Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/1978 Meeting . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 13, 1978 / 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 February 13, 1978, in the Council Chamber, with the following Council members present: Eric Haws, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Councilor D.W. Hamel was absent. 1. Public Hearings A. Civic Center Auditorium Concept Manager said Council had previously reviewed a status report on the matter. The purpose of the presentation this evening was to advise the public of the status of the planning and the concepts being considered on the site. Public response was requested as the Civic Center Commission and Council both wished to know if they were pro- ceeding in the right direction with public support. - James Luckman, of The Luckman Partnership, said he would try to re- view and bring up-to-date for the public the progress in planning development and planning alternates as to how the facilities might be placed on the two-block site. The schematic drawings which he would present and review have been reviewed by both City Council and Civic Center Commission. He noted that the reviews were not architectural designs but only block plans, which included size of the facility placed in different configurations on the site and implications with respect to the amount of land used. He then reviewed from the beginning of the schematic drawings through to the present Scheme No.7. He noted some modifications had been made during this developmental stage. However, the facility will include a major concert hall seating 2,500 to 2,600, a smaller theater with 600 seats, and a convention-exhibit hall. Informal meeting rooms will also be included. Modifications included elimi- nation of a restaurant and bar, reduction in lobby space, and re- duction in the convention hall space by one-third. He noted the schematic design showed how the various facilities would be placed on the site, as well as the use of Willamette Street in the project. In regard to Willamette Street, he noted it could be totally open, visually open, or totally closed. The question of a hotel being included in the design was affirmatively determined, with discussion determining a high-rise hotel would be preferable to a low-rise hotel, takinq up less space. In arriving at Scheme No.7, Council had given direction that Willamette Street should be kept visibly open and there would be an option of a pedestrian bridge across the street. There will be underground parking the entire two blocks; however, a parking study is in progress which will assess how much more parking might be needed. e 2/13/78--1 ~ Public hearing was opened. Jim Williams, Route 3, Box 318A, Springfield, requested the Com- mission and Council keep in the forefront of the planning the need for local grassroots art programs in the area. He said there is a lack of such facilities and the local performing arts would experience growth if facilities were available. He noted this would not particularly be performance-oriented, but oriented toward improving the quality of life for the community residents. He encouraged the Council to read his report made to the Civic Center Commission earlier. . Mr. Rains, Rains and Company, Engineering Consulting Firm, requested Commission and Council emphasize the importance of using an experi- enced accoustical consultant to make sure the auditorium has a good sound system. He also noted that in the future the facility, if accoustically adequate, could be used for a recording and broad- casting facility. Les Anderson, Chairman, Civic Center Commission, explained the reasons why the Commission had determined Scheme No.7 to be the best at this point. First, in the treatment of Willamette Street, the Commission felt this to be a very possible solution to the problem. Second, having a high-rise facility such as a stage in the theater and a hotel would not block the view looking down. Willamette Street at the Butte. The Commission felt the visual openness very important. Emphasis of the general planning has been on the performing arts community and the Commission felt other services will follow. He said the entire complex will offer an important ingredient to the downtown and provide a cultural center for the entire area. He thought Eugene was very aware of the opportunity it has to develop the various talents in the community, and he has been assured that this will be of high pri- ority in the final development and design of the Center. Ms. Smith questioned the plans for financing. Mr. Anderson replied the decisions reached at this point will enable the Commission to go ahead with more complete financing plans. Included in probable plans for financing might be a combination of general obligation bonds, taxing increments, revenue bonds, and private donations. He said design factors and other variables will determine the final financial figure and planning for financing of the facilities. Those financial figures will be forthcoming to Council. - In a process question, Ms. Smith wondered when the Commission would be presenting to Council for approval the contract for the next phase. ~1anager replied the economic consultant report would be available in about three to four weeks. At that time, the Commission and Council will consider the various alternatives 0 finance that phase of the development. He said Scheme No.7 would allow for such alternatives and was one reason for supporting that scheme. The financing could be done in stages or all at once, but that will be determined later. . 2/13/78--2 u e e - Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Scheme No.7 as presented by The Luckman Partnership. Motion carried, with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. Mr. Williams said he did not have any disagreement with the par- ticular scheme, but did question whether the Council should be spending public money as it is doing without finding out if the end product wi 11 be an auditori um. t1anager repl i ed there woul d not be any additional expenditure at this time other than the parking study in progress. B. Mr. Lieuallen reminded Council the entire financing to date had been done with room tax money, which had been directed to such a facility. He said it was impossible to know what such a facility would cost until that study had been done to see what the public wanted in the facility, and it was necessary to spend those funds to get to this point. He said if the spending were excessive, then Council would know it was going in the wrong direction. However, if the plan looked feasible, then Council should request support from the public. Mr. Haws said he did not feel there was public support for a bond issue, noting he felt the planning had gone too far. Request for Zone Change from AG to R-1: Property located south of Royal Avenue west of Danebo Avenue, east of Terry Street (Van}(Z 77-46) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission December n, 1977. t1r. Saul sai d the proposed property had been annexed to the Ci ty in 1964, with the area containing 37 acres. If the zone change is approved, it will result in a development of single-family sub- divisions. The Planning Commission minutes and staff notes indicate both the General Plan and the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan recognize the suitability for low-density use of this land. He said during the public hearings before the Planning Commission some concern had been expressed of the potential increase of traffic on Terry Street. He said Terry Street is shown as an arterial and this property improvement will not necessarily necessitate improvement of Terry Street. Access will be from Danebo and another arterial that is part of the T-2000 plan. In response to a question from f1r. Haws, Mr. Saul said Danebo Avenue is designated as an arterial and there were no short-range plans for improvement within the next several years. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 6, 1977, were received as part of the record by reference thereto. 2/13178--3 '1 I / . ( Pub 1 i c leari ng was opened. . . , Mike Va~('2435 Lily Avenue, applicant, the cit, limits, designated as an area resideptial use, and city services are able to answer questions. said the land is inside in need of low- to medium- available. He was avail- e Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C.B. 1604--Authorizing zone change from AG to R-1, property located south of Royal Avenue, west of Danebo Avenue, east of Terry Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member presented requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 6, 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 unani- mously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18113. - C. Request for Zone Change from R-1 to R-2 10/A PD: Property located south of Eastwood Lane and east of Fairway Loop (Bennet}(Z 77-47) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission December 6, 1977 Mr. Saul said the property consisted of eight acres presently vacant, located near Reed and Cross and the Eugene Country Club. There had been before Council on three previous occasions requests to convert the property to residential-professional use. Those requests had received opposition from the neighboring property owners. This request would be developed in residential fashion with 10 units per acre under a PUD. In this instance, residents would support the zone change. The sole concern expressed would be traffic on Fairway Loop and Eastwood Lane. He noted there would be further public hearings under the PUD process. He also noted the traffic diverter on Fairway Loop would help eliminate some of the traffic problem. The zone change request was con- sistent with the General Plan, noting the access to Oakway Shopping Center and Valley River Center suitable for high-density develop- ment and close to employment centers. The traffic diverter on Fairway Loop will remain in place and the increase in traffic could still be accommodated. -- 2/13/78--4 gg -- ett " No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 6, 1977, were entered as part of the record as reference thereto. C.B. 1605--Authorizing rezoning from R-1 to R-2 10jA PD property located south of Eastwood Lane and east of Fairway Loop was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. t1r. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 6, 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 unani- mously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. approved and given final passage. Councilors present voting aye, the and numbered 18114. Delay, that the bill be Roll call vote. All bill was declared passed D. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial for Zone Change Request from R-1 to R-3: Property located at northeast corner of 15th Avenue and Villard Street (Daugherty)(Z 77-43) Denied by Planning Commission December 6, 1977, with a 3:2 vote. Manager said a late notification had been received from the owner indicating he wishes to change the application, thus withdrawing this application and reapplying to Planning Commission with a revised application that would result in another hearing before the Planning Commission. City Attorney said testimony taken at this evening's meeting would serve no purpose if the application were going to be withdrawn. Mr. Bradley questioned whether the application had to be referred back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Saul responded he had met with the applicant's attorney, with indications that the applicant intended to present to City Council a proposal for R-2 zonin9 rather than R-3. This would be a different request than the one presented to the Planning Commission. He felt if it were not referred back for Planning Commission consideration, it would be a disservice to the Planning Commission. The applicant's attorney had indicated his ~lient's willingness to have the matter referred back to the Planning Commission. That appeared to be the best course 09 action for Council at this time. The matter would then be heard by Planning Commission on March 7. Mr. Saul said the Council could proceed with the public hearing this evening, up- holding the recommendation of the Planning Commission; however, 2/13/78--5 I' he was reluctant to suggest that alternative. In response to a question by Mr. Bradley, Mr. Saul said the applicant did not wish to withdraw his appeal, but wished to change his zone request from R-3 to R-2. .- Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to allow the applicant to modify his request for zone change from R-3 to R-2 and refer it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bradley said the intent of his motion was to indicate the Council was allowing the applicant to make a modification and sending it back to the Planning Commission under City Council's directive. Mr. Williams wondered if that particular motion would undermine the interests of the applicant and the appellant, and wondered further if this were consistent with the recommendation in Item 3 of Mr. Saul's memo dated February 8, 1978. Mayor Keller pointed out the Planning Commission's responsibility was to modify such changes, not City Council. Mr. Saul, in responding to Mr. Williams, said the motion was a reasonable facsimile of his suggested course of action in Item 3. He also noted the Mayor pointed out a very legitimate concern. The process usually followed would be an applicant making a request to the City through the Planning Com- mission; and after review and denial by the Planning Commission, then an appeal is submitted from the Planning Commission decision to the Ci ty Counci 1. If then the appl i cant wi shes to change his request, perhaps the City Council does have some consideration to ask for consistency in applications by requesting them to make that application before the Planning Commission first. Mr. Bradley said the intent of his motion in the two parts was that the first would show City Council has the authority and option to allow a change of appeal; the second would send it back to the Planning Commission. -- Mr. Lieuallen wondered if this was a violation of the Code regard- ing the Planning Commission. He wondered if the Council could hear requests that did not go to the Planning Commission, noting that seemed to be what Mr. Bradley was saying. City Attorney said he was not sure that was what Mr. Bradley was suggesting; however, the difference between the staff recommendation and the motion is academic but reaches the same result. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Mayor Keller requested staff comment on this procedure. E. Women's Commission Request Re: Boycotting Attendence at Conventions Held in States Not Yet Ratifying ERA Recommended by Women's Commission December 30, 1977 - 2/13/78--6 '10 - Manager said the matter had been discussed at Council meeting December 21, resulting in a number of problems raised regarding a number of staff and Councilors going to meetings. He noted attached to the agenda for Council were some alternatives to the proposal, and Council may want to consider other alternatives. He noted the hearing was not on the question of the ERA amendment, but rather on the request by the Women1s Commission or a possible alternative. e Linda Wilson, 51 Braeburn, member of Women's Commission, said the Commission was asking the Council to abstain from sending elected officials or staff persons to meetings which are held in states not yet ratifying the ERA. The Commission felt there was a commitment to moral issues, and noted this was not an easy decision. Regarding whether the boycott was necessary, she noted there were only 13 months left for the states to ratify the amend- ment. She said the ERA proponents had used more gentle forms of pressure up to this point, but those had not been successful. It was felt more severe measures were needed, thus, the boycott was being implemented. As for whether the boycott would work, she said in Chicago, $1 million worth of business had been lost, with $14 million in future bookings being lost as a result of the boycott. The effectiveness of the boycott depends on the participation, and she noted about 90 organizations had pledged already to uphold the boycott. She cited examples of Presidents Lincoln and Carter, and Martin Luther King, Jr. using such methods to correct fundamental wrongs in moral issues. She again re- iterated time is running out and there was need for effective and immediate action. To compromise and allow City staff to attend a meeting in such a state she felt would be much too little, too late. She urged the Council to make a strong commit- ment to the boycott as requested by the Women's Commission. Public hearing was opened. The following persons spoke in favor of the boycott: Mabel Armstrong, 2580 Mc~1illan, representing the Oregon Women's Political Caucus. She noted Council would be supporting discrimi- nation by its silence. Economic sanctions are not easy to con- sider, but the supporters of the boycott felt they had no other alternative to influence what happens in other states. She pro- tested Eugene taxpayersl money going to other states which refused to enfrancise women. Iris Dudman, 209 East 30th, said she knew it would be an incon- venience and sacrifice for Council, but felt they had to make certain choices. e 2/13/78--7 qt Sherry Oeser, 560 Tyler, noted many other cities in the country who had passed such resolutions for boycotting. Included in those were the American Federation of Government Employees, the Inter- national Personnel Management Association, and the Oregon Chapter of the American Institute of Planners. She supported the boycott and hoped City Council would do so also. - Margie Hendriksen, 1245 Tyler, Oregon Women's Political Caucus, spoke as a women and as a taxpayer of the City. She did not want the City of Eugene spending her tax money in states where she was not recognized as a full citizen. She noted various inconsis- tencies regarding the adoption of the ERA, in which the State of Illinois had adopted the 3/5 requirement for adoption of this amendment, but which would not apply to other amendments. She noted, also, in Nevada and Florida, there were elected officials who promised to support ERA, but after were elected, opposed it. She felt it very appropriate for Eugene to take this stand, as it is known to be a very progressive city and one concerned for human rights. Those opposing the suggested boycott were as follows: Lorene Henry, 2620 Fillmore, requested Council consider the source of the request, the Women's Commission. She said this commission had been created to help women against discrimination, yet now they were requesting use of discrimination. The proposed boycott would economically affect poor women in states where the boycott would take place. She felt this was the wrong use of politics. Esther Deffenbacher, 4610 Old Dillard Road, felt Eugene should not be involved in the use of force through a boycott and should not be interfering with other people's jobs. She said evidently the ERA amendment is lacking something as it is not strong enough to win on its own merits. She pointed out the economic hardships resulting in loss of jobs in hotels, motels, and restaurants if the boycott were pursued. She noted it could boomerang against the principles they are trying to eliminate. She felt the boycott was a desperate move and the City Council should have no part in it. She expressed her strong feelings for Eugene as a community, and she wanted to continue to be proud of it. Helen Taff, 25292 Perkins Road, Veneta, expressed her opposition, and noted her attendance at a Women's Commission meeting where a request was made that the Women's Commission disapprove the boycott because of the damage it would cause the women's movement, as well as the economic hardship to so many women. That request was re- fused and she felt that was a real reflection of the ruthless attitude of the many advocates of the ERA. She urged Council not to support the economic boycott. e e 2/13/78--8 ~~ e Mar1is Guilford, 1216 River Road, asked Council to oppose the economic boycott because of the unemployment hardships it would cause to people who could not afford it. She felt the boycott would be using force, by way of lost wages, that would hurt many women who might favor the ERA. Marie Bell, 1262 Calvin, noted the Council was a body of elected officials, and expressed the importance she felt of Americans havinq the right to vote freely according to their consciences. She felt it wrong to use an economic boycott to take away persons I livelihoods and force other officials to vote against their con- sciences. She requested Councilors to think of the freedom of the American vote before they cast their ballot that would influ- ence other elected officials to vote for any other reason than their feeling it was the right thing to do. e Doris Storms, 2180 Wood Acres Drive, felt the economic boycott was an attempt to threaten those states who did not agree with Oregon. She felt this an unjust use of power. The proper arena for the ERA was in the various state legislatures. She doubted the citizens of Eugene would wish to interfere with other states' rights. She noted the loss of income and economic hardships on people if the boycott were implemented. She also noted many peripheral issues would multiply from the community if Council would consider this action. She also suggested this would restr~ct officials in the performance of their duty, noting the Council should represent the interests of all the community, not just special interest groups. Lee Crandall, no address given, spoke in favor of the ERA, saying in regard to the opponents addressing the unemployment issue, they should look at the sex discrimination that now exists. She said it may create hardships in the short run, but in the long run, women will have a better system in which to work. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Delay said he had been studying the concerns that had been addressed this evening and had done some soul-searching himself. He continued to believe there were probable circumstances among staff members to carry out responsibilities and thus making it necessary to attend some meetings. However, he did support the whole notion of the boycott. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the economic boycott regarding ERA would apply only to City elected officials and appointed committee citizens, with City Manager to make every effort to minimize attendance of City staff members' participation to a workable maximum extent. . 2/13/78--9 ~3 In addressing his motion, Mr. Delay said he did not feel that department heads and management should avoid attending conferences that may be very important to them in carrying out their duties. Thus, his amendment was stated to cover that issue as he felt it to be legitimate. He continued that the City could still clearly demonstrate its feeling on the measure by trying to get attention Where it has not been given serious consideration. - Mr. Bradley said Council should consider the National League Con- vention as the forum where national policies, as they relate to municipalities, should be decided. He said the next convention to be held in St. Louis, Missouri, would be addressing supporting the ERA. If Eugene did not send delegates, then it would not have effective dialogue on this issue. He wondered if Council might want to except this particular conference for Councilors to attend, thus allowing them to express their feelings on the issue. Mr. Williams questioned City Attorney as to whether or not the purpose of Councilors spending taxpayers' money for travel was for education. He questioned whether the money could be used for lObbying, boycotting, or pressures. He questioned whether those purposes were in conformance with the statutes of Oregon and City ordinances. City Attorney responded the principle justification for travel expenditures is for education enabling Councilors to do a better job. With respect to lobbying in its pure form, it would be improper for the City to send someone for that purpose. He said that question had never been raised or considered by his office. e Mr. Obie said to vote for the motion would lend credence to the Council's responsibility of staying home and attending to City business, noting the quantity of time it takes just for that arena. He said the issue being discussed was not ERA, but a boycott and he did not feel the City had any business dealing with that issue. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Williams voting no. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the Eugene City Council write the National League of Cities and other organi- zations urging them not to schedule future meetings in states not yet ratifying the ERA. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Williams and Obie voting no. Mr. Lieuallen requested staff communicate that action taken by Council to the organizations. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to allow City Councilors to attend only the National League of Cities meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, in December. . 2/13/78--10 ~. - Mr. Bradley noted there were standing policy committees that would be important for City Councilors to attend to give input and direc- tion to League action. He felt not attending would dilute the City Council's effectiveness. Mr. Delay felt the individual Councilors should face the issue and set his or her own priority. He said for himself this year the Policy Committee meeting would not be a high priority, but rather would be support of the economic boycott. He felt a stronger statement in support of the ERA could be made by those supporters of the ERA not showing up at these meetings. Mr. Williams said one thing that troubled him about the democratic process was establishing a principle, endorsing that principle, and then exempting in areas as it applied to certain persons. He disagreed with that procedure. Vote was taken on the motion which failed, with Bradley and Haws voting aye; all other Councilors present voting no. A short recess was taken. F. Supplemental Budget Request Manager said the public hearing was required by law. The appro- priations had been submitted in detail to Council and most related to countercyclical funds and had been discussed at previous Council meetings. e Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1606--Adopting the Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for City for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1977, and end- ing June 30, 1978, and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unani- mous 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. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18115. G. Liquor License Application: New Outlet: The Tree House Restaurant, (R) 1769 Franklin Blvd.; applicants: James and Sharon Cisler; William and Elizabeth McCallum - 2/13/78--11 CiS Manager said this was a new restaurant-motel development; that the OLCC report indicated one objector, Hyatt House, on the basis ~ of sufficient facilities in the area. There were six non-objectors. Staff found all papers in order and recommended approval. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Bradley expressed his concern again that the City set certain criteria on which to determine where various liquor licenses will be issued in the city. Mr. Williams responded if he were convinced establishing such criteria would influence the overall issuance of liquor licenses in a state, he would favor setting such criteria. However, he said City Council's only role was to say the applicant had qualified on the grounds that they had met certain City stand- ards and Council was simply recommending approval to OLCC. He said if Council wanted to try to make some impact on the issuance of liquor licenses, it then should support the repeal of the .standing rule of issuing one license per 2,000 population. He felt Council should not deny any applicant in the city its chance to recei ve a n quor 1 i cense. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to forward with approval to OLCC, subject to City Code compliance as indi- cated in iDspector's final inspection notice. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no. 11. Ordinances for First Reading--None 111. Ordinances for Second Reading Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to accept Hearing Panel's report of February 6, 1978 (attached). Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. e The following bills, read for the first time January 23, 1978, and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing February 6, 1978, were brought back for second reading with Panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed: C.B. 1593--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Barger Drive from Highway 99 to 200 feet west of Ohio Street; sanitary sewer on Barger Drive from West Irwin Way west to the N/S section line of Sections 16 & 17 and 20 & 21 was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18116. . 2/13/78--12 q,' e C.B. 1594--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Lexington Park Subdivision and 1st Addition to Lexington Park was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18117. C.B. 1595--Levying assessments for storm sewer within Annamidaz Sub- division was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18118. C.B. 1596--Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Chase Street from Royal Avenue to Bell Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. e Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18119. IV. Resolutions Manager noted Res. No. 2828, opposing sale of Krugerrand coins had been held over from Council meeting February 1. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to allow public hearing of ten minutes for testimony. Mr. Obie requested a point of order as the item had not been advertised as a public hearing, and he felt it necessary to notify all citizens. He questioned City Attorney if the motion was out of order. Stan Long said it was discretionary with the Council. ~Is. Smith said she opposed the motion, noting a major concern regarding the amount of Council's time spent on such issues. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed with Haws, Delay, Lieuallen, and Bradley voting aye; Williams, Obie, and Smith voting no. Public hearing was opened. - 2/13/78--13 'tl Bob Guldin, 261 North Ash Street, representing Supporters of South African Freedom, addressed the question of what is appropriate for City Council to consider. He noted distribution to Council of earlier City resolutions which showed the Council had considered items outside of City business in previous instances. e Roger Walke, 2450 Potter, described the South African racial discrimi- nation and the use of apartheid. He thought the situation required a response by City Council as apartheid occurs not just in South Africa, but even here. He expressed moral and political outrage, and felt it was the Council's duty in a democratic country to address the issue. He noted it to be a serious violation of human rights. Betty Luginbill, 1236 Kincaid, Wesley Center, noted her awareness of a "one-world" theme. She felt the Council could not avoid this politi- cal and moral responsibility to address this issue. The people are the government, and what the citizens of Eugene say or do will direct elected officials in Washington, D.C. as how to vote. She noted people were getting rich from the sale of the coin, and felt it the City Council's responsibility to take a stand. A request was made for a show of hands for those supporting the oppo- sition to the sale of Krugerrand coin. About 50 people raised their hands. Jean Vignes, 1743 Riverview, presented 1,339 petitions which had been circulated and signed in a two-month period. Roy McGowan, McTavish Lane, reported some months ago he had traveled to find out for himself how much truth had been distributed in the news. He described the ordinary black African as living a very com- fortable life and said opposing the sale of Krugerrand would affect those blacks who are earning a better standard of living by working in the mines. e Res. No. 2828--0pposing racial policies of the Government of South Africa and the sale of the Krugerrand coin was read by number and title. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the reso- lution. Mr. Obie expressed a great concern regarding the broad scale interests of the Council and where it should be spending its time. He felt it might be important for Council to establish some ground rules and determine the broad interest level and particpation level. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to table the reso- lution. Motion failed, with all Councilors present voting no, except Williams and Obie voting aye. Mr. Obie said he would vote in support of the resolution; however, he hoped to present some type of ordinance that would clarify the scope of Council's realm of responSibility. Mr. Delay felt the whole ,e 2/13/78--14 98 - notion of trying to set criteria for Council's consideration of issues indicated prior censorship and he questioned the constitutionality of such an idea. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Williams voting no. Res. No. 2831--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period January 23 through February 13, 1978 was read by number and title. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the resolution. Mayor Keller noted an error in the bills on item Metro Wastewater Manage- ment City's share of consultant billing received with the dates shown as 1-17-78 and 1-16-78. That correction will be made. e Mr. Obie expressed concern of paying The Luckman Partnership $30,000 and questioned whether it relates to the value received at this point. He requested staff hold off paying the amount for two weeks and give further clarification to Council. Manager replied the City had hired an architect, used its services, and was obligated to pay for those services. Manager said it might open the City up to some kind of lawsuit. In regard to the scope of work, he said staff was also concerned. There had been considerable negotiations and requests for further information before finalizing the payments. City Attorney added it was staff's judgment that the Council had asked for services from that company, those services were rendered, and have been valued at $30,000. It would not be appropriate for the City to with- hold paying for those services. Mr. Obie stated he did not feel the City had received services rendered to that extent. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. V. Approval of Minutes Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve Council minutes of January 23, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to February 15, 1978. c~r:~ Ci ty Manager CTH:ml/CM8a2 e 2/13/78--15 qct r L'-:") '10')) ~ 11M ~ (l , " I d PM .. .. 7',g~~Hn'"1'2~ 1 ,2,Ht4i5t6 Present: Council members Hamel and Delay~ Clty Englneer Teitzel . . A. C.B. 1593--Levying assessments fo~ paving~ sanitary s~er~.st~rm sewer i.sidewa1k I on Barger Drive from Hlghway 99 to 200' W ~f OhlO Street; sanltary \ sewer on Barger Drive from W. Irwin Way West to the N/S section line of Section 16 & 17 and 20 & 21 (605--75-28) . ASSESSMENT PANEL HEARING February 6~ 1978 l'~ C'CE' rI .' " ,- oJ..., ,vi..,.u bY ., {TY 'I ~ T\Nr.~l ,.... r-' F; .'i . if U1... .'1 \,.7 .. ., ~,: . No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. B. C.B. 1594--Levying assessments for paving~ sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Lexington Park Subdivision and 1st Addition to Lexington Park (l337 & 1430--77-7) . No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. C. C.B. l595--Levying assessments for storm sewer within Annamidaz Subdivision (1390--77-39) Requests to be heard were received from Steve Penger of Twin Buttes Design _ and construction, 2360 Emerald Street and William and Joyce VanVactort ~ 4389 N. Shasta Loop. Gil Sharp spoke for Twin Buttes Design and Construction. Mr. Sharp stated that he was objecting to any assessment against the property based on the City of Eugene Municipal Code, Land Division Ordinance, Section 9.005 to 9.090t specifically Section 9.040(4)(h)3, covering "Major Partition Map and Subdivision Plat Proceduret wherein it statest "A petition for improvements has been properly executed by the applicant who is effecting the partition or subdivision and will be assessed for said improvements". Mr'. Sharp further stated that under Section 9.085(6)t "Improvements Land Surface Drainage", that it states such facilities shall be constructed by the land divider. Mr. Sharp stated that the Petition for Improvement on this project was signed March 21, 1977 by the subdivider to satisfy the City Engineer's require- ments for approval of the partition. Mr. Sharp further stated that there seems to be two separate procedures, one being assessment procedures followed in the Eugene Codet Chapter 7.160, sections for initiating public improvements either by vote of the Councilor by petition of property owners, however, this petition was filed under the Land Use chaptert Chapter 9, and not Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code. He stated he felt the policy decision as to who should pay costs is different in these two chapters. He further stated that Oregon Statute ons 92.090(5) makes it clear that it is the subdivider's responsibility to install or post bond for the installation of sewer systems to lot lines of all new subdivisions. Mr. Sharp stated that in order to comply with State Statutet petitions filed under Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code should have costs of the improvements assessed to the developer and not to lot owners. e 100 2-6-78 - Page 1 of 2 \P e -- e Mr. Teitzel responded by stating that this project was initiated by the subdivider who was the property owner at the time of subdivision. Mr.oTeitzel further stated that a subdivider must also be the owner of the land and at anytime the property is sold, then the responsibility for the improvements becomes the new owner's. He stated the City has no means to assess the developer if he does not own the property at the time of the assessment. He further stated that the owner who was notified of the original public hearing for award of bids on this project was the original developer. Mr. Teitzel stated that at the first hearing the award was delayed in order to notify Twin Buttes Design and Construction and the contract was awarded after Twin Buttes was notified. Mr. Teitzel stated that State regulations do require a bond or satisfaction that improvements will be put in or that potential property owner's he notified of potential costs. The City does not take part in this process, except to notify the State on request of what the improvement status is. Mr. Teitzel further stated that assessments are levied based on Chapter 7, wherein the property owner is notified and the owner of the property at the time of the assessment receives the billing. Mr. Delay questioned Mr. Teitzel as to whether someone purchasing property has a way to avoid being unaware of potential assessments. Mr. Teitzel responded that an "Intent to levy an Assessment" is filed with all title companies at the time a contract is awarded. He further stated that there is a period between the petitioning for improvements and the "Intent to levy an Assessment" with no formal or legal notice of proposed improvements, however, notification of pending liens against property is considered a civil matter between the buyer and seller of the property. Recommendation: levy assessments as proposed. D. C.B. l596--levyingassessments for paving and storm sewer on Chase Street from Royal Avenue to Bell Avenue (1365--77~41) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: levy assessment as proposed. E. C.B. 1597--Levying assessments for 1/2~ levy on Various Planned Unit Developments (76-1008) Assessment postponed until further scheduled, due to difficulty in notifying property owners. '01 (\ 2-6-78 - Page 2 of 2