the project would definitely not spend any
of the City's money. Mr. Kupper said he could not say that
ERA would never have to call on the City for funds, but that
it did not plan to and hoped not to have to. He poi.nted out that
the project~financial analysis did not include an increase in
general downtown taxes, although such an increase would logically
e occur. Mr. Elbasani pointed out that the financial analysis
was conservative in that revenues were figured low and costs
high.
Assistant Manager reminded Council that what the plan sought
from the Council was acceptance of concepts presented. He said
the next step would be to seek developers, and the Council would
have a chance to respond to specific proposals presented by
successful developers. He felt the project would be financed
through the tax increment and reserve ERA funds without drawing
from the General Fund.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the report
as presented, and direct staff to prepare a resolution
demonstrating the Council's commitment to and support of
the plan as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
B. HCC: Proposal for Adoption of ORS 307.600 to 307.690 Relating to
Multiple-Unit Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption Program
Assistant Manager explained the issue had been reviewed by the
Joint Housing Commission; Community Development Commission,
Planning Staff, and others interested in multiple-unit housing.
He said if the Council chose to adopt the proposal, it would
be presented to School District 4-J for its endorsement. He
said if the district chose not to endorse the proposal, it
e
7/11/77--5
5Jffo
would be brought back before the Council. He said Mr. Carlstrom's .
letter to the Council had also addressed this issue.
Public hearing was opened.
Robert Blizzard, 3135 Van Avenue, was in favor of the tax exemption
because it would stimulate the downtown economy. He spoke as
president of the Handicapped Commission specifically. He said Craig
Tomlinsen had plans to build 12 units on the periphery of the down-
town core which would be adaptable to the handicapped. He said
when these units were filled, it would stimulate the downtown
economy. The Handicapped Commission had received a letter from
the Lane County Offices of Vocational Rehabilitation stating it
had 30 persons on the waiting list for accessible housing to down-
town. The Commission had also received two other letters, one
from Sacred Heart Hospital and one from Lane County Directory
Services. In addition, the Commission had received a phone call
from Lane County Welfare. He said the program might loose money
on the short haul, but would make money in the long run.
Russ Landress, P. O. Box 329, Scio, said he was considering pur-
chase of property bounded by Broadway, Washington, Lawrence,
and Ei.ghth Street. He planned to build 125 units on this site
to be known as Broadway Center. He said a report by John Blaney
Associates stated that at $4.50 to $6.00 per square foot, a land
buyer would have to charge rents unobtainable in Eugene to pay e
for his costs in building an apartment on that land. He said
previous apartments he had built had cost from $1500 to $1650
a unit. Howev~r, he said the Broadway Center unit would cost
$3400. He said without the tax abatement program, he would have
to charge unobtainable rent to pay for such a project. His offer
to purchase the property mentioned was contingent upon approval
of the tax abatement program.
John Ewing, 1560 Lincoln, faculty member of the U of O's Center
for Gerontology. member of the Board of the Northwestern National
Benelovent Association, and president of the Christian Church
Homes of Oregon, said the National Benelovence Society was the
sponsor of a HUD Section 2028 housing project for older adults
to be built at the southeast corner of 11th and Olive. He said
the project would include 150 units, ten percent to house the
handicapped. In accordance with HUD regulations, the Society
had procurred a mortgagor of the project, the Christian Church
Homes of Oregon. He said the facility would be called Olive
Plaza. The proposal was being reviewed by HUD. He said the
project construction budget was very tight, and the operating
costs and amortization depended on approval of the abatement
program. Denial of the program would jeopardize chances for
proceeding with the project. He said the site cost more than
the originally chosen site, and suggested the Council knew
the background of this issue. He said the group wanted to
build on the edge of the mall because of the need for low-income e
housing for the elderly in this area. Seventy-three persons had
7/11/77--6
'~7
e applied for the proposed housing although its existence had
only been announced by word of mouth. He said the abatement
program would bring the project closer to HUD mortgage limits
which was essential to the program's existence.
Craig Tomlinson, 984 Elizabeth Street, owned property at
11th and Lincoln. He said the property was zoned for 48 one
bedroom units which he planned to build for the elderly and
handicapped. He had built 250 units in the area in the past
five years, and was familiar with special amenities needed by
the handicapped and elderly. He said the 11th and Lincoln
property was especially well-suited to these two groups because
it was adjacent to a grocery store and on a bus line. He said
the only problem was that a conventional apartment house would
not pencil out in that location without the abatement program
for which reason he favored the program.
Betty Niven said the program would achieve something long sought
in Eugene but never before pOSSible.
Bob Suess, 260 E. 38th, said he paid City taxes and also collected
them from many of the elderly on a quarterly basis to turn over
to the tax assessor. He pointed that according to the Eugene Code,
the first floor of any building had to be accessible to wheelchairs.
He said this law was being complied with. He had recently built
80 units, and had installed elevators and extra wide doors on all
- units. He said because of rent in Eugene today, all builders had
to seek subsidies in order to make a project pencil out. He said
federal, state. and private enterprise subsidies were available.
Most builders had to operate at a loss, at least initially.
A moratorium on taxes and other programs for low to moderate priced
housing had been attempted in the past but had never succeeded. The
tax abatement program being considered was selective in its choice
of a certain geographical area, although everyone in Eugene would
be asked to finance the program through taxes. He suggested that
ten percent of all building costs were due to governmental red tape
and suggested the best thing government could do in cutting housing
costs was to disentangle itself from the housing process except
for common sense codes. He said housing problems would level out
quicker without government help than with it.
Mary Ducane. 956 W. 4th Street, said she was concerned about guide-
lines being followed in the elimination or relocation of any housing
on property involved in the program. She said she was concerned that
housing not be destroyed in this area.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
Assistant Manager responded to'Ms. Ducane's comments saying the
preservation of habitable housing, primarily through relocation,
e was part of the process of the program. He said the Joint Housing
7/11/77--7
5'+'i
j
Committee had looked at possible sites for land banking for these e
relocations, and this would mean extra work for the Committee,
but was included in the process of carrying out the program.
Mr. Delay had several questions concerning legal aspects of the
proposed program. He said the program was a public investment for
which reason the public payoff should be clear. He said since
this program, and the previously approved plan for downtown
revitalization would both be in effect, it might be beneficial
if the City could end the tax abatement program when it was no
longer needed. He asked if the Ci ty woul d be locked into the
program for a certain period of time. He asked how much discretion
the City would have in granting the abatement, and how optional
its approval could be. He asked if the City could be taken to
court if it did not approve someone's request to be included in
the program. Assistant Manager said the subsidy would be granted
project by project depending on each project's individual merit,
and the Council could rescind the program at any time. He asked
Ms. Niven to further comment. Ms. Niven said the bill was self-
destructing including only construction completed by January of
1980. She said it was doubtful the downtown revitalization
program would be developed by that date. She said the two pro-
grams would tend to reinforce each other.
Mr. Delay referred to page 2, Section 2.1.3 of the proposal.
He said the selection of those to receive the subsidy would be
made administratively not in the Council, and asked if the word- e
ing of the proposal insured that justification would bereas~able
and not based on weak reasoning. Assistant Manager said Mr.
Delay's understanding of the proposal was not accurate. He said
the section Mr. Delay referred to concerned the preapplication
process, which preceded the formal application process which had
to be presented to the Council. He said Council had to be given
180 days to review the application.
Mr. Lieuallen asked if the builder would seek the benefit after
or before construction. Assistant Manager said the benefit only
applied to those who sought it prior to actual construction. Mr.
Lieuallen asked what the cost to the public would be. He said
a fiscal impact statement presented to the Council indicated the
net gain after 20 years would be $43,000. He asked what this
figure meant. Ms. Niven said the figure was based on a $23,000
less per ten years as opposed to a $27,000 gain for ten years.
She said these figures were based on the assumption that land
and structure costs would remain constant, which they would not,
so that by the time the figures were entered on the tax roles
they would be higher, meaning more of a gain to the City.
Mr. Lieuallen said he was still not certain if the program would
cost the City a lot of money. He was also not certain how the
preservation of buildings would be carried out. He asked which
--
7/11/77--8
5Lfq
. department would handle the program, and Ms. Niven answered
that HCC would be in charge of the program, though each pro-
posal would have to come before the Council. Mr. Li euall en
asked if the City would be obligated to provide the subsidy
if a request met certain written criteria. Stan Long, Ci ty
Attorney's Office, pointed out there were no legal precedents
for the program. He said the proposal was permissive in that
it stated the City "may" approve an application. Also, he
said the City would have more leeway in granting the subsidy
for proposed structures than it would if the subsidy were
more for existing structures. He said the City could probably
not be arbitrary in its approval. Assistant Manager asked Mr.
Long if the City could at any time terminate the program and
deny any subsequent applications. Mr. Long said that was his
understanding. Ms. Niven pointed out that the Council had to
determine the public benefit of each project in addition to its
benefit to those who would be housed at the project. She suggested
this gave the Council additional latitude in its selection of
applicants.
Mr. Hamel said his main concern was dollars. He said if the land
was worth more with its original structure than it was worth without
the structure, it would cost the taxpayer more on his local taxes.
Ms. Niven said the Joint Housing Committee would not allow good
housing to be torn down. She said that sort of a situation would
not meet any of the criteria which had to be met to make an appli-
e cant eligible for the subsidy. Mr. Hamel then asked if developers
were not likely to go ahead and build in the area being considered
even without being tax exempt. Ms. Niven said none had yet
developed in the area. She said they had not because they could
not get the rent they would have to ask unless they built luxury
housing. She said luxury housing was fine but that the need in
that area was for low-income housing. She said HUD would not
agree to help finance projects in the area without an offset,
such as the tax exempt status.
Mr. Bradley asked the Assistant Manager if the City would in any
way commit itself to any of the three proposals it had heard that
night if it passed the bill. Assistant Manager said that the City
would not be committed to those development proposals.
Mayor Keller asked how many units could be expected to be requested
in the area in question in the next five to ten years. Ms. Niven
pointed out that the bill would only be in effect for another three
years. She said this meant projects would be have to be started in
the next one to two years and would probably include no more than
300 units. Mayor Keller asked if the program would be ongoing,
to which Ms. Niven responded that would depend how successful it
was.
Res. No. 2711--Concerning multiple-unit rental housing property
e tax exemption within a designated area; declaring
publiC necessity and adopting standards and guide-
lines was read by number and title.
7/11/77--9
550
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the .
resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1508--Concerning tax exemption for multi-unit rental
housing within a designated area; adding Sections
2.945 and 2.947 to Code, 1971; adopting provisions
of ORS 307.600 to 307.690; and declaring an
emergency was read by number and title only, there
being no Council member present requesting it be
read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel 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
at this time. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill
was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members
present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
18021.
A short recess was taken.
Mayor Keller acknowledged a request to have item I G. discussed at this time
on the agenda
G. Public Works Bid 0 eninos for Various 1m rovement Pro "ects e
Opened July 7, 1977 tabulation attached
Don Allen, Director of Public Works, reviewed Item 1, Job 1053.
Public hearing was opened.
Mary Olin Peterson, 3850 Willamette Street, said her father owned the
property in question until five years ago at which time he sold
it to her husband. Her father had owned a construction company
and had been ready to make whatever improvements to the driveway
the City Engineers requested. She said the City had requested the
area be blacktopped and her father carried out the action. She
said now the City had changed its mind, and wanted the driveway
to include a concrete apron which would be very expensive for
her husband to install. She asked if she and her husband could
be allowed to merely asphalt the driveway. She said her husband
had already begun to carry out this construction.
Mr. Allen said he could not substantiate any conversation with
Ms. Peterson1s father which had occurred five years ago. He could
remember law suits on the property which had occurred prior to the
the driveway and sidewalk issue. He said City ordinances did allow
asphalt as a temporary covering until a permanent sidewalk could be
put in. Five years ago the project had probably required major
7/11/77--10 e
~I
excavation and the removal of trees, which was probably why the
City had allowed Ms. Peterson's father to blacktop the area. He
e said ordinances were more flexible and would allow the sidewalk
to meander around trees. Also. the City had probably given permis-
sion for a temporary driveway five years ago. He said Council could
direct that the driveway be left as it was and wait to see if there
were any problems with the present driveway before requiring a
concrete sidewalk to be installed.
Mr. Haws asked why Council was hearing debate at this time, if it
would not be more appropriate to be heard at assessment time.
Assistant Manager explained the issue was what the project had
to include. He said the City Code required that a permanent side-
walk be of concrete for maintenance purposes. If this requirement
were set aside. it would be an exception. He reiterated Mr. Allen
in saying Council could make an exception including the requirement
that if concrete were needed later, it would be installed at a
later date.
Mr. Allen added that if Ms. Peterson's husband was installing the
sidewalk, it would not be in the City's contract for that side-
walk. He said this was acceptable to the City if Mr. Peterson
had a permit. He said it must be stipulated that the project be
completed by the time the City's contractor arrived to install
the rest of the sidewalk.
Mr. Obie noted that Mr. Peterson had just come in and asked if
he had any comments. While Ms. Peterson explained to her husband
e what had been discussed. Mr. Obie asked why the City was bidding
for a contractor on the sidewalk if the Petersons were installing
it themselves. Assistant Manager explained that since these
property owners were willing to install the'sidewalk themselves,
the City's contractors would merely meet the Peterson's sidewalk
and then stop. He said the Petersons would not be assessed for
that segment of sidewalk which they installed themself. Mr.
Peterson asked if the City were saying that he could install
a sidewalk as asphalt where it merged with his driveway and
replace it with concrete later if the City thought that were
necessary. Mayor Keller answered affirmatively and Mr. Peterson
indicated that suggestion was acceptable to him.
Mr. Bradley asked what kind of precedent the City would be setting
if it agreed to this arrangement. Assistant Manager said it
would mean that those with asphalt driveways would be allowed
to keep them as part of the sidewalk if they so wished. He said
it would allow the matter to be tested. Mr. Obie thought it would
be a positive precedent in that it would show the Council is
willing to work with the community.
Mr. Bradley reminded Council that the issue of this sidewalk had
been brought to its attention by parents of Dunn School children
and asked what kinds of safety factors were involved. Ms. Peterson
~
7/11/77--11
~~
said Dunn School was down the hill from her property, that motorists
had a clear view down the hill so that the area in front of her
home was not a visual hazard. In addition, most children coming
up the hill from Dunn School live downhill and reached their homes e
before the area in front of her home.
Mr. Allen asked if the City would allow him or someone from his
staff to meet with the Petersons at their home to settle this issue.
Assistant Manager asked Council to authorize this action because
of the need caused by a possible hazard to school children. He
said if the sidewalk appeared to be a hazard by the City's normal
standards, it would require a concrete apron. However. he said
if the asphalt sidewalk seemed safe. the City could accommodate
the Peterson's request until a concrete sidewalk was needed.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to award bid for this
sidewalk to the low bidder. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Allen reviewed the remaining contract bid openings. For
Bid No. '2, sidewalk on east side Four Oaks Grange Road between
18th Avenue and Bailey Hill Road (Job 1308), Mr. Allen requested
Council hold the contract for 30 days because of several requests
concerning it. On all other contract bids, Mr. Allen recommended
contract be awarded to low bidders.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to award contracts
to low bidders on items 2 through 7, with item 2 contract
award delayed for 30 days. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Code Amendments re: R-3 and R-4 zoning districts e
Assistant Manager explained the Code amendments had been proposed
by the Planning Commission for the purpose of clarifying the language
in R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. Jim Saul, Planning Department,
said the amendments covered three points. Declarification of the
status of clinics in R-4 districts so that they would remain a
permitted use rather than a conditional use (not technically a
change because of prior Code treatment of the issue); private and
pUblic parking structures would be conditional in both R-3 and
R-4 districts; and universities and colleges would be con-
ditional in both R-3 and R-4 districts. He said the proposed
amendments had been reviewed by major institutions in the area
involved, including Sacred Heart Hospital, Northwest Christian
College, and the University of Oregon. and by an appointed review
group with members from the City Council, Planning Commission and
West University Neighborhood Group.
Public Hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C.B. 1509--Concerning outright and conditional uses in R-3 and
R-4 districts; amending Sections 9.366, 9.368, 9.380,
and 9.382 of Code 1971; and declaring an emergency
was read by number and title only, there being no
Council member present requesting it be read in full.
-.
7/11/77--12
553
----
Mr. Haws moved. seconded by Mr. Hamel, 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. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All
Council members voting aye, the bill was declared passed
and numbered 18022.
D. Rezonin9s
1. Area located on west end of Kingsley Road, west of Good-
pasture Island Road (Eugene Planning Commission) (Z 77-25)
from County AGT to City R-2 SR.
Assistant Manager noted the recommendation had come from the Planning
Commission's meeting June 7. 1977. Jim Saul said the area involved
1. 8 acres. The area had been considered in late 1976 when the Hulet-
Kingsley subdivision of 140 acres was rezoned to R-2. The area
under consideration was not rezoned at that time because there had not
been sufficient time for advertising of the rezoning. All surrounding
property was zoned R-2 so the rezoning would be consistent. He
pointed out that Jim Bernhard, Chairman of the Planning Commission,
was present to answer questions.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared
by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and
- minutes of June 7, 1977, were received as part of the record.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C. B. 1510--Rezoning area located on west end of Kingsley Road west
of Goodpasture Island Road from County AGT to City
R-2 SR was read by number and title only, there being
no Council member present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting
the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and
minutes of June 7. 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Haws moved. seconded by Mr. Hamel. that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members
present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
18023.
. 7/11/77--13
55Lf
I
2. Area located at west end of Edison Street, west of Bethel
Drive (Eugene Planning Commission)(Z 77-26) from M-2 to RA
Assistant Manager noted the recommendation had come from the Planning
Commission June 7, 1977. Mr. Saul said the area of land involved was .
2.5 acres owned by the City of Eugene. Both the City Council and the
Planning Commission had considered this area when the Bethel-Danebo
Refinement Study was made. He said an amendment to the General Plan
was adopted in December 1975, making the area low-density residential.
All property south and east of the subject property was zoned RA and a
single-family unit was being constructed on vacant property adjacent
to the subject property. The rezoning to RA would be consistent with
the General Plan.
No exparte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by
Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes
of June 7. 1977, were received as part of the record.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C. B. 1511--Rezoning area located at west end of Edison Street, west
of Bethel Drive from M-2 to RA was read by number and
title only. there being no Council member present request-
it be read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting
the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and
minutes of June 7. 1977. be adopted by reference thereto; 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 be read the second time by council bill number only. Mr.
Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and
given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18024.
E. Water District Withdrawals
Mayor Keller said the matter had previously been considered by the
Council and a public hearing was required before action could be
taken. f
1. From Glenwood Water District--Booth/Fisher
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C. B. 1512--Withdrawing from Glenwood Water District that portion of
district annexed to the City by Order No. 418 of Lane
County, June 2, 1977, and declaring an emergency was
read by council bill number and title only, there being
no Council member present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. with Mr. Hamel abstain-
ing, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number .
only.
555 7/11/77--14
--.--
--
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Smith. that the bill .be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote.. ~ll Councl1 members
e present voting aye except Mr. Hamel abstalnlng and Mr. Bradley
voting no, the bill was declared passed numbered 18025.
2. From Oakway Water District--Breeden
Pub~ic hea~ing was he:d with no testimony p~esented.
--
C. B. 1513--Withdrawing from Oakway Water District that portion of
district annexed to City by Order No. 419 of Lane
County June 2, 1977 and declaring an emergency was
read by number and title only, there being no Council
member present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Smith. 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. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members
present voting aye. except Mr. Bradley voting no, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 18026.
F. Liquor License Application: Accuardi's Old Town Pizza Co., 160 E. Broadway
e Assistant Manager said the agenda applicant for the liquor license
were Accuardi's, not Ralph Robinson and Neal K. Sande owners of the
property. He said a neighborhood survey on the license resulted in 14
non-objectors. All papers were in order and staff had no objections.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Bradley asked if the outlet would serve hard liquor. Assistant
Manager said it would be a restaurant and lounge and probably would
serve hard liquor. Mr. Bradley noted that he would vote no if the
restaurant did plan to serve hard liquor because of the state law
which allowed only 12 hard liquor licenses in the City and the area
in question already had four outlets. He said if the restaurant was
only to serve beer and wine, he would vote in favor of the license.
Mr. Delay said he thought the limitation applied only to bars and
taverns, not restaurants. Stan Long said he was not sure of this
OLCC law. Mayor Keller suggested the matter be rescheduled for
Wednesday's meeting so answers to these questions could be determined.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to hold the item over to
the Wednesday, July 13, Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
II. Ordinances Held for Second Reading
The following council bill. read the first time June 13, 1977 and referred
to Assessment Panel June 20. 1977, was brought back for the second reading
e June 17, 1977. Council held over for another two weeks for further
consideration and staff adjustments to assessment.
5Sb 7/11/77--15
C. B. 1495--levyi ng assessments for pay; ng., sanitary sewer and storm
sewer on Hawkins Lane from 18th Avenue to Highland Oaks
Drive was read by council bill number and title only.
there being no Council member present requesting it :.
be read in full.
Mayor Keller asked if the motion should be to amend the council bill,
to which Mr. Long replied that would be the proper procedure.
Mr. Haws moved. seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved
as amended and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council
members voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
18027.
Ill. Items held over from Wednesday Council meeting.
A. Civic Center Commission--Mr. lieuallen said he would vote for the
motion though he had been disappointed that performing arts groups had
not been represented by appointment on the Commission. He said
several special-interest groups were represented. He felt there would
be an effort to include the performing arts community in the future
process.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel. to approve the appointments.
Motion carried with all Council members present voting aye, except
Bradley and Haws voting no.
IV. Ordinances for First Reading--none
V. Resolutions .
Resolution No. 2712--authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress
payments for period ,from June 27 through July 11, 1977, was read by
number and title only.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
VI. Approval of Minutes--June27 1977
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve minutes of
June 27, 1977. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed. the meeting was adjourned to
July 13, 1977.
ffi~.
A. Keith Martin
Assistant City Manager
DT:AKM:jm/CM23b4
'.
7/11/77--16
551
--
.
e
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering "Division
Bid No. 6
Opened: July 7, 1977
l. SIDEWALK on Wi11amette Street from 34th to 40th.
(1053)
Bidders Contract Cost
l. R. C. Parsons & Son Construction, Inc. ......................... ..$14,826.75
2. Wildish Construction Company......................................$18,850.85
3. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc..........................................$19,269.07
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
411 Sidewalk $1.50/Sq.Ft. $8,760.00 $3,500.00
511 Sidewalk $1.80/Sq.Ft.
Driveway Adjustments Direct
COMPLETION DATE: August 15, 1977
~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. SIDEWALK on East Side Four Oaks Grange Road
between 18th Avenue and Bailey Hill Road (1308)
Bidders Contract Cost
l. Concrete Unlimited, Inc...........................................$3,375.80
2. R. C. Parsons & Son Construction, Inc.............................$3,450.60
3. Wildish Construction Company......................................$3,636.05
4. Shur-Way Contractor, I nc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,110.63
Cost to Abutting Property: CoSit to Ci ty Amount Budgeted
4" Sidewalk $2.88/Sq.Ft. -0- -0-
S" Sidewalk & $3.00/Sq.Ft.
Driveway
COMPLETION DATE: August 15, 1977
e
558
Page 1 of 4 17
e
3. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within Gillespie
Butte Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within Lots 121 and
122, First Addition to Oakway Subdivision (1386)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Wildish Construction Company....................~.$118,216.03 $119,798.02
2. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.....................$123,302.60 $125,496.59
3. ~Babb Construction Co., dba
De~ta Construction CO............................$125,165.54 No Bid
4. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc......................... No Bid $120,921.00
5. H & J Construction............................~... No Bid $126,156.65
6. -Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co................ No Bid $135,176.60
Cost to Abutting Property: Cos t to City Amount Budgeted
Paving $1,640.00/Lot -0- -0-
San. lat. $1,510.00/Lot
San.Serv. $ 190.00/Lot
Stm.Sewer $ 430.00/Lot
1/2i Levy $ lO.OO/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1977 --
-------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within
Parkwood Subdivision (1356)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Wildish Construction Company......................$218,299.88 $218~060.95
2. Morse B ros ., I nc. . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. No Bid $225,287.70
3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc......................... No Bid $233,662.96
4. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.................... .$232,570.67 $235,718.74
5. H & J Construction................................$238,934.26 No Bid
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
Paving $1,890.00jLot
San.Lat. 970.00/Lot
San.Serv. 225.00/Lot
Stm.Sewer 700.00/Lot $2,000.00 $3,000.00
1/2<t Levy 50.00/Lot
CbMPLET ION DATE: October 1, 1977 .e
55Cf ,&
Page 2 of 4
.
5. PAVING, STORM SEWER AND SIDEWALK: Concord Street from
Hughes Street to Berntzen Street (1428)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Morse Bros., Inc.................................. No Bid' $89,624.50
2. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc.......................... No Bid $90,373.66
3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ........................ No Bid $92,458.54
4. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc..................... No Bid $95,816.66
5. Wildish Construction Company......................$100,893.90 $98,934.00
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to Ci ty Amount Budgeted
28' Paving $ 20.70/FF Paving $8,800.00 $ 7,400.00
5" Concrete Drive 1,90/SF Storm Sewer 40,100.00 50.000.00
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1977
- .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. PAVING: Robin Avenue adjacent to Tax Lot
17-04-22-21-700 (1362)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Wildish Construction Company..................... .$2,767.00 $2,468.90
2. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc......................... .$3,958.00 $3,189.80
3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc......................... No Bid $3,988.00
4. R. C. Parsons & Son Construction, Inc.............$2,754.60 No Bid
5. Morse Bros., Inc..................................$2,950.00 No Bid
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28' Paving $33.60/FF -0- -0-
COMPLETION DATE: August 19, 1977
e
5~O
Page 3 of 4 11
I
.
.
7. SANITARY SEWER to serve Cherry's Addition
(1169 )
Bidders Contract Cost
l. James A. Hill........................................ $ 7,402.27
2. DanD. AllsUfl Contractor, Inc........................ $ 7,848.20
3. K~nneth R. Bostick Construction Co................... $10,208.70
4. Wi] di sh Constructi on Company......................... $10,569.59
5. R. C. Parsons & Son Construction, Inc................ $10,772.40
6. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc............................ $11,359.85
7. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc............................. $11,751.50
COst to Abutting Property: Cost to Ci ty Amount Budgeted
San.Lat. $O.lO/Sq.Ft. -0- -0- - -
San.Serv. $175.00/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: August 15, 1977
--
-e
5bl
Page 4 of 4 ,2D